Speaker 1: Welcome back, everyone to a new episode of You're Wrong
with Molly Hemingway, editor in chief of The Federalist and
David Harsani, senior writer at The Washington Examiner. Just as
a reminder, if you'd like to email the show, please
do so at radio at the Federalist dot com.
Speaker 2: We'd love to hear from you. Molly. How's it going well.
Speaker 3: I am having a particularly busy week. I flew on
Friday to Phoenix so that I could be at Charlie's
memorial on Sunday. And I had to fly on Friday
because all of the flights were sold out on Saturday
and I wanted to make sure I got in. So
I spent the weekend in Phoenix, and then after Charlie's Memorial,
I took a red eye to New York City, got
very little sleep, did some TV on Monday, and then
as soon as I was done with the TV, flew
down to Tampa and drove down to Sarasota. And I'll
be speaking at New College or I will have already
done so by the time this airs, and so I've
just been like go, go going for days and I
won't be home but in my own bed but two nights,
you know, in the next couple of weeks. But I'm exhausted,
That's what I'm trying to say. This is a very
exciting way to begin, but I'm exhausted.
Speaker 1: Well, would you mind talking a little bit about the
memorial service for Charlie Kirk? What you know, I think
it was attended by like ninety thousand people, was it?
Speaker 2: It must have been something to be there.
Speaker 3: Yeah, So it really did not work with my schedule
to go. I mean, it just really was genuinely an impossibility.
But every time I have missed a funeral or a wedding,
I have regretted it. So I do my best to
make it out. And I just did not feel right
about not being there, and so Sean Davis and I
both went out. He also had a crazy schedule, but
I'm so glad we went. And because I got there
a little early, I was just talking to random people,
went on a hike. I was out there with a
friend and we went on a hike north of Phoenix
and it was beautiful, you know, early morning hike. We
had coffee. Afterwards, we go into this coffee shop and
from that conversation on, like at the coffee shop. Talking
to the brista, we realized this was going to be
a massive event. I knew it was at an NFL stadium,
and in fact, one of the largest NFL stadium so
I knew it. I knew they were capable of having
a lot of people, but I didn't think they would
actually fill the stadium. You know, people throw around numbers
all the time, but it's really difficult to get massive
groups of people to a singular location at a specific time.
And every conversation we had, we realized people were talking
about getting out there at two am or four am,
and we had you know, special access and special parking
as friends, but so we didn't think we needed to
get there as early, and we certainly didn't need to
camp out. But we left early on Sunday morning, you know,
by six am, and we pretty much immediately realized that
it was going to be trouble getting in. And before
eight after having not made any progress or not much
of any progress at all, and realizing we're just not
going to make it there in time at the rate
of progress that we were having, we abandoned the car
in a neighborhood and walked in and one of the
challenges was that if you were general admission, you had
a ticket, but if you had the you know, the
friends and family access, that was through a QR code,
and they wouldn't accept your QR code at general admission,
and they wouldn't accept you in as a pedestrian through
the Friends and Family entrance. You had to come in
in a car. So I just started hitchhiking and we
you know, get kind of like away from the Secret Service.
So they didn't yell at me, but you know, found
a guy who had room for us because his wife
and kids had had found a way in otherwise, and
so he brought us in in the car. And by
the time we made it in, which I think was,
you know, in the eight o'clock hours, still it was
already almost full, and the outside was a massive crowd
of people, and I'm like, there is no way they're
all getting in. I don't know how many people in
the stadium holes. I think it's like normally sixty five thousand.
But they had a stage at one end and so
no seats behind that were occupied. But then they also
had seats on the floor and I saw that Andrew
Covid said that they had tracked two hundred and seventy
five thousand devices in and around the stadium like on this,
you know, in the stadium or on the stadium grounds,
And so obviously you could have more than one device,
you know, potentially an iPad and you know iPad in
your car and phone on I think bid.
Speaker 1: Inside the stadium, they said there was approximately ninety thousand people,
and I assume a bunch of others outside.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, you have.
Speaker 1: A sixty thousand seat stadium, then you have the grounds
and other areas there. You know, you can fill people
and when you're not playing a game. I'm sure, so yeaheah.
Speaker 3: So it was I knew, I knew to expect a
lot of people, but it's entirely another thing to be
in a stadium filled to the rafters with people. And
it was not a single scuffle or an unkind word?
Did I hear? Everyone was so nice to each other
for because of why they were there, I'm sure. But
it was one hundred degrees outside, so people were hot,
and you know, in a normal situation, there would have
been a lot of scuffling in problems, but everybody was
so well behaved and it was just beautiful, like I
sat next to family friends of Erica's who had like
a guy who had been a trainer for her as
a student and then also in her pageant days, and
behind Charlie and Erica's ophthalmologist. You know, it was just
like that kind of those kind of people like and
it was just nice to be with friends and family
and you know, just it's an experience I will never forget.
I am so thankful and grateful that I got to
be there. And it was overwhelming. I was physically and
mentally exhausted long before the end of the of the
day there, and it was you know, it was also interesting.
Charlie in Erica are clearly, you know, very evangelical, and
so it was an evangelical worship style, which is not
what I'm accustomed to. But it was very well done,
I thought, And it was just kind of interesting to
take part in that, and even thinking through how all
the people who were musicians up on stage, they're doing
a stadium concert basically, which is not easy, but they
did a magnificent job, I thought. And then the speakers
were you know, I loved it. I loved like knowing
most of the speakers and what they had to say,
and they kept kept people on a pretty you know,
tight timetable, and it was so I know, it's just
different for you, but for me to hear so many
prominent people talking about their Christian faith in that moment, Like,
you know, there's that joke about Marco Rubio having eight
different jobs, and my sister was like, he should become
a pastor next, like he's good at preaching. And because
it was it was a context of a Christian service,
although they had people who weren't Christians speaking, like Tulsa
Gabbard and Stephen Miller, because it kind of like started
as a worship thing and then at some point kind
of moved into more like the political side of having
cabinet officials and other prominent people speaking. But I love
Stephen Miller's speech. I don't know if you've heard it,
but his was the like we are the storm speech.
I thought that was also enjoyable.
Speaker 1: Just as an outsider, you know, I watched only highlights
and stuff, but it had a kind of feel a
revival service in a way. Sometimes very I guess there
were I saw some liberals on Twitter saying that they
felt like it was so alien to see it and
stuff like that. But I mean, I've been exposed to
kind of evangelical churches and stuff in Colorado, so it felt.
Speaker 2: Like a mega church maybe, or it might be or
something like.
Speaker 1: I mean, I thought those speeches were great, and you know,
I thought, yeah, I think it's important for forgiveness. Was
very powerful, you know, all that very Christian obviously in
a good way, you know, not that there's a bad
way to be Christian, I'm not sure, but so yeah,
I did feel a little bit outside of it. But
also I felt like I wish more people were like
this because this is a beautiful thing, right So, and
I've long argued I think that a more religious America
is better for us as a nation.
Speaker 2: So it's nice to see that. I mean, I don't
know how long that lasts. And I did get a
kick out of.
Speaker 1: Trump saying he hates his he hates his but anyway,
starting interrupt, but.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so that was my kind of feeling as I
watched it.
Speaker 3: Yeah, well, I wanted to go into the what you
just said, but before we do that, I just want
to say a little bit more on the evangelical worship.
And I'm sure a lot of our listeners do worship
this way, and whether you do or don't, So I
think it's good for people to have a general knowledge
of how other people worship and to have a certain
degree of respect for it. Like I find it useful
to understand how different people worship or even don't worship,
you know, just to understand my fellow man better. And
the evangelical worship style is a very big one. And
so if you were completely alienated from it or you
don't know anything about it, like, that's not a good
thing for you. Particularly not a good thing if you're
a journalist and you don't understand how they worship, they
don't it's a it's a mark against you. It's not
any like flaw on them. It's really you problem. And
so but I was also trying to like find ways
to align myself. Meaning Okay, obviously as a Christian at
root we are you know, we're worshiping the same God
and have a common faith. But I these evenangelical worship songs. Again,
want to say, the musicianship I thought was very good.
The repetitious style is not my thing. So when they
would do hymns or like more American spiritual songs. I
felt more comfortable than when they were doing the just
like over and over repetition. But they did one of
these repetitious songs and I kind of liked it, which
was just, you know, the ironic blessing from numbers. I'm
sure it's like part of other liturgies, but you know,
some variation of the Lord bless you and keep you.
The Lord make his face shine upon you, and be
gracious unto you. The Lord lift up his countenance upon you,
and give you peace. I'm sure you've heard this. So
they had some you know, maybe like different language there
that they were doing, but they just kept doing it
over and over and I was like, I'm kind of
into this now. Our pastor says it at the end
of a service as a blessing to us, and so,
you know, just finding any kind of liturgical commonality was
helpful to me. For Lutherans, we worship in an ancient style,
kind of connected through Christianity through all ages, but with
very set scripture readings that change, but you're doing them
with everybody else in the world on the same scripture readings,
but you do it at your own congregation and you
have sermons and hymns, and the hymns are very like
robust theologically, no repetition whatsoever. So it's different, but I
still enjoyed it, Like I I it just even was
nice to experience what other people are experiencing and just
be able to get an appreciation for it.
Speaker 1: So sure, anyway, I'm sorry, go on, just I was
gonna say a note on how alien it felt to
some people. I was just thinking at the time that,
like I grew up, the most familiar Christian you know
was a Roman Catholic, and mass made sense to me
as a Jewish person because it has a it's not
similar exactly, but it has a set thing that you
say when you say, you stand, you sit, you follow orders,
that sort of thing. But I don't think when I
first went out to Colorado and saw a megachurch that
I had ever how can I put this, I don't
think there are cultural depictions of that world that people
can consume. They don't understand what's happening there other than
in mockery. Maybe you know, there'll be a movie and
there'll be some evangelical preacher being mocked for being.
Speaker 2: Corrupt or over the top or whatever.
Speaker 1: But there's very few cultural depictions that a New York
journalist or DC journalist will see of that world, even
though it plays a really big part in American life
for a lot millions and millions of people.
Speaker 3: So there were some interesting aspects even in that. I
don't know if you caught the part where a pastor did.
I think they call it like an altar call where
you make a decision to accept Jesus into your heart,
I think is how they say it. And they ask
people to stay, everyone to sit, but if you decided
to become a Christian that day, to stand. It's like
pressures on. So there were, you know, many people who stood,
and then the pastor asked any Christians near them to
go pray with them, and you saw all these people
kind of get up and go over to the people
who had stood and pray with them. And it was
just touching to see a community event like that. This
reminds me that my mom went to a Billy Graham
revival when she was a teenager with some friends of hers,
or like a family that was with her. My mom
was already a baptized Christian, but when they made the
altar call, she, for some reason in her juvenile head
thought that meant that she should do it so that
the family would drive her back to her house. And
so she we always tease that she got saved at
a Billy Graham revival. She was already a Christian, Okay.
And then let's talk about Erica. So you heard her
initial remarks after the assassination presumably, yeah, I did, and
which I thought were really impressive and I cannot even
imagine doing it. One thing that was interesting. We were
sitting right behind the actual staff at TPUSA, and you
could tell that they adore Erica, like just absolutely love her,
and it was just nice to see that. You know,
they're they're clearly a close staff. Anyway, they were very
supportive of each other when they were up talking, but
when Erica was up, they were just, you know, they
love her and.
Speaker 1: Well, and she's like, I should mention she's running the
organization now, I think the board everyone.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 3: But I loved when she said that Charlie was trying
to save young men like the one who took his life,
and then talked about how Jesus forgave his executioners and said,
forgive them, Father, for they know not what they do.
And then said she forgave her husband's assassin because it's
what Jesus did and it's what her husband would do.
And I was like, I mean, I can't even think
about it without crying.
Speaker 4: Again.
Speaker 3: It's so beautiful and such strength, and it is you know,
it's so Christian. It's not you know, it's not normal.
It's not how a lot of people operate. And it's
not in contrast with holding the assassin accountable for what
he did. And so when Trump followed up by being like,
we're gonna kill him. We're gonna kill him good, you know,
there's some people can look at that and think there's
a contrast. But in fact, the kingdom of the Church
is a kingdom of forgiveness and the kingdom of the
state is one of justice. You know, So it would
not be appropriate for Donald Trump to be like, I
forgive him, do so no accountability, Like that would actually
be a violation of his vocation.
Speaker 1: I think you're being somewhat charitable to him there, because
he personally said he says, I personally cannot you know,
I hate my enemies or whatever.
Speaker 3: But oh yeah, so it's like Charley loved his opponents.
I don't I hate them. I hate them all. I
can't do Donald Trump, so please.
Speaker 1: Well it's not terrible, but a lot of people again, listen,
I'm not pretending I'm some expert on theology, but people
misunderstood the forgiveness part as her saying that that there's
no responsibility connected to the actions of what you do,
and that's not what that means. Even I know that,
and sometimes I wonder not to take this in a
different direction. That we have an educational system that doesn't
teach people even the basics of Christianity doesn't mean you.
Speaker 2: Have to be a Christian.
Speaker 1: It means that these are the foundational ideas of Western
society and you should have some understanding of how it
works in this country.
Speaker 2: But I don't want to go in that direction. We've
heard of that.
Speaker 3: Yeah, let me go in that direction a little bit more,
which is another fundamental teaching of Christianity is that we
are all sinners. You don't even really understand our nation's
founding if you don't. And that's not just you know,
I think that comes there's some shared nature of that
with Judaism too. Our system of our government is built
on the understanding that we are all sinful, and so
the curbs and the barriers that are there, the checks
on that are because we know that there's no such
thing as like a good person that you can entrust
to govern you, and so we have to have systems
that put a check on bad impulses for sure.
Speaker 1: So I mean, I think that's that's inherent in Judaism
as well. I mean, you know, the message in many ways.
Speaker 2: Is the same.
Speaker 1: Now, obviously there was different They stress different things in Judaism,
and by the way, in Christian denominations, Christians fought each
other in wars, you.
Speaker 2: Know, over these ideas.
Speaker 1: But I think today in the modern world, all people
of faith or most people of faith Christian denominations, Jewish people,
can share a sort of moral vision for the country.
Speaker 3: I mean, well, I was trying to bring up the
thing about sinfulness, because when you know that you are
a sinner, you are instantly more loving toward your fellow man,
because you don't think you're better than they are, because
you know that you know about the sin that's in
your heart. And that's an important concept. And as we've
moved away from it, you see a lot of people
seeking to annihilate their political opponents or move toward violence.
And I think particularly on the left, which has become
much more secularized. Like there's a problem with secularism on
the right as well, but the left is like dangerously
not that they're not religious, but their religion is not
one of love for neighbor.
Speaker 1: It's like, that's what I was going to say, secul
You can be secular and still believe in a lot
of good things.
Speaker 2: The problem with being a secular person is.
Speaker 1: That sometimes you want to fill the void left without
that you don't have faith with something, and a lot
of times it seems to me these young people fill
them with the most idiotic ideasble you know, like people
talk about transgenderism as if it was a religious calling
and that it becomes super dangerous and evil. And I'm
not just picking on that one issue. I think there
are a slew of them. But yeah, obviously, when you
have an event like this, you see what community means.
And people used to have their community right, like you
went to church with your neighbor. You wouldn't maybe treat
them the way we treat each other where we only
know each other maybe through you know, social media or
something like that.
Speaker 3: Way I do think that people think I don't know.
I know there's a lot of great awakening theorizing going
on now and even in the past. Like it is
true that you have changes in trends of religious participation
that are noticeable. It's also true that sometimes there's like
a really big moment that people think is going to
change everything. Nine to eleven would be a great example
where you also saw people immediately go to church that
next Sunday and maybe even for a month or maybe
even for a few months, but then they kind of
went back to normal patterns of their church going. So
I think people shouldn't build too much into that and
understand that christian conversion is a is a lifelong thing
and it should be you know, it's a long process.
It's not a feeling, but it's a yeah.
Speaker 1: Sorry, no, no, I'm just gonna say, I don't think
there's a great awakening going on, but I do think
that maybe there's a slight revival going on. And sometimes
that is just people who have never who aren't don't
you know, don't how can I say this? They reaffirm something,
maybe they believe in Christianity, may maybe they start going
to church again or something like that, but they never
you know, have left.
Speaker 2: Completely or whatever.
Speaker 1: It just feels like maybe, I know, I've seen some
polls or more people are, you know, the Catholic Church,
maybe as an uptick in membership. I'm a little skeptical
of that polling, but you.
Speaker 2: Know what I mean.
Speaker 1: I or maybe maybe religion becomes a bigger part of
the right than it was. Maybe social conservatives drive that
party now more than they did, even though the left
always thinks they drove it.
Speaker 2: I don't think that that's true. But anyway, sorry, no.
Speaker 3: All of that. So, yeah, I remember reading this thing
from Cardinal Ratzinger before he was pope, talking about how
he thought the Roman Catholic Church would get smaller but stronger.
And I do think, you know, people like to think
there's some kind of revival happening. Well, actually, statistically, church
attendance keeps going down, down, down, across like every denomination,
and so it's more like a who's declining the least
kind of contest as opposed to who's growing, which is
not great, you know, in my view. But I also
think there is genuinely something different about the younger generations
that Charlie Kirk was trying to save. Yes, a lot
of them are radicalizing or accepting the religion of transgenderism
or other gender ideology radicalism, But there are a lot
of youth who are desperate to move away from the
amorphous lack of moral stronghold that we've been in for
a while. And I do think you're seeing an uptick
in that age group, you know. I think statistically we've seen,
particularly with young men, a big increase in church membership
for them. And I've certainly seen that at my congregation.
You know, we're quite heavy on the younger demographics at
my Lutheran church in Northern Virginia, and I think that's
different than what I experienced growing up, you know, where
it would be more like an upside down pyramid in
the age rage. So there's some I do think there's
something going on and that people would be wise to
keep focusing on that. And I would say one thing
that I'm excited about with Erica Kirk taking over a TPUSA,
which is an amazing organization, you know that does really
good work. They did such good work with young men,
and you can you can see it, you know, in
different metrics. Young women are lost, and I'm really hoping
that she can help with guiding the organization to help
young women achieve their full potential.
Speaker 1: Yeah, he was very male focused, makes completely sense, And
in the videos I saw him speaking to young men
with I think a very universal message.
Speaker 2: I mean it's a Christian message.
Speaker 1: Be strong, have a family, protect your family, be patriotic,
love your country. I mean, I think those are universal
things that we can all believe in. So I thought
it was quite an uplifting service. I didn't watch it.
From me, it seemed like it was long. I mean,
I have to say, I can't remember the last time,
other than maybe a convention, where you had the president
and vice president at the same place speaking. I didn't
look into this, but I bet you it doesn't happen
very often, right. I'm also amazed by how many and listen,
I know, when someone passes away, everyone feels closer to them, maybe,
but I can't believe how many people he had befriended,
Like he seemed to be an incredibly social person. That's
kind of amazing too. And I don't mean like I'm
not mocking these people for thinking they're his best friend,
but some people can make you feel like you're there
you know, like they love you and are so close
to you, and that is a gift, right that they
can do that with so many people.
Speaker 3: It's I think we just talked about Brie Peyton last week,
but our calling Bree Peyton, who also died young, I
cannot help but think about her, you know, at times
like this. And one of the things that just blows
me away about Bree that Charlie also had was like
how much life she lived in such a short period
of time. It's almost like, you know, she just everybody
she touched loved her, and she was so full of
joy and love for everybody. And Charlie Very, I mean,
I don't even know how he had time to be
such a good friend to everybody. I liked when people
were telling stories about how he sent out scripture versus
every morning to people in his contact list, he prayed
for people he oh Andrew was also Andrew Cole, but
his executive producer, was also talking about how he responded
to how he read every email he got, and I
cannot imagine how much email he got. But I also
read all my emails. I just want to say, in
my case, I live and work in Washington, d C.
Where the hive mind is intense, and I have very
different ways of thinking than nearly everybody in my geographical area.
The email keeps me in touch with how the rest
of America thinks, and so whether it's critical or positive,
I love getting email because it keeps me grounded and
not susceptible to some of the group think. You're such
a contriaron, you would never be susceptible to group think.
But it just helps me. And I also like knowing
when I say something that people are like, I agree
with you, because it's difficult to say it in my
context where I'm saying it in rooms full of people
that hate me. But I think you know, I still
say it, but it's just difficult. I always think when
I'm saying something that I know is not the approved
message of Washington, DC, I always say in my head,
I know there are people who agree with me, and
so when I get the email saying I agree with
you and thank you for saying it, I'm always wondering
why nobody's saying it. I love it. I love it.
Or also when I get stuff people saying, hey, I
appreciate what you what you were trying to say, but
here's why you here's why I think you were wrong.
I also like that I like getting feedback from real people,
and I just love that he did too.
Speaker 1: Well an email. I would say that from this show.
The email I get through this show is actually the
best email that I get. I'm not just saying that
it's mostlyful, destructive or yeah, leah know, well thought out,
funny TV show recommendations, things that I like. But I
do get other email i'd say, or you know less
now than I used to, but through comments that are
really kind of awful. I never understand why people would
take the time to be annoyed by me that much.
But most of the email get here is pretty thoughtful,
and even when I disagree with it annoys me. I
sort of appreciate the effort people go in to make
their point. My contrarian streak, I think is unhealthy. I
was thinking about this the other day. I just want
to say. I was listening to the band Radiohead right,
which are a very popular band, right.
Speaker 2: And I'm listening to it. I'm like, this is pretty good.
Speaker 1: And then I said to myself, but something has to
be wrong with it because so many people like it.
Speaker 3: Oh yeah, No, really.
Speaker 1: Did one hundred percent said that to myself, and then
I said, maybe I have a problem.
Speaker 3: Yes, all right, it's okay to like a band that
other people like. And also Radiohead is objectively a very
good band, I think. Okay.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's for the culture section.
Speaker 4: Are young people really going into debt to impress? The
Watched Out on Wall Street podcast with Chris Markowski. Every
day Chris helps some packed the connection between politics and
the economy and how it affects your wallet. Apparently the
ticket to attention for young people is going into debt
to impress others by things like clothes and shoes. Two
and five gen zers admit to going into debt to impress.
That'll get you into some trouble. Whether it's happening in
DC or down on Wall Street, it's affecting you financially.
Speaker 2: Be informed.
Speaker 4: Check out the Watchdot on Wall Street podcast with Chris
Markowski on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 2: All right, let's move on to the news.
Speaker 1: I'm happy you went and I happy I got to
live live that vicariously through you and hear about it.
Let's talk about Jimmy Kimmel. Yeah, this is related to Uh,
this is related to Charlie Kirk.
Speaker 2: So Jimmy Kimmel went on.
Speaker 1: His show, which has been on since two thousand and three,
which surprised me. I thought it was more of a
recent thing, but he's been on a while. Right doesn't
get very good ratings. I think that that has to
do with him not be being funny, sort of a
middling narcissist. But also I think Late Night is dying
in general as a form of entertainment because people have
podcasts and they can listen to celebrities. Whatever the case.
He went on and we talked about this. I think
last week how the left was trying to convince us
that the shooter, Charlie Kirk shooter was a MAGA guy
or a far right kind of character, and we know
that is not true, and we knew it. When Jimmy
Kimmel said what I'm about to tell you, he said,
I forgot the exact quote, but that MAGA was trying
to convince us that the shooter of Charlie Kirk wasn't
one of their own, which was.
Speaker 2: An obvious lie.
Speaker 1: So what I think happened was Sinclair, which syndicates the
show in a bunch of stations, and I think is
it next next Star Media group which syndicates it. Both
are like, we're taking this off completely in my view,
or I would say I'm ninety nine percent sure they
did this for financial reasons. You can have shows on
where people are lying and insulting your most of your viewers,
not that any of those viewers are watching it. And
I bet you if they put up some other show,
some non political rerun whatever, it would probably get better
ratings anyway, So why do it anyway? I guess maybe
we'll disagree here a little bit. I don't know, but
one of the FCC commissioners.
Speaker 3: Chairman srend it in Car.
Speaker 1: Yes, who I like. I mean, we follow each other
on Twitter. I think I've interacted with him. He seems
like a good guy anyway. He had he chimed in
the day before on Benny Johnson's.
Speaker 2: Podcast and he shut down.
Speaker 1: So because he had chimed in, everyone on the left
got to pretend that the Trump administration had pressured ABC
into shutting down. Jimmy Kimmel, You're not allowed to make
fun of presidents anymore. This is Nazi Germany. It's nineteen
thirty three. So we'll get to the rest of the
story in a minute. But what was your reaction when
that happen?
Speaker 3: Okay, So I'm going to restate some of what you
just said, which is Sinclair and Next Star are distributors
or they have a bunch of TV stations, right, and
they made the decision to not carry the Jimmy Kimmel
show because of what he had said and because it
was becoming more of a problem. And the context there
is that Jimmy Kimmel is I don't think people realize
this that the news shows and the late night the
outside of the View like ABC's The View, and the
late night shows are considered part of news programming. I
believe of these divisions, so not like entertainment but news.
And Jimmy Kimmel, like his brethren, his other white, lily
white left wing brethren, took these institutions, these late night
talk shows that used to be away for the entire
country to get to know celebrity or to unveil new
comics or musical acts, and they turned them into just
night after night of not just like Democrat propaganda, but
pretty crazy left wing Democrat propaganda. And so some of
the local affiliates were growing sick of this, and Mark
was telling me a story about how one time one
affiliate threatened to cancel Conan O'Brien show for some reason,
and it was like a huge deal that one local
station might not carry the flagship you know, late night show.
Speaker 2: I'm sorry.
Speaker 1: These two affiliates are encompass a quarter of all affiliates
in the country, So that is a huge significant amount,
especially when you're talking about ABC. Already, these Kimmel having
pretty low ratings, I think, lower than the other two have,
and then your quarter of in rather large cities essentially
saying no more view.
Speaker 2: You're losing a ton of revenue, and that's okay.
Speaker 3: So I wanted to also explain a little bit about
the revenue situation. So some advertising is sold nationally and
it goes out to everybody, and then some advertising is
sold locally, and so you can imagine that there are
certain media markets where having nightly crazed left wing conspiracy
theories in propaganda might be a barrier to making money.
TV stations make a lot of money, and you know,
it's a very cool thing to own a broadcast TV station.
There's limited spectrum in limited channels, and that the FCC
allocates and you can make a ton of money. I mean,
ABC is a multi billion dollar company. I don't know how.
I mean, it's massive because of that legacy from when
there used to be no competition with the broadcast broadcasting companies.
So they suspend or sorry, so they say they're not
carrying Kimmel until the ABC starts taking its responsibilities to
the or no, they say, they announce that they're suspending,
then are that they're not carrying it. Then ABC announces
a temporary suspension of Kimmel. Then those affiliates say, we're
we need more than a suspension. We need ABC to address.
We need ABC and the FCC to kind of address
whether ABC is living up to its obligations under FCC.
And this is something that I feel like probably our
listeners get, but that a lot of America doesn't get.
There's media that you do online, on cable, on newsprint,
you know, still like that, And then there's a small
there's a part of our media that's regulated by the FCC.
So that's over the air television stations and over the
air radio stations, right, so they have certain you know,
things that they used to actually enforce quite heavily for
public interests or even this is why you aren't supposed
to say certain bad words over the air, although there
have been changes and court decisions on all this. But
it's just a different regulatory environment. I mean in that
it is a regulatory environment unlike how it's supposed to
be for other media. And so Brendan Carr comes out,
and I think the real issue with what he said.
He says he was misunderstood on this, but he basically says, yeah,
there's some problems here and we can either do it
the easy way or the hard way. And so a
lot of people felt that that sounded like mafia like language.
He says he was really just talking about how the
people who have the licenses should be, you know, should
just be you know, they understand that they have certain
obligations to serve the public interest. That hasn't been happening
for decades. The FCC might be taking a look at it,
and if ABC and other people just handle it on
their own, then they don't have to get a regulatory crackdown,
which is you know, I think that's what I could
be mischaracterizing what he said. But is that what you're
asking what we're just so.
Speaker 2: I guess I did have a problem with what he said,
but maybe not so.
Speaker 1: Yes, you can regulate what's on the you know, the
airwaves are regulated differently. It used to matter a lot
because that's how we all got our news in our television,
but now that's not the case. I don't even think
the FCC needs to exist. Frankly, I guess I wrote
about this. I had a few things to say. So
the first thing is, like Jimmy Kimmel has no excuse.
Not only did he lie about it blatantly I think
knowingly I can't bore into his soul, but also he
blamed the victims essentially.
Speaker 2: For what happened.
Speaker 1: The second thing is, we're the right wing is winning
the culture war right now. They don't need the FCC's help.
I think they didn't need the FCC's help or Donald
Trump's help with Colbert, they don't need it with Kimmel.
And these shows are dying, and they will die because
they're not entertaining anymore because they alienated half their audience.
So for all those reasons we talk about it, even
the perception of pressure on them to do it, I
think is like a misstep in the way that, so I.
Speaker 3: Actually think itually want to say something. We have to
add the part that ABC unsuspended Kimmel and brought him back,
and Next Star and Sinclair said that maybe we're still
not airing him and we still need to we still
need to talk about this fundamental issue, which is you're
a crazy left wing propaganda thing and it's hurting our business.
So there's still stuff ongoing. I think what we can
learn from that is that the claim that Donald Trump
had shut down Jimmy Kimmel is clearly not true and
was like a media manufactured lie, but partly because Carr
made his comments at the same time that the market
was making their response to Kimmel known, right, yeah, because
like obviously they're bringing him back. They don't give a
flying fig what Donald Trump or Brendan Carr thinks. And
also Sinclair and Nexstar are still doing exactly what they
were doing last week, unrelated to you know, So I
think the media wanted to have a story. I think
they felt very badly for how they had called all
of their political opponents fascists to the point that they
were getting assassinated, and so they were just trying to
change the storyline, and so they really glommed onto this,
like Donald Trump personally came in and fired Jimmy Kimmel
and it wasn't really ever that. But one thing I
was confused by, though, is people getting upset, Like you
just said you don't think the fccs should exist, So
what should happen to Like how would you handle the
legacy of money made by these different stations who were
allocated a channel or a portion of the spectrum on radio.
Like if you, like were president, you were like, I'm
abolishing the FCC today, what happens to those?
Speaker 1: So I don't understand what what do I want to
happen there?
Speaker 2: Do I want? What do I want happening?
Speaker 4: Like?
Speaker 1: What what's not happening right now that you think should
be happening? You want them to be more honest on
late night television.
Speaker 3: Guess what I'm saying is like, do you want a
completely unregulated environment where anybody who builds a radio tower
can compete for the same bandwidth even if they're like
one building over.
Speaker 2: No, I mean it has to be worked out.
Speaker 1: But I don't think the FCC should exist as a
speech regulatory institution, So I would I have to think
about exactly how to change it.
Speaker 3: But so I also wonder if that's If that's the case,
why aren't people trying to take away the laws and
regulations that make the FCC what it is? Like I
couldn't tell. They were like, like, do they not want
the FCC to exist? Do they not want them to
have the rules they have?
Speaker 2: The answer?
Speaker 3: Do they just not want them to enforce the rules
they have?
Speaker 2: They want?
Speaker 1: The left wants them to exist so they can try
to manipulate speech when they're in power and not to
do anything when they're not in power. That's exactly what
they want, because they're in massive hypocrites.
Speaker 3: That's a totally separate like the left uses the FCC
twenty four to seven. I mean, one of the stories
I wrote last year was about how Elon Musk had
won Farren Square, a competition to provide Internet two or whatever,
like to forgive me if I'm getting all the words wrong,
but to rural areas, and he was going to come
in like underbudget, really effectively, and then he started doing
things like buying Twitter, and so the Democrat FCC commissioner
canceled his award and said that instead they would give
it to like other companies that had not even begun
the work, like he was going to do it through starlink,
they were going to do it through underground cables or something,
and they hadn't even begun the work. And then you
had the North Carolina Tennessee floods where lack of access
to internet was part of the contributing factor to the
horrific death toll that we saw there and the suffering,
and it was all because the FCC commissioner was mad
that Elon Musk was no longer a left wing donor
and activist.
Speaker 1: So do you think that Brendan that people who are
freaking about out about Brendan Carr really care When Joe
Biden went on television on numerous occasions and said that
if Facebook didn't ban people from speaking and talking about
COVID and a weight in like that, there was going
to be a punishment, you know, like none of them
cared or when the attorney Yeah, those.
Speaker 3: Are those are very good. But I guess what I'm
trying to think through is ABC, NBC and CBS have
amazing privilege given by the FCC allocation to them, and
they were spreading outright lies with conspiracy theories for decades,
including in the last ten years when they were pushing
the Russia collusion hoax, the Brett Kavanaugh rap smear, And
it seems kind of weird to be like, yep, left
wing oligarchs own all of our media and there's nothing
you can do about it. And it's a government donated
space and there's nothing you can do. Like, I don't
mind the idea of the FCC being like, well, what
if we didn't handle it the way we did where
Democrats get to use the FCC as its plaything, and
when the Republicans are in power they sit quietly like
there might be a way too. I'm open to taking
away the FCC, although I'm very confused about how it
works in terms of like what I just said, the
spectrum allocation and stuff like that. Also like it can't
work this way where the left uses it, like Nancy
Pelosi every day of her life has been like the
FCC has got to crack down on conservative speech and
nobody ever does anything about her. Or Chuck Schumer ran
a campaign to get Tucker Carlson fired successfully. I mean,
you have all these things that are happening from the
left and nobody seems to care. And then Brettan Carr
is like, yeah, lying about the assassination of Charlie Kirk,
that's not serving the public interest, and then everybody loses
their mind, like that's.
Speaker 2: What seems like.
Speaker 1: Conservatives are making two arguments because they're saying cars comments
had nothing to do with it, but also it's okay
if it did, because he should, you know, exert the
force that they.
Speaker 3: Necessarily that's not necessarily a contradiction. It is true that
what was happening was happening apart from what Car said.
That is nothing that the fact that what was happening
happened apart from what Car said does not tell us
whether what Car said was right or wrong. And there
is an open debate on that or even the larger
issue of is there a role for no longer letting
left wing propaganda destroy the country through government sponsored you know, companies.
Speaker 1: So whenever something like this happens, and we have to
deal with this all the time, and let's say that
Car had something to do with it, just theoretically, or
would in the future, They're going to use this power
against you when they come back in power. And everyone's
like where have you been the last twenty years and
all of that? And I get it, I have been
writing about it, but it is also to some extent
a truth. They will use it against you again. And
the best thing to do when you're empower is to untether,
untether the state from the ability to do this to
you again, not to strengthen that power, to ensure that
it will forever be going back and forth.
Speaker 3: Right, And David, that's why I was asking you, what
do you want done with the issues that the FCC handles.
And by the way, they don't just handle radio and television.
They have everything to do with like cell phone carriers
and satellites and cable and all that too. So they're like,
for being a not the largest agency, they control so
much of you know, communications infrastructure. That's why I was
asking you, like, what do you think should be done?
Was because I'm genuinely curious about it. I'm going to
be honest, but can I just say something really quickly?
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 3: One of the things that really angered me, to the
point that I almost just said a cussword just now,
is that the Federalist really was, and in some sense
is censored by the US government. We are in settlement
talks with the State Department right now, where they have
already conceded that they illegally censored us to destroy us.
They've already like made that emission admission, and it was
in our pages of The Federalist. The government tried to
destroy my publication. And I do not think I heard
a single word from like ninety nine point nine nine
nine percent of the people who were freaking out about
an unfunny hate manger, conspiracy theorist being suspended for four
days by his TV network and a thing that had
nothing to do with the government. It enrages me what
we have had to deal with with actual admitted to censorship.
Our government, using taxpayer funds, financed the creation and marketing
of censorship tools that were used against me to hurt
my kids, and nobody likes said a word. It's just infuriating.
Speaker 2: No one on the left and a lot of other
people didn't put.
Speaker 3: Some people, a lot of people on the right didn't.
Speaker 1: I mean, well, all right, so obviously they're hypocrites. Obviously
they don't really care about free speech. This idea that
a guy was suspended I think for three days is
the you know, the end of democracy and the end
of freedom. And by the way, I quickly want to say,
a lot of these celebrities are like, this is not right,
and they're you know, out there people who didn't say anything
about a guy being assassinated speaking.
Speaker 2: Out where where?
Speaker 1: Or is your anger over that free speech and a
bunch of thousands of people or who knows how many
people celebrating it. I just want to say, just today,
YouTube admitted that the Biden administration that had had pressured them,
the Biden administration Democrats had pressured them to shut down accounts,
that it was unacceptable and wrong for them to do it.
Speaker 3: Oh, can I say something about that when you're done? Sorry?
Speaker 2: Oh that's it.
Speaker 1: I mean, you know, and that they're going to roll
back there. By the way, their censorship policies are still
in place today.
Speaker 3: That's saying so YouTube, which was supposed to contact me
about some censorship we were dealing with and they have
failed to do so, they are like, we're no longer.
Oh my gosh. Let me tell you some of the
funny things they were saying. One was they they actually
don't censor if you use correct pronouns for a trans person.
They don't censor you so long as you did it unintentionally,
was one of the things I was told by them.
It's like, wow, that's a great free speech environment. So like,
if you were to accidentally refer to a man who
who says he's a woman as a man, you won't
get permanently banned. But if you were to knowingly refer
to a man who wanted to be called a woman
as a man, well then you have a lifetime ban
or whatever. But the worst censorship that is done by
YouTube is not actually the stuff you see. So the
stuff you see is if they say this person said
this thing, so we are banning them from our platform.
You see that. The far more insidious censorship that they
routinely engage in is to suppress the distribution of what
you say without even telling you that they're doing that.
So that is rampant at YouTube. It's also rampant at
Google and in general and a bunch of other big
tech companies. It's this silent elevation of crazy left wing
conspiracy theories and propaganda, the silent suppression of common sense
truth and anything that goes against that crazy left wing narrative.
And people don't even realize that they are being victims
of this, this algorithmic to talitarianism, because it's not visible
in any way. So do not believe YouTube for a
second about anything they say. So they say, you can
come back on now if you got banned because you
accurately said a man was a man, Maybe that's true.
That's one one billion of what they've done censorship wise.
Speaker 1: Here's a problem I do have, and people yell at
me about it, but I don't you know, it is
what it is. Yes, the left did it, the right.
A lot of people on the right want to do it.
You want to do it for revenge, you want to
do it to make things better, whatever it is. At
some point you have to say, is there an ideal here?
Is there a principle that we care about on its
own that is worth preserving that the government doesn't get
involved in free speech? If you do think that that's
a principle worth preserving, or maybe it's never or uplifting,
maybe it's really been there to begin with. We have
to start figuring out ways to destroy the institutions that
make it happen, that allow it to happen. Government's always
going to have power over people, but it was too easy,
in my view, at least during COVID, for them to
just tighten the screws on people they disagreed. It was
completely authoritarian, and I don't want that to happen again.
I don't see anyone doing anything to ensure that that's
the case. Does that make any sense?
Speaker 3: It does? I mean, I I don't disagree. I just
think that the portion of the FCC granted areas is
just a completely different animal. I would love to have
been given what ABC, NBC and CBS have been given
in order to raise or to make billions of dollars,
billions upon billions upon billions of dollars, which is these
TV stations. I want think there's one.
Speaker 1: I mean, I mean, I mean there's a technological There
was a you know, it's like railroads, right or or
you know, there was there was limited technology when these
things started. Certain people got in at the front end
and they It's the same thing with let's say at Google,
they came up with a good idea. Now they kind
of dominate that, uh, you know, the search engine industry whatever.
Speaker 2: I don't know.
Speaker 3: So I was gonna say Google was also originally a
government project, right, So these there aren't these bright lines
between public and private that we have seen previously, And
it makes it somewhat It makes it somewhat difficult to
have some of these conversations in general. I mean, like
nobody wants the nobody, nobody wants you know what you're
talking about.
Speaker 1: It's just that I feel like people are under the
impression when they're yelling at me about stuff, that that
things are less competitive now in the media landscape, and
that the opposite is true when I was young, when
you were young three, Whether they're competitive or not dominated.
Speaker 3: Whether they're competitive or not, or more competitive or not,
it remains that they are FCC regulated. And you know
people I saw people being like, okay, so first off,
some people are like, well, when the Democrats come empowered,
they're going to come after all the conservatives literally ABC.
And it's like name one literally can you name out
out of a company with how many tens of thousands
of employees? Can you name one Conservative there.
Speaker 1: At CBS or ABC or probably not? I mean I
don't think there are many or any.
Speaker 3: When they were like they're going to come after Greg Guttfield,
it's like, well, Greg Gutfeld works for a cable outlet.
But also they've already done I mean, they've already done
it all, and people are just I mean, it's just
like infuriating to hear people talk that way.
Speaker 2: You can't talk, but I am you.
Speaker 3: Name a single conservative at these crazy left wing government
related entities, your.
Speaker 1: Right to kind of mock the idea that it hasn't happened.
Of course it's happened. Of course they've used this power,
But you also can't deny the fact that one day
they're going to have that power again and use it again.
So isn't it worthwhile talking about ways to instead of
tightening power? I mean, I see all these people you
know online who are very popular now like we have
to use the state to do the same. Yeah, but
what happens when you don't have the state anymore? You're
empowering it instead of instead of you know, undoing or
like I said, untethering the ability of these people to
do it. It's like it reminds me of vaccines and
farm in all that like farm a company can't make
you take anything, but the state can, and no one
people aren't mad at the state that can compel that
listens to a farmer company and compels people to do it, like,
do you know what I'm saying.
Speaker 2: I just think that.
Speaker 1: The anger is directed at the wrong institutions, but sort of.
Speaker 3: I mean, I think that's one of the problems with
And this might be a good segue to talking Did
you say you wanted to talk about Kennedy? Did I
just make that up?
Speaker 2: I mentioned them in our pre and our pre show.
Speaker 3: We had a lengthy pre show discussion. But the pharma
control of the regulatory capture is is an issue, and
the pharma control of these agencies makes their it's hard
to distinguish them from the state sometimes. And then you
can talk about what you wanted to say about RFK there.
Speaker 2: I don't people get so mad. I mean, I just
think that I had silent all thing. He came up
with his quackery.
Speaker 3: Hold on, just really quickly back to the the previous thing, though,
there is absolutely an argument to say, Okay, for decades,
we begged you not to change the rules to the
point that you could destroy a conservative with a wild whim.
We begged you not to do it, but you won.
You know, you've you've you've used the last you know,
ten years to destroy conservative expression and free expression, and
anybody who was identified as conservative was at risk of
losing any job, and blah blah blah. And so the
rules have changed, so now we will we will now
use your rules that we begged you not to have,
because those are the rules now, this old conservative way
of being like, you get to change the rules to
destroy us, but when we're in power, we will sit
silently and do nothing. That's what people are having trouble with.
And I don't hear people actually actively coming up with
destroy the FCC plans or you know, destroy anything else
that's that's planned here. I mean, we do have Donald
Trump trying to take down the Education Department after every
single Republican candidate of the last fifty years saying that
they would do it forty years. But mutually assured destruction
is a is a form of you know, it's a okay,
let's put it this way. Saying that rules have to
be evenly enforced is a principle, and I think we
are wrong to say it's not a principle. And so
when the right is saying these rules that you crafted
that I begged you not to have, will be equally
enforced against you as you have used them against us.
That is a principled stand. You may disagree with it,
and I totally respect disagreeing with it, But to say
it's not principled, I think is wrong.
Speaker 1: I didn't really say it wasn't principled. And let me
just I am incredibly sympathetic to what you're saying.
Speaker 2: You can have two.
Speaker 1: Sets of rules and one party operating under one and
the other just letting them do it and not doing
anything about it.
Speaker 2: It feels good to even the score in a way.
Speaker 1: For a lot of people, I think they're just mad
about the last ten years and they want to just,
you know, use that power. I think there's another bunch
of people who are just happy that or use it
as an excuse because they're just happy to have that
power and think government should be using it.
Speaker 2: I totally get it. I understand the sentiment, but my business.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Now, I just want to say I didn't say
that that's not a principle. What I'm saying is if
you think what they did was wrong and you believe
in free speech and the government not being there, that's
a principle that either is worth trying to preserve or not.
This is not no way to preserve it.
Speaker 3: I do wonder though, if that's not people saying in
order to this is my method for getting to that principle.
You know, people say one, you know, so that could
be a way too.
Speaker 1: The problem is that that's not happening because there is no
mutually assured destruction. Because I think in a way, the
left is even kind of happy that these powers are
now going to be preserved in that that they have
some kind of justification and rationale to use them themselves.
I don't think they care about American ideals. I don't
think care about free speech. Frankly most of them, not
all of them. I think there is a segment on
the left now. I always want to keep a window open,
like some future hope that we can come to some
kind of normalcy again. But I think there is a
segment out there that very tepidly kind of embraces the
idea that hey, maybe they had gone too far. So
as reclient saying the other day that we need to
start running pro life candidates and red states and stuff
like that and talking about free speech. Listen, I don't
know how earnest he is about that, because I think
he's been a bad actor on certain things, but you
know what I'm.
Speaker 2: Saying, So I don't know. I don't even know what
I'm going off on, but okay, I.
Speaker 3: Just wanted there was something that's a little it's related
but not directly related, which is I saw that ABC
News said they were bringing Kimmel back because they thought
that his message was ill timed, and I just want
to say that's wrong. ABC slash Disney. There was nothing
ill timed about his comment, because that suggests that there
was better timing to make his comment. Maga was trying
to give the impression that they hadn't assassinated their friend
Charlie Kirk. There's no good time for that. And in
fact what he said, I saw Andrew Covitt again say
something pointing out that the subtext of what he was
saying was, Hey, left wing assassins, if you kill one
of the rights top people, we'll cover for you, we'll
protect you, we will do things that enable future violence
against our enemies. And it's a serious thing and ABC
should take it seriously. We have moved into the assassination
portion of this ongoing fight we're having, and it's not
something that's funny. It's not something to take lightly and
it's something where everyone in America should unite against it.
You don't have to agree with conservative politics, but you
should unite against left wing terrorism. And when Jimmy Kimmel
is giving of aid and comfort to left wing terrorism,
it's not an issue of timing. It's an issue of
the content of what he said and how seriously ABC
wants to be, you know, whether they want to be
on that side or not, and we know they want
to be on that side, but they should, you know.
Speaker 2: I don't agree.
Speaker 1: I don't disagree with anything you're saying about Kimmel. He's
an insufferable mediocrity that I think he should be crushed
via the market, what Nextdoor is doing, what Sinclair is doing, the.
Speaker 2: Way they crushed.
Speaker 1: I think about bud Light and think about what they did,
and think about how they paid for that and how
they've changed.
Speaker 3: I just asked David if we could talk about Humphrey's executor,
and he's, like everybody's clamoring to talk about everybody's clamoring
to hear about Humphrey's executor. But David, did you hear
the news that the Supreme Court is going to take
up a look at whether Humphrey's executor, this long this
long standing case from the Supreme Court many nearly one
hundred years ago, whether it will be upheld or not.
Speaker 2: Did you see yes, I have.
Speaker 1: I think that great news. The Supreme Court on these
major issues that have been lingering in American life and
governance for a long time, have been right on from
Janice to going back to Citizens United. So very I
hope good things happen here. What do you think what
you must spak.
Speaker 3: Except yeah, so I think what people need to know
this long and so this was back when Roosevelt fired
the FTC Commissioner Humphreys and then he dies. Oh, he
sues saying that he was at an independent agency and
that he can't be fired. But then he dies, and
so his estate carries on the suit. And that's why
it's called Humphreys executor as opposed to Humphreys or Humphrey.
And it's really the case that undergirds much of the
administrative state, this unconstitutional fourth branch of government that has
wrought so much damage in our country. And the question
is whether there are bureaucrats who have no accountability, who
cannot be fired by the president. The constitutional setup is
that we have these executive agencies. You know, Congress passes
the law and the executive runs what they pass. And
if you're independent of both of these bodies, or somehow
like kind of under both but neither, that's how you
get a massive bureaucracy and administrative state. And so I
don't know how the Supreme Court will rule on the
particulars of this, but I think a lot of con
law nerds are extremely excited about it being heard, because
this is if you list like the ten worst cases
in Supreme Court history, this is one that gets on
most people's list as being just complete creation of law
out of nowhere, and so it's ripe for revisiting, and
I think a lot of people will be looking forward
to it. You're wrong, David. Everybody wants to talk about Hamphrasey.
Speaker 2: I know. I mean it is actually important, and I
do care.
Speaker 1: About it because I like i've I think I told
you this or we spoke about this few episodes ago.
I think that the president should try to create agency
heads or allow them to be independent if he decides
that's good. I think it's good for America that there
are places that aren't very partisan or seemingly partisan, but
making there's no such thing as independent agencies in the
American governmance. This constitution says nothing about some rogue agency
within the executive branch. Executive branch controls those agencies. If
you don't like that, shut down the agency. So anyway,
But also I was super excited about Chevron deference being
overturned and what happens there. It just seems like we
just continue to go along as we did before. I
think it's going to say, take some time. I see
your face is skeptical.
Speaker 3: Well, I think that that the Chevron deference over that
was really important, but it's just the very first step
that enables future action or will change the way future
challenges to bureaucratic action take place.
Speaker 1: I guess I felt like there would be a sort
of torrent of suits saying that the government and that
agencies just made up rules and it doesn't seem to happen.
Speaker 2: Are we really going to see a change? I guess
is what.
Speaker 3: I what really should happen as a result of changing
some of this is that Congress gains more of its
rightful power that it had handed over to the bureaucracy.
Like the way they were passing legislation was to just say,
we'll let the bureaucrats figure it out, and then the
bureaucrats became judge, jury, and executioner for all of the
things that Congress passed. So for legislation going forward, Congress
will have to do a much better job of laying
out specifically what it wants. But Congress is so broken,
who knows when they'll actually do a better job with them.
Speaker 1: All Right, I think we've been speaking pretty long time here,
so let's talk about culture. I actually had some stuff.
You've been busy. I don't know, did you watch anything
or what happened?
Speaker 2: Wow?
Speaker 3: I think I've been listening to a lot of casts,
which I continue to enjoy. Like on planes, I like
to listen to podcasts. What am I? What do I
listen to? Issues, et cetera. My favorite podcast. So that's
that's not much to talk about their other than I did.
We did get a listener note saying that they liked
that recommendation. So and then I just want to say
one thing culturally, which is that when I was in
Phoenix on Friday night, my friend arrived at the airport.
We go to our hotel and we just I knew
I wanted Mexican because I live in Virginia and there's
no good Mexican, and I'm from California and Colorado, so
i need it, like in my deepest parts, like I just,
I desperately want good Mexican. So I saw that there
was late at night a place open, like a block
and a half away, and we went there and it
was so good I cannot tell you. I mean it
was like wallhawkan soul food, had some wonderful green chili.
So the next day we go on the hike and
some errands. Sean Davis was coming in later that night,
and we had not eaten a single meal that day,
so we decided to go back to the same restaurant.
I think it's called Centrido or something like this in
downtown Phoenix. Went back to the same place, got different
things so good. So on Sunday we go to the
Charlie Kirk Memorial. We had to leave early. We couldn't eat.
We're like walking in the heat and everything, and we
then had late flights to get back. So before we
went to the airport, we went back to Centriida. I
ate three meals in Phoenix and all three were at
this amazing Mexican restaurant that I could not recommend more highly.
So there you go. That's my culture.
Speaker 2: Nice.
Speaker 1: I go to the same restaurants all the time, and
I meet the same exact thing every time, which having
spoken to other men is not I don't think that's
unique exactly.
Speaker 2: But are you going to be up on the wall
like that in the old style diners signed shots? I
what did I do? Oh? Here it is?
Speaker 1: It's so embarrassing. I watched a documentary about Charlie Sheen
for some reason. I found it pretty interesting. Actually, like
you grew up with Sean Penn and these other famous
people in Malibu. I'm kind of interested in Martin Sheen's life.
That should do documentary on him. It seems kind of interesting,
like a nice guy. I know, he's like a big
left date.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I was just going to say that. My other
cultural thing is that I begged my husband to cancel
Hulu because it's owned by Disney ABC.
Speaker 2: Oh, because they took Kimmel back.
Speaker 3: Yeah. And I just want everybody to pray for my
husband because he's always having to deal with my boycotts
and demands that we not finance the people who seek
our destruction, and he's like, I just want to watch TV,
you know, Like I just like, just let me have
my one opiate here. And I was like, no, we're
not giving them any money.
Speaker 1: I cannot cancel Hulu because there's then there's no way
for me to binge Justify for the twentieth time. That's
the only place that's streaming, so I have to keep it.
I'll tell you something. There are like these all these
celebrities signed some kind of pro Hamas thing. I quickly
turned it off because I don't want to see who
signed it, because I'm not going to be able to
watch anything. I just I'm not a boycotter, you know.
I'm just not a boycotter. I can't do I'm.
Speaker 3: Eating my goyamines in a cave with my MyPillow or whatever.
That trabble on being a joke was, I cannot fund
people who are helping people kill my friends, you know.
I just like I can't do it and it makes
me feel And Mark was like there's no TV left,
and I'm like, fine, we just read more books. Like
I don't care. I don't I just don't want to
help these people out as they try to destroy the
country and literally, you know, kill my friends.
Speaker 2: I know we have to go.
Speaker 1: I quickly want to say, so, I went to a
beach this weekend with my wife.
Speaker 2: We just walked around and wasn't that hot? You know
what I mean?
Speaker 1: And on the way back, it's a pretty long drive.
She put on Flannery O'Connor's short stories. So I had
knew nothing about this. It's I'm not I have never O'Connor.
Speaker 3: This makes me.
Speaker 1: Every story it was the same. It's delightful Southern.
Speaker 3: You get you and then you're dead in a violent
in a violent murder.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I love them. They were They were not what
I expected. They were really in your face and so
well written, obviously, so well crafted, and it really took
you to those places and then you're dead.
Speaker 3: And I made a pilgrimage to her house in Georgia.
Speaker 2: Yes, uh, where is was it?
Speaker 1: Someone told me? Maybe I forget it was It's definitely Georgia. Yeah,
someone took yeah, uh okay. Quickly I started watching a
new season of Only Murders in the Building Hulu show. Yeah,
you can't watch that anyway. Again, I'm not that big
of a fan of that show. Anyway, it's all right.
I actually thought this season was better or so far
as better than last season. And I start watching a
show called Black Rabbit on Netflix, which stars Jason Bateman
and Jude Law. Sort of gritty New York when's a
restaurant tour the other brothers kind of messed up. Blah
blah blah. I don't know, I don't know much, just
say on it. I was pretty bored, honestly, but I'm
gonna stick it out six episodes.
Speaker 2: Sometimes I don't do much during the weekend.
Speaker 1: I'm like, I gotta watch some TV or I've got
nothing to say on the podcast next week, and then I.
Speaker 2: Watch things like Black Rabbit. I'm like that, all right.
Speaker 1: So thanks for telling us about your trip. I hope
the rest of your travels go well. I know you
have a lot coming up still right, and but we'll
still be back next week until there be lovers of
freedom and anxious for the frames