Speaker 1: And Hi, how are you welcome? Welcome to the Big Podcast.
It is Tuesday. Today is the seventeenth day of June,
year of our lower twenty twenty five. My name is
Tom Sullivan. So what do we have laid out today? Well, gosh,
boys and girls, we can't go a lot of different places,
but the war is still the top story. We've got
the war. The update on that retail sales numbers came
out today, a little story behind all of that, but
the war really is I think the focus today, and
I play we had I had a phone call with Laurie,
and you're going, who's Laurie. Laurie is the comment line lady.
She's the one that we always put us the last
call the end of the show when I was doing
the radio show, and she always had great little comments.
So I want to check in with Laurie and find
out what she's all about. So we'll be talking to
Laurie in the latter part of this podcast today. Also,
I want to get some of your phone calls in.
We haven't had a chance to do that yet, so
there's a variety of phone calls, so we'll play some
of those again. The phone number if you have comments, observations,
or just you want to mumble or ramble the phone
numbers eight five five. Well I do, I mumble and
ramble phone numbers eight five five two nine five sixty
six hundred eight five five two nine five sixty six hundred.
So that'll get get some phone calls in hopefully, and
we can play your comments on what's going on out
there in the big bad world. But let's start with
Israel and Iran and what's going on there. I think
the place to start today would be John Fetterman. Yeah,
the congressman, I'm sorry, the senator, Democrat, senator from Pennsylvania.
And this guy has been an outlier. I mean, he
had that horrible stroke and the people elected him and
he has fought his way back. He looks and sounds
like he's recovered one hundred percent. But he's making the
Democrats mad because he is pro Israel. So he's got
some comments about Israel, he's got some comments about the
parade by the US Army this past weekend in Washington,
and then again his unique position as a Democrat on
immigrant So let's give you the comments from John Fetterman
from earlier today, show no mercy and if you have
to take the supreme leader out, do it.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, I think they should have targeted him absolutely
gone taken them out. I think the way Israel operates,
they just take out the leadership, just like they did
with Hezbolah, and they've already done that with the Iranian leadership,
just took them out, even laying in their beds, and
they didn't take down the whole building. They actually targeted
where they lay in bed. And now they eliminated the
military ones and the nuclear ones. That's magnificent and the
precision which they've done that, And I don't know why
they would have left the leader out.
Speaker 1: Well.
Speaker 2: I think the reality is that you have a nation
that just is in a position where they have to
be held accountable for what they've done. They are the
ones that built and created the proxies like Hamas and
Hezbollah and put our whole region in this kind of chaos,
and now they clearly have nuclear ambitions, and now I
think it's entirely I'm not sure if I might have
been the only one constantly calling that to just take
this facility out and to use the B two and
those gigantic bunker buster ones and partner up with Israel
what they've done. Of course, I'm always going to stand
with Israel through this. Now if I'm an outlier and democratic,
I mean, I guess perhaps I'm unapologetically very pro Israel,
and now here it's what's true is that Iran has
nuclear ambitions one hundred percent, and now we can't ever
allow them to acquire a bomb. And now what stays
also true is that they have created the proxies, they
have Hamas and Zbolah, you know, so now let's hold
them accountable for this. And again we absolutely magnificent what
Israel has done since since Saturday when this launched as well,
done with such precision and lethality, and we want to
support that. Now, I think we absolutely got to follow
them into this and take out the nuclear facilities because
it might not even a true, true path for real
peace in the region. Now, because now taking out Iran
at this point, that's necessary if you ever have a
chance to have any real peace in the Middle East. Well,
I think it's a great start with the thirty thousand
pound bunker busters, and I just keep dropping them until
you can actually confirm what has exactly happened to them.
You know we have the tools, and Israel and we
all the world has the need to finally take this
out and we can't ever have Iran acquire a nuclear weapon.
And now what Israel has already done, it's demonstrated that
Iran really lacks any kinds of real military capabilities. And
now finally we absolutely have to finish it out and
now figure out where this goes. No, after this, possibly
there could be some unintended consequences, but for me, what's
most important to stop Iran and their nuclear weapons. But
also now now after Iran has been broken and humiliated
on the world stage, after what Israel has done, now
we have to just again finish it out. And I
think America absolutely has to have their back through this.
It's absolutely my unapologetically supportive of Israel and a secure
border and refuse to vote to shut the government down.
I have absolutely I've taken a hit with from the
from the base. I'm not sure why Democrats would boo
a fellow Democrat, but that's their prerogative.
Speaker 1: Now.
Speaker 2: And now with that military parade again, you know there
was no goose stepping and Alex, first of all, let's
say stop stop ever comparing anyone anything to the Nazis
and those kinds of thing.
Speaker 1: That's crazy.
Speaker 2: And now remember that's our soldiers, that's you know, this
is not an occupying force. You know, this is a
two hundred and fifty you know, anniversary for the army.
Why I'm not sure why it's outrageous to have a
parade to celebrate the army. Now, look at that video
that's on the screen. Now, that's not that's not you know,
like some kind of like, you know, anything extreme. It's
celebrating you know, a quarter of a millennia about the
American Army. It's like, I don't understand why that's controversial.
Speaker 1: So John Fetterman definitely pro Israel and was happy to
see the parade of the US Army on his two
hundred and fiftieth birthday. And then the question was asked
about immigration and do you support the president's efforts to
deport the criminal illegals.
Speaker 2: Well, let's talk. Let's talk about what I support. I
absolutely support it. And I was the leading co sponsor
of the lake In bill. Now is now so you know,
app target the criminals you know that are here illegally
and deport them. You know, I voted for that. I
think that's what we shaard. No one here should be
here illegally if they have a criminal record or engaging
in criminal behavior, actually them, you know. And now I
think they've also realized, don't target actually otherwise hardworking migrants,
whether they're not working in agriculture or working at the
hotel industry. And there, you know, like two things must
be true. Absolutely, round up all of the criminals and
deport them, but not target otherwise law following migrants that
are a very critical part of our immigration. I mean,
both those two must be true. And because I think
that's I think the investment of the majorities the Americans want.
Speaker 1: That, and I think he's right. That's where the polling
shows is that people are absolutely left and right, independence
doesn't matter, want to get rid of illegals that are
in this country that have criminal records. They are having
troubles with picking up other people. But the explanation from
ICE is they go into a room they've targeted an
illegal criminal, they find the criminal, but there's eight other
people in the apartment, and they find out that they're
not here legally either. That may not be criminals, but
they're illegally in the country. So ICE is not going
to turn their back on that. They're going to pick
up everybody in that situation. But back to the war
with Israel and Iran, like to check in with General
Jack Keene.
Speaker 3: The real issue is if the United States is going
to do something here, it's likely going to be from
the air, because we have that capability. And let me
say that if the United States was leading this campaign
and Israel was supporting us, this would be a very
complex and challenging set of targets to deal with Iran's
complete nuclear enterprise that exceeds more than twelve bases out
there where this enterprise is located, and some of them
are buried under the ground, and they've spread.
Speaker 1: Out there in Richmond.
Speaker 3: They've spread out this interfew just to make this a
difficult challenge. And the Iotola and his people have always
had the thought, and this is why they never dismantled
their nuclear program as a result of negotiations. They believe
that they can absorb an air attack, and because so
many of their capability is buried under the ground, they
can survive that air attack in terms of capability recover
and rebuild. They've always considered that to be a better
option than voluntarily dismantling the program, which is what the
Obama administration wanted them to do, and they conceded it
very early in the negotiation and gave up the idea.
That is the Obama administration. The Trump administration worked it
for many, many weeks and got the same response pretty
much from the ayatol as negotiators. They weren't about to
do it. And the reason is pretty obvious, because if
he voluntarily gave it up with verification, it's gone. An
airstrike is complex as tough as it is, he believes,
and he has advisers to tell him that he can
survive it and recover the enterprise and rebuild it and
still put a nuclear package together that will threaten Israel
and the region that's where these guys are. I have
no idea how many it would take. I leave that
to the people that are involved in the details of
planning if that's what's taken place. But I do think
over time we have the capability to render that particular
site ineffective. You know, it's obviously underneath the mountain, and
I think the engineers are contributing to how you do that.
But it likely has to collapse down on itself. So
I think it's achievable, but it's a formidable target and
it would take likely successive attacks to do it. But
the reality is the issue is what if we don't
do that, and what if we take a knee that
Some people are saying that this is going to lead
to another forever war, and let's take that off the
table pretty quick here. The United States and Israel has
no intention of conducting a ground invasion of Iran similar
to what we did in Iraq and Afghanistan, the purpose
of which was for regime change, was for occupation, which
led to nation building, and the length of that protracted
the war. And that is allows he taste people having
their mouth about it, but that's not on the plan
here for anybody. This is an air campaign by Israel
and it's the United States involvement, and we are supporting
that air campaign with a limited but very focused attack
on maybe one or two of their buried facilities. And
that's it understood, and we would have to prepare for retaliation,
is what you're just describing. The assets in the region
are not only to protect our troops that are in
those multiple bases forty thousand, but also to retaliate against
Soron and that would be quite decisively if they attacked
US as a result of intation campaign or just attacked
US in general.
Speaker 1: So that's the analysis, looking at it from the general's
point of view. What about the CIA? Dan Hoffman, former
CIA manager in Moscow, this is his take on it.
Speaker 4: Yeah, Bill, I can tell you from my decades long
career at CIA. You know, we don't do policy at
the CIA. We recruit spies and steel secrets. But I
was a backbencher many times during policy deliberations of this sort.
And what I expect the President will be hearing from
his advisors are what are the options to get to
the end state that we want? And remember why the
Trump administration withdrew from the JCPOA in the first Trump administration,
it was because of the nuclear program, the Sunset clauses,
because jc POA did not deal with Iran's ballistic missile
program as well as Iran's proxy terrorist network. And so
right now we've got a better opportunity than we've ever
had before to deal with those three challenges for our
national security. It doesn't mean we have to blow up Fourdoh,
but it does mean that Iran is going to have to,
in the words of their supreme leader, drink from the
poison chalice and agree to a serious round of negotiations
where we get to the end state that we want.
Intelligence collection is going to be key on Iran's plans
and intentions, their military, their intelligence, and their clerics. I
imagine that we're on a full court press to provide
the president with what he needed.
Speaker 1: Reel owns the skies.
Speaker 4: Remember a year ago April, Israel destroyed Iran's air defenses.
Israel's got covert operatives on the ground. They've been lethally
targeting Iran's military, senior military leaders, and their nuclear scientists.
Israel owns the battlespace, and Iran's regime security right now
is more tenuous than it's ever been since going back
to its war against Iraq in the nineteen eighties. And
so the question is whether we are going to strike
a deal now as President Trump would like to do. Now,
maybe Iran won't want to make a deal, and maybe
they'll rush for a nuclear weapon now, in which case
we may not have any other choice than to pursue
a military option. But I would expect this President to
pursue every and all available means to negotiate a way
out of this if indeed there is an opportunity to
do so. Listen, the key thing in wartime is to find, fix,
and finish your targets, and that depends on intelligence. Israel's
gout iron wired and they're able to collect on everyone's location,
just like they did with his ball on the Pager operation,
and that gives Israel a significant upper hand, as we've
seen in this war.
Speaker 1: So that's the military analysis and the CIA's view of it.
But there's another angle which I caught my ear earlier today.
There's a hedge fund manager, Kyle Bass on Wall Street.
He's a Wall Street guy, he's a financial but he
had a very interesting take on why the world is
in such a mess with Ukraine and Russia, and with
India and Pakistan, Israel, Iran, Taiwan, China, all of these
areas that are hotbeds, and he thinks and he ties
it back to the high inflation that we experienced in
this nation over the previous four years, starting with the
pandemic and then going through Joe Biden's wild spending that
drove inflation up to nine and a half percent. It
spilled over to the rest of the world was also
hit with heavy inflation, and Kyle Bass thinks it's because
of that that the world is so unstable today. Yeah.
Speaker 5: Look, I'm going to give you a little bit of
my ideology here, and forgive me if you can't connect
the doubts in the beginning. But look inflation and what
the US Fed did by putting forty percent more M
two in the market and pushing call it forty fifty
percent inflation between twenty twenty and twenty five to the
rest of the world in dollars. The entire world is
priced in dollars, So whether you have another currency or not,
everything's priced in dollars and you just backsall for how
much of your currency you have to put up. The
rest of the world has this kind of negative convexity
to the US's actions. So we push a bunch of
inflation to the world, and what that does is further
destabilize areas that we're already balancing along the bottom. So
when you look at the Middle East, even with some
of the oil producers, you look at the currency exchange
rates of the greater Middle East, including countries with you know,
like Turkey with ninety million people and they've hyper inflated
their currency away from twenty twenty to twenty twenty five.
So the financial architecture of the Middle East has never
looked this bad. The financial architecture of China has never
looked this bad. And so this gets back to your
question Beckans. Next, we have a ground more in Europe.
We have Indian Pakistan really showing some hostility again. We
have Iran and it's illegitimate proxies causing terror across the
Middle East and world britt large. And now we have
China staring down the barrel of the Taiwan Strait and
the US again and our allies in Australia, Japan very
much worried about what China does next. So my view
is this inflation that got pushed to the world destabilized
the world, especially the world's economies that weren't the Bell
Weather economies.
Speaker 1: And I believe more war.
Speaker 5: More friction, more social tearing of the society's is coming
because inflation was so large. It was if you look
at these charts of all the currencies of these countries,
you see that in twenty twenty everything fell apart once
COVID came about, and I can go chart by chart
by chart with you, so that architecture's broken, So expect more.
Speaker 1: Common His theory is interesting and about destabilizing the financial
markets around the world and the finances of the economies
of all these different countries. I think has a merit.
He said, expect more conflict. I'm not sure with inflation
settling more normal, It's still prices are still high, obviously,
and that's causing a lot of grief for a lot
of people, not only in the US but around the world.
And then you put the trade tariffs on. Don't get
me started on that. And then we had one report
that came out today on the economy. It was retail
sales for the month of May. And where did you
all go? Because for the second month in a row,
April was retail sales were down one tenth of one percent. Okay,
that was interesting, but May was down nine tenths of
one percent. This is a cumulative big drop for retail sales,
and a a lot of people think that it was
because of the fact of people pulled forward. A lot
of people went out when they heard the tariffs were coming,
went out and bought their supplies, bought the whatever they needed,
bought two or three months worth, and so it will
eventually catch up in higher prices. And maybe that's what happened.
In the month of May, import prices were unchanged, which
shows that maybe the host sailors, I'm sorry, the manufacturers,
the Chinese are maybe eating some of the tariffs, and
some of the hostsalors here are eating some of the
TIFFs because import prices for last month were flat unchanged.
Dennis Lockhart, he's a former FED president for the Federal
Reserve Bank of Atlanta. He thinks this was truly a
story about people, as they say on Wall Street, pulling forward.
Speaker 6: Think the pull forward effect is probably showing up in
the numbers, which means that the committee is likely to
just take this as one month's numbers, wait some more time,
and evaluate the next round and perhaps even the round
after that, before making any conclusion about what the consumer's
posture really is.
Speaker 1: There's no reason to panic.
Speaker 6: The data are mixed in the retail sales numbers, and
you can pick and choose among the data to paint
one picture or another. So I think this is one
to take on board. But I think theme of the
pull forward effect is perhaps the big story here.
Speaker 1: And of course he's talking about the FED. The Fed's
meeting today and tomorrow, So tomorrow, a little after two
o'clock in the afternoon Eastern time, the FED will tell
us what they're going to do about interest rates. So
then this Lockhart said he doesn't think anything's going to
happen tomorrow nor next month, is the same as Roger Ferguson,
the former vice chair of the FED, told us yesterday.
So nobody's expecting the Fed to do anything with interest
rates with all of this going on in the financial world.
And speaking of finances, hey, haw's that big beautiful bill
going over in Congress. Well, two people I can chime
in on that. One of them is Harry Enton, the
statistician guy at CNN, and he says, well, I'll let
him choose his own work.
Speaker 7: You know, I'm really really surprised when I look at
polling data. I look at it every day, but the
amount of disapproval for this spell, holy cow, my goodness, gracious.
And you know you mentioned the KFF, Paul, We're talking
about twenty nine points underwater on the net favorable rating.
But that matches to Quinnipiac University Paul from last week
when it was twenty six points underwater. Oh my god,
you need Greg lugain Is to get that far underwater.
And I mean we're talking about a negative forty one
net favorability rating among independents in the center of the electorate.
You rarely ever see pieces of legislation or proposed pieces
of legislation as unpopular as this, but here you see
it in two polls twenty six points underwater and twenty
nine points underwater.
Speaker 1: No good, Yeah, I mean there.
Speaker 7: Is a large chunk of the Republican Party that is
not in favor of this bill. So this is the
GOP with an unfavorable view of this bill. And what
we see here is look at this, twenty three percent
are opposed have an unfavorable rating of the big beautiful bill.
Now to put down in some perspective, Donald Trump's unfavorable
rating with the GOP as nine percent. So this is
more than double. All of a sudden, you're taking a
huge chunk of that magabase of that Republican base that
is turned against this bill. It is not just Elon Musk,
It is not just Ron Johnson. The Senate Republican from Wisconsin.
It is a large chunk of the Republican base, as
large double the percentage that have an unfavorable view of
Donald Trump have an unfavorable view of the Big Beautiful Bill.
And I will note that in the KFF Paul the
unfavorable view get this thirty six percent. You rarely ever
see anything that Donald Trump Back's got that high of
an unfavorable view among Republicans, But here it is with
the Big Beautiful Bill.
Speaker 1: So the bill is not popular. It wasn't popular with
Elon Musk, remember he got into that big fight with
Donald Trump about it. But the House passed it and
the Senate's working on it. And even though the public
says they don't like it, that doesn't mean that the
legislative leaders, the Republicans in the House and the Senate
won't pass. In fact, most of them do believe that
this bill will pass. And the reason why they believe
that is because if it doesn't pass, then all of
the tax cuts on every single income class back in
twenty seventeen will lead to the biggest tax increase by
the end of this year. So they have to at
least extend that twenty seventeen tax law and make it
permanent for you and me and everybody you know is
going to see a big giant tax increase. So that's
the pressure. We'll see what they come up with. There's
going to be a lot of people aren't going to
be happy with it because you know, Congress will put
all kinds of special spending in there for their favorite project.
But as far as the public's right now, looking at
public looking at this, they have no love for the
big beautiful bill as it sits right now. Chris Sanhunu,
just former governor of New Hampshire, was asked his opinion
about this big beautiful bill.
Speaker 8: So, new new governor, thank you so much for being
with us. All right, you just saw Harry's number. Is there,
you know, twenty eight percent underwater. So if you're giving
advice to your Republican colleagues, do you change the bill
or do you force it?
Speaker 1: You re message it.
Speaker 9: So it's really most folks in America don't even really
understand exactly what's in the bill, and a lot of
that is because they haven't messaged what's in it, why
they're doing it, what the tax cuts mean, the fact
they're not just you know, slashing medicaid, like a lot
of the messaging on the other side is what they're
really doing is saying, look, we're just going to say
there's a work requirement, which it was always designed to
make sure that able bodied, working adults could get Medicaid. Well,
let's just make sure that you're actually working. So I
think it's more of a messaging problem. Now, the interesting
aspect of those numbers is the reason Musk doesn't like
the bill is it doesn't go far enough for him.
The reason most Americans don't like the bill is because
they think it goes too far. So there's actually a
diverging reason why it's not.
Speaker 1: I will not I think the Governor's right. Do you
know what's in the bill? I don't think anybody does.
Last time I looked, it was eleven hundred pages. And
the members of the House of Representatives that voted for it,
so they never read it. So we got to wait
until the Senate does their thing and they finally come
out with a text of the final proposal, and then
you and I can debate the rest of it from there. Now,
let's get onto something more lighthearted, more uplifting, more happiness.
Remember the radio show. At the end of the radio show,
we had the comment line, and we always played two
comments and one that we wound up playing the same
lady every day. She was the comment line lady. It
was the last thing of the radio show. Her name
is Laurie and she has called in for a long
period of time. I picked up the phone and called
her and to find out more about who is the
comment line lady. So here's my conversation with Laurie. I mean,
you became part of the program at some point. It
really was. We always ended the show with your comment
on the comment line. How did I how did you go?
How did that all begin?
Speaker 10: Well, it was basically when the show was on years ago.
I wanted to call in, but I think I mentioned
earlier when I was on the air that I get
tongue tied, so I was really I was a little
nervous to call in and actually have a conversation, but
I just wanted to leave a comment. So when the
comment line came into being, I decided to try it.
And it was so nice to be able to just
sort of pop off about the topics of the day
and people's reactions to what was going on in the world,
and then I was able to put my zinger in
and technically not have to defend it later.
Speaker 1: So are you a writer? I mean, are you as
sounds like you like you are. Do you have a
writing background?
Speaker 10: No? No, I'm a secretary. I was a secretary, but
I don't have a writing background at all.
Speaker 1: There's a there's an old saying that Winston Churchill wrote
a friend during World War Two and he said, I
would have written you a shorter letter, but I did
not have time, which I thought was genius, because it's
a lot harder to write your thoughts concisely than to
just ramble on. I ramble on. But what you what
you have done is you take whatever the stories were
of the day and you break it down to some
concise statement. That always was interesting.
Speaker 10: Well it you know it was. I luckily had enough
time during the show to be able to do that,
because I would ramble like kind of like I am
now I'm great for bird walking, But just being able
to have a little time to think about it was
It's a big help. But it was so much fun
to call in. And I was really shocked the day
that somebody actually mentioned me in one of your callers.
I was out in my backyard pulling weeds or something.
I nearly dropped my.
Speaker 1: Teeth background in writing, because it sounds like it. You should,
I mean, you bring, you bring everything. And one of
the things about the comment line, which a lot of people,
I don't think most people think about this stuff, but
the world of broadcasting we live in in the world
of seconds, not minutes, but seconds. And so to tell somebody,
I did this for years where I would say, well,
we got about thirty seconds left, what do you think
about something and such? And that means nothing to people.
Thirty ships So you.
Speaker 10: Have thirty seconds, but I have a half an hour.
Speaker 1: Yeah, right, So to come up with something that fits
in the comment line is we always like to play
to comments, and it got to the point where yours
were so uh so great, so on point that we
always kind of reserved the last say for you. You
got the you got the second comment line call that
we played so that we ended the show with your
with your comments. I but to do it, so did
you time it? Did you know how many seconds you
were you were eating up?
Speaker 10: No? No, I never timed it. But the first time
I called the comment line, the you know the the
voice on there says, please keep your comments brief. So
I wasn't sure what, you know, how brief brief was,
but I just tried to I just tried to condense
it really really quickly. And then once in a while
your call screener would I think he would edit out
a few maybe a few second gap or some thing
to make it which was you know, those guys were geniuses.
Speaker 1: Yeah, they really. That's their skill is editing the sound.
And we don't like to edit something like the comments
that you would make, but to fit everything in. If
it was seventeen seconds and we needed twelve, we'd find
five seconds to pull out. So it's but it's that precise,
It really is, especially especially when you're backing into the
end of the hour where everything has to come to
a halt. So it's it's interesting. So how long have
you been listening to the show?
Speaker 10: Been a long long time. I was really disappointed when
you moved to New York. I thought the whole show
was going to change. But you were able to keep that,
you know, the flavor of the show and make it
work nationwide from what you had here in California. And
that was that was amazing. I don't think you missed
a beat.
Speaker 1: I wasn't. I don't know if the word taught is right.
But Rush Limbaugh and I were very close friends. And
when he moved to New York and I had to
fill in one hour of what he used to do locally.
And I said, we were at lunch and I said,
how do you what do you do? How do you?
How do you do this? And he says, he says,
there's no formula, just be yourself and and oh, by
the way, I always try to find national stories to
do even though you're broadcasting locally. And I took that
to heart. That was the message that I took from him.
So I even though if the if the sheriff shot
the mayor, of course I would do that story locally,
but on a national platform somebody I've always said, somebody
in Nashville doesn't care about the mayor in California, they
don't know, So you have to you have to skip
over some of those stories. And I hated to do it,
but at the same time, I basically just kept going
on what I did out in California, where they just
picked national stories, went with that. So there really wasn't
much to adapt to. It just kept doing the same thing.
Speaker 10: Yeah, well it was pretty seamless, but I just I
so much enjoyed listening every day that was you know,
out here, it's noon to three, so that was my
afternoon pretty much. I get all my stuff done while
the show was on, and something would catch my ear
and I'd go, I I got to call in on
that one. So and then once in a.
Speaker 1: While, go ahead, Yeah, no, no, once in a while.
Speaker 10: What oh, once in a while a topic would come
up that I'd hear earlier in the day or a
few days earlier, and it would just spark a song.
So I would start, you know, putting lyrics together to
nationally known tunes, and that was a lot of fun.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I One of the one of the tricks of
this trade is there's talk radio and there's news talk,
and they're not the same. News talk is in the
news today something and such just happened, and this happened,
and that happened, and and you talk about the actual
breaking news of the day. Some days the breaking news
is big enough to where that's going to be what
you do. But I prefer have always preferred, especially before
the internet was where I found this. I would do
yesterday's headlines, not today's, because yesterday you heard the news,
and last night maybe you saw it on television news,
and this morning you read it in the newspaper, and
by the time I came on, you had an opinion.
And that's what That's what I wanted, was people's opinions
about the story reason I was presenting. So a lot
of the times I violated all the rules of the
news business, which is breaking news, breaking news, get it
out there as soon as you can, and I would go, no,
I'll do yesterday's headlines because people will think about it
and have a chance to respond. That's That's been one
of my little theories. I don't know if it works,
but I think that's it did.
Speaker 10: That was that was really, you know, a smart thing
to do because people people do have opinions, and with
the breaking news you get knee jerk reactions. Yeah, but
with the headlines from yesterday, you get you know, I've
been thinking about this and.
Speaker 1: Thus and such, especially the ones, especially the ones that
evoke an emotion. You're really happy or you're really mad
about something, and I'm and I'm talking about it the
next day and go, oh, I got to call him
and tell them what I'm thinking. I learned that actually
when I when I first started local television news, and
they would end me out with a photographer to attack
people on the sidewalks and ask them, you know, man
on the street is what it's called, and asked them
some question and you could see their brains were racking
and going, oh, no, I got to say something profound.
I'm going to be seen on TV tonight. I can't
just say something stupid and so. But they would, but
they would say what they thought they should say rather
than how they really felt.
Speaker 10: Mm hmm, absolutely, because ye know, when you're right there,
you can't be anonymous.
Speaker 1: No. And you know there's television camera back in those
days had a big light on it and a red
light would go on when it started recording, and so
it intimidated some people. Oh I bet, yeah, so they
they I never I felt like I got a really
honest reaction from from Man on the Street interviews. Well listen, Laurie,
don't be afraid to call in. We have the same
phone number is still good eight five five two nine
five sixty six hundred and leave a pithy comment of
any kind what don't you like.
Speaker 10: A pithy comment? You're not listing, are you?
Speaker 1: No, I'm not. I'm I just don't speak.
Speaker 10: Well, sorry that no, that was a bad joke.
Speaker 1: Well, not a pithy is is?
Speaker 6: Uh?
Speaker 1: You know? A smart sharp comments like the ones that
you've always given. I think it's great. You have a
talent to do them. You do have a talent.
Speaker 10: Oh you you are so kind and I so much
enjoyed it. It was such a fun part of my day.
Speaker 1: Don't stop. If you're thinking of something that is crossing
your mind and you want to share it with us,
go ahead and dial the number and it goes right
to the comment line what we call the comment line.
It's the same voice mail system, and leave your comment.
I'd love to get I'd love to get some of
those in play them.
Speaker 10: Okay, I will, I'll lah. Will it still be like
a thirty second thing.
Speaker 1: That's a good question. You know, it doesn't have to
be for technical reasons. We can go much longer because
there's no one of the things that is hard for
me to learn. After all the years in broadcasting where
the clock was my master and I had to watch
just back time into the end of the show. Now
there's there's no into the show. It stops when we
decide to stop. But your best talent is again bringing
a concise comment or comments. But you yeah, yeah, definitely
you can go longer if you.
Speaker 10: Wan, I'll probably keep them pretty brief.
Speaker 1: They're better that way.
Speaker 10: But it's good to Yeah, I agree, you can. You
can get a lot more said in a lot fewer words.
Speaker 1: It's hard, harder, but I think it has more impact.
So LORI thank you thanks for participating today as well.
I appreciate it.
Speaker 10: Oh Tom, it's been a pleasure talking to you.
Speaker 1: You too, have a good rest of your day, you too,
Thanks Lly, Bye bye bye. So with that we wrap
up the podcast for today. The market's up one day
down the next. Not a surprise that you'll get volatility
when you have a war going on in the Middle East.
But the market today down on the Dow two hundred
ninety nine points lower to forty two thousand, two fifteen,
SMP down fifty, the nasdack down one hundred and eighty,
Gold down surprise, down ten dollars to thirty four oh six.
But oil prices up one day down the next up
today up three dollars and seventy cents to seventy five
dollars and some change for one barrel of oil. Thank
you for coming by today, and we will be back
again to try it tomorrow. Hope to see you then