Oh wait, that's me. Sorry, I'm running. Oh my god,
I'm completely is waiting for James. Ask not what your country can do for
you, ask what you can do for your country. Mister Gerbatcheff, tear
down this wall, read my lifts. It's the Ricochet Podcast. I'm rob
Long joining Peter Robinson, sitting in for James Lilas to Steve Hayward, and
today we've got centered John Hoping and longtime guests John Yu So stick around.
And yet, for those of you in the media don't report on that,
you should be ashamed. This is evil and the reason you don't see any
Democrats here is they can't defend this. They're counting on the press not to
cover it. It's roll Hello and welcome to the Ricochet Podcast. This is
podcast number six hundred forty two. We're gonna have to stop. We're not
just like recalibrate these like the Enny and Currency or the New frank Um.
I am rob Long, joined as always by the Rickish my Ricichet co founder
Peter Robinson. Paaloato, Hello, Peter, Hello, Hello. We are
usually joined by James Lilax. He's not here today and sitting in for him
is Steve Hayward. Steve, how are you? I am good, ro
I'm good to see you guys. Now, so where are you, Steve?
Did you mind might ask you where exactly you are? Yeah, I'm
kind of hard to pin down a little bit like you. I'm currently my
main residence in the central coast of California and your passa robles nice? Nice?
Any idea how that sounds? If only our viewers can see how how
tightly you've curled your pinky as you say that, Thurston, I'm at my
main resurance just down the hill from the Hurst Castle. Sorry, all right,
yeah, okay, So we have a lot going on today. Um.
We're joined later by John a Senator John Hoven from um Um, from
North Dakota. I can't believe it. A former senator, no senor,
former governor, now senator. So he's uh, why is he running for
president? Peter, Well, we should wait and ask to ask him,
ask him. Maybe he has a very good life as it is. He
enjoys his state, his family and his grandchildren and the Senate. And why
mess it up? Anyway? I think that's the And then later John,
you will be here. I don't even know I introduced John You. We
all know John You. John will be here to talk about I guess there
was some some legal stuff in the news. We can talk about that.
But before we get to that, before we get to the senator, before
you get to professor you. Um, can we talk a little bit about
drugs. A Danish study shows that up to thirty percent of psychosis diagnoses and
young men could have been prevented if these individuals had not used marijuana. Yes,
so the I guess it's the biggest epidemiological investigation. We should talk to
our friend Jabot to try about that. To date, and it does seem
like, um, this news comes in an opportune time when if you live
in New York City, you smell weed everywhere, and it is now legal
almost everywhere, and it is considered as benign, if not more benign than
a martini. Well, Rostal that has a piece in the New York Times.
I continue to read the Times only for the sake of our friend Ross
Rostal that has a piece in the New York Times saying that the effect legalization
of marijuana, it's a little more complicated than that, but in effect,
it's been legalized across the cops have stopped enforcing any marijuana laws almost everywhere.
And there are shops all over New York, as there are all over Los
Angeles black market regulated it just they're there. Ross says A this was a
very big mistake. B. It's almost impossible to say so, because and
I'd like to hear Rob a Pine on this one. I'd like to hear
both of you, but Rob in particular, because for several decades now,
all the forces of what is cool and with it and correct educated opinion have
been in favor of legalization. And it is almost impossible to raise a finger
and say, folks, there's already evidence that this is doing millions of people
serious harm, because it sounds so square. Polite opinion is just not a
tune to hearing that, whatever the evidence. But you are worried, Peter,
about sounding square? Is that? No? No, I'm worried about
you. You're we've known each other three decades. You've always been the cool
one, and that's not even close. And here you are, here you
are well, I suppose I said a low bar, but no, I
mean you're the cool conservative and and here you are saying something square, collegnitive
dissonance. Well, I don't know if I don't know what, I don't
know what I think of it. To Steve, he's skipped an he's punting
immediately, all right, he's slipping and sliding away. I thought it was
pretty good. Actually, all right, I'll wain with a couple of thoughts.
One is this really isn't the brand new finding this, this Danish study,
I think I have been catches to the eyebrows. It's because it's from
those free swinging Scandinavians. Right. There are lots of medical studies calling in
the question of the effects of marijuana, that we've underestimated them and so forth.
And yet you can't, Peter, like you say, you cannot question
this because it's a lawful lot like some of the research on gender dysphoria and
the whole transphenomenon, that there's active suppression of contrary findings to what is currently
fashionable. Um, I don't know if you know this, Peter Robbie,
probably don't. In the California legislature, there's currently a bill that would outlaw,
by degrees over twenty years, all tobacco sales in California. So if
it passed and was signed, we would have a world in which you couldn't
buy tobacco products of any kind, but marijuana would remain legal. Well why
is that, Well, we know why. It's it's not astounding. Now
I think two things quickly and it'll stop. You know, you've had these
this proliferation of marijuana products. It's not just weed that you roll up and
smoke anymore. It's all these different edibles, it's oils, It's on and
on and on, a varying degrees of potency. I mean, I don't
know these things firsthand myself, but you know, I hear that the industry
and the people have been doing this for decades have really figured out how to
calibrate very high potency weed and so forth. Yeah, and along with the
sort of approval that the legalization has bestowed on it, I think that the
use of it has spread and there isn't any you know, how do we
what do we do about smoking? Fifty years ago we started telling people that
smoking was bad, and we're not telling people that they should be careful at
least out their marijuana use. And so I think we're going to regret the
rush to legalize it and promote it. The way we have. Finally,
by the way, the marijuan industry in California at the legal industry is losing
money because it's overregulated and overtaxed. And only in California could you make the
weed industry unprofitable. Right, But the black market, the are we even
allowed to say black the market of color? I don't even know what the
illegal the unregulated market is everywhere. Yeah, it's this weird thing where where
the argument was, Look, maybe it does some damage, not much,
but a little bit. We're going to legalize it, but then we will
able to regulate it, will make sure that it's safe, we'll be able
to spot people right away who seem to be having trouble. And that hasn't
happened at all. What actually has happened is that the illegal market, let's
call it that. That's what is blossomed. If you're crazy enough to try
to stay within the regulations, you have to sell your pot at a higher
price to deal with all the regulatory overhang, so you get undercut by the
shop down. And it just means that whatever control we had we've lost all
together. I mean, I think I own I think that's absolutely correct.
I don't I don't think so. I think two things happen. One is
that people the very very strange thing if people thought that the reason that it
was that you would ever sell something illegally was because it was illegal and not
because you wanted to circumvent regulations. So if you love regulations, you think,
well, the man you put regulations on this, everyone's going to conform,
which, of course isn't what happens. You still want to like,
you still want to circumvent it. You still sell weed on the street here
in New York City, or you sell it illegally in some bedegas because the
permitting process is complicated apparently, or all that stuff. The second thing is
that we live in this weird culture where it isn't enough to say, well
this thing isn't this stuff should be legal, but it's not good for you,
right, this should be legal and you should before. The progressive mentality
is that anything that's good for you must be compulsory. Um. And that
is sort of like the old PGA of formulation was. You know, um,
in a communist country, everything is illegal except for a few things,
and those things are compulsory. And so the idea that like saying Hey,
look, marijuana can be very dangerous um like rum, and it should be
regulated and and and maybe even frowned upon like beer or rum. I mean
I see people walking down the street smoking weed all the time. I smell
it from construction sites all the time. And if those people were in Manhattan,
and those people are this is new correct, No, No, this
is like you know, this is like past six months, two years,
three years, right, Okay, But the the pre legalization of predecriminalization so
definitely was considered fine before the before the city uh for city law, a
dot of the eye, as you might say, it was wide open.
I mean, nobody was ever arrested for this. But the idea that it
isn't just so much that people are doing it out in the open. If
you replace that with a martini glass, if you saw two guys sitting on
the stoop on eleven Street after before they go back into the house to rewire
that townhouse they're working on, and they're sitting there drinking beer or a highball
or a martini, you'd think, hey, dudes, no, that's after
work situation, right. But you can't say that because you can't say that
a full disclosure. I don't smoke it. I don't I don't like it.
I hate the smell. But you can't say to somebody, all right,
this is another one of your vices. But it's a vice that apparently
is it has to solve everything. And you put the weed cream on your
knee and your knee doesn't hurt anymore. Like we have lost the ability to
sort of be to be normal about anything. Again, this goes to my
my working definition or working theory of of everything last week was everyone has lost
their minds. And I think that this is just one more instance of everybody
losing their mind, unable to say, all right, this is your vice
of choice, be careful with it, and maybe well kids shouldn't be doing
it. I think it maybe even worse than you think about everyone losing your
mind, Rob, I think this ought to connect to a larger phenomenon which
also was reported this week, which is the mortality rate among young Americans is
up ten percent over the last couple of years. And we know that life
expectancy in the United States has taken a dive for the first time in well
ever, really, and Peter, you will remember that back around nineteen eighty
when Ronaldo's magnus ascended to the presidency. The first hint that the clever intelligence
people got that the Soviet Union was in trouble was falling lifespans in the Soviet
Union. It had been rising and after World War Two, and suddenly it
took a dive in the late seventies. People like our friend Nick Eberstad said,
there's something deeply wrong in that country. Now we can point to in
this country, fentyl marijuana, rising suicide rates, soaring rates of mental health
distress. I am with Jay Bodicharia. I am convinced that the COVID lockdown,
yes, was I mean, I have kids, it was catastrophic.
Correct or kids in particularly teens and twenties, who are supposed to be getting
out, meeting people, learning how to socialize like adults. And am I
wrong about that or doesn't that play into this? No, that's absolutely right.
But this is gonna have a long lasting effect. And so I think
we look, we need to have a wider angle view than just the problem
of marijuana and other things. I think this is now a long term problem
that we have. I think there's a crisis underway, and it's a cultural
crisis. As much as there's any particular thing like marijuana or final If I
could bring my father back to life and say, well, listen, um,
you live through the depression, you served all four years of the Second
World War at seem take a look. What do you think? He would
be dazzled by the wealth, the ease of life, the conveniences. I
remember the year that was happened to be the same year he died. I
showed him, for the first time he'd seen it, an email, and
he just shook his head. He said, madge, okay. And the
idea that kids are killing themselves or resorting to fenton All and booze and marijuana,
this just would not compute. This is not the country for which he
went to war. Something serious has gone wrong, and it's in our heads.
We're not poor, it's in our heads, by the way, Peter,
on a lighter note for this Graham subject, the first time I showed
my mother an email, her question back to me was how does it get
out of the envelope and into your computer as well? Not a dumb question
really when you're a but Peter, I think you're I think you're I think
it's a constellation of things. I think, like a lot of what happened
in COVID, it amplify and exacerbated trends that we already had. I think
actually the target that the group that was targeted the most for harm were sort
of preteens and early teens, so like middle school, young high school,
early high school, because they really were coming out of their shell and coming
out of the home and coming out of the nest at that point. So
and that devastation is huge. I think there's other parts of it too,
which are that we and it's in Richard Reeves a great book, Richard Reeves,
guy at the Brick Constitution with a book called of Boys and Men,
Why the modern male is Struggling, Why it matters, and what's d about
it? And I think he's pointing at some very very serious problems we have
in the country with how we raise men and how we raise boys. And
you all know when you when you fail at that, only bad things happen.
Young men are the prime engine for social chaos and crime and all sorts
of terrible things when they are not raised well or parented well. And I
think that's what's happening not only by their parents, but probably by but by
the culture in general, which is these are all big fat topics, and
we can keep talking about them where we can switch to other big fat topics
because we have We are lucky to have John Hoven. He was the thirty
firs I said, thirty first governor of North Dakota from two thousand and two
thousand and ten. He is now the senior US Senator from North Dakota.
He's been on the podcast many times. He's a friend of our of the
podcast. So I um, I got a big question for him. So
I gave a little thumbnail sketch of your successful term as the governor of North
Dakota, and now that you're the current senior US senator there, why on
earth are you not running for president? And don't come up with I don't
want any excuses here. I want the I want I want you to say,
you know what good point, Rob, I'm in So, Rob,
it is great to be with you and Stephen. I don't know if Peter's
joining or not. What I see both you guys are from Berkeley, and
I kind of marveled at that, because you know, Peter is a Reagan
Republican and a staunch staunch conservative, and here I find out he's hanging out
with two guys from Berkeley. Yes, I know this is directly germane to
your question, so I thought I'd launched right into it. You know,
So, Peter, what gives what? I live in California? Senator?
I do the best I can and that's how low I've sunk. These guys
are the best I can do. Senator, you were down at the border
just what was it? Just last week? And I saw you on My
Twitter feed was filled with you and it sounded as though you were shocked at
what you saw. So I'd like to ask two questions, what did you
see? And why does the senator Why does the senator from North Dakota care?
Do they do? They do? The illegals make it as far as
north as your state Western. It effects every state in the Union. You
know that, Peter, the fat and all the human trafficking. You know
that this is a national problem. In border scurry is a national security I
remember, we are a border state and we're seeing, um, you know,
our resources on the northern border being uh you know, taken down to
the southern border, and so you know, we're starting to see problems on
the northern border North Dakota. We have responsibility for actually nine hundred miles of
water all the way from essentially the Great Lakes out through part of Montana because
we're we have the Grand Forks sector and so you know, we're familiar with
border issues. Obviously, it is very different on the northern border than it
is in the southern ward. But yeah, this is affecting every single state
in the country. You're you're seeing it in a lot of orders. Obviously,
the human trafficking, the drugs or over one hundred thousand deaths in fentanyl
last year. The numbers keep growing. So it's it's affecting all of us
and our kids. Uh. And you know Board scres national Security. So
so back to you know, you said you said, I wasn't shocked because
I've been down there many times now, I'm I'm doing everything. I keep
going back because i want to solve the problem. And the solution is for
the Biden administration to enforce the law. It's that simple. And they've got
to quit telling the American people and somehow if the Congress did something or whatever,
then they can secure the board. No, they need to enforce the
remain in Mexico policy and the third Safe Country policy, and that's the law.
If they would enforce it, that would stop the illegal flow. Right
now. We can get it into more details, but it is that simple
that it is that direct. They're obfu skating, hunger of mynarchist's obfu skating.
That's that's all that is. They have the tools, and in fact,
we have a responsibility to enforce the law and stop this border crisis.
No hey, senator, So why is it so ian? Why you lay
it out? It seems like it should be easily easily done. Why is
it so difficult? I mean, people vote in twenty sixteen for Candida,
say he's going to build a wall, and he didn't build it, and
he all sorts of excuses why he didn't build it. We can come up
with all the reasons why, but he didn't build it. He maybe he
replaced some parts that Obama built, but he didn't actually build any new role.
It feels to me like securing the border isn't that complicated. I mean,
or at least the idea being if once you make it harder across the
border, you kind of send the message all the way down to the tip
of Tierra del Fuego, that this is not a done deal. Don't set
off on foot for something it's going to be really good, it don't come.
Why is this so difficult? I mean, I have a hard time
believing the the sort of very prevalent conservative theory that this is the goal of
the liberals and Democrats to replace conservatives with loyal Democratic voters. But what are
the other reasons why it can't just be done? So rot if you look
at what happened with the last administration, essentially we did get control of the
water, and we do need a border of all of border barrier whatever you
want to call it. And it's not the same in all places along the
border. It's different depending on the tomography and the situation. Rural areas obviously
California and different than Texts, is different than Arizona and so forth. So
one, you do need a border barrier, and you also need the people
in the technology so that you actually have control of the border. And that's
not only so you can manage the flow what comes through. And then you
need technology at the ports of entry so you can stand these you know,
millions of vehicles that come across that have contraband drugs other things, and so
you need That's why you need the technology. And then the other thing that
does is once you get control of the ports of entry, then your border
patrol can actually track all the areas into TWEET and make sure that the coyote
days and the cartels are not bringing people across. The human trafficking and the
drugs one thing, but then also you're seeing terrorists come across the work and
you know the cartels want to establish their criminal organizations in our country as well,
And so it all goes together and back to Peters where Peter Stern,
I've been at this for some time. In other words, at a number
of years ago, the governor, Senator Shaheen and I we were governors together
back in the day, and Chi and I were a chair and ranking member
on the appropriation subcommunity that had DHS. We went down and we went all
along the Texas border to check it out. So we worked on the funding
back leading into Trump wanting to put up the border barrier, which he did,
rebuilt a lot of that. He did as much as he could in
his four years. Now, a lot of those areas the Biden people are
just leaving the materials sitting there on the ground, materials that we've paid for,
rather than finishing the wall. But I've been to McCallan, del Rio,
evil Pass, I've been to Pass so that just in the last year
plus, I've been on the other side to Mexico, Ecuador, to Guatemala,
to Colombia. And the thing is, what's going on right now is
that because the Biden illustration will not enforce the law very simply, the remain
in Mexico third sif that's that would stop it right now for CBP and word
Patrol, then those professionals they could then take control of order right now,
even without additional barrier. But he won't do it. And furthermore, now
the title forty two is expired. My orcas is saying there enforcing Title eight.
They are not under Title eight. You actually have to have an asylum
plan, you know, for persecution, not not because you just want to
immigrate. You actually have to be pursued. You have to have an asylum
claim to stay in the country. And so they're and so what my orchass
say, he's under tie Lake, they're enforcing that. They're not. Because
the individual comes across he says, you know, I'm here, I want
to have asylum or whatever. They say, no, no, no,
you have to go back for me. In mestally, he says, I
want to appeal it. And then once he appeals it, they give him
a phone number that counts as a preliminary hearing. He calls and he says,
I have credible fear Unless the judge says no, you got to go
back with The judge has nothing to go on. So they stay, They're
issued an alien identification number, they get benefits, they get a work permit.
They're here and they don't actually have a court hearing day rob for about
three to five years. That's not enforcing the law. And even then even
then they commit they can skip it. Yeah, and then well yeah,
then they don't go to that hearing. You know, they're here for five
years. That's if they're here. Senator at Steve Hayward out in California.
I'm so old I can remember when many leading Democrats took a hawkers position on
this issue. You can think of Barbara Jordan's famous speech in the nineteen seventies,
the Democratic Convention, Bill Clinton in the nineteen nineties, even Barack Obama
around twenty ten. I had some hawkish rhetoric at least about the issue,
and Jean Shaheen was working with the Senator. As John just said, right
well, Prederie Hampshire, it's somewhere in the last decade, to make a
long story short, the Democrats seem to have sold out to the open borders
ideology for whatever reasons. I think there's a lot of bad ones. Really,
they're all bad ones. And yet in the last ten days or so,
since the demise of Title forty two became immant, you've seen several starting
to change their mind a bit. Senator Brown in Ohio. Maybe it's a
coincidence that senators who are up for reelection next year. But still the question
is, do you think that there's a change among Democrats who were worried about
this, at least enough of them. Is there possibly a majority in Congress
for a tougher stance on immigration. I think so, I hope so,
and there needs to be. But that's why I say every America needs to
truly understand what's going on and homelands, curity security. A hundred of my
orchist sits and looks at you and says it's a you know, the borders
close that he's enforcing kind of late. He is not, and people need
to understand it because when enough Americans a process country simply understand that the Biden
administration could stop this right now if they just enforced the law, which is
their job, and that those folks all call their senators and their house members
on the other side of the island, say enough of this and think about
look at what's going on in New York right now, where now they're starting
to house migrants in public schools and parents are coming out. Think about Mayor
Adams complaining about Governor Adam, Governor Abbott from Texas sending some bustles of illegal
migrants are there, Well, that's ten percent of what he's getting. He
should be calling the White House. It's the White House that's sending up the
tens of thousands to him. And so as you see these problems continue to
grow, even in the so called sanctuary cities, I hope enough Americans will
call their elected representatives, can say enough and get the Biden administration to stop
this. Senator, if I'd like to ask you a question on a different
subject for a moment before you entered the public service. You were a very
successful banker, so obviously I want to get your summary perspective on what's been
happening with Silicon Valley Bank and the slow rolling crisis of Happy right now first
Republic of all the rest of that. What are you what's what should we
think about this? What are our takeaways? What should we be watching for?
Well, clearly, in that case, the bank was mismanaged and the
regulators weren't on top of it, and they should have been. And when
that happens, those banks shouldn't fail. I mean they should go out of
business, just like other businesses go out of business. That does not undermine
the soundness of the overall system. And that's what we need to separate this
conflating a bad failure where it was poorly run, where they got into all
the high tech stuff, where the regulators didn't stay on top of it.
That is, yes, an individual case, and that bank should go out
of business, and you know that, but that doesn't threaten the seat the
soundness of the other bank. And we can't get into this deal where you
know, you bail out every bank that that is not what you well,
that was going to be my next question is do you do you agree with
the decision to lift the deposit insurance cabin. Well, what they started to
do, Stephen, was they were going to arrange a sale or facility the
sale of that bank of the bank, which obviously was going to happen.
They were bidders, and that's let the market. You know, sure they
can help with it, but the market would have taken care of that by
uh, you know, and you've seen that now subsequently with these other banks
where you know, the other bank will step in and buy them because they
want those depositors, they want that customer banks. But it shouldn't be federal
bailble No, I mean, is in a way center could you actually say
that bank? When banks go bust, it's a sign that the system is
healthy. That it's only unhealthy when you create this attitude among bankers that regulators
will step in and bail you out. Yeah. Why should every bank be
able to stand business? No way, if they if they're partly run and
so on them, so forth, they should go to business and you know
people, and they need to be able to account of all. But the
system is sound, and other banks will step up in a car that deposit
base, and so I mean the system work. It wasn't designed. You
go ahead and bail out every bank that was what's never designed them? Okay,
So I'm you want to you want to jump in, Peter, go
right ahead. I do, but but I want I'd like to, but
I want to change topics me too. I want to talk about politics a
little bit. Okay too. Okay, I'm gonna go first. You can
ask center you a reader, can I ask a question you? Is that
the briberry in your home? That your system? Is? That? Is
that your is that your so library to ahead, Senator. I'm a little
surprised. I guess this shows that you weren't the most studious student at Dartmouth
College. This is Dartmouth. This is one of the libraries inside Baker at
Dartmouth. Nice try though, all right, Senator? That was kind of
good, wasn't it. It's yet thrown me only I can't solve all this
Senator stuff, as as he just revealed, we've been friends since with college.
So I'm going to call him John John Donald Trump beat Joe Biden in
North Dakota by two to one sixty over sixty sixty six to thirty two.
Right now, that wasn't as big a margin as yours. When you get
yourself reelected, your margins or something like four or five to one. It's
just amazing. Donald Trump's running again. Ron de Santis, what what are
you? Are you? What's your position? Trump was? Trump was complicated
for you? And I discussed this once. You said, your people up
in North Dakota have trouble with Trump as a man, but they sure like
his policies. What positions that put you in. His policies have been very
good, as you know. But you know, I take the approach that
that I've taken pretty much every time. I think we have to be careful
Peter about not this is when the grassroots, when the Republicans, the you
know, the people that work there rear end off for all US candidates year
in year. This is when they get to vet everybody, when they you
know, they get the way in and have an opinion. And I think
we make a mistake if we don't spend some time listening to that and you
know, finding out who's running, finding out what people think. And I
think we're pretty early on in that process. As a matter of fact,
you're going to see Tim Scott, who's marvelous. I'm sure you know him.
He just a phenomenal person, the kind of guy that can bring people
together. He's tremendous. De Santist is going to get in. Um.
You know, I was disappointed to see that Mike Pompeo at least at this
point, says he's going to pass. He's tremendous. There are very talented
people that are going to be in this race. And lets let's let's give
the process a little time to unfold, and let's be careful not to be
trying to tell people how they should go it too darn quick. Let's let's
this is when the grassroots get to speak. Let's let's listen to him a
little bit and just kind of see how this goes. Okay, so one
case you and okay, go ahead. No no, I was just gonna
say, so, you're really and truly telling us that it's open ended right
now. Donald Trump does not have this wrapped up. Plenty of time to
think things through, fall in love with this candidate, fall in love with
another candidate. We do not know who's going to win the Republican nomination.
Yet you really believe that Peter all the time when I listen to you guys
in the media world, and you know, with your prognostications and your polls,
all the things every day, and I know what you got it sliced
and nice. You know, yeah, I kind of the whole of the
election. But you know, I've always kind of been one to say,
well, we'll see, and I think, you know, I know,
oh kidding is signed. It's always interesting to see the polls, the prognostications,
all this kind of stuff. Hey, but hey, this debase just
getting started, and I think it's really important. I hain't got a lot
of talented people that are gonna be involved. Well, Senator, you adroitly
skipped over my question to start, and I'll let you off. I want
to ask you again because I don't want you to say no too loudly,
because I kind of feel like, well, maybe I'll kind of leave some
room for you to change your mind. But can we just talk about the
Senate in twenty and twenty twenty four? I mean, um, listen to
you talking about immigration and banking and uh, you know, I'm sure down
the list, Um, well, like do it right, But it's hard
for Republican Senator in twenty twenty three, to just make it happen. How
likely do you think the Republican Party is to get control of the Senate in
twenty twenty four, to really really put into place. A lot of these
pieces of this agenda are that are we desperately need we need to I mean,
at the end of the day, you got to win elections. That's
one of the things that drives me absolutely crazy is I listened to people say,
well, you know, they got this great plan of procedure and all
these kinds of things, and somehow we're going to outsmart the other guys,
and on and on and on, and we're going to get our way even
though we're in the minority. It doesn't work that way. We have to
have more votes to get our policies in place. And this last mid term
cycle, you saw that, you know, oh we were you know,
back to what I said a minute ago, Oh we were going to get
a majority in the Senate for sure, and on and on and on,
and we did it, and the country's suffering because of that. I don't
care how smart or how nifty are how good you are, Robert's school's waters
or whatever. If they have more votes then we do. They carry their
policies. You are seeing what the democratic policies are doing to this country,
and it is not good. So we've got to win the Senate, and
we've got to win the presidency and then get back to the kind of fundamentals
that made this country strong. So Number one, we've got to win it.
Number two, I'm hopeful that we can, but the very again,
it's going to come back to winning the hearts and minds and that this immigration
discussion is a great example. The energy issue is a great example, the
debt ceiling and the outrageous spending, the debt pods is a great example.
On every single one of this, we have the right solutions, and at
the end of the day, we've got to convince not just our base,
but enough of those people in the middle that we need to win for the
good of this country. And it's you know, they always say the next
election is the most important, but it sure feels that way. Yeah,
Church feels the way. Catch one. I know, you gotta one last
question because you were born in Bismarck, North Dakota. True, you're from
North Dakota. You've been the governor of the state, and now you're the
Senator from the state, and we think, you know, I say,
we think people who don't live in that part of the country tend to think
of that part of the country is kind of always the same, but it
really is it. How what are the big ways that North Dakota has changed
the people that you represent, the people that you were the governor of,
you know, for the past twenty years. It feels like everywhere else in
America has I've gone through some tumultuous, sometimes wrenching, sometimes very positive change.
What about North Dakota? Good question? You know I like that question,
Rob, that that I really do like that. See, Peter,
I can do this, Yeah, exactly, Peter, I can argue that's
so hard. Yeah. First off, I'm so honored to represent the people
in North Dakota. And North Dakota has always been an egg powerhouse. We
leave the nation in the production of I don't know, fourteen or fifteen different
crops were number one in Pontee. You know, we get livestock. I
mean, we're a very strong egg state. We've boys been an egg powerhouse,
but we've added that we're not an energy powerhouse. You know, we're
either second to Texas or sometimes in Mexico's in there because of the public lands
in terms of oil and gas production. But we've also developed a lot more
technology. We've gone from an older state to one of the youngest states because
we're attracting people, because we have a lot of jobs. We have a
very high per capid income. So what where we've changed is we've gone from
kind of just the farming state to really doing a lot of these other things
and innovating in some really exciting ways. So we're leading the country and carbon
capture for a cou fired electric industry. So I need just I think,
you know, in many ways, we've become a much more dynamic state.
We're doing incredible things at unmanned aviation, we have this incredible tech park,
Grand Sky and Grand Forks. I think in that respect, like you say,
every place changes, um, but I think we've retained that kind of
fundamental, down to earth common sense approach that I think is, you know,
just a wonderful attribute for our statement, something I think is really important
for our country consense. So so America should be a little bit more like
North Dakoda. Well, of course, I feel, are you bet Centator
thank you for joining us. Really pay to hope you come back again,
Um, especially as the twenty twenty four general elect gets a little more complicated,
a little more interesting. I'd love to hear some more of your perspective.
Thanks, guys, I've really enjoyed being with Take care of it.
Tell missus Hallivan. We send our best um from from I don't know how
to put it, from the from the heights of the of of Statesman Life
Capital, from the Governor's office, to the to the to to to the
the brainchild of our founders in central to Philadelphia, Chief check to mcgribb.
We are now welcome our old friend, Professor John You, professor at UH
Bolt Law School where they still say Bolt right, don't say don't we got
renamed because we got only renamed. Formerly a Berkeley Law School fellow at Hoover
and American Enterprise Institute podcaster UH co star with equal billing for some reason on
Law Talk UM and of course UM, he occasionally co hosts with our own
Steve Hayward. UM. Welcome John You. You know Steve and I have
this other podcast where we replaced a whole bunch of you with one woman named
Lucretia, whose identity we protects identity we attacked by using ancient Roman pseudonyms.
She's more Yeah, if she had larryin Chinas, she'd still be better than
you guys. Come on comparison after this is all over. Hey, all
right, funny times over, John Um put yourself back briefly in the Department
of Justice, just pretend. Uh. The search warrant on Robinson's house commission
the Age Old dream. Uh. The Durham Report comes out and everybody reads
it. Some people read it for the first time. Some people read it
the Friday afternoon, and they release it on a Monday. How bad?
How bad is it? Both from your perspective outside and also if you were
in there, what would you be saying inside the DOJ that Monday lunchtime after
everybody's read this report. I'm fraid the way a lot of people there think
is well, at least they're not going to fire me, So that's the
first thing they read the report to see where they're mentioned and to make sure
they take of them. But but seriously, they would worry that something has
gone seriously wrong with the FBI and the Justice Department. All right, this
is as harsh as you can get without actually throwing people in jail. Right,
the FBI and the just Department are supposed to neutrallly investigate crimes and to
prosecute them. And what does a dirm report show? It was a It's
it's really really not controverted these days, right, it's one the incumbent party
controlling the White House. Their presidential kendidate, Hillary Clinton, concocted a completely
made up scheme claiming that her opponent, right, the outer party candidate,
was a Russian spy. Right, So that's just implausible on his face,
no evidence, ridiculous and either tricked, duped, or had willing conspirators in
the FBI who took that information and launched a two to three year probe of
a candidate and then the winning candidate a president. You sit there and say,
what has happened to the idea of neutral, nonpartisan law enforcement. This
is the thing. This Durham is not some outside investigator. He's one of
their own, right, He's one of the most neutral, most nonpartisan.
Do you prosecutors in the history of the Department? Did you know him?
We've met him maybe once. I've met him maybe once. So there's no
beef here we gotta get you know, so, um it comes it comes
out to a lot of things. But one of the things that comes down
to is the subversion of the FISA process, right, which um is something
that was predicted in two thousand and whatever when they were arguing the Patriot Act.
I mean people, you know, especially Libertaris parents were saying, yeah,
we're saying this, this is gonna be trouble. We passed this,
it's gonna be trouble, and it turns out it's trouble. So how do
you fix it? This is the bigger picture, which I think goes beyond
the Durham report that he you know, Durham barely addressed, which is look,
if I read this report and I put the words al Qaeda instead of
Republican Party in, and I put Osama bin Lauden instead of Donald Trump in.
These were the tools that we created. But I know sometimes people on
MSNBC make that mistake over and over again. But they different, Yeah,
well they like the other, they like the they prefer it. You know,
if those hours and authorities we're all supposed to be turned outward to investigate
terrorists, to investigate foreign spies, the mistake they made. And this is
again Durham does not does not really scratch the surface of how to think about
this, how to cure it is it was turned inwards. If you think
about is exactly what happened in Watergate. This is exactly what Richard Nixon did.
He used the CI. Sorry, well, you and you, you
and I Steve always think Nixon doesn't get all the credit he should get in
Watergate wasn't so bad, but it is. It is exactly the same thing
in the sense that these powerful, you know, tools like Feisser, like
surveillance, So those were all supposed to be used to protect the national security
from threats of vall abroad, never supposed to be used to go after domestics
domesticory, and specifically not to be used to interfere in political campaigns. That's
the lesson of Watergate. Well, but look, I mean it's a thought
experiment here. I mean, it's one thing to bug your opposition campaign and
it's one thing to try and prevent the FBI from investigating it, Which are
the two things around Nixon or as people did. What if Nixon had used
phony you made up intelligence to start a criminal investigation by the FBI, and
that everybody, all the people the highest reaches knew about it. You know,
Nixon didn't know about the Watergate burgery. We're pretty sure, we think
anyway, Oh my goodness, they'd still be prosecuting Nixon even though he's been
dead thirty years. I can't believe that this shouldn't at least raise the prospect
of conspiracy charges against Hillary Clinton and the people around her, against people in
the FBI. It seems to me that this ought to have serious criminal consequences,
but it's been played out so slowly that it's sort of like the old
Clinton playbook. If you just slow things done long enough, it'll just sort
of evaporate and lose its force. I feel bad for Durham, and he
says in this report, he says, look, there's a lot of things
here that went wrong. There was a lot of bad action. Not all
bad action is criminal. I can't and he this is basically, look,
I tried to prosecute two low level people and they were acquitted. The Justice
of Warner rarely loses on acquittal. I mean, the JUMAR usually wins ninety
nine of its cases. So Durham essentially said, look, I'm issuing this
report so the American people and Congress can see all the bad things that were
done, and you have to use other means to hold them accountable other than
trying to throw them in jail, because that's not going to work. So
I agree with you, Steve, that some of the things that happened here
are worse in the sense of who was involved. It's almost worse in the
sense that the bureaucracy. You know, Watergate was a few really bad apples.
I'm watching this great HBO series starring Woody House Harrison, you know,
Rob's old buddy. Somehow they turned Rob's old buddy in a White House plumber.
You know, the Rob's got a future here. I think he could.
He'd be a great uh you know DNC chair getting hacked in the next
series on Hillary Clinton. But look, these are a few bad apples here.
It's almost the bureaucracy, right, the leadership of the FBO, of
one mind believed it. So it's almost a greater threat, harder to cure
in a way, Steven, throwing a few people in jail, John that
Peter wants to get in. But before we go, like the Nixon and
now Dixon comparison. I think it's really interesting because you know, I know
that you know, I don't want to insult the two of you, you
know, NIXONO files, but like Nixon was kind of a weirdo and paranoid
and had lots of weird He was psychologically damaged, and I believe that he
had enemies around the corner. And in case of Nixon, he kind of
did. But like part of the weirdness of Watergate was that he invested that
someone felt they needed to break into the opposition office in Watergate Hotel, a
person that pretty much was already at like zero in the polls. Right.
Nixon then went on to win I mean every single state, right, with
one of the most smashing popular vote and electoral vote victories in American political history.
And at the time that the Clinton administrate, that Hillary Clinton campaign was
devising this nonsense and trying to get FISA authorization, she was the poles were
saying she was gonna win like, you know, ten twenty thirty points all
the way. Like even election night, there were only a few people who
were sort of inside I mean, I mean people in the Clinton administration,
I mean the Clinton campaign who were worried. One of them was Bill Clinton,
because he is a political mastermind. He knows a campaign in trouble when
he sees one. But most people thought, ah, you know what's Donald
Trump's gonna go down? Donald Trump thought Donald Trump is gonna go down.
So what is about? What is the psychosis here? The Richard Nixon Hillary
Clinton psychosis which people have already, they've already been comparing those two since she
burst on the scene in nineteen ninety one. What what about people who seem
like they have all the cards? Make drives them to become this paranoid and
weird, like, why even bother to do this? Is my question?
Yea, rob this is a hard question. This is something prosecutors can't figure
out. Right. This is going to be probably some psychiatric report on one
of Hillary Clinton's servers, which meets is probably in the hands of China and
Russia right now, who knows, But this is this is part of it.
This It was going to be a close election. Hillary tried, just
like President Nixon tried every dirty trick in the book. The sad thing about
the Durham report is how far this dirty trick went. And Durham's report is
telling us in a way, it's the answer that you're looking for. I
think, Rob, is the answer is not going to come from throwing people
in jail. It's going to come from Congress right radically restructuring the FBI and
the Just Department and making a difference in the twenty twenty four elections. Aren't
you struck by how all the people who are in the Obama administration are now
you know, back for a rerun with the Biden administration. How a lot
of these names that you see in the Durham report, we're part of the
fifty one intelligence officials who you know, said the Hunter, Biden, Bob
Top. Don't look here. There's still a chance to hold them accountable,
Rob, But you do have to do it through elections and politics, you
know. Durham basically said, you can't you you know, the Justice Department
can't fix this problem for you. If you got these people at the top
of their parties, who are you know, running these crazy eyed campaigns,
do these terrible things, and then have lots of willing underlings. We can't
solve that problem by throwing them all in jail. John, I'm going to
ask you a question. I don't know whether you're going to answer it,
though, because I am told by our producer that we had small words where
we had to swear that you could leave. He can't something like three minutes.
Apparently you have to get to the McDonald's, when before before they stopped
serving correctly. Oh you you you have just invited a blizzard of photos from
me to you to show proof that's wrong. Where I'm going, that's right
where I'm going. I'm going ask two questions. I'm going to ask two
questions really fast, and then you do as much as you have time to
do with them. Question number one. When you were at the Department of
Justice during the administration of George W. Bush, if you had been told
that a couple of decades later this would happen, you would have said,
oh, sure there's corruption around here, or you would have said impossible,
not in the FBI, not a d J. That's question one. Question
two. Vivic Ramaswami, who's running for president, has said, Okay,
that's it. J Edgar Hoover. We know what the nonsense j Edgar Hoover
got up to because your former judge Larry Silberman was responsible for reading through the
Hoover correspondence, and he said it was the worst job. Can I say
something about that? Peter? I used to beg him, nag him every
time I talked to something, to something about what was it? Just one
little thing he was? He never tell me he was. He would never
when he would start that, but he would curse, set me a lot.
He would. That would usually string some curses. So whenever he was
giving me a hard time about something that I didn't want to tell him,
I would always say to him, can you tell me something from the Hoover
files? And they john blah blah blah. You know, I can't tell
you anything about that. So usually would That's how I would win arguments with
him. All right, Jed Hoover was corrupt, Mark felt deep throat.
We now know was a was a was a self serving FBI bureaucrat who brought
down Richard Nixon. And now we have this James Comey, whose self regard
is breathtaking and who was engaged in corrupt activity up to his nostrils. Vic
Ramaswami says, that's it. Shut this thing down and end the FBI,
and let's come up with the new domestic intelligence and law enforcement Bureau from scratch,
and John You says yes or no, those are two questions I will
now fall side. Well no, Well, I don't think fund the polices
of winning message for Republicans, so I don't think that's a good idea.
But I take your point right now. Back when I was a one and
o two I was I helped draft the Patriot Act. I lobbied on Congress
for it. Not lobby it's the wrong word. But you know, I
presently worked with Congress to get it past. And I never thought this would
happen. I thought the lessons from Watergate were well learned and hardwired into the
Justice Department and the FBI not to use these awesome powers for anything but terrorism
and encounter espionage. So it seems to me the answer Peter's tricking because he
knows I'm an optimist, and so I don't think this is the end of
the world. I don't think we should get rid of the FBI. I
actually think the problem might be that the FBI is too big and has too
many responsibilities, and I encountertuitively the thing to do is to have the FBI
focus only on terrorism and espionage and stop trying to do bank robberies, kidnappings.
Let the other federal agents sees being charge of money laundering and be in
charge of securities fraud, and you just have the FBI focus really purely on
the external threat and not try to patrol around the United States and trying to
catch people. You're trying to catch politicians for the dirty business that is politics.
And just the last point is this is what the British do. I
generally, I know you and Rob love the monarchy and want to imitate everything
in Great Britain for reasons I don't know. I know you guys were working
to watch that you woke up. But I think in this case the British
are right. You know Great Britain. They separate this function out so there's
like a five AM I six you know from the movies, but they actually
separate it so that the FBI would actually be two separate bodies. Because when
you mix fighting terrorists and fighting spies and you mix it with policing domestically,
bad things result. This is now the second time we've learned had to go
through this because of this problem. I think that's the permanent, long term
solution. How likely that's going to happen. Well, I you know,
we had a chance to do it after the nine to eleven attacks, if
the Republicans were to win the Senate and the Senate and the presidency. I
could see that happening again. But I think people really should be upset about
this is a This is a very serious threat to democratic government if you have
a right an unelected law, enforce, and bureaucracy that's interfering in elections.
I guess my fear is that we end up solving that problem the way we
solve the intelligence problem by creating another umbrella intelligence agency and then a national security
apparatus that is tens of thousands of people working all day. Yeah. We
all we did was put another layer on top. Yeah, that's a great
point. I mean, DHS, the Department of Homeland Security, has not
been a happy tale, and so what I guess what I'm arguing is decentralizing,
actually splitting agencies up into smaller pieces and making them compete in fight with
each other for resources and effort to do a better job. I think centralization
has actually been a has not had a good track record with our government,
and this, you know, I think this is another example. This durm
report John speechless speech us. Now, well, you know I'm gonna get
myself now a double if you have more double egg McMuffin with sausage, and
I'm I have one more question. Do you have? Do you have ninety
seconds more? I gotta run. But this is this is Rob says,
to leave him wanting more, right before they start talking toomatoes right right,
see, thank you for joining us, Thank you bye bye bye. Uh
so um no so much doesn't. He's such a smart guy, he does.
So after all this stuff, you're feeling a little, uh, a
little ill. You may have to consult a doctor. And if you do,
you'll have to consult your health plan. And as you know, health
insurance plan is going to be confusing and expensive. Then when you actually have
to use your benefits, there are deductibles. Planes process is another red tape
to deal with. There is a solution. I'm crowd Health. Crowd Health
puts you back in control of your health care and helps you pay for health
expenses. You know, I will talk about the minute I'm on strike.
As a member of the Writer's Guild, I have a very good policy.
Ritter's skilled policy is really really great. But it is absolutely baffling to use
and baffling to understand and even when to frequently ask questions. I'm not even
at that level yet. So I have this great plan and it takes a
day and a half to figure it out. But with crowd Health, there's
a simple, transparent, and affordable solution. As a member of crowd Health,
you'll get a personal care advocate to help navigate the complexities of health events.
Your personal care advocate will even negotiate bills on your behalf. They'll be
with you every step of the way and could save you thousands and health bills
in the process. You'll get access to a crowd of thousands of other members
who are ready to help pay for large health expenses. Forty dollars of your
one hundred and seventy to five dollars monthly payment helps pay for your care advocate,
telemedicine services, discount of prescriptions, and other tools to get you in
the best care at an affordable price. The remainder of the monthly payment goes
into a Crowdhealth account that you own, so that you can help others in
the crowd pay for their medical expenses as well. You can experience healthcare freedom
with Crowdhealth. Join crowdhealth dot com. That's the url. Join crowdhealth dot
com all one word and use to code ricochet at checkout to get your first
three months for just ninety nine dollars a month. That's join crowdhealth dot com
all on word promo code Ricochet. Crowdhealth is not health insurance, but it's
a totally different way of paying for healthcare. Terms and conditions may apply,
and we thank crowdhealth for sponsoring the Ricochet podcast. As I mentioned, I'm
on strike, so Rob, I wanted to make you a guest to talk
about that for a minute because we have a lot of listeners who are interested,
and you know, there you are on the front lines of the supply
chain to one of the most important commodities, which is our entertainment, right
exactly. I mean I know this much about you know, strikes and unions,
just from history, which is they're usually three act plays at least,
right, This was gonna take a while, and if you involve Hollywood people,
it's probably a five act play. And the short sign of this to
me this week was this hilarious story. I thought it was hilarious in the
New York Times called picket Line and Chill by Gena Sorellis, who is the
sex, dating and relationships columnist for the New York Times. You might think
of this as the modern love column meets the Teamsters Union. But it's all
about how the picket lines are becoming a meet up location and for lonely writers
to have been, you know, oppressed by COVID or overworked or whatever.
And it's controversial, of course, it's controversial because people say, well,
here's one line from the story. Some strikers also went online to criticize others
for expressing interest in dating on the picket line, worried it could overshadow the
strike. Apparently these writers aren't able to multitask. But what's the state of
play? When do you make of this crazy scene? Well, I mean,
the the picketing thing is. I mean, eventually there's going to be
a picture of me in some embarrassing posts or the sign looking we're incredibly awkward,
embarrassed because you all have to we all have to pick it. And
I'll feel a little bit appligated to pick it this time because I actually there's
about thirty five or forty percent of everything they're asking for everything we're asking for
I totally agree with. And about another thirty percent that I think, oh,
well, you know if you can get it good. And then there's
thirty percent I think is silly. But you know you don't. You don't
get everything. You know, so y, But like everything else in Hollywood,
there's a there's a component, there's a business component to it, which
was like, where are you going to picket? So I am in New
York, So I have a friend who said, like, let's go the
only the only pick at thirty Rock. That's where all the cameras and celebrities
are. That's gonna be the most fun. Don't go all the way to
um in um you know, Maplewood, New Jersey, where there are a
couple of sound stages and pick it that because don't do that and you want
to pick it. The writers is the best time to picket is early five
thirty before, you know, in the early in the morning. That's because
that's when the teamsters get to work and they can't cross the picket line.
But it was don't picket line. You know most writers like I'll get there
on eleven fifteen, you know, with a coffee and a donut too late.
Um so so. But in LA especially, it's like, you know,
you get to see people you never see because most writers are never you
know, we don't you know, hang out. There's no place for us
all to hang out. And so a lot of people are there, all
the people. A lot of people are there with some very important writers like
show writers and people who do a lot of development. Um uh, you
know, they're younger writers are trying to make friends with the older writers because
you know, they're not supposed to be working, but that doesn't mean they
can't be networking. And then finally there is this kind of like, hey,
we're all you know, like if you're a striking writer and you are
kind of flirting with another striking writer, you both know you're not going to
go someplace expensive for the date, right because you're both claiming to be broke,
so you're already kind of in the same boat, and it's the only
time you get together. The problem with that article, which I read,
was the I mean, I would never recommend to any screenwriter, or probably
any professional writer of any kind, that they become involved romantically with any other
writer or any other screenwriter. It's best to not only have one in the
family at any given time, two is dangerous. Oh so the real opportunity
here is for some cameras to show up and start a reality series of meeting
on the pivot line they already have. Yeah, yeah, I mean the
problem with it, the problem in general, is that everything is the business
has changed so radically like everything else, but um, and that you there's
a there's a whole basket of things that you can ask for that address the
changes in the business and how it will be going forward, But there's also
a whole basket of things that you're asking for that even if you've got everything
you wanted, are still not going to solve those problems. And that is
that is ultimately what the Writers Guild is facing, which will a lot of
a lot of trade unions are faced in the past thirty four years, Like
even if you had everything, the world has changed a lot, and there's
no uh, you know, you're not You're You'll get everything you want on
your list, but you're not gonna get what you really need, which is
a time machine. And I think a lot of these a lot of a
lot of these demands come unto that heading. AI what's agoing to do to
writers? I don't it would be embarrassed as a writer to say they're going
to try to replace me with a robot, like really, you're that bad,
But they will. I don't think some executive some of us is already
saying we don't need these guys. The computers can do this. Here.
I think if you're writing daytime drama right where you're just generating material every day,
and it's a lot of material and a lot of it is just people
announcing things, right, then maybe you could get a little help from AI.
I don't know how. I don't. I don't think AI's written a
joke yet. Maybe look, AI may be able to write a joke,
and if so, hey more power to you. But hey, I could
already handle certain scenes in days of our lives. Yeah, probably, or
at least get you to the outlining phase that you need. I mean,
if, um, here, here's how I really think of it. These
are just tools, right and if you're if you're not good, the tool
is going to kill you. And if you're good, the tool will make
you better. And if you're really good, the tool will give you superpowers.
That's kind of how what I think about it. Maybe I'm a polyenn
optimist, but I genuinely think that that the that I in the right hand.
If you have talent already, the tool will only make it better.
Robotic surgery in the hands of a bad surgeon is not great. Robotic surgery
in the hands of a brilliant surgeon is going to be life saving. Oh
the days I silence you. No, no, no, I'm just I'm
just you. You implicitly compared yourself to a brilliant surgeon. I again,
no running chat GPT for no. I just think that that that the tool
can make people. I mean, I'm I'm I don't think I'll ever have
to worry about it, because I think it's going to happen well into my
retirement age. But um, but I would feel nerve. I would feel
embarrassed to march march around demanding that that the studios cease never replaced me with
a machine. The whole point of what I do is I can't be so
so I'm sorry. I have to ask one more because I do find this
fascinating and maybe maybe on one podcast you would we just make you the guests
and we talk about entertainment. Was so we do know. So computer CGI,
computer graph what is it called? Computer graphics? Generated images? I
think computer generated images transformed the special effects side of the business and eliminated a
lot of jobs. It created some new jobs, but it put into the
hands of computer programmers. What all people who used to build models and to
transform that piece of entertainment? We have that question, will AI transform some
piece of entertainment? Second question, why shouldn't the writers get everything they want?
The big change in Hollywood in the last quarter of a century has been
the arrival of more money, lots more money. It's not just the seven
major studios anymore, and now it's Netflix and Apple and Amazon. And why
the heck shouldn't these guys? I mean, the desire, the need for
content is bigger than it's ever been. This should be a great time to
be a writer. Over to you. In many ways it is a great
time of writer. Writers baking more money, and they're more writers employed.
There's all sorts of things that are great about being a writer. And the
reason why the right I believe the writer skills shouldn't get everything it wants is
because some of the things it wants I think are bad and we'll be add
for writers, right, I think. But there's always a balance in Hollywood
between talent and luck, and people who are successful think they're successful because they're
talented, and people who are not successful, I think those people are successful
because they're lucky, and they're both kind of right. And so what happens
in Hollywood is you're kind of sustained by this idea that if I just stay
one more year, I'm going to get my big break. Every actor feels
that way, every writer feels that way. I'll any small, little little
tidbit of success seems to you to point to the potemic of the future riches
and Oscars and Emmy's and everything. And the business kind of works on that,
because the business kind of works by having this big, big garden where
you kind of can live for a while if your Quentin Tarantino, you work
in a video store for years of all that stuff, right, And it
kind of keeps you on the hook because what if you do come up with
a great idea. We don't want you to come up a great idea and
be living back in Bismarck, South Dakota. Right, I mean not that
that's a bad play, s Court we had a great center from there,
but we want you to have that great idea here where I can hear it
and put it on TV or put it into movies. Oh a quick idea,
maybe, Peter, we ought to hook up a chat GPT to some
kind of voice box and see if it could produce for us a ricochete podcast.
Thank you very much. And now somebody turning them off right now,
this one could be so So the question everyone should be everyone should be focused
on this, which is how do you create right what is the great secret
to the enormous trillion dollar fortunes coming out of palle alto coming out of Silicon
valid It is not capitalism, really, and it is not the benefits of
the people who are risk capitalists and then the brilliant of venture capitalists. It
is a nonprofit organization organizations Stanford University, cow places like that that support kind
of water the garden and create the opportunities, and the federal government creating DARPA
and DARPA net creating the opportunities for great um innovation. And that is what
the entertainment business should be trying to create. What how can we quasi subsidize
a little bit this idea factory that we have and that because that's they don't
think that way, they're going to step. They're stepping on their own host,
which I think is a real problem. And that so whether the writers
are correct and everything they want or not, I think it is time for
there to be a rethinking of of the way show business conducted. I mean,
look, all these guys got big into the streaming business thinking there's the
solution without once stopping to think about how this is how this was potentially the
dumbest thing they could ever do, which is what they did, and they
did so because they were they were absolutely encouraged to do that by Wall Street
saying well, what is your streaming plan? Because you look at Netflix,
what is your streaming plan? And what they should have said was, let's
let Netflix just spend all the money and die, right and just see what
happens. Right. Netflix is putin where are the Ukraine, Let's let's let's
see how smart they really are and if they run out of money, which
they have, right, So all sorts of like complicated things here. Um.
The problem is that it ultimately comes down to some perception of talent and
some kind of luck and you can pick it all day and not get any
closer to those two things. So uh. And in terms of chat,
GPT and AI, the people who really should be worried about it are journalists
nonfiction writers. Those are the people who need to be thinking, because those
people can be replaced, most of them can be replaced by a by an
unbiased machine if they ever come up with one, right right, right right,
mister Peabody's way back machine. Now, now what we need is the
unbiased machine exactly right, exactly right, which they which we would not need.
By the way, if we believe that our journalism was unbiased, right,
the journalism created the opportunity. Now, speaking of opportunity, if you've
enjoyed this as comes to you from Ricochet and the Ricochet Network of podcasts,
please check us out richet dot com. We'd love you for to join Ricochet.
But even if you just think I'm never going to join Ricochet, come
to the tom anyway and see all the podcasts that we offer and subscribe,
and if you do join, which we hope you do, you'll get to
join us at the meetups. The meetups are where members get together. They're
fun and more than that, it's like kind of your duty as a American
citizen to meet up with the other like minded, smart, funny, interesting
American citizens. And by the way, if you ever want to make change
in this country, you got to meet face to face. And this week
we got a bunch of meeting meetup inquiries. Western Chauvinist has inquired about members
in the UK. She's gonna be around London Cornwall at the end of the
month, So get online and if you're for the UK or you're around there,
you're gonna be there. Let us know, let her know. Tory
War Writer is back and hoping to meet members in and around Columbus, Ohio
in late June. Randy has another meetup set up. He did the New
Orleans meet up is Fantastics. Another one set up for Winston Salem mid July.
Matt Baser's asking for OURSPPS for the annual German Fest meetup in Milwaukee.
That's the last weekend in July, so we'd love to see one of these
joint Mika Shay come and if you if you're like, well, I'm not
around the summer, well join Ricochet put up a post how about somewhere closer
to you at a time you can make it. Ricochet members will show up.
That's what they do. Um, this has been a great I mean
we were sort of run out of time, so I'll just say thanks guys,
thanks for joining us. Podcasts brought to you by crowd Health. Support
them by supporting us, or support them for supporting us and join Ricochet.
Take a minute if you have a chance to leave a five star review and
Apple podcast. Your review allows me listeners to discover us. That's how the
algorithm works, helps keep this show and other shows going. Um, Steve,
anything you want to say, you sat in you you did a great
job. Enough damage already. He just said you got to host, so
I didn't have to try to do those Schrodegger's cat like sponsor segues that James
does. Oh man, they're the hardest. Yes, I purposely um mess
them up because I figure it's better for me to do a D minus version
than a B minus version. You know what I mean? Oh yeah,
that's true, that's true, Steve. Steve, thank you though you were
wonderful until you were suddenly terrible job. It's true about life. It's true
about life. Hey, fellas, thanks for being here. See you soon.
Next week, Ricochet joined the conversation