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