Speaker 1: Ask not what your country can do for you, ask
what you can do for your country.
Speaker 2: Mister Gorbachoff teared down this wall.
Speaker 1: It's the Ricochet Podcast with Stephen Hayward and Charles C. W. Cook.
I'm James Lilyax and today we're going to talk about
everything from the Caribbean to cable TV. So let's have
ourselves a podcast.
Speaker 3: President Trump and Secretary Hegseth have made it clear that
presidentially designated narco terrorist groups are subject to lethal targeting
in accordance with the laws of war. Secretary Hegseth authorized
Admiral Bradley to conduct these kinetic strikes. Admiral Bradley worked
well within his authority and the law, directing the engagement
to ensure the boat was destroyed and the threat to
the United States of America was eliminated.
Speaker 1: Welcome everybody, It's the Ricochet Podcast, Episode number seven hundred
and sixty seven. You love the Denser plane, You'll adored
as a podcast and you can join us at ricochet
dot com. Why well, you can be part of the
most stimulating conversations and community on the web period. I'm
James Lylex here in cold and snowy Minnesota. Whereas instantly
Christmasy and Stephen Hayward joins us from somewhere some booklined place,
and Charles C. W. Cook in I imagine Florida, which
probably I don't know who the tempts dipping down into
the lower seventies or something. I don't want to hear
about it. I hate you, gentlemen. How are you today?
I'm good, warm, okay, thank you, thank you very much,
warm warm. It was one below yesterday as I was
walking the dog, and the dog did not want to
have any of it. Frankly, So the thing where the
dog does his business against a tree and you hear
a snapping sound because his stream is frozen and he
ties to disengage. But enough of that. I live here
by choice, and so do a enowfull lot of other people,
including Tim Waltz, who's our governor. Do you guys find
it interesting somehow that all of the things that are
being said now about Minnesota by everyone from the New
York Times, Christopher Ruffo too. The President himself didn't seem
to come up very much when he was a vice
presidential Kennedy, why was that?
Speaker 4: Well, I hope you're not suggesting, James that the American
media is in some way biased toward one of the
major political parties, and say suppresses or refuses to cover
stories that it thinks might hurt that party.
Speaker 1: No, I wouldn't say anything that's treason, that that's that's
calumn near that I will not hear of such words
spoken against my former profession. But it might actually be
something that people consider suspect. Stephen were you. We keep
being told that this story is being told. I mean
everyone's been talking about the fraud, that the fraud has vetted,
the fraud was baked into the cake. Everyone knew about it, did.
Speaker 2: You, well, I did, only because you know my former
writing partner power Line Scott Johnson has been reporting on
this for several years, even attending most of the trials
in the courtroom, which you know, not many other reporters
are doing. I put this in a larger context. The
latest issue of the New York Review of Books just
landed in my mailbox. Now I read it so you
don't have to. And it's good opposition research. And the
lead review is of Kamala Harris's one hundred and seven Days,
and it's absolutely savage. And this is not the first
review from the left trashing Harris, and I think Waltz
is now fair game too. I think Democrats want to
demonize Biden, Harris and Waltz for their obvious mediocrity and worse,
so it's to put them behind us. And so now
it's open season on them because it's safe for them
to do so, and maybe they think necessary.
Speaker 1: What are the exact criticisms in remarks that they have
to say about Harris. Are they critiquing the book for
being banal and obvious and boring and yes, and unburdened
by what was? Or are they actually going after the
individual herself as being an insufficiently marvelous inspiration.
Speaker 2: Well, they don't say that directly, that's certainly hinted at,
and that she lacked courage certainly to push out Biden earlier,
along with the rest of the party of leadership. By
the way, it's a very broad gauge indictment of the
sort of upper reaches of the Democratic Party, which, as
I say these days, I like to read the left
attacking Democrats with a bowl of popcorn handy because it's fun.
Speaker 1: Person So this is all, however, water under the bridge.
Tim Waltz isn't running for vice president again? Eyes will
shift from Minnesota, or has the president's remarks on the
Somali community here? Actually I don't know, lit a fire
or rekindled a fire under the whole immigration, assimilation, et
cetera debate to Charles, or is this just going to
be something that is waved away, placed in context of
previous waves of immigration? No reason to question our gorgeous mosaic,
et cetera, et cetera, Which is my suspicion that it
will all be generally forgotten here except here in Minnesota,
where I think Wallves is going to have a little
bit more difficulty than he thought.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I would be savaged by chext notes Mike Lindell.
Speaker 1: Right, which is not going to happen. The GOP in
Minnesota consistently puts up the strangest artist and most ineffective candidate.
It's been a long time since they put up somebody
who I think could even make a bit of a
hint of an inroad into into Minnesota. I mean Minneapolis,
the metro area solidly blue, so blue, very blue. But
beyond that the outstate, well we'll see once again, Yes,
Minnesota focused the world and I hate it.
Speaker 4: I think that they will try and sweep it under
the rug. I think they are trying. One of the
things that I have found the most annoying about this.
Speaker 5: Is that.
Speaker 4: While many of the Democrats who have criticized Trump's rhetoric
have a point at the edge, that is to say,
I don't want to hear a president describing people as garbage,
and he has painted too broad a brush, I've heard
none of them lead with this is a disgrace and
a disservice to the taxpayers of Minnesota, and we're going
to prosecute it because it's wrong.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, there's seventy seven people.
Speaker 5: I know they have.
Speaker 4: But what I'm saying is that it is all pushback
against Trump, and that's the only part of the story
they will not acknowledge Tina Smith, is that her name
and Amy Klobasha and Tim Walls, they won't come out
and say, yeah, this is really bad, and it is
really bad. And the other part of it is they've
adopted a standard here that they don't adopt in any
other circumstance. So I obviously don't follow this as closely
as you do, Jenn, because I don't live in Minnesota.
But whenever I hear this general topic discussed, I hear
this phrase the Somali community, and they always talk about
it as if it is uniform. It is a thing
to which politicians can ascribe other things or from which
they can deduce things. The Somali community, How dare you,
et cetera. But now they're all atomized individuals. You can't
possibly generalife. We can't refer to the Somali community. That's
an attack on the American idea. Well, okay, I'm open
to that. I'm an individualist, but pick one. Don't in
one circumstance say the Somali community thinks we must do
this for this amount, and then in the other circumstance say, well,
you can't refer to this assay Somali fraud ring, which
it is. That's very annoying to me.
Speaker 1: Yes, well we'll go back, go on.
Speaker 2: So I think there's a second subtext at work here. Then,
one reason they don't call it out, Charles, I think
is at some point in the last fifteen years. I
think it actually dates back to the aftermath of the
financial crisis in two thousand and eight, the left decided
that all these social welfare programs were airsats redistribution of wealth,
and they severed the link between you know what we
used to call either deserving poor or you know, people
who were genuinely needed government assistants, which Democrats used to
pay lip service to at least and sometimes actually took action,
like Bill Clinton thirty years ago with welfare reform. And
you started seeing after the Great Financial Crisis that the
number of people on disability doubled. There weren't that many
more disabil but this is a welfare program that people
could apply to and we give them out. And we
learned here during the government shutdown. I thought I kept
up with these things, but I was shocked to learn
that there are forty two million Americans on SNAP, which
we used to call food stamps. And by the way,
maybe the fact that it's now a card that you
get and so you look like the next person with
a credit card of the checkout line, instead of having
to pull out those stamps out of your wallet, which
you know, the ever sensitive leftists and social workers said
stigmatize people who were on food stamps. Right, Well, you know,
we have extraordinary numbers of people on all all these
different public assistance programs, and I think for a lot
of people on the left, you say fraud, and they
don't think of it that way, because I think this
is long overdue redistribution of wealth. It's not as direct
as we might like with a wealth tax and all
the rest, or you know, an official universal basic income,
but it's so rough substitute, and they're all for it,
and that's why they're uninterested in policing fraud. By the way,
Minnesota is not the only state. We have a similar
scale out. In California, going back several years now, unemployment
claims during COVID and other COVID programs were massively oversubscribed
in a fraudulent way that even some of the state
auditors have flagged. And nothing's happened to anyone, as there's
been no accountability for it.
Speaker 1: Part of it, maybe you know, in the back of
their heads, I think you're thinking, you're right, that it's redistribution,
and that's necessary to get good, eat the rich, kill
the billionaires. That's part of it. A little bit more
in the forefront is the idea that we should not
be too questioning of the people who are doing this
and these organizations, because that would seem to be I
don't know that would have a racialist aspect to it,
so they're kind of squeamish about that. But the thing
that strikes me over and over and over again is
that Minnesota has been eating its seed corn for so
long we've been throwing it in the microwave and dousing
it with butter, forgetting that what this state had ever since, Well,
trace it back however long you wish. But it's got
that Scandinavian Nordic social welfare model where everybody contributes a
high amount and is guaranteed of a sane, civil, sensible
run society because there's high social trust, there's cohesion, there's
cultural cohesion, and we're all part of that completely breaks
down when you introduce into it people who just simply
do not share that particular mindset it does. And you
can't say that what we need cultural diversity on one hand,
and then on the other hand to say, oh, but
the other diverse cultures will regard this fountain of money,
this corniacope of cash, the same way that the other
previous Minnesotans do, because they won't. That's just not the
basic culture from which they come. So yeah, yeah, and
it won't change. It simply won't change because of the
monolithic nature of the DFL and the people who will
vote for it no matter what, because to vote for
an R is to be Oswald Mosley. Yeah, well you
mentioned a disability. One of the things that I found
interesting this week is not just the people who claim
disability in order to get the government benefits, but a
study that showed that on several major prestigious US campus,
twenty thirty forty percent at Stanford, I think of the
students regard themselves as some form of disabled, and here
it's a completely different thing. Here it is you know,
the disabilities are more neurological in for more psychological or
gender relator to the rest of it, and they're ending
up having to craft these innumerable compensations and accommodations for
people who basically are fine. But it's a badge now
of your specialness to have one of these diverts, to
have a disability, as it actually elevates you to some
to a more exalted status, and between that and the
government largest for claiming yourself to be so is not
good anyway.
Speaker 4: That's can I give a slightly more cynical take on that.
Speaker 1: I would love it. I'm not exactly sure. I've been
all rainbows and unicorns and happy pink past els, but
go ahead now.
Speaker 4: Well, I think that part of this, as you say,
is that people want the badge because they think that
it puts them in the special category. But I think
a lot of it stems from the left's inability to
understand the immutability of human nature. It's good old fashioned
advantage seeking. It's people who are often from good and
wealthy families, who have high ikes, who are in no
way the types for which these programs or dispensations were
set up, recognizing that their faculty and the bureaucracy around
them are weak and pliable, and that if they say
a bunch of magic words, then they can eke out
a little more space between them and the next guy
and come out with better job prospects and higher salary.
Speaker 5: I think it is.
Speaker 4: The same sort of human conduct we would have expected
two thousand years ago and ten thousand years ago.
Speaker 1: If these things existed. There's probably a Sumerian stone at
which somebody has hammered some hieroglyphs about how they are
a broken leg and therefore are entitled to a crutch
that the state should provide. I'm Greg Corumbus, joined Jim
Garrity of National Review and me each weekday for the
Three Martin Lunch Podcast. We'll give you the good, bat
and crazy news of the day and lots of laughs too.
Find us right here on the Ricochet Audio Network at
ricochet dot com or wherever you get your podcasts. Well,
let's move on to something a little bit happier. Stranger
Jay six Bomber. All of a sudden, All of a sudden,
they got the guy. All of how that happened? Do
you think that a fire was lit under some agencies
or some new information suddenly surfaced? And is he? Is
he who we thought he would be?
Speaker 2: First of all, I think there is a legitimate question
of why the FBI wasn't actively pursuing this case under Biden.
I mean they were saying at the time that we
think this is a sideshow. It was you know, hoax,
It was not serious, and it turned out that it was.
And apparently the investigation involved a lot of that old
fashioned deep digging that the FBI can do. What I mean,
they pay something like two hundred thousand transactions to trace,
to try and ferret out this guy, you know, buying
the parts to make these bombs. This guy wasn't like
the unibomber who made his own screws. If you remember
the way that guy made his bombs way back when,
and so you wonder why that didn't happen, and I
hope somebody asked that question of the of the previous
FBI regime. But then the guy looks like and it's
early yet, but he looks like he's kind of a nut.
He's saying, I thought the election was stolen, and so
he's gonna plant bombs outside both the r n C
and d n C. H it's a bit strange. I
think we're gonna find this guy as a nutcase. Yeah,
and not part of a conspiracy, I'll put it that way.
Speaker 1: But not an inspec I mean, but not you know,
in that case that he thought odd things, but not
an insane man, because if you can do all these
things and get undetected, I reserve insanity for the people
who are running naked with long hair through Times Square
screaming about the demons that are clawing at them.
Speaker 5: I mean that.
Speaker 1: I don't say a guy who believes peculiar things is mad.
He's just.
Speaker 2: Well, when I say that, I didn't necessarily mean that
in the usual psychological sense. But he's one of these
persons who has odd, contradictory and unconventional views that don't
make rational sense to a normal person.
Speaker 1: Gerald, do you agree or did you think that he
is been looking over his shoulder all of these years,
wondering why these guys aren't coming for him or what.
Speaker 4: Well, I assume he's been doing that. I do think
it's possible to be crazy and then to latch on
to political messages that you didn't rationally arrive at. And
I often tried to draw that distinction when talking about
people who commit crime. So there's the sort of person
who says, well, I'm being controlled by my toaster, and
then there's a sort of person who is crazy and
then reads in the newspaper that a boat sank and
becomes obsessed with that and decides that he did it.
And you know, he's not a maritime expert. You wouldn't
blame people who in boats. It just so happened that
he came across that as an explanation. I don't think
we know enough about this guy to know whether he
was either of those, or the third category, which is
the sane, if evil political actor who concluded that the
election had been stolen and they tried to blow up
the government. And there are people in that category.
Speaker 1: They You're right, the early twentieth century, in the sixties
and seventies abound with completely rational people who believed evil
things who were content to bomb away. The people who
bombed the you know, the the capital back in the days.
They're not nuts and not crazy. They just believe this
is the most efficacious way to make their point. I mean,
you mentioned the unibomber for Remans as.
Speaker 5: Yeah, he was.
Speaker 4: Rational, and you know, the distinction you would draw, maybe
is between the man who attacked the navy yard ten
years ago, who thought that he was being controlled through
the walls of his apartment by the government crazy and
the man who killed Charlie Kirk, who I think was
a political actor who decided to advance his political agenda
with a murder. And I just don't know enough about
this guy yet to decide which one he was.
Speaker 1: Well, we'll find out elsewhere around the planet. We're having
a big debate about whether Pete Higsseeth should go because
they're double tapping the guys who are bringing the drugs in,
and as we're informed, Venezuela is not bringing an awful
lot of fentanyl in. These guys are probably bringing in
something else like okaine. It's one of those those issues
that had it been Obama, I tend to believe that
we would be talking about the bold and decisive potesst
steps that were being taken to keep Americans safe and healthy.
But we're having a big debate about these guys because
the New York Times, I think, ran a story about
one of the other boats and took a look at
the guys who were on it, and you know, they
weren't really carteil guys. They were just you know, they
loved soccer, They went to church and the rest of it,
and just happened to find themselves in his boat bringing
drugs into the country. Charles, I know that you are
a stickler for such things, that even though something we
may say good, good, blow them up. That you are
one of the types who will, you know, differ and demure,
so defer in demure away.
Speaker 5: Because I love them.
Speaker 4: I love Pedro. I love Pedro, the cocaine trafficker. I
hate the US. I hate it some military. I want
Javier and Pedro to succeed and to bring in as
many dangerous and perhaps fatal drugs as they can.
Speaker 5: And that's, as I've.
Speaker 4: Learned this week, James, the only reason that anyone could
possibly have any objections to this action. Now, look, I
object to this for a couple of reasons. One, there
is no congressional authorization for this action.
Speaker 5: There's none.
Speaker 4: There's no declaration of war, there's no authorization for the
use of military force. It's not even a statute that
in some tangential way provides the executive branch with the
capacity to preemptively kill those it suspects suspects not proved
suspects of drug running. I object to it because, while
this is not always the case, those boats do not
pose a threat to the US military. Thankfully, the US
military is extremely competent and powerful and is entirely capable
of stopping, boarding, and searching these boats without opening fire first.
If those boats open fire on the US military, then
blow them out of the water. But that isn't the case.
This is not a threat, and I object to it
because we are seeing the abuse of language here from
the apologists in a way that usually and rightly upsets conservatives.
We're seeing those drug traffickers described as terrorists. We're seeing
cocaine described as chemical weapons.
Speaker 5: These things are not true.
Speaker 4: So I am not all jokes to the contrary, a
fan of drug traffickers, But I don't think that's the
material question here. I think the question here is under
what circumstances are we going out into the Caribbean and opening.
Speaker 5: Fire without questions? I have a big problem with it.
Speaker 4: Yeah, And to me, the question of the double tap
in Pete's Heggs's role, which I am skeptical of. The
Post reporting, which I think was largely superseded by the Times,
is reporting. It is secondary. It's important because it's now
been raised, but it's secondary to the material point here,
which is, sorry, at what point did we get involved
in this?
Speaker 5: And on whose authority?
Speaker 1: Well, Stephen, can you tell us the big leaf of
authority under which this is being Well?
Speaker 2: Yeah, So I disagree to a large extent, but not
completely with Charlie's point of view. By the way, about
the double tap, has anyone seemed to notice what happened
by focusing in on this second strike? The objection up
till now has been the first strike for some of
the reasons Charlie and others make. But suddenly this is given. Oh,
it's almost as though the premise here is, oh, the
first strike, I guess is okay, but not a second one.
I think it's kind of a You almost wonder if
Trump thought of that on purpose. I think that. Here's
why I different with Charlie. I do think that it
is within the Commander in chief's powers to order these
strikes with the military. I do think more should be
done to justify it, though that's where we agree. I
did check with our pal John Yu, because I'm easier
than doing the research myself. When President Jefferson sent out
the Marines to go after the Barbary pirates in eighteen
oh three, there was no direct congressional authorization. They did, however,
make an appropriation or some resolution to say the Marines
can go on a training exercise, which isn't exactly what
they did, but it's better than nothing. So I think
the larger context here, and here's where I think I
probably a closer to Charlie's view, is, you know, we
have this slow tilla down in Venezuela. We don't need
all those boats to chase these drug runners. It's pretty
clear that we are trying to affect regime change in Venezuela,
although we don't want to say that directly because that
phrase is toxic. And by the way, I think I've
said this before. If I haven't, I'll just say it again.
I'm convinced that Venezuela is a dedicated enemy of our
country and has been collaborating closely with the Iranians, among others,
probably the Chinese and who knows who else. In other words,
I suspect if we knew all the facts, there would
be a reasonable causes belly on our part. However, we
aren't being told these facts. We're not being given a case.
And you know, once again, my mind runs back to
nineteen eighty three, when out of the blue, we invaded
Grenada to rescue some American students the medical school and
essentially get rid of the crazy regime that was further
to the radical communist side than the existing community. It
was a confused scene, right. However, what people should know
is remember, because I do, is in March of that year.
The Grenada invasion was October. In March of that year,
Ronald Reagan gave a Oval Office address. Presidents don't seem
to make those anymore. Talking entirely about Central America. It
was actually his first major speech about Central America, and
he was laying out the case of why we need
to contain Nicaragua. But along the way he said, you know,
it turns out that the Cubans are building this huge
military installation at Grenada. What are they doing that for?
It can't be any good. So Reagan had told us
ahead of time what the reasons were for for watching
out for Grenada, and if you remember that, when the
invasion happened, it made some sense. So we're not getting
an explanation for what we're trying to do in Venezuela,
and I think that is a mistake.
Speaker 1: Agreed, But to the two points that Charles made, I
want to know whether or not these ships have sailed
and suck. The first is finding some sort of congressional
action that justifies these things. We like to think that
they The President goes to the Houses of Congress, makes
the point, makes the point of the American people. There's
a vote that seems to be the way we think
things ought to be, but they aren't, especially when it
comes to things like budgets. We don't sit down and
discuss individual items in the budget. We just pass yay
or nay a blob, which again is not how we
think things should be. And when it comes to the language,
I agree with Charles. They're not terrorists. They're bad guys,
but they're not terrorists in the sense of people who
are trying to use violence to achieve a political means.
And if you want to recategorize fentanyl and cocaine as
chemical warfare, it's not because that denudes the original items
of their power. But at the same time, everybody people
will tell idealists like Charles is that if we don't start,
if we don't start using their tactics, then we're never
going to win. That the time for holding fast to
these ideals is gone because we have to we have
to do things. Things must be done. So you're quibbling
over little things like language when they're wibbling when they're
trying to make the country and the people straight safe
and healthy.
Speaker 4: I just don't think anyone who had found that argument
would be very pleased with it if it came at
them at one hundred miles an hour after they've been
arrested and accused of crime.
Speaker 1: Of course, not that that's the whole you know, these
are the new rules. You're not gonna like them. But
everybody always thinks that. But again they will say, and
I'm not making this argument because I don't agree with it,
I'm just phrasing it. They will say that we are
in this mess precisely because we refused to fight in
the same way that the other side did. And I
find it hilarious that the Democrats believe that they're out
of power because they didn't get as nasty. And you know,
as each side seems to accuse themselves, accused their own
side of not being as bad as the other guys.
But you know, you've heard this on the right from
time to time. It's the people who stand there with
their principles who get mauled every time, and the end
result is the end of a society that allows them
to have their principles.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 4: It's just a little bit odd, isn't it that that
argument in the realm of foreign policy is coming from
the people who said that they were America first non
interventionists and being thrown at people such as myself who
are accused falsely for the record of being neo con adventurists.
I mean, I'm the guy who, as a matter of record,
I've written about this has been uncomfortable on constitutional grounds,
with the bombing of the Iranian nuclear facilities, with Trump's
bombing of Syria in twenty seventeen, with Barack Obama's attempted
military action in Syria in twenty thirteen, which he canceled,
with the invasion of Libya in twenty ten. So I'm
not what some people assume. I am some sort of
foreign interventionist gung ho type, but I'm nevertheless accused of it,
of people who say, listen, we have to deal with
things at home. We can't go running around the world
playing policemen.
Speaker 5: And now I'm the naive. I know you're not accuse
me of this. Of James. I'm just saying I have been
told this. I'm now the naive.
Speaker 4: John Lennon imagines singing pacifist who doesn't understand the imperative
that is the United States policing It's waltzs. I find
this bizarre. I honestly I can't quite believe that this
has happened, given well, the rhetoric of the last decade.
Speaker 1: It is Stephen. Let's put it this way. While people
like to say good good drug boats blown up stuff
that's bad doesn't get to our shores. Good may not
be a lot, but it's a start, and somebody's doing something,
and we always like to see something being done. But
if we really wanted to do something about this, there's
two things that we have to address, and that is
supply and demand. We don't like to talk about demand
a lot because demand puts the onus on the people
in America who are taking it. They're not all helpless
fix There's nobody coming from Venezuela and prying their mouth
open and shoving down a pill and then using a
plunger to make sure it's absorbed in their stomach. There isn't.
But by the same token, most of it doesn't come
from Venezuela. I think that's why a lot of people
are surprised, like really, drug boats out of Venezuela, because
it's Mexico, because it's coming through Canada, because it's coming
from precursor plants that you know, Chinese provided precursor chemicals.
There are other places to start, and maybe we're kind
of wondering why or not necessarily contradicting my first point.
Do you think that there actually is a lot of
stuff going on that we just don't hear about because
the Seals don't issue an after action report after they've
taken out a cartil lab in a Mexican jungle.
Speaker 2: Well, I mean, in the case of Venezuela, I started
wondering about them more than fifteen years ago when you
started having direct flights from Tehran to Caracas, and you
don't need direct flights for people to coordinate their oil
output as part of the whole OPEC drama that happens
every year. I think this was And there's been other
periodic reports here and there of Venezuelan support for a
conduit to loss and some of the other bad actors
in the world, and I think they're all four Uh.
I mean yeah. I dimentions of where the drugs come from,
who's using them, and what's the most effective way to
reduce it. I don't know what the answers to those are.
We've talked about drug treatment and stuff forever. Uh. And
I was skeptical about the war on drugs for a
long time, but I'm now not so sure seeing the
results of of legalized marijuana, that the idea of legalizing
hard drugs is such a good idea anymore. Our libertarian
friends still think so very much. But I don't know.
I think it has a solitary effect if if it's
if what I'm saying is correct, I think there would
be a solitary effect if Venezuela were halted and turned around.
Speaker 1: Yeah, we'd like to see them better. I just find
a damned odd. I was in Boston over the last
week for Thanksgiving, and what do you see in Boston
in the skyline a big sign for Citgo. Sidgo is
owned by Venezuela. Yeah, yeah, it's it's a bit complex.
They're I mean, they're they're head quartered in Houston, but
they are owned by the by Petroleum of Venezuela, you know,
and so so yes, it's a state owned company, which
is just bizarre.
Speaker 2: Yeah, well remember just we're just briefly, I mean, the
Biden administration relaxed sanctions against Venezuela and Venezuelan oil in
return for a Venezuelan pregs that they would have an
honest and free and fair election that they would follow,
and they didn't. And to my knowledge the Biden administration
did not put the sanctions back on. I'm not sure
that Trump administration has entirely done so either. I think
we've made some exemptions. I think it's for Chevron to
work on some oil projects in Venezuela in part because
Chevron has a I think or maybe Exxon has a
big commitment to the new oil fields in Guyana, which
apparently Venezuela covets. And that's an interesting little subtext going
on too.
Speaker 4: Can I ask one more question on this topic if
we put aside my constitutional objections and assume we would
need a congressional butte to satisfy the rules, and is
there a case for the United States more generally getting
involved within its sphere a la the Monroe doctrine that
is consistent where the fear of foreign interventionism? In other words,
is it reasonable to say we don't want the United
States going into the Middle East or Vietnam, it's too
far away, it ends in disaster. But yeah, if Mexico
or Venezuela or Cuba become a problem, we're going.
Speaker 5: To take him out.
Speaker 4: Is that a strand of thought that could come back
from the early nineteenth century.
Speaker 2: Or the early nights. Yeah, the nighting A's or nineteen well, actually,
that's kind of when it started to change a bit.
James Robald Reagan's views on this evolved and were quite
curious by the time he left office, because you know,
the great story of the left was that we what
was at Guatemala, We invaded to bail out United Fruit
Company or something stet That whole old story persists. But
by the time he got to the end of Reagan's
last term, there was the big agitation to invade Panama
because Manuel Noriega wasn't implicated the drug trade and money
longering and all kinds of terrible things.
Speaker 1: He was waving around a machete on television. He had
he had the complexion of a pineapple. He was a
weird guy waving around a machete, and you.
Speaker 2: Know, right, but they all, you know, the whole National
Defense establishment came to Reagan said we got to invade Panama.
Take this guy out. He's a bad guy. And Reagan said, no,
I'm not going to do that. I don't want to
do that. Reagan was really quite forced averst on optional
things like Panama, and he wrote in his diary he says,
you know, my travels in Latin America, which were extensive
during his two terms and really have made me sympathize
with the view that we Northern Yankees have been too
aggressive in overseeing their countries and that we should we
should take a lighter approach to Latin America. And no,
I don't think he was wrong. I do think I
guess sorry, I haven't been around about I think the
creative answer to your question, Charlie is is we ought
to conceive of something that I'm not Those examples are
going to be bad ones for a lot of listeners.
We ought to have something that resembles well, we have
the Organization of American States. I'm not sure whether we're
really a part of that, but I think something that's
like NATO or like the European Union but not brustlized
would be the way to go forward with Latin America.
Speaker 1: Yeah, there are two things to remember about that time.
One is Jen Kirkpatrick saying that there is a distinction
between totalitarianism and authoritarianism. And she had a point, and
people made fun of her at the time and talked
about how this was a distinction without a difference. It
was just used to justify. But totalitarian states do not evolve.
They crack and sunder and fall apart. Authoritarian states, under
her view, do have the potential to evolve in something
more civils and more more or less onerous to the people.
Speaker 2: And then many of them became democratic in the age too, right, right.
Speaker 1: And the other was the break f doctrine, which says
that any you know, any state that went communist, there's
no going back from that. So you combine those two things,
and you combine Soviet aggression, aggression, yes, diplomatic military sneaky whatever,
in the care in the in the in Central America
in the eighties, and the fact that the Cold War
was still going on. You can well understand why the
United States had a keen eye on the composition of
the governments there because you had Cuba, Nicaragua falls, El
Salvador falls, and the rest of it. It means you
have to get him with a lot of unsavory characters
that that you know that Oliver Stone doesn't like. But
the alternative is to see the entire lake to uh,
you know, to the Russians in that case, Now, that
just seems absurd because as we all know, they were weak,
Gorby was going to come along. He was Gorby loved peace.
He wanted nothing more than you know all that bs.
But at the time it was I keenly remembered these
things occupying the American psyche for the entirety of the eighties.
It was a big deal. So for Charles to say
the nineteen you know, should we get back to the
nineteenth century idea? I mean no, to me's that's that's
my twenties right there is caring what goes on there? Now?
Do we really care whether or not Daniel Ortega is
in charge at this moment at Nicaragua, which still to
this moment they pains me amazing. Probably not? Probably not?
Or should we worry that much about you know else?
Should we look at El Salvador as an example perhaps
that the other states can follow if they want to,
you know, reclaim their streets and the safety of their people. Yes,
But do we invade if El Salvador as president goes
it falls to a military coup? No, it's not the
same because we're not dealing with the Ruskies, and China
is much better at just sort of getting what they
want with a little money. In Belton Road, and getting
people on the hook for that.
Speaker 5: So that's what I have.
Speaker 4: To plead extreme youth and beauty from my parents.
Speaker 1: Well, I was there, young man. I was there, and
I remember.
Speaker 2: Well, my my favorite joke from that time, James, was
from m Stanton Evans who said the Falklands lore between
Britain and Argentina. It was really difficult for conservatives because
on the one hand we like imperialism, but on the
other hand we like military dictatorships, so it's hard to choose.
Speaker 1: No, no, we didn't. All I know is it made.
It made Elvis Gustello very sad and he wrote a
lamenting song about it.
Speaker 4: Hi, this is a young Culter.
Speaker 1: Welcome to my Ricochet podcast.
Speaker 2: And Coulter every week on Ricochet. You're home to center
right conversation.
Speaker 1: Hey, that was pretty good. All right, Well, let's step
away from the lake in our backyard and go to
something else. It's a Texas SCOTOS has given a green
light to that Texas redistribution map, and we know that
jerrymandering and redistribution is a big thing right now because
various states are either depending on whether you like California
or Texas, control and drive out the opposition or create
things that allow diversity to flourish, et etcetera, etcetera. I
have not I know virtually nothing about this, so I'm
going to throw it out to you guys, who no
doubt have been absorbing its details keenly and can tell
us all what to think. What do I think about this?
Speaker 2: Well, two quick thoughts. One is I think I said
this before that jerrymandering was never a scandal or a
threat to democracy until Republicans got good at it. Then
suddenly the media and everybody fell into line. But I
do think what this Supreme Court order means is that
the Voting Rights Act case that was argued a couple
months ago has been decided. I mean, the justices always
vote on a case the same week they hear them.
They can change bouts later, but usually not. And so
my guess is that the the lower court ruling that
struck down the Texas attempted map redrawing was going to
fall prey to the Voting Rights Act case, which we
probably won't get the opinion on for several months yet,
because I think the liberal dissenters it's probably a six'
to three, vote it's my. Guess and the liberal dissenters
are going to want to screen from the rooftops about
how this is all terrible because it's attacking fundamental voting.
Rights SO i think that's the hint THAT i take
from how quickly the court moved on.
Speaker 1: This, Charles i'm gonna ask you to combine two, things
one your thoughts on redistricting and two your thoughts on warm.
Sheets And i'm going to get to you about that
in just a, second BECAUSE i have to tell you. Something,
folks we are coming up, to you. KNOW i think
the holidays is what they call, Them christmas or something like.
THAT i hear the songs in the. Mall It's. December
we all know what it, is and you, Know thanksgiving
us a little past. Us. Now you're probably, relaxing but
you're gearing up because it's going to be a month
of doing, stuff the, hustle the, bustle and in all
of the time you had ahead of, you you, think
what do you look forward to the. Most, well it's the,
parties it's the, family it's the. Friends but it's also
those moments where you can just slow down and not
do anything and take a, breather cozy up and just
be present in the. Moment oh and speaking of, presents
he said with a segue That Rob long would have
stepped on years. Ago ask, yourself who's on Your christmas
list this? Year and who on your shopping list deserves
a gift that helps them Relax, now whether you're a,
parent you're a, partner or even if you're doing a
little shopping for yourself like, me Because i'm in the sheets.
Market there's no going wrong With Cozy earth's luxurious, Bedding
Cozy earth's lounge, Ware, Oh Cozy earth's pajamas and, no
you can't wear them on the. Plane you'll want to,
though because they're that. Solved maybe you'd like to hear
from someone who can tell you a little bit more
about redistricting and The Cozy earth. Experience that would Be.
Charles And i'm going to give him a break, here
and he doesn't really have to combine the two topics
BECAUSE i know he'd rather tell you about how great
these sheets. Are.
Speaker 4: Charles they are, great, Right they're, breathable they're, comfortable they
are up to my wife's exacting, standards which is very.
Important they can be slept in and are slept in
in the cook household. All, yeah around all though of
course only by people who live in the cook households
that don't show up trying to get into those. Sheets
you won't be allowed. To you want, to, though because
they are fantastic sheets that we have enjoyed in the
enormous amount of time we spend a, sleep, which when
you think about, it is actually kind of.
Speaker 1: Alarming, yeah, WELL i WISH i had a more enormous.
Time i'm you, Know i'm going to get these sheets
for the next. Bed and one of the great things about,
it here's the deal you. Get and WHEN i say,
DEAL i you, know get this rest assured that Knowing
Cozy earth comes with one hundred nights sleep trial and
a ten year. Warranty how to tell you how good
these things are and how much they stand behind, them
and how much they know you're going to love, them
and now you're going to get them. Cheaper give the
gift of everyday luxury this holiday. Season head to cozyearth
dot com and use the copon Code ricochet for up
to forty percent. Off i'm not. Lying ricochet code forty percent.
Off just be sure to place your order By december
twelfth and that'll guarantee that it gets there By. Christmas
if you're listening to this a little bit, later don't.
Worry the goupon Code ricochet still works year round for
twenty percent. Off and if you get that post purchase,
survey be sure you mentioned that you heard about it
right here At. Ricochet act now before the twelfth for
forty percent. Off that's. Fantastic give the gift of comfort
that lasts beyond the holidays and carries into a Cozy New.
Year and we Thank cozier for sponsoring this The Ricochet.
Podcast and now That i've completed the, ENDORSEMENT i wanted to,
say and if you come to the cook household and
attempt to sleep in their great, sheets you will be.
SHOT i.
Speaker 5: Quite.
Speaker 1: Possibly. So, well here's something That, CHARLES i know is
not in your wheelhouse, necessarily But i'm going to ask you.
About it has to do with media. Consolidation netflix set
to Buy Warner brothers And, discovery WHICH i find very
strange because it's the channel THAT i don't watch in
a credit card That i've never. Had but for some,
Reason discovery And Warner brothers are worth seventy two billion
dollars that's a lot of, money and it feels like
one of those end of a boom things where companies
are changing hands for tons of, money like When Warner
brothers BOUGHT, aol OR aol Bought Warner brothers and they
moved into The Twin towers In Columbus circle and a
new era had. Begun and, then of course two years
later they're trying to unwind the deal and everybody's lost.
SOMETHING i don't get, IT i do not, understand but
a lot of people are saying that this is a, nail,
no the last nail in the CABLE tv. Coffin so
where do you? Guys are you bothered by additional media
consolidation and what do you think the media landscape is
going to look like cable? Wise is this the? End
and are we happy about that or?
Speaker 4: Not, WELL i will agree with you That i'm not
an expert in. THIS i am somebody who cut the
cord WHEN i moved To florida in twenty, seventeen And
i'm not actually saving any money from this.
Speaker 1: Anymore, really, really did it somehow work out that by
piling all those streaming services on top of the things
you ended up paying just what you had, before in
addition to paying for a service that gives you the
broadcast channels and the local news and all the other
stuff you don't.
Speaker 5: Watch, REALLY i THINK i may be paying more now one.
Speaker 4: Another i'm okay with this BECAUSE i don't have to
run coaxial cable around my house and of those big bulky,
boxes AND i do like the way my network works
and so.
Speaker 5: Forth but it clearly.
Speaker 4: Has not continued as a cost saving. Proposition it seems
to me that there is at some point going to
be a burst bubble and a few of these are
going to disappear or they're all AND i get merged into.
One but the federal government's gonna have a problem with.
That i'm not quite sure that that's the implication of this, deal,
though Because Warner brothers And netflix are different entities now
you will know about. This i'm given to understand that
there's Some Supreme court case from the forties that means
that studios can't own movie. Theaters, well it has to
all be, separated which was very interesting to me because
WHEN i was growing up In, Cambridge, england the movie
theater there was The Warner Brothers. Multiplex now they showed
movies from all the, studios but it was owned By Warner,
brothers AND i think it then got sold To, Universal
so that's how it changed hands in the way movement parks,
do and that's not allowed. Here so there's a factor
here that is obviously at some point going to have
to be reconsidered by The Supreme court and or by
cons which is that the rules that were set up
in the forties don't seem to properly tally with the
way that the industry is now, working where the delivery
mechanisms and the production mechanisms are getting closer and closer
together by by, Definition BUT i don't know enough about.
Speaker 1: That, well this is why we NEED. Ej hill And gary,
McVay two of our extremely savvy guys when it comes
to the history of the, industries to weigh into the.
Comments and believe, me those guys are good and they'll
give us what. For it is funny, though when you
consider about, it is that if they can't own movie theaters,
anymore but if our house is now the movie, theater
then are what are The what are our obligations as
movie theater owners at? Home SHOULD i be wearing an usher,
uniform Because i'm sort of the height that you would
expect that to. Be to get the little Cap, dad
SHOULD i before a movie somehow apply a little light
adhesive to the floor so that my you, know my
feet stick to it like they do in the old multiplex.
DAYS i don't know If i'm in the. Theater, Well,
STEPHEN i don't know what configuration you. HAVE i Know
america is desperately knowing wishes to know if you have
the cable and the rest of. It But Charles, WRIGHT
i mean getting rid of the coax. Great WHEN i
got rid of my satellite great five years, BEFORE i,
thought look at, Me i'm getting my entertainment beamed clear
and crisp from. Space and then five or six years
later that's like you're still getting YOUR tv from, space.
MAN i, mean the shift to that paradigm was just.
Stunning AND i was so happy to get rid of
cable with a plethora of channels THAT i don't, use
and be able to select these bespoke little. Services but
the end results of this is THAT i have no
idea where anything is that show THAT i? Watched what
was it on that series that my wife was watching?
It and it's not Because i'm older AND i can't
figure out where it. IS i can't hear people, Talk
and it's just because it did not turn out to
be the sort of thing that saved us money and
made our lives. Easier and as a matter of, FACT
i think a lot of people sort of feel about
old cable television the way people in their sixties and
seventies In russia feel about The Soviet. Union it had its,
problems but it was good and well storm.
Speaker 2: WELL i THINK i can Channel Rob long here a,
bit because he used to talk a lot about how
all these big tie ups promised these great, synergies that
wonderful bezz word from the management, consultants and how they
always then were desynergized a few years. Later so you
mentioned Aol Time Warner paramount had a couple of different
tie ups that have recently been, unwound And i'm wondering
about this. ONE i think maybe it's the case That
netflix is simply by the Way netflix stock has just
roared the last couple of, YEARS i, mean way beyond
WHAT i think you might have, expected and it's hard
to imagine that trajectory. Continuing maybe they have more capital
or access to capital than they know what to do.
WITH i don't know what they ration off of this
is it surprises me that you'd want to have more
of these. Mergers but speaking of being so, Old, JAMES
i can, REMEMBER i guess it now is thirty years
ago when the big issue was we need to regulate
cable television because they're exploiting. Us and of course we
PASSED i think it was nineteen ninety two we passed
a new cable regulation, bill after which cable rates went up, predictably,
right because that's what often happens with that kind of government. Regulation,
now is there anybody, seeing, gosh we got the regulators
have got to crack down on these cable. Companies, no
the other. Way any minute NOW i Expect President trump
to say we need to subsidize the cable companies to
keep them from going. Broke probably not, literally but you
see the problem here Is. Yeah, Now i'm With. CHARLES
i cut my court a long time, also AND i
THINK i probably spend about the. Same the big opening
here for me for cable, television if they want to
stay in the, game is to unbundle. EVERYTHING i, mean
the problem with cable is they have so many must carry,
rules And i'm not sure if those are industry, rules
broadcast network, rules or actually government. Rules i'm completely ignorant
about all of. That BUT i think cable couldure a
lot of people back if they, Said, okay what channels
do you, want here's what we'll charge you for. Them.
Speaker 4: YEAH i think the one problem with, that as far
AS i can, see again not an, expert is that
the thing that people actually want to watch is, sports
and they don't really want to watch anything. Else and
so all of the other things that are on cable,
news including SAY msnbc now MS now is cross subsidized by.
Sports and if you get rid of the, bundling Which
i'm in favor of, too all of those other channels
oh way, right because all you, want if all you
wants THE, Nfl Major League, baseball and, hockey well then
you were just buy that and.
Speaker 5: Kaboom.
Speaker 1: True but the number of shows and channels out there
devoted to the murder of young of the murder of
wives is far greater than you. IMAGINE i, mean if
you put together a package that is The Whollmark channel
and The Murder victim of The Week Stuff dateline. Style
believe me that there's as many people who want to
watch that want to watch THE. Nba the last Thing
i'll say about that is, this when they talk About Warner,
brothers they, saying, Well Warner, brothers it's got all this GREAT.
Ip they've got all this great. Ip people are talking
they Got Harry, potter they Got batman and the rest of.
IT i don't want any more of THE. Ip i'm
tired of all of it and the idea that we're
going to continue to exploit these, things to take these,
limping lame horses out in the back and beat them
some more and extract even more out of The potter
verse and THE dc verse And, batman endless iterations of.
That i'm tired of the lot of, it AND i
wish we could just up in the edge of, sketch
start over and sort of invent a popular culture out
of out of our. Imaginations at the, moment just a.
THOUGHT i, know, well the other great, news, Well i'm
sure it's. Great the other news was, Great but this is.
Great is that in a stunning blow to climate change
and a sure sign that the planet is doomed and
the seas will soon. Rise pular bears will be. Snorkeling
The president, said, no, electric forget about. It we're going.
Gas gas cars are. Great gas cars are. Good how
do you guys feel about? THAT i am a firm
believer in the power and the superiority of the internal combustion,
engine AND i love, it even though electrics can be.
Cool but, yeah go.
Speaker 2: Gas, Well, JAMES i think what should appeal to you
is that it may bring back car design to where
you actually can make cars right.
Speaker 1: Exactly you know the?
Speaker 2: Point, yeah, right.
Speaker 1: Go, ahead you make it Go, no you make it go?
Speaker 2: Ahead, WELL i mean the reason all cars look alike these,
days they're all her tear, shop tear drop shape and
rounded office because they have to make them those shapes
to meet the feel economy. Rules that's the only way
they can do. It and so you, KNOW i wasn't
always a fan of the old Boxy, volvos BUT i
was glad you had that option for a. CAR i
like cars that have angles and edges to. THEM i
don't like the roundedness of. Everything it annoys. Me so
let the designers now make cars that look great and
let people decide if they want to lose a mild
gallon of gas mileage and in return for a car
whose style they.
Speaker 1: Like AND i believe we were speaking to a man
who has a golf cart with tailfins on. It does he? Not?
Speaker 4: Absolutely you, know the way That New York times has
reported on this is really annoying because it has made
it look as If Donald trump has put his thumb
on the scales in favor of gas. Cars and What
trump has actually done is Repudiated biden's attempt by Passing
congress to make it impossible for car manufacturers to economically
produce gasoline, cars and has removed a lot of mandates
that make cars artificially expensive and cause all of the
design issues That steve. Mentioned so What trump has done
is the opposite of. This and it's especially annoying given
that When biden put out that, rule The New York
times insisted till it was blue in the face and
it was just a. Guideline and anyone who said this
is a flagrant attempt to put the federal government's thumb
on the, scales The New York times would, say, no, no, no, no,
no it's just a. Suggestion and Yet trump undoes the
suggestion via the same, means which is totally. Legitimate and
the time, says, ah look at him in the pocket
of big.
Speaker 5: Oil no, no, no no, no no no no.
Speaker 4: No what he has done there is say do what you.
Want this is the market, working this is not the government.
WORKING i think it's. GREAT i also think it's going
to go some way critical THOUGH i have been of
him on this question to alleviating some of the concerns around,
affordability because the combination of cash for clunkers and some
of these mandates meant that both the second and new car,
market secondhand and new car markets were artificially, expensive and
that's been really bad for.
Speaker 1: People, yes putting the thumb on the scale, somewhere or
taking the thumb off the. Scale some ouquates to putting
the thumb on the. Scale it's like the spokesman for, allichical,
hierarchical you, know, collectivism Or brian in nineteen eighty four
is saying To, winston imagine imagine a boot lifting from
human face For, yeah before we, Go old friend of the,
Show John, gabriel old friend Of, ricochet one of the
finest writers out there on the. Internet funny, guy king of.
Stuff if you've been Around. Ricochet you know how much
we Love. John john's have an issues and there's a
post up At ricochet that talks about it in his
usual inimitable, style and he could use some. Scratch he's
got a GoFundMe. Going there's a goal he's getting. There
but we love him and we want him to be
healthy and around, forever and if we can do something about,
that let's do something about. That so, well CAN i?
Say ricochet is the kind of place where people join and,
yeah it costs a little bit here and, there but
you join a community and you are able to, comment
which gives, you As rob, said skin in the. Game
it doesn't mean it's one of those cess pools of
people just yelling and screaming at each. Other it means
that there's places real people with real names that kind
of feel like you know because you. Do and we
want to help Out, John so.
Speaker 2: We kind just add. That you, Know i've never Met
john in, person BUT i do feel LIKE i know
him for a couple of. Reasons, one we've done a
couple of podcasts together and we've been reading each other for.
Years and, second and this is a special bond here
AND i have that we've talked, about you know, online
is we are co religionists to a somewhat rare sect In.
America we're Both Eastern, orthodox and you know we meet
in the phone, booth but that's not quite that small a.
Subsect but the point is, is you, know so this
has struck me a little bit close to. HOME i
heard it.
Speaker 1: Right So ricochet is The orthodox and the The lutheran
deist here and the atheist on the other. Side we contain.
Multitudes that's that's. Wrong that's. Whitman isn't it about the
containing multitudes of?
Speaker 5: THINGS i?
Speaker 1: Think or AM i? Thinking the demon who says my
name Is? Legion, well come To ricochet yourself and find.
Out we want to thank you for listening to. This
we want you to give us five stars At Apple.
Podcast we want to Thank Cozy earth for sponsoring this
podcast as. Well you can do your life so much
better if you avail yourself with their fine. Goods and
we want to remind you That ricochet is there twenty
four to, seven And charles is actually one of the
men who make sure that it is because he's not
just a podcast, host he's not a great writer. Himself
In national. Review but he is the man who at
this moment is probably thinking about a way that he
can improve the cabling at his. Home you, know the
way he's the way he's got. IT i, MEAN i
don't know if you're A cat six or A cat seven,
man or if you've made that. Upgrade But, charles what
version of ricochet are we on at the?
Speaker 4: Moment, well we're on the same honess we were before
IT i think is four point fourteen point, fourteen and
then it recurs.
Speaker 5: Forever but this is because we're dealing with.
Speaker 4: Some tweaks at the, moment and the next version will
have fewer numbers with the dots and a bigger, number
not the first, number but the second number.
Speaker 1: Will Be pick the second, number and eventually the first
number will change to. It in the, meantime always behind the,
scenes always under the good making sure that your experience is,
better glitchy. Fun but what, counts of, course is the.
Content go, there read, it, enjoy. Gentlemen it's been a.
Pleasure enjoy the rest of your, time and we will
take this up again on a day THAT i hope
is not as snowy as this, one but it might.
Be It's. MINNESOTA i knew WHAT i was getting.
Speaker 6: Into Bye, Bye Bye.
Speaker 2: Ricochet join the.
Speaker 1: Conversation