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. We'd
love to hear from you. Molly. You're in New York.
Speaker 2: It looks like yep up here doing some stuff for Fox.
Speaker 1: I saw that Charlie Kirk was on Fox. I saw
that Charlie Kirk was being given the Presidential Medal of Freedom.
Speaker 2: Yes, so today is was Charlie Kirk's birthday?
Speaker 1: Your second birthday?
Speaker 2: Yeah, he would have been thirty two. Sorry, we're taping
this on Tuesday night. It'll be you'll get first access
to it on when day at some point, but we're
taping on Tuesday nights. So he would have been thirty
two today and Trump is giving him the Presidential Medal
of Freedom. And I think that's just so fitting for
someone like Charlie. It really is what the Presidential Medal
of Freedom was designed for. These great Americans who conserve
the country even though they are not eligible for military
awards or commendations of that nature, but still have done
great work for the country, and a lot of people
honor Charlie for his work defending the Christian faith, and
I think that's the most important thing, but he also
is or they like his conservative politics, which were also important.
But this is a guy who was killed for his
support of free speech in particular, and so I think
it's just fitting and appropriate that you would do this.
And it's also interesting because President Trump has given fewer
Presidential Medal of Freedoms than a lot of presidents do.
Some hand them out like quite a bit to actors
and sports folks and political leaders and leaders of organizations,
and Trump gave about several during his first administration, again
fewer than normal, But I loved when he gave one
to Rush Limbaugh. I thought that was really important because
Rush Limbaugh was the greatest radio person who ever lived,
and also very important for conservatives, but just for Americans
in general. He was the best at radio and did
not receive the accolades that he should have sometimes because
of his conservative politics. So it was nice that he
got that before he died.
Speaker 1: Rush Limbaugh was massively important as well in American political history.
He changed the whole dynamics of politics in the nineties.
It was after the what was it called the fairness
doctrine or whatever it was called, was lifted, so conservatives
found the medium where they could, which was kind of
a vast wasteland, and they dominated on there. He was
the leader, and he was immensely talented. I hated, you know,
when I was a kid. My dad used to listen
to him, you know, and I would like hear it,
and he was He would go on for hours, just
be like, it's hard enough for the two of us
to come up with, you know, a few hours let's
say content.
Speaker 2: Like we're done talking now.
Speaker 1: Yeah, he would just do it on his own and
it would be so funny and so interesting. So I
think he really dictated the tone of conservatism for that general,
you know, that generation coming up.
Speaker 2: If you can. Let me also say that he was
so great at taking high level concepts and making them
easy to understand for normal Americans. So he was extremely
well read and had some similarities to Charlie that way too.
Charlie was a deep and regular reader and communicated to
people at a level that, you know, was not a
super academic.
Speaker 1: I think that Rushlama benefited from being able to spend
almost two decades or maybe two decades on the radio
sort of polishing the craft before he was seen by
a lot of people, whereas I think Charlie was kind
of immediately, you know, seeing very at a very young age.
In fact, I don't even know what age Rush Limbaugh
was when he sort of broke, but he was probably
in his mid thirties at least, right so when he
broke in politics, I don't know if that's for sure,
but he was polished when he went national, and he
was pretty amazing.
Speaker 2: Although another thing they both have in common, you know,
medium matters for America. All those groups they existed solely
to listen to Rush Limbaugh for three hours a day
and then selectively edit a clip that could make him
look bad. And Mark, my husband always makes always comments
how amazing it is that Rush was speaking for three
hours a day and had so few examples that they
could glom onto and try to blow up. Because if
you and I were speaking live on the radio for
three hours, we'd be you know, we'd probably be canceled
within a half hour.
Speaker 1: I'm going to start this next part of the conversation
in a bit of a weird way. But I read
that Donald Trump had cut his Middle Eastern trip short
to ensure that he came back to do this for
Charlie Kirk today. So I was looking over his schedule
and some because someone had put it up. It is
that guy. I mean, listen, I'm just saying that I
get I do if I had to do one thing
at night or I'm beat right, I don't want to
even go this. This schedule that he had over the
last week. I don't remember all of it, but going
to the Middle East, giving a speech at the Knesset,
going to Egypt, you know, giving another speech, doing this,
doing that, meeting with all kinds of world leaders. And
it's a pretty rigorous schedule. How old is Donald Trump.
Speaker 2: He's in his late seventies.
Speaker 1: Yeah, So when people try the I've noticed people trying
to do, what, you know, to pretend he's like Biden,
that he's lost a step, and listen, you're in your
late seventies, probably has lost a step. But it's got
that means that he was crazy busy, you know, a
decade ago or whatever. And anyway, so his trip was
I think it was an incredible moment. I think the
piece deal is incredible. I usually try. I'm not saying
it's going to work the way he says it is
exactly or whatever, but I just think the it feels big.
His speech to the Canesse was to me more you know,
it's like ikmenig Berlin, or speech by jfk And in
West West Berlin in nineteen sixty three, that sort of thing,
but even bigger. You know, we were talking about Israel
last week and just it hit me that that I
believe Trump cares about Israel just because where he's from
and the generation he's from. His children, you know, is
his daughter, is his stepson and all that, but also
because Israelis are very much the type of people he likes.
You know, They're they're kind of tough, outspoken, merit based
society there that that fights, you know, and all of that.
I just I now, obviously it's a bit romanticized, but
I just think he kind of respects that and likes it.
M boy, the people there love that guy, and I
mean he is I think easily the most beloved person
in Israel that's an outsider that has ever existed. I'm
going to go further. I think he might be more
beloved than any actual Israeli politician has ever been loved
by the Israeli people from what I can tell. I mean,
that is a fractious society when it comes to politics.
They hate each other, do you know what I'm saying.
And obviously they only get the good part of Trump, right,
They're not getting all of Trump, but they love that guy,
and it was it was just I don't know, it
made me feel good about that, really, you know, the
relationship better than I have recently, though might not continue
in that direction, but he is. I just thought that
trip was amazing. What was your you know, feelings about it?
As someone who ells when you.
Speaker 2: Were talking when you were talking about him being beloved
by Israelis. I was watching a lot of videos on
Monday of the hostage reunions which are just amazing, and
I have so many.
Speaker 1: Sort of crying or crying right well.
Speaker 2: I mean I'm sobbing, but also I feel like should
I be seeing this? But also I want to see it.
We talked last week about how horrible it was to
see what happened on October seventh, and it was such
a cleanse of all that or to see these reunions,
and just think about what these people went through, how many,
how how much, how desperately they wanted this to happen,
and how it finally happened. Of course, we also are
waiting the return of the murdered hostages, who you know,
their remains have not all been returned at the time
that we were recording this, and how sad that would be,
you know, but also the closure that that would give
some people who need to be reunited with the the
deceased the bodies of their loved ones. But I also
enjoyed watching videos of people, comedic videos of people talking
about how much they loved Donald Trump. It's just fun
to see there's a humor there that again, I think
you're just referencing that Middle Eastern humor that comes through
and is so different than what Americans do. I think
one of the reasons why Trump is successful in that
region is because he isn't one of these you know,
sais kind of educated globalist glob people blog people who
think that they can achieve peace agreements by studiously applying
the theories that they were taught. No matter how much
those applied theories never seem to work out, and he
has this, you know, it's what the left I think
calls authoritarianism, but isn't quite that. It's more about you know,
having power, using power, recognizing when you're a powerful person
that I think a lot of people in the Middle
East respect and that they understand better than you know,
an Anthony Blincoln coming in mealy mouthed and mousey. And
so I also think that he does a really good
job of being friend to everyone but also a threat
to everyone, and both of those things worked here. I
think the fact that the president's son in law and
other people had worked on those massive financial deals the
Abraham Accords laid the groundwork for these financial deals between
Israel and their neighboring countries by being by treating those
people like, yeah, you can be part of this you know,
economy in a new way, it helped when those countries
needed to pressure Hamas that the time was over, that
their war was coming to an end. And then also
he's obviously a very good friend to Israel but also
knows when to apply pressure to say, okay, this is
we're wrapping it up here. And so it's both you
know both but also like don't take it too far
in both cases, and I think that worked well for
him or for the world. Really.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Jared Kushner accomplished more in this past decade in
the Middle East than the Brookings Institution has accomplished ever
by tenfold. Right because Donald Trump started his speech or
he said in his speech that you've won the war
and now it's time for peace, which one doesn't work
with that the other in the Middle East, you cannot
have peace without winning the war. I'm sorry, that's just
how it is. And Israel won the war. And he
opened the door not just to all Palestinians, to all nations,
but to Iran. You know, he invited them to make
peace and if they don't, you know that that's going
to be a problem. But he proved all the Yeah, go.
Speaker 2: On on that note too, because I was extremely worried
that we would get in a war with Iran, and
we didn't. We bombed. We bombed them to smithereens their
nuclear capabilities, and I think that also helped contribute to
the success that we saw this last week. And we
did it without engaging in a long war with them,
a long and costly war. And like the whole thing,
his whole approach which started again in the first administration.
We're pivoting away from Iran as the central powerholder of
the region. We're pivoting towards Saudi Arabia, which is another
country that's not the best country, right, but it made
more sense to put them against Iran and kind of
make them more the power brokers there. And then you know,
during the Biden administration, we're going back to favoring Iran.
So Trump has to actually like make up ground that
he had already made up in the first administration. But
it worked really well and it all worked together. Now
it is the Middle East, so probably what we've got
eighteen months before another catastrophe strikes. But it's nice for now, right.
Speaker 1: Just going back to Iran, because of the Iraqi democracy
building excursion and project and failures of that, there was
an overcorrection. I believe on the right to treat every
country as if they are super dangerous and that we
couldn't deal with them with the United States, our technology
and military technology is unmatched still and Iran is not
as strong as everyone thinks. There was never going to
be a world war over Iran. Russia abandoned them, China
abandoned them, sorry, going no, I was going to say.
Speaker 2: I think you're right, and I actually think it's not
an overreaction even so much as a mirror image. There
are people who think the solution to everything is US
involvement in the lengthy war. But then there's this mirror
image of it that you see among some people on
the right, or occasionally they're on the right, which is
a neo con derangement syndrome. And I am I mean.
Speaker 1: From you, I'm very impressed by this.
Speaker 2: On record as being strongly opposed to the neo kan
approach to foreign policy, but that doesn't mean that you
react to it by saying like any use of force
is catastrophic. It's not true. I mean, you don't want
to get involved in a Rock style wars, that's true,
you don't have enough Afghanistan situation that sprawls for twenty years,
But that doesn't mean that you don't use your military,
particularly if you can do it like Trump does. This
is what I hope people figure out in the like
he did it in his first term, he also did
it in this term, which is the I always joked
that I thought what we should have done in Afghanistan
is just bombed them and then like not landed the
planes just turn them around and they land back. You know,
at our basis, that's exactly what we did in Iran,
contrary to what some people were pushing for, which was
like more of a lengthy situation there. But he's done
that with just taking out a bad guy and then
not engaging in a long democracy building more or occupation.
Speaker 1: That's the key, right, I agree, I agree in that situation.
I think there are situations. And by the way, you know,
Israel embarrassed, embarrassed Iran. I think people forget that this
small country is incredibly advanced technologically and in weaponry. I
know they rely in the US a lot, but they
also come up with a lot of their own, you know,
innovations as far as military stuff goes on to other stuff.
So the embarrassed Iran and that was the key to
all of this. Trump said, the bombing Iran was the
key to this. Once Iran was neutralized. Generally, Hasbala fell
before even Syria Asad fell, whotis aren't that big of
a threat, and Israel could focus on Hamas. So here's
my point, you can't just I mean, they did a
job on Gaza for sure, but you can't. You know,
at some point you have to go in and get
the bad guys. Sometimes, right, you had to go and
eliminate them, and I think the Israelis eliminated a lot
of Hamas fighters. They're the only army someone pointed out
that puts on their uniforms after the war is on,
takes it off. During the war. You see them marching
around executing other Palestinians. Because there's a lot of if
Amas disarms, which I'm very skeptical they're actually going to
do on their own. There's a good chance they'll be
massacred by other clans. Like this is not the cohesive ethnicity.
There are clans all over Gaza. It's very complicated, but
they do have a chance right now to have peace.
Israel has neutralized somewhat Iran. It has now a bubble
around Gaza. There's never going to be another October seventh.
If anyone strays near the buffer zone, they're going to
get killed, I think. And also because there's no Egyptian
border anymore, there's no weaponry coming in. They will not
have a missile an arsenal of missiles to fire at
civilians in Israel, so either this place can be peaceful
or can turn into Somalia. Trump says that, you know,
they'll be disarmed if they don't, because they already have
failed to live up to their part of the agreement
by returning the dead, dead hostages. Who's going to do that,
I don't know. Is it going to be you know,
is France going to go in there and do it
as the United States? I hope not. Israel's never going back,
probably in any kind of real way, So worry about that.
But overall, think about all the people that came to
Trump like he was a king of the world at
this at this Egyptian event. You know, all there's there's
the Canadians, someone said, the French and the Canadians. It's
like showing up when someone else has finished the project,
you know, and taking taking partial credit like people do
in college. But also the Indonesians, you know, the Pakistani government,
like these people. I think there's there are rumors. I
think they're credible that these people are thinking we're talking
about the Abraham Accords, you know, and that's just amazing.
If you told someone in nineteen sixty seven that Israel
would be at peace with virtually every soon the Arab
nation that the larger Islamic nation in the world, Indonesia,
was thinking about making peace with Israel. I mean, that
would be incredible, and I think there's a real chance
for that to happen here, even if the Palestinians don't participate,
because once everyone signed onto the Trump idea, which is
to deradicalize Gaza, they have essentially admitted or signed on
to a plan that says there can't be any kind
of Palestinian state or even we can't even talk about
that until there's deradicalization. It seems like Trump has rallied
the world to that simple cause, and that is a
huge step towards peace hopefully there.
Speaker 2: So you mentioned Humas killing some resistance people.
Speaker 1: Maybe there was no trial, it was summary executions.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think, well, okay, I actually don't. I have
not read up on it. I've seen reports on that,
but it reminds you how difficult it will be too.
Like people talk a lot about how much the Palestinian
people support him on in the Kaza strip, It's also
true that those who have bravely resisted it have faced
unbelievable consequences, and so it's a very bad situation. And
it was wonderful though to see how much celebration there
was from the Israelis and the Palestinians after this happened.
You just pray that things continue to go well for
both of them.
Speaker 1: It's going to be a heavy lift over there, because, yeah,
and I don't get too deeply into it, but you
have a society that does, like I said, doesn't have
a coherent kind of ethnic historical idea about themselves other
than that they had been subjected to this catastrophe and
that they hate the people who brought it on them.
And you know, so they have to get over that
or there's never going to be peace as a society.
Speaker 2: Hard to get over it when people who try to
help them get over it get killed, and then also
hard to get over it when you've got all sorts
of money coming into the Palestinian territories from global corporations countries,
and the political leadership of these areas needs these people
to not live well to continue the whole scam, which
is why I'm not Some people gone out of me,
but I'm not super confident that this can truly continue
because the people the Palestinian people are being unfairly constrained
from contributing to the country, like they can't get normal jobs.
They need to stay as refugees for them to have
any political weight according to the political leadership. And so
when people are like, hey, here's a business we could
form here, Hamas actually looks down on that rather than
doing that as like a really good thing for their people.
Speaker 1: No, for sure, they have Listen, they deserve a lot
of the blame for the things that they do, and
they do into violence quite often. But the truth is
you're right. I mean, this goes back to the Soviets
and the Arab States. They made sure that these people
even when Egypt and Jordan ruled these places, to keep
them in refugee camps. There are people in gods of
living in refugee camps for seventy years, right, That is
not normal. No other country does that to people. Everyone
blames the Israelis, but Israelis cannot incorporate these people into
their society because I'm sad to say, they act in
very violent ways, nihilistic ways in my view, towards the people.
So anyway, but there is no reason there can be
peace and just quickly there's really no reason there can
be peace between Iran and Israel. There is no real
geopolitical problem between the two. Before the revolution, Israel and
Iran were friendly. There's an Islamic problem in Iran that
makes that impossible. So I don't know if they can
get over it. Probably not, but there's no reason for
this to be going on at all. Anyway. It's a
good day after, as you know. You know, October seventh
was traumatic, obviously for anyone who watched you as any
kind of moral compass, but you know, especially I think,
at least for me in Jewish people. So it's nice
to see that Israel one. Frankly, they had a wide
ranging victory against Iran. That's what this was. And now
the hostages are back, were still alive. I feel so
horrible for the people who didn't make it, but hopefully
brighter horizons.
Speaker 3: We've got ourselves an insurance catastrophe. The watch Dot on
Wall Street podcast with Chris Markowski. Every day, Chris helps
unpack the connection between politics and the economy and how
it affects your wallet. It doesn't make any difference whether
it's health, auto home. Everyone is getting wrecked. It's getting
worse instead of better. Does Marjorie Taylor Green have the solution?
Whether it's happening in DC or down on Wall Street,
it's affecting you financially.
Speaker 1: Be informed.
Speaker 3: Check out the Watch Dot on Wall Street podcast with
Chris Markowski on Apple, Spotify, or you get your podcasts.
Speaker 1: So let's move on to another story. I saw a
lot of people on the left were angry about today.
Pete Hexseth has instituted new rules at the Pentagon for
the press. Only one network has signed this these set
of rules, and that's like one America network, one of
those conservative networks. But Fox Today said they would refuse
to sign it as well. I find this well, Actually,
let me ask you, what do you think of it?
I saw you you talked about a little bit on Twitter.
I think I don't.
Speaker 2: Remember talking about it on Twitter, so forgive me. But sure,
I did read the agreement, and I read it in
part because I was reading all of these statements from
people in the media, but they never quoted from the
document that they were supposed to sign. Did you read
the document?
Speaker 1: I think I did. I don't know. I read the
stories on it. I'm not sure if I read the
actual document from the beginning to the end.
Speaker 2: It's like a twenty page document.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well know is the answer on that.
Speaker 2: Okay, So the vast majority of the document is going
through policies for the employees, service members, or contractors of
the Department of War. So it's not really about journalists.
It's saying here are the rules for handling information to
the press, and most specifically, it says that you need
to have authorization to share basically any sensitive information with
any member of the media or with anyone else. And
then the thing that you sign as a media person. Okay,
so this is about getting press credentials or renewal of
press credentials. So a lot of it deals with stuff
like where do you park, which parts of the building
to have access to, which parts of the building do
not have access to unless you have an escort, how
many family members can you bring to fun events at
the Pentagon if you have a press pass. You know,
it's like a lot of just logistical stuff like that,
you can't photograph anything, you know, in most of the
areas you can photograph in the area where the press
briefings are. How to get approval to photograph other areas
or to get you know, top Department of War officials photographed.
So do you know what I'm saying? Like, it's just
focusing on stuff like that. And it says repeatedly and
explicitly that nothing in the document should be read to
constrain any First Amendment protected activity, and it also said,
I mean, it has one part where it says like,
if so, here are the rules that our people have
to follow, and so if you are helping them violate
those rules, they might get in trouble, which is again
like okay. And then at the end it says what
you sign. It's like signing when you download an app,
and it says like, here are terms and conditions. Do
you do you like understand them or whatever. So it
just says do you acknowledge receipt of this? And that
these are our policies even if you disagree with them.
So the actual signing of this seems my Like I
was trying so hard to find the part that you
would have a tru you would have trouble with, and
I couldn't really find it. It explicitly and repeat like literally,
here's the last thing. Nothing in this document requires you
to waive any constitutional rights. This in brief constitutes a
description of Department of War policies. Here's another part, wait one,
The receipt of unsolicited like sensitive information and its subsequent
publication is generally protected by the First Amendment and would
not on its own trigger denial, revocation or non referral
of a press pass. And then it like also goes
into like how if you're repeatedly doing it or you're
publicly posting that, you're asking people to break the laws.
So think like WikiLeaks, you know, here's how to send
information to WikiLeaks or whatever, then you might be in
violation and you might have your press pass reviewed. So
like the worst thing that can happen to you is
that your press pass isn't renewed. And also you get
due process for that, you get like thirty days, you
get noticed, you can make your case for why it
shouldn't be so like it'd be one thing. I guess
if this were oh, it would be totally one thing
for like Congress, But it's literally the Pentagon. And I
don't know if it's because I used to work at
a publication that covered the Pentagon, which had all sorts
of restrictions on how you do information. But I was
like trying to figure out the problem, and I was
reading all these stories where they would make these claims
about how awful it was, but they wouldn't actually have
any quotes from the document to back it up.
Speaker 1: You know, well, I saw many left wing journalist types
exaggerate from what I saw. I didn't read the whole
document like you did, so I don't exactly know the
framing of how it worked, especially what you said about
at the end that this wouldn't constitute a revocation of
your credentials. But my problem was with the phrase you
cannot commit or entice anyone to commit criminal acts, when
the whole entire job of journalism wouldn't exist without criminal acts.
There is no way to report on any useful story
in the Pentagon if someone is not leaking information to you,
if you do what they say, aren't you just writing
press releases for whatever the Pentagons the way you do.
Speaker 2: Here's the irony. What have our media been doing other
than regurgitating press releases from the people that they're supposed
to cover, Like that's all they do anyway?
Speaker 1: So it's I agree, let's set that aside. Yeah, Well,
I'm just saying that from my point of the.
Speaker 2: New York Times. If they get access to sensitive information,
they put this in their own stories. They will say,
before we publish this sensitive information about the Pentagon or
the CIA, we notified the press office that we were
going to do this, and they'll say that in the story,
which is what the document says. If you have received
sensitive information about troop deployments or whatever, the thing is,
notify the PPO. Well, you might not like that, but
having access to the Pentagon is not in any way
like a right that you're bestowed by being born American
or something like that. It is where we plan our
military operations. And so the idea that you could possibly
lose your press pass for publishing information that gets soldiers killed, like,
do you honestly think that's a violation of First Amendment rights?
Speaker 1: Maybe, I mean the Pentagon papers were put out, or
I think that's some journalistic institutions or outlets are irresponsible
with that kind of information, And I definitely think they
should be responsible if it doesn't have any real worth
for people to read or see. But I think preemptively
saying I will not I admit that, or I will
not try to get any my hands on any leaked
information and if I do, you can my Well, it
doesn't it say that they can revoke your No, No,
I see you or you want to say something about that?
So I have it or do I have it? On?
Speaker 2: You never have to pl So this is I've read
this Washington Post story. It says Pentagon demands journalists pledge
to not obtain unauthorized material. I read it. I read
it like three times. I was like, there's no part.
And even in the story itself, the only quote it says,
and I'll say this is the quote that they give
to support their claim that the Pentagon demands that you
pledge not to obtain unauthorized material. Department of War remains
committed to transparency to promote accountability and public trust. However,
Department of War information must be approved for public release
by an appropriate authorizing official before it is released, even
if it is unclassified. Again, I want to read to
you that thing I said at the end of the
document where it says nothing in this document requires you
to waive in any constitutional rights. This, in brief, constitutes
a description of Department of War policies. So it's like
they're telling their own people you are not to release
information unless you're authorized to release information.
Speaker 1: But that first thing, Oh sorry, I'm just saying that
first quote you gave me essentially says that you have
to run things by the Pentagon before you publish them,
which is not something I would sign say that. Well,
that first quote that you said said that you needed
to run and buy the Pentagon office. If you're going
to disclose on unclassified information, I would not do.
Speaker 2: Think I just read that from the Washington Post story.
Speaker 1: Oh, you read it from the Washington Post story. I
thought it was a quote from the.
Speaker 2: It says, I mean, it's the quote they give actually
has nothing to do with the press side of things.
It has to do with the Department of War side
of things, which is we want to be giving I mean,
this is what they're claiming. I'm not saying you should
trust the part War or anybody else in the government.
But what they're saying is we want to be accountable.
We want to be transparent, but we must we won't
release information unless it's authorized to be released. Now, that
has nothing to do with what you publish, and obviously
the whole job of a reporter may be to get
information that well, it's not the whole job of reporter.
But in the course of doing your job, which is
to tell the truth to your readers or your viewers
about what's going on, you may be getting information that
people don't want released. It could be information that CBS
News doesn't want released, or it could be information that
the Pentagon doesn't want released. You have to think about
the news value of.
Speaker 1: Doing so, for sure.
Speaker 2: But that doesn't mean that you're guaranteed access to every
part of the Pentagon. I mean, clearly nobody thinks that,
or maybe like only the most radical people think that.
So putting constraints on where you can travel when you
have a Pentagon press pass is not a violation of
your First Amendment right. It's saying you can't publish something
would be a restriction on your First Ament rights. But
saying that if you publish classified information about Troup movements
you might not be renewed for your press past that
gives you, you know, access to lots of parts of
the Pentagon.
Speaker 1: That's just but it's not just true movements. There are
all kinds of secrets that they hide in the Pentagon
that have been uncovered in the past by journalists who
are in essence breaking the law. And my assumption is
that these outlets don't want to create a precedent where
you're problem making promises you don't intend to keep, even
if they don't revoke your I mean, this is just
again I haven't read the whole document, but this is
what at least these news organizations are saying. And you
have to concede that there's a lot of them, including
some conservative you know, news organizations, that don't want to
do it. Now, I don't know, are they just writing
with the herd and they you know, and they don't
want to be well.
Speaker 2: So like I've read all of their statements, I've read
their story worries about it, and I will just note
nobody's quoting from the actual document. And if they were
to quote from the actual document, I think they would
have a lot harder time being in on their high horse,
because I can understand that a lot of people have
made careers out of, you know, getting selective. It's like
the Department of Justice is where I've done most of
my stuff, or CIA or DNI. So I understand how
it works in those contexts more than I understand how
it works at the Pentagon, and so frequently what happens
is very very very bad. Actors will work with hungry,
hungry journalists to give them selectively snipped little things that
they are not supposed to release, and then they release it,
and then the people just regurgitate it and it can
cause major problems. Let's think about the example. I always
like to talk about the Russia collusion hoax, and then
also nobody who leaks that information in a selective way
to make it seem like Donald Trump stole the twenty
sixteen election and that everyone working with him as a
Russian asset. Nobody is never held accountable. So that also
we've seen problems with that at the Pentagon. You might
remember what happened with the post Iran strike, right, So
Donald Trump bombs the nuclear capabilities of Iran and it
is enormously successful, enormously and some bureaucrat in some agency
at the Pentagon leaks that a preliminary review says actually
it was a humongous failure, and then a bunch of
left wing media run with this claim that it was
a complete failure. I think the Pentagon is trying to
tell those people who leak flagrantly all the time to
left wing journals or right wing that they're cracking down
on that, and they're trying to do it in the format.
I mean, this all arose out of an actual policy
change that Pete Hegseth signed, you know, many months ago,
and so I think what they're trying to do is
clarify for people who say, like, oh, I I didn't
know I wasn't supposed to leak this completely ridiculous report
to MSNBC. They're trying to make it harder or make
it easier for them to be able to crack down
on that. Now you can say, reporters can say, like,
we don't like that, because that's how we get our stuff.
We don't want people to be cracked down on. But
that's kind of a separate issue than whether it's a
violation of First Amendment rights.
Speaker 1: Well, like Tom Wolfe has that quote that journalism isn't
a craft, it's an attitude, and the attitude is I
get to see things I'm not supposed to and I
don't If we had real journalists, they wouldn't want that undermined.
I just worried a little bit that, you know, you
create a precedent here which undermines transparency of government.
Speaker 2: A little, So I just want to actually read the
thing you sign. Okay, Yeah, I have received, read and
understand the Pentagon Reservation in Brief for Media Members, with
Appendices A through E, including Appendix A, which addresses the
standard and pons for denying, revoking, or not renewing a
press pass. The in brief describes Department of War policies
and procedures. My signature represents my acknowledgment and understanding of
Department of War policies and procedures. Even if I do
not agree with such policies and procedures. Signing this does
not waive any rights I have under law.
Speaker 1: Well, I mean, when you publish classified information, you're breaking
the law, right, you know. I was why they hold
you in contempt a court when they want to get
to your sources and people, some of the journalists to
go to jail. I'm just saying, I mean.
Speaker 2: This document doesn't deal with that. This is just saying
that they could revoke your press pass that gives you
easy access to the Pentagon if you were to Actually
it doesn't even say if you were to print such things.
It says if you were to like repeatedly, willfully, like
after do process, Like, it's not even to me that
big of a deal. It's sort of like a if
your WikiLeaks, we're not going to let you on the
Pentagon campus.
Speaker 1: Also, yeah, I mean I think that that's not real journalism.
That was just irresponsible. But go on what wiki leaks
does stuff like that? Yeah, I mean, when you're just
mass releasing and putting people's lives in danger and destroying
lives and just putting everything out there, I think that's
different than what a journalist should be doing. Not that
they do it right obviously most of the time, but I'm.
Speaker 4: Sorry going It even says like, if you get access
to this sensitive information and you're planning on publishing it,
it doesn't say you can't publish it, or if you
publish it, you'll be you will lose your press pass.
Speaker 2: It says you should share that with a PPO before
you publish it. Should I mean, it's like, okay, I
mean it's also already the standard followed by every every
major or even like non major media corporation that if
you are about to publish sensitive information, you run it
by the agency in question.
Speaker 1: Do they really run it by the agency when they
publish sense of information that's the war stuff.
Speaker 2: Yes, So New York Times will always do it for
Pentagon related stuff, and they put it in their stories
because they understand that when you're publishing this information, even
the New York Times, which I have no regard for it,
but even they understand. I think it's also the way
they keep on the right side law for what you
just said, meaning people think they have the right to
publish any information, no questions asked. But while you're probably
not going to be prosecuted for doing that, technically you
could be in violation of some laws. And so I
think New York Times and other major media understand that,
and so they will run it by people like, hey,
we're about to out this, you know, confidential human source
in their life could be in danger FYI, you know.
But whether you have to do that or not, I
guess it's a journalistic debate as well as goal debate.
Speaker 1: I understand for wartime wartime incidents. But anyway, okay, I.
Speaker 2: Just want to say two more things. One, it actually
is helpful to talk to people when you're covering wars
or other big things that you don't just get what
their official statement is. But also if you are on
the Pentagon campus. It enables you to have background or
off the record conversations to provide context and understanding of strategy,
or you know why something is becoming an issue, and
you can you know, you can definitely this This document
doesn't even deal with stuff like that. I still think
that's the primary benefit for in person reporting. And again,
it does not constrain the journalists. It constrains the Department
of War employees, contractors, and service members. Now you might say, well,
that's not cool. They should be free to leak anything
they want, but that's a different issue than the First
Amendment thing. The second thing I want to say is
all these people being like, how dare Donald Trump say
that you can't publish ossified information, which is not even
what's being said here? Where were these people when our
government targeted the Federalists for extermination? I mean, we have
been in a battle, a First Amendment case against our government,
the Biden administration, for trying to destroy us through censorship,
and I never heard any of these people. Were almost
done of these people even give airtime to what we've
been going through, and we were not even given access
to like we I had to do all of my
Russia collusion reporting without the benefit of having like easy
access to the Pentagon because they didn't give US press credentials.
And so I just think people kind of pick and
choose what they want to talk about, and they are
complete and utter hypocrites. And if they really cared about
the First Amendment and free speech, they would have been
helping us in our battle.
Speaker 1: Well, listen, Yes, the left are hypocrites. I think that
needs to be appended to every conversation we have about everything.
So it's there. I agree, and it is not cool.
Is definitely something I would say. But you know, I
think journalists just listen. If things are healthy, if the
environment is right, journalists are trying to get their hands
on things that are not supposed to. Some people are
leaking because they don't like what the administration's doing, and
it sort of keeps people somewhat honest and usually and
the administration should be trying to figure out who's leaking
and then prosecute them, like this is the symbiotic relationship.
I guess that these things should be having. But things
are broken. I get it. Let's talk about journalism and
broken journalism. Oh that's such a good segue. So paramount
sky Dance, which owns CBS, bought a couple of weeks
ago Barry Weise's publication The Free Press, and then made
Wise the editor in chief of CBS News The Free Press,
which I read, I subscribe. Sometimes I like the pieces,
sometimes I disagree with them. It's I think I call
it sort of a old old fashioned liberal publication that
allows some Well we'll get into that in a minute.
The left freaks out. John Oliver is as his name
on HBO. You know, he's just going after everyone's going
after her. I think it tells us too. We can
discuss this more. I just want to preface it by
saying it tells us two things I think about the
state of modern journalism. One is that it's learnt so
far to the left that centrist positions seem just like
heterodox And the second thing is that the gatekeepers of
journalism are simply incapable of hearing even mildly dissenting viewpoints
without freaking out because their cultural supremacies on the line,
Because these institutions are the crowns of that cultural supremacy still,
even though they've lost a lot of viewership. So I
don't know anyway, what was your take on Barrioece's.
Speaker 2: I kind of agree with everything you're saying there. So
people on the left are freaking out because they view
CBS quote unquote news as an institution that they can
reliably count on to deliver elections and other major political victories,
and so they are freaking out that anyone who's not
super hardcore propagandist on the left might have anything to
do with their news quote unquote news gathering or news
production operation. CBS is known for having what used to
be considered like a flagship excellent program called sixty Minutes,
And you think about just like, let's look at like
three interviews with CBS sixty minutes. A lot of attention
was drawn to the Kamala Harris one, and in fact,
they ended up having to settle over their deceptive editing
of that with the Trump Library. But I like to
think about the one with Joe Biden that took place
the same week as the October seventh launch of the war,
where Joe Biden came in and I think it's Scott
Pelly says, I'm right, who's interviewing him. I don't even remember.
All these people kind of look alike to me. But
first off, he's like he begins by being like it
had been a hard week on President Biden, and he
seemed tired. Well. I have talked with some people inside
who say they had to perform an absolute, quote unquote
monster edit on that interview to get it able to
be aired. And when that woman who was part of
the family that bought CBS, one of the reasons why
she said that they settled was because I don't know
red what is her name for, Sherdon Redstone, I don't know.
She said that she was really worried that it would
come out what they had done to that Joe Biden interview,
which is the only public thing I have been able
to find of what happened there. But that matches with
my sourcing, which is that they had to edit the
heck out of it to get it able to be
viewed in a way that was not deeply alarming for
President Biden. And they would never do that with Donald Trump.
And we know that because do you remember at the
end of his first term, there was that woman.
Speaker 1: I don't know my name, she's a white.
Speaker 2: Woman, I don't know who was saying that they Trump
was saying something about how they should have reported the
truth about Russia collusion hoax or the hunter Biden laptop,
and she was like, we can't do what you're saying
because we only traffic in the facts. It's like, well
that's a lie. CBS News pushed the Russia collusion conspira
theory that you pushed so many like going back to
Dan rather and wasn't was Katy Kuirk. There I get
confused again between which networks everybody's at where they're like, okay, sorry,
and these are, you know, at public airwaves, which should
have a higher standard and should have some you know,
like thought about balance, and they're just routinely helping out democrats.
And then it culminates with that Kamala Harris interview where
they have one answer to a question that airs on
their program and a different answer to the same question
that aired on the teaser. And so it revealed how
much they had edited to help her out a little
bit of shading and helpful editing, little bit of democratic colleagues,
and then a shading and editing against your republican interview subjects.
Speaker 1: I mean that Kamala interview was not lightly edited. That
was it was essentially edited in a way that would
make the whole thing be be dishonest, right, because it
didn't convey how she really was or what she was
really saying, and not just that. But then they use
these this and the quotes that were cleaned up in stories.
You know, her her swirling tautology is we're cleaned up,
thrown into stories as cogent, you know, coherent phrases. So
but but you mentioned Dan Rather. He said it was
a dark Dan Rather who spread a fraudulent document about
a sitting president to try to unseat him in an election.
Said that it was a dark day in the halls
of CBS News because Barry Wise is going to you know,
oversee operations, not even you know, not not not dictate
how people report in a sense, but just tell just
direct the ship a certain direction.
Speaker 2: So on that note, I think that the people who
bought CBS are trying to make it seem that by
bringing on Barry Weiss, that they're bringing balance to their
news operation, and that she's going to help provide balance.
You said when you first introduce this topic that the
Free Press is like an old school liberal publication. I'm
this accurate. It's not in any way conservative. It's just
anti some of the most extreme parts of the left,
but not even all. And in twenty nineteen I said
this Sun out Numbered today. But in twenty nineteen Vanity
Fair ran this like beautiful, gauzy profile of Barry Wise,
with beautiful pictures and so nice, and the very first
line says that she's and I quote a Trump loathing
theater nerd who was raised in a feminist Yeshiba Now
CBS's new owners can act like having a quote unquote
Trump loathing theater nerd balances out the CBS operation, But
it actually doesn't. I mean it does a little bit.
I guess, like she's certainly an improvement over some of
the people who are there, but it's not even remote balance.
A majority of the country does not loathe Trump, like
everyone who works at CBS plus Barry Weiss do not.
You know, a majority of the country doesn't. Where do
we go for balance in our news? Like you can
like her and think she's smart, and you know, wish
her the best in rooting out the corruption there. But
it's kind of like, okay, be nice to have I mean,
how much how much would it take to have a
single person at CBS who voted for Trump much less
half of their staff.
Speaker 1: Well, I don't know, I kind of disagree. I'm not
exactly sure specifically what I disagree with, but just in
your tone, I think that a Trump loathing this Trump
loathing theater major. First of all, I don't know if
that's still the case with her, but more than.
Speaker 2: In twenty nineteen. So like it'd be one thing for
twenty fifteen or twenty sixteen, but twenty nineteen is deep
into the first Trump administration that had been pretty successful
prior to COVID. So it's like, but things have changed,
arrangement syndrome.
Speaker 1: Things have changed a lot for her since then, she
left the time, since then she was pushed down all that.
But anyway, but she covers at least I read the
Free Press and I listened to her speak. I don't
want you know, I'm not like fluent in all her positions,
but I think her she treats Donald Trump as she
would treat any other president and coverage, and I think
that that is something admirable, especially when you don't like
the person. I mean, I think we have to take
baby steps here. You're not CBS isn't going to turn conservative.
This is a cultural problem that goes back into the
JA schools. You know, it's not going to be fixed overnight,
but here's what I like about it. For instance, the
free press as a debate I think it happened or
is coming up between Alan Dershowitz and Dana lash Right.
That is better than anything CBS has ever done on
guns ever, Like people are actually going to hear the
other side of things, And for me, that's a massive
victory considering what has gone on in media. I think
it's'll be very hard for her to be successful there
with considering what the culture is like. She's going to
be undermined by everyone there right under her. But I
think she deserves a little more credit than you're giving her.
And I do.
Speaker 2: Listen, she literally just said I wish her well.
Speaker 1: I know, but what I know, people.
Speaker 2: Should pretend she's conservative when she describes herself as a
you know, Trump loading theater nerd raised in a feminist yeshiva,
Like we should just be aware of what's happening there.
But do I wish her well? Absolutely do. I think
she's smart and capable.
Speaker 1: So the year after that, she was pushed out of
the New York Times.
Speaker 2: Yeah, bullied out of it, and it was like a
completely hostile work environment because she stood up for Tom
Cotton op ed running right.
Speaker 1: Also because she didn't well when they had the time
story about why she left and how you know, they
couch everything in their euphemisms. But she was she was
critical or did not wholly buy the story on Brett
Kavanaugh's rape pokes long the way away.
Speaker 2: I remember this one too, Okay. Yeah, what she did
say some stuff in defense of Brett Kavanaugh not being
ousted over the allegations. She got a lot of pushback,
and then she immediately was like, oh, I'm so sorry,
like that was so wrong of me.
Speaker 1: Okay, Well that was as someone who.
Speaker 2: You know suffered during that era for not going along
with the Washington Post smear job. You kind of remember
who stood strong and who didn't.
Speaker 1: Okay, And her real sin was as a New York
Times quote quote here is that she she questioned aspects
of the social justice movements.
Speaker 2: She's like, like you said, she's a good old school liberal, right.
I love old school liberals. See of my favorite people
I think of like Matt Tayibi in this way, or
Uri berl Or who she hired at the Free Press.
I like those people. I love those people. Also, they
don't want to kill me, which is a huge step
up from most of the people who work at CBS
News Presuma.
Speaker 1: But I also like you.
Speaker 2: I'm just saying, like, it's not the same as actually
hiring someone out.
Speaker 1: No, I mean, but she can bring in people to
balance it out somewhat. But more than that, you know,
she doesn't treat. I don't think she treats, and maybe
her opinions were different in the past. I don't think
that that site talks about social conservatives like there are
a bunch of slack jawed yokels who worship a son God, right, they're.
Speaker 2: What they do, use false pronouns, they're there. They I
don't know that everyone translology by using false pronouns. I
still remember the piece they ran, well, they run a
lot of like pro legal immigration pieces. They they ran
a thing saying that the Democrats who fled to Illinois
to avoid voting on redistricting were like Moses leading people
out of That's like they're they're fine, but they're not,
you know, they're not conservable school liberal, as you point out,
and they're certainly like, if you're not strong enough to
resist the trans cult, are you really going to be
strong enough to do what needs to happen at CBS.
I'm worried about it. I still wish her well. I
think she's again very bright and capable. But if you're
not willing to resist the trans cult, it's a very
bad sign.
Speaker 1: I think that we make a mistake sometimes, and people
do it to the Federalist, and people did it, do
it to National Review, and people do it to the
Washington Examiner. They say this, publications saying this, and this
publication saying that when individual writers have their own viewpoints
usually and say the things that they believe. So I
don't know, honestly what the editorial standard for trans pronoun
stuff is there. And you're probably right about that, But
I don't know that everyone there. I mean, they do
have the writers, those left wing writers who are very
I like Jesse's signal is that his name? I forget,
but like and others who are very critical of that
movement writing for the free press. So you know, I'm
just saying, you know, there are different viewpoints there, I think,
So I don't know. Trying to be positive today, everyone's
moving in the right direction.
Speaker 2: It's certainly an improvement. Like I said, it's certainly an improvement.
I'm just worried about how much we'll actually improve here.
Speaker 1: We'll see culture. Yeah, I heard a rumor that you
actually have stuff to talk about as far as this
goes with, even with all your travels.
Speaker 2: So well, I actually was home and I had all
sorts of fun things to do, including I got to
go to the Kennedy Center to see a ballet by
the Stuttgart Ballet Company. On Again is how I'm saying it.
Speaker 1: I've done books.
Speaker 2: I always hate that when you read something you have
no idea how to pronounce it. So it's based on
Eugene on Again, which is a great book and which
is written in sonnet form. And I've only seen two
ballet is in my lifetime and they were both fantastic,
so this was no exception. Unsurprisingly, and there it's already
gone from the Kennedy Center, so if you missed it,
you snooze, you lose. But I really enjoyed it, and
I'm I have a kid who's really in the theater
and stuff, so I'm trying to go to more productions
like that. Yes, yeah, so I was just going to say,
I've started reading this other this book that is written
by a visiting professor at Hillsdale, which is an homage
to Eugene Onegan called Eugene Nadleman, and it's great. It's
set in Pennsylvania, you know, about a young Jewish kid,
and I'm only like at the early part. But it's
also done in poetic form, and I would recommend it
to people. Michael Weinrad Eugene Nailman.
Speaker 1: I have a giant pile of books. I think I'll
save that for like one episode. Probably maybe I'll mention
a couple because it ties into what I'm going to
talk about. The first thing. I saw a terrible movement.
Terrible's harsh. I saw a movie called The Woman in
Cabin ten. I did do what you think of it,
I already gave it.
Speaker 2: I was so excited at the beginning. I never read
the book. I know it was like a huge bestseller, right.
I always saw people reading it on the train or playing,
but I never read it. So I was excited. It
started out so great. I thought, really good actors, you know,
star studed, cast, beautiful cinematography. Books for a Netflix thing.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it looks great, and then I just.
Speaker 2: Thought it fell apart completely and became really cheesy.
Speaker 1: I think the problem was, and I am not a
script writer or anything, but they basically gave it away
in the middle, like it would have been I don't
want to give away the spoilers, but they should have
kept the big secret a secret to the end and
it would have been like whoa. Then once they gave
it away, it was just like a Chase movie on
a boat basically, right. Yeah, So I don't know, that's
what That's what I felt the problem.
Speaker 2: I think it was terrible, and I also liked that
it wasn't totally overly long, which a lot of movies are.
Speaker 1: Did you get a little bit of a me too
sense here? Like all the men are bad and all
the women are strong? And I just like, there's like,
all the men on the ship are weasels, essentially one
is a murderer, and all women are good and strong.
Speaker 2: So I was talking to someone who had read the
book and she said that in the book, like the movie,
did a change up on the character the woman in
Cabin eleven, that she was not so good in the book.
Speaker 5: She had the woman in Cabin ten sorry ten Okay, yeah,
not the women in Cabin eight, Okay, said I notice
how the journalists smart.
Speaker 2: Also was more complicated in the book.
Speaker 1: So I would have helped, yeah, because you know, this
was a journalist from the Guardian and all the you know,
there's a goofy guy there, but all the women are
running things and they're all smart and anyway, I just
got a little sense of it nightly or yeah, she's
so pretty, she's actually good. And Guy Pearce is in it,
who I think is always good, and all the acting
was fine and it looked really nice and and everything
was fine in that regard. I actually think it was
a slight script problem. The other thing I wanted to
mention was that Diane Keaton died, which made me sad
because obviously I'm a huge Woody Allen fan. In those
early movies with her, I think she's better at being
Woody Allen than Woody Allen in a way. I mean,
she was just genius in those movies Love and Death.
I think is just a great played against Sam whatever.
I mean, she was just so fantastic and so young.
I didn't realize how young she was in those movies.
In her twenties. Anyway, it was sad. It's kind of
sad as we grow older to these sort of icons
or Hollywood icons of our youth are kind of going.
Speaker 2: Well, I love Diane Keaton, so thanks for mentioning that.
And I also love it when a director has a
relationship with a muse, like with an actress who you
really can cast and work with. And that was definitely
the situation with Woody and her.
Speaker 1: I can't believe I didn't mention Annie Hall because Dan
Kane's last name was actually Hall, so it's based on
her bit Yeah.
Speaker 2: Interesting. Yeah. So also it just kind of hit me
because she reminds me of my mother, who's the same age,
and so I just was like, whoa, you're not allowed
to die at that age at least my mom's not.
So yeah, she's great.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I also read Woody Allan wrote his first novel,
What's What's with Baum? It's called and uh, it was
pretty good, and you know, I'm you know, I'm a
big fan. I know a lot of people aren't. But
another book I just want to quickly mention right that
I reread for the first time in a long time.
In the movie's fantastic it's from the sixties. Have you
ever seen The Mouse That Roared? With Peter Sellers playing
all the many of.
Speaker 2: The characters, Yeah, I have been.
Speaker 1: I read it because it reminded me of Godza. The story,
of course, is that there's this little duchy that has
no money and nothing in Europe. So they noticed that
the Americans, whenever they win a war, literally just make
the country they've beaten rich, so that we should attack America.
But they attack when there's a kind of a national
nuclear test shutdown, so they actually win the war. It's
a very funny book. Yeah, and there's some sequels. It's
very funny but great. Okay.
Speaker 2: I also watched a documentary that I'm Want to do Ookat,
which was so good everybody should stop this podcast and
immediately go watch it, which was I.
Speaker 1: Like me, Oh yes, I started in and stopped because
I thought my wife would want to watch it.
Speaker 2: Yeah, how could you stop it? It's so good?
Speaker 1: Yeah. You know what really blew my mind that this.
Speaker 2: Amat John You'd explain this about John Kins?
Speaker 1: Yeah, I can't believe I had thirty years ago over
thirty years ago. It just feels like he's always around,
you know, in movies.
Speaker 2: And yeah, it did. See I thought I actually just
honestly thought he died about ten years after he did. So. Yeah,
but the documentary itself was really well done. Usually I
am sad that there's not more information about someone like
who they really are, and it felt a little bit
that way. But it was so well done with such
excellent interviews of great and funny people, and the light
that was within him, the love that was within him,
just shone through so completely that it was a It
was a beautiful thing to watch. I really enjoyed it,
and I was surprised that Colin Hanks, Tom Hanks's kid,
did it because it was so good.
Speaker 1: The Hanks don't do good work. Yeah, it's getting really
great reviews, you know, people love it. And he was again,
I'm always like nostalgia, nostalgia, nostalgia, But I have to say,
John Candy was in like half of the movies that
really meant something to me growing up. You know, a
lot of them were goofy, but I forgot that he
was like in Stripes and Blues Brothers, like he was
in just so many of those movies, and he wasn't.
He was a relatively young man, you know, he just
had this kind of like he could play younger, he
could play older. He was just really great.
Speaker 2: So I also really liked how I liked the mcaulay
culkin interviews in there, and I didn't see oh sorry, yeah, sorry,
well you'll get you'll get to it. But where he's
talking about the love that John Candy showed him because
he could kind of tell that mcaulay Culkin's father was
a monster. Yeah, and what that meant Uncle Buck, just
as a young young man, what that was like to
go through. Also, another thing I like about it, and
which I what I really want is a John Hughes documentary.
This guy is such an important filmmaker and he's almost
never talked about, and we don't know that much about him,
and he also died pretty young he worked. One of
one of the points that macaulay Culkin makes is, you know,
people sometimes associate him or Molly Ringwald with John Hughes,
and he's like, you know, we each did three films.
John Candy did.
Speaker 1: Nine, Yeah, Vacation for instance, Yeah.
Speaker 2: And you know, and some of those were roles written
for him, So they really again had a bond, like
we were just talking about with Woody Allen and Van Keaton,
John Hughes and John Candy had a bond. And the
best thing ever, I think is The Planes, Trains and
Automobiles Raw, which just such a great cuts me every time.
Speaker 1: Yeah, such a great movie.
Speaker 2: And that's what the name of the documentary comes from,
right because he gives that great speech. Oh yeah, Steve
Martin character just like tears into him and just keeps
going and saying like what an awful person he is
and how annoying he is. And then John Candy responds with,
I like me so beautiful.
Speaker 1: Sorry, it's okay. That movie has such a big heart.
You know, that's just a really great movie. John Hughes
like define the aesthetic of the eighties, you know what
I mean. Like his movies were such a big deal
to teenagers, but probably to people in their twenties and stuff.
It's just amazing.
Speaker 2: Oh so, also on that I watched, there's like so much.
I've been for months being like I haven't seen anything,
and now I'm like, oh, go go, Mark and I
watched a single episode of a TV show called Platonic, which.
Speaker 1: Has do you know who is that seth Rogen and
Rose Bayer or.
Speaker 2: Her name, so that's her name, and it was like fine,
it was better than I thought it would be. We're
definitely not watching any more episodes of it for a
variety of reasons. But at the end, Mark said something
about how the left's art just has no moral core
and how it frequently puts people up who I just
have there's like nothing to their life. And to compare
that with John Hughes, who, even in a traveling salesman,
brings out this just world of emotion and meaning and
depth and like support for the sanctity of marriage and
friendship and treating everybody that you encounter in a good way.
Like it's a big difference, and we don't have that
happening in a lot of art right now.
Speaker 1: That's a great point. At some point in my life
I hit my fill of Seth Rogan. I was like, beep,
that's it, Like I don't want to hear it anymore.
We've had enough because it's always the same tenor and
the same kind of jokes and the same person Like
there's no range there. I don't think, at least I've
never seen him do anything that impressed me that he
is out of his comfort zone. So anyway, and that's fine.
It's fine people like him and that's fine, all right. Great,
I bashed on Seth Rogan. Seth Rogan followed me on
Twitter for like five minutes once, and he was like, out,
I've made a horrible mistake. Great, look forward to more
of your cultural takes next week, Molly. Until then, everyone
be lovers of freedom and anxious for the FRAY.
Speaker 2: So sorry. I just wanted to remind everybody that we have,
in addition to the Federalist Radio our podcast, we also
have a new podcast, the Kylie Cast, which you can
both watch and listen to anywhere you watch and listen
to podcasts, so you can watch it on Rumble or
YouTube and then also listen to it on the Normal Thing,
So make sure you check it out. She's awesome. We
already know Federalist Radio Hour is great, but Kylie is
awesome and has great insights on all cultural and political events.
Speaker 1: Kylie is great. I can vouch for her. I don't
know if I agree with everything she says, but she's
definitely great.
Speaker 2: Yeah, we don't need to agree with her.
Speaker 1: She too is a lover of freedom and anxious for
the FRA. She is definitely anxious for the fray. She's
a fray all right, see you next week. Bye.
Speaker 4: The upper of the plants sus s plats, and still