Speaker 1: Well, whiskey, come and take my pain. Honeys my ry,
Speaker 1: oh whiskey. Don't why think alone when you can drink
Speaker 1: it all in with Ricochet's three Whiskey Happy Hour, join
Speaker 1: your bartenders, Steve Hayward, John, You and the international woman
Speaker 1: of mystery, Lucretia where the lapped it up? And David,
Speaker 1: ain't you busy on the show? Tap you gotta giving?
Speaker 1: And let that whiskey flo It's the three Whiskey Happy
Speaker 1: Hour with your three bartenders. I had a Gen and
Speaker 1: tonic earlier because I am dehydrated from flying on airplanes
Speaker 1: all day from Mississippi. More about that in a moment.
Speaker 1: But Hi Lucretia, Hi John, what are you guys using
Speaker 1: to celebrate the end of the week with the.
Speaker 2: Task of a monteato? Ha?
Speaker 1: Right right? And John, you're still doing a lot of
Speaker 1: media tonight, so you probably can't enjoy your show on TV.
Speaker 3: So I'm contrary to what people believe, I am not
Speaker 3: drunk when I'm on TV. Well, you know, maybe on
Speaker 3: this podcast.
Speaker 1: Yes, well you know. I think I have told the
Speaker 1: story before of getting advice from a well known public
Speaker 1: speaker never to have a drink before you're doing a
Speaker 1: public appearance, and it was PJ. O'Rourke of all people, right,
Speaker 1: a man for whom there was no illicit substance. He
Speaker 1: hadn't tried, right, He was.
Speaker 3: Like to be smoked, didn't he like smoke during things?
Speaker 1: And well, yes, smoking is different than drinking. He said,
Speaker 1: don't drink before you speak. And you know he's the
Speaker 1: guy who hung out with Thompson. Right, So it's.
Speaker 2: Smoking doesn't do anything to alter your state of mind.
Speaker 1: Well, wait a minute, nicotine is good for that. You
Speaker 1: know that you were a smokerlone.
Speaker 2: No, no, no, no, you don't get any kind of
Speaker 2: You don't get the effects of an aberration. You don't
Speaker 2: get hallucinogenic effects. You might get just a little bit.
Speaker 1: Of a why bother?
Speaker 3: Then why bother?
Speaker 2: Because first you get a kind of energy you get
Speaker 2: at the same time you get calming effects from it.
Speaker 2: You know my great story about the priest at Lent
Speaker 2: who's coming back at two o'clock in the morning, the
Speaker 2: worst part of Chicago, middle of winter, and some guy
Speaker 2: sticks a gun adimsy, just give me your wallet. So
Speaker 2: he opens up his overcoat and and it sees that
Speaker 2: the robber sees his collar and uh, he said, oh, oh, father,
Speaker 2: I'm so sorry. I had no idea. You're a priest.
Speaker 2: Don't put your wallet back. Put your wallet back. And
Speaker 2: the priest reaches in for his cigarettes and offers the
Speaker 2: robber a cigarette, you know, because you're nervous and it
Speaker 2: calms me down. That's the point. And of course the
Speaker 2: punchline is it's supposedly a t too story. The punch
Speaker 2: line is, oh no, no, no, I gave those up
Speaker 2: for lent.
Speaker 1: Doesn't get it, I know, even though he even though
Speaker 1: he went on Episcopal press school and a million years ago.
Speaker 1: Yeah all right, well, but but.
Speaker 2: The point is Robert versus smoking. Never mind, I have
Speaker 2: to explain it to you.
Speaker 1: There is research showing that nicotine sharpens your concentration. I think.
Speaker 1: I think it's right, really yeah, I think. But it's
Speaker 1: not something that you feel, well, well okay, I don't know.
Speaker 2: No, no, I mean, it's just it's not mind altering,
Speaker 2: is what I'm trying to tell you. You don't get
Speaker 2: that kind of anything from it. I smoked for a
Speaker 2: long time. I know this.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well, okay. All I know is when I see
Speaker 1: people smoking, especially Europeans, so that just looks so great.
Speaker 1: I wish it wasn't so bad for.
Speaker 2: You or stunk so much. Yes, right, you've probably anybody
Speaker 2: who's ever watched us on YouTube knows that I have
Speaker 2: a very hard time keeping my hands still when I talk,
Speaker 2: and having a cigarette made it very simple.
Speaker 3: I'm just I think someday we'll look back and say
Speaker 3: the barbarack, like we used to take weeds and burn
Speaker 3: them in our mouths, and for centuries it seems bizarre.
Speaker 3: Actually we think.
Speaker 1: Well, I don't know. I don't know if if I've
Speaker 1: told the story on our podcast or not. LUCREATI Jull
Speaker 1: can tell me. But I remember seeing Alan Bloom at
Speaker 1: Claremont paired with James Buchannan right after Buchanan had won
Speaker 1: the Nobel Prize. So here you have the famous Nobel
Speaker 1: Prize guy and Bloom the now monster best selling author.
Speaker 1: And Bloom was making fun of the Chicago guys. He
Speaker 1: ran circles around Buchanan on his panel. It was amazing,
Speaker 1: but it's like nineteen eighty eight. I would say, you
Speaker 1: can still smoke in the lecture halls in Claremont at
Speaker 1: that time. But Buchannan was talking about sorry, Bloom was
Speaker 1: doing his usual flamboyant routine about you know. Now at Chicago,
Speaker 1: I used to go listen in on these seven hours
Speaker 1: of Milton Friedman and Frank Knight, a really famous guy
Speaker 1: earner than that, who Bloom was very close to, and
Speaker 1: Hiak and all these people. And he says, and I
Speaker 1: always say to me, Bloom, if you're so smart, how
Speaker 1: come you're not rich? And Bloom pauses, takes a big
Speaker 1: drag on his cigarette and says, well, I am. Now
Speaker 1: the whole room busts up right. I highly recommend it
Speaker 1: to everybody. Way bega cigarette around, ashes flag everywhere.
Speaker 2: I will tell you that more than once, Steve I
Speaker 2: I bummed a cigarette in class from Peter Shram.
Speaker 1: Oh I'm sure, yes, right, because Shram could ever read
Speaker 1: without a cigarette. And sadly that's partly why yeah years ago,
Speaker 1: so right right, yeah, Well, a couple of little chotskis
Speaker 1: to show you, guys, one just for you and then
Speaker 1: one for listeners and viewers, all ten viewers. Maybe I
Speaker 1: got from United Airlines today my official two million mile
Speaker 1: plaque to put up on my shelf. Two million flight
Speaker 1: This is stupid. I have too many of these things.
Speaker 1: I can't I don't like chotskis like this, but it's
Speaker 1: still nice. They sent me this thing. And but more
Speaker 1: important than that, you know, we've been talking about this
Speaker 1: and I did a sample press run of the three
Speaker 1: Whiskey Happy Hour coffee mug, and there it is.
Speaker 3: I don't think it's too beautiful.
Speaker 1: You don't want it too colorful? Well, you don't like
Speaker 1: the black and white you want? Well, all right, but
Speaker 1: I think i'll say this about it. It is up.
Speaker 1: It's not a decal, which means it's dishwashers safe. You know,
Speaker 1: a lot of coffee mubs are decal stuck on and
Speaker 1: they won't last ten times in your washing machine. This
Speaker 1: is actually, you know, imprinted on it. And well, I'll
Speaker 1: tell you what, John, I'm gonna post this up and
Speaker 1: see who you get.
Speaker 3: Out like a black and white sketch kind of thing.
Speaker 3: Well that was having that garish multi colored that's like
Speaker 3: what like this a multi colored dream code or something
Speaker 3: from some bad seventies Broadway musical.
Speaker 1: Appreciate who side are you want here? I mean, what
Speaker 1: is wrong with John here? This is a great logo,
Speaker 1: that's fantastic.
Speaker 2: I don't know if I like it with the red
Speaker 2: on the inside. Because it doesn't match. But okay, anyway,
Speaker 2: I think it probably doesn't matter either. You're gonna pick
Speaker 2: it up because.
Speaker 1: You know you're loyal. You know it's for I won't
Speaker 1: send you one then John back with you. You know.
Speaker 3: I want there to be some like small secret symbol
Speaker 3: that only people in the note will understand.
Speaker 2: What.
Speaker 1: Well now, okay, well I'm toying with that idea too.
Speaker 1: I mean, we can have more than one. You can
Speaker 1: have just a little thing that says three w h
Speaker 1: h the people who know no, right, and that's like
Speaker 1: a secret handshake. So all right, no you're not.
Speaker 2: Okay, so you got you two million miles. By the way,
Speaker 2: the US Army awarded me the let's it called Meritorious
Speaker 2: Public Service Award for something incredible service to the US Army.
Speaker 1: And during a government shutdown this happened. That's important.
Speaker 2: They yes, they it was very interesting. It was Wednesday
Speaker 2: and a lot of the I mean all the all
Speaker 2: the green suitors there, the salad suitors who are obviously
Speaker 2: they're paid unpaid, working unpaid, but they had gotten paid
Speaker 2: on Wednesday.
Speaker 3: But all of the.
Speaker 2: Civilians and the commanding general told me that he I said,
Speaker 2: I can't believe you guys are doing this now, why
Speaker 2: didn't you just wait? He says, it's too important and
Speaker 2: we had to give it to you right away. So anyway,
Speaker 2: I was trying to share the picture, but it doesn't
Speaker 2: seem to work with the way you have the authority
Speaker 2: sometimes nowhere course, But anyway, the interesting thing is the
Speaker 2: metal is like a meritorious service award that the that
Speaker 2: a soldier would get, and the way the metal comes
Speaker 2: to me. I get a nice plaque and everything, but
Speaker 2: it came in a nice little box with a medal
Speaker 2: for my you know when you see the generals and
Speaker 2: all of their one of those one to go on
Speaker 2: my blue my dress blues, and one to go I
Speaker 2: mean absolutely nothing that I ever. You know, I'm not
Speaker 2: in the army, so I don't actually wear army uniforms.
Speaker 2: But that's what I got, three different medals for the
Speaker 2: purpose of the different uniforms that I don't wear anyway,
Speaker 2: So there you go.
Speaker 1: Okay, Well, so I thought what we do this week
Speaker 1: is put off a couple of headlines till later in
Speaker 1: the show and talk about something that I think, at
Speaker 1: least I think it's a sensation that may have some legs.
Speaker 1: And also I was in Mississippi all week. Let me
Speaker 1: just say give a shout out to the University of
Speaker 1: Mississippi and the Declaration of Independent Center. By the way,
Speaker 1: many of whom are listeners to our show. They're a
Speaker 1: fantastic bunch at a great time. I gave a lecture
Speaker 1: series that's going to I think become a book soon
Speaker 1: called Against Mediocrity. That's the working title anyway. Now Lucretia
Speaker 1: will mock me right away saying, how nevermind, I won't
Speaker 1: finish that slur anyway. So I wasn't following the news
Speaker 1: that closely this week, But what has been on my
Speaker 1: mind for ten days now is this article by Helen
Speaker 1: Andrews called the Great Feminization that appeared on Compact. And
Speaker 1: there's a backstory to this very briefly. Helen was until
Speaker 1: recently the editor of the American Conservative magazine and she
Speaker 1: was fired and the magazine's gone weird. And we'll leave
Speaker 1: that story for another time. But I think she's very
Speaker 1: talented and Lucretia, you remember we interviewed her a couple
Speaker 1: of years ago at the Philadelphia Society about her book. Yeah,
Speaker 1: about her book Attacking Baby Boomers, which I love because
Speaker 1: I'm a self loathing baby boomer, and I think he's
Speaker 1: very bright and very talented. And the article really is
Speaker 1: the adaptation of a speech she gave John. Yeah, you
Speaker 1: may not follow this at the latest National Conservatism Conference. Now,
Speaker 1: most of those speeches, they put them all up on YouTube,
Speaker 1: and most of them get a thousand, two thousand views.
Speaker 1: For some reason, her speech the Great Feminization went viral
Speaker 1: and it's up to something like one hundred and fifty
Speaker 1: thousand views. So that's clearly totally different from the other.
Speaker 1: And you know they have famous people of that Jadie Vance,
Speaker 1: you know, Peter Thiel, but Helen has been the big
Speaker 1: breakout star of this last meeting. So the Great Feminization,
Speaker 1: you might guess for the title is it's an attack
Speaker 1: on feminism. And how is that new, because you know,
Speaker 1: people like Christina Hoff Summers and others have been doing
Speaker 1: this for thirty years. But let me share with listeners,
Speaker 1: and I will post a link to her compact article,
Speaker 1: but let me post the listeners. There's a few sentences
Speaker 1: from it, and then I'm a lot tossed to depreciative
Speaker 1: because of course, the chief advocate for appealing to the
Speaker 1: nineteenth Amendment. This is her Bailey Wick, right, But the
Speaker 1: point is he's saying, you know, people say WOKERI is,
Speaker 1: you know, cultural Marxism, almost leftist dogma. And she says
Speaker 1: that that's all true. But she says, I think it's
Speaker 1: actually feminism and not feminism the ideology. But too many
Speaker 1: women in high places. She's that blood about it. Okay,
Speaker 1: here's a few samples for listeners that I think we'll
Speaker 1: convey the whole article early on. All cancelizations are feminine.
Speaker 1: Cancel culture is simply what women do whenever there are
Speaker 1: enough of them in a given organization or field. Everything
Speaker 1: you think of is wokeness involves prioritizing the feminine over
Speaker 1: the masculine, empathy over rationality, safety over risk, cohesion over competition.
Speaker 1: Wokeness is not a new ideology, an outgrowth of Marxism,
Speaker 1: or a result of post Obama illusionment. It is simply
Speaker 1: feminine patterns of behavior applied to institutions where women were
Speaker 1: few in number until recently. And here, John, I'll call
Speaker 1: on you for this next part because very germane. A
Speaker 1: much more important tipping point is when law schools became
Speaker 1: majority female, which occurred in twenty sixteen, or when law
Speaker 1: firm associates became majority female, which occurred in twenty twenty three,
Speaker 1: and she goes on through other feels like medicine and
Speaker 1: corporate management, and then John says, this the field that
Speaker 1: thrightens me, that frightens me most is the law. All
Speaker 1: of us depend on a functioning legal system, and to
Speaker 1: be blunt, the rule of law will not survive the
Speaker 1: legal profession becoming majority female. Lucasia, I'll let you have
Speaker 1: first spite at all this.
Speaker 2: Well. I actually think that her strongest argument is in
Speaker 2: the area of law, and because she goes on in
Speaker 2: a little more detail and talks about how the rule
Speaker 2: of law, to put it over, simplified, been replaced by
Speaker 2: feminist feminine empathy and rather than you know, color blind
Speaker 2: blind justice and the rule of law carrying the day,
Speaker 2: it's empathy. I have to feel sorry for this criminal
Speaker 2: because of the root causes, and you know, on and
Speaker 2: on and on, And I think there's a lot to
Speaker 2: be said for that observation, and I do think that
Speaker 2: it is also very very uh e bodes for a
Speaker 2: lot of danger, I think for the entire criminal justice
Speaker 2: system and the law in general. So I think that's
Speaker 2: a really strong one. Before I go on, let me
Speaker 2: just let John speak up and see if he has
Speaker 2: any thoughts on this or if he's too afraid to
Speaker 2: say anything because he still has.
Speaker 3: No I mean, I I wasn't persuaded by the article.
Speaker 3: So for some two reasons.
Speaker 1: One is.
Speaker 3: I'm not sure. I mean, you guys would know the
Speaker 3: literature better than me, but I don't. I don't know
Speaker 3: if I agree with the idea that women all think
Speaker 3: one way and not all, but you know, in general
Speaker 3: as a group, is her point. Women think in this
Speaker 3: sort of non rule of walwegh, and men think in
Speaker 3: a rule of lawwegh. I've met if you look at
Speaker 3: the justices on the Supreme Court. I mean, you know,
Speaker 3: you have some women on the Supreme Court who today
Speaker 3: who you know, probably like balancing more. But there's a
Speaker 3: woman in the majority who doesn't. And I don't think
Speaker 3: and certainly these divides were on the Supreme Court when
Speaker 3: they were all men. I don't I don't think they're
Speaker 3: but you know, I you know, she referred to a
Speaker 3: book that was allegedly what it was about like primitive men,
Speaker 3: and said like men were warriors and women who fought
Speaker 3: and tried to take resources from, you know, the hostile environment,
Speaker 3: and women were at home and fighting each other over resources.
Speaker 1: I just don't.
Speaker 3: I think that's a thin read to make these broad
Speaker 3: generalizations that men and women think so differently in a
Speaker 3: professional setting. That just hasn't been my experience in the law.
Speaker 3: And then the second thing is, suppose she's right that
Speaker 3: women and men in law or these other professions do
Speaker 3: think fundamentally differently. It still doesn't. It could be you
Speaker 3: know what you call you know, they call it an
Speaker 3: independent variable problem. There could be something else causing changes
Speaker 3: and institutions. And so maybe the law changed in a
Speaker 3: certain way first, and then women started going into law
Speaker 3: because the law had changed already because of something else.
Speaker 3: If I was to attribute these problems, it wouldn't because
Speaker 3: of gender. I think it would be because of race.
Speaker 3: I think it's been this corrupting influence of affirmative action
Speaker 3: in particular that change law schools and change the nature
Speaker 3: of the legal profession. Because if you are determined that
Speaker 3: you to have a certain percentage of minorities or any
Speaker 3: groups in law school, regardless of their relative merits in
Speaker 3: terms of testing grades and so on, then you have
Speaker 3: to start eliminating grading systems, and you have to make
Speaker 3: the classroom less tough, because the tougher it is and
Speaker 3: the more grades you are, that it's going to be
Speaker 3: more obvious who should be there and who shouldn't. And
Speaker 3: I think that process is not gender related. I think
Speaker 3: it's a corrupting effect on that affirmative action and its
Speaker 3: attack on merit has had in the law. That's what
Speaker 3: I saw, not that there were more women in my
Speaker 3: law school classes. That caused a lot of my colleagues,
Speaker 3: for example, to give up on teaching class in the
Speaker 3: Socratic method. I still teach class and the Socratic method.
Speaker 3: I mean, people are shocked when I described, you know,
Speaker 3: I call on basically one student for the cases for
Speaker 3: a whole class, and I ask the questions the whole time.
Speaker 3: People seem shy. That's the way it was when I
Speaker 3: you know, that's the way law school was when I graduated.
Speaker 3: I don't think it was the presence of women that
Speaker 3: changed most colleagues to start using the you know, lazy
Speaker 3: undergraduate method you two favor, which is just lecturing to
Speaker 3: the students and going on and on and then let
Speaker 3: them message.
Speaker 2: So many of our classes. But I don't necessarily disagree,
Speaker 2: But I think you're doing the same thing that she's
Speaker 2: guilty of, which is attributing all of these things to
Speaker 2: a kind of single, uh causation. And I actually think
Speaker 2: it goes deeper than that. I think that all of
Speaker 2: these things are effects causing further effects. But I mean,
Speaker 2: I think it's that the rule of law was destroyed
Speaker 2: by say, uh, what's it called critical legal theory, the
Speaker 2: idea that there is no rationality to the law that
Speaker 2: there is. You know that it's impossible, for instance, for
Speaker 2: a judge to be either in deciding a case or
Speaker 2: deciding some kind of appellate issue, to be rational and
Speaker 2: objective in all of those things. It's just impossible that
Speaker 2: according to critical legal theory. And once you have conceded that,
Speaker 2: which of course is an outgrowth itself of progressivism, then
Speaker 2: it becomes very easy to adopt things like affirmative action
Speaker 2: and critical race theory and feminist empathy. That part I
Speaker 2: had to agree with her, whether again it's a cause
Speaker 2: er and effect. It's one of the reasons why I
Speaker 2: have a really hard time stomaching women most of the time.
Speaker 2: There's a few that I can they're wonderful your wife,
Speaker 2: for instance, Steve Janice Rogers Brown. There are others, but
Speaker 2: these touchy feely women who watch the hall Mark channel
Speaker 2: the View, the View. Yeah, and so there's something to
Speaker 2: what she's saying, and there's also something to what she's
Speaker 2: warning against. Again, Steve's gonna post this. But when she
Speaker 2: calls it that it was done by social engineering, that
Speaker 2: this sort of initiative was feminist initiative was forced on
Speaker 2: us by social engineering, I think it's kind of the opposite.
Speaker 2: That social engineering had these goals and feminism was one
Speaker 2: of the things that helped it get there. But I
Speaker 2: do think that her her analysis of the workplace is
Speaker 2: not altogether inaccurate. You know, think about it. You really
Speaker 2: can't have pinups, and you can't you can't tell dirty jokes,
Speaker 2: you can't. What you can't do is create an unsafe
Speaker 2: environment or a a hostile workplace. You know, I've told
Speaker 2: the story many times. When I was a graduate student,
Speaker 2: more than one professor had a slightly insulting, slightly affectionate
Speaker 2: both nickname for me. Tricksy's right, they called you tricksy. Oh,
Speaker 2: I'd want to call me bright eyes, you know, just
Speaker 2: you know, just things like that.
Speaker 4: I mean like like the Monkey and like the Monkey
Speaker 4: and the movie like right, yeah, okay, it's not affectionate,
Speaker 4: that's insulting.
Speaker 2: Well, they might, and I'm sure that in many cases
Speaker 2: it probably was intended to be insulting. My point is
Speaker 2: is that I guess, you know, I could have gone
Speaker 2: crying to the to the provost or the dean or
Speaker 2: something and say, oh, but you know, I'm a little
Speaker 2: tougher than your average female. In case you didn't know
Speaker 2: that we were wondering, you know, that was an open question.
Speaker 3: But we should we should we be kicking Should we
Speaker 3: be kicking you off the podcast?
Speaker 2: Now? If I take article, Yes, yes you should. I know,
Speaker 2: because I'm much more I'm much more on the manly
Speaker 2: side than our good friend David french Is. We'll come
Speaker 2: back to that. Let me let me come back. Let
Speaker 2: me give you one other thing. When I was in
Speaker 2: graduate school at Davis, my PhD advisor, if I was
Speaker 2: going to get a cup of coffee, would not allow
Speaker 2: me to bring him a cup of coffee.
Speaker 1: Oh is that Larry Peterman?
Speaker 2: Yeah, okay, absolutely, why exactly why because that would have
Speaker 2: been uh gender, you know, outdated gender roles, and it
Speaker 2: would have been you know, advancing some notion of female
Speaker 2: inferiority and blah blah blah. And I was forty years ago,
Speaker 2: so it's not like this happened yesterday. But but it
Speaker 2: is different. You mentioned Charles Murray earlier to me, Steve.
Speaker 2: One of the most amazing things that I heard in
Speaker 2: person from Charles Murray, again probably forty five years ago,
Speaker 2: was talking about the legally defining and punishing sexual harassment
Speaker 2: and all of the difficulties attendant to that, which you
Speaker 2: know she talks about as well. Here too, the idea
Speaker 2: that females believe everyone who says I've been sexually assaulted
Speaker 2: has to be believed, et cetera, et cetera. But Charles
Speaker 2: Murray said something really interesting. He said, you know, there's
Speaker 2: always been women in the workplace. They've always been subject
Speaker 2: to the boars and the you know, the crude guys,
Speaker 2: the guys with no class, et cetera, et cetera. What
Speaker 2: happened in the old days. They didn't go to HR
Speaker 2: and say I mean sexually harassed. They went to their
Speaker 2: they went to their brother, They went to their father,
Speaker 2: and the father showed up and punched the guy in
Speaker 2: the face and then it was over with.
Speaker 1: Well or oh yeah, this is sorry.
Speaker 2: Charles Murray said, go, yeah, well, I mean.
Speaker 1: Actually, this is what my mother and mother My mother, well,
Speaker 1: my mother and my mother in law both said the
Speaker 1: same thing. They didn't have to go to boyfriends or
Speaker 1: brothers because my mother's case, she didn't have a brother,
Speaker 1: just had a sister. My mother's in the workplace, as
Speaker 1: was my mother in law in the late forties. You're
Speaker 1: working for lawyers or something, and they would occasionally get
Speaker 1: frisky and pinch you on the bottom, and so what
Speaker 1: they do you can't run to HR, they slap them
Speaker 1: and then it never happened again. Now I mentioned this.
Speaker 1: I remember I got in trouble for this ten years
Speaker 1: ago when I was at Colorado and I said, you know,
Speaker 1: the problem with all these bureaucracies is, you know, if
Speaker 1: there's some bad behavior at a frat party over the
Speaker 1: weekend and you run to HR on Monday, that's a
Speaker 1: bad remedy because then now it comes a bureaucratic, drawn
Speaker 1: out thing. I said, women should just slap some guy
Speaker 1: who's out of line and the oh and I was
Speaker 1: on an NBR station that was another mistake I made.
Speaker 1: The eruption was unbelievable. I had faculty saying, this crazy
Speaker 1: conservative professor is advocating violence, And my response was, I
Speaker 1: thought self defense was a basic principle of lockey in liberalism.
Speaker 1: Have we lost that completely?
Speaker 2: Right?
Speaker 1: But anyway, that's where we are. That was the old
Speaker 1: remedy and it worked, and now that we want to
Speaker 1: make it some kind of process, it doesn't work worth
Speaker 1: a dog, no.
Speaker 3: But did you rather have so one? I think David
Speaker 3: French has a good point, which is it's got to
Speaker 3: be the case that our society is better off with
Speaker 3: the large number of women we have in the workplace
Speaker 3: today and in the you know, opportunity, higher levels of
Speaker 3: the jobs they can have than it was, you know,
Speaker 3: pre nineteen seventies. Mean, I just think that's undeniably better
Speaker 3: for our society that half the population can now be
Speaker 3: fully part of the workplace.
Speaker 2: It's not too well, all.
Speaker 1: Right, go ahead, let John.
Speaker 3: Enharmis under you have ununi, you have underutilized resources in
Speaker 3: our population. If half the people are going to be
Speaker 3: subject to discrimination various kinds, it keeps them out of
Speaker 3: different jobs. I mean, it's like it's just better. It's
Speaker 3: more productive for society for everybody too, So that's one
Speaker 3: I think he's right about that. Well, I want to
Speaker 3: hear your counttercase two. If you are going to start
Speaker 3: having large amounts of women in the workplace, then you
Speaker 3: are going to have a lot more friction between the sexes.
Speaker 3: And I'd rather have rules that might be legal rather
Speaker 3: than people slapping the crap out of each other left
Speaker 3: and right. Okay, you're just going to have larger numbers
Speaker 3: of these interactions. Unfortunately, you're going to have to have
Speaker 3: more rules. And I don't think that you know, relying
Speaker 3: on minor violence kid. I mean, maybe it worked when
Speaker 3: there were less women in the workplace, but we're going
Speaker 3: to fifty percent of the workplace pe women. I don't
Speaker 3: think that that that's a that you can run a
Speaker 3: system that way.
Speaker 2: And both women have to change behavior. I'm just going
Speaker 2: to say that I'm going to let you Steve, But
Speaker 2: in both cases you have to change behavior. Which one
Speaker 2: works better? And that's the question. You've changed people's behavior.
Speaker 2: I never accused my PhD advisor of treating me like
Speaker 2: a sex slave or anything like that, but at the
Speaker 2: same time, he was already completely conditioned to the idea
Speaker 2: that you can't let your graduate student get you coffee
Speaker 2: because then you'll be a sexist, you know, patriarchal pig
Speaker 2: change behavior. How best to do it?
Speaker 1: Go ahead, Steve, I'm well so, first of all, so John,
Speaker 1: I don't think anyone disagrees with your basic point that
Speaker 1: we now have a lot more talented women in the
Speaker 1: workplace whose talents are not used that may be their
Speaker 1: highest and best use. However, I think the real cause
Speaker 1: of that was not feminism. You know, this is all
Speaker 1: glural power and his whole business has grown up as
Speaker 1: a feminist resolution revolution values. No, it was the washing
Speaker 1: machine that made this possible. I actually mean that literally. Well,
Speaker 1: the washing machines a metaphor, right, and look up someday
Speaker 1: this wonderful video by the Swedish demographer named Hans Rosling,
Speaker 1: and it's about the washing machine, and it's about how
Speaker 1: liberated women and that's what made so. By the way,
Speaker 1: if you point out that it is technology that has
Speaker 1: made it possible for women to enter the workplace to
Speaker 1: a feminist, they go absolutely berserk out of their minds.
Speaker 1: They hate that idea, right, So that's point number one before.
Speaker 2: One can I just illustrate that point. I used to
Speaker 2: tell my students reading the part in Jefferson in the
Speaker 2: Notes on the State of Virginia where he says it
Speaker 2: is civilization alone which has brought women into the enjoyment
Speaker 2: of their natural equality. And I would tell them exactly
Speaker 2: what you just said, which is before technology, before civilization,
Speaker 2: and that you know, there's more to it than just
Speaker 2: the technology part. But I'll keep it to your analogy.
Speaker 2: I can. I can come home and cook dinner for
Speaker 2: my family after working a ten hour day. Why because
Speaker 2: hominos no, no, no, actually cook a dinner. Because I
Speaker 2: don't have to go kill a chicken. I don't have
Speaker 2: your you know, and I don't have to feed them
Speaker 2: at four o'clock in the you know. There's all of
Speaker 2: these things.
Speaker 3: It's not just technology though, because there are lots of
Speaker 3: countries to day which have access to that technology don't
Speaker 3: have the same level of women in the workforce. So
Speaker 3: we do although the same amount of right opportunities and
Speaker 3: ability to be professors or.
Speaker 2: For women.
Speaker 1: Well, now wait a minute, John, that's an interesting point.
Speaker 1: If you go to let us say more patriarchal societies,
Speaker 1: say in the Middle.
Speaker 3: East, like Pakistan or likes like South Korea and Japan,
Speaker 3: although Japan just had its first right female ministry. Right,
Speaker 3: but if you talk to people in those countries, which
Speaker 3: are you know, technologically maybe even more events in ours,
Speaker 3: they have very few women at the upper echelons society
Speaker 3: organized that way.
Speaker 1: Well, well, this is going to get us too far
Speaker 1: off on a tangent. But I think if you look
Speaker 1: at places like Pakistan, you'll find that smart talented women
Speaker 1: go into the sciences, they don't go into gender studies.
Speaker 5: And there's something we said about all that that's a
Speaker 5: that's a lot of story with that. Yeah, I think
Speaker 5: it's a combination of both. And I just don't I
Speaker 5: don't see what country would you rather be than.
Speaker 1: Us in this world?
Speaker 3: Then?
Speaker 1: Well think about that.
Speaker 3: I mean, I think it's better here has imperfection, it
Speaker 3: has imperfections, But right, which country is actually better in
Speaker 3: terms of balancing having more movement in the workplace?
Speaker 2: Right?
Speaker 3: I mean we have maybe gone to we went too
Speaker 3: far with wokeism, but I think the basic rules are
Speaker 3: good for everybody, men and women, and it's been.
Speaker 1: Let me point to the second as Let me second
Speaker 1: point of the second aspect of why I think the
Speaker 1: story is important and why this debate. We can go
Speaker 1: back to this, by the way, in future episodes. Here's
Speaker 1: my analogy. You know, I'm baiting Lucretia here and see John.
Speaker 1: I think this is starting to remind me of Ed
Speaker 1: Meese in the late eighties picking the fight over rigial intent. Now,
Speaker 1: if the left and the legal academy had ignored him,
Speaker 1: it might have gone away. Instead, you had Supreme Court
Speaker 1: justices and law reviews and prominent people freaking out and saying, oh,
Speaker 1: this is terrible, we can't and that ignites a debate
Speaker 1: on original intent or originalism that the left lost. So
Speaker 1: it's not just David French. Hold on, he said, what
Speaker 1: is it to be? Well, here's the point is her
Speaker 1: article has elicited a huge response from the left. And
Speaker 1: then you know David French, who say he's a conservative.
Speaker 1: He's in the New York Times. His article is we
Speaker 1: have met the enemy of civilization and it's women. Hold
Speaker 1: that for a moment. A lot of smart lefties like
Speaker 1: Matt Iglesias and others saying, no, this is terrible, this
Speaker 1: is ridiculous. Is this is where the right is going?
Speaker 1: This is awful? There a couple of people have actually
Speaker 1: chimed up and said her article could have been more substantive.
Speaker 1: And here's some journal articles with the typical peer reviewed
Speaker 1: statistical analysis to show some important statistical differences between men
Speaker 1: and women that are relevant. So the point is, I
Speaker 1: think she's touching off bait. So there's David French, and
Speaker 1: I just I'll end with this and let you take
Speaker 1: it from here. Lucas, you got a little hand of
Speaker 1: me on this. She provoked. See, I actually did French.
Speaker 1: She is pretty good. That's a good slip. David French's
Speaker 1: column we have met the enemy of a civilization, that's women.
Speaker 1: It provoked Charles Murray to a tweet. And you know, Charlie,
Speaker 1: you know Charles, he's a pretty mild mannered guy. Here's
Speaker 1: what his tweet said. I am still waiting to read
Speaker 1: something by David French that doesn't irritate me. Even when
Speaker 1: I agree with the substance, The sanctimony drives me nuts. Amen,
Speaker 1: that's mindsert continue with Charles in this case, I wholly
Speaker 1: disagree with his take on Helen Andrews.
Speaker 2: Uh.
Speaker 1: You know, Charles brings a lot of batistics and learned
Speaker 1: social reflections to these kind of debates. I think this
Speaker 1: is the beginning of something. I host the beginning of something,
Speaker 1: and it's it could get wild and wooly. But who
Speaker 1: thought that?
Speaker 2: This?
Speaker 3: All I know is law, So I mean the legal
Speaker 3: profession all that well, in this period where this has
Speaker 3: allegedly been happening, originalism has arisen. Right, if this started
Speaker 3: in the seventies, this is actually during this period where
Speaker 3: women were allegedly weakening standards in the law and introducing
Speaker 3: all this huggy, touchy feely stuff in the law. Actually,
Speaker 3: that's the same period where originalism has kind of driven
Speaker 3: out all this stuff from the Warren Court, which is
Speaker 3: where a lot of these attributes happened. And we have
Speaker 3: a conservative Supreme Court. We've overturned the Harvard Harvard overturned
Speaker 3: right back right, we overturned roversus. I mean, I don't
Speaker 3: understand where all this corruption is occurring. When to me,
Speaker 3: during the same time period where this is allegedly happening,
Speaker 3: I think the legal profession from our perspective, has vastly
Speaker 3: improved from the way it was before. I don't know,
Speaker 3: what do you want to change it back?
Speaker 1: What do you want to change it to there.
Speaker 2: You brought her up as an example of someone who's
Speaker 2: not some whiny cry baby feminists.
Speaker 1: I didn't say.
Speaker 2: So. The other three are, okay. Remember what she said
Speaker 2: about January sixth that no, excuse me, I take it
Speaker 2: back about George Floyd that she and her eight children
Speaker 2: held hands, cried and prayed because they were all so
Speaker 2: empathetic about what happened to George Floyd. If that is
Speaker 2: not he was all I'm sorry that a drug addicted
Speaker 2: felon violent criminal died an unfortunate death. I would certainly
Speaker 2: didn't discuss it holding hands with my children and cry
Speaker 2: about it.
Speaker 1: Well, but you know, Lucretia John has a bit of
Speaker 1: a point here. I can't be a reaction. Well, no,
Speaker 1: we have. There are a lot of great originalist female judges,
Speaker 1: our friends, Edith Jones, Alice Batch Elder, there's Janice Rogers Brown, right.
Speaker 2: Remember she says that. Helen says that, you know, it's
Speaker 2: just like I'm a better shot than you two, even
Speaker 2: though I think men are mostly better shots than women are.
Speaker 3: Wait, you never that is that is that has not
Speaker 3: been proven. There you go with your touchy feeling, non
Speaker 3: fact based.
Speaker 2: Reality because you are too afraid to challenge me.
Speaker 3: I just believe in automatic weapons. You don't have to
Speaker 3: be a good shot, just spray everything with bullets.
Speaker 2: I think originalism is a reaction to this stuff. It's
Speaker 2: an attempt to say empathy has no place in a courtroom.
Speaker 2: It might have some place in a pardon, but it
Speaker 2: has And maybe a judge at the end of the
Speaker 2: day looks at a woman who uh lit the house
Speaker 2: on fire when her husband after beat her senseless, uh God,
Speaker 2: because he was drunk, and and she lights the house
Speaker 2: on fire and burns him up and burns him to death.
Speaker 2: If the judge wants to have a little bit of
Speaker 2: empathy for a situation like that, that's not what I
Speaker 2: would call well feminism.
Speaker 1: Let me restate the thesis and then move on to
Speaker 1: another topic, which is uh. I'll put it this way.
Speaker 1: My thesis is she's touched off a debate that may
Speaker 1: go somewhere.
Speaker 3: Uh.
Speaker 1: And second, this is why.
Speaker 3: I don't understand. I don't think so because I don't
Speaker 3: see what is supposed to change. Well, all right, let
Speaker 3: me it's an I legal perfision. What would we change?
Speaker 1: Well, let me do with her.
Speaker 3: You would like sell and I have quotas on women
Speaker 3: and the.
Speaker 1: How associates, Well, you put you mentioned, you mentioned it, John,
Speaker 1: we go back to the aggressive socratic method of classroom teaching,
Speaker 1: which a lot of not just women actually but the
Speaker 1: men who've been feminized object to. But the second point
Speaker 1: is this is an argument that you couldn't say five
Speaker 1: years ago.
Speaker 3: Ah, and now I've heard people argue about this in
Speaker 3: the law for a while now because it was a
Speaker 3: big women become a majority of the law schools, and
Speaker 3: people do talk about it.
Speaker 2: But but now it's breaking up her opening salvo. Remember
Speaker 2: what that was the Summers making the comment that there's,
Speaker 2: you know, some actual biological differences between men and women,
Speaker 2: And what's the reaction. It's not somebody pulling out their
Speaker 2: their med cat M cat scores or you know, this
Speaker 2: is my research and it's Oh my god, I ahs fainted.
Speaker 2: Oh I was so upset. Oh my god. That is
Speaker 2: just a perfect microcosm of modern academia, feminine academia. Let me,
Speaker 2: I'm so upset you said I wasn't equal.
Speaker 1: What do we get our ai parody? Let me let
Speaker 1: me add it this way for listeners who don't know
Speaker 1: lucretions referring to Helen begins the article by recalling the
Speaker 1: firing of Larry Summers for saying, was it twenty years
Speaker 1: ago now that there may be a difference in aptitudes
Speaker 1: and dispositions about math and science between men and women?
Speaker 1: That is statistically true? And for that the Harvard faculty
Speaker 1: voted no confidence and the Board of Overseers with the
Speaker 1: Board of Governors forced him out as president. I'm not
Speaker 1: sure that would happen right now. Maybe it would. I
Speaker 1: thought Howard Somers was kind of a coward for surrendering
Speaker 1: so easily, But.
Speaker 2: I'm not would say it either.
Speaker 1: Well, he wouldn't say it he in a normal lot
Speaker 1: of other people. But now maybe people will see, all right, look,
Speaker 1: let's have some fun with other stuff, because there's some
Speaker 1: fun stuff in the news this week, not so much
Speaker 1: about issues and you know, legal issues. John. But first
Speaker 1: of all, well, I don't know, we want to spend
Speaker 1: a lot of time on this. But last weekend we
Speaker 1: had the great No Kings rallies, and I want our
Speaker 1: team to have a No Parliament's rallies. That's a response
Speaker 1: No Kings. I don't know. I mean, you have any guys,
Speaker 1: have anything you want to say about all that spectacle.
Speaker 1: It's just the usual protest that Trump is president and
Speaker 1: so what butter Joan Biez concert. Okay, that's good, right,
Speaker 1: but more interesting to me and I guess there's a
Speaker 1: tiny legal angle of this is the way people are
Speaker 1: freaking out about Trump's construction of the ballroom at the
Speaker 1: White House.
Speaker 3: Yeah. I find that so bizarre, isn't it. I just,
Speaker 3: you know, it's understand why people are so freaked out
Speaker 3: about it.
Speaker 1: They're just going I think.
Speaker 2: It's a shutdown, to be honest with you, I really do,
Speaker 2: even though that's not always the perspective that the anti
Speaker 2: ballroom left is bringing out. I think it is a
Speaker 2: to distract attention away from the shutdown, or to try
Speaker 2: and make the argument because all the polls now say
Speaker 2: that Trump's Trump's approval ratings are up, that looks like
Speaker 2: the Democrats are going to end up actually being the
Speaker 2: ones blamed for the shutdown. They're trying desperately, but it's
Speaker 2: not working. People. You know, people don't really feel sorry
Speaker 2: for someone who's Obamacare subsidies are going to triple, because
Speaker 2: they recognize what a disaster Obamacare was in the first place.
Speaker 2: And I think it's because here's what you can do.
Speaker 2: You can lie about it, as the left always does,
Speaker 2: and say, in the middle of a shutdown and people
Speaker 2: aren't getting paid, Trump is spending two hundred million dollars
Speaker 2: on a gold ballroom, you know, just because he wants
Speaker 2: to stay in power, and he's not leaving in twenty
Speaker 2: eight because he's building himself a gold ballroom. And I
Speaker 2: think that they're just hoping against you know, Chelsea Clinton
Speaker 2: had the unmitigated gall to come out today and say
Speaker 2: that that Trump is desecrating the White House.
Speaker 1: Yeah, really really really went on that. Oh my god,
Speaker 1: to live in it.
Speaker 3: Seems to me a sign of weakness because if this
Speaker 3: is the issue of contention on the part of the left,
Speaker 3: then they're really not prepared to debate policy. They're just
Speaker 3: like they're giving It's almost like a sign like they're
Speaker 3: giving up. If that's the kind of thing they're really
Speaker 3: making their case on is because we're not there, absolutely right.
Speaker 3: I think someone said, like, after it's finished, no one's
Speaker 3: going to remember I look much better White House.
Speaker 2: How many how many times has the White House been renovated?
Speaker 2: Yeah a lot, Yes, maybe the first those friends weren't
Speaker 2: there before been there since the forties. This may be
Speaker 2: the first time where the entire thing was financed by
Speaker 2: private donors, including Trump himself. Yeah, it's only two hundred
Speaker 2: million dollars if you're a billionaire, it's not that big
Speaker 2: of a deal. By the way, there's a billionaire.
Speaker 3: It's like as usual, they're getting ripped off the contractors.
Speaker 3: I could do it for ten million. Jeez, well you
Speaker 3: just give just give that to Marco Rubio to do too.
Speaker 2: I won't.
Speaker 1: I won't, I won't. Right now, go through the reasons why.
Speaker 1: But there's actually a good logic from eating a bigger
Speaker 1: events space at the White House for steak dinners and
Speaker 1: other things. And and you know, Trump's absolutely right about that,
Speaker 1: but other people thought so too. They've improvised by putting tents.
Speaker 1: But if the grass is wet, you' you know, the
Speaker 1: women's high heels, it's the big problem.
Speaker 2: And yeah, much more difficult, correct.
Speaker 1: That's right. Yeah, I mean I told that I did
Speaker 1: twenty years ago. You get to go to a state dinner,
Speaker 1: and they're pretty small, intimate affairs because the White House
Speaker 1: facilities are not big enough to have big crowds. And
Speaker 1: sometimes you want bigger crowds for those things. So okay, well,
Speaker 1: all right, so that's kind of silly to watch the
Speaker 1: intensity of it.
Speaker 2: I think he's just doing it because of the former
Speaker 2: Doze employee that got beat up, you know, and he
Speaker 2: needs a place to fit everything. I'll just leave it
Speaker 2: at that.
Speaker 1: Well, I do as one of you just said something significant,
Speaker 1: which is, look, all the polls show that the Democrats'
Speaker 1: strongest issue is healthcare. They kind of own that issue.
Speaker 1: And maybe it's true that Obamacare premiums will go way
Speaker 1: up without extending the Biden subsidies that were reckless to
Speaker 1: begin with. I think I'm hearing a policy I'm being
Speaker 1: a policy wont here. I think Republicans are missing a
Speaker 1: major opportunity and or responsibility to go on the attack
Speaker 1: and say Obamacare has failed. We need to start over
Speaker 1: again and have real reform. But I've always had a
Speaker 1: this sounds this will sound LUCRETIONI like something John might say,
Speaker 1: which is I've long thought for years, just the way
Speaker 1: politics falls out for decades, and let me finish both
Speaker 1: parties here, that only Republicans can fix healthcare because they're
Speaker 1: a party that is more competent with all the market
Speaker 1: based logic, you would need to have a real healthcare marketplace. Okay,
Speaker 1: that's if democrats'll let them, right, and that's a big
Speaker 1: problem with our gridlock in politics. The reverse is also true.
Speaker 1: Only Democrats can fix entitlements like Medicare and Social Security
Speaker 1: if they want to, which I'm not sure they do,
Speaker 1: and if Republicans will let them, because Republicans will be
Speaker 1: against well in the case of Medicare tax increases, because
Speaker 1: the Medicare tax has always been too low from the
Speaker 1: very beginning. And Okay, I'll just stop there and say
Speaker 1: that to me, has always been the political landscape of
Speaker 1: these things, and Republicans ought to go first and say
Speaker 1: we want to fix healthcare. Are you with us or not?
Speaker 1: And then you blame the Democrats for blocking a healthcare
Speaker 1: reform that would work. I will say one more thing
Speaker 1: to annoy Lucretia. The guy who actually had the right
Speaker 1: idea on this was John McCain in two thousand and eight,
Speaker 1: except it wasn't his idea and he never could explain
Speaker 1: it because he got it from Douglas holtz econ a
Speaker 1: very competent policy WONK. But we ought to go back
Speaker 1: to that, and I'll stop there because it gets wonky.
Speaker 1: But anyway, I think Republicans are missing a huge opportunity
Speaker 1: right now.
Speaker 2: I had something interesting this morning to take what you
Speaker 2: said a step further, and this was the premise of
Speaker 2: the article. It was a real clear investigations kind of thing,
Speaker 2: but it was about how Maha make America healthy again
Speaker 2: was the key to Republicans maintaining the House in twenty
Speaker 2: twenty six and perhaps the sentence Senate, and that if
Speaker 2: they could get Republicans in congressional districts to embrace Maha.
Speaker 2: Do people say Maha, Yeah, well, okay, the same way
Speaker 2: that Trump and has has embraced it because the Maha
Speaker 2: moms out there are the new soccer moms, and that
Speaker 2: this particular uh, you know, it's not monolithic in what
Speaker 2: Maha means, but you know, some skepticism about vaccines, overdoing
Speaker 2: vaccine means, artificial ingredients in foods, junk foods, overprocessed foods,
Speaker 2: lack of exercise, too many medicines for made up conditions,
Speaker 2: all of those things, pesticides growing in the food. The
Speaker 2: MAHA movement doesn't necessarily join on all of those things.
Speaker 2: But the fact that Trump is paying attention to them,
Speaker 2: the fact that RFK is out there trying to do
Speaker 2: something about it, that this could actually give Republicans back
Speaker 2: to what tying it into what you were saying, Steve
Speaker 2: the opportunity to take the initiative on healthcare and say
Speaker 2: we're about making America healthy again, not just about paying
Speaker 2: more and more and more and more for useless medical
Speaker 2: treatments that make people sicker. And so it was an
Speaker 2: interesting perspective. I don't know, you know, there's a lot
Speaker 2: more subtlety to it than what I just gave it.
Speaker 2: But if Republicans could actually be seen as the party
Speaker 2: that cares about the health of Americans. And you'll notice
Speaker 2: whenever trolls like Mark Kelly come out with their nonsense,
Speaker 2: I'm trying to use big girl words today and not
Speaker 2: usual adjectives that you know, Republicans don't care about Americans healthcare. Yeah,
Speaker 2: this isn't about healthcare at all. It's about more money
Speaker 2: to those medical health insurance companies who drew up Obamacare
Speaker 2: in the first place, got exactly what they wanted with it.
Speaker 2: They want more money to ensure Americans. It's not about healthcare.
Speaker 2: Nobody's getting any less sick because of Obamacare these days,
Speaker 2: and if Republicans would just run with that, they could
Speaker 2: abolish Obamacare. John was shaking his head, Yes, that needs
Speaker 2: to be done, and they could actually figure out ways
Speaker 2: to make America healthy.
Speaker 1: So there.
Speaker 2: It was okay for Melior.
Speaker 3: There's an interesting study out right showed not by any
Speaker 3: partisan people but just scholars who showed that all that
Speaker 3: increased in spending and Obamacare didn't improve health outcomes. So
Speaker 3: sad we've wasted trillions of dollars. Yeah, and you know
Speaker 3: the money that's at stake with the lockdown is just
Speaker 3: extra subsidies egoing beyond Obamacare that were just to be
Speaker 3: short term because of COVID. Yeah, and there I don't
Speaker 3: know what I think of. I mean, I don't really
Speaker 3: trust Robert Kenny and the MAHA stuff, but that's I
Speaker 3: think independent of Can't we just go to the American
Speaker 3: people just say this has been a policy failure, wasted
Speaker 3: trillions of dollars, and I think the political support is there.
Speaker 3: Remember that Trump only came within one vote in the
Speaker 3: Senate of getting Obamacare overruled thanks to John McCain.
Speaker 1: Right, And who is that vote?
Speaker 2: Right?
Speaker 1: Yes?
Speaker 3: Yeah, but I mean at least in twenty right, that's
Speaker 3: twenty seventeen and eighteen. You had just one vote short
Speaker 3: of a supermajority to get rid of Obamacare. Yeah, it's
Speaker 3: just but unfortunately, like there's other entitlement programs. Once the
Speaker 3: middle classes getting subsidized with these government benefits, it's hard
Speaker 3: to uproot them. I mean, isn't there like studies which
Speaker 3: say there's only like one or two tiny programs entitlement
Speaker 3: programs that have ever been undone by Congress.
Speaker 1: Every time.
Speaker 3: It just gets everyone to dictate the free stuff which
Speaker 3: is not free. It's politically impossible to get rid of them.
Speaker 3: And that he sounds like what's happened with Obamacare. It's
Speaker 3: probably what Obama intended all along.
Speaker 1: Of course, Well, yeah, it.
Speaker 2: Would move even further in the direction of universal single
Speaker 2: payer it.
Speaker 1: Wanted to fail. Is the Cloward pivots strategy. It's been
Speaker 1: famously called for years. Perhaps let's do this. Let's move
Speaker 1: to our Babylon B segment of the show, because our
Speaker 1: our ah, oh no, hold on, hold on, let me
Speaker 1: keep going, our AI parody segment we've been closing with
Speaker 1: is actually a separate topic of its own. It won't
Speaker 1: take long, but there's an interesting wrinkle to it today,
Speaker 1: so that's why it will still be a regular links show. So, Lucritia,
Speaker 1: what are our Babylon bes?
Speaker 2: Okay, before I get to the Babylon Bees, I've been
Speaker 2: saving this for you, Steve since this morning. I've been
Speaker 2: cackling and rubbing my hands like this. So somebody you know,
Speaker 2: Michael Lynde, Oh yeah, unheard, Yeah, says.
Speaker 1: Turn to the mic.
Speaker 2: Oh, I'm sorry. Let me move this over so I
Speaker 2: can read it.
Speaker 1: Then.
Speaker 2: Plenty of other grave parallels have been drawn of late
Speaker 2: with the First and Second World Wars. Yet one hundred
Speaker 2: and eleven years after the first began and eighty years
Speaker 2: after the second ended, perhaps it's time we dropped the analogies.
Speaker 2: That three decade cataclysm will surely never be forgotten. But
Speaker 2: when it comes to thinking about and making foreign policy,
Speaker 2: these conflicts provide few, if any, lessons of history that
Speaker 2: are of value in today's world. On the contrary, these parallels,
Speaker 2: whether drawn by history dotorians, pundits, or policymakers, are likely
Speaker 2: to do more harm than good as they seek to
Speaker 2: impose anachronistic patterns on the realities of today.
Speaker 1: Well, this won't be my first rodeo with Michael Lynd,
Speaker 1: who I do know of it and I have tangled
Speaker 1: with sharply before. Did I send you, guys my lady
Speaker 1: about Sean what idiot? What idiots said that?
Speaker 3: I don't know who that is, Michael.
Speaker 1: You don't know who Michael lind is. See you just.
Speaker 3: I's smart.
Speaker 2: The really disappointing thing was you didn't make a single
Speaker 2: analogy today.
Speaker 1: I did too. I did an analogy to me an
Speaker 1: original intent. He started off.
Speaker 3: He kicked off with the analogy see it for the middle, but.
Speaker 1: The whole piece, and then I'll send it to you
Speaker 1: guys quickly.
Speaker 3: We should make analogies to World War one and two?
Speaker 1: What an idiot? Well, by the way, I took it
Speaker 1: out of context, so I'll go read it. But what
Speaker 1: you gave me sounds pretty bad. I can't imagine the context.
Speaker 1: It was about appeasement and oh well he's a lightweight
Speaker 1: on that.
Speaker 2: Because never mind, I think that was totally unfair to
Speaker 2: spring on you guys, But I think I didn't.
Speaker 1: I send to both of you guys my my response
Speaker 1: to Sean mckeekon that has not been published yet, and
Speaker 1: so listeners will know. Okay, Well, let's hold that for
Speaker 1: now because when it comes out, when it comes out,
Speaker 1: will be a big deal. That's okay, I didn't want Yeah, good, good,
Speaker 1: good good.
Speaker 2: Next, No, King's protest to end by four pm so
Speaker 2: everyone can get home in time for Matt Locke. This
Speaker 2: is my personal favorite. Worse and worse. Platner also has
Speaker 2: a nickelback tattoo.
Speaker 1: Oh for that, Steve, Yeah, he's the guy running for
Speaker 1: the Senate in Maine, a Democrat wh apparently has.
Speaker 3: A nickelback tattoo. I mean I gets a Nazi tattoo.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Well, he's running for the Senate as a Democrat
Speaker 1: in Maine, and he has a Nazi tattoo and nickelback.
Speaker 1: John As, you had another of the many blank spots
Speaker 1: in your cultural knowledge. But we'll let that go for now.
Speaker 2: It's me.
Speaker 3: For everything upstairs, you got to prioritize, that's true. So
Speaker 3: much stuff going on about Taylor Swift upstairs? Do you
Speaker 3: have time to think about it?
Speaker 2: The loub announces they have installed a ring camera.
Speaker 1: That's good.
Speaker 2: I thought you'd like that.
Speaker 3: That's good Trump.
Speaker 2: Oh sorry. White House construction crew finds one three and
Speaker 2: fifty seven more cocaine stashes right, Democrats enjoy their favorite
Speaker 2: pastime of holding all white rallies.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's.
Speaker 2: Where's the one. I got to go back to the top. Sorry,
Speaker 2: the really good one. Shoot it was. Sorry I've lost it,
Speaker 2: but it's basically Trump is stopping deportations until the ballroom misconstructed.
Speaker 3: Well, that's why it's going to be so extensive.
Speaker 1: It takes so long.
Speaker 2: No, right, all right, Okay, there's all sorts of ones
Speaker 2: about the Dodgers, but I don't want to get you
Speaker 2: too knowing on that, so I'll just let it go. Okay,
Speaker 2: and Steve Ais to death.
Speaker 1: Well, let's interapt the normal flow of things, John, because
Speaker 1: I don't know if you followed all this. But I
Speaker 1: had a person emailed me the other day, Personna real Well,
Speaker 1: and said, hey, I'm trying to find your article, and
Speaker 1: he gave it title and the date was nineteen ninety eight,
Speaker 1: and I thought, huh, I don't remember that title. And
Speaker 1: I looked for it and I can't find it either
Speaker 1: my own archives, you know, on my old hard drives
Speaker 1: that I have, or on the internet. And so I
Speaker 1: finally wrote him back saying, by the way, the date's wrong.
Speaker 1: I wasn't working for AI in nineteen ninety eight is
Speaker 1: could this have been an excerpt from something? Could it
Speaker 1: have been a transcript from a panel? So no, it
Speaker 1: came up in an AI I search for your work
Speaker 1: on the environment. Oh, in other words, another AI not
Speaker 1: fabrication but invention. So, as you know, John, there have
Speaker 1: been these several instances lately of judicial opinions at state courts,
Speaker 1: usually that got out with phony case citations, cases that
Speaker 1: don't exist. And this in the last few days I've
Speaker 1: heard or seen on Twitter and elsewhere several law professors
Speaker 1: people you and I know and Lucretian know who said,
Speaker 1: I keep hearing about a lot of you articles I've
Speaker 1: written that I've never written that AI have generated. So
Speaker 1: there's something going badly wrong here with all this AI stuff.
Speaker 3: That's all price scholars are probably doing better, probably better
Speaker 3: off with this mistake, because their productivity would being weigh up.
Speaker 2: It's called hallucinations.
Speaker 1: Well well there, you know though, that's I mean, that's the.
Speaker 2: Natural technical term when AI introduces when it makes something
Speaker 2: up that doesn't exist, which is actually I mean it's
Speaker 2: they're getting a little bit better time. But it's yeah,
Speaker 2: they're called hallucinations when you have faulty facts, faulty whatever
Speaker 2: it might be.
Speaker 1: Right, Okay, well that's preface, kind of preface to saying
Speaker 1: that I asked this week Rock, I moved on from
Speaker 1: chat GPT to GROCK and the prompt was produce a
Speaker 1: satire of Lucretia in the style of Three Whiskey Happy Hour.
Speaker 1: And one it produced was really pretty boring and not
Speaker 1: very good at all. But if you gave a note,
Speaker 1: it's said, this insult. Well the way, there's the rescue itself.
Speaker 1: When I gave a different prompt, So stay tuned, but
Speaker 1: it's say the note. This will convey some of the note.
Speaker 1: This satirical article is written in the style of Lucretia,
Speaker 1: the sharp tongue, quick witted persona from the Three Whiskey
Speaker 1: Happy Hour podcasts, known for her biting humor and unapologetic takes. Well, well,
Speaker 1: that's true, but kind of uninspiring. So then I went
Speaker 1: back and said, not satire, produce a parody in the
Speaker 1: style of Lucretia in the Three Whiskey Happy and it
Speaker 1: produced a transcript of you know, an actual, actual podcast,
Speaker 1: and it's a lot better. I'll just give you two
Speaker 1: samples from it and I'm jumping in right in the middle. Lucretia. Oh, Steve,
Speaker 1: your darn right, I'm itching. And it's not just because
Speaker 1: John's wearing that hideous tie. Again, seriously, John, did you
Speaker 1: pick that out of a law school lost and foult?
Speaker 3: Well, and the subject was about it said that about
Speaker 3: Steve's ties like that?
Speaker 1: Well, but then that the made up subject was a
Speaker 1: proposed department of meme regulation, and says so John, Now,
Speaker 1: hold on, Lucretia, The legal argument here is that memes
Speaker 1: can be a form of speech, and regulating them could
Speaker 1: fall under the commerce clause or national security, you know, misinformation,
Speaker 1: foreign interference. Lucretia, Oh, spare me the law review lecture, John, Okay,
Speaker 1: So like that? It's pretty good. I think it's uh.
Speaker 1: And then again the notes on this, the show notes, Uh,
Speaker 1: this one's a better one, right? So is tone content
Speaker 1: something else? Style? Tone? Lucretia's style is bold, sarcastic, and
Speaker 1: unafraid to take swings that both her co hosts and
Speaker 1: her targets. She is quick with equip but grounds her
Speaker 1: rants in deep skepticism of government overreach and a love
Speaker 1: for individual liberty.
Speaker 2: So I kind of like all that you know, Steve,
Speaker 2: you never Actually it's not bad, but you didn't include
Speaker 2: it because you weren't gonna be there when we had
Speaker 2: our no no, no, no, it's okay. I'm not trying
Speaker 2: to insold You're really not we I had AI produce
Speaker 2: a short happy hour between John and me and the
Speaker 2: yeah as the kids, but before that, I actually had
Speaker 2: the transcript produced, and the transcript was based upon the
Speaker 2: question of John, John and me discussing whether or not
Speaker 2: Trump should go ahead and make no South America the
Speaker 2: fifty second state because we were going to be going
Speaker 2: to a conference with our friends from Latin America and
Speaker 2: South America. And it's actually quite funny. So maybe you
Speaker 2: should put that one in at the bottom too, Steve,
Speaker 2: if I can find it.
Speaker 1: Again, Okay, by way, John, I think we will wrap
Speaker 1: there and let you go find a tie from the
Speaker 1: Lost and Found in Law School for your TV.
Speaker 3: I know where where I get that from. I mean,
Speaker 3: you're picnic when I'm going to wear on TV tonight.
Speaker 3: Which one looks those are actually so actually one of them,
Speaker 3: this one does look like it was from the Lost
Speaker 3: and Found. That's the one, Steve would probably that is
Speaker 3: a good tie. It's like weird stuff like yellow shirts
Speaker 3: and orange ties. I can't go down.
Speaker 1: Do you know what I used to do? I used
Speaker 1: to this going on too long here. I used to
Speaker 1: buy a box of fifty ties on like eBay or
Speaker 1: somewhere for like fifteen dollars, and I'd get a box
Speaker 1: of ties and I'd throw out forty five of them,
Speaker 1: but five of them would be pretty good. And that's
Speaker 1: how I acquired the very few Donald Trump ties that
Speaker 1: I have.
Speaker 3: Mister, why don't you just do that for everything? Why
Speaker 3: don't you just buy like, well you can't, like fifty
Speaker 3: oranges and throw them all forty five of them out?
Speaker 2: That moment said I'm never wearing a tie again. Mister
Speaker 2: Brooks Brothers threw away or gave away almost all of
Speaker 2: his ties.
Speaker 3: Oh, I would take some of those ties.
Speaker 2: I don't know that some of them were Jerry Jerry
Speaker 2: grateful dead Jerry Jerry Garcia ties.
Speaker 3: You are bane wearing that he kept.
Speaker 2: We're both Trump ties, which he's been wearing for years.
Speaker 3: Trump's ties are so ugly. I mean, come on, they're blue,
Speaker 3: they're like they shine, they're shiny, they're clearly not made
Speaker 3: of so.
Speaker 1: All right, you guys, it's time for us to say
Speaker 1: goodbye to our long suffer See everybody next week. Have fun,
Speaker 1: John bye, everybody. Everybody was buying.
Speaker 6: The music was soothing, said everyone attacked about listen.
Speaker 2: I'm gonna said by one to do about.
Speaker 1: Lessen Ricochet join the conversation