Speaker 1: And I made my decision at the base of the
Tarquin Rock, which is where they used to throw the
criminals off. You'd get convicted of a crime and they
drag you to the rock and throw you off. And
if you look in the guidebook, it says that it
is not wheelchair accessible, which isn't surprising and all. The
guidebook also said good for kids.
Speaker 2: Ask not what your country can do for you, Ask
what you can do for your country.
Speaker 3: Mister Gorbachev, tear down this wall.
Speaker 1: It's the Ricassee podcast with Charnols, C W. Cook, and
Stephen Hayward. I'm James Lilys today with doctor ray onn
Slam about the events in New York plus Iraq plus
supreme courts. More than enough for a podcast.
Speaker 3: So thanks to this decision, we can now properly file
to proceed with these numerous policies and those that have
been wrongly enjoined on a nationwide basis, including birthright citizenship,
ending sanctuary city fund, suspending refugee resettlement, freezing unnecessary funding,
shopping federal taxpayers from paying for trans gender search.
Speaker 1: Welcome Everyone is the Ricochet Podcast number seven hundred and
forty seven.
Speaker 4: Buckle up as.
Speaker 1: They like to say on the Internet when they're about
to tell you something. We've got some interesting things to
talk about. I'm James Lalyx in Minneapolis, where it's very cloudy,
very cool, but the Karellion atop the City Hall tower
was playing Blue Skies, which was just a nice way
to end the week. Steven Hayward I assumes in sunny California,
Charles C. W. Cook is in some drenched and probably
human beyond human belief Florida. Gentlemen, we span the nation.
How are you today and what's in your mind?
Speaker 5: Well, I think both for Charles and I, it's a
banner day at the Supreme Court.
Speaker 4: That's the end of the term.
Speaker 5: All the lingering decisions we've been waiting for were released
here this morning Friday. And Charles, I think you've actually
read them because you had a three hour head start
on me. But it sounds like it's a clean sweep
for our side, and so I'll toss over to you
and you pick out what you think is most notable.
Speaker 6: Well, it wasn't quite a clean sweep. There was a
case Consumers Research which was about the non delegation doctrine
and Neil Gorsuch was so upset by the majority opinion
and it joined in his upset by Alita and Thomas,
and he wrote a thirty five page which I would
recommend reading. I was disappointed by that. I can't say
I was surprised by that, Steve, because the Court has
not been good on non delegation questions since about nineteen
thirty five, so we've got ninety years of precedent here.
And then there was a case about the structure of
an agency that has to do with Obamacare and was very,
very complicated, and I instinctively sided again with Gorst, Chelita,
and Thomas.
Speaker 4: But on the big cases that everyone.
Speaker 6: Normal was paying attention to, it was a clean sweep
for the original and originalist adjacent sidon. The biggest case
of the day, perhaps of the year, was one that
started off as a challenge to President Trump's executive order
on birthright citizenship, but somehow along the way became not
a case about that or the merits of that question,
but about nationwide injunctions. And six to three the Court
decided that with a couple of caveats and with a
standard that will need to be applied to be understood, properly.
Nationwide injunctions in the way that they have been used
for the last twenty or so years are gone.
Speaker 1: John pod Horiz said that bunkerbusters were used twice this week,
once in Iran and once in Emmy COMI parent Responding
to Justice Jackson, I don't know if you've seen that.
There is some delicious language in this. Before Charles goes
on to tell us why this is a great thing,
she said, we will not dwell on Justice Jackson's argument,
which is at odds with more than two centuries worth
of president not to mention the Constitution itself, we only
observe this. Justice Jackson decries an imperial executive while embracing
an imperial judiciary. I mean meow boll of friskies for
the lady, that is anyway. So Charles tell us more
about the We all hate the national injunctions because they
seem like a drastic overreach of the Court's authority that
anyone could just step in and say, Nope, executive can't
do that. That's the end of it. I'm here in Hawaii.
I say what it's going to be in the law
of the land. You said that there were some things
yet to be ironed out. Might those things mean that
the injunctions still continue to be a thorn in the
side and the paw.
Speaker 6: Yeah, I'm sometimes squishy if I have national injunctions. We've
talked about this before. I don't if you were on
that episode. But I am persuaded by the majority opinion.
The only question the Court was authorized to look at
is whether or not they're constitutionally permissible and how they
interact with statute, and I think the majority got it right.
There are points elsewhere in the opinion, James, in which
Amy Coney Barrett is equally disparaging toward Jackson. She describes
her at one point as having offered a startling argument
that is completely unmored from the Constitution or American history.
It is a taught force. So I think the Court
did get this right. And as this goes, that's the
only thing that matters, because the Court is the court
and not a dictator. So there are a couple of
caveats here. And I'm not a lawyer, so I'm understanding
its as best I can, having read it through once.
First off, anything that has to do with the Administrative
Procedure Act is exempt because Congress included an exemption when
it passed the law, so if there is litigation over
APA claims, there can be a nationwide injunction. Second, there
is I think called Rule twenty three that I don't
perfectly understand, but Rule twenty three litigation could still yield
a national injunction. Apparently it's quite hard to satisfy the
provisions of Rule twenty three. But Justice Alito is worried
that what will happen now is lower courts will just say, oh,
it's a Rule twenty three issue and start doing the
same thing that they've been doing all along. And of
course this is obvious, but it needed to be said.
The third exception is the Supreme Court itself, which is
allowed to impose national injunctions because that's what it's there for.
Here is my take on it, before I shut up.
I think this was the right decision legally. I think
it is also the product of congressional abdication. Congress is
allowed to set a whole bunch of rules around this
that it hasn't, so the Court was only asked to
do this because Congress hasn't laid out in what circumstances
national injunctions are permissible. It should now do that. I
worry a little bit though, that unless Congress starts taking
back some power from the president, that this is going
to empower the executive branch even more than it has
been empowered. Not criticism of the Court. Again, Jackson's obsessed
with She shouldn't be. It's not her job to worry
about that. But as a citizen, I want Congress now
to say, all right, here are the things the president
can and can't do. Because although Kavanar is clear at
one point to say that the court should take emergency applications,
you are in effect going to be left after this
with a situation in which it will take a lot
longer to litigate pretty important questions. And if you look
at something like, for example, Joe Biden's obviously disastrously deliberately
unconstitutional student loan order, by the time that that had
been decided by the Supreme Court, he could have spent
two or three hundred billion dollars.
Speaker 4: So unless this.
Speaker 6: Is accompanied by the Supreme Court's willingness to take cases
quickly and Congress taking back its power from the executive
I do worry that not just under Trump, but under
the next Democratic president. Let's say president AOC, you could
see some really disastrous consequences, but that's a Congress problem,
not a Supreme Court problem.
Speaker 1: That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. A AOC
will be the vice president to Gavin Newsom. I just
wanted to correct that, Steven, you're taking well.
Speaker 5: I think I agree with Charles. I think the rule
twenty three business connects to the whole class action. That's right,
that's right classification. So yeah, I think you're right that
judges will be quicker to try and quant class action status.
Speaker 4: I do think that.
Speaker 5: I mean I should need to go back and look
at the numbers here, but I actually think the Supreme
Court moved with great speed, greater than maybe they ever have,
which is why i'd have to go back and look
in history. But do you think of the cases that
were taken up and decided in the last well, just
take this one. You know it was about executive order
Trump issued his first day in office back in January,
so barely six months ago, and the Supreme Court scheduled
an oral argument late. It was heard in what a
month ago, six or eight weeks ago, and we have
the decision today. And I think that was the Chief
Justice or a majority of the Court anyway, saying we
can't let this linger into the next term because it's
just creating too much uncertainty. So they moved with really
quite astonishing speed for the Supreme Court. You're not allowing
it to filter through the DC Circuit or the other
circuit courts of appeal, which would resulted in circuit splits
and no decision at all. There was the you know,
the executive immunity case, wasn't I think that was this term,
wasn't it?
Speaker 4: Anyway?
Speaker 5: I think the Court is now stepping up to try
and fill the gap for some of the lassitude of
Congress that you rightly point out, Charles. And so right
now you have Congress as a spectator to the judiciary
and executive trying to work out a new equilibrium here
on these things.
Speaker 6: And it's probably very encouraging that that note in the
decision was written by Kavanaugh, who is now the immediate
in justice on the Court, rather than by Conress Thomas,
because it did no perhaps of willingness to step in.
Speaker 4: Yeah, so where do we go from here?
Speaker 1: Then?
Speaker 4: I mean, I love Charles's argument.
Speaker 1: That this actually no sort of deprives us of a
tool that you can use to get these things in
the Supreme Court faster. Should we just develop like Disney
has a fast pass lane for certain cases.
Speaker 5: Well, they have been doing the shadow docket business they
called for a while now, where they do take cases
and dispose of them quickly without necessarily a full oral argument,
briefing and so forth. I think now in this particular case,
once again, the executive order was about the birthright citizenship controversy,
and they sidestep that. As we expected that, that was
pretty clear that they weren't going to take up a
substance of that. But now we'll have to. And so
that case will be probably coming up next year and
so a year from now, and there they can't I
think repair to process and history. Well, I shouldn't have
said that it won't be a process argument or a
jurisdiction argument. They're going to have to rule on the
substance of the teeth Amendment and that's going to be
a big fight.
Speaker 6: I think, James. One thing that is always important with
court decisions to stress is that the Court is not
expected to or allowed to come up with an answer
that makes everything perfect. And you say, where are we Now,
there are some downsides to this, even though I think
it's the right decision. For example, it is offensive to
our constitutional order to have circuit splits on matters that
are really crucial. I mean, for example, let's suppose that
your president, Gavin Newsom says that he intends to start
confiscating firearms, and let's suppose that the Fifth Circuit says
that's illegal under the Second Amendment, and there's no staturgy justification,
but the Second Circuit says it's fine. What you have
then is a situation in which it is o k
for the federal government to confiscate firearms in New York
but not in Texas, which, by the way, would be
the sensible way of doing it, given out heavily armed
everyone is in either place. Now, that is a problem, right,
And if you take the country's history just after the
Civil War as perhaps a more realistic example, it would
be a problem if it were fine to discriminate racially
in some parts of the country and not in others.
But that is it seems to be the way that
the system works until the circuit splits are resolved. But
we aren't always going to like it. And I think
what I just find so annoying about some of the
responses to this that I've seen and about Jackson's descent
is she seems to think, and those who have criticized
his decisions seem to think that if there is any
potential downside to any decision that is faithful to the law,
it's the job of the Supreme Court to step in
and prevent that.
Speaker 4: But it's not.
Speaker 6: We're going to have times in our life as American
citizens where things are bad. So you know, one of
the things that it leaves us with should be the
expectation that we elect people who aren't bloody awful.
Speaker 1: Exactly, And there we are a a new slogan for
the conservative side. Sometimes things are going to be bad.
I mean, it actually is the truth of the matter.
And one of the ways you make them better is
to get together with friends. And we'd like to remind
you as always that Ricochet has meetups where people get
together in person. And if you're thinking, you know, I
just want to sit around other people and I don't
want to do that and talk politics, you'd be surprised.
How little will we talk about politics? Actually, it's everything
under the sun. Because you meet people like minded you
find you have similar interest hobbies and passions. It's a
great fun. Last one I had was in New York.
I got COVID. It was worth it. Matt Bauzer is
holding the annual German Fest meetup that's July twenty fifth,
twenty seventh in Milwaukee. And our old friend Randyandy Wandy Wivova,
Sandy Rivo, Randy you know you love. He's assembling a
group to meet in Detroit and that will be interesting
seeing the revived state and status of some of the
most beautiful skyscrapers in America. So go to ricochet dot com,
check the member meet up panel, and if you're in
the neighborhood, you know, show up or start your own
and just see how Ricochet people come to you. We're
like that. One of the things we're also like is that,
you know, we want a little solace at the end
of the day. Right, y'all got your checklists between the
hours of nine to five, you got these things to do,
this thing, that thing. Getting through that checklist can be
hard every day and boarding and wrote butt but cozy Earth.
They want you to have the time to prioritize you
outside of those work hours. And you're five to nine show,
we say Cozy Earth. Lets your thoughts turn.
Speaker 4: To luxurious softness.
Speaker 1: Now life gets pactic and finding comfort and calm.
Speaker 4: It's essential.
Speaker 1: We need time for relaxation, for recharging and soaking in
this of peace. With Cozy Earth, you can create a
space that feels like a personal retreat where comfort and
serenity come together naturally. Charles I believe he was under
the instruction of his wife to purchase, to use Cozy Earth,
and he is here to tell you briefly that they
are the finest sheets on the planet.
Speaker 6: Well, I was under the instruction in the sense that
I was wanting to click to the mouse. But she
gave me the instruction, she gave me the details, she
gave me the color, she gave me the size. She
was in charge of this, and quite rightly. But I
was the beneficiary, or one of two beneficiaries. They are
terrific sheets. They are very comfortable. They are cooling, which
matters an enormous amount. You already mentioned the weather in
Florida and the humidity, and as I point out, every time,
you really need to get sheets right because the amount
of time that you spend asleep in beds kind of
disgusting when you think about your life, and I'm pleased
that I spend that time on becuzy sheets as opposed
to some other brand.
Speaker 1: Well, the reason they're so good is that they use
only the best fabrics and textiles to provide an ultimate
ingredient for a luxurious softness that let's just sleep like
a baby. And they're not just soft. The weave fabric
is enhanced for a durability that won't pull. Best of
all Cozy Earth betting products have a one hundred night
sleep trial and a ten year warranty. That's a decade
of cool quality sleep. Luxury shouldn't be out of reach.
Go to code azeearth dot com and use the code
Ricochet for up to forty percent off Cozy Earth's best
selling temperature regulating sheets, apparel and more. Trust us, you'll
feel the difference the very first night. That's cozyearth dot
com code Ricochet Sleep Cooler, lounge, lighter, stay cozy. And
we thank Cozy Earth for sponsoring this the Ricochet Podcast
And thanks to Charles, we not only have the new
Republican slogan sometimes things are going to be bad, but
we have another slogan as well, you have to get
your sheets right. So I can't argue with any of
those things. Joining us now. Ryan Salam, president of the
Manhattan Institute. In two thousand and nine, he co authored
A Grand New Party with the Rosstatt, and his latest
book is Melting Pot or Civil War. He can also
find his writing in The Atlantic and National Affairs.
Speaker 2: Welcome, Hi guys, thanks for having me.
Speaker 1: I love New York. I'm tired of it after about
three or four days. I say you win and I leave.
Speaker 4: But I love New York.
Speaker 1: And like everybody who grew up in the Midwest casting
their eyes towards Gotham, I've always felt an attachment to
it that seems irrational, emotional. But it's America in its
most vigorous and proud form, and lately the choices that
they make mystify us. But you think they can probably
get past in Eric Adams, they can probably endure, you know,
de Blasio. It's a strong place now, this guy. Basically,
that's my question, and it's not even a question this guy.
Speaker 2: So when you're thinking about Zoronmndani, we're tempted to think
about the discontinuities because he seems so different, he's so
much younger. He just you know, seems you know, so
dangerous to many of us. The interesting thing are the continuities. Now,
consider that New York City had a self described Democratic
socialist mayor. His name was Bill de Blasio some years ago.
Now consider also, when you're looking at the way New
York City is governed, we are in the thick of
a really profound affordability crisis. Is it something that is
the product of a free market in housing. Decidedly not.
It's the product of a crazy accretion of rules that
essentially treats building private housing as though it is a
kind of suspect activity, you know, borderline criminal. You know,
it's just, you know, any number of things. So on
one level, you know, I am tempted to get drawn
into the discontinuity. This is a guy who says things
that are incredibly alarming to me as a conservative. And
by the way, I should stipulate, I'm speaking on my
own behalf, not as a spokesperson for the institution I
lead or anything like that. So just to make that
crystal clear, I will say that this is someone who
says totally alarming stuff all the time. But we should
also just recognize that, like the proverbial frog and the
boiling pot, it's not as though we're flipping a switch
and we're going from robust free market capitalism to a
bolivarian revolution by the Hudson. You're just really the conditions
that created this were the accretion of failed policies, call
them socialists, call them progressive, call them whatever you want
that actually contributed to this real crisis.
Speaker 1: You're right about the accretion of strange laws and bylaws
and regulations that prevent good housing from being built, even
at the same time that they can build the most enormous,
waving in the wind pencil thin skyscrapers by Central Park.
Now they can bail those, but they can't build regular
housing for people and the rest of the city. This
guy with his talk of rent control and the rest
of it, and the usual progressive platitudes, Yeah, you can
say there's continuity. There's somebody like Deblasio, But Deblasio struck
me as both sort of lazy and incompetent and not
particularly motivated to do the things that would destroy New York.
This guy seems to have a fire under him, or
is he just a striver who's got a good presentation
and is going to use this tool set of ideas
that appeal to the shoot to the Luigi Manjohni fan
club in order to insert himself into the machine and
profit thereafter.
Speaker 4: Forever does he mean it?
Speaker 2: If there were, it's all it's just a matter of
what does he mean right? Because you know, here's the thing,
you know, the reason why this person is a skillful
politician is that he says different things to different audiences.
He's able to hit different registers. You know, he's someone
who is you know, granted you up until now accomplished
relatively little in life. But he's someone who is charismatic,
and he's someone who has a seductive ability to mirror
to people what exactly it is they want to hear. So,
you know, to the kind of revolutionary socialist crowd, they're
very confident he's one of them, and he winks at them,
and he kind of makes it clear that he's one
of them. In all sorts of ways. This is someone
who has really been a kind of professional anti Israel
obsessive for his entire adult life, and yet he's also
able to say, how dare you accuse me of being
an anti semi. I will I will increase the amount
of spending, you know, to fight hate crimes by eight x.
You know, we're going to do this. We're going to
do that. You know, it's this is his talent. It's
the ability to be all things to all people. And
there literally are the same nonprofit progressive establishment that is
responsible for New York's dire state. These guys are reconciling
themselves to him because you know, he represents another face
for the same kind of failed policies with more aggressive
agro language turned up to eleven. That's one version of it, right,
Another version of it is that, you know, how do
you actually kick the door down? People are calling him
a socialist, and the problem with that label is that
what people hear as they hear well sweet Sweden right,
Norway right, Denmark right, when actually this is you know,
you're looking at the ban Dung generation, you know, come
back to life. When you're looking at is a kind
of third worldist position. And you're also looking at someone
who's a left wing populist. You know, if you're looking
at socialism and Northern Europe, you're looking at we have vats.
You know, middle class working class people pay really high
consumption taxes and they, you know, and they get some stuff.
You pay with one hand, you get something else on
the other hand. Right, What this is instead is a
kind of punitive egalitarianism. They raise taxes when they were
flushed with revenue. They raise taxes because they want to
raise taxes on the rich, even if it actually does
huge damage to the working in middle class people because
there's bigger you know, fish to fry. I mean, this
is a different kind of agenda. But the problem is
it's totally prodean. It's totally prodean. So it can be
one thing one minute, it's going to be another thing
another minute. It's going to be like, hey, Brad Lander
has a million position papers here, and oh, it's ridiculous
to catastrophize. It's ridiculous to think you've got to take
him seriously, not literally.
Speaker 4: You know.
Speaker 2: It is a classic populist playbook. And the democratic establishment
is hollow, it is dead, it is bereft, It is
completely lacking in talent and imagination and energy. And they
were there for the picking.
Speaker 6: Hey Ryan, nice to see you.
Speaker 2: Nice to see you too, Charlie.
Speaker 4: Here's my question.
Speaker 6: I grew up in England, US, you know, and I
had this conception of history that essentially guarantee that if
things got really bad, people would be sensible, because I
learned about the seventy and then I learned about Margaret
Thatcher coming in and she fixed it. But now if
I listened to my friends and family back home, they
sound like people did in the seventies. New York seemed
to me, especially when I lived there in the glory
days twenty eleven and so on, to be of the
same pattern that it had been awful in the seventies
and eighties. But then New York has got sensible, and
they brought in Giuliani, and then they kept electing Bloomberg,
you know, not my favorite guy, but it's mayor of
New York, pretty terrific. And then wow, they've gone to
de Blasio and Eric Adams and now this guy probably
And I wonder how you see it, because on the
one hand, we tend to think as conservatives, if things
get bad, then people will be sensible and they'll fix it.
But then I look at Chicago, and Chicago's never done
what New York did, and Chicago seems basically incapable of
fixing itself. So are you worried that New York could
be in the same place or do you do you
think there's enough about New York, whether it's Wall Street
or just the fact that it turns over all the
time where it's just so dynamic. That means that even
if this guy is awful and screws everything up, there'll
be a backlash and you'll get sensible policies.
Speaker 2: Again, the hard part is that when you're thinking about
the electorate, you know, who are the individuals who are
learning and how are they learning? You know, you always
have to keep it in mind that we're looking at
a dynamic, changing electorate. So, you know, the white population
of New York City is not that much lower, perhaps surprisingly,
than it was you know, call it in nineteen ninety three,
nineteen eighty nine. What's different is that it's no longer
multi generational New Yorkers. You know, folks who are third
and fourth generation, you know Italian and Irish, you know
working class, lower middle class, you know homeowners, and so
it's a different group of people. So the white population
in New York right now is much more college educated
than it had been before. You've got a lot of
folks who are transplants. But you know, so that's one thing, right,
there's one narrative that, oh, you know, these guys, it's
these guys are rich and this kind of thing, and
you know, it's luxury beliefs. And I actually think that
there's a lot to that. My colleague Rob Henderson, you know,
is the is the one who's kind of, you know,
advanced this luxury beliefs thesis. But another part of it
is this. So you know, if you're looking at the
New York City housing market, and allow me to bore
you for a moment, you know, you've got about sixty
eight percent of the units are rental units, multi family
rental units. Of those units, I believe it's about forty
eight percent are in the so called unregulated market, and
then fifty two percent are rent control, rent stabilized. So,
you know, people have observed that Cuomo seemed to win
in really poor neighborhoods and then in this tiny sliver
of really rich neighborhoods precincts with a median income of
over let's say, tw hundred fifty thousand dollars a year.
You know, Cuomo did well in those two but in
that middle when you're looking at you know, people in
neighborhoods with a median income. You know, look seventy five
thousand dollars to two hundred thousand dollars or so. These
people aren't poor. But it's a really interesting population because
if you think about the people in New York, the
people who kind of make it here, it feels more
and more like you make it here if you have
a side deal, if you inherited a rent stabilized apartment,
if you're living in Nischa housing, you know, and you
have forever, which is not great, by the way, really
terrible and miserable. Public housing isn't great, but it's a
place to live where you're not buffeted by the fact
that you know, rents went up this last year by
sixteen percent in the private market, you know the media,
and rent for a two bedroom apartment in New York
City right now it is fifty five hundred dollars. Wow,
these numbers are completely staggering, Okay, And that's the problem
is that, you know, if you're a new cumboer in
New York, you're a college kid, you didn't just move
into it. You know, you didn't just going to find
one of the handful of rent regulated apartments that are
on the market. Rent regulated apartments get passed down from
generation to generation, right now, Okay, what you're dealing. You
moved into that unregulated sector, and then you've got I mean,
there's so many dynamics to hear to who's living here. So,
you know, do you think that those guys were making
you know, it's they're making decent money, low six figures
anywhere else in the country that would afford you a
pretty great life, But in New York City it means
that you're on a knife edge. In New York City,
who means you're spending a third of your income on
rent and you're living with roommates, you know what I mean,
the kind of indignities that you have to endure. And
then they look at the other, you know, kind of economy,
the rich, glamorous economy that gets the attention in New York,
the capital accumulation economy where you know, housing price appreciation
is part of it. But then also just the people
who own assets, they own equity, they're not just collecting
a professional salary and navigating the housing market. These are
the guys who are the most totally radical out there.
They want to burn it down. And these people are
not the people. They don't remember New York City. And
they also by the way, you know, under Eric Adams,
like in the last year, he's not perfect. Yes, crime
has gone down markedly in twenty twenty five. So weirdly,
the fact that some things were kind of okay and
limping along actually meant that, you know, Zara Mangani could
come in and zero in on the fact that your
rent is a hell of a lot higher now than
it was when you first moved here five or ten
years ago.
Speaker 4: Why is Krimdell.
Speaker 2: Oh, there's a lot of complexity to that. You know,
I have a lot of colleagues who thought very deeply
about this. So, you know, part of it could be
pay you know, there are big national trends. They're big
and complex. You know. Part of it could be that
we have a truly you know, we have a really
excellent police commissioner right now, who is someone who has
been a public servant for a very long time. She
knows the police department extremely well, and to the extent
that there was a kind of cronyism and laziness in
the department she's been really thoughtful about bringing that downe
and improving morale in the police force. If you look
at law enforcement around the country, morale has been a
real challenge, and that's been pronounced in New York. You know,
you have a huge number of folks have retired. You
have people who are experienced NYPD officers who left to
other jurisdictions. When you have competent, effective leadership, that can
make a difference. So again, there are many different factors.
There are also real things cutting against us. You know,
for example, we have a bunch of laws at the
state level here in New York that are real outliers.
You know, there are a ton of places that embrace
criminal justice leniency. They called it criminal justice reform. New
York actually really embraced policies that were really out there
even by the standards of that rush towards leniency. And
so you basically have some you know, folks in law
enforcement who are doing their best to manage that. And
then you have prosecutors. So I would say that the
prosecutors in two of our five boroughs are particularly bad.
In Manhattan and the Bronx. You've got other prosecutors who
are not great. They're not necessarily the people that I'd
want to be there, but they at least live on
planet Earth, which is helpful. So there's a lot of
complexity to what's happened on the crime front. I do
think that, you know, there is more effective leadership right now.
And another thing, you'll hear a lot of people say, oh,
New York is actually the safest big city in America. Oh,
this is exaggerated, and actually, look there's something to that.
You know, New York City is an immigrant rich city.
Speaker 6: Uh.
Speaker 2: You know, New York City is a place that's denser.
You know, we do have some firewalls against crime, but
at the same time, disorder counts for a lot more
in New York City. Charlie Cook used to live here
and he, like me, was packed in like a sardine
on the subway. So if you have, you know, someone
walking down the street, you know in the suburbs of Jacksonville,
who is you know, half naked, wearing short shorts and
you know, kind of ranting and you know, smelling like
he may or may not need a bath.
Speaker 4: You know, that's exactly Charlie.
Speaker 2: Charlie can get on his golf court and then speed
up and then kind of go away. If you are
on a subway with this person, uh, you know, then
that that's a different situation. And actually the value proposition
of New York City is density. It is the fact
that you get to be kind of around other people.
You get the vitality that comes with that that can
spoil rotten if you have, you know, people who are
bad apples. That's why there is a natural, naturally authoritarian
element to effectively running a city like New York City.
That's something that you know, Mike Bloomberg, for all of
his cosmopolitanism, understood it was you know, kind of a
you know, an iron fist and a velvet glove. He
understood how that worked. By the way, build a Blasio.
Early on he understood that if he was going to
demonstrate that a democratic socialist could run a city and
be the successor to Bernie Sanders, which was his great dream,
that you know, actually you could not let crime get
out of control. He thought that right up until Democratic
party politics changed circa eighteen twenty nineteen twenty twenty. But
you know, much more to say there.
Speaker 5: So Rahan out here in California, we're a little bit
annoyed that the New York is so effectively challenging our
monopoly on bad elected officials and progressive policy. Right, So,
and I wish I could have your equanimity about the scene.
So a couple of questions, one on the substance of
the mayor's office in New York and then one about
the politics of this election campaign to come.
Speaker 2: Just Steve, just want to say, no equanimity here. What
I am as a realist and I want to love
everything that's going on squarely dead in the eye. So
people understand that things were rotting a long time before
the last seventy two hours when people stopped started paying attention.
But please, yeah, okay, yeah, well all right.
Speaker 5: So you know one thing that I didn't know until
I learned this in graduate school forty years ago, is
that municipal government is really odd in America. We have
what we call weak mayor systems and strong mayor systems,
and so it's always surprising for people to learn that
Chicago has a weak mayor system. And you say, well,
Richard Daly was one of the most powerful mayors in
American history. Well, that's because he was such a skillful
politician and built a machine. New York has a strong
mayor system. By that, I mean they've got the mayors
I understand. It gets to set the budget with pretty
strong authority over It gets to appoint the heads of
all the departments without necessarily the unlike Chicago, where the
pointees have to be ratified by the city Council and
so forth. So you have a very strong executive in
New York. It was always tempered. Sorry for the history
lesson here, keep it short for listeners. It was always
tempered by the democratic machine that would cough up a beam,
especially right. And it's been and you said itself, the
democratic establishment is in New York is dead. It's been
dying ever since I think ed Koch probably. So now
we have this thirty two year old or thirty three
year old kid who's very charismatic, as you say, and
he's going to be given some powerful keys to a
powerful engine.
Speaker 4: And you already mentioned that.
Speaker 5: Gatshi's said he's going to spend more money on hate speech. Well,
I don't doubt that he might well do that, but
I'm worried that it's really going to be the kind
of hate speech that we're worried about, meaning you know,
the anti Semitic outbursts, seeing all.
Speaker 4: The rest of the place.
Speaker 5: So anyway, I'm just extremely there's more of a comment
than a question, but it's designed a photic reaction. I
think that this is an order of magnitude more serious
than Deblasio's progressivism was.
Speaker 4: How what do you think?
Speaker 2: So here's the dilemma for people who oppose Zorn Mom, Donnie, Okay.
The dilemma is that there is a symbiotic relationship between
people who are saying that you know, basically you know,
not that you're saying this Steve, that people are going
to get shot in the streets. You know what I mean,
they're going to be firing squads in Central Park, which
is not what you're saying. But there are a lot
of people might you know, look, I am alarmed. I
am alarmed by many many things. I don't know. If
you want me to talk your ear off, I'm happy
to do it, you know, for the next you know,
twelve hours about basically, you know, kind of what this
gentleman has said, what he evidently believes about Israel, the
threat that you know, kind of this kind of third
worldist brand of socialism represents to peace and security in
a very diverse city, in a city that is home
to a population of close one million Jewish Americans, you
know there's a lot that's extremely combustible. So make no mistake,
I am not dismissing that one bit. I think it's
dire and I think it's dangerous. What is even more
dangerous is what has happened more broadly, if you're looking
at national democratic politics, this is the reality that the
people who are running against Zora Mondania did democratic primary
did not seem to understand. If you look at the
views of democratic primary voters nationally and in New York
about Israel, about capitalism, about a great many other basic
realities of life, it is not what it had been
in nineteen ninety five. So because of that, what it
means is that certain attacks that people made because they
believe them, because they're right, because they are legitimate attacks
to make their legitimate criticisms, did not land. Not only
did not they not land, but there are people who
are fueled by the fact that when something seems like
an establishment stitch up, when it looks like all of
the shadowy, powerful forces are uniting against you, what does
that mean? So that is something that is extremely important
to keep in mind. And by the way, you said
the never establishment is dead, that's actually not quite what
I meant. What I'm in is at their bereft of ideas.
I think there are a lot of folks who are
still there. And by the way, the establishment in New
York City for a while has been a non profit
progressive establishment. And this nonprofit progressive establishment represented by someone
like Brad Lander, they've taken off one mask and they're
putting on another mask, and that now they're trying to
get behind Mandani and they're kind of deeply interconnected. And
so what they're going to try to do is have
another new breath of life, which is that well, we've
been thoroughly irradiated and discredited and kind of this way
you would be in a fair world, right, except they
actually still hold all the levers of power. They're still there,
and now what they're seeing is that, ah, this is
another opportunity to be in touch with a TikTok generation.
So this is the contradiction here, And you know, is this,
you know, going to be Havena on the Hudson Okay,
On the other hand, is it a corrupt, broken nonprofit
progressive establishment that actually caused the affordability crisis, that actually
they were the ones who went it was fashionable to
say defund the police. Did now they say Department of
Community Safety and then the idea that they could to
have a new breath of life by us saying that actually,
this is totally different from what came before. I don't
know if we want to let people off the hook
that way, Steve, That's that's the kind of an awkward question here.
Speaker 5: Well, all right, I've been thinking back to a parallel
from here in California from a very long time ago.
It's amazing Hut's forgotten a new deal history that in
nineteen thirty four Upton Sinclair won the Democratic primary to
be governor, and it's set the same kind of headlines
you're seeing in the Wall Street Journal this week. Panic
in the business community, hysteria in Hollywood, and it took
weeks for people to gin up the app. Oh, by
the way, he's running against the mediocre Republican incumbent who's
kind of roughly the equivalent of Eric Adams. It's a
great story that says, I say, it doesn't make the
history books. Everyone always talks about Roosevelt being worried about
Huey Long, but they were worried about Upton Sinclair being
elected governor of California.
Speaker 4: Went in a in a jungle primary. Oh that's pretty good.
I gotta borrow that.
Speaker 5: I should write an article I think for your city
General Y Haunt about that the lessons of that campaign,
because what ultimately turned it around, and it took weeks
for people to say, what are we gonna do about
this guy? He's world famous, he's popular. By the way,
it was called the EPIC campaign that was short for
End Poverty in California. Sounds a lot like like a
Bond dobby. And what it took was Hollywood stepped in.
It was uh, Louis B. Mayor was the ringleader. And
by the way, you know, just as Hollywood is today.
The writers and actors loved Upton Sinclair rights, but it
was the owners of the studios and some of the
business interests, and what they did was went back through
you might say, the equivalent of Sinclair's Twitter feed. Right,
He'd said a lot of crazy stuf for years and
used it very effectively against him and ended up re
electing this mediocre Republican Okay, so we're hearing all these machinations.
Now that's well, maybe Andrew Cuomo shouldn't drop out, Maybe
she'd run as an independent. Maybe we'll get Curtis Sliwa
to drop the Republican line and make Adams the Republican
nom you know, all kinds of things like that. So
it's going to take a while, I think to see
any opposition. But my suspicion is, even if Wall Street
puts up a lot of money and the sort of
non or I'll put it this way, the for profits
segments of the Democratic establishment try to draw a line,
I could actually see that helping mom Dommy, because he's,
you know, like you say, charismatic, is going to have
a lot of national interest and attention, and if he wins,
he'll probably get off to a big, flashy start. And
my prediction is he's his name will be immediately floated
as a Democratic candidate for twenty twenty eight for president.
So would you have any prognostications or expectations of how
this might unfold.
Speaker 2: You've given me a lot to work with here, So yeah,
so thirty three years old, you know, I don't know
about you know, kind of there there are a lot
of different uh, you know, bumps in the road before
you get to twenty twenty eight, I made the Deblasio
comparison right, which understandably, you know, we recoil from him.
He's a different figure. But you know, one difference is
that Bill de Blasio was a Red Sox fan. Bill
de Blasio is not someone who lived and breathed New York.
He didn't really kind of come across to people as
someone who just really loved the city. And when you
look at you know, Mike Bloomberg, you know, he was
not beloved by the city's you know, kind of progressive cadreds,
but you know, he was someone who didn't have to
be in that job, and he's someone there was a
certain kind of affection for him. If you look at
Mam Donni, Mam Donnie does seem to actually like New York.
You know, he's someone who actually, you know, he loves
the Halal carts. He loves that. You know, there's something
about him that seems earnest and approachable. And also, you know,
he's thirty three, so he has a lot of time.
And you know, I think that if you want a
scenario where a guy like this can become a really
you know, formidable threat, you know, on a national scale.
I actually don't think it would be rushing to a
twenty twenty eight presidential bid. And my suspicion is that
he gets that. And I think that when you're looking
at the fact that AOC was a very critical mover
in getting behind him, I think that there's a line,
and I don't think he's going to be looking to
jump that line. When you look at this world of
hard left political organizing, when you look at the DSA,
when you look at the people that they look to
as their you know, standard bearers, their inspirations, they believe,
you know, in building a discipline movement. You know, this
guy knocked on over one and a half million doors.
He did not do that by himself. He did that
with an army of volunteers, tens of thousands of them.
And I think that, you know, the I suspect the
moves are to basically co oct that nonprofit progressive establishment.
As you're governing cadres, you know, you take the helm
of certain key institutions, the commanding heights. The Department of
Education employs an awful lot of people. It's educating eight
hundred thousand plus students. You know, that's going to be
something very important when you have a grand ideological project
with the NYPD. I'm not sure exactly where they're going
to land, but there are a few different places when
the kind of people who are the people that you
know that I think of a civil terrorist in the streets,
people who claim to be protesting but who are in
fact intimidating and engaging in you know, basically manipulating the
fact that we are now not enforcing various laws, you know,
to create menacing protests. When those people feel as though
they have an ally in city hall, well maybe they
behave differently, right, maybe you know, kind of this is
going to be really interesting and complex because it could
be that he's a total imbecile and that he you know,
there's going to be a crisis day one and this
streets are going to be you know, a flame, and
then you know, kind of that's that. Another possibility is
that the city is already you know, it's already a
slow burn, it's already a death by a thousand cuts,
in which you basically are driving out private capital. Okay,
you know you're driving out you know the kind of
working class, middle class moderates. Okay, you're trying to kind
of like raise the temperature to do that. It's the
curly effect that doesn't necessarily hurt you if what you're
looking to is consolidate power over a city government that
has three hundred thousand employees. So you know, there are
many different ways this can play out. But I uh,
and by the way, what where I thought you were
going is that you can imagine. I think you can
imagine a spirited Eric Adams campaign, and we can talk
a bit about that. But I think that you know,
you can call it. You know, is Momdani the odds
on favorite? Of course he is. But I also think that,
you know, we should learn from having seen crazy things
happen that other crazy things can happen too.
Speaker 5: Well.
Speaker 1: If Trump gets the economy back on its feet and
everything comes along and industry is resure like General Electric
announcing they were going to do today, then people will
feel in twenty twenty eight as though they have the
permission to indulge in luxury beliefs because things are going someway.
Or if everything is cratered by twenty twenty eight, then
they'll think, well, we have no other choice. Let's give
repudiation of capitalism to try and see how that goes.
So yeah, who knows, and it will be interesting. I
do know this. I am. As I said at the
beginning of this. I love Manhattan. I wanted to thrive.
You know, However, if he crashes the office market, it's
entirely possible that they will not build the Commodore tower,
which means that it won't overshadow the Chrysler building, which
is something that I worry about. And why I worry
about that sitting here in Minneapolis, I don't know, only
that I sort of want to be able to go
there and see that magnificent inspire from every angle, and
I'll be blocked out by Commodore. And I hate the
new JP Morgan building. I gotta say, what do you think?
Speaker 4: You know?
Speaker 2: I just love capital investment, I love and employers who
want to create jobs in New York City. Yep. And
you know that's that's where I.
Speaker 1: Stand, all right, from an esthetic standpoint, we will have
to well, you know, we'll see, but yes, no, I
love the commitment that it represents, just like all the
rest of it. And will New York be still standing
in two or three.
Speaker 4: Years, of course it will.
Speaker 1: Will it be as interesting a place?
Speaker 4: Well, we'll talk to you again then about that.
Speaker 1: We thank you for joining today. We'll have you on
to talk about the book, which we didn't get around to.
But melting pot or civil war seems to be the
question that's in front of everybody these days. So give
that a pickup, and you can read his writing in
the Atlantic and National Affairs as well.
Speaker 4: Ryan sol I'm thank you for joining us today.
Speaker 1: Thanks guys, And we didn't get it. We didn't get
in the book. Hey, excuse me for interrupting here for
a second, but you know, we're talking about the effects
of all these things on business. Maybe you got one,
and maybe you started your business because it was your passion.
I'm talking to you listening to this saying, hey, yeah
that's me. I started a business. I was passionate about it.
But you know what, maybe you fell into HR hell
as your business got going. No, nobody's an expert in
all areas, and that includes HR. And that's why we're
excited to talk about an all in one solution that
can give you your time back to doing that which
you love to do most growing your business right well,
Bamboo HR it's a powerful, you had, flexible, all in
one HR solution for your growing business. It's not spending
countless hours on payroll and on time tracking and benefits
and performance management. Know with Bamboo HR, those hours are
shaved down to minutes. And that's why over thirty four
thousand companies trust Bamboo HR thirty four thousand because it's
an integrated system that's designed to handle your current and
your upcoming HR needs. Plus plus, Bamboo HR prides itself
on being easy, super easy, easy to use, easy to learn,
easy to implement, and very of course very easy to
love as well. Bamboo HR handles everything from hiring, to
onboarding to payroll and benefits.
Speaker 4: Don't you love it already?
Speaker 1: And when business owners switch to Bamboo HR, the intuitive
interface stands up right away. Take a couple of minutes
if you want to check out the free demo and
see how nimble and affordable this valuable too can be HR.
It's hard, but Bamboo HR is easy. Can't recommend Bamboo
HR enough. Check out out you himself with a free
demo with Bamboo hr dot com slash free demo that's
Bamboo hr dot com slash free demo bamboo hr dot
com slash free demo, and we thank bamboo hr for
sponsoring this the Ricochet Podcast. Well, it's been a consequential week.
What else can we talk about? Anything happened in any
place else? I think we sent a plane that dropped
the something on a manhole and then sent five precision
guidance venitions after it. And well, if you, of course
listen to what CNN was telling us, low impact didn't
really do anything, set them back about a day and
a half. Steven Charles, your thoughts on the ear on strike.
Speaker 4: Wait, wait, James, did you just say manhole?
Speaker 5: I mean it's there, please the personnel access covers.
Speaker 1: Now, Ah, you're right here. I'm using gendered language again.
That was what an old style guy.
Speaker 5: I still call him that too. No, well, look, I
don't really have anything. I don't know, either original or
consequential to say.
Speaker 4: I'm pleased that we.
Speaker 1: And that has stopped us all, that has stopped us
all when exactly here.
Speaker 5: Exactly right? Yeah, yeah, I mean I have to say that. Well,
first of all, a general comment that may upset Charlie
a little bit. The whole progress of Trump so far
seems to be reminding me, you're giving off an eighties feel,
you know, when Reagan came in and things just started
going well. And there are some parallels including, you know,
when the Israelis bombed the Iraqi nuclear reactor in what
June of nineteen eighty one and upset everybody, but privately
everyone was saying it was great. But here we now
know that Trump practiced active deception in several ways.
Speaker 4: Right. You know, we said, well, I'm going to wait two.
Speaker 5: Weeks to make a decision, when in fact the decision
had already been made, and the news has come out
late in the week that there was a lot more
coordination between Trump and net and Yahoo, and a lot
of deliberate misinformation fed out to the media to mislead
the Iranians. Topped all top with the fact that we
sent a whole lot of planes or conspicuously toward Guam,
which was thought to have been an effort to mislead
the Iranians, but I think might have had the secondary
purpose of telling the Chinese, you know what, we're paying
attention to your increased harassment of Taiwan and the Philippines.
So I don't know, Trump seems to me to be
dealing from a load of aces these days. And then
you know, lay here in the week NATO members say, okay, well,
increased defense spending to five percent of GDP, and another
headline that, oh, European country is saying what tariffs and
barriers can we give up and trade with the United
States to please Trump?
Speaker 4: That looks to me like a guy who's on a
roll morning in America.
Speaker 1: The strike with the strike with the equivalent of the
Granada invasion. And I don't say that lightly. That was
just one of those things that said, hey, we actually
can do something like this without crashing all our helicopters
in the desert and the faint towards Guam is you noted,
may indeed have been a reminder, nice little three gorgeous
damn you have there if anything happened to it, which
of course I don't think we would do, because the
loss of life would be absolutely fantastic. But you never know,
you never know, Charles, You thought.
Speaker 4: Why would that upset me, Steve? Oh, only because I know.
Speaker 5: You you're disdained for Trump is transparent and well worn,
well argued.
Speaker 4: I respect it, but in.
Speaker 6: Many quarters, sure, but I think I'm fair minded in
evaluating what he does, and I think what he did
here was good.
Speaker 4: I am of the view.
Speaker 6: That Congress is necessary, but that's a view that takes
issue with seventy five years of American president all with Trump.
Trump did nothing here that wouldn't have been done by
Obamba or Bill Clinton or Harry Truman. This was a
good decision I thought was well executed. I'm interested to
see what happens next. I'd love to know who is
right in the international community and their evaluation of how
much damage this did. But at the very least, it
seems that this is set back the program by months,
if not years, and given that we were in the
middle of a conflict that Israel began, justifiably, I think
it was correct of the United States to piggyback and
make sure that all three of the facilities were set
back or hopefully completely destroyed. This is, you know, something
we would not have got under President Harris, and we
should acknowledge that.
Speaker 1: No, but it's interesting that people are saying that President
Trump is all of his disinformation and lying in two
weeks and the rest of it has lost credibility. Now
nobody can really believe what he says, which is just
a sort of reflexive anti Trump nonsense you hear from
time to time. I mean, I've been on this podcast
many a year, and it's no secret that I have
different opinions on the man and his character and the
rest of it. But it doesn't matter in the end.
What matters are the actions, and what matters are the
consequences of the actions. And I thought this was just great.
I mean, the display of American power and precision is
awe inspiring, you know. And people equate this somehow with
as though we'd loaded everything up and attacked a Tehran
daycare center. I mean, this is a very specific application
of American morals as well as anything else, and that
appalls people who say, why just you know, Israel can
have nukes but Iran kent. Yes, that's absolutely true. That's
absolutely the way it works the country is that it
is a liberal democracy that grants free rights to all
sorts of people, regardless.
Speaker 4: Of their ethnicity.
Speaker 1: That is a tech superpower that is remarkable in its ingenuity. Yes,
those people who pose no threat to the Western civilization,
they get to have nukes.
Speaker 4: And these guys over.
Speaker 1: Here, a few of whom believe that the twelfth the
mom is going to clamber out of a well at
some point and caused the infidels to go up and smoke.
Speaker 4: They do not, I don't know.
Speaker 6: Wrong, it doesn't past the background check. Progressive instinctive, they
understand this. Israel and Iran both went through a background
check for these weapons, and Israel passed and Iran failed.
Speaker 1: That's a very good point because somebody who on TikTok
was saying, so, I don't know why the conservatives are
so upset, really, I mean, it's not you know, guns
don't kill people. People kill people, so you know, nuclear
weapons don't kill people.
Speaker 4: It's like, you know it.
Speaker 1: Well, yes, I mean, in a sense that's exactly what
we're saying, is that these are not the people that
you want toss in AR fifteen too. So there's that apparently, though.
I mean the native thing is interesting as well. But
it's also I think today when we're doing this is
the seventieth anniversary of America getting involved in the Korean War,
and I always cast my mind back to that and
think of the people who were still remembering the bruising
conflict of World War Two and the thought of getting
into another and the thought of it being as attracted
as it was. But yet the only lasting cultural impact
that it seems to have given us is Mash, which is,
you know, basically a Vietnam parable. He doesn't occupy the
same sort of space in the American imagination that Vietnam
or World War Two is.
Speaker 4: Why do you think that is?
Speaker 5: Well, I'll give you a couple of theories, partly reflecting
what my dad used to talk about in the Korean War,
which he was called up for out of the Navy reserves,
having fought throughout the entirety of World War Two in
the Navy, and he stayed in the reserves because a
lot of people that coming out of World War Two,
when their formal service ended, you know, it was one
hundred bucks a month, whatever it paid. And my dad
was a flyer, so it was a chance for him
to keep his flying current when he was a person
with you know, no means at that time, and so
it was nice to be able to fly on Uncle
Sam's dime. But he said that when suddenly the war
started and they called up the reserves to send to Korea,
a whole lot of the reserves said, hey, wait a minute,
we didn't think this meant going back to war, right,
and there was a lot of people trying to get
out of it and so forth. Anyway, my dad went
and began in Korea, and I think that you had
going for them then. Was you hinted to this, James?
There was the recollection that you know, we did pretty
well in World War Two. It was long and difficult,
but we won that, and so we had the track
record you might say, of winning conflicts, and you know,
Korea became very unpopular by degrees, to the point where
I think Truman's approval rating in fifty two, which is
one reason he didn't stand for reelection, was something you know,
in the high twenties or something dismal, and I think
the parallel here.
Speaker 4: It's not perfect, it never is, but.
Speaker 5: You know, there's this lingering unhappiness on all sides about
how badly things went, you know, fifteen twenty years ago
in Iraq and Afghanistan. And therefore you saw, you know,
we talked about this once before a lot of our
I guess i'll use the term paleocon friends like Dan
McCarthy and others saying absolutely Trump cannot back Israel and
get into this war in any fashion because it means
regime change in twenty years of occupation of Tehran and
other nonsense like that, I think it's pretty clear that
Trump has no intention of doing that, although he has
teased the idea of regime change, which I think is
a more important question than how bad the damage is
to Ford out elsewhere. So I mean, I think that's
I think the pendulum goes back and forth. Right, For
the First Gulf War in nineteen ninety ninety one, we
were told that that finally ended the Vietnam syndrome, but
then the Vietnam syndrome came back ten years later with
the Iraqi Afghanistan syndrome.
Speaker 4: So you know, here we are.
Speaker 5: I think the lasting effects of this will be good,
although that you know, depends on events as always.
Speaker 1: Well, with Afghanistan and Iraq, we won. We just hung
around and did skid things. I mean, we want that
wasn't a case of protracted a year after year slog
after slog. Afghanistan was a fairly fairly fast walkover, and Iraq.
Speaker 4: Too as well.
Speaker 1: Of course, the whole pacification and depatification and the rest
of that stuff's a little bit more complicated with that's
another podcast, Charles, anything else you want to tell.
Speaker 4: Us before we go out?
Speaker 1: Is there a British equivalent to the Korean experience in
this century?
Speaker 4: I don't know.
Speaker 6: The British famously stayed out to Vietnam, which gave British
people and military personnel and eighties a different view of war.
But the British have the same political trauma over the
Second Iraq War that the Americans have, and so they've
been brought into line.
Speaker 4: Now.
Speaker 1: Well, that is true, but as we know, things change,
minds are focused elsewhere quickly, and we'll see what the
rest of the year has to go, he says, obviously
wrapping things up. We'd like to thank Cozy earth Boy.
We would, and we'd like to thank Bamboo Hr as well.
Responsoring this show, you can do yourself a favor by
availing yourself with their fine products and making your life better, easy,
and more comfortable than all those things. You also might
want to go, Oh, I'm not even to say it,
Why do I even bother? I was going to tell
you to go to Apple Podcasts or any of the
place where you can possibly rate a podcast and give
us five stars, but I'm so tired of telling you,
I'm not going to tell you to do that, because well,
if you did, you know, would surface the show a
little bit more, get us some more subscribers, and perhaps
get people to go over to ricochet dot com and
see exactly where this stuff comes from. And if they
did that, they would find not only a front page
that is bursting with interesting pieces, but a member site,
a member page that you've got to pay a couple
of you know, shiny quarters to get to. But that's
where a community has been formed. That is the thing
you've been looking for all your.
Speaker 4: Days on the web.
Speaker 1: Forget Facebook, forget your Twitter, forget your Bumble, forget your
blue Sky. Go to ricochet dot com and sign up
right now. But I'm not going to say any of
that because I'm tired of it. I am not, however,
tired of talking Steven and Hayward. But it's Steven En
Hayward and Charlie En Cook. But it's time. But it's
time to go, and I've said too much. Thank you
for listening, and we'll see everybody in the comments at
Ricochet four point zero.
Speaker 4: Bye bye