Speaker 1: Hudson River Radio dot com.
Speaker 2: It beats listening to nothingness.
Speaker 3: Being Frank, where the only way to be is Frank.
Speaker 3: Hello everyone, and welcome to Being Frank. We're the only
Speaker 3: way to be is Frank. I'm your host, Frank Leborno,
Speaker 3: and i'd like to thank you for joining us on
Speaker 3: what we like to call the Intelligent Conversation Podcast, where
Speaker 3: no conversation is out of bounds and all points of
Speaker 3: view are welcome. We record live to tape, and I
Speaker 3: give you the date so you have some context and relevance.
Speaker 3: It's the eighth of November, just a few days after
Speaker 3: the most consequential election, certainly of my lifetime, whether you
Speaker 3: supported him or not, admired him, or abhorred him. Donald J.
Speaker 3: Trump's victory in the twenty twenty four presidential race was
Speaker 3: nothing short of remarkable and in some ways unfathomable. Remarkable
Speaker 3: because instead of being almost immediately disqualified for his many missteps,
Speaker 3: including any number of false accusations and claims inspiring a
Speaker 3: near riot at the Capitol, numerous indictments and convictions not
Speaker 3: only one, but did so handily comfortably winning both the
Speaker 3: electoral College and the popular vote. And he did in
Speaker 3: the country where registered Democrats significantly outnumbered Republicans and women
Speaker 3: who generally support Democrats vote in greater numbers. It's also
Speaker 3: unfathoable because many of the communities who can normally be
Speaker 3: counted on by Democrats for their support, like Latino, black
Speaker 3: as well as young people, did not do so in
Speaker 3: the record numbers for this election cycle. Considering mister Trump's rhetoric,
Speaker 3: it seems as if they voted against their own best
Speaker 3: interests Now, is this an anomaly, a harbinger of the future,
Speaker 3: or a reflection of a deeply rooted malaise in American
Speaker 3: politics and culture. It's an awful lot to unpack. But
Speaker 3: joining us now for some intelligent conversation on the subject
Speaker 3: is someone uniquely qualified to add an insider's perspective to
Speaker 3: our current situation. Jim Allion's career spans four plus decades
Speaker 3: as a researcher, resource manager, congressional staff, and a congressionally
Speaker 3: confirmed political appointee in the Clinton administration and the US
Speaker 3: Department of Agriculture, overseeing the US Forest Service and the
Speaker 3: Natural Resources Conservation Service formerly the Soil Conservation Service. Under
Speaker 3: President Obama, Jim oversaw the Bureau of Land Management in
Speaker 3: the Department of the Interior. While working in Congress during
Speaker 3: the nineteen nineties, Jim helped develop the Farmland and Wetlands
Speaker 3: Protection Programs, the Forest Services Forest Legacy Programs, and the
Speaker 3: Urban and Community Forestry Assistant Programs, all of which benefit
Speaker 3: landowners and communities in our region. Jim has also authored
Speaker 3: legislation to study the New York New Jersey Highlands, which
Speaker 3: has led to the concert of thousands of acres in
Speaker 3: the northeast. Jim and his wife, Jen Palmieri, was also
Speaker 3: known for her best selling books Dear Madam President, a
Speaker 3: podcast about women and leadership roles, and her frequent appearances
Speaker 3: on Morning Joe. Split their time between their homes in Annapolis, Maryland,
Speaker 3: and West Milford, New Jersey. He is also one of
Speaker 3: my oldest friends. I have known this gentleman for sixty
Speaker 3: years and I'm proud to say so. Please welcome my
Speaker 3: good friend back to being, Frank Jim Lyons. Jim, thank
Speaker 3: you for joining us again.
Speaker 4: Well, thanks for the invisentation, Frank, and thanks for acknowledging
Speaker 4: that we're both over sixty years old.
Speaker 3: Yeah, well, somebody has to do. They should have know.
Speaker 3: But my intro and yours, by the way, I want
Speaker 3: to say, was very truncated. As with most of my guests,
Speaker 3: You've done a lot more. But if I read all
Speaker 3: of it, we'd spend the first half hour just talking
Speaker 3: about your qualifications. And we've got an awful lot to
Speaker 3: talk about today, an awful lot. You know. Let's start
Speaker 3: at the top, I guess, and work our way down
Speaker 3: in your mind. Was there a single deciding factor as
Speaker 3: to why this happened?
Speaker 4: Well, it's obviously a question that will be debated for many,
Speaker 4: many years, you know. I think certainly, you know President
Speaker 4: Biden's first performance in the first debate, they had raised
Speaker 4: serious questions about his health and his well being, and
Speaker 4: and I think it kind of accelerated the debate and
Speaker 4: discussion within democratic circles about whether or not he was
Speaker 4: the right candidate to represent the party in the presidential elections.
Speaker 4: I think you know that. And the accumulation of issues
Speaker 4: that presented themselves to this administration, and the difficulty they
Speaker 4: have had trying to get some of the issues that
Speaker 4: were priorities done in part due to interference or at
Speaker 4: a minimum of the lack of assistance on the part
Speaker 4: of Republicans. It's kind of accelerated the whole process. But
Speaker 4: I think most most important Democrats as well as other
Speaker 4: Americans saw and unfortunately will come to recognize the threat
Speaker 4: that Donald Trump presented in the second term. And I
Speaker 4: think all of that, you know, weighed heavily on the
Speaker 4: president when he was considering his that his President Biden,
Speaker 4: when he was considering his path forward, and certainly among
Speaker 4: many in the leadership who were debating whether or not
Speaker 4: to encourage him to resign, which candidate might best represent
Speaker 4: the party in the presidential election and had to seed.
Speaker 4: And you can imagine how gut wretching that was for
Speaker 4: leadership in the party. Joe Biden's been around for many, many,
Speaker 4: many years and has been incredibly successful as a legislator
Speaker 4: and also had a very successful run in the White
Speaker 4: House until his health started to fail. So it was tough,
Speaker 4: but decisions had made an Unfortunately, uh, you know, one
Speaker 4: of the factors that may wade into Trump's President elect
Speaker 4: Trump's being elected might have just been, you know, the
Speaker 4: timing time was running out. They've they had established a
Speaker 4: pretty robust strategy, and the Democrats had to scramble put
Speaker 4: the pieces together and Kamala Harris, or Vice president and
Speaker 4: President's nominee, did a fantastic job, but in many respects
Speaker 4: that may have just been too late for lots of reasons.
Speaker 3: Well, you know, Jimmy brought up, I think an interesting
Speaker 3: point where, particularly with the Bidens situation, I saw what
Speaker 3: you saw and was during the debate and was shocked
Speaker 3: by it and was willing to accept the fact that
Speaker 3: he may not be suitable to go forward out of
Speaker 3: one incident. Yet Donald Trump's had multiple incidents of confusion.
Speaker 3: I mean, we could go down the list from you know,
Speaker 3: eating the dogs and cats, you know, these outrageous statements,
Speaker 3: literally physical missteps. He had difficulty getting into that garbage
Speaker 3: truck the other day, and yet he was continually given
Speaker 3: a pass where Biden was called out if you will,
Speaker 3: and Democrats responded accordingly, and then with every step that
Speaker 3: Vice President Harris made was also called out for impropriety, this, that,
Speaker 3: and the other thing. So it seemed to be a
Speaker 3: very unequal treatment, at least in the minds of the
Speaker 3: American people. That's one of those unfathomable things that I
Speaker 3: was talking about in my introduction. How did we get there?
Speaker 3: Can you put a finger on and I put you
Speaker 3: on the spot. People can't see this, but I know
Speaker 3: I'm putting you on the spot a little bit. What
Speaker 3: happened there? What was And we could use goose and
Speaker 3: gander literally because maybe we can talk a little bit
Speaker 3: more about it. Is the role that sexism may play
Speaker 3: in American politics something we do have to talk about.
Speaker 3: But is what good for the goose good for the gander?
Speaker 3: Doesn't seem to be.
Speaker 4: Well, this is one of the things that's in my
Speaker 4: mind incomprehensible. I mean here in his first run for
Speaker 4: the presidency. You know, his behavior, his treatment of women,
Speaker 4: you know, and frankly, his his tendency to exaggerate about
Speaker 4: his wealth not pay his bills. They were all known.
Speaker 4: Certainly in the New York metropolitan area. People understood that.
Speaker 4: And you can talk to a lot of people will
Speaker 4: tell you horror stories about contractors who were never reimbursed
Speaker 4: by the Trump Organization for work on casinos on the
Speaker 4: Jersey Shore one one good example. It's just hard to
Speaker 4: understand and and and it's hard particularly you and I
Speaker 4: have people with law enforcement backgrounds in our background. I
Speaker 4: dare say my dad and yours would roll over in
Speaker 4: their graves if they saw the outcome of this presidential election,
Speaker 4: it's just unfathomable. Yet here we are. It's it's just
Speaker 4: difficult to explain. Worse than that, as a result of
Speaker 4: the Supreme Court appointees that President Trump nominated and were
Speaker 4: ultimately affirmed by a Republican Senate. Either way, he'd get
Speaker 4: exonerated because because of the position they've taken with regard
Speaker 4: to the potential to incarcerate or at least to try
Speaker 4: a president. So this is the best of all worlds
Speaker 4: and out come for him. It raises serious questions about
Speaker 4: the strength of our union, about the health of our democracy,
Speaker 4: and in what it is that Americans, all Americans seek
Speaker 4: in the person they would like to see in the
Speaker 4: most powerful seat in the nation. Serious questions.
Speaker 3: Let's talk about messaging. Okay, you're aware, and you mentioned
Speaker 3: your wife, Jennifer Palmieri, who is now on MSNBC, a
Speaker 3: best selling author, etc. Was Hillary Clinton's director of communication.
Speaker 3: So you know all these things are knowledgeable, and as
Speaker 3: are you. But so we understand the importance of marketing,
Speaker 3: if you will. And messaging, Okay, what messages people receiving?
Speaker 3: And it seems somehow and I have a quote that
Speaker 3: I want to read for you. Also that the Republicans
Speaker 3: the GOP managed to zero in and call it playing
Speaker 3: to people's fears or whatever, but delivering a message that
Speaker 3: seemed to resonate more so than the Democratics. The Democrats message.
Speaker 3: Let me read a quote that I got and we'll
Speaker 3: keep it anonymous from Facebook, and I thought it was
Speaker 3: very telling. And this gentleman said, people voted for an
Speaker 3: improved daily economy for working class people. Daily living expenses
Speaker 3: are unmanageable for so many milk, eggs, bread, bread, mortgage
Speaker 3: taxes rent. I'm not saying I think the GOP will
Speaker 3: rectify the situation, but this is the sentiment here out
Speaker 3: in the USA that I encounter. Wall Street is great,
Speaker 3: but the kitchen table is where the stress on families
Speaker 3: is a little spelling error there. And what's interesting is
Speaker 3: kind of the role reversal where that used to be
Speaker 3: the mantra of you will if the Democratic Party seems
Speaker 3: to have somehow been turned in messaging that it's the
Speaker 3: GOP that's going to do this for people. You know,
Speaker 3: we've always thought, you know, and it's no secret that
Speaker 3: the GOP economic policies trickle down reward the wealthy, and
Speaker 3: what comes down will stimulate the rest of the economy.
Speaker 3: So therefore it's rewarding the wealthy that has somehow been
Speaker 3: turned around where now we're your best friend, We're going
Speaker 3: to put a chicken in every pot, and somehow they
Speaker 3: managed to get people to believe it. Now, just to
Speaker 3: finish that point, if you will give me another minute,
Speaker 3: where the Democratic message might be a little bit more
Speaker 3: of an esoteric nature. If you see what I'm following
Speaker 3: with great ideals of equality of inclusivity. These are admirable
Speaker 3: ideals and points, but are they truly translating as this
Speaker 3: person said to American families in areas where those are
Speaker 3: high brow and they're great for intelligent thinkers. But I
Speaker 3: need to put food on my table and a roof
Speaker 3: over my head. And somehow the Republicans managed to convince
Speaker 3: people that they're the party to do it. Long winded,
Speaker 3: but please address that if you would.
Speaker 4: Well, it's probably no surprise. I have no answer for that.
Speaker 4: It is baffling. I think the most people, not just Democrats,
Speaker 4: and I you know, I think part of the problem
Speaker 4: is that Republicans and and I've seen this on the
Speaker 4: floor of the House and the Senate as well as
Speaker 4: in campaigns. You know, they talk a good story about
Speaker 4: how they're going to improve people's plight. But generally, and
Speaker 4: I'm sure people will argue with this, but generally, I
Speaker 4: think it's been the Democrats who have brought to the
Speaker 4: floor of the House and the Senate strategies that might
Speaker 4: better assist and enable more average citizens as opposed to
Speaker 4: the wealthy get by. But the Democrats don't seem to
Speaker 4: be able to win the war of words on these issues.
Speaker 4: And the Republicans that do a very good job of
Speaker 4: demogoguing this and you know, and making making it sound like,
Speaker 4: you know, they're there to save democracy, to ensure people's
Speaker 4: well being, and and you know, God forbid save us
Speaker 4: from the onslaught on the Mexican border, et cetera, et cetera,
Speaker 4: et cetera. Uh, that really seems to resonate. And I've
Speaker 4: talked to friends, friends in Congress. I'm a former student
Speaker 4: who's a Republican in Congress, and I won't reference that individual,
Speaker 4: but I would say in general, people can't quite explain it,
Speaker 4: can't quite explain it, and are not sure how to,
Speaker 4: you know, rectify the situation. Except these messages are amplified
Speaker 4: in many ways. I mean, you know, we now have,
Speaker 4: you know, on a regular basis, opposing views of the
Speaker 4: world between let's say NBC and MSNBC and Fox. And
Speaker 4: you know, I have had occasions, and I have you know,
Speaker 4: relatives who are Fox fans. I've had occasions of you know,
Speaker 4: being at my house listening to a story and then
Speaker 4: driving a total of fifteen minutes to my nearest cousin's
Speaker 4: house and seeing reference to the same story and wondering,
Speaker 4: as I walk in the door and listen to the story,
Speaker 4: is that the same story? Was that the same issue?
Speaker 4: You know? And there's no filter, there's no register or
Speaker 4: meter to determine, you know, what's more truthful or less truthful.
Speaker 4: We're left to judge. And I think one of the
Speaker 4: big challenges we face as a demo democracy is all
Speaker 4: the various sources of information that people can go to
Speaker 4: to become informed, not knowing in many instances where that
Speaker 4: information comes from, whether it's accurate or not. I mean,
Speaker 4: most Americans are busy earning a living during their day,
Speaker 4: so they can't sit around and you know, kind of
Speaker 4: compare notes between one network and another. You know, they
Speaker 4: become familiar with a given pundit or you know, a
Speaker 4: given newscast. I mean, look at the following for Joe
Speaker 4: Rogan as an example. You know, I I question his
Speaker 4: authenticity and and reliability in terms of the information he
Speaker 4: provides his popularity. Well, that's the point that he attracts
Speaker 4: a tremendous audience, a big Hispanic audience, in fact, I
Speaker 4: know from from friends and colleagues, and who are Hispanic?
Speaker 4: To be clear, And and I I ask myself, you know,
Speaker 4: where where does one go to get the truth anymore?
Speaker 4: Do we even know what truth is anymore? But the
Speaker 4: consequences of the messages that are being sent through these
Speaker 4: different channels, these different outlets, two audiences who may in
Speaker 4: fact choose the stations or channels they listen to based
Speaker 4: on the nature of the news and whether or not
Speaker 4: it makes them feel good as opposed to bad. Regardless
Speaker 4: of the accuracy, I think, you know, just confounds and
Speaker 4: confuses and makes it difficult to understand what is true
Speaker 4: anymore and what is reliable anymore? And where one can
Speaker 4: go to get the most accurate information possible. I mean,
Speaker 4: imagine if you had ten different networks reporting reporting on
Speaker 4: the stock market. I mean, there you have a number
Speaker 4: and it's put up every day, and people know whether
Speaker 4: the market is up or down. But imagine if you
Speaker 4: had ten different ways to interpret that number. What would
Speaker 4: that do to investors? You know, how would they how
Speaker 4: how could they judge whether or not we have a
Speaker 4: strong economy a weak economy, whether or not and where
Speaker 4: they should invest or not. Well, I happen to think
Speaker 4: that the decisions we make with regard to aplat leaders
Speaker 4: are as important, if not more important, than the high
Speaker 4: then the highs and lows of the stock market, because
Speaker 4: ultimately those people, in the decisions they make, are going
Speaker 4: to impact that market. But yet we have one place
Speaker 4: to go to get the numbers. We have dozens of
Speaker 4: places to go to get an interpretation of the state
Speaker 4: of our economy, the state of the union, and even
Speaker 4: the health you know, of the nation overall. And it's
Speaker 4: confound and confusing and to some degree, and I think
Speaker 4: this has been documented. You know, it's not all intended
Speaker 4: to provide news. Much of it is produced by the
Speaker 4: Russians and others to simply influence our thinking. We used
Speaker 4: to call that propaganda.
Speaker 3: Yeah, you know, it's interesting and it's a perfect segue.
Speaker 3: I wanted to talk a little bit about social media
Speaker 3: and the plans and you see them all the time.
Speaker 3: I used a practical example where a good for a
Speaker 3: very intelligent woman a master's degree, et cetera. And posted
Speaker 3: something the other day about how no one was memorializing
Speaker 3: that the Vietnam War had ended on that date, and
Speaker 3: I said, I beg your pardon. That's because it ended
Speaker 3: in April. But you have to do a little research
Speaker 3: for that. In the past two gen we've talked about
Speaker 3: cognitive dissonance, where people tend to gravitate to points they
Speaker 3: want to believe in Okay, that they feel are important
Speaker 3: that reinforce their own beliefs. So you have this constant
Speaker 3: barrage And I said, you know, that's a plant, as
Speaker 3: you mentioned, from Russian and Chinese, simply to create discord
Speaker 3: and rancor, if you will, between Americans. And it's been
Speaker 3: very successful. And it's a question I had a little
Speaker 3: bit further down, but I think it's more pertinent to
Speaker 3: talk about now, and part of that is the fact
Speaker 3: that it creates this inflammatory rhetoric. And I think we're
Speaker 3: all guilty of it to a degree as a matter
Speaker 3: of fact. And if you follow my social profile, you know,
Speaker 3: and I have been and I've had said difficult things,
Speaker 3: and I don't necessarily apologize for them because I see
Speaker 3: my role as a provocateur. If I see trouble, and
Speaker 3: I see a present, a clear and present danger now
Speaker 3: and I write things accordingly. But I also every once
Speaker 3: in a while have to catch myself that the rhetoric,
Speaker 3: the accusatory rhetoric, ratchets things up, and it just keeps
Speaker 3: going higher and higher. So your thoughts, how do we
Speaker 3: deal with this superheated environment where we in somebody we
Speaker 3: resort to name calling. I try not to. Somebody called
Speaker 3: me a moron the other day, so be it might
Speaker 3: be accurate, but is it really necessary within any conversation?
Speaker 3: But yet it seems, Jim, that we're all guilty of it.
Speaker 3: It's not a one way street. How did we get there?
Speaker 3: How do we get out of it?
Speaker 4: Well, you've alluded to this, Frank, But you know, people
Speaker 4: like to engage in this course, sometimes inflicting views and values.
Speaker 4: I mean it can be you know, over a political ideology,
Speaker 4: it can be over you know, the impression of you know,
Speaker 4: a company or you know, uh sports team. You know,
Speaker 4: Americans love to discuss, debate, argue over these issues. The
Speaker 4: difference today is news is presented in many different forms
Speaker 4: through many different outlets, and there are no filters or
Speaker 4: mechanisms to determine the truth and accuracy of those things.
Speaker 4: And I'm not sure you could even create that's a mechanism,
Speaker 4: because beauty is in the eye and beholder, and one
Speaker 4: observes a particular action or activity. You and I watch
Speaker 4: football all.
Speaker 3: The time, and then their own light. It's true, you.
Speaker 4: Hear a lot of different interpretations. So I don't know
Speaker 4: how I don't know how we fix that problem. My
Speaker 4: greatest concern though, is that many many Americans, particularly new Americans,
Speaker 4: you know, whether you know they're recent immigrants or they
Speaker 4: are young people, they you know, they they don't know
Speaker 4: the way things used to be when there were a
Speaker 4: few networks, and while they might have disagreed slightly about
Speaker 4: you know, a set of facts, you know, the differences
Speaker 4: were not as huge or gross, if you will, as
Speaker 4: they are today. And I imagine it's incredibly confusing. So
Speaker 4: people probably pick, you know, their favorite network that provides
Speaker 4: information in ways that they either prefer or they think
Speaker 4: as accurate or as timely, and and they base you know,
Speaker 4: their decisions and judgments on that. But we do know,
Speaker 4: for example, you know that you know, the Russians are
Speaker 4: constantly sending messages. You know, the Clinton campaign had to
Speaker 4: deal with that issue, misinformation that was online coming from
Speaker 4: the Russians, unfortunately proven after the fact. You know, information
Speaker 4: now is more subjective than I think ever before. And
Speaker 4: you know, how one sees things or interprets things is
Speaker 4: always subjective to some degree. But then there is a
Speaker 4: body of fact that should serve as a foundation for
Speaker 4: you know, messaging what I would characterize as truth. I
Speaker 4: think some believe today that you know, there is no
Speaker 4: such thing as truth. It's all a matter of interpretation,
Speaker 4: and you know, and one's point of view and position
Speaker 4: I you know, allude to the fact that you know,
Speaker 4: I have a cousin who has Fox on twenty four
Speaker 4: to seven. I tend to watch MSNBC and maybe ABC
Speaker 4: and NBC and CBS from time to time. But I
Speaker 4: could not convince my cousin that something he's seen on
Speaker 4: Fox was twisted or maybe interpreted in a way that
Speaker 4: may not be factually correct. Sorry to offend Fox, but
Speaker 4: they deserve it. And this is what makes it so difficult,
Speaker 4: I think, to sort things out. And there are so
Speaker 4: many outlets, it's even difficult to know where people are
Speaker 4: getting their information from anymore so, given that people go
Speaker 4: to the people that they think they can trust, whether
Speaker 4: it's a Joe Rogan or you know, maybe it's a
Speaker 4: you know, maybe it's a different pundit, et cetera, and
Speaker 4: you know, and and these individuals and through their programming,
Speaker 4: have done an excellent job of attracting an audience. Oftentimes
Speaker 4: it's a mix of news and entertainment and opinion. I mean,
Speaker 4: how you can see that on on Saturday mornings when
Speaker 4: you're trying to figure out who's playing college football that day.
Speaker 4: So I don't know how you fix that problem, Frank,
Speaker 4: but yeah, I think it is undermining our ability to
Speaker 4: understand what is true and what is not and what
Speaker 4: the consequences are of failing to understand, you know, what
Speaker 4: we could consider accurate, up to date and informed decision making.
Speaker 3: You know, it raises a good point, and it's one
Speaker 3: that I discussed with my journalism students at Foredom too.
Speaker 3: Is the idea of journalists and journalism being totally objective,
Speaker 3: and that's not only accurate, nor should it should it be.
Speaker 3: Christiana'men Poor has a really great lecture series on that
Speaker 3: about impartiality. At times as a reporter, you can't stay
Speaker 3: impartial because you see things and if they are wrong.
Speaker 3: There aren't two sides of the story, there's only one.
Speaker 3: A classic example of somebody who might want to justify
Speaker 3: the Nazis there is no justification. That's an extreme example,
Speaker 3: but just to make a particular point, and there are
Speaker 3: still some people are I mean, it's been reported that
Speaker 3: Trump at one point said, well, Hitler did some good things.
Speaker 3: There's an example of that. It's up to a journalist
Speaker 3: to stop and say no. There's a great little meme too.
Speaker 3: You know, a journalist doesn't look out the window and say, gee,
Speaker 3: I wonder if it's raining or it's sunny. Your job
Speaker 3: is to open the window, put your head out, and
Speaker 3: report whether it is sunny or raining. It can be
Speaker 3: that direct sometimes, but I think that gets confusing sometimes
Speaker 3: for people where and you mentioned there's kind of a
Speaker 3: lack of professionalism. You know, professional journalists are trained to
Speaker 3: do their research, to present the research in a factual way.
Speaker 3: But now, because you have so much pungitry, so much
Speaker 3: Internet activity with people, anyone can call themselves an expert
Speaker 3: and anyone who chooses to can take their stuff as literal.
Speaker 3: Are your thoughts on that?
Speaker 4: Well, I'm at one point and I'll respond to that.
Speaker 4: You know, in my mind, you know the best example
Speaker 4: of the extent to which this dissonance, if you will, exists,
Speaker 4: in how and how it can so misrepresent the truth
Speaker 4: are the nine to eleven deniers who are still out
Speaker 4: there everywhere and believe you know it was you know,
Speaker 4: I made for TV movie or something. I mean, how
Speaker 4: atrocious and frightening, But you know that exists, and I
Speaker 4: just it boggles the mind.
Speaker 3: In mind Alex Jones when he said I was at
Speaker 3: Sandy Hook the most difficult assignment I ever had, and
Speaker 3: I had some tough, dangerous ones. That town was devastated
Speaker 3: by that tragedy, devastated. For someone to have the audacity
Speaker 3: to say that was stage is just extraordinary. But people
Speaker 3: believed him.
Speaker 4: Of course, well because he's got a following and people
Speaker 4: choose to believe him. You know, there is like I said,
Speaker 4: you know, there's no meter one can look at or
Speaker 4: go to to determine how accurate a statement is or
Speaker 4: not in that regard. I mean, you can you can
Speaker 4: understand degrees of accuracy in reporting something, but that's that's
Speaker 4: I think, a whole different It's a whole different ballgame,
Speaker 4: you know. I just I worry that we are we
Speaker 4: are the standard for journalism that used to be you know, truth, accuracy,
Speaker 4: and timeliness, which was also an important element. You know,
Speaker 4: it seems to have yielded to viewership and commercial income
Speaker 4: and and you know other quote unquote values that are
Speaker 4: far from you know, I think the values that should
Speaker 4: dictate the information that's provided and most importantly, how it's interpreted,
Speaker 4: and that's you know, truth and accuracy. But but I
Speaker 4: think we're looking at the consequences of this right now.
Speaker 4: It'd be interesting to poll people whether they voted if
Speaker 4: GAMLA or whether they voted for Trump about particular issues.
Speaker 4: And this has been done and and you know, get
Speaker 4: the interpretation of you know, what was said, and you know,
Speaker 4: I don't know how you get past that now. Of course,
Speaker 4: you know, we have the Russians and others who are
Speaker 4: continuing to you know, uh, to do things to undermine democracy,
Speaker 4: and that just shows how important truth is that they
Speaker 4: do this all the time. I mean, look at what
Speaker 4: they did to Hillary with regard to information emails and other,
Speaker 4: uh you know, other propaganda that they used to influence
Speaker 4: the outcome of the.
Speaker 3: And I know you're aware of it, you know, part
Speaker 3: of Jeffersonian democracy. And Ben Franklin said the same thing.
Speaker 3: Now you have your republic if you can keep it people.
Speaker 3: You know, democracy in the sense is like a contact sport.
Speaker 3: You've got to be involved for it to work. And
Speaker 3: it can't be just once a year, you know, for
Speaker 3: a week or two. Democracy is hard. And I'm one
Speaker 3: of my fears is that when you have oligarchs and
Speaker 3: the word fascist has been bounced around, and not without
Speaker 3: reason and not without legitimate fear because of what mister
Speaker 3: Trump has said if he keeps his promises, and this
Speaker 3: is another thing that I don't understand, supposedly freedom loving
Speaker 3: patriots who are so willing to give up some of
Speaker 3: their basic freedoms like freedom of speech. He's already said
Speaker 3: he will seek revenge against those who have come out
Speaker 3: against him, who was a Jimmy kim Well or something.
Speaker 3: With part of his monologue the other day said I'm
Speaker 3: a target. I have to say, honestly, with what we're
Speaker 3: talking about here, and I know you feel it to
Speaker 3: the same to some degree as well. I feared that
Speaker 3: programs like this, free speech, my blog, anything that might
Speaker 3: be critical of the president is going to be eliminated.
Speaker 3: And yet people supported it. Supposedly freedom people, freedom loving
Speaker 3: people supported that, acting against their own best interests. I
Speaker 3: just can't wrap my head around that.
Speaker 4: Well, Frank, I would, I would offer this as well.
Speaker 4: It's not just in the media we see this. I mean,
Speaker 4: I can tell you from my experiences working in Congress
Speaker 4: that you know, members would go to the floor, both parties,
Speaker 4: and they would spin a story, you know, in a
Speaker 4: way that would help rationalize their position or justify you know,
Speaker 4: an argument. And you know, to some degree all matters
Speaker 4: are subject to interpretation. But you know, I think it's
Speaker 4: reached a point where obvious lives are not called out.
Speaker 4: In fact, it's a rule, you know, in the Congress
Speaker 4: that you're not allowed to criticize them ever on the
Speaker 4: floor in that regard. So so it makes it very
Speaker 4: very difficult to sort out, you know, the fact from fiction.
Speaker 4: And make no mistake about it, though fact and fiction
Speaker 4: have very very different impacts and implications for decision makers,
Speaker 4: for the public, and ultimately for our democracy.
Speaker 3: We touched on it a little bit. The changing demographics
Speaker 3: of this country one of the things that I think
Speaker 3: has caused some I call it fear and loathing. I
Speaker 3: stole that from Hunter Thompson. But to make a particular
Speaker 3: point that the you know, the the genetic you know,
Speaker 3: excuse me, the racial makeup of this country eventually will
Speaker 3: change in just a few years from primarily white to
Speaker 3: primarily dark, if you will, And that has created certainly
Speaker 3: fear amongst white groups that they'll leave, they'll lose some
Speaker 3: of them, the few gains that they feel they've made
Speaker 3: over time will be lost in this eglitarian pursuit, which
Speaker 3: is faulty in its own thinking. But let's get back
Speaker 3: to the changing democrats demographics, and it was interestingly in
Speaker 3: this in this particular election cycle, Latino blacks and young
Speaker 3: people who were used to be very solidly democratic not
Speaker 3: so much anymore. If you look at the numbers and
Speaker 3: considering his rhetoric, they seem to vote against their own
Speaker 3: best interests. Why do you why do you feel that
Speaker 3: that happened?
Speaker 4: If I had the answer, to that right, and I'll
Speaker 4: put you on the spot, Jims.
Speaker 3: I know, I don't have you have the answers.
Speaker 4: What I find interesting is how the rhetoric has changed.
Speaker 4: I mean, you know, there's you know, still a hue
Speaker 4: and cry, a demand if you will, by many who
Speaker 4: supported Donald Trump to build the wall, the stop immigration.
Speaker 4: Yet look at the extent of Latino support for Donald
Speaker 4: Trump in this election. I mean, it was to my
Speaker 4: mind startling extent to which he was able to garner
Speaker 4: that that kind of support. You know, I'm not sure
Speaker 4: what that says about an issue about the you know,
Speaker 4: like the wall and immigration.
Speaker 3: You know, it suggests, if you will, and it may
Speaker 3: be a hard thing to say, but it certainly suggests
Speaker 3: we're in closed the door and many immigrants and many
Speaker 3: immigrants and then not only led to many immigrants through
Speaker 3: the course of years, Oh I came legally, and which
Speaker 3: isn't always entirely true. I mean, closed the door.
Speaker 4: There's a history of that, There's no doubt about that.
Speaker 4: There is a history of that, you know. But you know,
Speaker 4: we should not forget as Americans that you know, with
Speaker 4: the exception of Native Americans, you know, we all have
Speaker 4: roots elsewhere and you know, people have you know, come
Speaker 4: to the United States, often fought hard, sacrificed greatly to
Speaker 4: get to the United States because one of the things
Speaker 4: they wanted to benefit from was truth, because they couldn't
Speaker 4: get it in their own country. And I fear we
Speaker 4: are headed in that same direction. And I don't blame
Speaker 4: it on the immigrants. I blame it on the people
Speaker 4: in leadership positions who feel that using that kind of rhetoric,
Speaker 4: using that tactic is justified, irrational, and you know, and
Speaker 4: it's incredibly troubling. I mean, I I think I saw
Speaker 4: some of the elements of that, certainly earlier element so
Speaker 4: that you know, it's in some of the time that
Speaker 4: I testified before the Congress, particularly while I was working
Speaker 4: for President Clinton, when the Democrats were in charge, and
Speaker 4: I recognized Democrats are going to be easier on Democrats
Speaker 4: than then Republicans are going to be on Democrats, and
Speaker 4: vice versa. But you know, we we we would have
Speaker 4: pretty cordial and straightforward hearings, debate issues, no doubt about that.
Speaker 4: But in my second uh term, I shouldn't say that.
Speaker 4: When the Republicans took over the Congress in President Clinton's
Speaker 4: second term, or did the dialogue change, it got heated,
Speaker 4: or a lot of accusations, and serving as a witness
Speaker 4: was less presenting information than being interrogated. And you know,
Speaker 4: I can't say that, you know, the Republicans sat down
Speaker 4: and decided that was, you know, the strategy or the
Speaker 4: tactic they were going to use. But I would tell
Speaker 4: you that. And again maybe it's because I was a Democrat,
Speaker 4: but the rhetoric was much stronger, much more heated, from
Speaker 4: the Republican side. I had an experience after I left
Speaker 4: working for Congress when I was representing an organization and
Speaker 4: was asked on behalf of this nonprofit organization to come
Speaker 4: and testify on Capitol Hill about a particular issues had
Speaker 4: to deal with oil and gas lacing and the impacts
Speaker 4: on some threatened species in areas where the oil gas
Speaker 4: industry wanted to drill and conservation community wanted to preserve
Speaker 4: some important areas for maintaining these species. To make a
Speaker 4: long story short, I testify to what I knew and
Speaker 4: understood about these issues, and the chairman of the committee,
Speaker 4: who apparently was not there for the entire meeting, came
Speaker 4: back to the meeting or appeared at the meeting, and
Speaker 4: when the sitting chair gaveled down the hearing to end
Speaker 4: the hearing yearher, the full committee came down to the
Speaker 4: witness table or was sitting, and I mean almost assaulted me.
Speaker 4: I mean he just kept saying, you lied, you lied,
Speaker 4: you lied, and you did and I said, Congress know
Speaker 4: you too, I said, Congress, and I'm missus Chairman. This
Speaker 4: is the information as I understand it, and I'm glad
Speaker 4: to go back and review my sources and provide that
Speaker 4: information to you if it's going to help. But you know,
Speaker 4: I testified under oath, and I did mention the fact
Speaker 4: that my whole, my whole family or a policeman. So
Speaker 4: you know, don't accuse me of doing something that's inconsistent
Speaker 4: with what I was brought up to believe. Right, he
Speaker 4: didn't give a damn.
Speaker 3: You know. Another interesting thing, and when you look beyond
Speaker 3: the numbers too, with Harris and Trump, and you can't
Speaker 3: avoid it, considering, uh, Hillary Clinton, a white woman okay,
Speaker 3: lost the election through the electoral college but won the
Speaker 3: popular vote, okay. Barack Obama a black man, okay, and
Speaker 3: he won both. Okay. Now you have Vice President Harris
Speaker 3: who lost both. So certainly, the suggestion is that a
Speaker 3: certain level, when you compare those things, a certain level
Speaker 3: of sexism and racism had to come into play. Is
Speaker 3: it fair to say, considering our history, is sexism racism
Speaker 3: kind of deeply rooted in our DNA that every once
Speaker 3: in a while bubbles to the top and then we
Speaker 3: have to deal with it because this again keeps repeating.
Speaker 3: There was an awful video and then I'll let you
Speaker 3: get to the point, and I won't even mention his name,
Speaker 3: but it was one of these like stick your tongue out,
Speaker 3: stick your middle finger in the face of people who
Speaker 3: supported Harris, and basically glot voting that there's no such
Speaker 3: thing as a glass ceiling. It's a brick ceiling, and
Speaker 3: a woman is never going to be elected president of
Speaker 3: the United States. And he was damn proud to say it. No,
Speaker 3: I know he was being provocative just to get eyeballs,
Speaker 3: but there are people who believe that. Jim, I think
Speaker 3: we need to address is and just flat out asking
Speaker 3: in our soul do we have is it partially blackened
Speaker 3: by sexism and racism?
Speaker 4: I don't think there's any doubt about that. I mean,
Speaker 4: look at we refer to the population of the earth
Speaker 4: as mankind, right, that hasn't changed. And well, I mean
Speaker 4: I have two daughters, so I've seen some of what
Speaker 4: they've had to deal with. Interesting though, that today the
Speaker 4: president elect announced that the first woman would serve as
Speaker 4: the first woman to serve as chief of staff in
Speaker 4: a White House. Would would work for him? Now, she
Speaker 4: also ran his campaign, I believe, so there's there's a
Speaker 4: natural connection there. But look, Democrats had many opportunities to
Speaker 4: do that and elected not to. I'm not so sure
Speaker 4: that Hillary Clinton might not have been the first to
Speaker 4: do that where she elected, but we we can only
Speaker 4: speculate because that never came about.
Speaker 3: Now.
Speaker 4: I think, you know there there clearly remains an imbalance,
Speaker 4: and I would also offer that that you know, there
Speaker 4: will continue to be I think an imbalance between you know,
Speaker 4: Americans who are white, Americans who are of a different
Speaker 4: race or ethnicity. You know, we are a conglomerate. But
Speaker 4: you know, all too often I think people go back
Speaker 4: to their corners and so to speak, and you know,
Speaker 4: fail to recognize that it we're all Americans and we
Speaker 4: have an obligation to help each other lift all boats,
Speaker 4: as they say. I worry that that will get worse.
Speaker 4: Has nothing to do with who the chief of staff is,
Speaker 4: you know, regardless of man or woman. It has everything
Speaker 4: to do with the administration's policies and how they how
Speaker 4: they elected move forward. So I mean, these these are
Speaker 4: troubling times in many respects, but I think most importantly
Speaker 4: they're troubling times because I think we have made so
Speaker 4: much progress on so many fronts. We are a country
Speaker 4: of immigrants. Yes, we've had issues to deal with at
Speaker 4: the border. No one's quite come up with the right solution.
Speaker 4: Now it sounds like we're going to just completely cut
Speaker 4: off the border, but it'd be interesting to see how,
Speaker 4: you know, how that resolves itself. You know, for example,
Speaker 4: I think it is well known, but you know, the
Speaker 4: the agriculture industry, which depends heavily on labor for harvesting crops.
Speaker 4: It's particularly true, you know, for oranges and the like
Speaker 4: in the southeast, or the apple crops in in Washington
Speaker 4: State and in the Northwest. There are exceptions that allow
Speaker 4: migrant workers to come in and and operate. They don't
Speaker 4: they're not American citizens, but they are welcomed, you know,
Speaker 4: to do the work that they do. They get compensated,
Speaker 4: but then they're expected to return. And that used to
Speaker 4: be the case. Actually in northern New Jersey, where where
Speaker 4: I spent a lot of my time, you know, the
Speaker 4: the area in what's known as the Warwick Valley. You know,
Speaker 4: that was the fruit and vegetable basket for New York City,
Speaker 4: and and there was housing everywhere for migrant workers and
Speaker 4: basically all that they harvested before we truck things from
Speaker 4: coast to coast basically you know, found its way into
Speaker 4: the markets in New York City. And those micro workers
Speaker 4: worked all summer long. You know, I get to know
Speaker 4: some of the I was younger then some of the
Speaker 4: kids of some of these workers. They weren't very different
Speaker 4: from you and I, except they didn't speak very good
Speaker 4: English because they were never provided that opportunity. But they
Speaker 4: they made these you know, they made the growers up
Speaker 4: there wealthy.
Speaker 3: Jim and I use the term it just seems to
Speaker 3: be so appropriate. The fear and loathing that is heaped
Speaker 3: upon these people were going to give you a practical example,
Speaker 3: an empirical example. Living here in Nayak, I love to walk,
Speaker 3: and in walking I passed two or three landscaping crews
Speaker 3: there was another construction crew who was working on the
Speaker 3: Carson mccullor's house who had lived in the Great author
Speaker 3: and they're re storing it and making it a writer's place,
Speaker 3: et cetera. Anyway, the point being, they were all speaking Spanish,
Speaker 3: they were all working hard. Okay, they were all speaking Spanish.
Speaker 3: And after the day is over, they don't go out
Speaker 3: in town and create trouble and raided and rape women,
Speaker 3: their rapists and they're buying drugs. I see them waiting
Speaker 3: often with their lunch pails and their dirty clothes, waiting
Speaker 3: at the bus stop to go home to their families.
Speaker 3: The whole idea of deporting tens of thousands, if not millions,
Speaker 3: of these people is just extraordinary. And Anthony Bourdain, the
Speaker 3: great late author and chef, said, in all his forty
Speaker 3: plus years of working in restaurants, he never saw a
Speaker 3: white man do dishes. So the idea that they're taking
Speaker 3: our jobs is again, was an idea that we managed
Speaker 3: to be sold but really has no real basis. In fact,
Speaker 3: what will we do to replace all these people who
Speaker 3: will be missing?
Speaker 4: Well, it is unfortunate, but I was gonna say it's unfortunate,
Speaker 4: but you know, as you know, you know, eating they're
Speaker 4: eating dogs and cats. I mean, you know, it was one.
Speaker 3: Of the largest Haitian communities, by the way, Niac Spring
Speaker 3: Valley outside of Miami. Love my Asian neighbors. My cat
Speaker 3: Tuxedo chose in and out all the time, he says, ah,
Speaker 3: and he's getting fatter and fatter, and maybe I should
Speaker 3: watch out.
Speaker 4: I dare say, You're not going to find a lot
Speaker 4: of Caucasians who are willing to go out and work
Speaker 4: long days in the fields harvesting. You know, they're they're
Speaker 4: on a different track, and some find that worked. The
Speaker 4: meaning but it's I just worry about I wonder about
Speaker 4: how a president who claimed that immigrants were eating dogs
Speaker 4: and cats could be supported as he was by people,
Speaker 4: you know, with similar ethnic or racial backgrounds. I mean,
Speaker 4: I just it's it's sad.
Speaker 3: That's the id in my opening. It's just hard to
Speaker 3: wrap your head around it. Jim, You'll be studied for
Speaker 3: years with people more than you and I I think, well,
Speaker 3: certainly me, I don't know about you.
Speaker 4: Well, I just I just I just hope you know,
Speaker 4: a Trump presidency doesn't set us back further. You must
Speaker 4: feel like we've been making some progress, but you know, how,
Speaker 4: how can you provide support and assistance when when you
Speaker 4: benefit from demonizing those same people.
Speaker 3: I want to talk about that what we can do
Speaker 3: going forward, because certainly, and again to quote a great movie, online,
Speaker 3: failure is not an option. We are still all Americans,
Speaker 3: we still have a country to live in, to run,
Speaker 3: et cetera. So again, we can't wring our hands and
Speaker 3: throw them up in the air in frustration. That's that's
Speaker 3: not a it's going to be not a successful strategy.
Speaker 3: Let's talk a little bit about that. Let's take a
Speaker 3: quick break. First half has been absolutely great. We'll come back.
Speaker 3: My very special guest is Jim Lyons, Washington insider in
Speaker 3: many ways a good friend, and he's providing us with
Speaker 3: lots of intelligent conversation in our election host mortem. I'm
Speaker 3: your host, Franklebono. This is being Frank. We're the only
Speaker 3: way to be is Frank. We'll be back with more
Speaker 3: right after these brief commercial messages. Please don't go anywhere yet.
Speaker 4: Hudson River Radio dot com.
Speaker 5: This is Hudson River Radio dot com. Hudson River Radio
Speaker 5: dot com. This is Hudson River Radio dot com.
Speaker 6: Hudson Riverradio dot com.
Speaker 3: Welcome back to Being Frank, the Intelligent Conversation podcast. Thanks
Speaker 3: for sticking with us. I'm your host, Frank Bubuono, our
Speaker 3: engineer is Neil Richter, and our very special guest who
Speaker 3: will be back to in just a minute or so,
Speaker 3: it's mister Jim Lyons. You know, we bring our audience
Speaker 3: a fresh topic every week and stream from Hudson River Radio,
Speaker 3: located and beautiful and historic Stony Point in New York.
Speaker 3: But remember, you can catch Being Frank anywhere you get
Speaker 3: your favorite podcasts like Apple, Spotify, iHeartRadio and all the others.
Speaker 3: And because every Being Frank is archived, you can listen
Speaker 3: to any of our programs any time you like. You
Speaker 3: can find the link to Being Frank on the Hudson
Speaker 3: River Radio Facebook page or at our website Hudsonriverradio dot com.
Speaker 3: Just click and you're there. Okay, we'll continue our discussion
Speaker 3: now with mister Jim Lyons. It's an election post mortem
Speaker 3: with a very interesting perspective from a man who was
Speaker 3: in two presidential administrations and saw a lot of things
Speaker 3: from the inside, and we'll continue our discussion about the election. Jim,
Speaker 3: you during the break, you wanted to bring up a
Speaker 3: story of a man that you greatly admired during your
Speaker 3: time in the administration and how he was able to
Speaker 3: bring coalitions together. Tell us a little bit about that.
Speaker 4: Story, sure well, Frank. What brought this to mind was
Speaker 4: my reaction to the allegations by now President Elector Trump
Speaker 4: that immigrants were eating dogs and cats as part of
Speaker 4: their campaign rhetoric. When I went to work on Capital Hill,
Speaker 4: I had the good fortune to work for one of
Speaker 4: the first Hispanic members of Congress. He was the first
Speaker 4: chairman of a major committee in Congress. His name was
Speaker 4: Kika de la Garza, and Kika was a serious but
Speaker 4: jovial guy, worked well across both sides of the aisle,
Speaker 4: and was very supportive of me and others. I had
Speaker 4: just joined the committee. I worked for a subcommittee chairman,
Speaker 4: and he saw what I did, took me aside one
Speaker 4: day and said, Jim, I'd like you to come work
Speaker 4: for me. I'm impressed with you. Know what you've learned
Speaker 4: in such a short period of time. And we have
Speaker 4: important issues coming up. And this was a farm bill
Speaker 4: that was going to come up, and it's the legislation
Speaker 4: that creates the framework for all the agricultural programs in
Speaker 4: the United States as well as programs such as school
Speaker 4: lunch program and nutrition programs. So it was an important
Speaker 4: piece of legislation. But it was quite an honor to
Speaker 4: be recognized by Kika and invited to be part of
Speaker 4: his team, and we were very successful. This was the
Speaker 4: nineteen ninety five Farm Bill, and putting together a farm
Speaker 4: bill that expanded conservation programs, expanded nutrition programs, set new
Speaker 4: standards for food safety and health. Really visionary in his
Speaker 4: own way. So when I heard the comment about immigrants
Speaker 4: eating dogs and cats, I wanted to throw something at
Speaker 4: the TV because I thought, what an insult to one
Speaker 4: man I knew, who exemplifies the hard work, the creativity,
Speaker 4: and the commitment to democracy that this gentleman had. In fact,
Speaker 4: his son I was in the Navy, the US Navy, obviously,
Speaker 4: and I remember one day, since I live out towards
Speaker 4: the Naval Academy outside Washington, d C. The chairman grabbed
Speaker 4: me at a hearing and said, Jim, would you drive
Speaker 4: me out to the Naval Academies to see my son
Speaker 4: who was stationed there for a short period of time.
Speaker 4: So he could have gotten anybody to give him a ride,
Speaker 4: and he could have, you know, got a limo to
Speaker 4: take him out there. It was the most fascinating conversation,
Speaker 4: and I felt like I was having a conversation with
Speaker 4: somebody in Fort Lee, just that kind of human being.
Speaker 4: So to vilify and insult immigrants is in my mind,
Speaker 4: disgusting and like, you know, people from all back rounds,
Speaker 4: you know, ethnicity racist. You know, you've got to judge
Speaker 4: the person as a person and and make the investment
Speaker 4: of time and effort to understand those persons what they're
Speaker 4: dealing with. And that goes for white people, I know,
Speaker 4: black people, et cetera. I think one of the things
Speaker 4: we share, Frank, is I think we've always treated people
Speaker 4: like that when we played ball together.
Speaker 3: You mentioned our parents, and we were well parented who
Speaker 3: taught us respect for everyone, for all life and everyone.
Speaker 3: So it's strange about this, It's not.
Speaker 7: That hard well, and I wish that we could just
Speaker 7: get past this, this tendency to use race and ethnicity
Speaker 7: as a political weapon and recognize the important value that individuals,
Speaker 7: regardless of their background, you know, and their experiences and
Speaker 7: certainly their ethnicity is That's not the way to measure people,
Speaker 7: and it should never be the way to measure people.
Speaker 4: And I hope they'll our president elect will get past
Speaker 4: using it as a weapon and see it as a
Speaker 4: true asset, because that's what America is, a diverse community.
Speaker 4: And now we're a diverse community and we can accomplish
Speaker 4: great things together. But the best way to disrupt and
Speaker 4: destroy this great democracy is to decide to vilify certain individuals, organizations, races, ethnicity.
Speaker 4: It is just wrong.
Speaker 3: Jim, what do you tell people who were hurting, who
Speaker 3: see this administration as a clear and present danger. As
Speaker 3: you mentioned, we're all Americans. We have to get through
Speaker 3: this together. What do you suggest how do we do this?
Speaker 3: Failure again, that's to belabor failure is not an option.
Speaker 4: Well, the only thing you can do right now is
Speaker 4: try to allay their fears, because there are a lot
Speaker 4: of people who are afraid what the consequences may be,
Speaker 4: and try to help others understand that they need to
Speaker 4: look past the color of a person's skin or frankly,
Speaker 4: you know the language they speak. You know in my world,
Speaker 4: in your world, hear a lot of Spanish these days.
Speaker 1: And I will tell you, I will tell you most
Speaker 1: of the people who are doing the labor that I see,
Speaker 1: and it's everything from construction to agriculture to you know,
Speaker 1: not just physical labor, but other work.
Speaker 4: They tend to be people came from other countries, from
Speaker 4: other regions, and you know, yeah, we are all created
Speaker 4: equal to me, have different dialects, are come from different places.
Speaker 4: But let's treat people like human beings and respect them
Speaker 4: for what they can do. Recognize everyone makes mistakes, and
Speaker 4: try to help people get past those mistakes and be
Speaker 4: successful in their own right because we are a nation
Speaker 4: of imigrant's. God damn it. You know, I have a
Speaker 4: lot of friends who are Native Americans, including one you've
Speaker 4: connected me with. Yes, up in North Jersey.
Speaker 3: Harry was on our last episode always.
Speaker 4: And uh you know, and uh yeah, And they have
Speaker 4: every right to be upset about the way we've treated
Speaker 4: the land, and you know that we didn't inherit that
Speaker 4: we took from them, But even he sees the importance
Speaker 4: of working together, of finding ways to collaborate to make
Speaker 4: this land and this nation better. And you know, enough
Speaker 4: is enough. I hope, I hope the next Trump administration
Speaker 4: can get past using rhetoric, that rhetoric as a weapon
Speaker 4: and find ways to bring people together, you know, for
Speaker 4: the greatness of the country and what it can be.
Speaker 3: Jim, we're just about at a time, but I want
Speaker 3: to give you a chance. I know you still actively
Speaker 3: involved open space sustainability. It's is big on your agenda.
Speaker 3: If you can quickly in about a minute or so,
Speaker 3: what are you up to?
Speaker 4: Sure?
Speaker 8: Well, Fortunately, with a generous grant from a donor, my
Speaker 8: wife Jennifer Palmery and I have purchased two hundred and
Speaker 8: twenty acres of land right on the New York New
Speaker 8: Jersey border.
Speaker 4: It central to Warwick basically, but it is adjacent to
Speaker 4: the Appalachian Trail as well as to way Way on
Speaker 4: the State Park. And our goal there is to demonstrate
Speaker 4: how to use agriculture as a means to mitigate climate change,
Speaker 4: you know, we call them nature based solutions, but to
Speaker 4: grow crops, to manage forests, to maintain biodiversity, to mitigate
Speaker 4: climate change, and to focus on connecting not only the
Speaker 4: landscapes that are important for wildlife in that area, but
Speaker 4: connecting people back to their land. We call it the
Speaker 4: Highland Center for Climate Conservation and Connectivity. And as we
Speaker 4: put this together over the next year or two. We
Speaker 4: hope to bring kids up from Newark, Jersey City, New
Speaker 4: York City, capitalize on a facility that is right nearby
Speaker 4: in Warwick. We might be able to house some of
Speaker 4: these kids and give them exposure to the outdoors, help
Speaker 4: them learn about agriculture and conservation, and help them understand
Speaker 4: what they can achieve regardless of their ethnicity, their background,
Speaker 4: or where they happen to live the rest of the time.
Speaker 3: Great worthy goal, Jim Lyons, my friend, one of my
Speaker 3: longest friends. Yeah, we gave up our age sixty. Can
Speaker 3: you believe that sixty years two fort lee boys who would.
Speaker 4: Have sixty years old?
Speaker 3: Friend, Well, I don't tell everybody plus plus plus anyway,
Speaker 3: my friend, always a pleasure. This was absolutely terrific And
Speaker 3: again I hope we sent the message that we can
Speaker 3: get through this stick together, love one another, serve one another.
Speaker 3: They are only cheesy terms if you allow them to be,
Speaker 3: and we won't. So thank you for being Frank and
Speaker 3: always your intelligent conversation. Jim.
Speaker 4: It's always a pleasure, h pleasure, Frank. Thanks you know.
Speaker 3: Of course, we offer special thanks to our listeners who
Speaker 3: take time to give us a voice in their lives.
Speaker 3: We offer fresh topic every week. Catch us wherever and
Speaker 3: whenever you get your favorite podcasts. Check us out on
Speaker 3: the Hudson River Radio Facebook page, Like us and leave
Speaker 3: us a comment too. We also ask you that you
Speaker 3: consider sharing Being Frank with others. You know always leave
Speaker 3: you with two little things a slogan and I think
Speaker 3: is appropriate, and a song also to enjoy to close
Speaker 3: out the podcast. This of course comes from Ben Franklin,
Speaker 3: one of the greatest Americans, one of the greatest people
Speaker 3: in the history of the world, and he said, liberty
Speaker 3: means responsibility. That is why most men dreaded. I think
Speaker 3: very appropriate for our conversation today. Takes work. You gotta
Speaker 3: work at it. Our closing music is again from some
Speaker 3: of my favorites, the Ruse Bros, The Ruse Brothers, and
Speaker 3: a little tongue in cheek here it's called even the
Speaker 3: Devil Don't Want Him. I'm your host, Frank lebono for
Speaker 3: our engineer Neil Richter. We hope to have you join
Speaker 3: us for the next Being Frank, where the only way
Speaker 3: to be is Frank.
Speaker 9: Thanks everybody spreading lies using God.
Speaker 3: It's his tool.
Speaker 6: But you think he's wise, it's just his fool he's
Speaker 6: like to see spreading.
Speaker 5: Far and wide.
Speaker 6: I'm wondering how I don't get sick and die. Tell
Speaker 6: you why the devil don't want him? Even the devil
Speaker 6: don't have him?
Speaker 5: Go devil, don't you?
Speaker 6: Even the devil don't want him. If you, the devil
Speaker 6: won't have him.
Speaker 4: That's why.
Speaker 6: He grew up rich, kicking his feet to leave you
Speaker 6: in the ditch.
Speaker 3: And then retreat.
Speaker 6: God everything money could buy, and you could shoot him
Speaker 6: on fib.
Speaker 3: Out anue, But he won't die.
Speaker 6: Why the devil don't want him? Even the devil won't
Speaker 6: tap the devil. The devil don't want him.
Speaker 3: Even the devil won't tab.
Speaker 5: Use.
Speaker 6: He never help you up, love to knock you down.
Speaker 3: He thinks he's a saint.
Speaker 2: But he's just a clown. He wants a parade so
Speaker 2: he can glow. He ain't gonna die, So you bet
Speaker 2: up a pot.
Speaker 3: The devil don't want him. Even the devil won't have him.
Speaker 6: The devil want to use him.
Speaker 4: I tried.
Speaker 6: The devil don't want him, even the devil.
Speaker 4: Gonna have him.
Speaker 3: Devil wanna use on him.
Speaker 5: Come on.
Speaker 4: Him, don't want me.
Speaker 5: We're heavy.
Speaker 4: We didn't choose.
Speaker 6: In the deal, don't walk in.
Speaker 9: This is Hudson River Radio dot com MHM