Speaker 1: Hudson River Radio dot com. It beats listening to nothing.
Speaker 2: Oh my godness, being Frank fright, where the only way
Speaker 2: to be is Frank. Hello everyone, and welcome to being Frank.
Speaker 2: We're the only way to be is Frank. I'm your host,
Speaker 2: Franklin Bono, and I'd like to thank you for joining
Speaker 2: us on what we like to call the Intelligent Conversation podcast,
Speaker 2: where no conversation is out of bounds and all points
Speaker 2: of view are welcome. Of course, we go live to tape.
Speaker 2: I give you the date so you have some relevance
Speaker 2: and context. It's the eleventh of February. On September seventeenth,
Speaker 2: seventeen eighty seven, at the Constitutional Convention in Independence Hall,
Speaker 2: doctor Benjamin Franklin was scheduled to address the delegates. As
Speaker 2: he was ill that day, he submitted a prepared speech
Speaker 2: to be read instead. Within it, he wrote these words
Speaker 2: in these sentiments, sir, I agree with this Constitution with
Speaker 2: all its faults, if they are such, because I think
Speaker 2: a general government necessary for us, and there is no
Speaker 2: form of government, but what may be a blessing to
Speaker 2: the people if well administered. And believe further that this
Speaker 2: is likely to be well administered for a course of years,
Speaker 2: and can only end in despotism, as other forms have
Speaker 2: done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted
Speaker 2: as to need despotic government. Obviously, this is stern and
Speaker 2: warning to future generations of Americans considering the so called
Speaker 2: liberties the current administration under Donald J. Trump is taking
Speaker 2: with our constitution. That warning may have never been more
Speaker 2: important than it is right now. Mister Trump and his
Speaker 2: minions are running roughshot over every aspect of our federal
Speaker 2: government under the guise of sweeping reform, despite the obvious
Speaker 2: chaos and carnage it is creating. But what is truly
Speaker 2: baffling to me is that polls show that a majority
Speaker 2: of Americans still support his agenda despite significant opposition. His
Speaker 2: popularity has never been higher. As a proud member of
Speaker 2: that significant opposition I just mentioned, I intend to find
Speaker 2: ways of creating nonviolent resistance to a movement that, in
Speaker 2: the end will rob us of the very freedom we
Speaker 2: hold so near. I have asked a great friend with
Speaker 2: similar sentiments in a Washington inside his view to help
Speaker 2: give us his unique perspective on the workings of government
Speaker 2: and the dangers of the unhinged decisions currently being made
Speaker 2: even as we speak. Jim Lyons, like me, grew up
Speaker 2: in a family who believed in public service and the
Speaker 2: value of helping others and serving the needs of their
Speaker 2: fellow citizens. After graduating from Rutgers, Jim attended Yale School
Speaker 2: of Forestry and Environmental Studies. He went on to work
Speaker 2: for the West Fish and Wildlife Service the Society of
Speaker 2: American Foresters, which led to a staff job with the
Speaker 2: House Committee on Agriculture. He went on to serve as
Speaker 2: an assistant secretary in the Department of Agriculture for President
Speaker 2: Clinton and later in the Department of Interior for President Obama.
Speaker 2: He has also worked on international issues related to poverty
Speaker 2: and climate change for Oxfam and taught environmental policy at Yale. Jim,
Speaker 2: welcome back. You've been here before, my friend, welcome again.
Speaker 1: Well, thanks, Frank, it's great to join you. Very very
Speaker 1: important time for us to have this conversation.
Speaker 2: I'm very serious about what I said. I mean, this
Speaker 2: is such a fluent situation as we speak. Changes are
Speaker 2: being made, and not necessarily for the better. Let's talk
Speaker 2: about that. And since I mentioned the Constitution in my introduction,
Speaker 2: let's start there. Okay, you have always seen a balance.
Speaker 2: You worked within a balance of government. That was the
Speaker 2: whole idea behind the formation of this government by the
Speaker 2: so called Founding Fathers, that there.
Speaker 1: Would be a balance of power.
Speaker 2: But you see this administration as destroying that balance.
Speaker 1: Let's address that well. In my time and govern both
Speaker 1: inside the Congress and as well as working for three presidents,
Speaker 1: there was always a dynamic tension and differences of opinion
Speaker 1: about different policies, different programs and approaches. That was that
Speaker 1: was not unique. I would say that things began to
Speaker 1: change under the newt Gingrich when he assumed a leadership
Speaker 1: role in the House. Mister Gingrich was more more willing
Speaker 1: to take off the gloves and and argued vehemently for
Speaker 1: his points of view, which is part of what the
Speaker 1: give and take needs to be in in any dialogue
Speaker 1: between people trying to get to an outcome that but
Speaker 1: maybe starting from different points of view. But things continued
Speaker 1: after that point in time, and as the Republicans ultimately
Speaker 1: took over the Congress, things became even more challenged. That
Speaker 1: occurred while I was working for President Clinton. I think
Speaker 1: we saw more arguments, more vehemence, more threats than than
Speaker 1: I had seen in in my previous tenure and working
Speaker 1: with people on Capitol Hill, and obviously, you know, we
Speaker 1: face something like that today. You know, the the current
Speaker 1: president UH certainly believes in taking the gloves off, certainly
Speaker 1: does not believe my impression in tradition or comedy, although
Speaker 1: what he's doing sometimes is comedic, I mean comedy in
Speaker 1: a different way, and and certainly is strident in in
Speaker 1: how he's approached governing the second time around, helped by
Speaker 1: the Heritage Foundation, which put together a long, detail filled
Speaker 1: almost cookbook for how to change government to meet the
Speaker 1: needs of the ultra conservatives that are on the board
Speaker 1: of the Heritage Foundation. It's just a very different time,
Speaker 1: and I believe not beneficial for America. Certainly not beneficial
Speaker 1: for American citizens who really rely on their representatives to
Speaker 1: help government move forward in a positive way, meeting the
Speaker 1: needs of all Americans, not just you know, one side
Speaker 1: or the other. But this is a very different time.
Speaker 2: Let me jump in there, Jim, because I think we
Speaker 2: can make a good point about the workings of government.
Speaker 2: You know, we see it. Those of us who are
Speaker 2: not in government see it from a distance. You were within.
Speaker 2: So the workings have explained how there's this huge workforce.
Speaker 2: I mean, if you look at as a company, there
Speaker 2: are millions of employees. So take us with in that.
Speaker 2: You know how it works because it's kind of a
Speaker 2: different environment, because it's politically charged. We know that. But
Speaker 2: yet at the same time you have a job to do.
Speaker 2: How does that all work out?
Speaker 1: Well, let me just correct one thing you said, which
Speaker 1: may be misinterpreted. I shouldn't say correct what you said,
Speaker 1: but of course you know. My first position in government
Speaker 1: was as a civil servant working for the US Fish
Speaker 1: and Wildlife Service. It was a staff position, it was
Speaker 1: not a political position in any way, shape or form,
Speaker 1: and I was charged with helping to put together a
Speaker 1: national survey for the first time to understand Americans views
Speaker 1: and attitudes towards wildlife and the environment, and in particular
Speaker 1: how Americans used wildlife used, meaning everything from backyard bird
Speaker 1: feeding and bird watching to hunting and fishing and the like.
Speaker 1: That report was known as nineteen eighty Survey of Fishing, Hunting,
Speaker 1: and Wildlife as Social Recreation. Was a landmark report in
Speaker 1: that it opened up the eyes of millions of Americans
Speaker 1: as well as the outdoor recreation industry to the economic
Speaker 1: opportunities associated with wildlife viewing, fishing, hunting, and the like.
Speaker 1: It was probably the most popular thing I ever produced.
Speaker 1: We had fifty individual state reports and it was transformative.
Speaker 1: What we called in the survey trips to visit wildlife
Speaker 1: we now referred to as ecotourism. Back in nineteen eighty,
Speaker 1: believe it or not, five hundred million dollars was spent
Speaker 1: on bird seed and the bird seed industry exploded when
Speaker 1: that information came out. People were enjoying backyard wildlife. Obviously
Speaker 1: people were enjoying hunting and fishing. But this was a
Speaker 1: government service and we were trying to provide information to
Speaker 1: the public and to the different industries that were interested
Speaker 1: in the outdoors, fishing, wildlife and the like. Information that
Speaker 1: helped them think about how they could grow their businesses,
Speaker 1: how they could better serve the public, and how they
Speaker 1: might change the way people viewed fish and wildlife not
Speaker 1: just for sport, but for enjoyment and also part of
Speaker 1: understanding the health of our environment as populations of different
Speaker 1: species changed. So that was my job and it was exciting.
Speaker 1: I got exposed to a lot of interesting people. I
Speaker 1: was working for Jimmy Carter, ultimately and the Secretary of
Speaker 1: the Interior where fish widlife Services was headed by a
Speaker 1: gentleman named Cecil Andrews, who was governor had been governor
Speaker 1: of Idaho, and somewhat ironically, though to my enjoyment, I
Speaker 1: ended up serving on a board for a nonprofit organization
Speaker 1: in Idaho with former Governor Andrews, and it was it
Speaker 1: was delight. He was. He was a politician who knew
Speaker 1: how to work in the realm of politics to get
Speaker 1: things done. And one of his greatest accomplishments was protecting
Speaker 1: Southeast Alaska, which at the time in nineteen eighty was
Speaker 1: kind of up for grabs, timber industry, fishing community, some
Speaker 1: people interested in out the recreation, you know, the native
Speaker 1: culture up there threatened by development. And he did his
Speaker 1: job as secretarviy Interior, working with a huge group of
Speaker 1: people who had expertise in many fields to reach a
Speaker 1: compromise and get this done. That might assume he was
Speaker 1: a Republican, No, Susus Andrews was a Democrat. He was
Speaker 1: a Iidaho Yeah, which animal these days, for he may
Speaker 1: have been the last Democrat in Idaho, but but a
Speaker 1: very active governor and a very effective public servant in
Speaker 1: the Corn administration.
Speaker 2: Let's talk about the mindset as a question a little
Speaker 2: further on, but as things roll and I'd like to
Speaker 2: be flexible, it's let's bring it up.
Speaker 1: Now, Okay.
Speaker 2: The difference in the ethos if you will, the zeitgeide Geist,
Speaker 2: the philosophy of the parties Democrats Republicans, where Democrats seem certainly,
Speaker 2: at least on the surface, to be more aware if
Speaker 2: you will, of quality of life issues like the environment, etc.
Speaker 2: And every time they try to do reasonable things like
Speaker 2: you're mentioning things that are associated with a software approach,
Speaker 2: if you will, the environment, but doesn't necessarily have to
Speaker 2: be it can be the revenue generating. It seems like
Speaker 2: the Republicans just have a refusal to see it that
Speaker 2: way and any light presented to them.
Speaker 1: Your thoughts, Well, my sense and I actually had a
Speaker 1: We had a former classmate in Fort Lee High School
Speaker 1: who worked for the Heritage Foundation. His name was j. Cousminski.
Speaker 1: Do you remember Jay Sure and he was an ultraliberal
Speaker 1: in high school. Well, boy, did he turn around and
Speaker 1: became quite the conservative working for the Heritage Foundation, which
Speaker 1: we learned, of course at at a reunion anyway, The
Speaker 1: Heritage Foundation, I think, believes that the private sector and
Speaker 1: not the public sector, should kind of direct policy, dictate outcomes,
Speaker 1: and government is best is a government that's least, as
Speaker 1: the saying goes. And so as you look at the
Speaker 1: Heritage Foundation's report prepared in anticipation of this election, you
Speaker 1: know it pretty much laid out the blueprint or the
Speaker 1: playbook for what our new president is doing in terms
Speaker 1: of dismantling pieces of government, transferring roles and response abilities
Speaker 1: to the private sector, and really trying to minimize I
Speaker 1: think the extent to which the government has a role,
Speaker 1: whether it's in protecting the environment, public health and safety,
Speaker 1: law enforcement.
Speaker 2: And jump let me jump in and play the devil's
Speaker 2: advocate again because mentioning his popularity, and he can say, hey,
Speaker 2: I ran on this. This is not a surprise. People
Speaker 2: seem to be accepting it. Should they? Is government too big?
Speaker 2: Is there this huge abundance of waste? Is he and
Speaker 2: again I'm playing the devil's advocate. Is he addressing issues
Speaker 2: that needed to be addressed? I think he's doing with
Speaker 2: a sledgehammer, when certainly a scalpeld might do. But we
Speaker 2: need your thoughts, because like you, I've not been there directly.
Speaker 1: You have, well, I think I think the perceptions the
Speaker 1: public have of government reflect the lack of understanding really
Speaker 1: of what government is, what it does. Who are the
Speaker 1: people who are engaged in government. I mean they are
Speaker 1: people like me. There are people we know. There are
Speaker 1: people with expertise. I mean, you know PhD doctors who
Speaker 1: are helping to kind of find cures for cancer. A
Speaker 1: government function. You know, they are military leaders. You know
Speaker 1: kids you know from our neighborhoods who kind of work
Speaker 1: their way up the ranks and h and found themselves
Speaker 1: in leadership positions. I mean, you know, they The government
Speaker 1: covers you know, public safety, transportation, building roads and bridges,
Speaker 1: helping promote rural development, and infrastructure plays a critical role
Speaker 1: in agriculture because agriculture is heavily dependent on ships and markets,
Speaker 1: and and you know what, what happens on the world
Speaker 1: stage sometimes means that it's necessary to help subsidize some
Speaker 1: farmers to make sure that they can continue to farm
Speaker 1: because his market shift, they'll come back into play. I mean,
Speaker 1: government affects people's lives in many, many different ways, oftentimes
Speaker 1: not well understood. Yet It is interesting that many people
Speaker 1: in government, many people in the public, seem to think
Speaker 1: government is something evil. And maybe maybe it's because people
Speaker 1: don't really understand the role the government plays. And as
Speaker 1: I said, and everything from health and safety to securing
Speaker 1: our retirement incomes. Social security is a great example, and
Speaker 1: you know Medicare and the healthcare system that frankly only
Speaker 1: became law because of the vote of one man, a
Speaker 1: Republican senator from Arizona.
Speaker 2: You know, you brought up a good point that I
Speaker 2: think we need to elaborate on a little bit. Just
Speaker 2: before we started recording, I was watching a little of
Speaker 2: CNN in the background, and there was a very interesting
Speaker 2: report a farmer from I believe Missouri, and they were
Speaker 2: they anchor at CNN was interviewing one of the senators
Speaker 2: from Missouri, who, of course a Republican, is supporting the
Speaker 2: whole Trump agenda. And the point being that the farmer
Speaker 2: explained that when Trump stopped all payments from us AID, okay,
Speaker 2: because why are we giving food to foreigners we need
Speaker 2: it here, et cetera, et cetera. Whatever excuse he did give,
Speaker 2: he didn't realize that us AID okay, this farmer was
Speaker 2: selling enormous amounts of grain under contract which was now canceled. So,
Speaker 2: as you said, as the market fluctuates, his market is
Speaker 2: at this point gone and he doesn't know what he
Speaker 2: will do to replace it. So here again is this
Speaker 2: thoughtlessness in a bigger picture thing where there's a rush to, oh, yeah,
Speaker 2: why are we helping people? And we should be helping
Speaker 2: ourselves because in helping other people, we are helping ourselves.
Speaker 1: Speak to that, well, yes, we are helping ourselves in
Speaker 1: so many different ways. This has already been kind of
Speaker 1: part of the debate in the early tenure of UH,
Speaker 1: you know, of the new Trump administration cutting off foreign aid,
Speaker 1: in fact seeking to eliminate the Agency for International Development AID. UH.
Speaker 1: People fail to realize that, you know, we provide a
Speaker 1: great deal of support and assistance to other countries, to
Speaker 1: communities in you know, sometimes in poverty, but that aid
Speaker 1: you know, helped keep them alive, helps feed their families,
Speaker 1: you know, helps them stay healthy, and and the relationship
Speaker 1: they develop with the United States, more often than not,
Speaker 1: not the stuff you see on TV, which is always
Speaker 1: looking for conflict to highlight, the relationship they develop has
Speaker 1: a huge, huge impact on their quality of life. And
Speaker 1: their wellbeing and my experience in the time I worked
Speaker 1: for oxfand demonstrated that, you know, people really really appreciated that.
Speaker 1: If I could have been to offer one example, please
Speaker 1: do that I think is relevant. So OXFAM there's a
Speaker 1: lot of work around the world, but one of the
Speaker 1: particular areas that we focused on for period of time
Speaker 1: was was in Ethiopia and that portion of Africa which
Speaker 1: is known for producing high quality coffees. And if you've
Speaker 1: ever if everyone a good cup of coffee, find a
Speaker 1: little Ethiopian coffee shop and it's remarkable the coffee they
Speaker 1: grow there.
Speaker 2: Well.
Speaker 1: Uh, OXFAM supported many coffee growers in that area, and
Speaker 1: again that was a way to ensure that they had
Speaker 1: income and they could be sustained, their families were secure,
Speaker 1: so you know, provided kind of a stable environment, which
Speaker 1: was beneficial to them obviously, but to us as well,
Speaker 1: because instability breeds contempt and that breeds, uh, you know,
Speaker 1: the threat of insurrection or the threat of you know, takeover.
Speaker 1: And this is one of the critical roles at a
Speaker 1: I D plays. But but here's here's here's the critical
Speaker 1: role that OXVAN played. So at a certain point in time,
Speaker 1: Starbucks and the the head of Starbucks at the time
Speaker 1: wanted wanted to promote more production of these fine, high
Speaker 1: quality coffees in Ethiopia, but weren't willing to pay much
Speaker 1: more for that for that production. And ox Van, given
Speaker 1: its role in trying to address global poverty and and
Speaker 1: and in essence helped support you know, more certainty and
Speaker 1: sustainability for these communities, stepped in. I happened to be
Speaker 1: the vice president for policy at the time, and took on,
Speaker 1: took on Starbucks and and we actually went to a
Speaker 1: Starbucks a directors meeting, shareholders meeting in Seattle, and I
Speaker 1: had a chance to speak briefly and took on, you know,
Speaker 1: the president's CEO of Starbucks made you know, and passion
Speaker 1: plea for the fact that Starbucks was undercutting these farmers
Speaker 1: who were producing some of the highest quality coffees that
Speaker 1: Starbucks had to offer. They were undercutting themselves, and they
Speaker 1: were undercutting the stability and ultimately democracy in that area.
Speaker 1: I won't go into any more detail, but suffice it
Speaker 1: to say that a few board members on the Starbucks board,
Speaker 1: including former basketball star and Senator from New Jersey Bill Bradley,
Speaker 1: apparently I was told had a conversation with the head
Speaker 1: of Starbucks at the time and suggested that maybe they
Speaker 1: were going in the wrong direction with regard to their
Speaker 1: relationship to these farmers. And lo and behold, Starbucks changed
Speaker 1: their business model and they started going to Ethiopia and
Speaker 1: other parts of the African continent and helping these farmers.
Speaker 1: Helped improve their production, the quality of the beans they
Speaker 1: were producing, and their ability to market those beans so
Speaker 1: that they could realize better incomes and greater stability in
Speaker 1: their community. I mean, that's what international assistance does. And
Speaker 1: I can tell you that the US government used to
Speaker 1: provide some support for OXFAM, although I can tell you
Speaker 1: that as the transition was occurring in Congress and more
Speaker 1: Republicans were stepping into leadership roles, I testified on behalf
Speaker 1: of OXFAM requesting additional support for foreign aid, and I
Speaker 1: kind of got my head handed to me because the
Speaker 1: people stepping up into these leadership roles did not see
Speaker 1: this connection between our security and the security of these
Speaker 1: people in Ethiopia.
Speaker 2: Jim, this might be a rhetorical question. Why, I mean,
Speaker 2: for the for the rational, compassionate mind, the conscientious mind,
Speaker 2: say it's a win win situation. They get some, we
Speaker 2: get some. Everybody's happened in the end, what's the issue
Speaker 2: with that? Like, again, maybe it's rhetorical, but why, what's
Speaker 2: the rational Well, I.
Speaker 1: Think the challenge for some of the senators who spoke
Speaker 1: up was they needed to be seen wanted to be
Speaker 1: seen as supporting America first. And this is money that
Speaker 1: was going to, you know, to farmers in a foreign country.
Speaker 1: Not that they were that they were US farmers producing
Speaker 1: coffee that competed with them, but you know, going to
Speaker 1: another country and there could have been money that could
Speaker 1: have gone to you know, American farmers. So they failed
Speaker 1: to see that, you know that that critical connection. It
Speaker 1: wasn't a huge amount of money relatively speaking, but you know,
Speaker 1: it probably helped stave off you know, the kindind of
Speaker 1: upset and uh instability that we see in that part
Speaker 1: of the world now. And you know, I think played
Speaker 1: a very very important role. It's not to say that
Speaker 1: you know, Americans, American agriculture doesn't need support. It does.
Speaker 1: American agriculture benefits from the work that the US Department
Speaker 1: Agriculture provides. I worked at us DA, you know, during
Speaker 1: the not the Obama administration, during the Clinton administration and
Speaker 1: and we worked very closely with people in American agriculture
Speaker 1: to help them secure their farms, produce soil erosion and
Speaker 1: loss of you know, you know, of the landscapes that
Speaker 1: they needed to produce the crops they were producing. We
Speaker 1: worked with them in a whole host of ways. I
Speaker 1: didn't see a conflict between you know, providing some support
Speaker 1: for farm producers or coffee and providing funding to support
Speaker 1: and protect American farmlands and wetlands and the wildlife associated
Speaker 1: with that. Seemed to me it went hand in hand,
Speaker 1: but they don't have to be. There was some rhetorical
Speaker 1: pushback on that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, Jim, I want to talk you and I also
Speaker 2: worked for a huge corporation for twenty years when I
Speaker 2: was at CBS, and you and the government and DEI
Speaker 2: played an important role in both of those corporations diversity,
Speaker 2: equity and inclusion, which I always saw overall as a
Speaker 2: positive thing. But the mindset seems to be changing for
Speaker 2: some reason. Again, your thoughts on that. Having been exposed
Speaker 2: to the best of it, and yet people seem to
Speaker 2: choose to look at the worst of it, why.
Speaker 1: Well, you know, it's it's hard to address that I
Speaker 1: think we all, all Americans probably have families that have
Speaker 1: a i'll say diverse view on DEI. You know, the
Speaker 1: more recent emphasis on DEI, I would say of the
Speaker 1: last fifteen twenty years, you know, kind of led to
Speaker 1: a flare up, and you know it was exacerbated by
Speaker 1: sex change operations, and maybe the highlight was, you know,
Speaker 1: what were former men competing against women in swimming in
Speaker 1: other pursuits. You know, I understand that upset and I
Speaker 1: think people, you know, could find ways to address that issue.
Speaker 1: But you know, it's it's it's become a lightning rod.
Speaker 1: I think because people feel friends, they feel like they're
Speaker 1: not going to get resources, or they're going to have
Speaker 1: to deal with someone you know, who was who was
Speaker 1: a man you know, six months ago and is a
Speaker 1: woman today. Perhaps I don't believe. I grew up in
Speaker 1: a liberal family, believe me, you know, policemen and firemen
Speaker 1: and carpenters. But you know, it doesn't upset me as
Speaker 1: much as it seems to upset a lot of other people.
Speaker 1: And and that the issues athletics, for example, can be addressed.
Speaker 1: But you know, President Trump has seized on this and
Speaker 1: used it as a as a you know, as a cudgel,
Speaker 1: you know, to to amplify you know, the divisions, uh,
Speaker 1: you know, in in American society. And it's really really
Speaker 1: I think unfortunate. You can have your own view of
Speaker 1: the I but you know, I think, you know, America
Speaker 1: should support h as many people as we can. You know,
Speaker 1: for many, many years we doubled the issue of racism.
Speaker 1: We still deal with it today, you know, but we've
Speaker 1: we found a way through that. And and I think
Speaker 1: we just need to sit down and have conversations about
Speaker 1: find our way through these other difficult issues because it's
Speaker 1: it's you know, there's an old saying in diversity is stability.
Speaker 1: I think that applies to the United States and politics
Speaker 1: as well.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think people have to stop looking at it
Speaker 2: as a situation of a handout and more of a
Speaker 2: hand up. If we help each other along the way,
Speaker 2: we can get somewhere. And that was always the spirit
Speaker 2: of it. Why that got perverted? I have no idea, Jim.
Speaker 2: I want to shift gears a little bit too, to
Speaker 2: go truly into one of your specialties, which is the environment.
Speaker 2: And you must be mortified by Trump's decisions regarding drilling
Speaker 2: water rights fracking of public lands and space. I mean,
Speaker 2: they'll show a beautiful picture of a pristine Alaskan wilderness
Speaker 2: and with the idea that, oh, this is perfect for drilling,
Speaker 2: and people go for it. It's been sold as necessary.
Speaker 2: That's got to make someone like you, who so realizes
Speaker 2: the importance of open space in such a broad sense,
Speaker 2: that's got to be anathema to you.
Speaker 1: It's even simpler than that. I mean, it is not necessary.
Speaker 1: I mean, Americans, I doubt realize that the United States
Speaker 1: is a net exporter of petroleum products of gasoline, et cetera.
Speaker 1: And so it's not like, you know, we're desperate for
Speaker 1: uh and and need access to every drop of oil
Speaker 1: and uh, you know, every cubic feet of gas that
Speaker 1: we can access. I mean, I think the oil and
Speaker 1: gas industry has used this effectively to kind of get
Speaker 1: what they wish in terms of access to lands and resources.
Speaker 1: But in my role in the Obama administration working with
Speaker 1: the Bureau of Land Management in the Department of Interior,
Speaker 1: you know, I worked on issues affecting the protection of
Speaker 1: natural resources and oil and gas across the West. You know,
Speaker 1: there was a there's a species of birds that that
Speaker 1: is threatened across the western landscapes. And the bird just
Speaker 1: happens to like to nest in places where oil and
Speaker 1: gas people like to drill as well. And over two
Speaker 1: and a half years, we worked very closely with the
Speaker 1: western governors, We worked with wildlife biologists, we work with
Speaker 1: the you know, conservation community, to try to find some
Speaker 1: compromise to protect the greatest age grouse, which is what
Speaker 1: the species is, that's that's threatened, and and and a
Speaker 1: compromise was struck, which hopefully will stand. It was completed
Speaker 1: after I left office. But you know, it provided a
Speaker 1: means to conserve a species while allowing you know, oil
Speaker 1: and gas to continue to be produced. It's unfortunate that,
Speaker 1: you know, mister Trump, excuse me, President Trump, you know, uh,
Speaker 1: likes to say drill, baby, drill and promote oil and
Speaker 1: gas production as if you know that's going to benefit Americans,
Speaker 1: as if it's going to bring you know, prices for
Speaker 1: oil and gas way way down, not if we keep exporting.
Speaker 1: It isn't. If he wants to reduce the prices for
Speaker 1: oil and gas for Americans, he should put he should
Speaker 1: put a cap on exports. He's not going to do that.
Speaker 1: That goes without saying because some of his biggest funders
Speaker 1: for his campaign from the oil and gas industry. But
Speaker 1: you know, this is a classic example of, you know,
Speaker 1: of an issue that can be resolved if reasonable people
Speaker 1: are willing to sit down, work together to address these
Speaker 1: issues instead of misrepresent them and and kind of inflate
Speaker 1: the anger that need not be there. And and you know,
Speaker 1: this is Trump's specialty. Excuse me, this is the President's specialty.
Speaker 1: And you know we saw it in New York, you
Speaker 1: and I did growing up in that area, you know,
Speaker 1: and uh, you know, it's unfortunate that you know, now
Speaker 1: many many more Americans are going to be exposed to this.
Speaker 1: I mean, you know, we are. We're in a great
Speaker 1: position in the United States. And I think our democracy
Speaker 1: works well when people are willing to sit down and
Speaker 1: work together. And I've had many experiences in doing so
Speaker 1: and achieving outcomes that that I hope will continue to last.
Speaker 1: That there were a function of dialogue, discussion, you know,
Speaker 1: and compromise, not retribution.
Speaker 2: You know, Jim, you and I are both fort Lee kids,
Speaker 2: as we say, fort Lee f A W T kids,
Speaker 2: And uh so we're we're at a time we're no
Speaker 2: strangers to to the organized crime model. We knew had
Speaker 2: friends whose whose families were involved in it, so we
Speaker 2: were kind of around it. And uh, I see start
Speaker 2: similarities between what's going on at the topest echelons of
Speaker 2: our government being run as a criminal enterprise. It's absolutely amazing.
Speaker 2: I want so, you know, and it's interesting to see.
Speaker 2: And we were talking a little bit about it before
Speaker 2: we came to record. It similarly reminds me of like
Speaker 2: Tony Soprano or Vito Corleone, these powerful and somewhat evil men,
Speaker 2: but yet are somehow respected because they're seen as powerful
Speaker 2: and strong and yet somehow honorable and doing so, they
Speaker 2: really missed the point. There is no honor there ultimately,
Speaker 2: So some of your thoughts, they said, you know, you
Speaker 2: and I being around and especially for someone like me
Speaker 2: who is Sicilian and sometimes people and you talk about
Speaker 2: being stereotyped. The first thing that ask me is like, oh, yeah,
Speaker 2: who in New York family is the mafia? And I'll
Speaker 2: immediately say no one, because we're proud of denying that.
Speaker 2: Yet there are people there who seem value in what's
Speaker 2: happening in the so called strong arm arm tactics.
Speaker 1: Your thoughts. Well, I, you know, I can only say
Speaker 1: that in many respects, it seems to me that the
Speaker 1: first steps taken by President Trump are more reflective of
Speaker 1: a dawn of a leader of you know, or an
Speaker 1: organized crime syndicate than uh than the leader of a democracy.
Speaker 1: You know, basically shutting people down, you know, telling them
Speaker 1: not to report to work, You're telling them he's going
Speaker 1: to fire them all, threatening them basically, as opposed to
Speaker 1: trying to understand what value they bring to the table,
Speaker 1: how they help Americans, how they can improve the extent
Speaker 1: to which they help the Americans. Yes, maybe you know,
Speaker 1: some people need to retire. Maybe there are you know,
Speaker 1: circumstances where you could reduce the size of an organization
Speaker 1: but continue to realize the benefits of that organization, as
Speaker 1: opposed to, you know, threatening not only Americans, but threatening
Speaker 1: other countries. You know, let's how about Greenland? Oh, why
Speaker 1: do we make Canada the fifty first state? I mean
Speaker 1: cot there. It's hard hard to imagine that a president
Speaker 1: of the United States feels compelled to act this way,
Speaker 1: and of course he is, so I don't even know
Speaker 1: what the word is. So twisted the views and attitudes
Speaker 1: of his Republican colleagues in the Congress that they're afraid
Speaker 1: the question in any of the moves he makes, and
Speaker 1: add to that bringing in, you know, a private citizen.
Speaker 2: Perfectly, I want you to address that, because in your mind,
Speaker 2: that's you think, one of the biggest threats facing us
Speaker 2: today and outside a citizen I e. Elon Musk looking
Speaker 2: into our private information being given access, it's virtually any
Speaker 2: information he wants.
Speaker 1: So well, let me let me be clear. You know,
Speaker 1: the government has always brought private individuals in as consultants
Speaker 1: to help, you know, and that's true for people from
Speaker 1: the private sector, certainly true for people from academia or
Speaker 1: private citizens to work for the governor government and then
Speaker 1: and they can be exceeded exceedingly helpful. But you know,
Speaker 1: they're not handed the keys to the bank and told
Speaker 1: go at it. You know, they're not authorized to shut
Speaker 1: down entire agencies or departments, and they're certainly not authorized
Speaker 1: to threaten people, you know, if they don't, you know,
Speaker 1: agree to retire or leave the leave the agency, the
Speaker 1: organization from whom they work. This is it's it's more
Speaker 1: than absurd. It is incredibly threatening, not just to the
Speaker 1: people who are impacted. Who are you know, my God,
Speaker 1: have no idea whether they should take a buy out,
Speaker 1: whether they shouldn't you know, whether or not, you know,
Speaker 1: their retirement is going to be secure, you know, and
Speaker 1: have no place to go. The fact that they that
Speaker 1: they work for the government is not a sin, you know,
Speaker 1: it's not punishable by death, though one would think so
Speaker 1: by the way the Trump people are treating these these people,
Speaker 1: these are public servants, and they're called public servants because
Speaker 1: their job is to help the public, whether it's help
Speaker 1: them manage their money, help them, you know, understand how
Speaker 1: to you know, better access health care and support, or
Speaker 1: you know, whether it's how to improve their farm operations.
Speaker 1: I mean, you know, the fact that these people government
Speaker 1: servants are treated like dirt is disgusting. I'll just say that.
Speaker 1: And I was a government servant. I understand that. And
Speaker 1: you know, and I know many people who elected to
Speaker 1: work for government because they wanted to help people and
Speaker 1: serve people.
Speaker 2: They've more money working elsewhere, often, oh many of them,
Speaker 2: many of them.
Speaker 1: Instead, we bring the richest man in the world in.
Speaker 1: We give him the keys to the safe basically and
Speaker 1: access to this to the financial information of all of us,
Speaker 1: including you and me, you know, without any sideboards. I mean,
Speaker 1: what the hell is going on here? And you know,
Speaker 1: I just worry that the consequences, you know, for the
Speaker 1: rest of us will be dire. It certainly increases my
Speaker 1: angst and uncertainty about what I should do with my
Speaker 1: retirement account, what I should do with my fine isn't
Speaker 1: funding Where the hell is that money going to go?
Speaker 1: And why is Elon Musk, the richest man in the world,
Speaker 1: allowed to make the decision for himself. He's the richest
Speaker 1: man in the world. That's great, but we're not like him. Well,
Speaker 1: and you know, we have other considerations, not just how
Speaker 1: much money we have in our piggy bank.
Speaker 2: We're going to take a break in a second, but
Speaker 2: I want people to ponder this. I thought of something,
Speaker 2: what approximately three hundred and fifty million people in the
Speaker 2: country inclusive, approximately, if Elon Musk were to give every person,
Speaker 2: not only every family, every person in this country a
Speaker 2: million dollars, he'd still be the richest man in the world. So,
Speaker 2: you know, fathom man. Yet yet he's going in working
Speaker 2: on government efficiency and cutting small jobs at the janitor's
Speaker 2: job and the cafeteria workers' job, et cetera, et cetera.
Speaker 1: It's absolutely absurd.
Speaker 2: Jim, We're going to take a quick break when we
Speaker 2: come back out a little bit more to talk to
Speaker 2: talk a lot about the Republicans. I want to talk
Speaker 2: a little bit about the Democrats. What happened in the
Speaker 2: last election, what can they do to improve? What does
Speaker 2: the future hold? So don't go anywhere. You don't go anywhere, audience,
Speaker 2: please don't go anywhere. We're having a great conversation. It's
Speaker 2: certainly intelligent with my very special guest, Jim Lyons. I'm
Speaker 2: your host, Franklebono. This is Being Frank. We'll be back
Speaker 2: with much more right after these brief commercial messages. Please
Speaker 2: don't go anywhere.
Speaker 1: This is Hudson Riverradio dot.
Speaker 3: Com, Hudson Riverradio dot com. Hudson River Radio dot com.
Speaker 3: This is Hudson River Radio dot com. This is Hudson
Speaker 3: River Radio dot com.
Speaker 2: Welcome back to Being Frank, the Intelligent Conversation podcast. Thanks
Speaker 2: for sticking with us. I'm your host, Franklebono. Our engineer
Speaker 2: is the mailman, mister Neil Richter, and our very special
Speaker 2: guest is Jim Lyons. We'll be joining us again in
Speaker 2: just a few seconds. You know, we bring our audience
Speaker 2: a fresh topic just about every week and stream from
Speaker 2: Hudson River Radio, located in beautiful and historic Stony Point,
Speaker 2: New York. But remember you can catch Being Frank anywhere
Speaker 2: you get your favorite podcasts, And because every Being Frank
Speaker 2: is archived, you can listen to any of our programs
Speaker 2: anytime you like. Find a link to Being Frank on
Speaker 2: the Hudson River Radio Facebook page or at our website
Speaker 2: Hudsonriverradio dot com. Just click on our icon and you're there.
Speaker 1: Okay, welcome back.
Speaker 2: Jim Lyons. Jim is a lifelong friend. We literally grew
Speaker 2: up together. He was a member of worked for three
Speaker 2: different presidents, and he's giving us a very very interesting perspective.
Speaker 2: And I know, Jim, you wanted to make a particular
Speaker 2: point about public service. Please do so.
Speaker 1: Well the point I want to make, Frank, And you
Speaker 1: know this is as well as I You know, many
Speaker 1: many Americans volunteer for the armed sort armed forces. Many
Speaker 1: many Americans, uh, you know, volunteer to support their communities.
Speaker 1: And you know, our our dads were policemen. My dad
Speaker 1: was a volunteer fireman. He did other volunteer work. You know,
Speaker 1: it's it's an honorable thing, and and it it just
Speaker 1: troubles me, or maybe it puzzles me. You know why
Speaker 1: so many people who believe in public service seem supportive
Speaker 1: of someone who uh in the name of the President
Speaker 1: of the United States, denigrates public service, challenges people who serve,
Speaker 1: treats them, and maybe even in the past, has called
Speaker 1: them chumps and suckers. You know, America is great because
Speaker 1: Americans work together. America is great because Americans see other
Speaker 1: Americans in need and they find ways to help them.
Speaker 1: Government plays a role in that, maybe sometimes too big
Speaker 1: a role, you know, but to hear the president, you know,
Speaker 1: for example, you know challenge the way in which the
Speaker 1: people who are impacted by flooding and you know in
Speaker 1: the southeastern US is it's I'll just say frightening. I mean,
Speaker 1: people are trying to help people. Same is true for
Speaker 1: you know, the fire impacted areas in California. Now, I
Speaker 1: recognize that many of those people have wealthy homes and
Speaker 1: probably can take care of themselves, but in many instances,
Speaker 1: because of fires and other disasters, people do not, and
Speaker 1: the government plays a critically important role in helping these people.
Speaker 1: Get back on their feet, providing them not just financial assistance,
Speaker 1: but you know, advice, support through different programs and and really,
Speaker 1: you know, does what I think all Americans seek to do,
Speaker 1: which is help lift each other up. We should not
Speaker 1: be bludgeoned by the notion now that we should We
Speaker 1: should kind of abandon that approach and just you know,
Speaker 1: let everybody fight for their own survival because we're Americans.
Speaker 1: That's that's that's how our country became the great country
Speaker 1: that it is. We were leave in lifting all boats.
Speaker 1: Right now we've got too many people trying to drill
Speaker 1: holes in those boats.
Speaker 2: Yeah, you know, I just wrote something on my blog,
Speaker 2: talked Frank about that and about what the American ethos is,
Speaker 2: or certainly was, and that was in taking pride and
Speaker 2: helping one another. And where we need to look in
Speaker 2: the mirror and say what happened to that and get
Speaker 2: it back as quickly as possible. Got a little bit
Speaker 2: of time left, Jim and I feel it's important we
Speaker 2: talk about the Democrats. Both you and your wife Jennifer,
Speaker 2: Paul Mary Or are players in the Democratic Party. Uh,
Speaker 2: what happened? What's going on there? They seem to have
Speaker 2: lost their way lost their message. Uh, you know, an
Speaker 2: election everyone was predicting that close, but they would certainly win,
Speaker 2: and that didn't happen. Why what happened?
Speaker 1: And what is that? What is their future?
Speaker 2: Well?
Speaker 1: I got to say, frank if I knew the answer
Speaker 1: to that, I'd be a very wealthy consultant. And I
Speaker 1: chu and me both, and nor is my wife. Just
Speaker 1: to be clear, you know, I think a number of
Speaker 1: things hurt us. Certainly, you know President Biden's decline, if
Speaker 1: you will, in the latter part of his tendre in
Speaker 1: his desire to run for re election in spite of
Speaker 1: the fact that many people thought he should not.
Speaker 2: Was it probably additional from the beginning that was my thought.
Speaker 1: But I think Kamala Harris, who have a great deal
Speaker 1: of respect for and by the way, her husband is
Speaker 1: is a guy from Jersey, great guy. Kamala Harris did
Speaker 1: her best, I think too, you know, pick up the
Speaker 1: pace and uh and present you know, a positive front.
Speaker 1: And frankly didn't lose by very very much, but it
Speaker 1: was enough and we see the consequences now wholesale change
Speaker 1: simply because of the small margin between winning and losing.
Speaker 1: I don't think many Americans really thought that was possible,
Speaker 1: and you know, for whatever reason, they elected not to
Speaker 1: vote for her, but instead elected to vote for for
Speaker 1: President Trump. So you know, we have to deal with,
Speaker 1: you know, with the consequences and try to find a way.
Speaker 1: I think too, I'll say it really make America great again,
Speaker 1: not by denigrating public servants, not by threatening you know,
Speaker 1: their future, not by challenging, you know, the commitment that
Speaker 1: people have, particularly government, to try to do their best
Speaker 1: to help all Americans. You know, we've got to recognize,
Speaker 1: you know, that we are all Americans, and I think,
Speaker 1: you know, most Americans want this country to not just survive,
Speaker 1: but to thrive and be the best country in the world.
Speaker 1: I just I was just going to say, I just
Speaker 1: I just don't feel like the messages coming from the
Speaker 1: White House, their initial actions, and the consequences reflect that
Speaker 1: view that you know, America, America and Americans are great individuals,
Speaker 1: a great country. You know, we're not in that bad
Speaker 1: of shape. But if you were to listen to President Trump,
Speaker 1: you would think that we're on our last leg, and
Speaker 1: that's just not true.
Speaker 2: What I'm curious about one last question, Jim, as we're
Speaker 2: starting to get lead on time is how did the
Speaker 2: GOP manage to usurp what had always been the Democrats message,
Speaker 2: which is, if you vote for us, working people, if
Speaker 2: you vote for us, We're going to make your life better. Somehow,
Speaker 2: it seems the Democrats seems to have lost that message
Speaker 2: somewhere along the way. Why, how how can they get
Speaker 2: it back?
Speaker 1: Well, I think there are a lot of people trying
Speaker 1: to figure that out right now. Frank And if I
Speaker 1: had the answer for that, I would be a wealthy consultant.
Speaker 1: I just I feel like, I feel like what has
Speaker 1: happened is that we have let the other team use
Speaker 1: our playbook and you know, use our message, even though
Speaker 1: their intention is not, UH is not to do so
Speaker 1: I was I was going to say, not unlike what
Speaker 1: we saw on the Super Bowl. We're Philadelphia. Took it
Speaker 1: to Kansas City. But Philadelphia, even though we're from Jersey,
Speaker 1: Philadelphia is a great place. So and UH and I
Speaker 1: and I think you know what's happening is that we
Speaker 1: need to recapture the vitality and the creativity that you know,
Speaker 1: Democrats bring to the table. You know, the problem is
Speaker 1: we are not having conversations we've we were having confrontations.
Speaker 1: People have kind of hold to their own corners and
Speaker 1: they don't seem to want to talk about, you know,
Speaker 1: where we can meet in the middle. And I think,
Speaker 1: you know, that is incredibly destructive in our communities, for
Speaker 1: our country, and I see it, you know, in in
Speaker 1: our families, and that just can't continue. I mean, you know,
Speaker 1: the keys are, you know, conversation, and collaborate and compromise.
Speaker 1: If we can follow those three c's and find ways
Speaker 1: to help each other, whether it's you know, little things
Speaker 1: in your community or you know, things you know at
Speaker 1: a greater level, joining an organization, working to help others
Speaker 1: who need help, you know, supporting people who aren't as
Speaker 1: well off as you and I are, and we're not
Speaker 1: nearly as well off as others. Then I think we
Speaker 1: can make a difference. But we've got to stop, you know,
Speaker 1: fighting first and then thinking to ask questions later.
Speaker 2: Jim, I was going to ask another question, but I
Speaker 2: prefer to end it right there on a positive note,
Speaker 2: and it is a positive note. We failure is not
Speaker 2: an option. We have to get through this, and I
Speaker 2: think if we stick together, keep the lines open, the
Speaker 2: dialogue continuing, have some intelligent conversation like we had today,
Speaker 2: we can get through this final thoughts.
Speaker 1: No, I think we have a long road ahead of us,
Speaker 1: and I would encourage people, listeners, particularly from the community
Speaker 1: you know whe're from and from you know, from the
Speaker 1: Hudson Valley region. You know a lot of smart people,
Speaker 1: a lot of people who have a long history there,
Speaker 1: and you know, in a community that really, you know,
Speaker 1: attracts not just visitors, but about others who want to
Speaker 1: live there, because people do know how to talk to
Speaker 1: one another, they do care about each other, they care
Speaker 1: about their environment, and and I think it could be
Speaker 1: a model for ways to bring larger communities and ultimately
Speaker 1: the country together. That kind of dialogue, that kind of environment,
Speaker 1: that mindset is what's critical to changing the path or on,
Speaker 1: because the path are on is a destructive one and
Speaker 1: we need to get back to being a democracy again.
Speaker 2: Jim Lyons, I want to thank you so much for
Speaker 2: your intelligent conversation here on being Frank. You welcome, my friend.
Speaker 1: Thanks Rank, I enjoy the conversation and let's hope better
Speaker 1: days are ahead.
Speaker 2: We'll get together soon, you know. Of course, we offer
Speaker 2: special thanks to our listeners who take time to give
Speaker 2: us a voice in their lives. Remember, you offer a
Speaker 2: fresh topic just about every week. Catch us wherever and
Speaker 2: whenever you get your favorite podcasts. That includes Apple, Spotify, iHeartRadio,
Speaker 2: Speaker and all the others. Check us out on the
Speaker 2: Hudson River Radio Facebook page. Like us and leave us
Speaker 2: a comment, and we ask you to consider sharing Being
Speaker 2: Frank with others. You know, always leave you with two
Speaker 2: little tidbits, nuggets, whatever you want to call them. One
Speaker 2: slogan and then some great original music. First, a little anecdote,
Speaker 2: and here it is. Benjamin Franklin was leaving the Constitutional
Speaker 2: Congress when he was approached by a woman the name
Speaker 2: of Elizabeth Willing Powell, and she asked, well, doctor, what
Speaker 2: have we got a republic or a monarchy? And of
Speaker 2: course Franklin answered, a republic if you can keep it. Well,
Speaker 2: we've been challenged. Can we keep it all? Right? Here's
Speaker 2: some great music by my friend Steve bag It's called
Speaker 2: Poor You. I think you'll enjoy it very much. I
Speaker 2: like it for our engineer, the mailman, mister Neil Richter.
Speaker 2: I'm your host, Frank Lobono. We hope to see you
Speaker 2: on the next Being Frank.
Speaker 4: I don't care you're wasted on the county line.
Speaker 2: The art you have?
Speaker 4: You need wine? Now are you?
Speaker 2: Are? You got it?
Speaker 4: Thanks? And when you are being carry.
Speaker 1: Some mothers fores s.
Speaker 4: Right here, I'll take off on your baby.
Speaker 1: Its whiskey because you never know.
Speaker 4: And I might appear looking out of that window.
Speaker 1: I can't see it all.
Speaker 4: I enjoy the ride.
Speaker 1: I can't still see you stranded.
Speaker 4: And as that train goes by, my art starts to
Speaker 4: slide for you. For you got beat as to do?
Speaker 4: You tell me? You know what's good? End to wait for?
Speaker 4: Tell me? You tell me that you don't lie? Right?
Speaker 1: You tell me no, it's good?
Speaker 2: End up care for.
Speaker 4: When the brough that you have to feel you don't
Speaker 4: mind home over.
Speaker 2: It?
Speaker 4: Or what are you? You got bad things to tell you?
Speaker 4: You got that things got that wait, we got the
Speaker 4: wit to
Speaker 1: Hudson River Radio dot com mm hm