Speaker 1: Hey, guys, ready or not, twenty twenty four is here
Speaker 1: and we here at breaking points, are already thinking of
Speaker 1: ways we can up our game for this critical election.
Speaker 2: We rely on our premium subs to expand coverage, upgrade
Speaker 2: the studio ad staff, give you, guys, the best independent.
Speaker 3: Coverage that is possible.
Speaker 2: If you like what we're all about, it just means
Speaker 2: the absolute world to have your support. But enough with that,
Speaker 2: let's get to the show. Good morning, everybody, Happy Thursday.
Speaker 2: We have an amazing show for everybody today.
Speaker 4: What do we have, Crystal, indeed, we do Lot's to
Speaker 4: get to this morning.
Speaker 1: Breaking news last night Henry Kissinger is dead at one hundred,
Speaker 1: so we'll talk a little bit about that to begin
Speaker 1: the show. We also have updates for you out of
Speaker 1: Israel in terms of the current ceasefire negotiations, temporary cease
Speaker 1: fire negotiation, and what comes next. Also some pretty uh
Speaker 1: noteworthy comments from Elon Musk yesterday in a New York
Speaker 1: Times event, telling advertisers, GF Y, go f yourself. So
Speaker 1: we've got those comments for you. What it means all
Speaker 1: of that? Very interesting Mark Cubans sparking rumors that maybe
Speaker 1: he's going to run for president because.
Speaker 3: I think you think so, I think so. Yeah, we'll
Speaker 3: talk about it.
Speaker 1: He denies it pretty strenuously. I don't know, but anyway,
Speaker 1: it's interesting. We'll tell you the signs there. We also
Speaker 1: have a massive announcement from the United Auto Workers. They
Speaker 1: are launching the largest organizing effort perhaps in history at
Speaker 1: basically every carmaker with factories here in the US. So
Speaker 1: that is a big deal. And SAGRESC got a big
Speaker 1: UFO report for us and also a fantastic monologue for
Speaker 1: us today.
Speaker 2: Yes, I'm back, I'm back. We have a couple of
Speaker 2: things that we wanted to mention. First and foremost is
Speaker 2: we got some data. I know a lot of you
Speaker 2: are personing, you posting your personal Spotify raps, many of
Speaker 2: which showed us at number one, so we thank you.
Speaker 2: But we also got our own here for breaking points
Speaker 2: with some incredible that we wanted to share with all
Speaker 2: of you.
Speaker 3: Let's put this up there on the screen.
Speaker 2: So forty five percent of the people who are listening
Speaker 2: right now actually discovered this podcast in twenty twenty three,
Speaker 2: which is astounding when you think about it, because that's
Speaker 2: nearly half and Crystal, you and I also know from
Speaker 2: our last year Spotify wrapped that at that point fifty
Speaker 2: five percent of people had joined us in twenty twenty two,
Speaker 2: and we started this only in June of twenty twenty one,
Speaker 2: so that's over one hundred percent growth in audience. It
Speaker 2: shows that we had huge spikes anytime that we had
Speaker 2: major news events from the midterms more recently in Israel.
Speaker 2: We also learned something about the way that you guys
Speaker 2: share the show. Predominantly people who did share it shared
Speaker 2: it by a text message. So we have a couple
Speaker 2: of asked of you, but the main one today is
Speaker 2: for the future and ongoing. If you like an episode
Speaker 2: and you think it could help a friend of yours,
Speaker 2: send it via text to a friend, because clearly from
Speaker 2: what we are seeing, thousands and tens of thousands of
Speaker 2: you have done that now over the last year and
Speaker 2: it's actually dramatically helped our growth, So we appreciate you.
Speaker 2: And then of course our premium subscribers as well, who
Speaker 2: we can also see in the data have been some
Speaker 2: of the super users and share So if you want
Speaker 2: to sign up Breakingpoints dot com but incredible data and
Speaker 2: you know what, we can't help, but thank you. All
Speaker 2: so much, because, yeah, that's what helps keep our business
Speaker 2: I think, really different than a lot of other people.
Speaker 3: We don't have to rely on a single source of revenue.
Speaker 2: We have a huge podcast, we have a big YouTube
Speaker 2: show as well, and of course we have our premium subscriptions.
Speaker 2: So you guys keep us anti fragile. And you know,
Speaker 2: anytime I see data like that, it's stunning.
Speaker 3: It really is great.
Speaker 4: Thank you for keeping us anti fragile. I like that. Yeah.
Speaker 1: And one of the things too, that was amazing to
Speaker 1: me looking at that data, which I mean, first of all,
Speaker 1: just thank you guys. It's amazing and it's exciting to
Speaker 1: have new people still joining the show and you know
Speaker 1: tuning in to hear our analysis of what's going on
Speaker 1: in Israel and Gaza.
Speaker 4: So thank you for that.
Speaker 1: And one of the shows that really brought people in
Speaker 1: was one of the shows with regards to you know,
Speaker 1: focus on Israel, and of the new listeners and overwhelming
Speaker 1: majority have actually joined just in the past couple months.
Speaker 1: With regards to our Israel coverage, So, as we've said
Speaker 1: many times in the past, especially with regard to coverage
Speaker 1: of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, the fact that you guys
Speaker 1: trust us to cover these big, significant, fraught, difficult news events.
Speaker 4: It really means a lot to us.
Speaker 1: We take it really seriously, and you know, it really
Speaker 1: sort of fuels us and helps us remain committed to
Speaker 1: doing the best job we possibly can on these complex
Speaker 1: news events. So thank you, thank you, thank you. We
Speaker 1: love you guys, We appreciate you.
Speaker 4: Guys.
Speaker 1: Let's go and jump in with the big breaking news.
Speaker 1: Put this up on the screen. From the intercept, there
Speaker 1: were many ways of leading these obits for Henry Kissinger.
Speaker 1: The intercept goes with top US diplomat responsible for millions
Speaker 1: of deaths dies at one hundred. Let me read you
Speaker 1: a little bit of this.
Speaker 4: They say.
Speaker 1: Few people have had a hand and as much death
Speaker 1: and destruction, as much human suffering in so many places
Speaker 1: around the world as Henry Kissinger. This was written by
Speaker 1: journalist Nick Churse, who we actually had on the show.
Speaker 1: I believe in the past year was Emily and I
Speaker 1: were on. He had uncovered new deaths tributable to Kissinger,
Speaker 1: even in the past couple of years in Cambodia. He
Speaker 1: goes on to write, Henry Kissinger, national Security Advisor, Secretary
Speaker 1: of State under two presidents and longtime eminence Grise of
Speaker 1: the US foreign policy establishment, died on November twenty ninth
Speaker 1: at his home in Connecticut, one hundred years old. He
Speaker 1: helped to prolong the Vietnam War, expand that conflict into
Speaker 1: neutral Cambodia, facilitated genocides in Cambodia, East Timor in Bangladesh,
Speaker 1: accelerated civil wars in Southern Africa, and supported coups and
Speaker 1: death squads throughout Latin America. He had the blood of
Speaker 1: at least three million people on his hands, according to
Speaker 1: his biographer Greg Greg Grandon goes on to quote, there
Speaker 1: were few people who have had as much a hand
Speaker 1: in death and destruction as much human suffering in so
Speaker 1: many places around the world as Henry Kissinger. According to
Speaker 1: veteran War crimes prosecutor Read Brody So one hundred years
Speaker 1: lived a long time, advised literally every president and hopeful
Speaker 1: presidents like Hillary Clinton. Was a symbol of both the
Speaker 1: sort of arrogance and casual disregard for human life using
Speaker 1: the entire world as a chess board and human beings
Speaker 1: as pawns and playthings on that chess board. The sort
Speaker 1: of arrogance that precipitated the War on Terror and our
Speaker 1: misadventures Neocon misadventures in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Speaker 4: And he is a long last augur.
Speaker 2: Dad, Well, I'll give my hottest take is I don't
Speaker 2: think Kissinger was uniquely bad in any respect. If anything,
Speaker 2: I think he was actually much better than many of
Speaker 2: the people who occupied top charges in American foreign policy.
Speaker 2: On Vietnam, I'm not really I've never understood, and I
Speaker 2: was telling you this earlier why people like McGeorge, Mundy
Speaker 2: and Robert McNamara were not nearly as reviled as Kissinger.
Speaker 2: I mean Kissinger, sure, you know he expanded the secret
Speaker 2: bombing in Cambodia, but him and Nixon got signed the
Speaker 2: Treaty of Paris, and they got us the hell out
Speaker 2: of Vietnam. They had the Vietnamization process. Dayton was one
Speaker 2: of the most successful foreign policy things that we needed
Speaker 2: at the time. The Salt One Treaty froze the insane
Speaker 2: missile spending that the LBJ and Kennedy.
Speaker 3: Johnson administration we're doing.
Speaker 2: The Opening of China remains one of the great master
Speaker 2: classes in American foreign policy. And I look, and my
Speaker 2: big meta kind of take on why I get annoyed
Speaker 2: with some of the criticism of Kissinger is the reason
Speaker 2: why the left hates Kissinger are the reasons that the
Speaker 2: neo cons hated him too, because he refused to incorporate
Speaker 2: quote unquote morality into his foreign policy. Now, I know
Speaker 2: that that sounds bad, but you know, one of the
Speaker 2: reasons why I've been so against like moralistic campaigns around Israel,
Speaker 2: around Ukraine is that weaponized empathy is a bad way
Speaker 2: to conduct relations between states. Kissinger disregarded that along with
Speaker 2: Nixon and pursued in most cases a pretty realist policy
Speaker 2: and was confined by some difficult political circumstances at the time.
Speaker 2: So I think people like Rumsfeldt, who by the way,
Speaker 2: is the person who eventually defeated Kissinger, and bureaucratic combat
Speaker 2: people like McGeorge Bundy, people like macnamara, many of the
Speaker 2: Sea I forget the CIA director's name for Ronald Reagan them,
Speaker 2: they're far worse in terms of Georgia. But sure, well,
Speaker 2: but he's the president. And that actually brings it back
Speaker 2: to Kissinger was not the decider. It was Nixon, it
Speaker 2: was Ford, it was Kennedy, it.
Speaker 1: Was Kissinger was incredibly influenced over a long period of time,
Speaker 1: Kissinger was literally picking out police's on the map to bomb.
Speaker 4: It was nally bombed.
Speaker 1: And so you and I have a fundamental difference of opinion,
Speaker 1: philosophical difference in terms of conduct and morality.
Speaker 4: And you know, I'm.
Speaker 1: Opposed to genocide, I'm opposed to war crimes. This man
Speaker 1: was a war criminal. There's no two ways about it.
Speaker 1: Read Christopher Hutchin's book on it if you want to
Speaker 1: know all the details. But I mean, even just with
Speaker 1: regard to Vietnam, he intentionally blew up peace talks in
Speaker 1: an attempt to try to get Nixon into the White House.
Speaker 1: Then he's rewarded with the National Security Advisor's job. So
Speaker 1: even if you're just talking about Vietnam, he prolongs this
Speaker 1: conflict for years and expands it into Cambodia and Laos.
Speaker 1: The US drop five hundred and forty thousand bombs on
Speaker 1: those places, one hundred and fifty to five hundred thousand
Speaker 1: Cambodian civilians. So you know, I can't really just look
Speaker 1: past that. And the other piece I would say, even
Speaker 1: if you don't care about genocide, you know the backing
Speaker 1: Pinochet in Chile, these brutal military dictatorships, even if you're like, yeah,
Speaker 1: I don't really care if it if it serves American interests.
Speaker 1: The other piece of it and why it is so
Speaker 1: consistent and why he's like the grandfather of neocons, is
Speaker 1: because there's such a level of arrogance thinking that we
Speaker 1: can just move these pieces on the chessboard around, not
Speaker 1: care about any of the humanity involved, and not experience
Speaker 1: any sort of fallout or blowback from those sort of adventures.
Speaker 1: So he did support the war in Iraq. It's not
Speaker 1: like he was opposed to it, because this is completely
Speaker 1: consistent with his ideology. Now, the neocons may have tried
Speaker 1: to wrap their ideology in idealism, but the reality is
Speaker 1: that they were very much consistently trying to pursue their
Speaker 1: own version of Kissinger strategy, which is again why, in
Speaker 1: spite of all of his various record of criminality over
Speaker 1: many decades, he still was fetted by elites from both
Speaker 1: parties consistently. And you know, we're talking a lot about
Speaker 1: the loss of US credibility and how can they ever
Speaker 1: say anything with a straight face about care of democracy,
Speaker 1: human rights.
Speaker 3: Et cetera.
Speaker 1: Given the support of Netanyahuo's you know, indiscriminate bombing in
Speaker 1: Gaza right now. You know, Kissinger really is like the
Speaker 1: grandfather of that too. It can point to the Iraq
Speaker 1: War and the loss of US credibility, but it really
Speaker 1: goes back to him and the total disregard for law, constitutionality,
Speaker 1: in any sort of care and concern for.
Speaker 3: Human I understand.
Speaker 2: I just don't think human rights or morality or any
Speaker 2: of these things really have anything to play whenever it
Speaker 2: comes to how you should conduct yourself, because ultimately you
Speaker 2: find you find yourselves like the Biden administration and all
Speaker 2: the governments before them, backing places like Saudi Arabia and
Speaker 2: then talking about other things in Ukraine. It's like it's
Speaker 2: never going to be consistent. Whenever you live in a
Speaker 2: messy world, it's going to be messy. So you might
Speaker 2: as well disregard the pretense. I remember, I think he
Speaker 2: was caught on one of the Nixon tapes basically saying
Speaker 2: exactly this.
Speaker 3: I would say.
Speaker 2: Again, I don't think he's uniquely bad in that period
Speaker 2: of America.
Speaker 4: I could buy that there.
Speaker 1: I think part of why he stands out for people
Speaker 1: as such a uniquely evil figure is because he is
Speaker 1: this sort of symbol of the banality of evil that
Speaker 1: was embraced by presidents of both parties over such a
Speaker 1: long period of time. Maybe, And so yeah, to say, like, oh, well,
Speaker 1: other American like foreign policy advisors did bad things is like,
Speaker 1: obviously to me worse he's he. I mean, I don't
Speaker 1: know how you get worse than being responsible for like
Speaker 1: millions of people's debts and backing genocides in various places,
Speaker 1: in military cups, et cetera, et cetera.
Speaker 3: But this is my point is that this by this regard,
Speaker 3: I mean Fdr.
Speaker 2: FDR heavily supported Joseph Stalin, he bailed him out in
Speaker 2: many respects, and Stalin is responsible for many in many cases.
Speaker 2: That's my point is that you live in a massy world.
Speaker 2: It's like not sometimes we have to make choices about
Speaker 2: who we support and who we work with.
Speaker 3: And at the end of the day.
Speaker 2: And also on sixty eight, it's not one hundred percent
Speaker 2: confirmed that they blew up those talks.
Speaker 3: Although it is controversial.
Speaker 2: I actually would still love if anybody who's alive who
Speaker 2: was president at that time. We're still looking for total confirmation.
Speaker 2: I was just I think Dayton was a great policy.
Speaker 2: I think Salt one was what his country needed at
Speaker 2: the time. He bought us a long time before Afghanistan
Speaker 2: and the eventual rollback people who came under Reagan.
Speaker 3: I mean he within.
Speaker 2: The political confines at the time, pursued Vietnamization, signed the
Speaker 2: Treaty of Paris. He got our POWs out with the
Speaker 2: I think it was part of the negotiation with the
Speaker 2: eventual Vietcong Under him and Ford, they did not strike
Speaker 2: back against the fall a Saigon, which was the correct
Speaker 2: and unpopular policy at the time. So there were a
Speaker 2: lot of things that they did which I support, and
Speaker 2: I think we're on balance really good for America. Now,
Speaker 2: did he have a lot of mistakes and did he
Speaker 2: make a lot of dumb calls like supporting the war
Speaker 2: in Iraq? Yes, he also opposed NATO expansion, spoke out
Speaker 2: for not interfering in Ukraine. He believed very strongly as
Speaker 2: I do, and the spheres of influence ideology.
Speaker 3: So out look, I don't think he is.
Speaker 2: Nearly as bad as many of the people who were
Speaker 2: dominant foreign policy figures at the time. And I think
Speaker 2: most of the reasons people hate him is because the resurgence.
Speaker 2: He became the icon of the UH like the anti
Speaker 2: the devil during the New Left, which is what most
Speaker 2: of the modern Left is like a descendant of well
Speaker 2: because of the expansion of the bombing.
Speaker 1: It's that, But that was also the long standing influence,
Speaker 1: I mean slaughter and Laos slaughter and Cambodia slaughter in Vietnam,
Speaker 1: slaughter in East Timore backing Suharto that caused the death
Speaker 1: two hundred thousand deaths just right there. We were their
Speaker 1: number one supplier of weapons, backing the coup of Ellende
Speaker 1: and you know, putting in place Pinochet and the brutal
Speaker 1: deaths that that resulted in. So I can't just look
Speaker 1: at that and be like, yeah, but you know China,
Speaker 1: like oopsie genocide.
Speaker 4: What can you do?
Speaker 2: But that's my only point is how many civilians at
Speaker 2: LBJ McNamara and McGeorge Bundy killers.
Speaker 1: Oaks that times say there was lots of other evil
Speaker 1: done by other presidents and other national security advisors, but
Speaker 1: in any case, not going to warn this man's death
Speaker 1: after one hundred long years of causing death and destruction.
Speaker 2: I'll give a book recommendation people should read it. We'll
Speaker 2: put the book jacket up there on the screen. It's
Speaker 2: his early years, which is very instructive, not about Kissinger.
Speaker 2: Great biographies are about the people, their times, and what
Speaker 2: the foreign policy conversation look like. It's by Nile Ferguson,
Speaker 2: or maybe it's Neil. I never know how to say
Speaker 2: his name. I recommend that people read it. Do not
Speaker 2: read the Walter Isaacson biography because it's a joke.
Speaker 3: I believe.
Speaker 2: The only other credible one, if you want from a
Speaker 2: lefty perspective, is the one that.
Speaker 4: Mile of Henry Kissinger.
Speaker 3: Well that's the cure.
Speaker 2: But there's the one that the Yale historian wrote that
Speaker 2: you quoted him. I forget what it's called that you
Speaker 2: just read in the intership biography that one. Also, if
Speaker 2: you want to hear more of a critical perspective, you should.
Speaker 1: Also you could also hear from Anthony Bourdain in his book,
Speaker 1: who said, and I quote, You'll never stop wanting to
Speaker 1: beat Henry Kissinger to death with your bare hands after
Speaker 1: visiting Cambodia.
Speaker 4: So there you go.
Speaker 2: Bordain, as usual, had some good takes. He also was
Speaker 2: a cringe boomer left this in it.
Speaker 3: It is worse. So I'll leave it at that too.
Speaker 3: How about that?
Speaker 1: All right, let's go ahead and dive into the very
Speaker 1: latest that is happening in Israel. Put this up on
Speaker 1: the screen, some great reporting from our friend Ken Clippenstein
Speaker 1: over at the Intercept. So apparently the Israeli military has
Speaker 1: launched a full court press, closed door PR blitz on
Speaker 1: Capitol Hill as you have had some calls for a
Speaker 1: ceasefire growing. Let me read you a little bit from
Speaker 1: Ken's report. So, high level Israeli military officers are conducting
Speaker 1: private briefings right now from members of Congress on Israel's
Speaker 1: war on Gaza. That's according to documents that the Intercept
Speaker 1: was able to get their hands on. Those briefings have
Speaker 1: ramped up as questions emerge on Capitol Hill about Israel's
Speaker 1: conduct in the war and ceasefire calls gain steam. This
Speaker 1: is from a source, they say, quote, there's an Israel
Speaker 1: pr blitz happening this week, facilitated by a handful of senators.
Speaker 1: Practically all of the briefings on this issue these last
Speaker 1: few weeks have been members only. One briefing exclusive to
Speaker 1: members of the Senate, scheduled on Monday and organized by
Speaker 1: Center Tammy Duckworth involved three senior IDF officers stationed at
Speaker 1: the Israeli embassy. So Sagre, you have a major pr
Speaker 1: offensive here to try to make sure because Israel is
Speaker 1: long enjoyed bipartisan backing and support. The Biden administration, of course,
Speaker 1: thus far in this war, has given them everything they wanted,
Speaker 1: no strings attached. But now you're coming down to the
Speaker 1: wire where there is fourteen billion dollars in additional aid
Speaker 1: that is supposed to be part of a package that
Speaker 1: could be passed or voted on as early as next week,
Speaker 1: and you have growing calls for a ceasefire, including you know,
Speaker 1: Biden's tone shifting a little bit again. The actions have
Speaker 1: continued to be hey, unconditional support, no red lines, et cetera.
Speaker 1: But you do have a little bit of a different
Speaker 1: tone being struck by Biden. So they are getting nervous
Speaker 1: that that aid could be conditioned. They are getting nervous
Speaker 1: that the US could, at some point, under pressure from
Speaker 1: the domestic populace, which is overwhelmingly in favor of a ceasefire,
Speaker 1: push their congressional members to stop giving them that fulsome
Speaker 1: unconditional support that they are so used to.
Speaker 2: Yeah, the APEC meeting is pretty significant because it really
Speaker 2: comes at a pivotal moment here in Washington around all
Speaker 2: the debates with ceasefire, about the extension, about and we'll
Speaker 2: talk about this in a little bit, the possible conditioning
Speaker 2: of aid. But as hostages began to come out, Oh
Speaker 2: and we have a good update here that we can
Speaker 2: deliver on the show. Yar Dan, who is the sister
Speaker 2: of Gilly Roman, who we had here, who was one
Speaker 2: of the Israeli hostages, or we had in some case
Speaker 2: nobody knew if she was alive or not. We had
Speaker 2: a great interview with her brother was actually released earlier today,
Speaker 2: So we're very very happy about that.
Speaker 3: Gilly, who we had.
Speaker 2: On the show, was you know, obviously very emotional distraught
Speaker 2: around the situation. We hope she's okay and there's happiness there.
Speaker 2: But that's my point also is that as you have
Speaker 2: more people inside of Israel who are watching is hostages
Speaker 2: come home, there's going to be growing pressure in order
Speaker 2: to continue those deals, especially with Hamas, to be on
Speaker 2: the page where they'll release something like ten hostages or
Speaker 2: so per day. Right the same time, though, Crystal, there
Speaker 2: are people inside the Netanyahu coalition who are very against
Speaker 2: continuing this and actually could bring down his entire government.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so, first of all, just to show you how
Speaker 1: influential some of the American Israel lobby groups are, put
Speaker 1: this up on the screen Natanyahu met. You've got a
Speaker 1: picture here with APAC leadership in Jerusalem, and you know,
Speaker 1: read Ryan's book if you want to know how influential
Speaker 1: APAK is, how much they're able to throw their weight around,
Speaker 1: how crucial they have been in keeping uniformity of opinion
Speaker 1: with regard to Israel, and you know, not brooking any
Speaker 1: criticism of the Israeli government whatsoever. Now because you have
Speaker 1: this rise of grassroots fundraising able to lift you know,
Speaker 1: people like aoc Rashida to leave ilhan Omar into office.
Speaker 1: They have not been able to keep that absolute lock grip.
Speaker 1: But they are saying they're going to spend millions and
Speaker 1: millions to try to feed anyone who is you know,
Speaker 1: called for a ceasefire or dissented on the issue of
Speaker 1: Israel and Palestine. Here in the case of Israel's war
Speaker 1: on Paleside, so war on Gaza. So you can see there,
Speaker 1: you know, how important net Yahoo finds them in terms
Speaker 1: of keeping American public opinion on his side. We reported
Speaker 1: just days ago that Netanyahu, and making his case to
Speaker 1: stay leader of LACUD party and stay the Prime Minister
Speaker 1: of Israel, is saying, hey, I know how to manage
Speaker 1: American public opinion.
Speaker 4: I know how to deal with Jo Biden. I known
Speaker 4: him for forty years.
Speaker 1: And by the way, I'm the guy who will make
Speaker 1: sure there will never be a Palestinian state. So makes
Speaker 1: all the sense in the world that APAC officials when
Speaker 1: they go to Israel, you know, they get the royal
Speaker 1: treatment and get to meet with the big guy right away.
Speaker 1: Put this next piece up on the screen. They've taken
Speaker 1: all of these, you know, various resolutions to just prove
Speaker 1: how pro Israel everybody is and get people on the record,
Speaker 1: et cetera. We have this new one about quote reaffirming
Speaker 1: the state of Israel's right to exist. We had one
Speaker 1: no vote here and we wanted to give shout out
Speaker 1: to Republican Thomas Massey has been very consistent. I mean
Speaker 1: this sixscourage. Apak has already said they're coming for him too.
Speaker 1: He says much of the language in this I'm voting
Speaker 1: no on I actually agree with and I agree with
Speaker 1: the title, but it equates anti Zionism with anti Semitism.
Speaker 1: Anti Semitism is deplorable, but expanding it to include criticism
Speaker 1: of Israel is not helpful. And this has long been
Speaker 1: the goal of groups like ADL to make it so
Speaker 1: that criticism of the Israeli government, which Israelis do all
Speaker 1: the time Natan Yahoo has like an literally an eight
Speaker 1: percent approval rating in the State of Israel right now,
Speaker 1: is completely off limits. Is considered anti anti semitic, and
Speaker 1: certainly any criticism of the political ideology of Zionism is
Speaker 1: also considered anti semitic, which is outrageous. You have to
Speaker 1: be able to critique any sort of political ideology, and
Speaker 1: that's what this resolution seeks to and force Rashida's to leave,
Speaker 1: I mean sort of surprisingly since Thomas Massey was the
Speaker 1: only no vote, she voted present, so she didn't vote
Speaker 1: for it, but in orderd she vote against it.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think it's really significant in order to actually
Speaker 2: think about where we stand in a domestic political level, because,
Speaker 2: as you said, for all of the outspoken talk of
Speaker 2: the Squad and all these other people, why did they
Speaker 2: vote for this resolution?
Speaker 3: Crystal? And it seems clear.
Speaker 2: I think they're obviously cowed by some of the criticism,
Speaker 2: Massy being the only one to stand up. And let's
Speaker 2: not whitewash this either. They are running a millions of
Speaker 2: dollars of ads against him in his state of Kentucky.
Speaker 2: He's actually tweeted out some of them if people are
Speaker 2: interested to go and watch, and they directly target it.
Speaker 2: But his point is I vote this way on all
Speaker 2: four and eid of all kinds. He's like, I've been
Speaker 2: doing this for my entire tenure in all of Congress,
Speaker 2: So this is just a matter of principles and consistency.
Speaker 2: But they want to use the conflation of anti Zionism
Speaker 2: equals anti Semitism. It's also very interesting because this is
Speaker 2: why I don't get Nikki Haley was rightfully mocked for
Speaker 2: saying anti Zionism equals anti Semitism right where by many Democrats,
Speaker 2: that's influential commentators and others. And yet when the exact
Speaker 2: same resolution comes to the floor of the House, why
Speaker 2: is it passing with the only single no vote?
Speaker 3: What does that? What does that show us?
Speaker 2: And I think it shows us the power of a
Speaker 2: pack and of what they can deliver and look you,
Speaker 2: Michael Tracy made this point actually this morning, which I
Speaker 2: do agree is completely absurd, is that APAC now for decades,
Speaker 2: has been exempt from the Foreign Agent Registration Act, which
Speaker 2: applies to quote individuals and entities acting with the US
Speaker 2: on behalf of foreign interests, despite literally dedicating its entire
Speaker 2: existence to furthering the interests of Israel, including meetings with
Speaker 2: the Prime Minister of that nation, and including often using
Speaker 2: their power directly to lobby American foreign policy for interests
Speaker 2: that are only aligned with Israel and then shrouded in
Speaker 2: supposedly this is.
Speaker 3: Better for America.
Speaker 2: So I think there's a there's an America first case
Speaker 2: to be made against an organization like this having such
Speaker 2: incredible power here in Washington. Again, I recommend the book
Speaker 2: Israel Lobby by John Meersheimer, which at the time was
Speaker 2: also smeared as anti Semitic. It's been a tactic of Theirs,
Speaker 2: unfortunately for quite a long time.
Speaker 3: But the outcome of that vote just shows us how
Speaker 3: influential they remain to be.
Speaker 2: I still, though, believe that we are at probably the
Speaker 2: apex of apex apax power and apex of a hardy
Speaker 2: apex of apax power because they have used so much
Speaker 2: political capital, first on the Iran Deal and second on
Speaker 2: here in American politics, that in the future, future democratic
Speaker 2: lawmakers and others are going to feel I think more
Speaker 2: comfortable speaking out against the consensus.
Speaker 3: I could be wrong.
Speaker 1: I mean, just look at the generational de exactly. You know,
Speaker 1: as millennials agen Z become a majority of the American
Speaker 1: voting public, there's no doubt that the U just you know,
Speaker 1: blanket unconditional support for Israel begins to erode, and you
Speaker 1: know they're they're going down, kicking, screaming right now. They're
Speaker 1: gonna It's very possible that some of the squad members
Speaker 1: who have been courageous and outspoken against Democratic leaders on
Speaker 1: this issue, that they could lose in primaries. That is
Speaker 1: absolutely on the table. It's very much on the table
Speaker 1: that you could have less support for dissent going forward
Speaker 1: after this Congress. But you know, the other piece of it, saga,
Speaker 1: is just the Israeli political sphere has moved so far
Speaker 1: and hard to the right that there's just no I mean,
Speaker 1: I have a list, there's a website now that's tracking
Speaker 1: like all of the just overtly genocidal quotes and advocating
Speaker 1: for ethnic cleansing coming from current Israeli government officials and
Speaker 1: look Fud party members and whatever, and that just becomes
Speaker 1: undeniable at a certain point where you can no longer
Speaker 1: pretend like, oh, we're in this peace process and everybody
Speaker 1: wants a two state solution, when you've got Nan Yahoo
Speaker 1: arguing the reason I should stay in power is because
Speaker 1: I will make damn sure there is never a two
Speaker 1: state solution. So some of the reality over time, especially
Speaker 1: with the images that we've seen in Gaza, becomes undeniable
Speaker 1: not only to members of Congress, but more critically to
Speaker 1: you know, the American public, whose grassroots pressure is responsible
Speaker 1: for any of the even tone shift coming from the ministry.
Speaker 1: Right now, there's a fantastic piece in Haretz. Let's put
Speaker 1: this up on the screen about the dynamics and the pressures,
Speaker 1: competing pressures that are facing that Yahoo currently. Obviously, as
Speaker 1: we've said a million times, politically, he is I mean,
Speaker 1: he's hated anytime. I don't know if you guys have
Speaker 1: ever looked at the replies to any of his tweets
Speaker 1: on Twitter, but if you look at the Hebrew replies
Speaker 1: from the right and the left. They all are like, resign,
Speaker 1: we hate you, You're horrible, evil, get out of here.
Speaker 1: And the latest pull I saw has like eight percent
Speaker 1: of people who think he should still be in charge
Speaker 1: of this country. So he has some political pressures, you
Speaker 1: might say. But what I found really remarkable and different
Speaker 1: than the way that the US press presents the American
Speaker 1: side of things is they make it so clear how
Speaker 1: influential we are and how we really hold all the cards.
Speaker 1: It's only a question of whether we feel like using
Speaker 1: them or not. So they say here, Israel cannot determine
Speaker 1: its course alone. It depends on multi layers American support.
Speaker 1: First in renewal of the munition stores to replace the
Speaker 1: many bombs, missiles, and artillery shells fired at and dropped
Speaker 1: on the strip. Second in warning of distant launches through
Speaker 1: the radar and warning network shared by Israel in the
Speaker 1: US military Sentcom. Third in securing Israeli freedom of shipping
Speaker 1: to and from Islet Port in the face of the
Speaker 1: naval blockade imposed by the Huthis who control the straits
Speaker 1: in the Red Sea. Fourth in deterring Iran and hasblaf
Speaker 1: from opening for their fronts in Lebanon and prop Syria
Speaker 1: and Iraq as well. Fifth, the US holds veto power
Speaker 1: at the UN Security Council and may thwart or allow
Speaker 1: a resolution calling for a ceasefire. They go on to say,
Speaker 1: and I found this extraordinary. Again, this is not something
Speaker 1: you ever hear in the American press. The Americans are
Speaker 1: closely involved in all levels of managing the war, from
Speaker 1: operational coordination in the war rooms, to the conversations of
Speaker 1: US President Joe Biden and senior emissaries and officers with Netanyahoo,
Speaker 1: Minister Galan IDF Chief of Staff Haleevi, and the heads
Speaker 1: of the Military Intelligence director and the Air Force. They
Speaker 1: go on to say, the American position is shaping up.
Speaker 1: Thus Biden will agree to the opening of a second
Speaker 1: phase in the Gaza Strip campaign, but not to escalation
Speaker 1: as a result of Israeli initiatives in the North.
Speaker 4: In return, Israel be required.
Speaker 1: To expand the humanitarian aid to the Gazas and to
Speaker 1: produce an outline for the day after toppling Hamas with
Speaker 1: a preferred Saurnaro and Washington being the PA's returned to
Speaker 1: the Strip and the opening of negotiations for the two
Speaker 1: state solution.
Speaker 4: So in Israel.
Speaker 1: There is basically no public sentiment in favor of wrapping
Speaker 1: up this war, securing some sort of a lasting truce
Speaker 1: or ceasefire, very little sentiment in favor of that, virtually zero.
Speaker 1: And so the US and these outside pressures are really
Speaker 1: the only ones that could push Israel to at any
Speaker 1: point in the near future. And their indiscriminate bombing campaign
Speaker 1: that has been so devastating for the civilians in Gaza.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and the thing is that the US policy really
Speaker 2: doesn't know where it stands right now.
Speaker 3: Let's put this up there.
Speaker 2: For example, with Joe Biden, he's continuing to try and
Speaker 2: have it both ways. He says this quote Hamas unleashed
Speaker 2: a terrorist attack because they fear nothing more than Israelis
Speaker 2: and Palsuenians living side by side in peace. We continue
Speaker 2: down the path of terror, violence, killing, and war is
Speaker 2: to give Hamas what they seek. We can't do that.
Speaker 2: So that seemed to be a call for a permanent
Speaker 2: cease fire. And yet at the same time they put
Speaker 2: out a statement clarifying the tweets, saying, quote, he meant
Speaker 2: that we can't lose hope for.
Speaker 3: Peace ultimately in the region.
Speaker 2: It's incredibly important that we consider to lay the groundwork
Speaker 2: for create the conditions for a lasting piece that involves
Speaker 2: a two state solution.
Speaker 3: Whatever the hell.
Speaker 4: That's yeah, it's not a change in policy.
Speaker 1: Continues to believe that Israel's a right to defend itself,
Speaker 1: blah blah blah.
Speaker 3: At the same time, we have this we can put there.
Speaker 2: The Kataris are at least optimistic in the short term
Speaker 2: that there will be an extension of the truth.
Speaker 3: They said, cool.
Speaker 2: They are very optimistic as long as they coast as
Speaker 2: how long as Hamas agrees to the Israeli conditions of
Speaker 2: continuing to release ten hostages per day, as long as
Speaker 2: the continuation of the negotiations are there. The problem though,
Speaker 2: is that eventually, of course, you will run out of hostages,
Speaker 2: and then the eventual question arises, what are you going
Speaker 2: to do? I'm not sure honestly where things will stand.
Speaker 2: At the same time, Netsa Yahu and all of them
Speaker 2: are not idiots. They understand us public opinion to a
Speaker 2: certain extent. They can see polling on cease fire, and
Speaker 2: they also know that they've burned a lot of their
Speaker 2: credibility with a lot of their Western allies who are
Speaker 2: at this point, facing a deluge of calls within their
Speaker 2: own coalitions it's to condition aid to Israel or at
Speaker 2: the very least they're seeing demonstrations. So will they conduct
Speaker 2: themselves in the South and the military operation in the
Speaker 2: same way. Apparently Biden behind the scenes has made it
Speaker 2: clear to net Ninity's like, you can't do that. You're
Speaker 2: gonna have to change things up. Are they going to listen?
Speaker 3: I don't know.
Speaker 2: I mean, this actually comes to the question of the
Speaker 2: Israeli military and what orders they're receiving. Will they be
Speaker 2: given differing in separate orders to stop or to not
Speaker 2: reignite a similar pre bombing campaign that we saw in
Speaker 2: Gaza before the ground operations today, or are they going
Speaker 2: to do things exactly the same. If I had to guess,
Speaker 2: I think it's probably going to be somewhere in the
Speaker 2: middle ground. But the initial response of October seventh, you know,
Speaker 2: with the bombing campaign that began really October fourteenth, really
Speaker 2: and onward. I don't I don't think they could get
Speaker 2: away with that. Now it's possible. I could be totally wrong,
Speaker 2: But when you've got thirty some senators who are saying
Speaker 2: we should condition military aid, I mean you can only
Speaker 2: stand against that for so long.
Speaker 3: If it's somebody like Joe Biden.
Speaker 4: I mean, that is the question.
Speaker 1: Yeah, because we've been getting all these you know, strategic
Speaker 1: leaks to the wash Up Post New York.
Speaker 4: Times this whole time, like, oh, b Yeah.
Speaker 1: Publicly they're saying no ride lines, but behind the scenes,
Speaker 1: Biden's been really tough. Well, it doesn't matter. I mean,
Speaker 1: that's really clear at this point. Even if that is true,
Speaker 1: which maybe it is, maybe it is not, It clearly
Speaker 1: doesn't matter unless you're actually going to back it up
Speaker 1: with conditioning aid or pulling support at the UN, or
Speaker 1: you know, some other actual use of our leverage. They
Speaker 1: clearly don't care because again Netanyahu, from a domestic perspective,
Speaker 1: all the pressure is on the other side to bomb
Speaker 1: the hell on the south of the Gaza Strip in
Speaker 1: the same way that they did the north. So if
Speaker 1: you don't have the US actually willing to use the
Speaker 1: cards that we have, then he's just going to continue
Speaker 1: doing whatever the hell he wants to do and what
Speaker 1: and you know, satiating the desire for revenge among the
Speaker 1: Israeli public. And by the way, you know, his far
Speaker 1: right coalition they've already said that if we continue these
Speaker 1: truces and if we don't go back to bombing the
Speaker 1: strip the way that we were before, we're out of
Speaker 1: the government. He has a very narrow coalition to work with.
Speaker 1: So if you have a few of these keys players out,
Speaker 1: that's it. Then you've got to call for new elections,
Speaker 1: and no way in hell and now he was winning
Speaker 1: new elections today, not a chance. So that's why, you know,
Speaker 1: when you can put it in kind of the American
Speaker 1: political you know, context of when you have this like
Speaker 1: narrow margin in the House, then it gives you know,
Speaker 1: whoever is like the craziest, gives them the most leverage
Speaker 1: if they want to use it.
Speaker 4: It's the same thing in Israel.
Speaker 1: That's why these quote unquote fringe figures have so much
Speaker 1: power in terms of the execution of this campaign, because
Speaker 1: he has to have them to hold on to his
Speaker 1: grip on power. So as Sogerman before, we do have
Speaker 1: this is really different. It used to be a really
Speaker 1: fringe position held by basically Bernie Sanders and no one
Speaker 1: else that we should condition aid to Israel, and this
Speaker 1: is becoming a mainstream thought among Democratic senators. Put this
Speaker 1: up on the screen, so Schumer announced that they planned
Speaker 1: to hold the vote for that fourteen billion dollars in
Speaker 1: emergency aid to Israel as soon as next week. Sanders
Speaker 1: had previously called to condition aid. He reintroduced that call
Speaker 1: on November eighteenth. But you have additional people who are
Speaker 1: joining those calls, Senator Chris van Holland, Brian Shatz and
Speaker 1: dak Reid, they said, and these are again really like
Speaker 1: middle of the road kind of Democrats, standard issue Democrats.
Speaker 1: We continue to support additional assistants to Israel, but we
Speaker 1: are all in agreement that this assistance must be consistent
Speaker 1: with our interest and values and used in a manner
Speaker 1: that adheres to international humanitarian law, the law of armed conflicts.
Speaker 1: You also had Peter Welsh, Bernie Sanders colleague there in Vermont,
Speaker 1: saying something similar. Israel can't meet the standard of place
Speaker 1: in the highest priority on civilian life. He says, the
Speaker 1: US must give serious consideration to the type of aid
Speaker 1: that Congress provides in any national security supplemental package.
Speaker 4: And we had.
Speaker 1: Senator Chris Murphy saying very similar things in a recent interview.
Speaker 4: Let's take a listen.
Speaker 5: Well, I stand by what I said. I do believe
Speaker 5: that the level of civilian harm inside Gaza has been
Speaker 5: unacceptable and is unsustainable. I think there's both a moral
Speaker 5: cost to this, many civilians, innocent civilians, children often losing
Speaker 5: their life, but I think there's a strategic cost. Ultimately,
Speaker 5: Hamas will get stronger, not weaker, in the long run,
Speaker 5: if all of this civilian death allows them to recruit
Speaker 5: more effectively enably inside Gaza. Listen, we regularly condition our
Speaker 5: aid to allies based upon compliance with US law and
Speaker 5: international law, and so I think it's very consistent with
Speaker 5: the ways in which we have dispensed aid, especially during wartime,
Speaker 5: to allies, for US to talk about making sure that
Speaker 5: the aid we give Ukraine or the aid we give
Speaker 5: Israel is used in accordance with human rights laws.
Speaker 1: So Socger Again, these are not radicals. This is like,
Speaker 1: you know, mainstream democratic sentiment, and you know, this is
Speaker 1: very different conversation that was having happening previously. And the
Speaker 1: other thing that people are pointing to is there's something
Speaker 1: called the Lahy Law, which is supposed to be you're
Speaker 1: supposed to make sure that any sort of weapons that
Speaker 1: you're providing to foreign governments that they're not going to
Speaker 1: be used for war crimes or against civilians. And with Israel,
Speaker 1: we've long just like ignored that outright waived it, and
Speaker 1: so there are now growing calls of also applying the
Speaker 1: Leaky Act to any of our military aid to Israel
Speaker 1: as well.
Speaker 2: I have a long history with the Lady Law contell
Speaker 2: oh really yeah. One of the first biggest stories I
Speaker 2: ever worked on was if people will remember sexual abuse
Speaker 2: within the Afghan forces that was covered up that was
Speaker 2: basically covered up by the pentagona by the US military,
Speaker 2: including literal pedophilia that the Pentagon didn't want to come
Speaker 2: to the light and in some cases punished US forces.
Speaker 3: Well.
Speaker 2: The evidence behind a lot of the pedophilia that pervaded
Speaker 2: a lot of the Afghan national security forces was hidden
Speaker 2: by the Pentagon and classified specifically so that we would
Speaker 2: not violate the Lahy Law in our aid to Afghanistans.
Speaker 3: This is one of the biggest stories I worked.
Speaker 2: On a lot at the time, and unfortunately, I think
Speaker 2: that's part of why I almost grinned when you said it,
Speaker 2: because here's the truth. If they don't want you to know,
Speaker 2: they'll just classify it, or they will they will drag
Speaker 2: along the process such that on the letter.
Speaker 3: Of the law, you're not violating the Lay law.
Speaker 2: And you just continue the weapons. It's a joke, and
Speaker 2: it's a very well intentioned law. It's actually a good law,
Speaker 2: but it's one that needs real more teeth. Patrick Lay
Speaker 2: himself always tried to advance that. But the truth is
Speaker 2: is that when the American military industrial complex wants something,
Speaker 2: they will usually get it.
Speaker 1: So, you know, Lay was that interviewed about this by
Speaker 1: a Vermont community news over group, which is adorable, and
Speaker 1: herrets quoted from this piece that they were able to
Speaker 1: find that he said, appears to me that shooting civilians
Speaker 1: and targeting civilian infrastructure when you can't prove it is
Speaker 1: being used by Jimas, would be a violation of human rights.
Speaker 1: The US is urging the Israelis to protect civilians, and
Speaker 1: of course the Israelis face a terrible terrorist attacked by Hamas,
Speaker 1: which is a violation of every norm of international law.
Speaker 1: But he added, what is being done to apply the
Speaker 1: Lahy law?
Speaker 4: Now, I don't know.
Speaker 1: I know passive administrations have been too concerned to do it.
Speaker 4: I should apply.
Speaker 1: It should apply to the IDF unless the administration, as
Speaker 1: many have has waived it. So in any case, those
Speaker 1: are some of the bubbling pressures that are being brought
Speaker 1: to bear, which again I think is wholly due to
Speaker 1: the pressure that has been enforced by the grassroots, these
Speaker 1: protests and demonstrations all across the country. There are all
Speaker 1: kinds of reports about how senators and members of Congress
Speaker 1: are just flooded with in favor of a ceasefire. You know,
Speaker 1: the horror of the images that are coming out on
Speaker 1: TikTok and even in some mainstream press at this point
Speaker 1: is creating so much pressure that even the United States Congress,
Speaker 1: at least on the Democratic side, is feeling some of
Speaker 1: that heat and feeling like they need to do something.
Speaker 1: So that's part of what's shaping whatever is going to
Speaker 1: connect with regards to this war. We also wanted to
Speaker 1: cover for you, you know, as part of these ongoing hostage
Speaker 1: release deals, put this up on the screen. Some really
Speaker 1: troubling potential news. Hamas is claiming that the youngest hostage
Speaker 1: and three family members were actually killed in Israeli bombing.
Speaker 1: Of course, this is coming from Hamas, it has not
Speaker 1: been confirmed, so we don't know for sure. But this
Speaker 1: report from NBC News says. Fears were raised Wednesday for
Speaker 1: the youngest hostage held in the Gaza Strip after Hamas
Speaker 1: claimed that ten month old Kafir b Bus had been
Speaker 1: killed along with his brother and mother. Israel's military says
Speaker 1: they are assessing the claim. Relatives said they were waiting
Speaker 1: for the news to be confirmed or hopefully refuted soon.
Speaker 1: About the family members who become leading faces of the
Speaker 1: hostage crisis, you know, it's these two adorable little red
Speaker 1: haired babies who you know, have really captured the hearts
Speaker 1: and concerns of the Israeli public and many other people
Speaker 1: around the world. And you know, Sagar, this is one
Speaker 1: of the reasons why a lot of the family members
Speaker 1: of the hostages have been pushing so stridently from the
Speaker 1: beginning and protesting vehemently against an Ett Yahun, pushing for
Speaker 1: some sort of a deal to be struck, because they
Speaker 1: were saying, listen, our family members are in Gaza too. Now, again,
Speaker 1: this isn't confirmed, but to be honest with you, it
Speaker 1: would be extraordinary if none of the hostages were injured
Speaker 1: by this bombing campaign because it was so widespread. I mean,
Speaker 1: most of northern Gaza is completely destroyed. So this is
Speaker 1: you know, horrible possible dues as I.
Speaker 2: Said, Gah and look hamas. Also they need to release
Speaker 2: evidence of this because it's also equally possible that these
Speaker 2: kids died of dehydration or you know, who knows in
Speaker 2: terms of the conditions that they were being held. Also,
Speaker 2: I mean there's small children and family like you never know, weality.
Speaker 4: Allowed.
Speaker 2: There's a lot of reasons why Obviously you know that
Speaker 2: something like this could happen. So if this is true,
Speaker 2: like they need to literally release all the evidence. I
Speaker 2: know that they're not going to The Israelies also, as
Speaker 2: far as I understand it, have not acknowledged the claim
Speaker 2: or they claim that they're investigating the families themselves, just
Speaker 2: says our family is updated on the latest publication. We
Speaker 2: are waiting for the news to be confirmed or hopefully
Speaker 2: refuted soon by military officials. So the family itself remains
Speaker 2: in limbo. But it is actually I think highlights and
Speaker 2: one of the reasons we wanted to cover it is
Speaker 2: some of the complex nature in which Israeli society is
Speaker 2: grappling with us, because you're right, there is no organic
Speaker 2: like we need to cease fire pushback, but there is
Speaker 2: a lot of sympathy around the hostages and conducting the
Speaker 2: military operations visa protecting the actual hostages is a big
Speaker 2: cause of concern with the families. We saw it when
Speaker 2: we interviewed Gilly Roman, the family of a hostage here.
Speaker 2: As I mentioned our previously, she was released, thank god
Speaker 2: earlier today. But you know, you could see the concern
Speaker 2: on his face and amongst a lot of others around
Speaker 2: are these people going to be safe, especially when we
Speaker 2: know from the hostages who've been released so far, they
Speaker 2: did say many of them were held in Gaza City
Speaker 2: in the north, and many of them were actually released
Speaker 2: in the zone of control supposedly by the IDF, showing
Speaker 2: again also know their control is not as an ironclad
Speaker 2: as one may think. So we wanted to give everybody
Speaker 2: that update. Obviously we don't know any of the details
Speaker 2: or all of that on it, but it does relate
Speaker 2: to a big question around it and also to the
Speaker 2: possible temporary extension about what might happen here.
Speaker 1: So the last thing we have for you on that
Speaker 1: put this up on the screen is there are additional
Speaker 1: extension talks which are ongoing. The headline here from the
Speaker 1: Times some officials hope that brief pauses will pave the
Speaker 1: way to talks on ending the war. International mediators were
Speaker 1: pushing on Wednesday to lock in another temporary extension of
Speaker 1: that cease firing. You guys will remember the deal was basically,
Speaker 1: for every ten additional hostages released by Hamas, there'd be
Speaker 1: additional day of the ceasefire. However, the original deal only
Speaker 1: dealt with women and children, so obviously you also have
Speaker 1: men and you have military who were not covered by
Speaker 1: that original deal. There have been some indications that Hamas
Speaker 1: would like to expand the deal to also talk about
Speaker 1: soldiers and men who are civilians, and no indication that
Speaker 1: Israelis are interested in that at this point, but we
Speaker 1: don't really know. Officials with knowledge of the talks that
Speaker 1: they also hope the succession of short term pauses would
Speaker 1: pave the way toward a larger goal negotiations over a
Speaker 1: longer term ceasefire to bring the war to a close.
Speaker 1: Speaking on condition of anonymity, senior Israeli officials said ninety
Speaker 1: seven women and children had been taken hostage, and that
Speaker 1: after Wednesday's released, some two dozen remains. So that means
Speaker 1: if you're just keeping it with women and children, the
Speaker 1: extent of the pause that's possible is very limited. And
Speaker 1: that's again assuming that all of those individuals are still alive.
Speaker 1: It's assuming they can be located by hamas, which you
Speaker 1: may think sounds ridiculous, but they were being held by
Speaker 1: a variety of groups, you know, in a tear a
Speaker 1: small enclave which is under complete siege, where communications are
Speaker 1: frequently cut, so the process of actually locating these individuals
Speaker 1: is not necessarily straightforward. And they said there are currently
Speaker 1: no negotiations aimed at a longer term ceasefire or in
Speaker 1: exchange involving all the remaining hostages, for all the remaining
Speaker 1: Palestinian prisoners. So, you know, Netnyahu, we've covered some of
Speaker 1: these comments and his defense Minister Galant, they have been
Speaker 1: very clear that after this temporary pause, we're going right
Speaker 1: back at it. There were comments that were made that were,
Speaker 1: like I think by Galant that it's going to be
Speaker 1: stronger than ever. It's been, going to be more aggressive
Speaker 1: than ever throughout the entire strip, and just remind.
Speaker 4: People of where we are. Obviously, they already.
Speaker 1: Bombed the hell on a northern Gaza that's basically completely uninhabitable,
Speaker 1: especially Gaza City, they told everybody to move to the south,
Speaker 1: so you know, all two point two million are close
Speaker 1: to it. Lstinians have been clustered now in the south,
Speaker 1: including in cities like Communis, where they're now saying they're
Speaker 1: going to center the new bombing campaign. So as brutal
Speaker 1: as what is already unfolded has been, the level of
Speaker 1: brutality possible going forward is even greater since you have
Speaker 1: all of these civilians now clustered into an even smaller
Speaker 1: area than before.
Speaker 2: That's why I just simply don't think that the similar
Speaker 2: situation will unfold. It's possible, it certainly is. It's not
Speaker 2: like they It's not like I would put it past them,
Speaker 2: and just think that there's a lot of geopolitical realities
Speaker 2: that could constrain it, including the hostage situation. One thing
Speaker 2: to not forget also is that all the hostage released
Speaker 2: so far, there are many IDF soldiers who are also
Speaker 2: being held as hostages Baiamas who are kidnapped on October seventh.
Speaker 2: You should not forget that they too have quite a
Speaker 2: bit of sympathy. So they are actually not even really
Speaker 2: on the table in terms of exchange right now because
Speaker 2: they're seen in and operating in a different place.
Speaker 3: But don't forget also that this will remain.
Speaker 2: An issue, I think in Israeli society for some time
Speaker 2: to come, especially given the past hostage exchanges that Nattaniahu himself,
Speaker 2: Pat j Aquies too. We'll see how it all plays up,
Speaker 2: but we definitely want to give everybody that update.
Speaker 3: Okay, let's switch.
Speaker 2: Gears to Elon Musk, who yesterday gave an extraordinary.
Speaker 3: Interview and I think that's the only way to describe it.
Speaker 2: With Andrew Ross Sorkin of CNBC and of Deal Book
Speaker 2: over at the New York Times, he was asked Andrew
Speaker 2: ros of Elon, He was like, Okay, what is your
Speaker 2: message to advertisers who pulled their advertisers after one of
Speaker 2: the controversial tweets Elon sent around immigration, anti Semitism, and more,
Speaker 2: which precipitated his eventual trip to Israel. Here was his
Speaker 2: message to advertisers who pulled their dollars, including Disney CEO
Speaker 2: Bob Iiger.
Speaker 3: Let's take a listen. Now.
Speaker 6: Obviously you know that there's a public perception that you're
Speaker 6: clarifying this now, but there's a public perception that that
Speaker 6: was part of a apology tour if you will. This
Speaker 6: had been said online, there was all of the criticism,
Speaker 6: There was advertisers leaving.
Speaker 7: We talked to I hope they stop. You don't advertise,
Speaker 7: you don't want them to advertise.
Speaker 6: What do you mean.
Speaker 8: If somebody's going to try to blackmail me with advertising,
Speaker 8: blackmailing with money, go fuck yourself, but go fuck yourself?
Speaker 8: Is that clear?
Speaker 7: I hope it is. Hey, Bob here in the audience, Well,
Speaker 7: well let me ask you. Then that's how I feel.
Speaker 7: Don't advertise?
Speaker 6: How do you think that about the economics of X
Speaker 6: if part of the underlying model at least today, and
Speaker 6: maybe it needs to shift, maybe the answers it needs
Speaker 6: to shift away from advertising. If you believe that this
Speaker 6: is the one part of your business where you will
Speaker 6: be beholden to those.
Speaker 3: Who have this view, what do you do.
Speaker 9: Why? I understand that.
Speaker 6: But there's a reality too, right Yes, no, no, I
Speaker 6: mean know Yakarino's right here and she's got to sell advertiser.
Speaker 7: Absolutely so no, no, tell you so. No, Actually, what
Speaker 7: what this advertising boycott is is going to do it.
Speaker 8: It's going to kill a company.
Speaker 7: And you think that and the whole world, Well, no,
Speaker 7: that those advertisers killed the company, and we will document
Speaker 7: it in great detail.
Speaker 6: But there are those advertisers, I imagine, are going to say,
Speaker 6: they're going to say, we didn't kill the company.
Speaker 7: Oh yeah, they're going to say to tell it to Earth.
Speaker 6: But they're going to say that. They're going to say
Speaker 6: Elon that you killed the company because you said these
Speaker 6: things and that they were inappropriate things and that they
Speaker 6: didn't feel comfortable on the platform.
Speaker 8: Right, That's that's what I say. And let's see how
Speaker 8: Earth responds to that.
Speaker 2: Okay, little live and odd interview that was there, but
Speaker 2: we weren't anything non old.
Speaker 3: Yeah, fair point.
Speaker 2: The reason we wanted to play the full clip there
Speaker 2: is it makes a couple of things clear. He was
Speaker 2: speaking basically directly to Bob Eiger when he was like,
Speaker 2: hey Bob, who Disney ceo? Who specifically pulled some of
Speaker 2: the advertising that they had there? But I think he
Speaker 2: was setting it up for an eventual bankruptcy lawsuit. That's
Speaker 2: how I read his comments when he said, well, they'll
Speaker 2: call the company and this is frankly a major and
Speaker 2: it's complicated for me. I have sympathy for the idea
Speaker 2: since we build this business to be anti fragile against
Speaker 2: advertising and boycott's and all these other things based upon
Speaker 2: a subscription model. The problem is the subscription model that
Speaker 2: came up with is just not very good. Twitter Blue
Speaker 2: has no real compelling reason to sign up for it
Speaker 2: and has been a tremendous failure in terms of replacing
Speaker 2: advertising revenue with the company. Twitter itself is so massively
Speaker 2: reliant on Fortune five hundred companies to advertise on the
Speaker 2: platform because some five billion dollars of their revenue, nearly
Speaker 2: ninety percent of it came from those companies in year
Speaker 2: before it sold to Elon, and a huge portion of
Speaker 2: them have canceled either through management of the platform and
Speaker 2: even this particular boycott, which this is the other part
Speaker 2: where I agree Media Matters and all these other people.
Speaker 2: These are heinous and annoying people that said, you know,
Speaker 2: you shouldn't give them ammunition to work with to then
Speaker 2: facilitate boycotts against your company. You don't have a right
Speaker 2: to advertise, right, And this is where you know, much
Speaker 2: of their rhetoric around this is so complicated, Like I
Speaker 2: hate the ADL, I hate Media Matters, I hate all
Speaker 2: these people who are I think dishonest and bad faith
Speaker 2: and the way that they encourage all this. But you know,
Speaker 2: you also, if you're in a business relationship with Disney
Speaker 2: and with all these other people where you do literally
Speaker 2: rely on them for the bulk of your revenue, you're
Speaker 2: kind of in a rock and a hard place unless
Speaker 2: you're going to develop a much much better subscription based
Speaker 2: revenue model, which they frankly just have not done with
Speaker 2: the Twitter Blue program. There's not a compelling reason honestly
Speaker 2: to sign up for for the vast majority of people,
Speaker 2: and especially to replace five billion dollars of revenue. So
Speaker 2: I think Elon is in a tough spot, and it's
Speaker 2: very likely that he has just resigned himself to like,
Speaker 2: this company's going bankrupt. Yeah, and he's already said it's
Speaker 2: worth half what I've bought it for. But I mean
Speaker 2: a lot of people are interpreting in that as the
Speaker 2: definition of fu money. They're like, well, you can say
Speaker 2: f you to your biggest advertiser, But the big question is, like, Hey,
Speaker 2: who the hell's going to own this site in a year?
Speaker 2: Is it going to be Elon or is it the bankers.
Speaker 2: I'm increasingly coming on the side of the bank Yeah.
Speaker 1: I thought it the same way as you did as
Speaker 1: like a pre story and like prebuddle and cope in
Speaker 1: cope and advance of the failure of Twitter, of like, well,
Speaker 1: it's not my fault, it's these advertisers you're a boycotting
Speaker 1: And to your point, listen, I would love nothing more
Speaker 1: than to be able to be like go off King
Speaker 1: when you're telling advertisers to.
Speaker 4: Go through himself.
Speaker 3: I would love that.
Speaker 1: But it's not like it's been used in service of
Speaker 1: some sort of consistent principle. You know, and claims to
Speaker 1: be the free speech guy, just ban saying decolonization on
Speaker 1: his platform or from the River to the sea, which
Speaker 1: by the way, is in Lukud's charter as much as
Speaker 1: it's in Hamas's charter. So it's not like his principles
Speaker 1: about free speech have been consistent botely at all. In fact,
Speaker 1: in some ways he's been more censorious than the previous
Speaker 1: Twitter regime. So again, it's not like this has been
Speaker 1: in service of any sort of a principle. And no advertiser.
Speaker 4: Owes you their dollars.
Speaker 1: It's up to you, mister genius businessman, to figure out
Speaker 1: a business plan that's going to work without depending on
Speaker 1: the advertisers. So yeah, that's capitalism. You're the uber capitalist.
Speaker 1: You should understand this more than anyone. And if we
Speaker 1: can figure out a business model that could be impervious
Speaker 1: to Boycott's and you know, anticipate the fact that we
Speaker 1: say things that are controversial and piss people off and
Speaker 1: could rub people the wrong way and lead to those
Speaker 1: sorts of things, Like if we can figure that out,
Speaker 1: you can't figure that out for Twitter. So I think
Speaker 1: it's preposterous that the world would blame the advertisers for
Speaker 1: leaving a platform that, you know, putting aside his like
Speaker 1: crazy tweets and the anti submitic, conspiracy theories, endorsment, whatever,
Speaker 1: has just been like horrifically mismanaged throughout this entire time.
Speaker 1: From a business perspective person, I was thinking about Tea
Speaker 1: shouts out Bob Eiger, who's sitting in the audience, which
Speaker 1: is kind of incredible. But also I'm thinking about Linda
Speaker 1: Yakarina Yagarina.
Speaker 4: Who was brought in.
Speaker 1: She has like the head of advertising at NBC. She's
Speaker 1: brought in to be the CEO specifically because she has
Speaker 1: all these cozy relationships with you know, blue chip brands,
Speaker 1: and all of these advertisers that you'd want to be
Speaker 1: bringing in. I know she put out some kind of
Speaker 1: a statement this morning. I don't know if you haven't called.
Speaker 1: I can only imagine this has to be one of
Speaker 1: the worst days of her life. Like how humiliating for
Speaker 1: her that the very thing she was brought in to
Speaker 1: try to accomplish, like working these relationships and try to
Speaker 1: convince people it's fine to be back on the platform.
Speaker 1: In three words, gf y, he's able to completely blow
Speaker 1: any and all of that up. And I cannot but
Speaker 1: imagine that there's going to be additional fallout. You know,
Speaker 1: we'll get the numbers a month from now of how
Speaker 1: many additional advertisers are like, all right, screw you.
Speaker 4: Then I'm gone.
Speaker 2: So I have the tweet that she post. I'm sorry
Speaker 2: that Elis, this is no longer a tweet.
Speaker 3: He says.
Speaker 2: Today, Elon Musk gave a wide ranging and candid interview
Speaker 2: with deal Book twenty twenty three. He also offered an apology,
Speaker 2: an explanation, explicit point of view about our position. X
Speaker 2: is enabling an information independence is uncomfortable for some people,
Speaker 2: or a platform that allows people to make their own decisions.
Speaker 2: And here's my perspective when it comes to advertising X
Speaker 2: is unique standing it a unique and amazing intersection of
Speaker 2: free speech and main street.
Speaker 3: The ex community is powerful.
Speaker 2: Is here to welcome you to our partners who believe
Speaker 2: in our meaningful work.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 4: Wow.
Speaker 3: Okay, certainly something in terms of spinning that one.
Speaker 2: If anything, I just appreciate Elon's You know, he thinks
Speaker 2: this is all a game. He thinks that at the
Speaker 2: end of the day, it seems very very comfortable with
Speaker 2: it going bankrupt. I think it's clear that I don't.
Speaker 2: I think he probably.
Speaker 3: Wishes that he didn't buy it in the long run.
Speaker 3: And I guess I mean.
Speaker 2: Listen, as a guy supports Tesla and SpaceX and Starlink
Speaker 2: and all that, I would love nothing more than for
Speaker 2: to him fulfill his actual promise that he made a
Speaker 2: long time ago, which is to step back and focus
Speaker 2: on these companies like the cyber truck looks awesome. Personally,
Speaker 2: I'd be happy to get one as soon as it's
Speaker 2: actually available. I think that those companies are far better
Speaker 2: validation of his legacy and all that, and he should
Speaker 2: probably move in that direction if he wants to remain
Speaker 2: a historical figure, but at the end of the day,
Speaker 2: I guess he can afford it.
Speaker 3: He doesn't particularly care we should.
Speaker 2: Also, it's clear too that that tweet that he sent
Speaker 2: that sparked all of his Israel trip and all this overtime.
Speaker 4: The trip was already planned.
Speaker 3: Yeah, okay, sure.
Speaker 2: Anyway, he claimed also in that interview, is the most
Speaker 2: foolish tweet that he's ever sent.
Speaker 3: Let's take a listen.
Speaker 6: When you see all this happening, I think, are you
Speaker 6: sitting there going, oh my god, I stepped in and
Speaker 6: I wish I didn't do that. Are you saying shit
Speaker 6: threw them? I hate these people one day after me?
Speaker 8: But all of that, yeah, all of that, I mean,
Speaker 8: I mean, look, I'm sorry for that that tweed or post.
Speaker 8: It was foolish of me. Of the thirty thousands, it
Speaker 8: might be literally the worst and dumbest post that I've
Speaker 8: ever done. And I try my best to clarify six
Speaker 8: racist Sunday. But you know, at least I think over
Speaker 8: time it will be obvious that, in fact, far from
Speaker 8: being anti Semitic, I'm in fact filo Semitic, and all
Speaker 8: the evidence in my track record would support that there.
Speaker 6: Are people who say crazy things on x as. You know,
Speaker 6: maybe you think they're crazy, maybe they're not.
Speaker 8: The aspiration FRACS is to be the global town square. Now,
Speaker 8: if you were to walk down to let's say Times Square, right,
Speaker 8: do you occasionally hear people saying crazy things?
Speaker 6: Yes, but they're not. They don't have the megaphone, right,
Speaker 6: and that's that's the conundrum. But they can only say
Speaker 6: it to the fifty one hundred people that are that
Speaker 6: are sitting standing there in Times Square.
Speaker 8: They don't have a mega. I mean, look, the joke
Speaker 8: I used to make about old Twitter was it was
Speaker 8: like giving everyone in the psych ward a megaphone.
Speaker 3: So there you go, Crystal.
Speaker 2: He said, this is the most foolish thing that he's
Speaker 2: ever done, which I don't think is true. I think
Speaker 2: the worst to way you ever sent is whenever he
Speaker 2: claimed that Tesla was going to go private and he
Speaker 2: ended up getting fine millions of dollars.
Speaker 4: That was a bad one too. There are many issues
Speaker 4: from ye.
Speaker 1: Just as a reminder for people who didn't follow this
Speaker 1: story closely, what he replied to a tweet that said, okay,
Speaker 1: Jewish communities have been pushing the exact kind of dialectical
Speaker 1: hatred against whites that they claim to want people to
Speaker 1: stop using against them. I'm deeply disinterested in giving the
Speaker 1: tiniest shit now about Western Jewish populations, coming to the
Speaker 1: disturbing realization that those hordes of minorities that support flooding
Speaker 1: their country don't exactly like them too much. You want
Speaker 1: truth said to your face? There it is, to which
Speaker 1: Elon replies you have said the actual truth. It took
Speaker 1: me a while to actually parse what the hell this
Speaker 1: original person was saying, but basically the idea is Jews
Speaker 1: deserve what they get on October seventh because they vote
Speaker 1: bad in democratic politics.
Speaker 4: It is effectively the.
Speaker 1: Essence of what's going on, not really something you want
Speaker 1: to co sign.
Speaker 2: Necessarily, I would not cosign that if I see you
Speaker 2: on So go back to Tesla.
Speaker 3: We will all be much better off.
Speaker 1: Some more billionaire news for you today, Mark Cuban put
Speaker 1: this up on the screen, some interesting moves that are
Speaker 1: sparking twenty twenty four shatter for mister businessman Mark Cuban.
Speaker 1: He says he's leaving Shark Tank after another season, but
Speaker 1: in addition, put this up on the screen.
Speaker 4: This maybe even warned. Note where I don't know.
Speaker 1: Dallas Maverick's owner Mark Cuban, has also entered into an
Speaker 1: agreement to sell a majority steak in the NBA franchise
Speaker 1: to the family that runs the Las Vegas Hans Casino company.
Speaker 1: It was announced Wednesday that deal could be completed in
Speaker 1: the coming weeks with evaluation in the range of three
Speaker 1: point five billion.
Speaker 4: So he's leaving Shark.
Speaker 1: Tank and he's selling off his steak in the Dallas Mavericks. Gee,
Speaker 1: wonder what he could be planning on doing. So, of
Speaker 1: course everybody's minds went to, maybe this dude is going
Speaker 1: to run for president. I mean, he's flirted with it before.
Speaker 1: He's obviously very politically interested. We pulled an interview with
Speaker 1: him that I'll get to it a little bit of
Speaker 1: where exactly his politics are act. I think it's fair
Speaker 1: to say a little hard to define at times. But
Speaker 1: you've got the specter of these two old men that
Speaker 1: everybody hates being the Democratic and the Republican nominee. Again,
Speaker 1: people desperately looking for some kind of an alternative. RFK
Speaker 1: Junior jumping in the race and instantly jump into like
Speaker 1: twenty percent of the vote just because he's not Biden
Speaker 1: or Trump, and because he's got a famous last name,
Speaker 1: so you know, it's not crazy for him to look
Speaker 1: at it and go basically like, you probably only need
Speaker 1: like thirty percent of the vote to maybe win this
Speaker 1: thing and have a real shot at it. And with
Speaker 1: all the money in the world that I've got and
Speaker 1: famous name that I've gotten, influence, and you know, relatively
Speaker 1: well liked, et cetera, maybe I should give it a go.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, I think he should run, especially in
Speaker 2: this crazy time.
Speaker 3: I'm for it. Yeah, I'm pro. I've always been pro
Speaker 3: Mark Cuban.
Speaker 2: I like Mark Cuban, although he has some very cringe
Speaker 2: boomer beliefs on many things. But when you've got the
Speaker 2: array of options we have, you know, in front of us,
Speaker 2: each one of them has to be a very plus
Speaker 2: or minus situation.
Speaker 4: And we were able to unite you and I.
Speaker 3: Sagar on over pro Mark Cuban.
Speaker 1: Yeah, listen, He's not my number one choice, but if
Speaker 1: my choices are him and Biden and Trump, I think
Speaker 1: he's got pretty good.
Speaker 3: Sh I'm not sure.
Speaker 2: I say I'm an accelerationist now at this point where
Speaker 2: I really see both of them die. So if it
Speaker 2: comes down to it. We'll see it. I'll tease you
Speaker 2: for you, especially when are you and her in the race,
Speaker 2: but I'll leave it and I'll try and analyze it
Speaker 2: without it. In terms of Cuban from a personal level,
Speaker 2: what we all know is he loves the Mavericks. Why
Speaker 2: is he selling the Mavericks right now? Oh, he's just
Speaker 2: dying to sell it to Sheldon Agelson. He's not too
Speaker 2: he's not old enough to actually be retiring. He's only
Speaker 2: sixty five years old. His two kids are not I mean,
Speaker 2: they're young ish, I believe like one of them is
Speaker 2: in college.
Speaker 3: I'm not sure about the other one. So hits.
Speaker 2: He still has a place to be, you know, he's
Speaker 2: in a place where he can keep working and he's
Speaker 2: not like sacrificing something necessarily at home from Shark Tank,
Speaker 2: it's like Trump in the level of normy fame that
Speaker 2: he has. He's literally a household name. It has been
Speaker 2: for decads. Remember, like he was one of the first
Speaker 2: famous dot com billionaires who parlayed it, you know, into
Speaker 2: lasting fame and to television, to interviews. He's always kind
Speaker 2: of been all over the map. His prescription drug company
Speaker 2: is genuinely capital g good, like a great thing. It
Speaker 2: is that a lot of people use and people rightfully admire.
Speaker 3: So I put it all together.
Speaker 2: He's got the sports fame, he's got Shark Tank, he's
Speaker 2: got this prescription drug thing, very into.
Speaker 3: Yeah, he's charismatic, he's.
Speaker 2: Well spoken, he loves the media, loves it's famous. Everybody
Speaker 2: in Washington has the guy's email address because he actually
Speaker 2: replies and he doesn't even have an assistance. Sometimes he'll
Speaker 2: give his thoughts and he happily. He will accept interviews
Speaker 2: like with whomever people are asking. He'll appine on politics,
Speaker 2: economics and all. He's got the right Yeah, we interviewed
Speaker 2: him once. He's got the right temperament. He's got the
Speaker 2: right love of the game. He's got enough money, and
Speaker 2: I think he could thread the needle, especially in such
Speaker 2: a divideided race, to come forward.
Speaker 3: So if you want to get into.
Speaker 4: Something, he'd be for.
Speaker 1: I mean he would. I think he'd be formidable. I
Speaker 1: think he would be formidable. And you know his politics.
Speaker 1: I think he's sort of libertarian ish. Now we should
Speaker 1: go ahead.
Speaker 3: And say he's all over the map.
Speaker 1: We should go ahead and say he vehemently denies that
Speaker 1: this is the work. Put this stuff on the screen.
Speaker 1: This is NBC News. Mark Cuban says he has no
Speaker 1: plans to run for the White House in twenty twenty four.
Speaker 4: No plans doesn't mean that you're not going to do it.
Speaker 1: He can always make those plans socc Exactly, it's not
Speaker 1: too late to make the plans.
Speaker 4: So.
Speaker 1: In July, Cuban had said he was not considering in
Speaker 1: twenty twenty four presidential bid as a third party candidate
Speaker 1: no labels, was trying to still trying to.
Speaker 4: Form a presidential ticket.
Speaker 1: He said at that time, my family would disown me
Speaker 1: if he ran for president. He was asked by NBC
Speaker 1: on Wednesday if there had been any change in his
Speaker 1: considerations on whether to run. Cuban said, in an email
Speaker 1: to NBC News quote, no plans to run. So he
Speaker 1: officially denies that he's any interest in this. No plans
Speaker 1: currently at least to run. So's that's where the stay
Speaker 1: of the speculation is in terms of politics. I just
Speaker 1: pulled this from this New York Times interview that he
Speaker 1: gave not too long ago, where he was goinging asked
Speaker 1: questions about, you know, I felt about Biden and what
Speaker 1: his approach to government spending, etc. Would be and put
Speaker 1: this up on the screen.
Speaker 4: Guy.
Speaker 1: So he was talking about his libertarian ish views and
Speaker 1: if he's evolved over the years, basically comes down on
Speaker 1: the side of he doesn't want a lot of new
Speaker 1: quote unquote programs. He prefers, He says, bigger government checks
Speaker 1: written to people and more jobs created than more programs created.
Speaker 1: Whether that's progressive or conservative, I don't know or care.
Speaker 1: He goes on to say it another point has to
Speaker 1: be direct compensation via jobs and stimulus programs. That has
Speaker 1: got to be the foundation of everything he talking about.
Speaker 1: Joe Biden does yeah, and he's I mean in terms
Speaker 1: of cultural issues, he's more or less like on the
Speaker 1: liberal side of the equation.
Speaker 4: Tends to be.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean he's liberal socially, he's also kind of terran.
Speaker 2: I mean, the reason I'm pro Cuban is just again,
Speaker 2: I'm really accelerations at this point where I want to
Speaker 2: see it all blow up. And I think he's a
Speaker 2: formidable enough name to be able to pierce through, especially
Speaker 2: when you've got RFK and Trump and Biden all coming
Speaker 2: within twenty thirty points of the vote. He actually could
Speaker 2: get himself to a point where it would either be
Speaker 2: a split election and it could be thrown to the
Speaker 2: House of Representatives.
Speaker 3: No, I have been trying to wrap my head around it.
Speaker 2: Me and you and the whole team spent some time
Speaker 2: thinking about contingent elections and what it would look like.
Speaker 2: We have not had a contingent election in the United
Speaker 2: States since.
Speaker 3: Eighteen thirty seven.
Speaker 2: That's when the House of Representatives decides the vote whenever
Speaker 2: not enough people get enough votes in the Electoral College.
Speaker 2: We came relatively close during the Corrupt Bargain in eighteen
Speaker 2: seventy six with Tilden and with Rutherford B. Hayes, and
Speaker 2: that was the whole Electoral Commission, and they eventually swung
Speaker 2: it in his direction. But I'm pro chaos in general,
Speaker 2: and I think maybe we're you know, we could be
Speaker 2: at a time like this, so we'll certainly see.
Speaker 4: Yeah, so I mean a contingent election.
Speaker 1: What that means is nobody gets the requisite number of
Speaker 1: Electoral College and it's like, let me now, and the
Speaker 1: basic ideas that gets kicked to the House of Representatives.
Speaker 1: So then you would assume that whatever the partisan makeup
Speaker 1: is of the House is what rules the day.
Speaker 4: But yeah, it.
Speaker 1: Hasn't been done in a really long time. So you know,
Speaker 1: it's not super clear cut exactly how this would all
Speaker 1: go down. But we're a long way from there, you know,
Speaker 1: we're way down the speculation train at this point. But
Speaker 1: interesting moves from our cuban. Nonetheless, it'd be fun. Also
Speaker 1: some interesting moves being made over at GM. Of course,
Speaker 1: in the wake of the UAW strike, which led to
Speaker 1: significant gains for their membership, GM is now making some
Speaker 1: really extraordinary decisions with regards to their money. Put this
Speaker 1: up on the screen from the Wall Street Journal. So
Speaker 1: they have just announced. Remember this company goes, oh, we
Speaker 1: can't afford all these pay raises for workers, et cetera. Well,
Speaker 1: now they've announced a ten billion dollar stock buyback in
Speaker 1: a bid to assuage investors. The automaker plans the stock
Speaker 1: buyback and dividend increase amid reduced spending on electric and
Speaker 1: driverless cars. So basically there's been a pullback, partly I
Speaker 1: think because gas price has gone down, partly because you know,
Speaker 1: consumers are just not doing all that well. There's been
Speaker 1: a pullback and spending on autonomous vehicles. The GM crews
Speaker 1: autonomous vehicles run into some issues too, and it's rollout
Speaker 1: and on electric vehicles. So in an effort to like
Speaker 1: you know, sort of like keep their investors fat and happy,
Speaker 1: they've announced this ten billion dollar share repurchase. The funny
Speaker 1: thing about this is that you'll recall, the labor additional
Speaker 1: labor costs from the new gm UAW contract is in
Speaker 1: roughly the same ballpark nine point three billion dollars. So
Speaker 1: they were crying poor over that. But then they're just like, oh, yeah,
Speaker 1: we can just you know, give ten billion dollars to
Speaker 1: our investors and do this big stock buy back. They're
Speaker 1: saying they're going to find the money for the additional
Speaker 1: labor costs by cutting back on effectively research and development
Speaker 1: of evs and of autonomous vehicles, so prioritizing the desires
Speaker 1: of their shareholders over like the future of the company,
Speaker 1: let alone their workforce.
Speaker 2: Yes, I wanted there's actually a lot to say about this.
Speaker 2: First and foremost, let's put the next one please up
Speaker 2: there on the screen, because it does show you how
Speaker 2: full of it they were during those negotiations, because they
Speaker 2: said that the idea that they could afford the nine
Speaker 2: point three billion in additional labor costs was ludicrous when
Speaker 2: they turn around immediately and spend ten billion dollars this year,
Speaker 2: just in one year, buying back their own stock to
Speaker 2: juice the value. The big other substory to this, though,
Speaker 2: is a middle finger to the Biden administration. Joe Biden
Speaker 2: stood up there with the CEO of GM and said
Speaker 2: that GM was the leader in the electric car revolution.
Speaker 2: This is something actually Elon talked about yesterday, which is
Speaker 2: insane because they made like twenty something cars in the
Speaker 2: same year that Tesla made three hundred thousand. That Tesla model, Why,
Speaker 2: as Elon said yesterday, will be the best selling car
Speaker 2: on Earth of this year. So to prop up GM,
Speaker 2: the Big Three and all those relative to Tassel right
Speaker 2: now is absurd. But the big thing that this really
Speaker 2: calls into question is the internal dedication that the Big
Speaker 2: three have cleaned to have on electric cars and the revolution,
Speaker 2: and then now where they're actually putting their money, because
Speaker 2: what remains dramatically profitable for them are big ass trucks
Speaker 2: and SUVs for Ford, for GM, that's really the only
Speaker 2: place in America remains competitive in cars, and they're basically
Speaker 2: doubling down on that, rejecting a lot of the federal
Speaker 2: dollars and others that the Inflation Reduction Act supposedly was
Speaker 2: going to try and to fix, and they're going right
Speaker 2: back to stock buy back. I have always been for
Speaker 2: a total ban on stock buybacks for the fortune five hundred,
Speaker 2: especially when they're the recipients of the incredible amount of
Speaker 2: corporate welfare. People like GM and all of them are
Speaker 2: do we save GM? America did and then infuse them
Speaker 2: with billions more for electric cars, and then they turn
Speaker 2: around and then buy back their own stock. So this
Speaker 2: is a major indictment of Joe Biden that it hasn't
Speaker 2: been interpret did get that way?
Speaker 3: He deserves it.
Speaker 4: That's a good point.
Speaker 1: And in that op bad that Mary Barrow wrote during
Speaker 1: the union negotiations, she described the uaw's demands as quote
Speaker 1: unquote untenable because they were, Oh, they're so outrageous, there's
Speaker 1: no way we can afford it. The other piece that
Speaker 1: is remarkable to me is she said that one of
Speaker 1: the myths of this misinformation that was being spread during
Speaker 1: the strike was that record profits go toward fueling corporate greed. No,
Speaker 1: she says, those record profits are reinvested in our company
Speaker 1: and our people as they do a ten billion dollar
Speaker 1: stock buyback in lieu of investment, research and development for
Speaker 1: the future of the company. More perfect union had, you know,
Speaker 1: the very clear cut take of they know where to
Speaker 1: get that ten billion dollars for the additional labor costs
Speaker 1: from Put this up on the screen. Guys, they've got
Speaker 1: side by side here. GM says union labor deals are
Speaker 1: going to increase cost by nine point three billion, and
Speaker 1: then next to a Bloomberg GM to hike dividend, buy
Speaker 1: back ten billion dollars of slumping stuff. So that's that
Speaker 1: piece of it. But there's another extraordinary thing happening in
Speaker 1: the labor world and in the auto worker world, which
Speaker 1: is when the UAW was able to secure and negotiate
Speaker 1: those new contracts with the Big three, they said, hey,
Speaker 1: we're coming for additional carmakers next Next time, it's not
Speaker 1: gonna be the Big three, it's going to be the
Speaker 1: Big five or six. Sean Fain just announced perhaps the
Speaker 1: largest organizing effort maybe in US history, going after one
Speaker 1: hundred and fifty thousand workers at a variety of automakers
Speaker 1: and what is just an extraordinary effort to unionize foreign
Speaker 1: automakers and also Tesla in the wake of their incredible
Speaker 1: success with this stand up strike. Let's take a listen
Speaker 1: to a little bit of the video that they used
Speaker 1: to announce this effort.
Speaker 10: Across the country from the West to the Midwest, and
Speaker 10: especially in the South, are reaching out to join our
Speaker 10: movement and to join the UAW. So go to UAW
Speaker 10: dot org slash join The money is there, the time
Speaker 10: is right, and the answer is simple. You don't have
Speaker 10: to live paycheck to paycheck. You don't have to worry
Speaker 10: about and how you're going to pay your inn or
Speaker 10: feed your family while the company makes billions. A better
Speaker 10: life is out there. It starts with you UAW.
Speaker 1: The bottom line here auto workers are more than a
Speaker 1: dozen non union companies simultaneously announcing campaigns to try to unionize.
Speaker 1: And you know, it makes all the sense in the world, because, yeah,
Speaker 1: we all just watched this play out and it was
Speaker 1: so clear the games that they were able to achieve,
Speaker 1: and so we set this at the time, like if
Speaker 1: you're working on Tesla, if you're working on Toyota, if
Speaker 1: you're working on Hyundai, you can see what they're set
Speaker 1: to make and what their benefits look like, and what
Speaker 1: their retirement package looks like versus what you are making,
Speaker 1: and you go, the only difference here, I'm doing the
Speaker 1: same job. The only difference is they have a union
Speaker 1: and I don't. This is totally different from you know,
Speaker 1: recent track record in terms of labor history, even just
Speaker 1: if you consider the UAW. You know, their previous leadership
Speaker 1: was taking these concessionary contracts. They're incredibly cozy with the
Speaker 1: business class, and so what case do they have to
Speaker 1: make to autoworkers that it's worth taking the risk to
Speaker 1: unionize when they're not delivering for their membership. So it's
Speaker 1: going to be, you know, it'll be something to watch
Speaker 1: this in how it unfolds and see if they're able
Speaker 1: to achieve success.
Speaker 3: I'm regardless of whether they win or not.
Speaker 2: Actually it doesn't really matter because it had such massive
Speaker 2: increases at Toyota and many of these other companies already
Speaker 2: as a results pay raise that we had to give
Speaker 2: a pay raise and they will remain so especially if
Speaker 2: the cyber truck is success that we all think it
Speaker 2: is going to be for the company, I mean the
Speaker 2: margins on that and given there the extraordinary sales of
Speaker 2: that company or something that again people do not grapple
Speaker 2: with like Tasla is out selling freaking Toyota in the
Speaker 2: state of California. That is insane for an American car company.
Speaker 2: They're going to sell several hundred thousand vehicles in the
Speaker 2: US and across the world in a single year, brand
Speaker 2: new vehicles, and probably going to do it all again
Speaker 2: the next year with brand new manufacturing technology a full
Speaker 2: electric car. Elon even said this yesterday, and I thought
Speaker 2: it was particularly insightful. The supercharging network itself inside of Tesla,
Speaker 2: if it was spun off like AWS would be from Amazon,
Speaker 2: would be a fortune five hundred companies, just the fortune,
Speaker 2: just the supercharging. It remains one of probably the largest
Speaker 2: private infrastructure projects in the modern history of the United States.
Speaker 2: So anyway, all of this is just a way of
Speaker 2: showing that American car manufacturing.
Speaker 3: We genuinely could be re entering a golden age.
Speaker 2: If we cracked down on corporate irresponsibility, outsourcing in stock buybacks,
Speaker 2: which got the US companies to where they are today.
Speaker 2: They basically sold us all out in the seventies and eighties.
Speaker 2: They decided not to innovate. They let Japan come in
Speaker 2: and basically eat their lunch completely they refused to actually
Speaker 2: negotiate a think properly with the unions until it was
Speaker 2: too late, and then they went bust in two thousand
Speaker 2: and eight. So if they can stop a lot of that,
Speaker 2: and this is going to require like some responsible federal policy,
Speaker 2: we you know, ten twenty years from now could be
Speaker 2: living in a much much better off as for a
Speaker 2: US car company.
Speaker 1: Yes, and it's remarkable to think back on the history too,
Speaker 1: because I mean, you know, the big three of these
Speaker 1: are iconic American brands. They're synonymous with the American middle class.
Speaker 1: You know, there were an important part of the growth
Speaker 1: of you know, the early labor movement in the United States.
Speaker 1: And so if these auto workers and car companies once
Speaker 1: again are part of rebuilding the American middle class and
Speaker 1: re sparking resurgence of a new labor movement, I mean,
Speaker 1: that would just be you know, an extraordinary moment in
Speaker 1: terms of American labor history.
Speaker 2: Yeah. I would absolutely love to see it. I'd love
Speaker 2: to see it for America. I would love for the
Speaker 2: majority here and you know, again to bring it back
Speaker 2: elon again. Saying this yesterday was actually again the more
Speaker 2: interesting part of the interview beyond Twitter was a lot
Speaker 2: of his thoughts on China is it's very possible in
Speaker 2: the future if they don't get there act together, the
Speaker 2: top ten car companies in the world twenty years from
Speaker 2: now will be Tesla and then nine other Chinese companies.
Speaker 2: We don't want that for a variety of reasons, from
Speaker 2: supply chain and more especially if things go more electric
Speaker 2: and they become more consumer friendly, because they'll basically control
Speaker 2: the inputs for everything. So yeah, if we want to
Speaker 2: remain competitive and to control the jobs, not even just
Speaker 2: of the future, but really of the entire world and
Speaker 2: what they want to consume, then we have to got
Speaker 2: to rely on it. Right now, A lot of people
Speaker 2: don't realize a ton of Europeans drive forward and drive
Speaker 2: chef like when you go over there, you see them everywhere. Yeah,
Speaker 2: and if we want to retain that market share and
Speaker 2: not let bid come in and just destroy it, like,
Speaker 2: we've got to remain competitive here and to continue to
Speaker 2: actually make decent products.
Speaker 1: Yeah, because I mean, the benefits of electric vehicles over
Speaker 1: gas power vehicles are only going to grow as the
Speaker 1: charging infrastructure is built out, as the battery life becomes longer.
Speaker 1: You know, these things that remain barriers for people in
Speaker 1: terms of buying cars, and of course as the price
Speaker 1: comes down with mass production. You know, I don't think
Speaker 1: there's any doubt that there's going to be a switch over.
Speaker 1: And then there's just a question of whether it's going
Speaker 1: to be automakers based here or in China that are
Speaker 1: the ones that win the day.
Speaker 2: Yes, that's the big question is And people know I'm not,
Speaker 2: you know, supportive of one hundred percent electric.
Speaker 3: If we will drive gas, go for it.
Speaker 2: I am supportive of the option and of building the
Speaker 2: infrastructure and all of that. So we want to make
Speaker 2: it actually competitive, and I think that's something again in
Speaker 2: America could do because China is much more of a
Speaker 2: mandating society. But there's a lot of stuff that goes
Speaker 2: into it, and it's a very interesting conversation. Let's move
Speaker 2: on to the next part here. This is just an
Speaker 2: amazing story from the Daily.
Speaker 3: Can't help but grin.
Speaker 2: I mean, it's a big day for UFOs actually here
Speaker 2: in Washington, and we're going to peg it to this
Speaker 2: story from the Daily Mail. Now, before you say, oh,
Speaker 2: it's the Daily Mail, how can you believe it? Many
Speaker 2: of the people who wrote it have been a long
Speaker 2: time researched, very well respected in the community. And furthermore,
Speaker 2: there's been a real mainstream media blackout on the story
Speaker 2: very recently. Don't forget that the whistleblower complaint from Dave
Speaker 2: Grush and others was rejected from The New York Times,
Speaker 2: Washington Post, from many other major outlets. So in some
Speaker 2: cases this really comes down to who's willing to publish
Speaker 2: what seems to be a highly legitimate story. Let's put
Speaker 2: it up there, then on the screen, this says that
Speaker 2: the CIA Secret Office, the Office of Global Access, which
Speaker 2: apparently is based here in the United States, a wing
Speaker 2: of the CIA, has played a central role in collecting
Speaker 2: alleged nine alien spacecraft crash sites from around the world.
Speaker 2: This is since two thousand and three. Not necessarily that
Speaker 2: these have crashed in two thousand and three, but they
Speaker 2: have played a role since two thousand and three quote
Speaker 2: in orchestrating these collection. The three sources, who spoke on
Speaker 2: condition of anonymities to avoid reprisals, have been briefed by
Speaker 2: individuals involved in these alleged UFO retrieval missions and the
Speaker 2: claims though as I'm reading from them, though they sound
Speaker 2: like they're come from a science fiction novel, are part
Speaker 2: of a growing body of evidence suggesting that the government
Speaker 2: could indeed be hiding advanced vehicles that were not made
Speaker 2: by humans. They peg it to a major fight that
Speaker 2: remains going on here in Washington around the UFO transparency legislation.
Speaker 2: A lot of this is actually coming to head today
Speaker 2: while we are filming this. It won't be clear until
Speaker 2: the end the TLDR really is this. The Senate passed
Speaker 2: a piece of legislation inside the NDAA, which is the
Speaker 2: National Defense Authorization Act, includes all the funding for the Pentagon,
Speaker 2: which included an amendment that required transparency from the government.
Speaker 2: It was very specifically worded around what the government has
Speaker 2: knowledge wise around UFOs. There has now been an effort
Speaker 2: inside the House of Representatives to try and kill that effort.
Speaker 2: Representative Tim Burchett, who's been a real leader for transparency,
Speaker 2: spoke with Tucker Carlson just yesterday about the cover up.
Speaker 3: Here Here's what he had to say.
Speaker 9: That's really all I want is transparency. Where where we're
Speaker 9: spending all this money on something and where's it going?
Speaker 9: And why do they not trust the American public? Those
Speaker 9: are the things that people need to ask you can
Speaker 9: you know, as I said at the hearing, I said,
Speaker 9: we're not going to bring in a UFO, We're not
Speaker 9: going to bring in little Green Man. But what we
Speaker 9: want is transparency. And unfortunately we don't have much of
Speaker 9: that in the United States Congress because they, oh, look
Speaker 9: there's another shiny object over here. They'll misdirect us over here,
Speaker 9: they'll misdirect us over there. But I believe this community
Speaker 9: is very, very in tune to what's going on and
Speaker 9: the cover up that's been going on.
Speaker 3: So obviously Burchett, he is on the committee.
Speaker 2: He also has been denied multiple classified briefing rooms in
Speaker 2: order to get classified information from the UFO, which the
Speaker 2: blower Dave Grush, and the chief opponent of this legislation
Speaker 2: has been one of his colleagues who is very very
Speaker 2: influential on the committee. Here is what Representative Mike Turner,
Speaker 2: who has been that opponent, He was actually caught in
Speaker 2: the hallways of Congress yesterday. Here is what he claims
Speaker 2: is why he has opposition to the legislation.
Speaker 3: Let's take a listen.
Speaker 2: We have heard that you had some opposition to that language.
Speaker 2: Is that true and if it is, what are your
Speaker 2: objections to it?
Speaker 11: Sure, well, I've spoke to Center Rounds about this directly,
Speaker 11: and I'm not holding up his provision at all. I
Speaker 11: think it's a poorly drafted piece of legislation. Also, what
Speaker 11: really find interesting about what I call the pro alien
Speaker 11: caucus over here in the House, Unlike you, not one
Speaker 11: of them has ever spoken to me about any of
Speaker 11: these issues. I mean you and I are speaking. You
Speaker 11: would think that if this is that important of an
Speaker 11: issue to them, at least one member of the House
Speaker 11: who's advancing this cause would actually come up and substantively
Speaker 11: talk to me about this issue.
Speaker 3: No one has even raised it.
Speaker 11: Perhaps you might want to ask them why they have it.
Speaker 2: As I understand that that is not one hundred percent
Speaker 2: true in terms of the people like Anna, Paulina Luna
Speaker 2: and even Democrats jere At Moscowitz others who have had objections.
Speaker 2: But Crystal, a lot of people are pointing to the
Speaker 2: fact that that congressman has some of the biggest donations
Speaker 2: from military industrial companies and others in a long relationship
Speaker 2: with the intelligence community. I am told and I can
Speaker 2: only tell you this on background from people who are involved.
Speaker 2: Just got an update from people intimately involved this morning,
Speaker 2: and here's what they had to say. They said that
Speaker 2: there's a lot of move parts on the situation. If
Speaker 2: in terms of what we're going on, they believe that
Speaker 2: they will overcome the hurdle on actually getting the legislation attached,
Speaker 2: but they're not one hundred percent sure.
Speaker 3: So lots of stuff going on behind the scenes.
Speaker 2: It could be that the congressman's objections are legitimate, but
Speaker 2: from everyone I know is involved behind the scenes in
Speaker 2: the process, he really has been doing this at the
Speaker 2: behest of the intelligence community.
Speaker 3: Another reason why he doesn't.
Speaker 1: Really reason the objection exactly. He's just like, well, it's
Speaker 1: poorly crafton. By the way, why don't they talk to me.
Speaker 1: It's not really like a reason.
Speaker 3: So more inside baseball.
Speaker 2: One of the reasons why the intel community wanted to
Speaker 2: nuke this in the House and not in the Senate
Speaker 2: is because this was a priority for Senator Schumer, who's
Speaker 2: the majority leader. So CIA and all these others didn't
Speaker 2: want to piss off Schumer by going after what he
Speaker 2: was doing in the Senate. And they're like, well, we
Speaker 2: have the Republicans in the House, we'll just use our
Speaker 2: stooges who are there to try and kill the legislation.
Speaker 2: But there's enough actually public I would say, not outrage
Speaker 2: per se, but enough people who are obsessed with this
Speaker 2: topic like me, who have been monitoring all of this
Speaker 2: and who have been called and bringing attention. So it
Speaker 2: is certainly possible that we could prevail with this legislation
Speaker 2: to actually get transparency.
Speaker 3: So that's the subject of it all.
Speaker 1: Tell me more about what you thought about this Daily
Speaker 1: Mail report. I found it interesting. You know, they go
Speaker 1: into the description of what this office is supposed to be,
Speaker 1: the OGA. They talk about one of the guys who
Speaker 1: supposedly set up the office how he described his job.
Speaker 1: He said he was responsible for leading and managing strategic
Speaker 1: unwarned access programs that deliver intelligence from the most challenging
Speaker 1: denied areas and served as program manager with responsibility for
Speaker 1: the end to end system acquisition of an innovative news
Speaker 1: source and method for the intelligence community, which I enjoyed,
Speaker 1: like the gooul speak number one.
Speaker 4: But yeah, what do you make of this report?
Speaker 1: I mean, again, like Daily Mail, You're like, I don't know,
Speaker 1: question marks, the eyebrowsreies, but they have a lot of
Speaker 1: sources and the thing that made me the most I
Speaker 1: guess optical of the CIA's story on this, or the
Speaker 1: fact that they deny that this is really going on.
Speaker 1: Was some of that goal speak covering up what seems
Speaker 1: to be whatever is going on.
Speaker 3: I'm glad you read that.
Speaker 2: That's exactly what I was going to point to Wit
Speaker 2: to me and tell me that's not the shadiest thing
Speaker 2: you've ever heard. And again it raises the thing a
Speaker 2: question of we're entering a binary world. It's like they're
Speaker 2: either involved in crashed retrieval for foreign objects China, Russia, India.
Speaker 2: Who knows, one of the world's most advanced countries has
Speaker 2: developed something which we allegedly had never heard of. It's
Speaker 2: never even showed up in research or any of these things,
Speaker 2: and the CIA is covering that up. That in itself
Speaker 2: is a scandal. You know, it's a secret US government program.
Speaker 2: I've said this too, Then sure release it, you know why,
Speaker 2: because it would obviously have an incredible commercial application and
Speaker 2: we would all have to stop getting stop having to
Speaker 2: be on sixteen seventeen hour flights if you want to
Speaker 2: go to Asia or it is extraterrestrial. Now, of course,
Speaker 2: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. All of this is just
Speaker 2: even more three whistle lower say, and enough people in
Speaker 2: the comments are going to be like, just show me
Speaker 2: the damn crap.
Speaker 3: I agree with you, Phil, That's why I support the.
Speaker 2: Legislation because if that is going to lead to any
Speaker 2: sort of disclosure. The other point though, that I would
Speaker 2: say is after the JFK movie by Oliver Stone, incredible
Speaker 2: movie came out in nineteen ninety one. It led to
Speaker 2: the nineteen ninety two JFK Assassination Records Act, which required
Speaker 2: release over the next twenty years. And guess what, it's
Speaker 2: still twenty twenty three and we don't have it. And
Speaker 2: the reason why is because there are very substantial interests
Speaker 2: in Washington, in every White House since in Congress, and
Speaker 2: within the CIA who don't want us to know that
Speaker 2: they were deeply involved in the assassination plot to kill Kennedy.
Speaker 2: So it's not like this is a perfect catch all.
Speaker 2: I think this is actually equivalent really to that, which
Speaker 2: is another step.
Speaker 1: It's a tool well, And because that because that is
Speaker 1: a law on the books, then people like Jefferson Morley,
Speaker 1: who's a researcher and affiliated organizations can go and say
Speaker 1: you are in breach of the law you pass of
Speaker 1: your congressionally mandated responsibilities, so they can use that as
Speaker 1: a cudge then to try to secure a different additional documents.
Speaker 1: And you know, they have not gotten everything, but they
Speaker 1: have been able to, you know, secure additional information that
Speaker 1: has been revelatory in terms of JFK's assassination. So you know,
Speaker 1: without really having a dog in this fight, I'm just
Speaker 1: for transparency and let's learn whatever we can about whatever
Speaker 1: the hell is going.
Speaker 2: Yes, thank you, and I appreciate always a neutral observer
Speaker 2: of the story.
Speaker 3: So well, continue to keep everybody updated.
Speaker 2: There's allegedly going to be a press conference sometime today.
Speaker 2: If it's big or anything like that, I'll give everybody
Speaker 2: an update. But I'm watching it closely. I'm talking a
Speaker 2: lot with the people who are involved on this. It's
Speaker 2: not actually that big of a circle. Wasn't that hard
Speaker 2: to find them in terms of some of the advocates
Speaker 2: and all. So we'll well, we'll keep track and we'll
Speaker 2: let you.
Speaker 4: Guys know, all right, Sachery Looking at.
Speaker 2: When I was in college in the twenty tens, nearly
Speaker 2: every shirt I remember seeing said some variation of the
Speaker 2: future is female. Cheryl Sandberg's book Lean In hit the
Speaker 2: stands to great acclaim, and the early days of Instagram
Speaker 2: activism at that time was populated almost entirely by graffics
Speaker 2: about how women don't make as much as men in
Speaker 2: the workplace. Female empowerment and equality in the workplace was
Speaker 2: genuinely considered one of the most important elite issues.
Speaker 3: Of the time.
Speaker 2: I have no problem with the ideas behind that per se,
Speaker 2: but what has enraged me now for years is the
Speaker 2: prevalence of this outdated mode of thinking and refusal to
Speaker 2: admit that in an incredibly short period of time, the
Speaker 2: story has actually flipped completely. Not only are women doing
Speaker 2: better in the workplace than ever, it appears that their
Speaker 2: ascendance has masked the rapid decline of men, leading to
Speaker 2: a genuine crisis. Nearly every piece of economic data that
Speaker 2: we have confirms this. Just yesterday, the Washington Post triumphantly
Speaker 2: published a new op ed that reflects this reality. Will
Speaker 2: the spectacular she covery last, they ask, which includes a
Speaker 2: chart showing a massive spike in employment for college educated
Speaker 2: women with child under ten, now coupled with the other chart.
Speaker 2: Though in the story, the data is truly remarkable, it
Speaker 2: shows seventy five point three percent of prime aged women
Speaker 2: in the workplace, in all time high in American history.
Speaker 2: What they fail to mention is that this is a
Speaker 2: one track story. College educated women are doing better than ever,
Speaker 2: everyone else is suffering, and especially men. Employment rates for
Speaker 2: prime age males between twenty five and fifty four is
Speaker 2: actually at a historic low, only eclipsed by twenty twenty
Speaker 2: when people were forcibly held at home. The eighty five
Speaker 2: percent of prime age males who are working today is
Speaker 2: down by eight percent from the nineteen fifties, and much
Speaker 2: of it can actually be explained where value is allocated
Speaker 2: in society Today, the vast majority of employment gains in
Speaker 2: the modern US economy are being captured by the college
Speaker 2: educated elite. As you can see even the female employment
Speaker 2: statistics for those women with no college degree and with
Speaker 2: a child under ten are less employed today than they
Speaker 2: were in two thousand and three. This fits directly with
Speaker 2: male employment statistics and wage data that shows that declining
Speaker 2: male participation in higher education is heavily responsible for this.
Speaker 2: Female participation in higher education has exploded in recent years
Speaker 2: and amplified even more by the pandemic. A historic share
Speaker 2: of men are not only dropping out of college, simply
Speaker 2: not even applying in the first place, for a variety
Speaker 2: of reasons. One is cultural the perception of male hostility
Speaker 2: on campus. Two is obviously just exploding costs, with many
Speaker 2: considering it's not worth the wage premium to attend in
Speaker 2: the future. And while that may be true as the
Speaker 2: economy shifts, the lingering effects of the college premium are
Speaker 2: still showing us clearly. Women not only have leaned in,
Speaker 2: but men are leaning out. Young women are not only
Speaker 2: out earning young men in almost every major metro area
Speaker 2: in the US, but especially so in the top dollar
Speaker 2: markets like New York, Washington, DC, and Los Angeles. The
Speaker 2: long term effects of women not only starting out higher
Speaker 2: wages but earning more over time will have a profound
Speaker 2: impact on US society. It is leading to major demographic
Speaker 2: problems in the future. College is a lot more than
Speaker 2: just education. You can almost think of it as a
Speaker 2: quasi caste system. Whether you attended a four year college
Speaker 2: degree or not indicates a lot about what type of
Speaker 2: books that you like, what type of alcohol that you drink,
Speaker 2: where you like to hang out, where you live, what
Speaker 2: TV shows you like, and much more. It's a very
Speaker 2: common bond that many share, and it is one of
Speaker 2: the largest cultural divides that we have today. Furthermore, reams
Speaker 2: of data indicates now the women who go to college
Speaker 2: are very unlikely to consider a mate who has not
Speaker 2: similarly attended. Again, there is nothing wrong with this, it's
Speaker 2: just understandable because of the common cultural bond that they
Speaker 2: may share. But at scale, it is leading to probably
Speaker 2: the highest single rate amongst young men we've ever seen
Speaker 2: in American history. Now, how does this work, you may ask,
Speaker 2: But it's because many of these newly successful women are
Speaker 2: not dating men in their traditional age bracket. They are
Speaker 2: dating older men who have achieved more financial success, and
Speaker 2: we're seen as more desirable mates. And as we all
Speaker 2: might want to deny it, most of this comes back
Speaker 2: to money and is downstream of education. College educated women
Speaker 2: have triumphed in the new economy men and non college
Speaker 2: educated women are significantly held back. This, by all accounts,
Speaker 2: is one of the most profound shifts in US employment
Speaker 2: in all of American history, and yet it is mostly ignored.
Speaker 2: The reason why is that most people just don't want
Speaker 2: to talk about male wages or male loneliness because they
Speaker 2: think it validates tropes about toxic masculinity.
Speaker 3: I actually think it's the opposite.
Speaker 2: If the only people talking about this crisis of men
Speaker 2: are those figures, then they will of course get even
Speaker 2: more attention. The longer and more that this is ignored
Speaker 2: by the top leaders, the worst that the crisis will get,
Speaker 2: and the attendant eventual release of all of this rage
Speaker 2: will be historic. So Crystal, there's a lot to say about.
Speaker 1: That, And if you want to hear my reaction to
Speaker 1: Cyber's monologue, become a premium subscriber today at Breakingpoints dot com.
Speaker 3: We have a lot to on the show to cover
Speaker 3: next week.
Speaker 2: I'm sure we'll standing by for anything that's going to
Speaker 2: be happening breaking over the weekend. We appreciate, we love
Speaker 2: all of you, thinking all of you for our Spotify help.
Speaker 2: So to reiterate that call, if you can text the
Speaker 2: episode to your friend, it really does help us out
Speaker 2: in terms of our growth, or become a premium member. Yeah,
Speaker 2: just like I guess that's going to be a new
Speaker 2: call of for us. Otherwise, we'll see you all on Monday,