Speaker 1: Welcome back, everyone to a new episode of You're Wrong
with Molly Hemingway, editor in chief of the Federalist and
David Harsani, senior writer at The Washington Examiner. Just as
a reminder, if you'd like to email the show, please
do so at radio at the Federalist dot com. Now, Molly,
typically I would say here, we love to hear from you,
but last week's mail bag made me not want to
say that, because a lot, I'd say, fifty percent of
the mail is just garbage, right.
Speaker 2: I don't share your viewpoint on our reader mail. I
love our reader mail. I love it no matter what
it says. I love it if it's very positive or
critical or whatever. But you seemed to not like it
this week.
Speaker 1: I did not like it this week because and we
don't need to rehash this debate over the White House Corps.
But a bunch of our listeners, your fans, sent in
mail completely misrepresenting my position. Livy called those I literally
called them frauds and whatever. But they're they're you know,
everyone believes I'm protecting them. I just sometimes the sense
that people don't understand what a neutral principle is. You know, also,
actually how do I do this? Do I say Happy
ash Wednesday?
Speaker 2: Or no, I don't.
Speaker 1: It's not happy Yeah fat Tuesday's happy ash Wednesday.
Speaker 2: We just yeah, maybe Blessed Ash Wednesday. Hold on on
the mail. I go to church on Sunday and I'm
sitting in front of someone who's a listener, and he said,
are you and David okay? I was like yes, and
he's like, I was really worried you were fighting so
badly in the last episode. Did it seem like we were.
I didn't feel like we were fighting.
Speaker 3: I felt I got to yelled at you a bit.
Speaker 1: But let me just say this, if people only heard
what goes on, like what's gone on when we get
into real arguments, I do worry sometimes. I don't want
to be insulting, but I think that we, you know,
we've known each other long enough where that's where where
we're not going to hold grudges if we disagree.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: I liked fighting with or you know, arguing with you
so much that I was like hoping we would have
another argument this time. Anyway, let's get onto it. Let's
get to where we might argue. Who knows?
Speaker 1: Okay, So Blessed ash Wednesday it's today. I remember as
a young man, as a young as a boy, I
was in yeshiva and on my English teacher came in
and she had like a smudge on her forehead and
I was like fascinated by it, and I wanted to
tell her, you know, that she had something there. And
then she was the first person. I was so insulated
that she was the first person to explain to me,
you know, the ashes on the forehead thing.
Speaker 2: So you were a young Jewish guy. And I don't
think I'm scheduled to do any TV today, but first
time I was on TV with ashes, the people on
the internet acted like they had never even heard of
ash Wednesday before. Also, I got invited by the Vatican
to address being Catholic in public life, and I had
to tell them that I'm I'm a Lutheran Catholic, not
a Roman Catholic.
Speaker 1: So do all the high churches do the ashes and
the low churches don't?
Speaker 3: Or like, I don't know.
Speaker 2: Sometimes I know nothing other than Lutheran practice. So I
know Lutherans do it. I know Roman Catholics do it.
I think Orthodox are in a different schedule and they
and while ashes are kind of a universal like sign
of you know, like mourning repentance type thing. I don't
know if they have an ash Wednesday, and I think,
you know, Anglicans do it. I think some Presbyterians do,
so yeah, maybe it's just anyone liturgical it's a it's
an important day in the church, or it's the first
day of Lent. And we've been going through something called
pre Lent for few weeks, which is where you train
for Lent, because in Lent you do greater disciplines, you're
reading scripture more, you're praying more, you're giving more alms,
you're giving up food or other and or other activities,
and so it's it's a very intense forty days.
Speaker 1: Is is it appropriate to ask what you're giving up?
Or is it like a birthday wish where you're not
supposed to share.
Speaker 2: I don't know if it's appropriate or not, but I
tend not to talk about what I do publicly. If
that's as fine, Yeah, sure, Actually, can I say. I
was talking with the kids about their plans, you know,
just in a motherly way, going through what their plans are,
and one of the kids had a full list of
all sorts of activity, fasting, increased work, like some really
special ideas. And then the next one I talked to
was like sweets, giving up sweets, and then that was
the end of the conversation.
Speaker 1: I would search for something I'd want, I'd given up
already or wanted to give up.
Speaker 3: But let's talk.
Speaker 1: Let's start talking about last night's non State of the
Union address the Trump gave. I believe it was the
longest talk to full Congress ever by a president.
Speaker 3: That's what I read. I think it was an hour
and forty minutes.
Speaker 1: And I just say up front that whatever you make
of what he said or didn't say, or whatever he
is entertaining to listen to, he's just fun to listen
to most of the time.
Speaker 3: Sometimes he can go on too long, I think.
Speaker 1: But in general he can get away with that because
he's funny, and he's and the way he speaks is entertaining, right,
and he's a good communicator. He speaks the rhetoric of
the noormy, in my view, and that is I believe,
his greatest strength. Whether you agree with what he's saying
or not, he's speaking to people in a way that
they can comprehend. What were your reflections on his talk yesterday.
Speaker 2: So first off, I'm not a huge fan of the
State of the Union. I know it wasn't an official
State the Union, but I'm not a huge fan of
that address. I did think his twenty twenty State of
the Union was the best speech he'd given to that point.
It was a really remarkable night. He had a string
of successes to talk about, including that he had just
defeated the impeachment, the economy was doing well. Foreign policy
was his foreign policy vision. You know, he'd come into
office and everybody said he's going to lead us into
nuclear war, and instead you had Abraham Accords and all
these great things in the works, and Rush Limbaugh that
I think that was the time that Rush Limbaugh received
his presidential mental freedom, which I thought was an important
moment for conservatism. It was just a really great night.
And then, of course, a few weeks later, the world
implodes with the response with the COVID pandemic and the
response to the COVID pandemic, and it was it became
not just a horrible year, but that leads to Joe
Biden being elected and for really years for the country
where it just seems we've lost something that was special
about what we had, and so going into this, I
was not really looking forward to the speech because one
thing I like about the current Trump administration is that
they're just doing stuff. It's like less talk, more doing.
The first Trump administration, it seemed like a lot of tweeting,
but not always a lot of like the tweeting showed
the intent, but the obstruction was such that it was
really hard to get anything done. Now there's clearly the
obstruction happening. There are lawsuits filed every day and all that,
but I just didn't feel like the need to hear
from him, So I wasn't that. I wasn't anticipating it
that much. And I even tuned in late because I
was doing some stuff with the children that needed my attention,
and so I tune in and I see a scene
from the back of the Democrat side and they're all
holding these paddles that look like auction paddles, and I
was really confused because it's like from the back, so
there's nothing written on them, and I was like, what
is going on here? And that was my entree into
the speech, and then I, you know, I was late
enough that it didn't seem that long, and it went
through the litany of like the things I don't like
about state of the unions, you know, we're going to
do this, We're going to do that, and all the data,
and then it turned into I think some really great
speech writing and inspirational and beautiful stuff.
Speaker 1: At the end, you can always tell what's written and
what he you know, ad libs. So he'll say, like
he's going through the litany of funding that we have
been giving the world, you know, and then he's like,
and then the country, you know, we give the country
of you know, Congo.
Speaker 3: Or les Etho or whatever it was.
Speaker 1: You know, yeah, a billion dollars and no one knows
where that country is. Like you know that the no
one knows where that country is. It's his ad lib
and it's always funny and it's true and people at
home probably who are watching.
Speaker 3: I don't know how this did ratings wise. Laugh at that.
Speaker 1: I thought the the you know, when people hold what
are those things, those auction things that they held auctions paddles, Right,
it's very dumb, I think for politicians in the modern
age to pulled up signs or paddles, because immediately you
go on Twitter and everyone is just putting other words
on them.
Speaker 3: I just think it's a bad idea for them to
do that.
Speaker 2: David, don't tell them that. I want them to keep
doing that forever. I don't care if a Republican Democrat
it is so fun to dunk on these people.
Speaker 1: With their I don't think any politician listens to me,
so we're safe in that regard. But I did think
it was a glimp. The whole speech gave us a
glimpse of the dynamics in place in American politics right now,
why Democrats are just this out of touch lost party.
Trump gives again, you have to agree with everything, an uplifting, patriotic,
pro American speech, and the whole time, the left demeanor
is completely sour and weird. They're weird. For instance, they
won't stand up for the parents of the slain nurse
from Georgia.
Speaker 3: What was her name? Lake and Riley?
Speaker 2: Right, Riley.
Speaker 1: They won't even stand up like that is insanity. They
won't even stand up for a kid who has cancer
who's given a I'm sorry, I wish I DJ Daniel
is that his name? Who was given an honorary Secret
Service agent, you know, Badge or whatever, like your two partisan.
If you can't appreciate that moment, you're just you're showing
the world that you're out of touch with normies.
Speaker 2: So I came in after this had happened, but I
watched the part where al green got up and shouted
with his cane, And first off, I have no idea
what al Greene was shouting did. I don't know if
anyone knows what he was shouting.
Speaker 3: Was Medicaid cuts made? I don't even know, honestly.
Speaker 2: Okay, So that's so interesting to me. I mean, I
just want to people of what happened when that Republican
member said, you lie to Obama when he lied and
claimed that Obamacare would not in any way benefit illegal aliens,
and people were apoplectic with rage over this. How dare
how unbecoming? How racist to shout at someone of a
different race during the State of the Union when you
should be so respectful and so polite. Or you might
remember when Obama falsely characterized a Supreme Court decision that
related to.
Speaker 3: I think it was like foreign Yeah, I think it.
Speaker 2: Was related to something some aspect of that. And Justice Alito,
who does not have a poker face at all, mouths
the words, that's not.
Speaker 3: True and shakes his head.
Speaker 2: Yeah no, without realizing that because you know, because Obama
had just mentioned the Supreme Court. Of course, all the
cameras are on the members of the Supreme Court. And
again it was a big story, even as media like
up to and including Linda Greenhouse had to admit that
technically Alito was right and that what Obama had said
was not true, and these were big stories. And here
you have Al Green, mean old al Green with his
cane shouting and having to get kicked out of the chamber,
and it just didn't seem like it was a huge deal.
Maybe I'm wrong, I'm not reading.
Speaker 3: Can I can I admit something.
Speaker 1: I believe, you know, to some level that decorum and
civility is necessary to have a free country and all that,
But civility is usually weaponized, I hate to even use
that word by people want to shut down others from
protests and talking. So I wouldn't mind if these congressional
you know, speeches and stuff had the booing and the
yelling that the British Parliament has. I am I'm all
in on that. I love that stuff. That's the only
reason I watched that stuff on ces, we're off.
Speaker 2: To a horrible start, because I completely agree with that,
and I don't care if it's a Republican or a
Democrat necessarily, like there is a place for just letting
people speak and being respectful of the office of the presidency.
I get that, but I also get that these are
fraught debates. And Okay, so my point being though, that
there's this cartoonish hostility from Democrats and then, as you
point out, they don't stand for mothers whose daughters were
killed by their policies, or you know, kids with terminal cancer,
or a kid who finds out he gets into the
military academy after his dad was killed. You know, all
these things that they could. You can say they're manipulative.
You can say that, you know, it's a bad move
that Reagan made to doing this kind of from the
gallery storytelling. But if Democrats wanted to be more effective,
I think merely standing and applauding these children or the
mother of these children would make their other arguments go
so much further than when they just look this hostile.
And at the beginning of the speech, according to something
I read in The Federalist, Donald Trump began by saying
there was nothing he could do to make these people
not hate him, and they then proceeded to He's like
I could announce se cure for cancer and they would
still hate it. And he basically proceeded to have them
showing that.
Speaker 3: I mean, he baited them into it almost right. It's
very interesting to me too, so when I say, hold on.
Speaker 2: It's not a bait because they could have easily they
could have easily shown him to be not true by
applauding on a few things that they agreed on, but.
Speaker 1: The whole entire and I think this is a problem
all around. But everyone seems to like everything they believe
and everything they think hinges on wherever Donald Trump is
going or doing. It's an insane way to look at
the world. But equickly, I want to.
Speaker 3: Say, there's a woman.
Speaker 1: She was a congresswoman name was Melanie Stansberg who was
from New Mexico and held up a sign when Trump
was walking in that said, oh, this is not normal, right,
And then Democrats went about to prove that they it
is a normal.
Speaker 3: They are not normal.
Speaker 1: So the there was going to be a walkout, right,
and there was a walkout, and Axios reported that the
Democrats had drawn had a red line. I'll give you
the quote quickly right here. Criticism of transgender kids was
brought up as the line in the sand that would
trigger members to storm out. First of all, if no
one is criticizing transgendered kids, they're criticizing adults who irreparably
mutilate confused children or demand that men, you know, compete
with women in sports, Like this is an eighty twenty
issue that we talk about with Donald Trump, and yet
this is their line in the sand, Like they are
completely out of touch. It's not like with America and
normal people. And that was the that's the line in
the sand. You know, it's just so preposterous. So anyway,
you know, that's just one of the many things that
I think just reflected really poorly on them.
Speaker 3: I think they're a lost party.
Speaker 2: I was thinking about this last night as they were
trying to articulate their hostility to him, and I want
to revisit what you just said about the this is
not normal. There were two reasons why that sign I
didn't think resonated. Well, there are multiple reasons. First, let's
talk about how Donald Trump not being normal is a
really big part of why America loves him. They are
used to the normal approach to the problems that we face,
and they don't like the normal approach. They wish that
Donald Trump's approach were more normal. They wish more people
were doing what he's doing. So when they're like, this
is not normal, it's almost like a pro Trump sign.
And then on the other hand, if you just look
at it, here's something this is not normal to do.
To hold up a sign saying this is not normal
while the president walks by, and to be like so
performative and weird.
Speaker 3: That's not normal and weird, there works weird, and.
Speaker 2: They just weren't being normal for the whole time. Most
people can set aside personal differences to applaud a kid
with terminal cancer who wants to be a secret service agent.
Most people, I would say, like the vast majority that
we keep talking about how Democrats are on the wrong
side of eighty twenty issues, I think that might be
like a ninety nine to one issue or more. Of course,
you applaud a kid with terminal brain cancer like that,
it's not a difficult job. And so when she says
this is not normal, it's sort of like a self description,
We're not normal. She's saying, well, you're right, and it's
not going very well for people.
Speaker 4: Our sponsor today addresses a major concern, identity theft. If
you're worried about keeping your personal information secure, We've got
just the solution, introducing in Cognate, your digital shield that
stands guard against even the most sophisticated online threats. Whenever
you shop online, start a digital subscription, or download an app,
you end up releasing personal information which can be sold
or worse yet stolen. Thankfully, in Cognate is your digital
shield against even the most sophisticated online threats. And Cogny
reaches out to data brokers on your behalf and request
your personal data removal with a firm, professional hand, tackling
any pushback they might try to throw your way. And
Cognity provides unmatched identity protection, guarding your sensitive information such
as social security numbers and login details like a high
security vault, protecting you from potential identity theft and ensuring
your personal information remains confidential. Why delay act now? Within
Cognate your go to solution for keeping data brokers at bay.
Got a network of friends or family, visit in Cogni
dot com to start safeguarding your digital life today, and
here's the bonus. You can try it in Cognate risk
free for thirty days with a full refund. If it
doesn't meet your expectations, take your personal data back within Cognate.
Use code Federalist at the link below and get sixty
percent off an annual plan.
Speaker 1: Another issue that really stands out for me is the
anarchy on the border. Now, obviously Donald Trump comes in,
his administration comes in and crossings illegal crossings, a plunge,
which tells people that Democrats either are completely incompetent or
lying and want to see illegals crossing the border and
creating chaos. That is an issue. I don't even care
what Poles say. I bet you it's eighty twenty in
the real world.
Speaker 2: I just want to go back to what you were
saying about the axios, claiming that Democrats had a red
line walkout, which was if Donald Trump talked about trans children,
and I thought this was a very compelling part of
the speech he said. I also signed an order to
cut off all taxpayer funding to any institution that engages
in the sexual mutilation of our youth. And now I
want Congress to pass a bill permanently banning and criminalizing
sex changes on children and forever ending the lie that
any child is trapped in the wrong body. This is
a big lie. And our message to every child in
America is that you are perfect, exactly the way God
made you. I loved that part.
Speaker 3: That's a fantastic thing.
Speaker 2: So many different things I love about it. One, I'm
appalled that more people aren't standing up for children and
against the mutilation of their bodies, the removal of healthy
body parts, the psychological abuse that comes with transing children.
But I also like that he said, Congress, you need
to do something here. So a lot of what Trump
is doing people like. But there's a limit to what
can be done through the executive and there's a limit
to what should be done through the executive because our
Article one branch, which I believe is superior, Congress is
the one that has kind of destroyed the country by
passing away all of its authority to the executive agencies
that are also running wild. And if we're going to
fix what's wrong with our government, we need a much
more active Congress to do the hard work of legislating
properly and so I liked the call for that, and
then more than anything, I liked the positive message for
children of you know, letting them know that, yes, the
way God made them male or female is a gift
and not a bad thing. And I think a big
reason why I'm so happy to be a woman, and
why my brother's so happy to be a man, and
my sister's so happy to be a woman, you know,
et cetera, et cetera. My parents were really good about
treating our sex as something that was awesome, and so
it's hard to be a woman. It's hard to be
a man, and it's really hard when culture is telling
you that you can change these things or preaching only
what's bad about being a male or female. And I
think we need more encouragement for boys and girls about
how awesome it is to be a boy or a
girl and make it a really positive thing.
Speaker 3: I mean, I don't know, I feel like that was
the norm in the world until very recently that we've
kind of celebrated what it meant to be a girl
or a boy.
Speaker 2: No, I think feminism. So I'm one of these people
who thinks that the transing children is you can kind
of do a direct line from feminism to the transing children.
And for many decades, and certainly for most of everyone
who's alives exist, there has been this idea that being
a woman is a really bad thing and that it's
something to be fought against, and that you need interventions
so you can be just like a man. So that means,
you know, regulating how many children you have, or preventing children,
or preventing just biological reality. And once you start accepting
some of these viewpoints, it's not that far of a
line to you know, genital mutilation. So I am glad
that my parents weren't feminists and that they made it
really awesome to be a woman. Like my parents just
I don't know, they were acknowledging there were these differences,
but not in a bad way, not like you're a woman,
so you can't do this, but more like you're a woman,
you get to do this, And same with my brother,
and I like that.
Speaker 1: Just to take a step back to something else you said,
I think is really important is that Congress has to
be more active in doing a lot of stuff. First
of all, it's just it's not going to be permanent
in any real way. If Congress doesn't make changes and
puts limitations on the executive branch. But moreover, American people
elected Donald Trump because they wanted stability, competence, normalcy, not.
Speaker 3: Chaos. Right.
Speaker 1: I do think it's slightly like I love what Doge does.
In fact, I don't think it does enough frankly, but
not everyone's me.
Speaker 3: They don't.
Speaker 1: People, I think get a little bit worried when there's
just this chainsaw that's going through government that may sooner
or later cut something that they care about, you know
what I mean, that doesn't use a scalpel, but is
using a chain So do I just I worry about
that to some extent for him, I don't know how
you feel about that position.
Speaker 2: Okay, So I've been thinking about this a lot. And
I was at church this morning talking with a friend
who recently left federal work to have her first baby,
and how she doesn't regret it at all, and she's
someone who's a very hard working She was a very
hard working fed in a role that's really important that
deals with national security type stuff. And we were just
talking about all of our friends that are in federal
service who are worried, you know, and everything's so crazy
what's going on now. But what's really crazy is that
it's the first time there's ever been any oversight whatsoever.
And no one understands better the wide variety of quality
of federal work than a federal employee. I was thinking
about how the first time I went to the FCC
to cover something for the newspaper that I was working at,
I encountered a woman who had turned her computer. Do
you remember the old days where you would put the
floppy desk disc into like a tower.
Speaker 3: Yeah, what was that called the tower? Wasn't it just
called the tower?
Speaker 2: I don't know. So she had turned it around and
she was drying her fingernails on the fan that was
in the back, and it was clear that she just
wasn't doing any work to the point that she didn't
need her computer to be accessible for a floppy disk,
you know. And then you go down the hall and
you're you meet with someone who's kind of keeping the
whole organization running and doing real work and doing it
for everybody, including these people who were drying their fingernails
on the fan on the back of the computer tower.
And covering the federal government at federal times for many years,
you would talk to these managers who had to keep
promoting people to get them out of their agencies because
they were causing so much work by being bad employees.
But there was nothing you could do to them except
for promote them out. And so there's this like people
are rising well beyond their level of incompetence because it's
the only way to deal with them, and they are
all these problems. Okay, so nothing can be done, nothing
can be done to affect these people. And now it's
a bit chaotic the way that they're cutting things. And
I think for a lot of people, we just don't care.
I don't mean to be rude or callous, it's just
that if your options are do literally nothing as the
administrative state destroys the country, or have a bit of
a chaotic cutting and slicing and dicing operation, people are like, yeah,
it's going to be chaotic because that's the only way
you can do it. And also you can't even do
that because you've got every single fed who's losing their
job filing for an injunction and rogue judges granting them,
and it's, you know, it's really messy. But Jeffrey Tucker,
I thought had a really good thing about you know,
kind of looking at the history of the administrative state,
why it's been so difficult to rein it in, and
why that means by definition, it has to be a
little chaotic, and that people need to accept that. But
I don't think that. I actually don't think a lot
of Americans care. They're used to chaos in the private
se and they just don't care that the FEDS have
been insulated from that for one hundred years.
Speaker 3: I don't think they care yet. I think most people care.
Speaker 1: But most people are also aren't ideological like Jeffrey Tucker
or someone like that, so once things start affecting them,
I think they will to some extent care.
Speaker 2: Can I just go I just found the Jeffrey Tucker
thing and it's long, but I kind of want to
go through it a little bit. He says, I'm concerned
that many people do not understand the historical and institutional
context in which the DOGE labor reforms are unfolding. They
look at this as if these are some random, chaotic, arbitrary, strange,
and even cruel measures to impose on a devoted civil service.
The reality is very different, and he's like, I'm not
even sure if Elon understands this. But the bureaucracies have
ballooned from a few to four hundred and fifty or so.
The bloat and absurdities have grown too. No one has
ever known what to do about it, not Coolidge, Hoover, Nixon, Reagan, Clinton,
no one. No one has been able to crack the nut.
Countless cabinet secretaries have come and gone with the intent
of making changes. They've been unable to do it. No
president has seriously taken on this problem because they simply
did not know how. The unions are powerful. The intimidation
from deep institutional knowledge is overwhelming. The fear of the
media has been powerful. Every single president comes to power
vaguely feeling threatened by the intel. Agencies and the industries
have captured every single agency, and they're too powerful. And
so this combination of institutional inertia has blocked serious reform
for a full century. No one has dared, No one
has had even a theory or strategy about what to
do about the problem, and goes on about this the
entire time. The American people have felt themselves ever more oppressed,
weighed upon, tax and regulated, spied upon, browbeaten, and otherwise overwhelmed.
Voting never made any difference because politicians no longer controlled
the system. The bureaucracies ruled all and the Biden years
underscored the point and how to deal with this, And
he's like, Trump alone has figured it out to take
charge of the agencies in a limited way. The job
of the president goes the message is to put tend
to be in charge, but not actually do anything meaningful.
Shut up, mug up, obey, and disturb nothing. Let the
administrative state do its thing without oversight or disruption. And
he's like, and then you have Trump this time refusing
to take the deal, and you're just saying, this has
been this way for way too long. The voters have
demanded changed this time, and Doge simply must succeed or
we're over as a country. And I think that's what's
scary about this is it's going to be an almost
impossible feat for Doge to succeed, to reign in the
administrative state. But without it, we will have confirmed the
unconstitutional fourth branch of government as the supreme branch of government,
and that is an existential threat to our country.
Speaker 1: But I think he answers his own question right in
the beginning. Doge can't succeed. Congress has to limit the
power of the executive branch and eliminate the administrative state,
or it's just going to blooon up again as soon
as the Democrat gets into paw. We all know federal
government organically grows and organically regulates more and more. So
I love what he's doing. I think it's great, but
there's got to be a permanency to it that that
needs to come through legislative branch. Yeah, you think that's separate.
Speaker 2: We're talking about two separate things. Yes, partly, the administrative
state has grown because of Congress partly, but it's also
true that if the president doesn't control the executive agencies,
that is also a major problem. I imagine a lot
of this stuff will be litigated, but we need to
come to a place where people truly understand that there's
no such thing as an agency independent from the people.
You know, no agency can be independent from the people's oversight.
And the people do oversite partly through Congress, but partly
through the head of the executive branch. So they both need,
like Congress needs to change its lawmaking and make some
things permanent but we need to establish that the president
is in fact the EXECUS as the Constitution says.
Speaker 3: Oh, I agree with all that.
Speaker 1: I think the administrative state was created by people who
didn't care about the Constitution, you know, Wilson, Fdr Johnson, Nixon,
and others. My point is that the way to control
it is to keep it at limited in scope. If
it's massive, you can't control it. Even Trump in this
first term was basically the administrative state ruled over him.
In fact, in some sense, they undermined his presidency, completely
took the power away. Well, I'm just saying if you
consider a law enforcement part of that administrative state. So
my only point is that if Congress said you can't
create just you know, we're going to eliminate the USAID.
It's no longer an agency you can't just create. You know,
you need to. Congress needs to take power back as well.
I mean in the sense you know, I don't think
they want to. I just think their lives are easier
when the president takes all the heat. Personally, as a
small libertarian, I'm very happy about this because it's going
to take decades to fit, as it were, what Musk
has done to the administrative state.
Speaker 5: Should we officially shut down the Postal Service? The Watchdout
on Wall Street podcast with Chris Markowski. Every day Chris
helps unpack the connection between politics and the economy and
how it affects your wallet. The Postal Service had a
monopoly in the United States and it still couldn't make
money after the email revolution.
Speaker 3: They didn't change a thing.
Speaker 5: Should it be bought out by a big tech firm
like Amazon. Whether it's happening in DC or down on
Wall Street, it's affecting you financially.
Speaker 3: Be informed.
Speaker 5: Check out the watchdod on Wall Street podcast with Chris
Markowski on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 3: Are we done with that? Do you want to talk
about Zelenski?
Speaker 2: Well, maybe a way to transition to that is to
point out that while the Democrats were unable to stand
up for children or the mothers of deceased children, they
did clap that at that really weird moment that Trump
pointed out that they were applauding, which was when he said,
would you want this Ukraine war to continue for another
five years? At which point Elizabeth Warren starts clapping vigorously
that she would like the war to continue for five years.
Did you see that?
Speaker 3: Yeah, I.
Speaker 1: Wrote a comm it's not out yet, you know. I
just think a lot of there's a lot of sophistry
in this debate. There's a lot of I just every
side annoys me, and it's weird to clap for something
like that, especially in the way that the Trump framed it.
But I don't think that. I hate when people are like, oh,
you don't want peace. Yeah, I think peace is great,
but it's kind of ridiculous to say that piece is
always preferable to war, when sometimes war means defending your
liberty or your sovereignty or whatever. So, you know, I
think it's a loaded question.
Speaker 2: I guess, son, hold on, aren't you straw manning that?
Speaker 3: Well?
Speaker 1: I get that personally, Oh you're against peace, you don't
want peace in Ukraine?
Speaker 3: You know that sort of argument.
Speaker 2: Okay, So I do think, actually, first off, that peace
should be the goal of humanity. I'm going to go
out on a limb here and say that peace is
good and war is bad. In general, people should be
moving toward peace and people should care. It struck me.
In our prayers of the church, we pray, for instance,
for the president every week, regardless of who is the president,
and we pray for an end to all wars, regardless
of the war. Now, there are things that are worse
than peace, right, like es right, But I think we've
kind of been moving away from a good societal value
of peace being something we should seek and peaceful understanding
that war is horrific for people who are subjected to it,
and trying to avoid it unless absolutely necessary. And if
you look at Christian philosophers who have talked about this
throughout history, the strict limits they place on when and
how you can engage in more those are good things
that we just kind of stopped talking about. And it
concerns me now with Ukraine. I do think that it's
okay if you say Ukraine is one of these things
where peace is worse than war. That's an okay argument
to make, But you have to make the argument, like
explain how continuing this war is in anybody's interest or
what is this? Particularly the thing that I just keep
waiting for and I used to anger people I think
by asking for it on television would be what is
the strategy for success against nuclear Russia? Like what is
the strategy? How is this going to work. Nobody ever
answers that, and they have never even like pretended to
answer it or tried to answer it. They just kind
of do the Elizabeth Warren clapping for five more years
of war, and the result of that has been absolutely
horrific for the people of Ukraine. You know, Zelenski and
his meeting got really mad that Trump said that the
war had been bad for Ukraine. He's like, that's Russian
disinformation that Vladimir Putin is saying. And then like a
minute later he says, and by the way, this war
has been horrible for our country. And it's like, that's
literally what Trump just said. You know, that cities are
being destroyed, that men's lives are being lost, that a
whole generation of men are dying in Ukraine, all nothing.
Speaker 1: But the problem for me, okay, the problem for me
there is the people a lot of you know, on
the right in America say that that is Zelenski's fault. He,
you know, for fighting a war where he was his
country was invaded. I don't know that he had any
choice other than to fight that war. You didn't start
that war. We could talk about the reasons supposedly Russi invaded.
But can I take a quick step back and let's
just talk about that meeting. I find myself in the
middle of this thing. You know, it's just my position,
and I would say, it's clear to me that Zelenski
made a massive historic mistake. Maybe he can correct it
because Trump is, you know, just wants this deal done,
obviously signing the middle of deal. But the idea that
you would challenge your patron and the president who doesn't
really care as much about you know, who's who's willing
to who's not willing to just continue sending you weaponry forever,
was just insanity.
Speaker 3: It just tells me that he is not really right
for that role. You know.
Speaker 1: Benjamin Ettanna who used to come and talk, you know,
and sit there with Barack Obama and Joe Biden, antagonist
to his country, who were trying to basically give Iranians
nuclear We helped Mauranians get nuclear weapons, and he somehow
navigated that. Zelenski is zero zero leverage. That was just
to me, just just embarrassing for him. But I understand
why he wants to fight. I understand why he says
it's not a disaster to defend your country, even though
people do die because there are some things worse than pas.
Speaker 5: I don't know.
Speaker 2: I've never liked Celenski as much as everybody else did,
although I admired his bravery at the beginning and stuff
like that. But I don't understand why people get so Okay,
I do understand why people get so angry at him,
but I wish they would understand that he's really just
operating as a vassal agent of us, Like why get
mad at him when he's just doing what we've asked
him to do the whole time. You know, he's not
the problem. It's our foreign policy that's the problem, or
that has not handled the Ukraine issue well, going back
to twenty fourteen, when, of course we were very involved
in the coup. I mean, we were openly and proudly
involved in the coup in twenty fourteen. That kind of
set everything in motion in a bad way. And I mean,
I know that twenty fourteen doesn't start things either that
you really have to go back, like a thousand years.
But I don't want to do that. But Zelenski's not
made in a vacuum like this is all the result
of US encouraging and financing and supporting what he was doing.
So when people get mad at him, I think it's
misplaced anger.
Speaker 1: You think the alleged twenty fourteen coup was in the
reaction to the Russians infiltrating essentially that government with their own.
I guess coup. I mean this idea. It just seems
to me that a lot of people make rationalizations and
justifications for how Poutin acts, but will give Zelenski and
Ukrainians no quarter in anything that they do. So he's
just a puppet of the United States, essentially, is what
you're saying. Where we created this entity as if they
have no agency, and I just don't think that's true.
I think they have agency. I think they're defending their country.
It makes complete sense to me, and I just don't
understand why we can't accept that reality.
Speaker 2: Okay, first of all, I didn't actually mean to say.
You know, when you people accidentally say something that turns
out that it's a loaded phrase or something like that.
You said alleged coup because you would describe what happened
in twenty fourteen as what like a revolution.
Speaker 1: I would say that that with Western help, the pro
western Ukrainians overthrew the pro Russian faction that also came
into power and also shady ways, so you know, it's
a shady, corrupt country. It's a weird place, Okay.
Speaker 2: I just wanted to make sure like I wasn't trying
to say I was trying to be neutral with that,
and I realized as soon as you reacted and called
it alleged that it wasn't a neutral way of describing it.
Speaker 3: But I wouldn't even call it either a coup exactly.
But I get what you're.
Speaker 2: Doing, but maybe like a revolution might be a more
neutral way to describe it.
Speaker 3: I guess even that's seems a little much. I know
what you're saying.
Speaker 2: But as far as far as agency goes, without US help,
Ukraine would have been taken over by Russia.
Speaker 3: That's true, So.
Speaker 2: It's not a complete issue of agency.
Speaker 1: Well, there is a COUNTERI history there that the Europeans
actually step up for the first time in fifty sixty
years and they don't let that happen and it becomes
maybe even a more brutal war.
Speaker 2: I don't know, but possibly, although I don't think they
have the capabilities, like they have really lost military capabilities
over the last few decades. So sorry. You were saying though,
that he's this agent, he has agency, and he should
be deferred to in that sense.
Speaker 3: And I guess, no, that's the thing we have to do.
It's best for us. I don't know.
Speaker 1: I don't know what's best for us exactly, but I
do know that, for instance, when I hear JD Vancy
that it's moralistic garbage, do we even care about who
is right or wrong? And all we should care about is,
you know, are these cold facts and who can win
and who can't win?
Speaker 2: Yeah, David, did you think it was ridiculous that we
sided with the Soviets in World War Two? Because they're
bad people? They were bad people, went they were sided
with them.
Speaker 1: But yes, but we there was a larger, bigger moral fight.
Nazis never attacked New York or California, and we still
fought them. There was a bigger moral fight to be
had in the world. And immediately even before World War
Two ended, we had already turned our sites towards the
you know, against the Soviet Union.
Speaker 3: I think that I don't think it should be the
entire equation.
Speaker 1: If we have to be friends with the Saudi as
we will, but that we should that it's a moralistic
garbage to mention it like, I don't even understand what
Jdvan supports Israel completely, don't understand none of his None
of the things he says makes me think that he
believes it's a good idea for us to lie with,
for instance, Israel, because a lot of that is more realistic,
isn't it. I mean, it would be a lot easier
for us to just side with the Arab world all
the time and web all the oil and all that.
Speaker 2: I think in his speech explaining his stance on Israel,
he articulated it in a national interest sense. And I
get that a lot of people support Israel for completely
like these guys good, these guys bad reasons or vice versa,
oppose Israel that way. But a lot of people support
Israel because it's they believe it's in the in our
country's interest to have an ally like that in the
Middle East. And it's not to say there aren't moral considerations.
It's just that if your understanding of the war in
Ukraine is based solely on Vladimir Putin invading it three
years ago, it's just not It's just kind of like
an idiotic way to approach the issue, and you know,
you said, why can't we understand that Zelensky has a
national interest and that he's advocating for his nation's interest.
I agree with that. I don't see what's the problem.
You can still hate Putin and you should, frankly, but
you can also understand what his national interest is and
how it relates to the Black Sea and how Ukraine
being controlled or being in NATO affects a lot about Russia's.
Speaker 3: Health.
Speaker 1: So listen, I can I quickly just give I just
fear that I and I'm going to get we're gonna
get all these letters and misrepresenting my view.
Speaker 3: So I just want to lay it out.
Speaker 1: I think the notion that if Ukrainians lose their eastern
provinces that are Russian, you know, with a lot of
Russians in them, that the next is Sweden and Paris
is next after that and Punin's going to roll tanks
in is ridiculous. Pun can barely handle Ukrainians, much less
handle a real force like the Germans or something like that.
So I don't believe that, nor do I believe that
it's a all work of democracy. But Trump has not
asked Putin to make a single concession in this deal,
not one. Ukrainians have to do it, and he has
no choice, and that's fine. So Lenski's gonna have to
give in, but Russians give up nothing.
Speaker 2: So the United States always felt that Cuba being communist
was a threat because of how close it was to
our country. Do you not agree with that. We've always
been really interested in how Cuba is operating. If Mexico
or Canada had joined the Soviet Union, that would have
been viewed as a threat to our country.
Speaker 3: Correct.
Speaker 2: And when you say, like, why would putin care if
Ukraine joins NATO, it's basically moving the US border right
up against Russia's because we.
Speaker 1: Russia should be if the US border was on its border,
because we make countries around US richer.
Speaker 3: But more than that, there's a big difference.
Speaker 2: That's kind of a good argument.
Speaker 3: Go on.
Speaker 1: Sorry, Unfortunately, Moldovia and Finland are not the United States,
so it's a little different. I'm not listen, it's complicated,
and I get it. All I'm saying is I find
that there's a lot of sophistry going on here in
the debate here.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I just want to say I think even though
Russia is poor and they don't have the capability of
rolling across Europe. And it's a good way to know
if you should pay attention to someone or not is
if they say that that Putin's going to be on
the march, if he gets like a sliver of Ukraine.
It does view itself as an ered. Let me see
a lot of people speak as if Russia is the
Soviet Union. Even this week I saw Democrat tweet how
it was a communist country. A lot of people are
stuck in the eighties and thinking about Russia. There really
is a communist empire, and it is flowing from China,
you know, rooted in China, the communist China. And that's
the thing I have a We are hostile to Russia,
and the Democrats are particularly hostile. They really hate Russia
and they really hate Putin. And I think it's naive
to say that if Ukraine were in NATO, and by
the way, that would be all like downside, we think
those other countries aren't paying their fair share of their defense.
We're like, let's add a country that's right on the
border that's in ruins, and that'll go well for us.
Speaker 1: It's so I don't think you Krane should be and
I don't think Ukraine should be in NATO. I don't
even think NATO should exist as it does right now.
Speaker 2: But go on, oh I misheard you. I'm fighting with
you about something you didn't.
Speaker 1: No, I'm just saying I don't think they should be
in NATO, and I don't think they were going to
be in they were going to be in NATO. I
think that's a pretext for war. But just want to
say I agree with you one hundred percent. Russia is
not the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union was driven by
an ideology that was universal. They wanted the whole world
before proxy wars against them all over that world. But
it's also not true that a country can't hold off
in nuclear power. I hear people saying that constantly. The
Vietnamese disagree, the Afghans disagree twice, the Algerians disagree. I mean,
you can do it, and honestly, Ukrainians, and it was
with a high costs, were doing it. So it's just
it just seems to me we're not having it on.
Speaker 2: And so you're just saying they could just do it
into perpetuity, like we could just we could just.
Speaker 1: Honest saying I The problem for me is I don't
know if they want to do it because we don't
have elections in Ukraine. But if people want to fight
for their country, I don't think we should. Could you know,
treat them? You have to admit this. I mean, most
Trump fans in the United States talk about Zelenski with
such hatred like they wouldn't they could never muster it
for Putin, many of them like the Tucker Carlson's of
the world, or on Putin's side. I mean, I'm not
I'm not being like Chris Murphy here when I say that.
I mean it's pretty clear. So I just think that
we're not getting really a straight debate on this as
a foreign policy shoe. I want peace there.
Speaker 2: I don't know. I feel like the different attitude and
the two leaders also relates to how much money is
going from an average American's wallet to one of the
two men, and also their attitude toward us in response
to that amount of money. Like Putin for being an
adversary is not causing people the day to day pain,
I mean, except indirectly.
Speaker 1: Putin's not'm causing us in direct plane, but Zelenski is
because we're giving him money, is what you're saying.
Speaker 2: Trying to say, like you're claiming that people are disliking
Zelenski more than Putin. I don't know if that's true.
I don't think Putin has very favorable ratings in this country.
But I'm just trying to say, maybe Zelenski's attitude is
a part of the problem here.
Speaker 1: I don't think he's good at his job. Are we
ready to talk about culture?
Speaker 3: I think so.
Speaker 1: Let's talk first. I think about Gene Hackman, who died.
We didn't get a chance to discuss it last week. Now,
he's one of these people two things. I want to
quickly say, it's one of these people or actors who
you don't know you love. But then when you think
about it a bit, you're like, he's always awesome, almost
in every role. I went through, you know, all his movies,
and he's just been there and he's been awesome. And
then it hit me, and we mentioned this offline, but
he's gone. He hasn't he retired twenty years ago, like
in twenty two thousand and four was his last movie,
And it doesn't feel like that long ago. It just
feels like, you always see him on TV, you're always
watching him in movies. I don't know, I know you were.
I think you were a big fan too, right.
Speaker 2: I love him and I don't even know why I
love him so much. I just think he's a great
actor who so embodies the roles that he's in that
you just he's just completely long in them and it's
a joy to watch someone who's like that. I feel
like Robert Duval is also like that. It's another one
of my favorites, maybe my favorite.
Speaker 1: Yeah, we've talked about this before. With the seventies, just
had these everyman actors. You know, they weren't like beautiful
or anything, you know, or super attractive, but they were
just like gritty and got into their roles and it
was just a lot of fun.
Speaker 2: I was talking to my two best friends in October.
This is a political thing, but they're super super liberal,
and I was thinking about how during the Obama era,
every time there was any photo from the White House,
it was perfect. I mean it was like a beautifully
composed shot with beautiful people. Everything about it was perfect.
And then when Trump came into office, there would be
these photos of him meeting with normal people. First of all,
nobody was looking beautiful. They weren't composed well, like you know,
the shots weren't balanced. You'd have the tall people over
here and short people and you know, but it was
so authentic that it was riveting, like you'd kind of
things had gotten so beautiful that you no longer saw them,
whereas Trump would have this like awful shot, grainy photograph
and you were like, oh, that's very interesting. And that's
kind of what I feel like about movies from the
seventies when you look now and everyone is so beautiful.
The women in particular are just gorgeous, and their bodies
are perfect, and you see the naked bodies and the
faces all been sculpted to perfection. And then you go
back to these seventies movies and the women are natural
and not natural, but you know what I mean, Like
they're whatever. They're whatever the breast size God gave them,
that's the one they're working with. And you see a
lot of variety, and you see differences about their teeth
and their skin and everything, and you suddenly get like
obsessed with them because they're so it's just like there's
something grabbing you. It's snagging you I was like with
the men.
Speaker 1: Sorry, yeah, I was watching something. I think it was
Karen Black. Do you remember that actor, you know, and
she's slightly weird looking but very attractive and like looks
I don't know, a little cross eyed.
Speaker 3: Maybe we're like and it's so sexy, yes, or like.
Speaker 1: Was another one Leslie and Warren or like, yeah, they
were just they were just all kinds of different like
women and men act, you know, and the men they
just were, you know, much more authentic, and I think
that that comes through.
Speaker 2: Okay, So which movies from the seventies are you're thinking about?
Because I have one I would like to talk about.
Speaker 1: I have a lie because I'm a male and I
celebrate that Molly.
Speaker 3: I have a list. I made a list. It's not
in any particular order. Here are my favorite movies of him. Okay.
Speaker 1: I love the French connection, it's I love him in it.
The car chase in that movie is amazing. It's the
last car chase actually in a movie that's interested me.
I think I find I'm usually pretty boring. The conversation
that's the that's the one I was going to talk
about about it.
Speaker 2: I love this movie. I love everything about the movie.
He's like a surveillance guy and he accidentally records a murder.
Why am I forgetting.
Speaker 1: Talking about a murder? I believe right in the park there.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I forgot.
Speaker 1: I haven't seen it in a while, but I know
I love it. Yeah. Yeah, it's a Francis Ford Coppola movie.
He made them in fact, in between I think the
two Godfather movies. It's just fantastic. Here's one that I
don't know people, especially people my age, will remember it,
but I'm not sure younger people know. There was a
Superman movie in nineteen seventy eight. I believe it was,
and he played Lex Luthor and he is so good
in it.
Speaker 2: Okay, I almost would have listed that one. I'm not
a list maker, but if I were, I might have
mentioned the Superman Lex Luthor role.
Speaker 1: Yeah, he's so fantastic in that. I have to mention it,
even though I don't think this is his strongest role
because it doesn't really give it. Might be I don't
have to rewatch it as Hoosiers.
Speaker 2: I love Hoosier.
Speaker 3: I love the movie. Yeah, he's good.
Speaker 2: Why do you not like that role? For I mean,
I think that's no.
Speaker 3: I do like the role.
Speaker 1: I just don't think that it like showcases his like
range as much. You know, he's kind of a loaner,
which which he Again, he's perfect for that role for sure,
the unforgiven, not the just unforgiven.
Speaker 3: He's amazing in that. Have you seen the movie Heist?
Speaker 2: That my favorite of the genre.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think it's a Dave David Mammott movie scripts.
Speaker 2: Oh that would make sense.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, yeah, so this might be number one. I
think I am not a massive mel Brooks fan. You know,
people sometimes surprised that I seem like the type of
guy would love it, but his him and Young Frankenstein
playing the blind man is what is the funniest.
Speaker 3: Role in that movie?
Speaker 2: It's Yeah, So those best friends I was talking about that,
I was trying to convey to them, like the brilliant
of the Trump normalcy. They didn't. They did not fall
for it. One of my girlfriends loved Young Frankenstein, and
I think I was too stupid to get it. I
would like to give it another shot. I remember she
could quote everything from it and she just thought it
was so funny, and I was like, I'm not getting this.
I think I was too young when I saw it
and I need to try again.
Speaker 1: I hate to say this. I have big debates within
my family. I'm a witty Allen guy. Right, I don't
think mel Brooks movies hold up. I think they're so
juvenile that they're just to get older than not that funny.
I'm not saying there aren't moments. Young Frankenstein has moments.
I still enjoy watching it. I just don't think a
lot of it holds up. Like, yeah, I don't want
to get into it, but yeah, okay, here's one that
Crimson tied.
Speaker 3: Have you ever seen that?
Speaker 2: I think so. It's not on my list, but I'm
willing to hear why you love it?
Speaker 1: Because it's him and Denzel Washington and they're just antagonists
to go up against each other. And there's this one
scene where Denzel Washington takes control of the submarine and
it is just so amazing and the acting is just
on such a level. You know, I just love that.
What else do I have? Oh? Royal tannem Bounds. I mean,
I think he was amazing in that it was completely
different from anything he's ever done, and he's hilarious. I
don't know if you've seen it.
Speaker 2: I have but it's not on my list.
Speaker 1: Last, but not least as Night Moves, which your husband
mentioned to reminded me of About an Hour Ago, which
is a movie where he plays an ex football player,
I think, and he's kind of a private eye in
la and I think the director is the same person
did Bonnie and Clyde. Maybe, but it's just a fantastic
movie and he's fantastic in it.
Speaker 3: That's my list.
Speaker 2: Okay. I have a few that you did not mention. Okay, okay,
so you covered Night Moves from Mark I haven't seen that.
Love the conversation Love Hoosier's No Way Out is one
of my all time favorites.
Speaker 3: I love that movie.
Speaker 1: I saw it, you know, in my late teens or
whenever it came out, and it bowed my mind the twists.
I don't want to give it away, even though it's
super old and he's excellent in it, playing a very
flawed character, right.
Speaker 2: Flawed, but like because of the quality of the movie,
there are layers there that are good, and I think
he's amazing in it. I think he's kind of like
the gem of it. And then uh oh, Enemy of
the State, you.
Speaker 1: Know, I had that here it's the movie itself. I
don't think is great. I don't love it.
Speaker 2: I think you are a bad libertarian.
Speaker 3: But go on, he's great in it. He is great
in it.
Speaker 1: He makes that movie, you know, I think it's not
it's just yeah, it's one of these. I actually I
think it might was a Tony Scott movie. The person
did Crimson Tide.
Speaker 2: And then there. Okay, then this one's kind of like silly.
But I really like him in this role. It's not
like the best role, and I'm not surprised that it's
like right before he retires. But in Runaway Jury, oh.
Speaker 1: I was I almost watched that the other day because
I was looking for movies he was in. I'm sure
I've seen it, but I don't exactly remember.
Speaker 3: Uh.
Speaker 2: It's sort of like, from a libertarian perspective, a very
bad movie. But it's about people gaming a jury trial
to help out tobacco companies.
Speaker 1: So I would have trouble knowing who the good I
would probably think the good guys were the people who
were supposed to be the bad guys. What side is
Gene Hackman on?
Speaker 2: He's with the corporation, Okay, so so uh oh, he's
reminded me he was in the Firm as well, which
I almost thought about that one too. That is kind
of the same type role. But oh yeah, because he's yeah,
the firm is actually probably better role for him. I
might like Runaway Jury better as a film.
Speaker 3: Anyway, all right, that's a good list.
Speaker 2: I was trying to think about that. I told you
about how there was a period of time where I
wasn't liking new music and I was really worried that
I was becoming old, because so much of liking new
music is about yourself and like where you are in life.
You know, people always think that the women they liked
or the men they liked when they were having their
sexual awakening, that's the best men and women, or that's
the best music.
Speaker 3: And so I was set music.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I was worried that I was like losing something.
And then I started getting into a ton of new music,
like you know, five ten years ago. But I was
thinking about this with regard to actors, like we've named
three of my favorite actors here, Gene Hackman, Robert Duvall,
Denzel Like I'll watch Denzel and anything. Oh yeah, And
I was like, they don't make I'm like I used to.
I was like hearing my mother's voice in me thinking,
but I was like, there probably are some great actors now,
for sure. I loved the Timothy Challenge Chalome speech where
he was saying like, I want to be a great actor.
I was like, yeah, I like that you want to
be great and you're not ashamed to admit it.
Speaker 3: I love that speech. Yeah for sure.
Speaker 2: Oh cool, Yeah, and uh so there are good people
like that. I just need to study up more.
Speaker 3: Yeah. No, for sure there are. It's just that I
don't know.
Speaker 1: I guess in the eighties, like the action movies came
in and the acting kind of took a back seat,
and then cgi started and the acting took a bad backseat,
and that, Oh, this is a good segue to the Oscars.
I mean, I don't think I've seen and I do
want to see the movie The Brutalist, which won some stuff,
but the one that won most of the awards. I
don't even know what it's called. I wrote it down
somewhere about the sex workers. I mean, I have no interest. Yeah,
I just feel like the in the these you can
make a big movie that also had just fantastic acting,
like an epic you know, or even the sixties Lawrence
of Arabia, The Godfather. I just don't feel a lot
of those movies exist anymore, movies that we can both
look at it at art but also has commercial, widespread,
commercial appeal.
Speaker 3: I can't think of the last movie like that.
Speaker 2: Oh, it's a very dark period of time. So I
did not watch the Oscars. I didn't care to. I
didn't nothing about it mattered to me, And it used
to almost be like a not a holy day, but
a holiday for me, where I would I would have
I watched start to finish. I rooted, I knew all
the films. They have new like racist and sexist standards,
so that you have to meet these racist and sexist
standards to be considered for an Oscar. I have no
inter I think, to me, the moment you stop caring
about merit and you start elevating not just other things
but things that are bad, just I just don't care
about it at all. Now I do think I want
to see a Noora, but I this could be wrong.
We'll see. I'll see how it goes on my rowing
or whatever. But I suspect it's just a decent indie film,
not a Best Picture winner.
Speaker 3: Yeah, are we done with movies? Sure?
Speaker 1: I just want to mention that I was sad and
that David Johansson died lead singer of the New York Dolls.
Later he was this character named Buster Poindexter's some big hits.
It's Martin Scorsese. I think last year I had a
documentary I mentioned on this show, going through his life,
and he's just an interesting guy. Was you know when
I was you know, he was a New York Dolls fan.
Sad to see him pass away.
Speaker 2: Well, I just want to say that I knew him
mostly as Buster Poindexter first and then with New York Dolls.
I didn't know he died, and I'm shocked to hear this.
Speaker 1: So yeah, I do have an outing to report. There's
this Jewish film festival that goes on near my house.
Now to call it a film festival and to say
that I went is to really exact