Well Whiskey from power Line blog dot com and produced by Ricochet dot com.
This is the three Whiskey Happy Hour with your bartenders Steve Hayward, John You
and power Lines International Woman of Mystery Lucretia Got gotta give me that whiskey clone
when you're in love, down and loon. Good evening, everyone, and
welcome to the three Whiskey Happy Hour, now complete with porn. Oh,
I am gonna apologize on behalf of power Line immediately. I just want you
all to know that I woke up this morning and I was trying to avoid
going out to the gym and starting my work. So I was looking up
power Line blogs and I was reading John Hendraker's blog about that idiot Buddhage Edge
and it said it had two hundred seventy one comments. I really don't want
to go work out yet. I'm gonna read the comment and immediately the most
vile XXX rated porn pops up on my screen. So I said a screenshot,
because of course the screenshot actually took in not just the porn, but
the admonition from Scott Johnson never to say any bad words or do anything untoward
on his side or you'll get banned forever. And I sent it to Steve,
but Steve already knew about it, hadn't done anything. So there you
go. Oh, well we've been trying. It's the We are the victims
of the Discus Commenting, which is an outside vendor. We don't have control
over this, and this driving is crazy. They're wanting to charge us money
to remove those ads, and I think they should be paying us for having
posted them there. Allowed them to be posted there. So I don't know
if we're gon have to sue them or cancel them or what. But to
be continued, and so he just said they allowed it, John, but
I'll so we still don't understand it. So they get the right to put
ads on your website in exchange for monitoring running your comment board. Yes,
so someone pays them money to run these ads. These are as well.
I couldn't even tell what they were ads for, Like I didn't see any
products being sold. Yeah, thats them. Look, any listeners who are
regular readers the site, our advice right now is just don't look at the
comment threads, don't make any comments. If you're a follower of this podcast
and like to comment, use the Ricochet comments. You have to join and
be a member at It's very well. You can send them directly to me
at my email and I'll have Steve put it in the end. I'd rather
have that than ever have to look at it under or on the other like
me who doesn't look at this, I'm now tantalized in want to read the
website more often. Well, this is the best thing that happened to the
website. Okay, to take it up, because we as we know that
now that you are a loser as lawyers go. You spent all day on
your feet defending John Eastman and look what happened. Oh yeah, yeah,
so I have to have an instead. Well, first of all, let's
tell listeners what we're talking about, because okay, oh yeah, so just
yesterday, right, it was just yesterday. The bar court, you as
if you as if we need such a thing. There is a full time
court that hears bar complaints in California against lawyers, and so I testified in
these hearings that were held about whether to disbarred John Eastman, and as far
as I can tell, the judge didn't listen to me. She she uh
issued a preliminary ruling desparring John Eastman, I think primarily for spriating what she
believed are factual untruths, less so the legal arguments, although she criticizes legal
arguments as well, But primarily she focused on what she believed to be the
facts of the twenty twenty elections and claimed that John was trying to overturn the
election results based on things he needed to be factually untrue. So John gets
the right to appeal to another bar court, and then after that he can
appeal to the California Supreme Court and then ultimately even the US Supreme Court.
And will he win? What appeal this is? So, I think that
he should win as a matter of what true principle should be. But if
you look at the politics of it, I think he's gonna lose all the
way up through the California Supreme Court because he's being made a scapegoat of I
mean, I disagree with John about the facts of the twenty twenty election,
but I also think that lawyers have the right to advance new, untested legal
theories to go against the existing grain of authorities and what everyone else thinks.
I As I said the bar hearing, would they apply the standard they're applying
to Thurgrid Marshall before Brown versus Board of Education, when the arguments he was
making and the positions he was taking were directly you know, we're directly contravened
by Supreme Court President by plus E versus Ferguson. So being a lawyer means
you're allowed to argue things which you know, under the law of the time
has almost no chance of winning, or calls for things to be overturned,
which have been in place for many, many decades, and I think they
make matters worse. Although I think the judge of this case reckiegnizes this.
There are no precedents about what to do in disputed elections or those Supreme Court
cases. They're the closest you know. There's been the eighteen seventy six election,
in the two thousand election, and that's been about it. But there's
no judicial opinions and laws to parts that really talked about what do you do
in a situation if you really believe there'd been an electoral fraud. Look,
I mean, I'm astounded that you could disbar someone over contested facts. In
other words, the judge pick the side on what the facts are and I
know the weight of opinion is against John, but that doesn't disprove that some
of his claims aren't disputable or aren't plausible and deserve voltor treatment. But the
total proceedings took ten weeks, and I know there are interruptions for various things.
But you know, I periodically would pick up the bar news whatever and
look at disbarments for amusement purposes, because it's usually it's the kind of pathetic,
right. What do people get disbarred for misappropriating client funds? That's usually
the biggest one. Fall on asleep in court during a trial incompetence right,
or or somebody for some reason has a trust lawyer come in to defend them
in a criminal case and they you know, they totally botched the case,
or I don't know. Malfeasance of that kind is what usually gets you disbarred.
Those proceedings, i'm guessing only take a day or two to go through.
And this is completely different when it becomes as political as this, it
seems to me that this is something that not ought to be subject for a
traditional disbarment proceeding. Just my one person's opinion. No, well, it's
all it's part of the grower, you know, broader law law fair campaign
that's being waged against Trump. I mean, this is just, you know,
this is a skirmish in this larger battle, these four criminal proceedings going
on against Trump, the civil case or he lost what a third of a
billion dollars for inflating his assets allegedly. So this is just you know,
John on the unfortunately is getting swept up in that. But the Left is
going after everybody they can who was involved in the in the January sixth,
uh involved in January sixth, And they're using every things that you never thought
they would use. I mean, I think Rudy Giuliani had to resign from
the bar because he was going to get this barred. There are other people
who they're preceding proceedings are ongoing, uh, you know, trying to take
away people's livelihoods now because they they I think John, especially in good faith,
believes the facts as he presented them in and yeah he's not. This
is not like bad faith on his part. And I've seen you know,
criminal defense lawyers take positions in court that I'm certain they knew to be untrue,
right, Like they know their client's guilty. So if you had the
defense lawyer and you know your client's guilty, you know where you have like
a ninety percent, and you still you're still going to attack the prosecution's witnesses
and evidence, even though you're probably pretty sure it's all true. Because you're
doing this out, you're being zealous on behalf of your client. And I
don't see why those same understandings of the lawyers will apply to Johneseman. It
really is just because of law fair and a real skewed situation in our legal
system when it comes to Trump and Trump derangement syndrome. I thought about actually
writing an article about Fanny Willis. Oh, excuse me, big fan,
big Fannie Willis, Sorry, who I mean? The arrogance of that stupid,
fat, ugly, corrupt woman just floors me. And I don't care
if people complain about look asm, she's fat and she's ugly, and she
says, my only crime is I had a relationship with a man. Never
mind that he was a married man, never mind, et cetera, et
cetera, et cetera. That's not your only crime, you fat ugly.
Can't use the word I want to use, But the air, and you
know, John Eastman gets disbarred, and the stupid judge in the Georgia case,
Oh yeah, to choose. It's either you or Nathan who has to
go, and Nathan goes and everything's just fine. What the hell I mean,
isn't the rest of the world laughing at us, saying, God,
we used to think Venezuela is bad, but Jesus, look at the United
States. I don't know, well, I mean, I think Fanny Willis
is still in a lot of trouble. I think she might get this barred
too. She might well have committed perjury. And I think she's under investigation
by both the Georgia legislature and the House. I think they're just racistly.
No, let's see how it plays out. I think that's right. I
think I think it was very Yeah. Well, yeah, I'll just stop
there. I mean it was, yeah, we can stop there. The
only way it's going to stop is if the Red states do the same thing
as the Blue states are doing. Well. But here's the problem, John,
The red people, the people on the red side are made up with
people like you. And that's a compliment. Oh no, no, there
are people much meaner than John they're not. They're not. They're they're people
who genuinely believe in the rule of law. They genuinely believe. I mean,
that's your problem, John, that you're so you're such a good guy
that you actually can't believe that, you know, career prosecutors and DJ employees,
you colleagues of years you worked with are just corrupt pieces of you know
what, because you can't imagine being that way yourself. But there's too many
Republicans and too many Conservatives who are just like you, who don't want to
play unfairly even though the other side is. And that's not I mean,
that's doesn't the natural law tell us not to do that? Right? I
suppose you could say that the Catholic natural law would tell you not to do
that. I mean, I'm going to be serious for a moment, the
idea that your mortal soul is more important than immediate political gain, and you're
not going to be some corrupt pos like Fanny Willis. If you can have
porn on powerline, I can say, pos. By the way, Steve
Well, it's more to sale, right, I think it does not mean
but it's the nicest thing I can say about her. But I mean that's
my You know, I'm right about that, Steve. To a certain extent,
we won't. We might engage, for instance, in ballad harvesting,
but we're going to do it legally, right. I mean, I read
a lot of stories that Republican groups across the country, you know, kind
of grassroops, they're engaging in valid harvesting. Look, I mean it is
true that if you go back to I think the twenty eighteen midterm, I
think it's twenty eighteen, you had a congressional district in North Carolina where a
federal judge invalidated the results of the election because of a fraud committed by Republicans.
So and because we're back only one well wait a minute, but my
point is I think it's comb because we're bad at it, we Republicans.
But now, look, Lucre shot out. I think I think there's a
waste of time of going too long about this. Go back to the Obama
years. You started seeing red states resisting the mandates, filing the ags,
filing lawsuits against certain Obama measures, and they succeeded with some of those challenges.
Now you have Texas and maybe your next topic. Those are legal those
are not underhanded tricks. Well, but you wait a minute, go back.
You talked about your Department of Justice people and John's too nice, and
where our people are too nice, I'm saying, guess what, some of
them are not so nice. Some of them are starting to play hardball.
And it started quite a while ago when the temperatures turning up, and I
think John said, I can't think of a single Republican prosecutor who would have
brought a rego case. Again, Oh no, they won't do they won't
do that. But you know, but I think yet, not yet,
right now that the President has been said, but I'm going to raise H's
favorite senator who was I think who does show a good example of recipro you
know, reciprocal tip for tatworking. That's Mitch McConnell after right, Because after
Harry Reid took away the filibuster for federal judges other than the Supreme Court because
he wanted to pack the DC Circuit and the other lower courts, which they
did under Obama, then Mitch McConnell went and said, okay, well,
then in retaliation, I'm going to get rid of the philibuster for Supreme court
nominees, and that worked out great for us. Actually underhanded dirty, I
wasn't underhand of dirty. It's just you gotta yeah, it's not, it's
not. It's not Letitia James uh prosecuting Trump for a victimless crime and then
the the equally corrupt judge finding him half a billion dollars, and in a
system where it's very difficult for Trump to actually get any kind of a fair
shake, they would never do something like that. No, I think you're
I think you're right. I think I think you guys used to talk about
this more on the podcast before I showed up, is that there just seems
to be a feature where the progressive left always ups the ante and we just
match them. Well, I mean, if you don't believe in right and
wrong, and you don't believe that there is a moral truth that we that
transcends your own human will, why not. I mean, that's really what
it comes around. And I think I think that's why Trump is very popular,
though amongst a lot of concernives, because he actually does sort of believe,
it seems to me, believes a preemptive strikes, not just not being
gentlemanly in the face of you know, an opponent who controls the language,
who controls the media, who controls academia, and you know, even just
looking at the silly stuff with the Rona McDaniels this past week. I mean,
if that isn't sort of a microcosm of the joke that our country is
right now, certainly the mainstream media is you know, Republicans are are Yeah,
of course she's going to go to MSNBC because you know, she's been
a rhino and she's been worthless and so on and so forth. And then
it turns around that that NBC and MSNBC are are you know, in shock
that they would you know, bring this long there this person who doesn't tell
that this isn't about uh, you know, our ideology, this is about
facts and truth? You know, do you just want to throw up when
those people talk? Right, didn't she get what she deserved? At?
Yeah? I'm like, why is everybody so she got what she deserved?
I mean she tried to play foot see with these people, and right like,
I couldn't care less one where we look. This is a I'm with
John, this is a win win situation. She's a mediocrity. I think
they hired her because she would make Republicans look bad, and they couldn't even
stand that at NBC News. They can't stand to have a Republican around who
was, like, you know, close to Trump, and I think that
just credits them, it humiliates her. I'm fine with her being humiliated because
I thought she was terrible, and so this win for us. She's lost
every election since twenty sixteen. Right. I agree with everything you guys are
saying. My problem actually, so Steve, last week, we missed you
last week, by the way, John, even if I beat up on
you the whole time when you weren't here. Oh, I've got stuff,
I've got things to say. I listened to Okay, okay, but at
least you know I hadn't forgotten you. So Steve mentioned last time the famous
George Orwell essay about politics in the English language. Yes, yeah, I'd
read it in a thousand years, so i've I can read it. After
you mentioned it, Steve, and I started paying attention just that one part.
I mean, he's mostly talking about I think, academ academies and how
people just can't speak anymore and all of that. But but the part where
he says that that can controlling thought with language, and controlling language with thought
was what came to me when I saw the responses from people like Rachel Maddow
and Joy Read and those other idiots that But they're on television because there are
some people who actually watch them. You know, Rachel Maddow makes thirty million
dollars a year to have a once a week show. Yeah, somebody must
be watching it. I mean, even MSNBC cannot be that bad at economics,
right, so yeah, I don't get the economics of ether. That
maybe what they call a lost leader, but I don't know. Still still
if nobody was turning it on anyway, anyway, you get my point that
at some point we can't allow the left to continue to control entirely, to
control the terms of debate and the language that's used to do so, because
they conceal so much talking about Here's my next example, which leads us into
the next thing, and that is Biden. You know, Biden saying if
we go ahead, yeah, go ahead. Well but I'm sorry, but
look, I mean there's something new happened this week. I don't know if
you caught it. First of all, preface, you go back thirty years
ago, and you know political correctness on campus, we started turning the corner
by calling it political correctness. That was a great rhetorical turn. This week,
somebody I don't know who, but it's spread fast on social media said
DEI stands for didn't earn it? And I think that's wonderful. And I
think that's going to be spread. It's going to become our slogan, and
it's going to drive the left out of their mind. And I'm all for
it. I think that's what we now should say. I mean the IE
I like that too, for obvious reasons. But didn't earn it? That
is fabulous. That is a stroke of genius. That is worthy of Andrew
Breitbart, who sadly is not with us anymore. Sorry, Lucretia, I
squashed, but I'm sure it was good. No, really, you said
Biden. Biden's rhetoric about the border. You know that the attempt to blame
the lack of a bi partisan reform bill passing in uh the House and all
of this on the catastrophe at the border. You only get away with that
because people actually believe the lying language you use and the euphemisms and so on.
Uh. And then along with that, we talked about this, and
remember John was kind of shocked about it. They're not illegal aliens, they're
newcomers, right, Biden. People said that used instead of illegal alien.
No. I actually used it in a different context trying to get people to
open up more services. But uh, he probably wished he used it,
but he probably doesn't remember that either. So let me ask you about the
Fifth Circuit Court ruling. John, to explain it to us and explain to
me how we keep going back and forth like a like a ping pong ball
and these stupid injunctions and rulings and this and that. First, can I
get some recognition that I predicted this outcome you did. Everyone was saying,
Oh, the Supreme Court looks like they're gonna, you know, find for
Texas and the Fifth Circuit Like, no, that's not what's really going on.
So tell people listen to that podcast where you said that. John.
Yeah, and all my conservative friends were like, what are you talking about?
This pre court signaling that they want to get rid of in this case
Arizona versus United States and the Fifth Circuit will do it now. Nah,
that's not what was going to happen. So, uh right, This is
the case that we've talked about before where the Biden administration is suing Texas to
prevent Texas from enforcing its new law, which makes it a crime under Texas
law for someone to illegally enter Texas from a foreign country. So basically in
Texas says it's basically adopting federal immigration law but trying to enforce it itself.
So the trial judge here enjoined the law, state the law said it was
unconstitutional. In the Supreme Court, President and the Fifth Circuit right, the
case went to the Supreme Court asking for the case to be held and sent
back. It's all complicated procedurally, but it's not really that complicated reality and
reality. All that happened was that the Supreme Court said, just wait and
let the lower court the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals includes Texas, Louisiana,
and I think Mississippi, which so they hear this case on appeal. So
just let them hear it. And so we saw the opinion come out this
week, and I'm not surprised. A lot of other people are surprised,
but I'm not surprised because the lower court said, well, this case is
governed by this case from ten years ago, Arizona versus the United States.
Arizona tried to do something very similar to this. Tried to say people who
are in Arizona in violation of federal immigration law are also violating Arizona law,
and that Arizona law enforcement could detain illegal aliens. So basically, the Fifth
Circuit said, look, if someone's going to rule that case, we can't
do. It has to be the Supreme Court. And so I expect this
will go up back to the Supreme Court. But until then, until the
Supreme Court it takes the case and hears it, what this court did in
Texas is what you're supposed to do. You're a lower court. You have
to obey Supreme Court precedent, even if you think it's wrong. Okay,
Yeah, I mean I just saw this today and I haven't read through the
whole thing. So what there was a standing argument. But then there's also
will they prevail on the merits? And yeah, I mean yes, And
they don't have a lot of I mean, I don't have a lot of
latitude to say we think they shoul any break Let me break down one aspect
of the opinion which is interesting, which we talked about a lot, but
which didn't make it much into the opinion. So most of the opinion is
Okay, Arizona governs this case. It's obvious and to apply Arizona, we
have to strike down this Texas law. Then they said, Texas has this
new argument based on the invasion clause right the way we've talked about the you
know where the article one, section ten says a state can't make war except
in you know, self defense when you know, and and situations where that
don't emit of delay, I think is the phrase the Constitution uses. But
the court this is really interesting. The Fifth Circuit said, like two pages
with almost no reasoning, they say, yeah, this doesn't really persuade us,
we move along. Really I was, I was really surprised actually that
the court below did not spend more time on this argument, because this really
is the new argument that the Texas is raising that was not raised back in
the Arizona case and is genuinely interesting. I don't really side with Texas on
it because I don't think this is you know, we had a long discussion
made this argument about it, but the Fifth Circuit really gave it the back
of the hand. I mean, really really gave it. The judicial equivalent
of this is so silly. We don't really feel like talking about oh well,
well that's not well. I thought it was. It's just too hot
a potato for them to handle, not silly. I don't know. Well,
I don't know. I do have a procedural questions. Go ahead,
Sorry, I just want to know it was I didn't have I scanned the
case, but I didn't have time to look carefully. Was this an inbok
decision or was this three three judge panel and was it the same three judge
panel that initially put the that that initially decided to allow Arizona a Lot to
remain in place? It should be it should have been the same panel.
Usually when you get assigned the case and everything that happens with that case goes
to that same panel, but it's not the full What Lucreasee is talking about
is when we have a circuit court, cases are heard by randomly selective three
judge panel, but then you have the right to appeal to the full court,
which doesn't have to hear cases like the Supreme Court. It just doesn't
at its discretion. I figure that the en banc Court would not hear it.
That they would just say, look, everyone knows this has to be
overruled. If it's going to change, has to be overruled by the Supreme
Court. So just send it up to them as fast as possible. It's
up to Texas to appeal to ask for that too. And if I were
Texas, I might just as well say we'd like to go to the Supreme
Court right away. And no, sure, right, you know, yeah,
the judges are so first of all, isn't isn't our pal James ho
on the Fifth Circuit? John, isn't that my former my former employee?
And that's right, yeah, the Fifth Circuit. So this is interesting development.
This case illustrates that I don't know if people really realize that in the
general public. So remember there used to be the liberal Ninth Circuit that would
always push the law to the left to get all these cases up to spre
court. The Fifth Circuit has become the ninth Circuit for conservatives. It is
by very conservative court and very daring. I mean they have generated a lot
of cases I've gone up to court, like the social media cases that the
Missouri case. Yeah, so you know this is this is interesting that shoes
now on the other foot, And of course the liberals are really upset about
this and want to do something about it. I'm sure. I'm sorry,
Steve. I just wanted to ask before we move on. Isn't that a
little bit true of the Ninth Circuit now it's not as liberal as it used
to be because of a number of Trump appointees. Yes, I think when
I checked at the liberals, you know, judges appointed by Democratic presidents out
number judges appointed by Republican presidence by only four on a court of twenty eight.
It used to be something like you know it used to be or fifteen.
So with some liberal powerhouses on that court as well. Yes, and
so the Ninth Circuit has been moderating more where the Fifth Circuit has been really
conservative. Yeah. Well, the three judges I don't recognize him, Priscilla
Richmond, the Chief Judge, Oldham and Ramirez I don't. My only point
is if it had been even Jones and James Hall on this panel, I'll
bet it might have come out differently. That's all. Well, Oldham was
General Council I think to Governor Abbott, and really he wrote a very long
discent that Lucretia would love. She would she would frame it on her wall
because it goes through in great detail the number of illegal analysts you've come across
the Texas border, all the crime they've caused, deaths, robbery. You
know, it's uh, I mean, it's a very compelling argument he makes
for the Supreme Court to overrule Arisota versus. Yeah, very very Ian's like,
I think it's like forty to fiftyng. Oh so it's a two to
one decisions what you're saying, Yes, it's no, it's not unanimous.
Oh okay, well that's important. Well this is probably going to shock you
a little bit, John, But part of me has a little bit of
a hard time with that, in the sense that conservatives have always denounced liberal
judges for using political arguments to sway their legal arguments. That one's probably borderline.
But yeah, no, no, I know, I know. But
if I'm going to be principled, and you know, that's often what John's
argument is, the principled argument is X And he doesn't want to hear me
talk about, you know, the devastation that comes from from illegal immigration,
both to American citizens and the people that are traffic and et cetera, et
cetera. I've said it so many times, everybody's sick of it. But
but it's a tough call. When when does a crisis, a genuine crisis
being inflicted upon society purposefully by a corrupt administration, actually cause a judge to
say, maybe, are our reticence about formalities and legal structures and all of
that has to has to take a back seat to recognizing our role in resolving
some genuinely serious crisis. I mean, they raise the this is the quandary
that was faced by the you know, the anti Ballum federal judges who had
to enforce force the future slave clause, right, And so there's a great
book, I think it's called Justice Accused that is about these judges and what
they did. And so some of them resigned, and some of them said,
I'm gonna I have to enforce the law if I want to stay a
judge. But I you know, I'm going to make clear my disagreement with
what I'm doing, but I have to enforce it. But there were a
few who resigned rather than enforce it. And that's I don't I don't think
any of these judges there are going to resign because no this, yeah,
it's not I get judged and it doesn't. It does a good answer to
my comments, John, Actually it was a it really is what I'm saying.
I you know, just like in the old days when when liberal judges,
liberal district court judges would pass some sort of ruling and force it on
the whole country. Then when we saw that happening occasionally by conservative justices or
judges, excuse me, district court judges, you know, I had to
look at it and say, I'm not really much more in favor of that
either, even though I like the outcome. At some point, the rule
of law does have to take precedence over politics. It's only my only point,
even if they're politics. I like, Sorry, Steve, go ahead.
No, I'm all done. I'm just sitting back smiling about how ten
minutes ago you were saying, we don't fight back dirty like the Democrats do.
Actually, what I said was we don't, but I'm not sure we
should. Oh, Okay, I mean I do think John, you were
beating up to Okay, I'm sorry. I wasn't beating up John. I
was actually complimenting him. No, you can you guys not take a compliment.
No, it didn't sound like a compliment to me, John, John
you okay, So I'll go back to being awful thoughts on Joe Lieberman just
so you know, I'm going to break my rule about not speaking ill of
the dead. I am not a fan of Joe Lieberman. I don't understand
the people who are. And my biggest complaint about him, mister no labels
voted for Joel Biden and Hillary Clinton. Mister no labels. Mister He's one
of those people that thinks by partisanship is being a liberal and embracing liberal ideas.
He's never had a conservative thought in his life anyway, or his former
life. Sorry, sorry, rest in peace. Sorry I'm popular tonight his
worst thing. Steve's gonna start name dropping and I'm gonna go get another glass
of whiskey while he does it because I can't put up with it tonight.
But he's responsible for leading Donas Don't Tell, uh, the repeal of Donas
Don't Tell in the military, which I get the arguments that were in favor
of it at the time, but I would argue to you that that was
the beginning. That was a camel's nose under the tent, the thin end
of the wedge, whatever stupid cliche you want to bring to bear. And
the perfect storm of the military. Okay, sorry, the perfect storm of
tipping points is my favorite cliche. Mashup, keep going, that's a terrible
cliche. But anyway, we now have you know, the federal government,
the DoD P, actually paid for twelve abortions people to have twelve abortions last
year and paid for the travel costs. You know that months long standoff that
that stupid idiot Lloyd Austin took because it was so important to protect women's reproductive
freedom to travel to another state to have an abortion, and the d d
admitted they had twelve women do it. But anyway, or transgenders in the
military with all of their hormones paid for and all of their sex chain surgeries
paid for, and you know you look at the pictures of that and that
he yes, yes, because it was because had you left don't ask,
don't tell in place. You know what the argument against it was that asking
people to live a lie. Yeah, look, I mean stupid argument.
Okay, live your lie. I don't care, come to work, do
your job, keep it to yourself. I'm not interested in your sex life.
I don't want to support your sex life. I don't want to support
your sex change operations. I want you to come and be in the military
to break things and kill people. That's what the military is supposed to do.
Look, look, that slippery slope was going to happen anyway, whether
he let it or not. That's just once you had donuts, don't tell.
You could tell you're on your way to doing this. In other words,
if there's never been Joely Bremen will still be exactly where we are today,
I think. And then on the other sidide, well, there's an
excuse him for being a part of it, Okay. I take a balance
sheet on people, is the way I evaluate people. And I will be
always grateful to him for rounding up enough Democratic senators to vote for Clarence Thomas's
confirmation in nineteen ninety one. He was the key guy for that. And
you know that alone stands for did you ever meet him by the way,
John, or you know in your time at once or twice when I was
here, we go John, get ready, No, I won't. I
sent an email to the Crease about how I would defend him because I got
to know him not well, but you remember my name and you know,
uh well, I'll just say that he understood that the enemy of the country
with the Progressives for the underminding of the Constitution. He understood that problem,
but he understood that he is more to blame. All right, I'm gonna
tell you this story about him. Uh. First of all, I remember
that William F. Buckley supported him against who Republican Lowell Whiker, who,
by the way, he would have been even sooner than Lieberman on you know,
Gay's the military and lots of other really bad stuff. Reagan wrote in
his diary that, Lol, Whiker is a no good, pompous fatthead that's
kindly gentle Ronald Reagan and so uh and and Buckley hated Lord was better than
him. Okay, wow, hold on, I haven't finished this yet.
Lieberman said, one day the Little Walls a guy gatherings Johnson's guy. I
had a feeling that actually Ronald Reagan was for me because it was nineteen eighty
eight when he ran. And I happen to know that. One day Ronald
Reagan in the Oval office, got out his checkbook started writing a campaign contribution
to Joe Lieberman really and and Ken Duberstein, who was the chief of staff,
and said, mister President, you know you're the titual leader of the
party, and I know you hate Loel Wiker. You can't write a check
to a Democratic candidate. You just can't. And Reagan said, okay,
you're right, you don't. He didn't do it. But Liberman didn't know
that story until I told him. And okay, so I kind of liked
the guy personally. And again, his Clarence Thomas photo alone, if he
never never did anything else decent, that alone, I am grateful to him
for I didn't know that Clarence Taunas story. I've I actually, uh thought
Lieberman deserved some points for providing, you know, sort of center we used
to be centrist Democratic support for the war in a rock, for not pulling
out and running to you know, turning when things look the worst. And
I think he's always had a sort of sense. I thought it was a
sort of sensible voice and form POSSI I didn't know that he was one of
the leaders of overruling Donas Hotel, But I don't know. Lucretia. I'm
kind of with Steve. I think that we'd be there anyway by now.
I think that the military reflects our society, and gays in the military is
just coming, just like I think, like gay marriage was was unstoppable too.
I just I don't. I don't think it would. I don't think
it mattered. I I'm trying to remember the debates of those days. I
thought what I wanted to know back then, I wondered just what the data
was was. You know, there are militaries, I think, like the
Israeli military, where gays did serve in the military, and I wondered if
there were any way to judge effectiveness between gays in the military militaries that didn't
have gays. I have no idea. Was Binders, full of supposed evidence,
says it had absolutely no effect on readiness, absolutely no no if and
and and that launched his academic career as an idiot. But look, I
mean, didn't Bob Dole say? I think it was Bob Dole, And
if I'm wrong, offer our correction next week. I think he said at
one point, we don't care if someone is straight, We only care if
they can shoot straight. He was, but that's not even a standard anymore
either. The standard has nothing to do with that, and that's part of
the whole degradation, degradation of the military that started with I mean, do
I think somebody should be discriminated against if they're gay and they're otherwise completely very
capable. No, But sho, I ask you this question, would you
prefer Joe Lieberman or his successor Chris Murphy in the Senate? At least you
know Chris Murphy, you know what you get. I know he's a foul
human being, Chris Murphy, I get it. He's the one, by
the way, who is so embarrassed. Did you hear about this? You
know, poor Kate Middleton, all the conspiracy theories. So she finally comes
up. You know, I'm gonna tug a little at listener's heart springs.
For a moment, I actually felt a little bit of sympathy for her because
I've been in I've been in both her position and her children's position. I
was the same age as as her little girl, her youngest when I found
out my mom had cancer and then died, and I have been the mom
that had to tell my kids I have cancer, So I know what she
was going through. But that's besides that. So Chris Murphy's the guy who
got up there and complained because they said they pushed him aside because he was
going to talk about how great the I think it was, the Affordable Care
Act was, and on CNN and then CNN, sorry, we have an
update from Kate Middleton about her health. And he posted a whole bunch of
nasty, snarky things on Twitter. And then it turned out, you know,
she said she had cancer, and he was really embarrassed. But no,
I get him a bad person. Yeah, well, now one other
thing I'll mention you. Remember he was It is just a surprising thing for
al Gore to do, to pick him as the running mate in two thousand.
Do you think a Jewish Democrat can be on a national ticket today?
I think the answer to that is clearly no. Probably no, she tells
you a lot. I think it would have been interesting. Remember McCain was
very close to picking in right, I know, the last chose Sarah Paine.
Well, you know, just I actually liked Sarah Palin a lot,
but it wasn't to a good pick for McCain. Well, I mean,
well I wish I had a great job actually in the campaigning. But I
think the McCain Lieberman ticket would have been truly. I mean, I have
no idea what you guys tell me whether they would have had a chance,
but I would I would have liked No, I don't think so. I
think it wouldn't have worked. I mean, I understand a lot. This
is a subject for another day. Among the many reasons I disliked John McCain,
I won't say as strongly as Lucreatia would, is that he wrecks Sarah
Palin. I think she had a real future. Yeah, and she was
elevated too soon and a rector. I remember attending a John McCain event with
question, I'm gonna forget that guy's name now, but nothing keep going.
Sorry, I didn't hear you a very conservative guy who's running against him for
Senate after and he just excoriated the guy. He did the same. John
McCain had had nothing kind ever to say about a primary opponent, or about
Donald Trump, or about any conservative that he considered any kind of competition.
But he never ever said one cross or derogatory or even slightly negative word about
Obama. And I mean everyone said you should call him every time you talk
about him rock hosts Hassane Obama, and he wouldn't do it, you know.
And so I don't even want to get into John McCain, but there
was no difference between John McCain and Joe Lieberman. He chose Sarah Palin because
at least she was a conservative and tried, you know, for her.
She was a maverick, right, I mean, her reputation, her deserved
reputation in Alaska is that she was a maverick against corruption and that appealed to
him. That was part of it. By the way, whatever happened to
her, I thought a picture of her yesterday in a story, but I
didn't read it. Yeah, no, the limelight. Yeah, well,
remember she ran her house and there she could in the primary for that.
Yeah, well, resigned as governor because they were after that. By the
way, they went after her in Alaska in a sense. I didn't mean
to beg us off on this, but in the same way they're going after
Trump, and she decided rather than put up all the crap and fight it,
she resigned and become a TV star and making money. And you know,
I can get all that because you know, she was Okay, I
thought she'd run against you know, replaced, get you know, get Lisa
Murkowski out of the Senate. I mean, that's well, that would be
a good thing to do. That's another on the Lucretia's Hall. Right right,
let's not go there. I want to know she's so out of the
game now, that's not not right now, But you never know. Okay,
I'm gonna jump ahead and see if we have time to come back,
because I really want to know the answer to this question, John, I
really want to know. So all this talk lately, it's been in the
news constantly lately about this thing about squatters' rights. Oh, yeah, today,
I believe it was today, is today or yesterday? Ron DeSantis signed
a bill in Florida that makes squatting a criminal act and it has different levels
of uh, you know, felony, second degree felony, first degree felony,
even a misdemeanor for presenting a false tenant lease. And it's this whole
list of things designed to try to and he talks about you know, uh,
you know people in Florida. A lot of older people have houses in
Florida that go to in the winter and they're you know, they're empty in
the summer and squatting there is kind of a big deal and this shouldn't happen.
And then the sheriff said, this is to call them squatters as much
to kind. They're criminals, their con artists. The one thing he said
was, at least this makes it possible for us to engage law enforcement in
some of the situations, because otherwise it's a civil matter and we can't intervene.
That's the closest I've ever gotten to understanding how this whole squatter thing might
work. How is it that there are laws on the books that will allow
somebody to go into someone else's private property claim ownership by possession nine tenths of
the law or something like that, and then the state will actually prosecute the
rightful owner of the property for trying to get that person out and get their
property back. Explain it to me, because I don't get it. So
I am so glad you brought this up, because that allows us to continue
our discussion of natural rights. I think that's true. No, actually is
true, because no, no, really, I mean it seriously in this
sense that this is actually a good example the difference between the natural rights approach
to the law and what I would say this are a modern instrumental you know,
utilitarian approach to the law Governah, which governs you know, our legal
profession today. So right, if you believe in natural rights, then you
increase this question makes total sense. We have natural right to property. You
own a house. How does anyone ever have the right to enter your house
and live there without your permission? Right? The one of the fundamental aspects
of the right to property is the right to exclude everyone else in the world
from your property. That's like one of the definitions of property and to have
government protected. But you will be stocked to learn, as I was as
a first year student, that there is something called adverse possession which has long
existed, which allows people to actually come take your property away even though you
didn't sell it to them. You didn't give it to them just by coming
onto your land and staying there for a long period of time. So squatter's
rights is actually just considered I think a less radical intrusion into your properties is
something like average possession. So I remember this, this was explained to this
is I was explaining to me law school, not a property scholar. But
this is how I was explained to me by a very distinguished property scholar,
was the point of property is not natural rights. It's about the efficient allocation
and use of resources. And so we discovered over time, is starting in
England, that one of the best ways to allocate resources and get them to
their most productive use is to have property rights. But that also means that
if people are not using the property in a productive way societ I should be
able to take it away from them and reallocate it to people who will use
it better. And so this is but this is the idea of splatters rights
in a small form. It's a bigger form adverse possession, which the idea
of someone's not using their land and you show up and you sit there and
use it productively, and you're there openly, and the other guy doesn't do
anything, the owner doesn't do anything about it. Over a certain number of
years, you you actually can take the property away from them. I think
that's what I don't think that's what's I don't think that's what's going on.
I mean, well, igical, No, it's not idellogical. I mean
it's related also, John, I mean I'll extend your argument, which is
related to the idea of prescriptive Eastman, which is when trespass no longer becomes
trespassed over land, not involving buildings, and so England that that common law
goes back centuries. We do followed some in this country. I know.
Oh, I'll give an example where I live out here at the Beach.
I have a street to street driveway that goes from one street through my property
to a bottom street. People used to drive over it once in a while
thinking it was a shortcut. And and you know, my dad, who's
aware of this problem, said, you know, if you don't register with
county and post a note, that's why you see posted no trespassing signs,
that's your legal protection from right from someone gaining a prescriptive easement over your property.
That's that's a different kind of squading. I think. By the way,
the key phrase you said was long period of time. That's that's what's
happening here. People are showing up for a month, a week or maybe
two months or less, and they have fake documents and someone else. But
the bigger picture thing is once you're willing to I'm actually making your argument,
I think, which is, once you relax the absolute right to property and
you admit, oh, the state can actually start modifying, changing it,
giving it away to people. Then you really have to let the state decide
how long do people get to sit there before they have some kind of property
writer, they have some right to live there, they have a person,
Which is why Desantas was forced, from a common sense point of view,
to codify into law what seems just automatically natural and like they're like, I
just what I'm saying is it never should have had to be done that.
Look the idea that my property rights are sacred and anybody violating them is a
criminal. But look, Lucretia, you want to you know, listeners,
we had a pregame show about this. You want to criticize me for saying
there's an ideological route to this, but here are the practical steps. So
two examples. One is, I have a good friend I just talked to
this week. It's a very nice house, very you know, a seven
figure worthouse who's had rented someone on a long term lease for a long time,
who stopped paying rents six months ago, and she still can't get him
out of the house. Now she's going with a lawyer during the process.
Why is it taking so long to get someone defaulting on a rent in violation
of a legal illegal lease. Well, that's because the ideological root is landlords
are bad, tenants are good. We want tenants rights, we want a
privilege and protect tenants from being evicted. We broadened that during COVID, and
I think the next step in it was extending this to squatters. And then
the problem for police is an owner says someone squatting in my house. You
show up and say this is my house, and the renter comes out,
and by the way it turns out, I learned this this week. There
are organized efforts, some of them foreign, some of them link to the
illegal migrant campaign going on, and they tell people, here's how you make
phony documents. Here's how we create an account with the utility companies. You
pay a bill. You show the policeman, I've been living here, been
paying utility bills. Here's my lease. A police officer on the spot is
not a judge. They're not empowered to make a judicial determination on who's the
rightful owner on the spot. And if an owners there and look, i'm
i'm you know, would be baseball bats with spikes on it. If not
more a forceful uh A means of kicking someone out of my house. But
if someone's there who's angry, uh, I can see the police are at
a tough spot. And that's why they say, you know these people.
I think a lot of these squads are probably very clever. They act calm,
and so these documents. What's a police police person supposed to do on
the spot? Now, by the way, criminal it's a civil thing.
I mean, if someone's exactly right, you can't you have to sue them.
Now, if they threaten you, impact you, then you could get
the police involved. But there's nothing criminal. But I take it that's what
Desanta's new law does, is that does make a criminal offense. And that's
the other that's the other aspect of it is. I think Stee's right in
this respect that California is the worst state on this, that they are so
pro tenant an anti landlord that I think actually probably leads to rents being higher
part because if you're a landlorders it takes on this rent's higher. Well just
one lass, but so I think you should because this each state controls a
law on this issue. That Lucretia has raised about how far do your propy
rights go. There could be states that say we're not going to recognize any
average possession at all. We will have no squatters rights, and this will
be a healthy competition between states and more people. Just so the curiosity,
John go to Texas the house I'd want to squad and is this beautiful place
up in Montana. It's thirty thousand square foot on I want to say,
twenty acres or something. It's got a tennis indoors pool and tennis courts in
a theater and all you know, blah blah blah. When it was a
huge, big, gorgeous. Is that Nancy Pelosi's house. No, I
don't think so. It's it's actually empty. It's for sale. So if
I go squad in it, I'm guessing Montana's laws are not going to be
as friendly to my uh wow as California. I think. In Montana it's
been true for a long time. And in Montana the advice you yet from
local law enforcement and government officials and so forth, is if you find it
the endangered species on your land and the government doesn't know it's there yet,
what you're supposed to do is shoot, shovel and shut up. My guess
is in Montana, if you say to a sheriff there's a squattern in my
house, the sheriff will say you should shoot shovel and shut up. That
would be the attitude of Montana, say the law self help. Well sure,
but you well you mentioned a Montana example. And by the way,
I mean last this last point. I know lots lots of people who suffered
through this during COVID because during COVID, both the city is a state of
California and the federal government had no eviction policy, right, and so people
basically, I think in San Francisco lived I know someone who who rented out
an apartment that's basically a person lived in there for two years rent free.
Yeah, there's nothing you could do about it. And see, I think
the ideology behind this is not just pro tenants rights. Landlords are bad.
It's an indirect means of wealth redistribution. That's it. But see, now
let me ask you this, guys, you natural law gurus. Doesn't this
show that there is no natural right to property? No, not at all.
That would say, no, not at all. In fact, what
we saw was the opposite. Not what you're you're suppicit. Eminent property lawyer
professor said, but what we see is compare us at a better time to
Mexico, where there is no protection for property rights and whatnot. And I
mean, what we know from natural laws outcomes is that the protection the the
fair and as much as possible, unbiased objective application of property laws to property
owners, encouraging property, protecting property leads to the greatest wealth material real wealth
society has ever known in the history of the world that we know. Now,
you could say that that doesn't make it natural law. That's a whole
different argument. But one of the things I was just going to say along
those lines to Steve's and your argument about what do you do Well, at
some point it's going to become impossible not only for people to find places to
rent, but as we know, find places to buy and live. So,
I mean, who it used to be a very lucrative for middle class
people a way to you know, show up their retirement funds to buy houses
and rent them out. I wouldn't even dream of buying a house as an
investment nowadays. And so what does that do across society? What are the
third and fourth order effects of that? And you know. That's the problem
with progressives. They're so stupid. They don't understand the ramifications of something like
a no eviction policy or a rent control policy, or fifteen dollars twenty dollars
minimum wage policy, or what was that idiot in California wanted one hundred dollars
minimum way two was that? I don't know, some idiots one of the
dumb right anyway, Okay, Steve says, I have to move on to
this is really extraordinary. You know, we started, we tried to start.
We don't always get to it because we talked too much. But so
do I the article of the week, and we're all supposed to bring our
article of the week. And guess what, we all brought the same article.
So, Steve, I'm gonna have since you brought it first, but
I had saved it before you told me, so tell us about the article.
Well, it's a Walter wrestle Mead writing a long piece in tablet.
You may know Walter wrestle Mead, that fellow of the Council on Former Relations.
Pretty establishment guy. He writes in the Wall Street Journal every week on
international relations. But this article on tablet a bit of a odd title Twilight
of the Walks, But when you get into it, it's an attack onnest
most most, especially the U the leadership of our elite universities. And now
he doesn't say anything that we haven't said on this podcast had written about,
but boy does he do at length and use the strongest language possible. He
refers to, uh, the leadership of our universities as moral jellyfish impostors.
Gosh, what else does he say? Uh? I underline a whole bunch
of passages here. Oh, most of our years are people of extraordinary mediocrity
and conventional thinking, careerist mediocrities who specialize in uttering the approved platitudes of the
moment. I mean, don't write a match next to this article. It
is smoking hot and vultle and combustible. And when a guy like me does
this, not only does he does it well, but I think that is
you know, it's significant. Told him that you know someone who's you know,
not an idiologue of the right, Uh that I you know, I
just was like, Wow, this is a great article. I wish I'd
written it. You know, I wasn't persuaded by the second half of it.
So the first half of yeah, so the first half of it is
criticism of the leadership of universities that the October seventh and most attacked on Israel
and all the disruption that's causing on campus has opened to the public what we've
known is going on with the rot caused by DEI and so on. But
you know, then the second half of the article becomes this kind of wholesale
attack on the structure of American universities or Western universities. I don't know if
it's particularly American, and you know, he basically, you know, makes
an argument that universities today are just poorly structured for this new world we're coming
into with AI and instant worldwide you know, instant information at our fingertips and
so on, that I did not find persuasive. He made very well,
I'll be right, but I didn't see any evidence or really persuasive reasoning there
that made me think, oh, you know, this whole which he seems
to suggest at the end, this whole edifice of American higher education is going
to come tumbling down just the way from the left and right. Yeah,
he says, you know, Americ universes under attacked by the left. They're
under attacked by the right. He thinks they're not gonna be around in the
current, you know, the form that we know them in for a lot
longer that he compares it. This part was the probably I thought was right,
was how universities greatly expanded during the Industrial Revolution and mass production and the
need to have better educated, more specialized managerial classes of people that were produced
by these universities. So he thinks the information revolution will have a similar And
he sort of says, before universities were kind of like the things gentlemen and
I guess gentle women did. It was almost like a hobby. Yeah,
not so occasionally now and then otherwise he would be so lonely if there head
if there had been no lucretia, you know. Yeah. So those are
the points just that he makes it sound like, oh that kind of the
Oxford Cambridge approach to higher education was replaced by the Harvard approach to education,
much larger, more expertise based, more managerial, less of a hobby,
less idiosyncratic, And he just says that we're going to have another great revolution
in high education. Now, I persuasion. I can see a lot of
the piece a lot, Yeah, I didn't. I can see why you
might not have found that persuasive. I think I put my own arguments into
that one and persuaded myself a little bit more than what did you say,
think it will? Why do you think that will happen? Well, let
me let me go back just a little bit and talk about One of the
things I found persuasive was that whole section where he talked about how George Washington,
Robert E. Lee, Abraham Lincoln, all of these people who who
are considered, you know, just luminaries in our history, would never have
been able even to get a job, any kind of job in the modern
world, because they did not have the right credentials. John Marshall, you
know Ben Franklin, whose formal education ended at ten, considered one of the
great inventors. John Marshall, who never you know, he could never get
a job at a third rate law firm, is how I think he puts
it, something like that. It's interesting because we employed he's since retired,
but we employed a guy as an instructor at the college who has a bachelor's
degree, and he taught graduate students, and we got the university to say
yes to him. Now, if I could tell you his his real credentials,
his you know, I won't go into it now, but just an
expert in staganography, the best professor we've probably ever hired in the college.
Everybody loved him, terrific guy. But he couldn't have gotten a job in
any place other than my kind of innovative outside the box, whatever stupid thing
you want to call it college because he didn't have the credentials, but he
taught in one of those disciplines that I mean. He was an AI expert.
He was doing AI before anybody ever heard of it, for instance.
And I can see that that what's happening with the ideological bent of universities.
I have one more story about that, really quick, that they're gonna not
be good for very much longer at producing the kind of expertise that's going to
work in the world. That's what I see. Maybe that's what I'm putting
into his argument. And so my last my last really quick anecdote had a
we're hiring and had an interview today a teaching presentation from a woman who I'm
so sad to find out she actually already works for us as an adjunct professor
who did this whole thing about AI and how biased it is and that it's
all a monolithic, white male dominated Yeah. Really standard. But I mean,
and she breaks up this stupid Netflix documentary of this stupid black woman.
Oh and AI doesn't recognize my face until I put a white mask on.
And you know, it's just it was awful. It was third grade kind
of nonsense stuff. Never mind that the topic was so trite and so forth,
but her presentation was terrible. So you know, I'm rotten. And
here she is nervous about making this presentation. I ask, So, your
whole theory about monolithic white males dominating, how does that work with Google Gemini's
AI release that just came out. She said, well, I don't know
what you're talking about. Oh no, oh my god. So I guess
my point is that this whole ideological bent that has taken over universities that is
just so orthodox now is actually going to prevent universities from doing the kind of
adapting that Walter Russell meet says they're not doing. That's that's what wohin,
I don't know what you think of that. Well, look, I mean,
actually I think you provide a good example of I think me misses something.
Uh, and you're the antidote to it, Lucretia, I mean,
I think we used to talk about this a while long time ago. You
run a cyber program, you're training people to work in a cybersphere. You
tell the great joke about what's an extroverted engineer? Someone looks at someone else's
shoes instead of their own. Right. But you when you teach ethics,
what cyber and ethics? What do you do? You make them readplay on
Aristotle? I do, but that's the only such class. But the other
thing I do, Steve, is they don't teach it from an ideological bent,
my student, I know, But the point is that's I do think
liberal education is necessary, but I wouldn't put most most college students. I
wouldn't even tell them to get a liberal education from most colleges. You know,
No, I understand that. But yeah, no, I didn't mean
I did. I was not making an ideological point at all, except to
say that our universities are so bad at it that you need at least some
people who have a more capacious grasp of the world. In other words,
a statesman like approach, if not politicians to remedy. The problem of specialization,
that's what that's what meediately brings up as we have a specialized world.
Look when I when I want heart surgery, I want a thoracic or cardioal
you know, cardiac surgeon who really knows that specialty, but running the hospital,
or it'll be the dean of medicine you want. You want somebody of
a broader gauge who has so liberal aspect to it. I totally agree with
Steve on that point. Like his Meats article was an attack on specialization,
right, and I I mean you could say, actually, things are going
to get more specialized with it might be that we lived through this unusual period
of real openness of high jucation to large number of students. I think the
statistic he gave was more than twenty five percent now of the American workforce has
gone to college, which is extraordinarily high. But maybe that's going to come
to a close because now the specialization required to you know, do better than
AI is going to actually evolve a very small number of people. So that's
one. And then the thing I think is we've talked about this before.
I think is you know, universities really have two functions. One is research
and then one is teaching. And I still see a replacement for universities as
you know, sort of the greatest source, at least in our society of
the you know, sort of research, collection, dissemination of information that if
this whole revolution is about information as manipulation, I mean, universities still are
the greatest place to do that where they're imperfect, well mean sense. That's
why all the countries, other countries in the world, we still have the
best universities, and they're all trying to copy our system because they observe us
and they see we have these centers of the production of information, which then
leads to things like Silicon Valley and leads to all these great companies and innovations.
I don't see where we're going to reply, how that's going to disappear
and be replaced by something else. Let me mention one story from Harvard in
the forties. I think it was James Conant was the president. And it
doesn't matter is when they did the Red Book about what Harvard to do in
the post war world when you're going to have more people going to college,
and the president I think was Conant said, you know, we may have
made a mistake copying the German research university model, because we are going to
be bad at doing liberal education with students. And he said, maybe what
Harvard ought to do is have two faculties. We ought to have a research
faculty dedicated to you know, Jerry new knowledge and all the intensive research stuff,
and a teaching faculty to teach students what they need to be taught and
what they ought to be taught. My university does. The problem is they
didn't care about teaching. Well, that's just it. Okay, So let
me throw just a little other quick thing, and because Steve's going to make
me stop here soon. But I read two interesting stories this week, and
I want to know how you guys think this fits. The first one was
that there was a resurgence mostly in private schools, but in some smaller adaptable
shall we say, public school systems where they're teaching the classics again New Yorker.
But yeah, okay, but there was actually a positive story that I
saw this week Financial Times did it, yes, yeah. And so then
the other story I just saw today but I actually didn't have time to read
it, but it was the civilizational crisis that will look her because we are
no longer training or producing plumbers. A right, yeah, uh, you
know I have. I'll tell you that one of the greatest things about living
in this small community that I live in is that we have a plumber,
young guy inherited dad's business, who's just awesome, incredible. But I mean
that's huge because everybody has plumbing problems and this guy, you know, he
likes us. He likes to shoot, so that's why, you know,
but he's it's like six months to get that guy to come out to your
house unless that you pay the emergency things and he comes at midnight sort of
fixing bullet holes and your plumbing. No, but but he did put this
this water filtration system in next to one of the one of the guns safes,
and it's beautiful. It's well, no, I didn't say, we
shot the thing. But but then it always ends up with he has to
look at this gun and that gun, you know, and it's it's it's
all good. But anyway, my point is it's all lead. It's all
just didn't you know John led he said lead? Does he not know,
Steve, No, because you know what it led would lead to a discussion
of a certain statute we're not allowed to discuss on this podcast, but you
know, look, I think I know we're wanting to. I think the
most important story of the week was the important news that McDonald's is soon going
to sell Crispy cream donuts, that all the other fast food chains out of
business. I mean from the Holy Alliance. I've always wondered why McDonald's has
not just not put a stake through Starbucks. They already like mccoffee is not
bad. Actually I get coffee with McDonald's. They do all the funny drinks.
Actually, all you need is just a computerized ais the machine you don't
actually need. So all they got to do is add like good pastries,
and Starbucks is going to be running for their lives. Yeah, Starbucks does
not have good pastries. Those things are are Oh, they're like eight months
old before they even get to the store. And anyway, I'd probably eat
Christy Krispy Kreams before I eat Starbucks. But I bet I haven't had a
Krispy Kreme donut in ten years? Are they good? Still? I haven't
had one long time either, but I may start soon. But I mean,
look, I mean the fun part of this is, uh, you
know who's that. There's a filmmaker who did the show supersized me about how
he got fat eating McDonald's because he's an idiot, and you know, McDonald's
didn't blink and a high respond to it. And now the inter of you
is, oh, you got fat in our big mets have some Krispy cream
donuts. Corps our responses. We now have a double big mech you got
Oh, You're gonna take a big mac apart and put a donut in the
middle of it. Yeah, okay, big mac flavored donuts. You never
know. It used to be a place that I like to frequent back in
California. That was a It was a Chinese place and at noon it was
Chinese food, but in the morning it was donuts. Yeah, and the
donuts tasted like Chinese because they Okay, all right, enough that we didn't
talk about p Diddy because actually I refuse to read anything about that story.
I don't I refuse, but I'm just from the Babylon b I'm getting a
sense of it. So I'm gonna give you just a couple did he hired
his new president of Nickelodeon studios starting to wonder if Ditty may have done a
few of those things he repeatedly wrapped about doing. Sorry, okay, boot
A Gedge. How do you say that guy's name? You know the nationality
of that last name. No, I believe it's Maltese. Really like the
Falcon. Yeah, well he looks more like he descended from Alfred y Newman's
Buddha. J Edge praises cargo ship for helping dismantle racism in Amsterdam Rhodes.
Because we didn't talk about that either. Everybody knows about that catastrophe in Baltimore.
Yeah, it was actually very said. In bold speech, Biden calls
on ships to stop crashing into bridges. Sorry, this is a little bit
old, but it's good since we didn't talk about this either. Kamala warns
Israel not to violate San Francisco City Council's ceasefire degree. That's true. Yeah,
and one final one, Steve, we might have to put this on
the in the show notes. Sorry, my dogs were crazy in Last Ditch
because of the picture. In last Ditch attempt to save job, Ronald McDaniel
gets lesbian haircut. I did see that picture, Yes, right, you
saw the picture. Yeah, I thought that was her real hair. I
was taken aback. Oh wait, one last one? Oh wait no,
that must have been one of the power line pornographic ads. Okay, one
last one because of you know, our discussion of squatter's rights. Uh desantus
kicked out a Republican party for accomplishing too many things. That pulls together all
of our themes for tonight, doesn't it? All right? All right?
Send us out? John word Way long, always drink your whiskey me let's
go, Brandon and Steve. God save the Queen and the Duchess of Wales.
Ma'am that what she is? I think so? Yes? Ricochet,
Join the conversation.