Speaker 1: Ask not what your country can do for you, ask
what you can do for your country.
Speaker 2: Mister gorbachaw tear down this wall.
Speaker 1: It's the Ricorche podcast with Charles C. W. Cook and
Stephen Hayward. I'm James Lylyx. Today we talked to Nolah
Rothman eventually about Syria, but before that all sorts of stuff.
Speaker 3: So let's saberselfs a podcast and from very high sources,
very qualified sources, very responsible sources.
Speaker 2: I'm going to tell you the real deal.
Speaker 3: Iran launched a mother ship probably about a month ago
that contains these drones.
Speaker 4: Ladies and gentlemen. As you know, I'm in the final
weeks of my presidency.
Speaker 5: You don't have to clap for that. You can if
you want.
Speaker 1: Welcome everybody eats the Ricchet podcast number what is it?
Speaker 5: It is seven hundred and twenty.
Speaker 1: Wow. I'm James Lylyx in bone achingly called Minneapolis, but
the Vikes are eleven and two and I'm joined by
Charles W. Cook in Florida where the jaguars are in
the Little Trine but I assume it's warm. And Stephen Heyward,
who is where exactly?
Speaker 2: I'm in the LA area today?
Speaker 3: I'm finally back from running around over in Europe for
an earlier month.
Speaker 2: But I'm back on the.
Speaker 5: Left coast like a colossus.
Speaker 1: We straddle the nation before we get to the interesting
things of the day. Something else that is an interesting
thing of the day. I understand, Charlie, that you survived
a restaurant explosion.
Speaker 6: This is so bizarre that I still can't believe that
it happened, and I especially can't believe normal was hurt badly.
Yesterday I went for lunch with a friend. We sat
at the bar, as we often do. The bar is
relatively close to the kitchen, and about eight to ten
minutes into having sat down, we order glass of wine
and there is an almighty explosion, and the rush of
air that comes out of the kitchen, along with a
noise I've never heard before, pushes us partially off our seats.
Speaker 4: It was that straw.
Speaker 6: And we quickly looked around and realized we were fine,
no pain, all our limbs still on. And we look
over at the kitchen and it's evident that the oven
in the restaurant's kitchen has.
Speaker 4: Exploded and the doors have flown off.
Speaker 6: And I thought, all right, I'm fine, but someone's dead
in the kitchen.
Speaker 4: That was my next fear.
Speaker 6: Was not for myself, because by this point it was
clear that I was fine, and my friend was fine,
and everyone else around us was fine. But I thought
someone must be dead in the kitchen because it was
an enormous explosion that's caused damage to the restaurant, and
the doors have flown off, and we were nearly knocked
up our seats and so on.
Speaker 4: Well, no one was, as it happened.
Speaker 6: The chef who had been operating the oven had walked
out of the kitchen on the other side just before
this happened, so he was fine. The others in the
kitchen were too far away from the oven to have
been hit by anything. But it was just the most
bizarre thing that has happened to me in a long time,
and it really does make you realize.
Speaker 4: How random life can be.
Speaker 6: I mean, we didn't go to that restaurant because it's
some sort of tradition. We don't go there every week.
I just said, you want to have lunch, he said,
When I said twelve, he said sure. I said, you know,
I won't mention it. I don't want to get them
in the bad books. But I said, what about there,
and he said, sure, why not? I mean, I could
have picked any other restaurant off the top of my head.
There's a bunch of them, and it would just happened
to be that when it just happened to me after
we sat down, had things been slightly different, I suppose
I could be telling this story now from the hospital.
Speaker 4: But really, apparently what had.
Speaker 6: Happened was that the oven was new, it had only
just been installed, and when it had been installed, something
evidently had gone wrong in the installation process. Someone had
screwed up, and they'd been a build up of gas,
which then.
Speaker 2: I was gonna blame it on your soufle you ordered try.
Speaker 6: But my goodness me, what a bizarre experience. I still
can't believe it happened. I woke up this morning, I thought, did.
Speaker 4: I dream that? But no, I didn't.
Speaker 5: I hope they comped your desserts. At least they didn't.
Speaker 6: You know, that's a weird thing, is I was waiting
for them to say, obviously, this glass of wine is
on us, because you know we killed you right.
Speaker 5: Well, we're glad you survived.
Speaker 1: And gas explosions do not usually end well, and this
one seems to have done so so good. We can
take that one off. You can look over your shoulder
for a little while, wondering if actually the gods are
throwing bolts down at you and missing. But but but
we hope not.
Speaker 6: I tell you a twenty second story just before you start.
Of course, absolutely killed me recently. So I was reading
this book about the Second World War, and when bombs
started falling on London, it was clear that they had
come from airplanes, and so the public was aware of
what was going on. But when the Germans started developing
their rockets, you couldn't see or hear them until the
last minute, and the British found out what was happening,
but they didn't want the Germans to know that they
knew what was happening, and so they weren't allowed to
acknowledge or report on it. And so the British government's
line when the V ones and V two started hitting
London was their gas maines. It's a gas explosion. And
so the British public was much smarter than this. Started
Riley describing the explosions to each other as flying gas maines.
Speaker 1: Oh that's tremendous. Ah, Yes, that indomitable British spirit, the
stiff upper lip in the face of et cetera. Well,
that's grand. Let us cast ourize about the country. We
will be talking about the killer of the Bryant of
the United Healthcare CEO a little bit later, and things
in New York. Penny wise. One of the things that
caught my eye this morning was Jim Garritty at National
Review gave a tweet thread which was also a piece
that he wrote for n R, detailing the number of
the exact crimes of the people who have been pardoned
by the administration. Now, we always expect that, you know,
when you look at these and like, oh, I already
pardon that guy? Whoa, Yeah, that wouldn't that doesn't sound fair,
We kind of shrug and we're accustomed to it. But
it does seem like a remarkable list of financial fraunsters.
And for an administration and a party that is supposedly
on behalf of the little people against those elites who
extract money from the system becauld satisfy their raw capitalistic urges,
it's quite quite the rundown. Stephen.
Speaker 3: Yeah, you know, I think what's going on here, and
I think we'll want to scrutinize the list closely see
if Jim Biden and other members of the family or
snuck in under a pseudonym or something, right, I mean,
it doesn't seem that maybe it's preparing the ground for
those self serving pardons that he wants to give. But
it also makes my mind run back to those flurry
of pardons that Bill Clinton gave on his last day
in office, which we remember Mark Rich, you know, had
what he debated, one hundred million dollars in taxes or something,
and lots and lots of other people, including as I recall,
one person who had been jailed whose crime I don't
know why it's a federal crime was rolling back automobile odometers.
How did that guy qualify for a pardon? Well, I
think the psychological explanation then was this was Clinton stabbing
back at the prosecutorial mindset that led to Ken's starr
and this was just him lashing out and latching back
and wanting to poke an eye in the law enforcement.
So here's Biden who's looking to top Clinton's perfidy and
abuse of the pardon power. I mean, the one that
jumps out of me is the lady in Illinois who
embezzled fifty three million dollars from the city of Dixon.
Not a major I don't know if it's a major
city or not in Illinois. It's not Chicago. But that's
a lot of money. And this is a fairly recent conviction,
I think, And he's pardoned this person, and I, you know,
I bat one to me, is where what's the case
for leniency there?
Speaker 5: I can't.
Speaker 3: I have a hard time making one out except that
this is Biden again trying to like emulate Bill Clinton.
And maybe it's part of Biden's psychology of still being
mad that he was pushed out of the the re election.
Speaker 5: Campaign that assumes that he's behind these things at all.
Speaker 1: Charles, do you think, so.
Speaker 4: Did she give the money to the Democrats?
Speaker 5: I did not, good question.
Speaker 2: I don't know.
Speaker 1: And Charles, you believe that actually the president was responsible
for these himselves, drawing up the name after careful consultation
and deep thought as he walked around the office with
his hands clasped behind his bed, weighing this gate back,
weighing the scales of justice, and so.
Speaker 4: Well, I think you mean ran around the office during
one on push ups and play.
Speaker 1: You're right, you're right, we forget that he had that
remarkable spirit and so yeah, no, probably a Stafford. But again,
you just wonder exactly what's going on behind. Three of them,
from what I understand, were Chinese spies whose arrangement had
been whose swap had been worked out before. Now the
whole spying thing does bring to mind something else that's
going on in New Jersey, where the government is telling
us now that they appear to be lawful manned aircraft
to these drawings, but we really can't tell you much
more about that, my favorite being, of course, that they're
all coming from an Iranian ship offshore or disappearing into
a submerged Iranian base or some nonsense like that, or
that they're from other planets, or that they are a
manifestation of American technology that is light years beyond what
we can imagine and manifest itself as four D plasma bile.
I don't know what to think. I don't know what
to think. So let me ask you, guys, what do
you think is going on?
Speaker 2: I have no idea.
Speaker 3: Pardon me, wants to think if you're going to do
tinfoil had things, it's the latest products of area fifty one,
or it turned out that that famous Orson Wells broadcast
from nineteen thirty eight was a documentary.
Speaker 2: It was just ahead of its time. They were now
getting the martial invasion.
Speaker 5: I don't know. I think we.
Speaker 3: I mean, you've probably seen some pictures and accounts of this.
You know it's sports stadiums now security is equipped with
these Essentially, I'm going to say there's something like, you know,
electromagnetic pulse guns or something to shoot down or capture
drones and bring them to the ground, because you don't
want drones flying around a sports stadium when you don't
know what they are. And so I don't understand why
somebody isn't bringing down these drones in New Jersey, which
makes me think that maybe it's our guys testing these
drones out.
Speaker 1: Yeah, if we let it out that those things were
full of copper, there would be guys, there would be
tweakers out there bringing those things down in a halo
of ar fifteen fire. Charles, what do you think is
going on?
Speaker 6: I've been a little skeptical overall because years upon years
of supposed UFO sightings have brought us only very grainy photographs.
But I just saw that. The governor, former governor of Maryland,
Larry Hogan, tweeted out that he's seen these things and
he's alarmed by it and he's angry with the federal government. Now,
Larry Hogan is on the opposite end of the spectrum
of a conspiracy theorist of somebody who is excitable. He
is probably somewhat of a skeptic like myself. I mean,
I just want to be clear. I'm not a Larry
Hogan Conservative, but that's my point is that he is
not the sort of person you would expect to come
out and say I saw it, and yet he just did.
So there's clearly something going on. I've thought up until
now that maybe these were just refracted light or planes,
because the videos are all sped up.
Speaker 4: I don't know, James, it's beginning to make.
Speaker 5: One weather balloons.
Speaker 1: Well, as I said to my wife the other day
as I was sculpting Devil's Tower out of mashed potatoes,
it does not.
Speaker 5: I mean, the least likely.
Speaker 1: Thing is that this is the beginning of some sort
of revelatory episode and that we have been we have
been groomed and massaged for the last two years with
stories of UAPs and tic TACs and verified photographs from
navy flyers showing these things traveling at absurd velocity and
doing things that physics ought not to let them do.
There it's been the dribs and the drabs and the
drabs and the dribs and the drip, drip drip of
all this stuff, which says with the government practically saying, yeah,
the real we don't know what they are, but they're
not ours, not a foreign power to know if they're
from Dunnald, you know, we're stomped, frankly, and then you
will have somebody come back and walk that back, and
then you will have.
Speaker 5: The usual whistleblowers.
Speaker 1: Believe me, if you're if you spend any time in
the subreddits that are devoted to these things, you will
find that the the the chattering ecosystem of people who
who swear that they've been on the inside and they
know what's going on and have been releasing all this information.
Speaker 5: Is extraordinary, and.
Speaker 1: Within this sphere exists nonsense upon nonsense that actually we're
finally seeing the manifestation of the reptilian race that lives
beneath the earth, that is coming up to your work
it's a while to the people who are just no,
we have the faintest idea, to the Tucker Carlson types
who are saying, actually, actually they're demons.
Speaker 5: But we have had so much rapid change.
Speaker 1: In this in the last two or three years that
it would seem that we're a little bit more psychologically
ready to say, yeah, they are UFOs, they're from another planet. Yeah,
non human intelligence. But that I guess that's all we know.
Guess we're not alone. Let's move along. What's on what's
on Netflix?
Speaker 3: Oh but look, you know, you know what happened James,
is that the first time the government comes out and
says that the subreddits or another group of them will
come out and say, ah, this is just a distraction
by the government so they can really unfold what they're really.
Speaker 2: Going to do, which is the invasion of Siria or something.
I don't know.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's all a distraction, but it's weird. I mean,
it's like we're finally being told that yes, it's real,
there are aliens, but it's it somehow has the public
profile of an Apple television show. I mean in that
it's it's out, it's out there, but it's not. It's
not top of the news. So I mean in Close
Encounters of the Third Kind, which is a wonderful movie
back in the and I think kicked off the whole.
You don't want they're on our side. They're great, right,
they got they smile, they bring our lost airman back.
Speaker 4: You know, they're they're.
Speaker 5: Really interesting dudes, and musical too. We can jam with them.
It led a whole sort of.
Speaker 1: You know, we're going to get along. It's gonna be nice,
it's going to be good. And I think that this
sort of doesn't feel like that at all.
Speaker 2: You know, it's more aliens for Trump to deport.
Speaker 6: I was actually going to say something else about Trump,
which is, if you were writing American history, the aliens
would have course shot while Donald Trump was president. That
would be inevitable, right, There's no other president that you
would want to be in office other than Donald Trump.
Speaker 4: If the aliens are coming down.
Speaker 1: Right, well, I want the little Grays who were about
three and a half feet tall, to be standing there
while it gives them that big downward mechron handshake, you know,
that a big thrusting.
Speaker 6: We were to find out whether Ronald Reagan was right
when he said in the eighties. If Aliens came down,
we would soon discover that we had no differences anymore
in all of our politics. Was a contrivance, which, while
I love Reagan, I've always thought was nonsense. But we
would get to find out whether that was true or not.
Speaker 5: Well, it depends.
Speaker 1: You remember Bill Pullman at the end of Independence Day
when he declared it to be a global universal human holiday.
Speaker 2: That we would have.
Speaker 6: Won reelection though, and he would have done so easily
because he's obviously a Republican because he hates the environment.
Speaker 4: Right, he would not only have been.
Speaker 6: The guy who destroyed the Aliens, but most of the
West and East coasts were destroyed.
Speaker 4: His electoral College victory could have been perfect.
Speaker 5: Well, he did nuke Texas. I think he did.
Speaker 6: James Houston right, so, which I endorse. FYI is a
hatred of the Texans and the Astros.
Speaker 4: Look, I'm just saying that if we knewked, if we knuked.
Speaker 6: Houston, the Houston Astros and the Houston Texans would no
longer exist, which would mean that the Yankees would probably
have a couple more World Series. This happened back in
ninety six and the Jacksonville Jaguars would have won the
AFC South three or four more times.
Speaker 4: So I'm just I'm just looking at the upside.
Speaker 1: James, Well, that's good, you know. Speaking as a Vikings
fan here, I find absolutely no need to drawn my
soros when I watch my team perform on Like some of.
Speaker 4: You know, I deserve this because I But.
Speaker 1: If I and so I don't drown my sorrows, I
may have a tiple to elevate them as we as
we slap high fives and to proclaim our victorious season
of wonder. But let me tell you something, though, I
got a Monday night coming up game.
Speaker 5: Next week, and be a little careful. You gotta be
careful with your party. It's like this. There's a sure
far away to wake up.
Speaker 1: Feeling fresh after a night of tippling, and that's with
pre alcohol z biotics. Pre alcohol probiotic drink is the
world's first genetically engineered probiotic. It was invented by PhD
scientists to tackle rough mornings after drinking. There's how it works.
When you drink, alcohol gets converted into a toxic byproduct
in your gut, and it is this byproduct, not dehydration.
It's to blame for your rough next day. Pre alcohol
produces an enzyme to break this by product down. So
just remember to make z biotics your first drink the night.
Drink responsibly, of course, and you'll feel your best tomorrow.
You know, I have been hearing about this stuff, and
I have been using this stuff because they sent it
to me and I wanted to see if it works,
and I wouldn't be here to tell you if it didn't. Well,
you know what, I've tried it, and I believe the hype.
It's not hype, it's science and with their GMO technology
and we're pro science here at Ricochet. Zbiotics is continuing
to invent probiotics that will help everyday challenges of modern living.
Lots to come, so go to z biotics dot com
slash ricochet. I'll learn more and get fifteen percent off
your first order when you use Ricochet at the checkout.
Zbiotics is back with a one hundred percent money back guarantee,
So if you're unsatisfied for any reason you can come
up with, they will refund your money, no questions asked.
You can't lose. Remember to head to z biotics dot
com slash ricochet and use the code Ricochet for checkout
at fifteen percent off or at your checkout for fifteen
percent off, however you want to do it. Anyways, go there.
And we think zebiotics are sponsoring this the Ricochet podcast. Well,
we're going to talk to no one a second about
the shooting of the CEO. But I want to get
you guys, see what your take on it is. I'm
of the position that if somebody says murderer is bad butt,
than everything that they say before the butt, the fulk
crumb of the butt in their argument, should be disregarded
the people who are saying or at least we're having
a conversation about this. No, we should be having a
conversation about people who kill people in streets and that's
the only conversation we should be having. Or as some
people are pointing out, well look the anesthesiologists, you know,
they came to them right away. This is this is
proof the direct action works.
Speaker 4: No. No.
Speaker 1: Most interesting thing that I heard somebody say was going
back to a Slate Star Codex blog post a long
time ago about how there used to be the Red
tribe and the Blue tribe and now we have the
rise of the Gray tribe. Which are these sort of
twenty something thirty something tech guys who are sort of
quasi libertarian, ethical altruists into all kinds of sort of
spiritualistical stuff, but not really post religion post and that
this guy seems to fit that profile, which is one
of the reasons that the online people, the two online people,
the people from teapot or that part of Twitter, seems
to have embraced him as their champion.
Speaker 5: Yeah.
Speaker 2: I don't know. I'd say two or three things about him.
Speaker 3: One is I was fascinated and remain fascinated with the
fact that he's another person who seems fascinated by the
unibomber and by some of these very radical ideas, some
of which he learned at Penn. The dead giveaway is
when he screamed out about how the American people are
being fooled because what's happening doesn't live up to our
lived experience. That's a college campus phrase, right, I suppose
one other kind of experience right. On the other hand,
but also it emerges that he's intellectually unstable, right, I mean,
he apparently was a fan of Jordan Peterson for a while,
also Tucker Carlson, but then swings over to the unibomber
and now looks pretty leftist. I think it's also possible
that he's schizophrenic, and maybe his back surgery and pain
contributes to that. But you know, oftentimes, as they say
in medicine, schizophrenia presents a young man in their mid twenties,
and so he may just be simply nuts. And it
took a political form, so I think we need to
wait and see on all that. Maybe we'll never know
who knows what defense he's going to give and so forth.
The manifesto is actually pretty short and kind of a
cliche as near as I can tell, because we don't
have the whole thing, but it's apparently quite short. I
think more important is the first thing you mentioned, James,
which is the reaction of the left to run to
his defense and make him a folk hero. And as
you say, you know, violence is never justified, but then
all the rest of what Elizabeth Warren and other people
in the lefty media saying is but actually it's totally justified.
Speaker 2: I mean, it totally negates what they said before. And
this is not new.
Speaker 3: This goes back to I think when the left began
to lose its mind and mainstream liberals losing their mind
in the sixties justifying the rioters.
Speaker 2: Siding with criminals, as we know, and this continues to
this day.
Speaker 3: So this is just the latest and a long and
I think you lamentable story of the left and America,
who seems to have not learned very much from the
election returns.
Speaker 1: Well, you can't make an omelet without purging one hundred
thousand chickens. Charles, where do you come down on this?
Speaker 6: I think that if you in any way qualify your
view of first degree murder by examining the politics of
the murderer, then you've essentially opted out of society. What
is society, both at the social level and at the
political level. It's an agreement that, in the absence of
extreme circumstances such as the need for self defense, we
will not kill each other over our disagreements, and that
manifests in a bunch of ways. One of the most
famous is religious toleration, because for years, decades, centuries in
Europe people kill each other all the time over their religions.
But it also manifests itself in day to day politics,
quotidian politics, of which the nature of our health system
is one. You just cannot decide that you are more
informed or important than other people, and therefore you have
the right to kill them. And if you read the
short manifesto that he put out, that's what he did.
That's what that last couple of sentences imply. Now there
is a caveat in there which makes him look like
an absolute crank, which he is a coward, where he says,
I don't actually know too much about this topic. I'm
not the right guy to make this argument. Well, look,
there are many aspects to my conservatism, James, but one
of them is that if I don't know too much
about a topic and I think other people might be
better off making the argument, I'm not going to shoot
someone over it. That's a pretty solid precept. Well, I
go to work with every single day, So you know,
he should have stopped there. He also should have extrapolated
out from that and realized that even if he were
the world's greatest expert on the topic, no one came
near to him. He was universally acknowledged to be a
genius on the topic. He still doesn't get more of
a vote in whether or not a given person lives
or dies than anyone else, and I just find the
Elizabeth Warren AOC approach on this to be revolting and
to be a good example of why they should never
ever be trusted with power. Last thing, quickly, if I
were then, and I were a member of Congress in
AOC's case and in the case of Elizabeth Warren, a senator,
and I wanted the government to take over healthcare, I
would not be establishing the principle that if an institution
denies you care that you think you deserve, you can
kill them. Because in a single payer system, who do
you think it's going to be making the rationing decisions.
It's going to be AOC and Elizabeth Warren. It's nuts,
It's it's actually beyond even from a purely self interested,
totally amral perspective, it is beyond bizarre to me that
that's the idea they've decided to put into the bloodstream,
just as they want to get rid of the Brian
Thompson's and say, hey, you know who's in charge of
your health care?
Speaker 4: It's me, Elizabeth Warren.
Speaker 1: I know. Well, that's because buttressing this seems to be
this notion of what I call cornucopianism, where once the
government takes it over thanks to modern my ary theory
and the printing press going burr and the rest of it.
There won't be any denial and there won't be any
rationing because everything will be provided because the government can
provide all. The government has the means and the resources
and the will to provide all to all, and there
will be no bad outcomes. That it's people like the
United Healthcare that stand in the way of cornucopianism and
its wonderful benefits. The second thing that I would say
is to build on what you've said and what.
Speaker 5: I said before, is that it's very, very specific.
Speaker 1: The kind of political murder that they like. If you
had a man whose second cousin's niece was killed by
an illegal immigrant right in New Jersey, and the mayor
of that town in New Jersey had said, we are
not going to cooperate with ice. We are a sanction
sanctuary town, and this guy decided to shoot the deputy
mayor to avenge the death of his relative at the
hands of an illegal immigrant, we would not be talking
about having the necessity of having a conversation about illegal immigration.
We would be talking about anything. But so when they
selectively do it like this. You're right, Charlie. I mean,
it's madness for them to.
Speaker 5: Say, we're going to be in charge of your healthcare.
Speaker 1: And by the way, it's perfectly fine to shoot people
who don't give you everything that you want.
Speaker 5: But it's also.
Speaker 1: It's also a matter of selective judgment, and.
Speaker 5: It's it's it's it's it's.
Speaker 1: Poisonous on every single possible level.
Speaker 5: I suppose it's.
Speaker 1: Also inevitable in this day and age for online media
to focus on somebody who happened to have a, you know,
a toothy smile and go with that. I mean, it's
it's the start off, it's the you know, it's the
I mean the guy where he's smiling and looking and
looking up and I'm thinking somebody's going to do a
Chay picture that, somebody's gonna do a Chay T shirt.
It's going to put him in black ink on a
red shirt and he'll be the next emblem for revolution
and enlightenment.
Speaker 2: They're already free Luigi T shirts you can find online.
Speaker 3: He's gonna supplant Mouma. I remember that guy locked up
from here in Philadelphia. There's one other thing that so
far only a couple of people have commented on Alissa
Finley at the Wall Street Journal is wait a second,
I thought Obamacare fixed all this, right. We were told
it was going to make health care more affordable. It's
in the name of the act. And it didn't. And
you know, I actually the other day went and looked
at because I'm a data geek, and I looked at
the data series the longitudinal trends of healthcare costs, and
you can look at the slope of the line before
Obamacare and after Obamacare, and it's continuous.
Speaker 1: See, didn't we lose him?
Speaker 4: We did?
Speaker 1: We did? Okay, Well, Stephen has apparently suffered what we
hoped to be. Oh, I'm getting some news here. This
is just coming in from California. There was a restaurant explosion.
Speaker 4: And both by a drone.
Speaker 5: That was by.
Speaker 1: Drone, and that brings everything all together. So Stephen, we
hope he's okay.
Speaker 2: I think I'm back? Am I back? You are?
Speaker 1: We thought it was a restaurant explosion.
Speaker 3: No, go on, Well, I don't know where it cut off.
All I was saying was Obamacare is supposed to solve
all this. It turns out if you look at the
slope of the cost of health care before and after Obamacare.
It made no difference whatsoever to healthcare inflation. And so
we're still just as unhappy with our healthcare, maybe more
so because Obamacare made it worse and less comprehensible.
Speaker 2: So there we go.
Speaker 1: You're saying, we haven't bent the curve.
Speaker 2: Nope.
Speaker 5: Hmm odd to that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Well, some people say no, no, no, Obamacare was
set up to fail. That was the ingenious thing about
It was set up to fail so that the government
would come in and take over that. And I don't
think that's the case. I don't think these guys are
ever that Macavilion, are that smarter the rest of it.
I mean, do you do you do you think that
they are sitting there steepling their fingers and saying, wahaha,
we're going to cloud pivot this baby. I don't give
them that much credit. I don't think they're that smart,
that capable, or that force or have that much foresight.
Speaker 3: Well there is a subtext to that, though, James h
partly get your you can say, camel's nose in the tent.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 3: At least if we exert some control, you can then
buy degrees regulate it more and more in.
Speaker 2: The way we central planners want.
Speaker 3: The other thing, though that's still not widely perceived, is
going all the way back to the failure of Hillary
Care in nineteen ninety four. A part of the deal
was always going to be you, private health insurance people,
we want you to do cost containment and we want
you to take the heat, and we'll kind of piggyback
along with Medicare and Medicaid and the.
Speaker 2: Government provided services.
Speaker 3: Oh, by the way, we're going to mandate that all
health insurance must cover you know, everything from manicures to know,
the counseling services, and that runs the cost up higher
than it needs to be for basic health care needs.
So that are talking point. You hear sometimes as well, Gosh,
Medicare only has a one percent overhead and you know
management cost, and private health insurance is like twenty five
thirty percent. Now, I think those numbers are bogused. I
think it's apples and oranges. But let's note that Medicare
and Medicaid now have it's estimated two hundred billion dollars
a year in fraud. So it's easy to have a
one percent overhead if you're willing to tolerate that level
of fraud, and if private health insurance tolerted that, you
can imagine what employer based healthcare would cost. It would
be even worse than it is today. So it's a
gone awful mess, and all the interventions of the of
the government just make it worse and worse.
Speaker 6: The overhead figure is also really unfair because if you're
a private health insurer, you have to do all of
the aspects of being a health insurer on your own.
You have to do collections, you have to do bureaucracy,
you have to do the actuarial stuff. Whereas with the
federal systems, both Medicare and Medicaid, well, they get their
collections done by the IRS, and they get their actuarial
tables done by various government institutions that exist to do that,
and they get all of their pr and their advertising
and their customer interactions done by other federal agencies.
Speaker 4: And so you never see those added in.
Speaker 6: What they do is they say, well, how much do
you spend within the medicaid institution on overheads?
Speaker 4: I just had one more.
Speaker 6: Quick thought, and I guess this is probably here at
a moment on whether or not Obamacare was set up
to fail. I don't believe that it was set up
to fail in the sense that James asked about it,
which is that it was supposed to be a catastrophe
that led to single Pair. The public would clamor for
single Pair once they saw that this didn't work. What
I do think is that most of the promises that
were made that it would bend the cost curve, that
you would be able to keep your doctor and you'd
be able to keep your plan, were lies that they
knew were lies. And the reason that I think that
is that I watched the difference in the output of
Obamacare's apologists from before and after it was instituted. Before
it was instituted, the asraclines of the world said it's
going to do all of the things that but Barack
Obama has said that.
Speaker 4: It will do.
Speaker 6: About one minute after it was completely implemented, in twenty fourteen,
Ezra Client, Mattaglesias and other started writing these pieces that said, well,
of course, you can't bring millions of people into this
system without getting rid of health plans and getting rid
of people's doctors and so on.
Speaker 4: Of course, that's.
Speaker 6: An obvious economic consequence. To me that what This was, therefore,
was a classic progressive moral play where they were just
so offended by the idea that some people didn't have
health insurance that they were willing to do anything to
change it. And so when they started getting pushed back
from economists and other people who knew what they're talking about, saying,
you know, this is going to cause X, Y and Z,
they realized that would be politically toxic, so they just.
Speaker 4: Went, no, it won't.
Speaker 6: Then after it had been implemented, they said, yes, of
course it will do all those things, but we now
have it. We don't, but we now have universal healthcare,
We now have more people who are insured, we now
have a ban on blocking pre existing conditions, and so on,
because that's what they actually cared about all along. That's
where I do think it was a game.
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, I mean, I think even the PolitiFact, people
who I normally don't hold in very high regard, rated
Obama's claim that if you like your doctor, you can
keep your doctor as the lie of the year. I
think in twenty thirteen or twenty fourteen that gets conveniently
forgotten and all this. You know, there's something I teach
in classic students, is there was a sociologist twenty or
thirty years ago, kind of forgotten, a guy named Peter Rossi,
and he used to have what he called the Iron
law of evaluation, and it's very short. The Iron law
evaluation was the expected value of any net impact assessment
of any large scale social program is zero. None of
the stuff ever works. And Obamacare is one of the
premier examples of Peter Rossi's Iron law.
Speaker 2: Therey listeners.
Speaker 3: You learn something from the academic world that you can
use at a cocktail party.
Speaker 6: And one of the reasons that Obamaca has been less
deleterious and was anticipated is that its footprint has been
much smaller than was anticipated. I think I'm right in
saying that that's a combination of changes that Republicans managed
to make lost time they were in but also the
way that it worked in practice market decisions that have
been made. It actually didn't have quite the effect that
it was supposed to. And so progressives will say, aha,
you see what we need is more government involved. But
I have a radical idea, Stude, and that is maybe
we should go in the other direction for a change.
Speaker 4: Maybe we should try that for ten years to.
Speaker 1: Yeah, right, Well, you know, people like to pull out
the medical bill, the hospital bill they got when they
were born. You know, I think my dad made my
dad paid with a twenty you know right, change back.
And I have absolutely no idea what it caused to
have my daughter brought into this world, because I do
all of these insulating and intermediary organizations and payments and
the rest of it. But it was more than twenty
bucks because she had to go into a little clear
plastic box, hooked up the machines that went bing.
Speaker 5: So it was.
Speaker 1: It was expensive and intensive and required a whole bunch
of technology that was not there when I came into
this world. People probably wish that it hadn't been, so
you never know. Well, having solved healthcare, let us move
along to the deteriorating quality of New York.
Speaker 5: As we were discussing before.
Speaker 1: It's not just the shooting, of course of the guy
on the street, which you know can happen frankly anywhere,
but it is the subway system, the nature of our
society when a humble street profile, a humble subway dancer can.
Speaker 2: Be murdered in cold blood by a man.
Speaker 1: Who was apparently stalking the trains looking for somebody to choke.
Is the way this sort of is being shown and
regarded in some quarters of Twitter by people who are
not marginal figures, no, but you know, by actual politicians
who are decrying the ways in which society failed the
man who died, and we hear this an awful lot,
that we've failed this it is on us that this
fellow was homeless and on powerful THHC derivatives and was
threatening people. That it was on us as if there
was no attempt to ever intercede in his life, as
if he hadn't been given shelter and treatment before and
had walked away from it. And it brings you have
to wonder at what point, I'm not saying, at what
point do we just choke the guy, because that's not
what I'm saying, But at what point do we have
to sort of say done and dusted when it comes
to our abligation to people who have repeatedly refused the
help that has given them. Is this indeed our fault
or is the actual fault that we should be talking
about is the inability of the civic government in New
York to maintain a safe environment in the subways in
which people are not worried about maniacs striding up and down,
waving their arms, making fist gestures, threatening to kill people
and the rest of it. Does this happen on every
subarate coin, No, no it doesn't. And as the people
on Twitter have been saying, look, just keep your head down,
be cautious. It's all part of living in a big city.
Well it ought not to be. You know.
Speaker 6: This when pad with the murder of Brian Thompson is
a good window into the soul of a particular sort
of progressive They are extremely angry with Daniel Penny, they
call them a vigilante and a murderer, and they are
pleased with Luigi Mangiurni, they call him a hero.
Speaker 4: This is backwards. It would, of course.
Speaker 6: Be better if we had the resources to ensure that
at no point ever in the United States was anyone
not under the protection of a police officer. I don't
mean that quite literally. That would be creepy and totalitarian.
But if you could put a cop in every subway car,
that would be great. But that's never going to happen.
Even if New York were run sensibly, which it's not,
that's never going to happen. You are always going to
need some sort of volunteerism. Now that veering off into
my favorite topic of the Second Amendment that is resumed
by a great deal of our constitutional order, that there
will be people who at some point will have to
step up. And Daniel Penny did that. He did that
when a guy was ranging around a subway car shouting
someone's going to die. I'm going to kill someone, and
he was put through the ringer for it. He was
charged with second degree manslaughter and with a lesser charge
that sounds as if it would have been a greater charge.
Speaker 4: And yeah, he got off.
Speaker 6: He was acquitted partly I think because the judge dismissed
the first charge and thereby signaled to the jury that
the case had fallen apart. And yes, it's good that
he got off, and yes, jury systems work better than
almost any other institution in our country.
Speaker 4: But that case should never have been brought.
Speaker 6: And it is a sign, I think that we have
forgotten who is good and who is bad, what is
deceptible and what is not, Where to blame and where
to praise that Daniel Penny found himself for a year
and a half facing the prosper aspect of spending a
lot of his life in jail, and Luigi Mangianni, who
has been arrested, it's not any indication that he's going
to be left by the authorities, but has been celebrated
in the champion or at the very least justified by
the same people who are angry about that.
Speaker 4: It is a.
Speaker 6: Horrible indictment of an ideology that has really jumped the shock.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 3: So my one observation, sorry, my one observation about it
is to compare this case with Bernard Getz back in
forty years ago, I think it was nineteen eighty four,
and you remember he was the guy who shot he
was carrying a gun shot for black assailants who were
coming at him or threatening him with sharp and screwdrivers
and so forth. At that time, the Manhattan DA was
Robert Morgenthal, the legendary name in law enforcement, who asked
a grand jury to indict Gets for manslaughter. The grand
jury refused to indict Gets from manslaughter, and he ended
up being charged only with a gun possession charge, and
I think sort of something like six months in jail.
Fast forward to now the decline and what let's to
paraphrase Henry Adams, the decline or the progression from Robert
Morgenthal to Alvin Bragg is enough to single handedly refute
the theory of evolution. And it was, you know, here
we are with a total clown and you know, progressive
nut and a grand jury that did his bidding and
did indict Penny, and it's Travis Staves shows you the
decline of New York and law enforcement.
Speaker 2: I think in a nutshell comparing those two cases.
Speaker 1: They were comparing him to Bernie Getz as a matter
of fact, Penny as though he said, you don't look
so bad. Here's another and then choked on Tito Jackson
impersonator MANGIONI. By the way, if you look at the
word and you're thinking, manja, manja, you're eating, Yes, Mangoli
means a glutton, a big eater. And I don't know
if you're a big eater or a small eater. What
you do know is that no matter how much you eat,
or how much you want to eat or don't want
to eat or something, you got to pay attention to
your metabolism. And that is why you need a lumen.
Lumen is the world's first handheld metabolic Coach. It's a
device that measures your metabolism, how thin your brand.
Speaker 5: See.
Speaker 1: It's got this app and it lets you know if
you're burning fats or carbs, and it gives you a
tailored guidance to improve your nutrition and your workouts and
your sleep and even your stress management. All I have
to do is to breathe into your loomin the first
thing in the morning, and you'll know what's going on
with your metabolism. And so you've got the app in
the hand, you blow and it shows you how much more.
It's very cool, it's very I tech, and it'll tell
you whether you're burning mostly fats or carbs, and then
your Lumen will give you a personalized nutrition plant for
that day based on your measurements. You can also breathe
into it before and after your workouts and your meals.
You know exactly what's going on in your body in
real time, and Lumin will give you tips to keep
you on top of your health game. Your metabolism it's
your body's engine. It's how your body turns the food
you eat into the fuel that keeps you going. And
because your metabolism is at the center of everything, your
body does optimal metabolic health metabolic optional, let's call it
optimal metabotan restart that paragraph. And because your metabolism is
at the center of everything your body does, optimal metabolic
health trands it's into a whole bunch of benefits, including
easier weight management, improved energy levels, better fitness results, better sleep,
all sorts of stuff. Luhman gives you the recommendations to
improve your metabolic health. And I have been using one,
and I love this device. It's got heft, it's got style,
it just looks cool sitting. It's a little chartered, never
mind what.
Speaker 5: It does, but it's on top.
Speaker 1: And every day it tells me as I say how
many carbs I can have, and it's like, here you go,
you can have this many carbs. And I love carbs,
so I enjoy them and I thank my lumen. You
can do the same. If you want to stay on
track with your health this holiday season, go to lumen
dot m e ricochet to get fifteen percent off your lumen.
That's l u m E n dot me e slash
ricochet for fifteen percent off your purchase.
Speaker 5: And by the.
Speaker 1: Way, it's that time Luhman makes a great gift too,
and we thank Luhman for sponsoring this the Ricochet Podcast
and now coming to us finally glad to have him.
It's it's our old friend, Noah.
Speaker 4: Noah Rothman, thank you for nationalized.
Speaker 1: Well, of course we've we've just been sitting here saying nothing,
staring at the ball, twiddling our fingers. Minor, I have
to tell that everybody, everybody knows who you are, but
just for the one or two or don't. Senior writer
at National Review, the magazine. He's the author of the
Rise of the New Puritans, Fighting Back against Progressives, war
on fund This week alone, he's written about Syria, the
annual Pennygames, the United Health CEO shooting, Biden and Lincoln,
and the lunatic sympathizing with the shooter. All good reasons
to go to are and subscribe. But since we've got
a limited amount of time here, we haven't talked about Syria,
and that escalated quickly and de escalated collapse. All of
a sudden, this iron regime of Bathists disappeared like a
cotton candy hosed down by uh, you know, a fire hose.
And now we're looking at who is there in power
and saying hmm, experience tells us this never goes well,
but we're going to be oddly hopeful now for a
while until proved otherwise. Tell us who is in charge,
how much of Syria they really have, and what we
might expect in the months to come.
Speaker 7: Well, all of those are actually kind of tough questions
to answer because they changed from moment to moment. Insofar
as that we have a faction that is in charge
in Damascus. It is HTS, which is a Turkish back
d Islamist group. It was Al Nusra, which is an
al Qaida offshoot or at least a pledged fealty to
al Qaida. All of eight years ago. There's been a
bit of a schism there, and this organization flew under
the radar save for individuals who are really hyper focused
on this group. They've the individual in charge, al Jelani,
as terrorist. He's got a ten million dollar bounty on
his head from the FBI, and the organization is a
foreign terrorist organization according to the State Department. But al
Jelani had been operating out in the open for the
better part of a decade, within or within close to
operating range of US forces in a US theater of
combat operations. He could have been got if they wanted
him to be. I didn't, and that might have something
to do with anchor as interests. Nevertheless, HTS is making
a lot of pluralist noises about Syria's minorities. They're attracting
foreign direct investment and opening up the economy in Syria,
at least that's what the design is, to attract more
investment and operate with more free market principles. All these
are nice noises, and I think it would be wise
for US to not necessarily discount them at face value,
although not put too much stock into them either. At
this early stage, the Biden administration is flirting with waiving
the FTO designation. I think it's premature for that. As
for how much of the country they control, it is
roughly the territory that they took with very little resistance
over the space of the last week, the cities of Aleppo, Hama, Homs,
and Damascus.
Speaker 5: Roughly.
Speaker 7: Outside of that, there are a variety of other organizations
that are in control of portions of Syria de rezor
in the east where the United States has a footprint,
so Kurdish backed rebels with thes are in charge of
that portion of Syria they operate. They maintain a healthy
supply of ISIS captives, about fifty thousand captives in their
custody and SDS Kurds and Turkish backed forces have a
very contentious relationship. The Kurdish forces are under attack from
HTS and the US interests are at stake in that region,
and they may be imperiled by HTS as hostilities, but
we think al Jelani might be a little frustrated with that.
He's trying to quell some of this unrest between these
two organizations. And then there's a rebel group in the
south that nobody knows about. They're just kind of a
collection of rebels, all of whom have different interests. They're
in control of the city of Dhara and others, which
is the cradle of the revolution. Drew's other minorities are
a part of this amalgamation of rebel groups, and we
don't I don't really know much about them, not enough
to say they have one cohesive philosophy, for example. So
there's a lot of very competing, competing interests that aren't
necessarily aligned. But these are the early day of the
collapse of a monstrous regime, and jubulation is the sentiment
across the board that will fade soon. But right now,
all of these groups are organizing behind and flying the
green three star rebel flag, and right now that is
what that is. The you know, elation over the fall
of a sad is the dominant emotion. What comes next
is anybody's question.
Speaker 3: So, Noah, we seem to have been caught in the
United States quite flat footed, which doesn't surprise me, with
the caliber of our intelligence operation, or Anthony Blincoln saying
the last two days, gosh, who knew the Taliban was
going to take over Afghanistan?
Speaker 4: Right?
Speaker 3: But I'm curious that this happened so suddenly that surely
somebody must have known this was coming, you know, Israel,
maybe they're distracted with other things. But how did this
happen that nobody saw it coming? Or did I miss something?
Did somebody know that this was about to happen?
Speaker 4: I don't think you missed well.
Speaker 7: I think probably Anchora and Turkey and the Innerwan government
had some inclination of what was going on here. Say,
this does seem to have caught a lot of Western
intelligence agencies flat footed. Including Israel's intelligence agency, and there's
no better actor in the region to be aware of
these of what's coming. It's sort of betrays I mean,
as a side note, it betrays the faulty thinking that
is you often see from people on the left and
the right who are genuinely predisposed to a paranoid inclination
which ascribes all actions, all events to the secret machinations
in Washington and in Western Capital. Is that we're the
you know, the the machiavellian interest pulling the strings, and
anything that occurs is our doing, or if it did
not occur, it's also our doing. There's the agency of
other foreign actors is totally stripped of them, right, And
that's just not the case.
Speaker 3: I've been saying for years that I wish our CIA
was half as capable as every Hollywood movie made round
to be.
Speaker 2: Yet you know it's a joke. Well you did mention Turkey.
Well at two things, you said that you know there's
an atmosphere jubilation. Is that honestly true?
Speaker 1: Israe?
Speaker 3: I mean, I had the sense, but I'm not very
fully informed that.
Speaker 2: Israel had something of a stable equilibrium with the SOD.
I mean, like him and all the rest of that.
Speaker 3: But Israel seemed to have free reign to you know,
assassinated Ronnie and officials in Damascus, the bomb sites in
Syria from time to time, and Syria they didn't make
noises about it, but never fought back the way Iran did.
Speaker 2: And so I don't know.
Speaker 3: I would think Israel be very nervous about the instability
that's now going to happen in the country. And you've
seen in the fact that Israel has been very active
in bombing a lot of military capacity.
Speaker 1: I think rightly so. But they've been making Hey while
the sun shines. They have destroyed the naval and air
force capacities and the as well as the anti aircraft battery,
and practically have a free ride to Iran except for
the little patch they got to go through a rock.
Is Israel acting in offensive defensiveness? No, they How would
you characterize what they're doing.
Speaker 7: I wouldn't characterize Jerusalem's relationship with Assad's Damascus is necessarily stable, exactly,
certainly not.
Speaker 4: Cooperative.
Speaker 7: Israel has come under attack from Syria throughout the course
of Israel's existence, and Saudi Arabia or Saudi Arabia. Syria
represented an unbroken corridor through which Iran filtered arms and
munitions and funds to Hezbollah relatively unmolested. So the elimination
of that corridor is advances Israel's interests. It's preferable, I think,
to the status quo ante and as you say, the
dozens and dozens hundreds at this point, strikes on Syrian positions,
Syrian military positions and disabling its air force, putting its
navy at the bottom of the port of Latakia and
destroying a lot of vehicles is the sort of thing
you would do if you were very afraid of what
comes next. But it's also something they couldn't do. While
the Asad regime was there and Russia maintained in air corridor,
they had airspace that you could not violate in the
United States abided by that as well. Israel occasionally would
execute strikes at some serious risk because of the Assad's
air batteries. The Iran provided air batteries and Russian provided
air batteries were pretty sophisticated, and there was always a
threat that if you were they were going in to
execute one pinprick strike or the other, that it could
be disastrous, But that threat has disappeared, and we're taking
maximum advantage of it. To the United States, we've executed
dozens of air strikes on ISIS positions that were being
incubated by the Asad regime and supported and protected by
Russian air support. Another myth that's been blown apart by
the destruction of the Asad regime is one promulgated by
Assads anti anti supporters and outright supporters who said, well,
at least you know the Asad regime. There are a
bunch of monsters, but at least they're killing terrorists. At
least they're killing ISIS now. They weren't, they never were.
The Asid regime incubated the the ISIS threat in thirteen,
twenty fourteen, twenty fifteen. It bought oil from them, their
own oil, purchased it. It managed to It turned a
blind eye and de coordinated maneuvers with ISIS and certain
points in order to preserve ISIS columns and turn their
fire on SDS rebels and SDF rebels Syrian democratic forces
and neutralize what was at the outset of the Syrian
Civil War I modestly pro Western opposition. Now the pro
Western opposition has been decimated. There's a lot of resistance
to the idea that there ever was pro Western opposition,
but compared to what exists today, yeah, it certainly looks
pro Western. Both Russia and Assad and Iran managed to
defeat those moderate elements and present the West with a
Phata company on the ground and a dichotomy that didn't
exist previously, but a binary one.
Speaker 4: What are you going to do.
Speaker 7: You're going to go with this monstrous secular regime or
you're going to go with these monstrous is lomists who
want to cut your heads off?
Speaker 4: And that prevailed.
Speaker 7: That was a really effective strategy on the part of
Damascus and its apologists. But with the end of the
regime comes the end of that illusion.
Speaker 6: I have a question that reflects my general simplicity in
thinking on this topic. If you were God, no heaven forulfened,
and you could determine whether or not this happened. In
other words, you get to decide we keep the status
cross it was the day before the regime foul.
Speaker 4: Or we deal with what we're dealing with now. Which
one would you have chosen?
Speaker 7: Well, if I were a benevolent deity, I'd be able
to foresee how this would unfold. And because I am not,
I can't. I cannot predict the future and there are
far too many variables for me and take.
Speaker 1: The theological explanation is that the benevolent deity denies himself
for knowledge of the events deep.
Speaker 7: That is truly deep, and I'm going to go back
to life.
Speaker 6: I asked that just because I've been asked by a
few people who labor under the misapprehension that I am
a great foreign policy mind.
Speaker 4: Is the good all bad? And I don't know how
to answer it.
Speaker 7: Well, there's a lot of good. Let's say, let's start
with the good. The good is this truly evil regime
is gone. It's crimes against its own people, it's attacks
on the United States, its efforts to kill Americans. The
Syrian regime was responsible for funneling in a round backed
insurgents into Iraq during the insurgency and with the mission
of killing Americans successfully. Those people who served, like Tulsea Gabbard,
understand that full well, and it's inexplicable to me that
they would say that the side represents no threat to
the United States because they were killing Americans. That's over
the corridors that transmit weapons and material to hes Belah,
such as it is now that it's been pretty well
decimated by Israel, is going to be closed off most likely,
and Israel is making efforts to do that by making
incursions into southern portion and expanding this buffer zone around
the goal On Heights to ensure that Lebanon the roots
to Levinon are cut off.
Speaker 4: That's good.
Speaker 7: And an institution in Damascus that allowed Isis to survive
and indeed thrive in the last decade is gone. All
good stuff, So what comes next? That could be the
bad part, but it's too early to say if it's
the bad part. As I said, Jilani is making a
lot of pleasant noises designed in my view, not to
lull the West into a false sense of security, but
to lull the West into a real sense of security.
They want space, They want space to be able to
consolidate power, to consolidate as much territory under the control
of this regime as possible. In Syria is again very
very carved up. There's a small corridor along the Lebanese
border in the coast which is under the control of
s HTS, but the rest of it is kind of
lawless and under control of a variety of other factions
that may or may not owe their allegiance to HTS.
The worst case scenarios are kind of concerning the prospect
of an Islamist regime arising in Damascus bent on projecting terror,
exporting terror to the West is a live possibility, and
that would be a real destabilizing and couldn't necessitate a
multinational mission to put an end to that regime.
Speaker 4: We cannot.
Speaker 7: We operated under the delusion in the last half decade
that some of the most foot over territory on the
planet Earth is something we can afford to simply let
go sit back, see what happens, and we would absorb
no threats to us interests.
Speaker 2: We will so an other words, stay tuned for the sequel.
Speaker 3: Well, so we have time for one last question, Noah,
and it's it's kind of a big one, so we
can't do the full analysis of it, but you can
almost do it, yes or no. We know that, for example,
Putin is trying to reassemble the old Soviet Empire or
maybe some older version of the Russian Empire. I'm wondering
if Erduwan and Turkey have in their mind, the grandiose
idea of reassembling the Ottoman Empire. Is that a ridiculous
thing to speculate about.
Speaker 7: No, I mean yes, insofar as we're not going to
see Ankor with you know, a vast declared control over
the Levant, and you know, and and Iraq and Jordan.
Speaker 4: It's just that's that's off the table.
Speaker 7: But Turkey's Airedowan in particular, in Turkey's position has been
diplomatically expanding pretty dramatically. It's a semi hostile power to
the United States. It's not a friend. It's not exactly
an enemy per se, but it is not it's not
a it's not a reliable partner for the West, and
we should be leery of its influence. It's Airedwan himself
has been very friendly towards is Lamist elements, Sunni Islamist elements,
so we should we should be skeptical of that. But
the thing that you mentioned, they're going back to Czarist
period and his tensions between U and Russia, is that
these these two powers have a very uncomfortable relationship with
each other. And we got very close to a very
serious crisis in twenty fifteen when a Turkish fighter was
shot out of the sky by Russian air defenses. Turkey
went to the mat Turkey went to NATO and invoked
Article four, which is the prerequisite, but the consultation phase
before you get to Article five, which is the invocation
of mutual defense provisions. It was a very dangerous period
in Syria between between twenty fourteen twenty fifteen, when everybody
was intervening in that conflict and everybody is shooting at
each other's proxies and very close proximity in a live theater,
that's really dangerous. That's the sort of thing we really
wanted to avoid. In people like me who were saying
we need to prevent that. We're getting very nervous about
that sort of dynamic, and we could see something very
similar in and around Black Sea region in Syria and
in the eastern part portions of Turkey which are hotly contested.
Russia and Anchor have sort of a thought relationship right now,
but I don't suspect that that will last permanently. The
two of them are are drawn to each other only
in so far as they're opposed to the West's interests,
in Washington's interests, and once Washington's interests are no longer
the thing that they are united against. Then they have
a tendency to conflict. So I would imagine that we
would see conflicts rather than later between them. But yes,
Ancre is an expansionist power, at least diplomatically, not necessarily
in terms of seizing new territory and subsuming it into
the Turkish Turkish national conception of itself. But it has
absolutely has designs on its region and expanding its diplomatic influence,
and it's going about it in a very aggressive way,
in a successful way. Syria is right now what it
had not been previously, a satellite to Anchora.
Speaker 1: If Aragon draws a great chain across the Bosporus, then
I think we should go in. Then I think we
should go in and rename the whole place Constantinople and
take it back, because I'm against the colonial enterprise and
renamed it as such. I know we've got to go, absolutely,
absolutely if we go. As long as we got the
time machine, let's go back and let's take a look
at this ball for stuff, and let's take the carving
up of the region into these strangely shaped nations that
had two or three warring clans within them, ensuring that
they'd be in continuous discord and a lot them to
the groups themselves so that everybody had their own state
and then they could fight each other in between nations
instead of destabilizing the nations that they're currently.
Speaker 7: If the principle of self determination applies, then we should
be applying it to these druze communities that are outright
stating we want to join Israel and be governed by Jerusalem, which.
Speaker 5: I think is absolutely fascinating.
Speaker 1: Why you mean these people are actually putting up their
hand and saying, yes, I want to be part of
the genocidal state.
Speaker 5: Why why? Why? Yes? They are ill end with that.
We have to leave Noah Rothman.
Speaker 1: You can read everything that he does, and you should
at National Review and the magazine and the online site.
We thank you for dropping by today, and the fact
that we've only had twenty minutes with you is your
own dang fault.
Speaker 4: Next time show apoloities again.
Speaker 5: Thank you guys, so you know it and we got
to go too. And that's that.
Speaker 1: We invite you to go to ricochet dot com and
sign up because it will make you happy to do so.
Behind the line of the member feed is a community
that you've been looking for all your days on the
internet to trust me, sane, mostly civil, mostly center right. Mostly.
We contain multitudes, and we charge for the privilege of
being part of it. But it's small and it's worth it. Charles,
thank you, Stephen, thank you. I know that both of
you want people to go to Apple, iPod iPad I
podcast whatever they call it, now give us a good review.
And I know that you would like everybody to go
to Lumen to say yes, I want that device from
my metabolic health, and you would also advise them to
go to ze Biotics so they can feel better the
next morning. In short, we have provided you with insight
products to make your life better and things that you
hadn't thought before, delivered with the dulca tones of Stephen
and Charles. Who if you see him out there and
he heads into a restaurant, I'd maybe go to one
down the street.
Speaker 5: Gentlemen, it's been great.
Speaker 1: We'll see you next week.
Speaker 2: Next week, Ricochet
Speaker 5: Join the conversation.