Speaker 1: This episode of the Chuck Podcast is brought to you
Speaker 1: by Ethos and what Ethos does is it helps you
Speaker 1: find life insurance. Let me tell you why life insurance
Speaker 1: bailed me out. My father died when I was sixteen.
Speaker 1: We didn't have a lot of money when it happened,
Speaker 1: and we were in a pretty tough financial spot after
Speaker 1: it happened. I'm an only child. Suddenly my mother's single,
Speaker 1: single mother. She had a job, suddenly lost a job,
Speaker 1: looking for another job, and we were struggling. You know,
Speaker 1: my dad didn't leave us in the best financial situation,
Speaker 1: but he did make one purchase. He bought a life
Speaker 1: insurance policy. Wasn't a huge chunk of change, but it
Speaker 1: was enough when we found it. And when I say
Speaker 1: we found it, meaning we went through his desk and
Speaker 1: we found, oh, look at this, let's see if there's
Speaker 1: anything here. And it helped us out at a time
Speaker 1: that we really needed it. And that's why I think
Speaker 1: it's important that if you can, especially if you have
Speaker 1: young children, if you can get life insurance, you should
Speaker 1: get it. Life is full of unexpected emergencies, unexpected things happen.
Speaker 1: It is an extra bit of security, something you can
Speaker 1: leave and help out at a time when you're not
Speaker 1: you're not there to help. So what does Ethos do well?
Speaker 1: Ethos makes getting life insurance fast and easy, and it's
Speaker 1: one hundred percent online. You can get a quote in seconds,
Speaker 1: you can apply in minutes, and you can get same
Speaker 1: day coverage. They will find you the right fit. There's
Speaker 1: no medical exam. You just answer a few simple health
Speaker 1: questions online. You can get up to three million dollars
Speaker 1: in coverage and some policies are as low as thirty
Speaker 1: dollars a month, and you'll get your lowest rate from
Speaker 1: their network of trusted carriers. So take ten minutes to
Speaker 1: get covered today with life insurance through Ethos. Get your
Speaker 1: free quote at ethos dot com slash chuck That is
Speaker 1: e t hos dot com slash chuck. Application times may
Speaker 1: vary and rates may vary. Hello, They're happy Monday. Happy
Speaker 1: Easter Monday for those of you'd celebrate. It is Easter
Speaker 1: egg roll Day here in Washington. Normally in a tremendous event,
Speaker 1: with half the White House destroyed right with the East wing,
Speaker 1: it's a construction zone. I am a little curious how
Speaker 1: it goes today, whether they ended up limiting tickets. They
Speaker 1: didn't say, but it will be something that I am
Speaker 1: curious about a little bit for you know, never mind
Speaker 1: who's in the White House. The tradition itself is something
Speaker 1: that many particularly locally. There's many people who love to
Speaker 1: go every year, who find a way to go every year.
Speaker 1: Sometimes I'm sorry that politics gets from the way of
Speaker 1: some fun traditions that people have, but there's no doubt
Speaker 1: politics is going to get in the way of that.
Speaker 1: So that is what it is. I want to give
Speaker 1: you a few things that I'm doing this week. Yes
Speaker 1: it's called promotion, before we get to the meet and
Speaker 1: the heart of what I've got today, because boy do
Speaker 1: I have a lot today on the Iran War and
Speaker 1: where things are headed in a variety of methods here.
Speaker 1: But before we get to that. Number one, you know
Speaker 1: about my new sports history podcast. With my partner Jaaatdande,
Speaker 1: both formerly a ESPN and The La Times, we launched
Speaker 1: a new sports history podcast called Dynastic where we look
Speaker 1: at the dynasties some of the all time sports dynasties,
Speaker 1: both in pro and college. Our first deep dive is
Speaker 1: the Los Angeles Dodgers. It is up now. Yes, we
Speaker 1: have snuck it into my audio feed. But you can
Speaker 1: subscribe directly wherever you get your podcasts or on YouTube
Speaker 1: to the Dynastic d y n A SDIC. Just look
Speaker 1: up Dynastic, follow us on Dynastic on socials. Because I'm
Speaker 1: trying very hard, I am going to try to create
Speaker 1: a bright line. You will not see political commentary on
Speaker 1: the dynastics stuff, which you might see some sports commentary
Speaker 1: on this feed, but that's neither here nor there. But
Speaker 1: we also so once a month we do a deep
Speaker 1: dive and then at the two week mark of the month,
Speaker 1: we do a deep dive interview with some iconic member
Speaker 1: of that franchise. Well, the iconic member of the franchise
Speaker 1: of the Dodgers, Jimi Hereen. Jimy Herene is the Hall
Speaker 1: of Fame Spanish language broadcaster of the La Dodgers. He
Speaker 1: basically was the Dodgers decided to have a Spanish language
Speaker 1: broadcast when they moved to La in nineteen fifty nine,
Speaker 1: and Jimi Herene was the voice of the Dodgers for
Speaker 1: many Spanish language fans for decades. So I mean, imagine
Speaker 1: you have Vince Scully and Jimi Heren. I mean it
Speaker 1: was literally two Hall of Famers that the Dodgers had.
Speaker 1: He is tremendous. It's a tremendous interview. He's a JA
Speaker 1: has known him a long time and he's in his nineties,
Speaker 1: but you would think he was in his sixties. He
Speaker 1: is just as excited about a baseball game today as
Speaker 1: I think he was back in the late fifties, early sixties.
Speaker 1: His stories are terrific. But we also feature greatest games,
Speaker 1: all this stuff. So anyway, that is hitting the feed
Speaker 1: on Tuesday, this interview with himI aren So, I want
Speaker 1: you to take a look at that. Also, as you know,
Speaker 1: the Chuck toodcasts been a big supporter of Local News Day. Well,
Speaker 1: guess what happens this Thursday. Thursday is the day, April ninth,
Speaker 1: Local news Day. I will have another interview later this
Speaker 1: week in my feed featuring another prominent news organization that
Speaker 1: has gone the independent route. It's a legacy media company
Speaker 1: that is going new, going independent. It's about the Salt
Speaker 1: Lake Tribune. So we will you will hear that later
Speaker 1: this week, but again be aware of Local News Day.
Speaker 1: I hope at this point I've gotten many of you
Speaker 1: to find out who's doing local news in your neck
Speaker 1: of the woods, and hopefully you've signed up and taken
Speaker 1: a look at least if it's a quality product. But
Speaker 1: take a look at the news organizations at the local
Speaker 1: news day website of who's participating, because it's a great
Speaker 1: way to find out if somebody in your neighborhood is participating,
Speaker 1: which also means they've been kind of vetted and we
Speaker 1: know that they're truly independent and they truly are with
Speaker 1: journalistic standards. And then finally, on Thursday night, I'm going
Speaker 1: to be in Chicago at the University of Chicago or
Speaker 1: I'm going to be moderating a debate between Chris Christi
Speaker 1: and New York Times columnists David French. And the issue
Speaker 1: is on gambling. Has it become the new pornography? So
Speaker 1: Chris Christy is going to be essentially on the supportive side,
Speaker 1: David French is going to be on the skeptical side.
Speaker 1: I am moderating with my own biases about it having
Speaker 1: to do I enjoy betting. I enjoyed lots of aspects
Speaker 1: of this. I have also expressed my reservations on certain
Speaker 1: aspects of how fast we've legalized and how we do it.
Speaker 1: Should we have more friction. So it's going to be
Speaker 1: a nuanced conversation. Because this is the University of Chicago.
Speaker 1: They don't expect a sort of he said, he said
Speaker 1: food fight, even though both Chris Christi David French are
Speaker 1: certainly capable of participating in that kind of conversation. But
Speaker 1: that's not what they want to have. It's not what
Speaker 1: I want to have, it's not what the University of
Speaker 1: Chicago wants to have. But it's going to be. You'll
Speaker 1: be able to see it, I hope eventually, courtesy of
Speaker 1: the University of Chicago. So if you want to check
Speaker 1: that out, we'll be doing that. I'll be doing that
Speaker 1: on Thursday. So I thought i'd let you know all
Speaker 1: of the various things we've got cooking here at the
Speaker 1: world headquarters of the Chuck Podcast. And so, without further ado,
Speaker 1: let's get into the precarious moment we continue to live
Speaker 1: in in this Trump era. We're going to start today
Speaker 1: though with what is a sigh of relief that has
Speaker 1: turned pretty quickly into a cold sweat, because over the weekend, obviously,
Speaker 1: when most of you were getting ready if you celebrate Easter,
Speaker 1: preparing for Easter, the White House was in something close
Speaker 1: to paralysis. In fact, the lack of commentary by the
Speaker 1: President himself led to all sorts of Twitter rumors and
Speaker 1: social media rumors because it was strange not to hear
Speaker 1: from the President. But there was a reason for this,
Speaker 1: because we had pilots that were shot down in Iran,
Speaker 1: and this was a potential nightmare for the United States.
Speaker 1: An American F fifteen E Strike Eagle, one of the
Speaker 1: most advanced aircraft we have, was knocked out of the
Speaker 1: sky over Isfahan, Iran, and for a stretch of hours,
Speaker 1: perhaps it was longer, the scenario everyone feared was the
Speaker 1: one nobody wanted to say out loud, and American pilot
Speaker 1: captured and paraded through perhaps even paraded through the streets
Speaker 1: of Turan. I don't know if they would have parrated
Speaker 1: this person through the st the streets of Tehran, but
Speaker 1: it would have been a huge psychological blow to the
Speaker 1: United States and a huge psychological help to the regime.
Speaker 1: So that is why I think you had a paralyzed
Speaker 1: White House where even the President knew how much he
Speaker 1: had at stake. But thankfully that didn't happen. Thank goodness
Speaker 1: for our special forces, how good they are, and they
Speaker 1: were able to extract both the pilot and the weapons
Speaker 1: expert eventually out, and the stories were hearing. I hope
Speaker 1: they're true. I'm sorry I have to say that, but
Speaker 1: you and I both know that that's the case. You
Speaker 1: have to always take the stories you're getting directly from
Speaker 1: this administration with a grain of salt. But the heroism obviously,
Speaker 1: these special forces going in harm's way. Clearly this is
Speaker 1: not a safe place to be, despite all of the
Speaker 1: bluster from Pete Haikseth earlier in the month, and I'm
Speaker 1: going to get to that, but we got a rescue,
Speaker 1: and it's extraordinary what the special ops folks did, and
Speaker 1: the President is celebrating it, and I think it's celebrating
Speaker 1: out of relief because this would have been a huge below.
Speaker 1: But here's the problem. We are now in a moment
Speaker 1: where the success of the rescue is being used to
Speaker 1: obscure the failure of the premise itself and in fact
Speaker 1: be on the lookout. I'm not going to prejue. You
Speaker 1: never know what Trump's going to say at a one
Speaker 1: pm news conference, but he's going to have one later today.
Speaker 1: My guess is he wants to bask in the glow
Speaker 1: of this rescue mission and hope that it obfuscates the
Speaker 1: fact that did we mislead these pilots, let alone the public,
Speaker 1: into how safe the skies were. But let's be very
Speaker 1: clear here, because if you have to rescue a pilot
Speaker 1: from Isfahan, then you were never operating in what Pete
Speaker 1: Haikseth boasted a couple of weeks ago, uncontested airspace. That's
Speaker 1: not interpretation, it's simply geography. Isfahan is deep inside Iran.
Speaker 1: This isn't a coastal town, which means one of two
Speaker 1: things is true. Either the battlefield is far more contested
Speaker 1: than the military leaders have told you the American taxpayers,
Speaker 1: or we put American pilots in harm's way based on
Speaker 1: assumptions that weren't true. Is either outcome good. Either your
Speaker 1: government was lying to you or they were lying to
Speaker 1: themselves and put our pilots in harms way. This should
Speaker 1: be a huge concern, and we've seen this pattern before.
Speaker 1: We are very good at celebrating the moment of heroism,
Speaker 1: the rescue, the extraction, the comeback. We don't leave people
Speaker 1: behind for and this is good, this is who we are.
Speaker 1: But we are much worse at asking a harder question.
Speaker 1: When these things happen, why did we need the rescue
Speaker 1: in the first place? Right, And a lot of times
Speaker 1: you will get it presidential administrations. When you start asking
Speaker 1: these questions, they will question your patriotism, They will question
Speaker 1: things like that. These are important questions we have to ask,
Speaker 1: because remember, it wasn't just the F fifteen that was
Speaker 1: struck down and a black clowk that was hit. Iran
Speaker 1: also down an A ten attack aircraft on Friday, undercutting
Speaker 1: all of these claims by Trump and Hegseth and other
Speaker 1: officials that the US had unchecked dominance of this guise
Speaker 1: from over Iran. Now, the good news was the pilot
Speaker 1: of the A ten attack aircraft was able to essentially
Speaker 1: extract himself in friendly territory and ejected safely. So that's
Speaker 1: the good news. But let's not pretend that things are
Speaker 1: going well in this war, because they're not. And that
Speaker 1: brings us to this man, to the man at the podium,
Speaker 1: the Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, pretty much the propaganda
Speaker 1: Pete as I've tried to nickname him, and I know
Speaker 1: that sounds snarky, but the guy doesn't appear to ever
Speaker 1: tell us the truth, and he has been caught with
Speaker 1: his pants down with this one. For the last month,
Speaker 1: we've been getting a very consistent message from heg Seth certainty.
Speaker 1: Let me just walk through in a March fourth, Pete
Speaker 1: hagg Seth, the Secretary of Defense, complete control uncontested airspace
Speaker 1: March tenth, the Iranian Air Force is no more. We
Speaker 1: control their faith. Last week iron as toast, it's not
Speaker 1: even a fair fight. And as for the radar systems,
Speaker 1: one hundred percent annihilated. Okay, so let's ask the obvious question.
Speaker 1: If the airspace is uncontested, how do you lose a
Speaker 1: strike ego over Isfahan? If the radar is gone, how
Speaker 1: do they get a lock on one of our advanced
Speaker 1: fighter jets. If it isn't a fair fight, why are
Speaker 1: we running rescue missions in the middle of Iran? Look,
Speaker 1: this isn't about rhetoric and for its own sake, this
Speaker 1: is about credibility in wartime. These guys are not telling
Speaker 1: us the truth. We just don't know what they're not
Speaker 1: telling us. But if they were telling us the truth,
Speaker 1: then we wouldn't have had what we had happen over
Speaker 1: the weekend. Okay, they're not telling us the truth. Are
Speaker 1: they lying or are they withholding information that's something that
Speaker 1: an inspector general. We used to have this entity called
Speaker 1: the US Congress that would do things like this. I'm
Speaker 1: not sure. I think they've been totally castrated or neutered.
Speaker 1: I'm being a little obviously sarcastic here, but this is
Speaker 1: what their job should be in a moment like this,
Speaker 1: because if we don't have credibility in wartime, how the
Speaker 1: hell are we going to win this thing? Because there's
Speaker 1: a huge credibility gap. Either the Secretary is being given
Speaker 1: overly optimistic battle field assessments, or they're lying to the
Speaker 1: president to mislead him, or they're withholding obviously bad information
Speaker 1: from the president, which is also possible, or he's simply
Speaker 1: presenting him that way to the public intentionally lying. Either way,
Speaker 1: the story we're being told no longer matches the reality
Speaker 1: we're seeing, and historically that's when things start to drift.
Speaker 1: So while the Pentagon is trying to explain all this
Speaker 1: and wrap it up in heroism, and there is heroism
Speaker 1: to go around for the special forces that had to
Speaker 1: be called in to do this, but it's nothing to
Speaker 1: celebrate that we put our pilots in harms way like this. Then,
Speaker 1: of course you had the president on social media on
Speaker 1: Easter morning. Easter Sunday morning, people are getting ready to go.
Speaker 1: You know, imagine some of the president's more religious supporters
Speaker 1: who just love the man, and they open up and
Speaker 1: they see that they see him say the following again,
Speaker 1: Easter Sunday morning, Tuesday will be power plant Day and
Speaker 1: bridge Day all wrapped up in one. In Iran, there
Speaker 1: will be nothing like it. Three exclamation points. Then in
Speaker 1: open the fucking straight, you crazy bastards, or you'll be
Speaker 1: living in hell. Just watch Praise be to Allah. The
Speaker 1: American President of the United States uttered the following. Let
Speaker 1: me repeat what the American President of the United States
Speaker 1: set open the fucking straight, you crazy bastards, or you'll
Speaker 1: be living in hell. Just watch Praise be to Allah.
Speaker 1: Is he mocking Islam with that last comment. I'm not Muslim.
Speaker 1: I will let others speak if they're offended or not.
Speaker 1: I know I have if I were saying that, I
Speaker 1: don't in that context. I don't think I would be
Speaker 1: honoring the Islamic any sort of Islamic traditions like this.
Speaker 1: I don't know whether he thought it was funny. Perhaps
Speaker 1: he thought it was funny again, all of this on
Speaker 1: Easter morning, a very religious holiday to Christians, extraordinary important holiday. Look,
Speaker 1: as I taught my kids when they were young, they
Speaker 1: were like, so, asking me about Easter, and I said, well,
Speaker 1: I said, the easiest way is it's where Jews and
Speaker 1: Christians diverge. That's usually the polite way I say it.
Speaker 1: But all of this on Easter morning? Are there evangelicals
Speaker 1: left with any sort of moral or ethical code that
Speaker 1: you can defend this? But hey, you can just do
Speaker 1: whatever you want with them, right, you just grab them
Speaker 1: by the huh oh right, same guy. Nothing's changed. One
Speaker 1: thing about Donald Trump is he's consistent. So he's threatening
Speaker 1: what he called a power plant day, a bridge day
Speaker 1: now on its own. That kind of language is familiar.
Speaker 1: It's Trump, right, We've heard it before. But here's what's changed.
Speaker 1: It's no longer landing as leverage. He thinks it's leverage
Speaker 1: because after three weeks of similar threats, the Strait of
Speaker 1: Hormuz is still constrained, the conflict is still extraordinarily active,
Speaker 1: and the underlying strategic position has not shifted one bit,
Speaker 1: which raises a more fundamental question what happens when escalation
Speaker 1: becomes repetitive, and repetition becomes background noise, because it's kind
Speaker 1: of already there, right, We're kind of used to him
Speaker 1: these weirdly weakly escalations. By the way, he also he
Speaker 1: also claimed to Axios that there were talks going on
Speaker 1: with some with some key folks in the Iranian of
Speaker 1: who's alive in this Iranian government, of which Axios his
Speaker 1: own sources said, there's no, there's nothing that serious going on.
Speaker 1: But hey, it's Sunday that he said that. And what
Speaker 1: does he do on Sundays during the start of this war,
Speaker 1: tries to jaw bone down the price of oil in
Speaker 1: time for the markets. I'm not sure the markets are
Speaker 1: listening to Donald Trump these days, but we shall see.
Speaker 1: But I don't think he's increasing the pressure he thinks
Speaker 1: he's doing. He's actually revealing the limits that we have
Speaker 1: right now. We have very few limits, I mean, the
Speaker 1: only thing that can be done. And he's very frustrated
Speaker 1: by this, which is why he used the F word.
Speaker 1: He's frustrated because he has no choice if he wants
Speaker 1: this war to ever be seen as successful, if he
Speaker 1: wants to at all get his strategic goals, because if
Speaker 1: he walks away with the Iranians using the Straight of
Speaker 1: Hormuz as a toll road, then he actually set the
Speaker 1: entire world back with his decision and did nothing in return,
Speaker 1: did not help the Iranian people nothing. So he knows
Speaker 1: he's probably going to have to order ground troops in
Speaker 1: order to secure the Straight of Horror moves to have
Speaker 1: any leverage over this over the Iranians, because right now
Speaker 1: he is none, and that's the problem. Now, this is
Speaker 1: where I want to tell you about an interview I
Speaker 1: did for Newsphere. Now, those of you, I hope that
Speaker 1: those of you, if you've liked what you've seen on
Speaker 1: what I've done with Newsphere. It's a standalone news app
Speaker 1: of independent journalists from around the world. Every Sunday I
Speaker 1: have a new interview on there with a newsmaker or expert,
Speaker 1: and this week I sat down with Daniel Jurgen, sort
Speaker 1: of probably the world's foremost expert on energy markets. He's
Speaker 1: author the Pulitzer Prize win the Prize. I think I
Speaker 1: promoted it before, but here it is. I know it's
Speaker 1: a very familiar book on my bookshelves's been there a
Speaker 1: long time, and I wanted to share with you some
Speaker 1: of the things he told me because I think it
Speaker 1: are important points here and why the president, why the
Speaker 1: straight of Horne moves is the whole ballgame. So I
Speaker 1: asked him how big is this? And he didn't hedge.
Speaker 1: He called it the biggest disruption in the history of
Speaker 1: world energy. Hardstop. This is bigger than nineteen seventy three,
Speaker 1: bigger than nineteen seventy nine. So just let that sink
Speaker 1: in for a second. And if you know Daniel Jurgen,
Speaker 1: he is not He's not a guy who likes to
Speaker 1: live in likes to use hyperbolic vocabulary. It's just not him.
Speaker 1: But those two crises were huge. They were the crises
Speaker 1: that reshaped the global economy, reshaped the American economy. It
Speaker 1: triggered recessions, stagflation, reowned and an American forum policy for generation.
Speaker 1: And what is Jurgen saying right now is all ready bigger.
Speaker 1: And here's the part that should make you really uneasy.
Speaker 1: This isn't some black Swan event that nobody saw coming.
Speaker 1: This is the scenario, the one policymakers have been gaming
Speaker 1: out for forty years. The nightmare scenario centered on the
Speaker 1: strait of horror moves. It has always been about this.
Speaker 1: Daniel will tell you this, the narrow passageway that a
Speaker 1: huge percentage of the world's energypply has to pass through.
Speaker 1: And now it's not theoretical anymore. It's happening because what's
Speaker 1: changed isn't just conflict, it's control. There used to be
Speaker 1: a kind of uneasy system Iran oman the UAE managing traffic,
Speaker 1: keeping things moving, preventing catastrophe. Now you have Iran effectively
Speaker 1: saying we're in charge here. It's almost more important than
Speaker 1: them developing a nuclear weapon. And once that becomes real,
Speaker 1: once that becomes the operating assumption of global markets, you're
Speaker 1: not dealing with the temporary disruption. You're dealing with a
Speaker 1: new reality and reversing that. Even Jurgen very carefully makes
Speaker 1: clear there it's not something you do easily, not without escalation.
Speaker 1: And here's where the story gets even bigger than oil,
Speaker 1: because we learned something during COVID and then again they're
Speaker 1: in the Ukraine War. The global economy is far more
Speaker 1: interconnected than we like to admit, and it's far more
Speaker 1: interconnected than it was during those crises in the seventies,
Speaker 1: which is why this is worse. You don't just get
Speaker 1: oil from the golf. You get fertilizer, You get helium,
Speaker 1: which is essential for semiconductors, for mir machines, for advanced manufacturing.
Speaker 1: How about Taiwan's chip industry. It depends on inputs coming
Speaker 1: through where that same region, right through the strait. So
Speaker 1: when that system gets disrupted, you don't just feel it
Speaker 1: at the gas pot. You're going to feel it everywhere.
Speaker 1: And even if this stopped tomorrow, even if it froze
Speaker 1: right now, you're gonna says, you're still looking at the
Speaker 1: better part of a year just to get supply chains
Speaker 1: back to normal. So this is why I have been
Speaker 1: very declarative. These midterms are over. For the reports, books
Speaker 1: and Trump, they are over. There is no recovering from this. Economically,
Speaker 1: this is going to be a crappy economy for the
Speaker 1: rest of the year at best. If he manages this
Speaker 1: and gets the straight open, maybe we don't get into
Speaker 1: a full fledged recession, but it is not going to
Speaker 1: be a popular economy. Inflation. Inflation. Inflation is coming. Let's soap,
Speaker 1: it does not stagflation. This episode of the Chuck Podcast
Speaker 1: is brought to you by Wild Grain. Wild Grain is
Speaker 1: the first bake from frozen subscription box for sour dough breads,
Speaker 1: arteisonal pastries and fresh pastas, plus all the items conveniently
Speaker 1: baked in twenty five minutes or less. Unlike many store
Speaker 1: brought options, Wild Grain uses some simple ingredients you can
Speaker 1: pronounce and a slow fermentation process that can be a
Speaker 1: lot easier on your belly, little gut health there right,
Speaker 1: and richer in nutrients and oxidants. There's also no preservatives
Speaker 1: and no shortcuts. The Wild Grain boxes are fully customizable.
Speaker 1: In addition to their variety box, they have a gluten
Speaker 1: free box, a vegan box, and a new protein box.
Speaker 1: I will tell you I have done the gluten free box.
Speaker 1: I have done it a second time. I have also
Speaker 1: used the code, the todcast code. If you use the
Speaker 1: promo code podcast at check out, you get thirty dollars off.
Speaker 1: I've already used it as a gift to somebody else
Speaker 1: who loves this bread. It is hard to find good
Speaker 1: gluten free bread. It is fantastic. They give you step
Speaker 1: by step instructions. I really dig this. There is nothing
Speaker 1: like having an artesian bakery in your freezer to chase
Speaker 1: away the winter chill. Now is the best time to
Speaker 1: stay in and enjoy some comforting homemade meals with Wildgrain.
Speaker 1: I obviously highly recommend it. It is worth giving Wildgreen
Speaker 1: to try. Right now, Wildgrain is offering my listeners thirty
Speaker 1: dollars off your first box plus free croissants for life.
Speaker 1: Come on when you go to wildgrain dot com slash
Speaker 1: podcast to start your subscription today. That's thirty dollars off
Speaker 1: your first box and free croissants for life when you
Speaker 1: visit wildgrain dot com slash podcast, or simply use the
Speaker 1: promo code toodcast at checkout. This is a sponsor I
Speaker 1: absolutely embrace, so use that code. But sadly, back here
Speaker 1: in Washington, we have yet had a real public hearing
Speaker 1: about this war, not one, not one. No full accounting
Speaker 1: to the American people, no sustained debate, just classified briefings
Speaker 1: in a skiff, and leadership basically saying trust us, and again,
Speaker 1: who when have they told the truth? They have no
Speaker 1: track record of telling the truth, rankly about anything, including
Speaker 1: the president's wait and to height remember that it's not
Speaker 1: but Congress is doing nothing here and they're going to
Speaker 1: pay a price. There's no oversight. It's just pure avoidance
Speaker 1: because they're afraid of the questions that are going to
Speaker 1: get asked. And it's basically the Constitution the is streaming
Speaker 1: at them to do their effing job. Since we're dropping
Speaker 1: the F word, we might as well say it. It's
Speaker 1: a dangerous mismatch that we're in right now, because the
Speaker 1: global system is already adjusting to this crisis, even if
Speaker 1: our political system isn't. And that brings me to another
Speaker 1: story that got overlooked over the weekend, And it's going
Speaker 1: to get really serious, and I think it shows the
Speaker 1: beginning of what is going to be more erosion of
Speaker 1: support for this war from the Republican side of the
Speaker 1: app Do you have a member of the president's own
Speaker 1: party stepping in not to critique the messaging, but to
Speaker 1: challenge the structure of the war itself. Senator John Curtis,
Speaker 1: he's the Republican that replaced Mett Romney from Utah. Hit
Speaker 1: an obed in the Deseret News over the weekend and
Speaker 1: it is absolutely must read. Desert News is the news
Speaker 1: organization that is owned by the Church Litterday Saints and
Speaker 1: many Utah politicians. When they've got something to say to
Speaker 1: the public, they choose the Desert News to say it,
Speaker 1: especially if they themselves are also Latter Day Saints. So
Speaker 1: Curtis starts with something very straightforward, right he talks about
Speaker 1: the numbers that are being asked. We got one point
Speaker 1: five trillion ask for the Pentagon budget, and we've heard
Speaker 1: that ask. Now, remember any when the initial budget asks
Speaker 1: are made by administrations are always laughed at by Congress.
Speaker 1: So one point five is a goal, is a target number.
Speaker 1: But there is also a very specific ass of two
Speaker 1: hundred billion for a supplemental request in order to essentially
Speaker 1: replenish the cost of this war, because we've been averaging
Speaker 1: somewhere around a billion to two billion dollars a day
Speaker 1: somewhere in there. So we've already spent some thirty to
Speaker 1: thirty five billion dollars in this war. And that's probably
Speaker 1: a conservative estimate. And it's going to force a question
Speaker 1: that Washington tries to avoid, what are we committing to
Speaker 1: with all this money? Because Curtis in his op ed,
Speaker 1: is invoking the War Powers Resolution Act of nineteen seventy three,
Speaker 1: which includes a sixty day clock. So this war, let's
Speaker 1: call the start February twenty eighth. We've had thirty one
Speaker 1: days of March. Today is April sixth. Let's give one
Speaker 1: day in the twenty eighth. That's thirty two. We'll add
Speaker 1: the six or in day thirty eight, so we had
Speaker 1: twenty two days left on the sixty day clock. If
Speaker 1: this is a real war, then John Curtis is saying
Speaker 1: he's not voting for any supplemental until there's a vote
Speaker 1: on this war, and it requires a real vote. It's
Speaker 1: an important number there. You subtract Curtis, you're already losing
Speaker 1: Rand Paul, you may lose Lisa Murkowski, you could lose
Speaker 1: Tom Tillis, you may gain Fetterman. There may be a
Speaker 1: couple of other Democrats on there. So's we'll see. But
Speaker 1: there's a lesson here from Vietnam, and that's what Curtis
Speaker 1: is trying to warn folks about. This is where Curtis
Speaker 1: is being more historically grounded than most lawmakers in Washington.
Speaker 1: And I have to tell you I appreciate it. John
Speaker 1: Curtis might be the only Republican outside of Rand Paul,
Speaker 1: expressing the constitutional responsibility that Congress has here. Because Curtis
Speaker 1: is looking at Vietnam, not as an analogy, but as
Speaker 1: a warning. Vietnam didn't begin as a declared war. It
Speaker 1: began as a limited commitment advisors support containment, and then
Speaker 1: it expanded, not because there was a single decisive vote,
Speaker 1: but because there was never a forcing mechanism to stop
Speaker 1: and ask do we want to keep going? So that's
Speaker 1: what this sixty day clock, right, that's seventy three. The
Speaker 1: War Powers Resolution Act was about avoiding another Vietnam, and
Speaker 1: that's what this sixty day clock is supposed to be.
Speaker 1: A forcing mechanism. And what Curtis is saying, I'm not
Speaker 1: supporting any supplemental without a vote on this. But Curtis
Speaker 1: isn't just focused on authority, He's focused on conduct because
Speaker 1: while Congress is being asked to fund this war, the
Speaker 1: legal framework for how it's being fought is shifting in
Speaker 1: real time. The administration is leaning on the idea of
Speaker 1: dual use infrastructure, basically attacking power plants and bridges and
Speaker 1: water systems. Many would say, isn't that a war crime
Speaker 1: because you're targeting civilians essentially, And what the Trump administration
Speaker 1: is looking for is lawyers to give them cover by saying, well,
Speaker 1: those systems also support military, so you can make them targets.
Speaker 1: But even under that theory, the law still requires proportionality.
Speaker 1: So to send them back to the quote Stone Age,
Speaker 1: it's probably not proportionality. You don't destroy a civilian water
Speaker 1: system to eliminate a marginal military advantage. And that's where
Speaker 1: strategy crosses into something else. And then you layer on
Speaker 1: top of that the rhetoric from Secretary Hegset who has
Speaker 1: also said lethality over legality not just a sound bite,
Speaker 1: it's a doctrine. He does not care about human rights,
Speaker 1: nor the rules, nor the Geneva courts. And it carries
Speaker 1: consequences because once legality becomes secondary, you're no longer just
Speaker 1: fighting a war. You're redefining the rules of it. And
Speaker 1: this is why Curtis matters, because he's connecting all of it,
Speaker 1: the cost, the authority, and the conduct, and he understands
Speaker 1: something Washington often forgets in real time. When you move
Speaker 1: outside the rules, you don't just change the war, you
Speaker 1: change your position in the world. And we've done it.
Speaker 1: I see some on the right who are angry that
Speaker 1: our NATO allies haven't stepped up for us, that some
Speaker 1: of them have gone as far as to say, hey,
Speaker 1: you can't land your planes at the bases that are
Speaker 1: in our countries. Well, if you're angry about the behavior
Speaker 1: of our NATO allies, you should be angry at the
Speaker 1: President of the United States, not at those allies. President
Speaker 1: the United States has treated them like shit. And apparently
Speaker 1: I need to use four letter words for people to
Speaker 1: understand what I'm saying. He's treated our allies terribly. He's
Speaker 1: berated them with tariffs, he has all done all of
Speaker 1: these things, and he says and then he wants just
Speaker 1: to help. By the way, the United States has been
Speaker 1: not been a good partner for Ukraine, has done everything
Speaker 1: they can to help Russia in the war, everything they
Speaker 1: can to make Europe less safe, and he wonders why
Speaker 1: they're not standing by us in this those look I get.
Speaker 1: Some of my friends in the right are so focused
Speaker 1: on getting rid of this Iranian regime that they're angry
Speaker 1: that others don't see the threat the way they see it.
Speaker 1: And I understand that, I understand your frustration. I'm not
Speaker 1: going to sit here and dismiss that frustration, but stop
Speaker 1: lashing out of our allies. You know who did this this,
Speaker 1: You're our commander in chief has been a terrible ally
Speaker 1: to Israel, has been a terrible ally to Europe, has
Speaker 1: been a terrible ally to the Golf State. He is
Speaker 1: not a reliable ally to anybody, not to America's closest
Speaker 1: allies in Europe, not to Israel. He's doing Israel no
Speaker 1: favors here. He's doing the Golf States no favors here.
Speaker 1: He's potentially chasing them into China's arms. So realize why
Speaker 1: we're here. We're here because of his diplomatic mismanagement, his
Speaker 1: ridiculous rhetoric, and his appointment of some of the most
Speaker 1: unqualified people in the national security positions that we've ever had.
Speaker 1: That's why we're in this position. One person did this,
Speaker 1: one individual put us in this position. Seventy five years
Speaker 1: of American leadership, popular and unpopular presidents, liberal and conservative presidents,
Speaker 1: moderates and non moderates have all made sure not to
Speaker 1: alienate American allies the way this man has, and he
Speaker 1: has put us all more. We are less safe today.
Speaker 1: And then they're lying to you all the time. They
Speaker 1: are not telling you the truth. So here we are.
Speaker 1: We had a rescue that we should absolutely celebrate, But
Speaker 1: it exposed a reality we haven't fully reckoned with. We
Speaker 1: have a credibility gap between what we've been told and
Speaker 1: what's actually happening on the ground. We have rhetoric escalating
Speaker 1: without clear evidence that it's changing the outcome. And now
Speaker 1: we have a constitutional clock that's ticking because of that
Speaker 1: sixty day clock. It's not there radical it should be
Speaker 1: a forcing mechanism. Congress needs to get off its ass
Speaker 1: and do its fucking job. There. There's some presidential rhetoric
Speaker 1: for you. And if the president wants to continue this war,
Speaker 1: he has to going to have to go to Congress
Speaker 1: ask for permission if he wants all of this money,
Speaker 1: which he says he wants to take away from the
Speaker 1: social safety net. By the way, talk about more political
Speaker 1: problems for his party. He explicitly said last week that
Speaker 1: the Pentagon budget is priority over social security and medicare
Speaker 1: good luck. Anybody want to go to the campaign trail
Speaker 1: and back up that statement, Try it, trust me, just
Speaker 1: try it so we'll see. But he lost. This is
Speaker 1: a huge look. John Curtis right, he's not He's I'm
Speaker 1: not a household name, but he's an independent Republican. He's
Speaker 1: an independent conservative. He's no Maga guy, and he's no
Speaker 1: sickaphan and apparently he's read the Constitution. All right, I
Speaker 1: wanted to do one more thing before we get to
Speaker 1: my interview today, and the interview is Mike Pesca. You
Speaker 1: know him from the Just List. Some of you probably
Speaker 1: listen to his podcast fairly regularly. Mike, can I do this?
Speaker 1: We're now doing this fairly regularly. I think this is
Speaker 1: the third time he's been on this pod that I've
Speaker 1: been on his twice, and you know, it's sometimes less interview,
Speaker 1: more debate, more trying to spitball different issues. We talked
Speaker 1: about the redistricting problems. We talk about a lot of
Speaker 1: that stuff, but we also get into what's wrong with
Speaker 1: NBA and the tanking issue as well. So it's a
Speaker 1: lively conversation. But before we get to that, amidst all
Speaker 1: this crisis that President Trump is introduced on himself and
Speaker 1: the world in our political system, he he issued a
Speaker 1: new executive order in college sports and I kind of
Speaker 1: wanted to just quickly go through it. You know, I'm
Speaker 1: an obsessive college sports fan. I care about this issue
Speaker 1: a lot, and you know, the president his role in
Speaker 1: this has been unhelpful. I think probably you know, yes,
Speaker 1: he's got the power to convene, but he really wasted
Speaker 1: the time of that meeting a couple of weeks ago,
Speaker 1: where it was just there to you know, essentially, you know,
Speaker 1: puff up his ego. Look at all the cool and
Speaker 1: famous people I got here, rather than actually trying to
Speaker 1: solve the problem or come up. But I thought I
Speaker 1: would go through it for those of you that care
Speaker 1: about this issue. Look guess what, I know some of you.
Speaker 1: If you don't care about college sports, you can you
Speaker 1: can fast forward through. But I just wanted to get
Speaker 1: into this for a few minutes. So the core thesis
Speaker 1: was this this executive order that he wrote over the weekend.
Speaker 1: It has there are some things that have there is
Speaker 1: like that resemble teeth into this not quite teeth, but
Speaker 1: they resemble teeth. I'm going to get into it. So
Speaker 1: it's written to sound very muscular, but it is architecturally
Speaker 1: incredibly weak, and it kind of knows that the White
Speaker 1: House knows Congress is the only entity that can actually
Speaker 1: fix college sports, and they actually say so. It's buried
Speaker 1: in the preamble of this executive order. Everything else in
Speaker 1: the Executive order is either delegation to agencies with limited authority,
Speaker 1: suggestions to the NCAA, or legal theories that may not
Speaker 1: even survive a court challenge. So, and he even says
Speaker 1: it right there in the document itself, the Congress is
Speaker 1: strongly encouraged to expeditiously pass legislation. Translation, I'm issuing a
Speaker 1: press release, but I'm not going to call it a
Speaker 1: press release. I'm going to call it an executive order.
Speaker 1: So in the order itself, the whiteness is admitting it's
Speaker 1: simply a placeholder. It's just a list of suggestions. But
Speaker 1: here's the one thing to understand about how this order
Speaker 1: is constructed. All right, it's a classic use of the
Speaker 1: bully pulpit plus federal procurement power two levers. A president
Speaker 1: actually does control layered over a sector where the president
Speaker 1: has almost no direct legislative authority. So once you see
Speaker 1: the architecture, then the whole document reads differently. So let
Speaker 1: me quickly follow through it. So here's what it actually does.
Speaker 1: There's a federal contractor leverage that he is using as
Speaker 1: his authority. It's real, but it's extraordinary limited, and it's
Speaker 1: the orders. Really, it's the only credible threat in this
Speaker 1: executive order, and the mechinism actually has a specific name,
Speaker 1: suspension and disbarment, and it directs federal agencies to evaluate
Speaker 1: whether NCAA rule violations are serious enough to affect a
Speaker 1: university's status as a responsible contractor or grantee. Translate, if
Speaker 1: they think you're abusing the NIL system and you're somehow
Speaker 1: taking money away from programs that might be giving getting
Speaker 1: government funding in order to pay for your football program,
Speaker 1: they could theoretically ban that university from receiving any federal
Speaker 1: research grants at all. Now would they actually do it?
Speaker 1: Would it up even survive court challenges if they attempted it?
Speaker 1: But it is a This would really be a nuclear option, right,
Speaker 1: This is the one power this order technically has That
Speaker 1: one would be shocked if he actually enacted it, because
Speaker 1: you'd be attacking a lot of state universities. And we
Speaker 1: know this. Nuclear options usually don't get used casually. But
Speaker 1: ask yourself, this is the Department of Energy going to
Speaker 1: shut down a billion dollar physics project because a booster
Speaker 1: overpaid for a quarterback. The threat of an audit or
Speaker 1: a funding suspension is a real deterrent. Right. Universities hate it,
Speaker 1: but actual disbarmment is so disruptive to federal research relationships
Speaker 1: that it functions more as a sword to waive than
Speaker 1: a sword to swing. There's also a technical problem. The
Speaker 1: trigger requires violations of NCAA rules that are applicable, lawful,
Speaker 1: and operative. Well, given the courts, it basically struck down
Speaker 1: every NCAA rule there's ever been into football, then there's
Speaker 1: really nothing for it. The universe of operative rules may
Speaker 1: be legally thin by the way this order technically becomes
Speaker 1: functional August first, twenty twenty six. So the government is
Speaker 1: threatening to enforce rules that are simultaneously being litigated into oblivion.
Speaker 1: And that's the one part of this order that had
Speaker 1: teeth okay. Also in here the twenty million dollar threshold definition.
Speaker 1: Quietly important buried in the definition section is a provision
Speaker 1: that actually focuses the order's enforcement universe by limiting its
Speaker 1: scope to schools generating at least twenty milli million dollars
Speaker 1: annually in athletics revenue. So that means the order is
Speaker 1: targeting somewhere between one hundred and thirty and one hundred
Speaker 1: and fifty programs, essentially the Power four plus the group
Speaker 1: of it's the power four plus the group of five schools.
Speaker 1: You know, some not all group of five schools, but
Speaker 1: I put Gonzaga in there. They don't a football program,
Speaker 1: but they would qualify on the athletic side, right, But
Speaker 1: it's schools like that, So it exempts basically every D
Speaker 1: two and D three program. It's meaningfully narrow, and it
Speaker 1: tells you where the White House actually intends to apply pressure, right,
Speaker 1: it's on the big schools. Now, there is another directive
Speaker 1: with the Federal Trade Commission, and it directs the FTC
Speaker 1: to enforce existing statutes against bad actor agents. Now this look,
Speaker 1: I think everybody wants to see agents held to account,
Speaker 1: make sure they're following the law. The FTC already has
Speaker 1: its authority. They don't need a law to do it.
Speaker 1: It just redirects existing enforcement priority. So this is actionable,
Speaker 1: but it addresses agents at the margins about the systemic
Speaker 1: NIL and revenue sharing problem. So if agents are taking
Speaker 1: too big a chunk of change from the NIL, that's bad,
Speaker 1: but it doesn't actually deal with the system itself. Then
Speaker 1: there's the Department of Justice challenge to state laws, and
Speaker 1: I think that directing the Attorney General to pursue actions
Speaker 1: against these state NIL laws using the commerce clause and
Speaker 1: contracts clause. It's a legitimate theory of law. But some
Speaker 1: state laws, particularly those that apply only to insatee schools
Speaker 1: or discriminate against out of state transfer competition, may be
Speaker 1: genuinely vulnerable. But it's expensive litigation. Federal government has not
Speaker 1: been winning these cases very easily. They'd be suing Florida,
Speaker 1: Republican states, Florida, Texas, Tennessee, and they'll fight this. Do
Speaker 1: we really think this administration is going to go after
Speaker 1: the state of Florida, the state of Texas. Ken Paxton
Speaker 1: still the Attorney general last time I checked. So look
Speaker 1: reporting acquirements. This matter of education shall consider requiring reporting
Speaker 1: on roster spots and athletic aid by gender. This is
Speaker 1: helpful if it allows Title nine enforcement to be used,
Speaker 1: and it could. It's important data to gather so that
Speaker 1: in itself, Look, more data is better than no data.
Speaker 1: But everything else is wish casting zero enforcement right. This
Speaker 1: is the biggest tell in the document. Section four B
Speaker 1: is essentially a wish list sent to the nc double
Speaker 1: at it should, in its discretion adopt rules of eligibility, transfers,
Speaker 1: revenue sharing, nil and more. While the nc DOUABA is
Speaker 1: a private organization. The White House can't control anything it does.
Speaker 1: Every single item is aspirational that they list, and there's aspirational,
Speaker 1: it's not mandatory. The word should appears where shell would
Speaker 1: appear if this had actual force, Right, should versus shell.
Speaker 1: That's a keyword there. If you see shell, that's enforceable.
Speaker 1: If you see should, it's just a suggestion. Now, this
Speaker 1: is handing the nc double life some political cover, right.
Speaker 1: The White House is handing the NCAA a document it
Speaker 1: can point to when implementing unpopular rules. Hey, we're not
Speaker 1: doing this because we want to. The federal government directed
Speaker 1: us to do it, so that's the functional purpose. But
Speaker 1: this administration and the government is so unpopular. Do we
Speaker 1: think that this gives the NCAA the cover that the
Speaker 1: White House thinks it's giving them. There's a fraudulent nil definition.
Speaker 1: It's legally untested. It almost certainly will be challenged in court.
Speaker 1: The order tries to define paying above fair market value
Speaker 1: for nil services as fraud Well, who the hell decides
Speaker 1: what fair market value is the market? Who's deciding the market? Right?
Speaker 1: This is it's a novel legal theory. But we don't
Speaker 1: really have any sort of enforcement mechanism here. Trust me,
Speaker 1: it would be litigated to death, and to its death.
Speaker 1: The revenue sharing prohibition legally circular. The order calls for
Speaker 1: prohibiting federal funds from being used for nil revenue sharing payments,
Speaker 1: but schools aren't currently using federal funds for that. But again,
Speaker 1: I think they're going to try to use fungible money.
Speaker 1: And this where this is where I guess if he
Speaker 1: really wanted to be the college sports are and just
Speaker 1: start punishing certain schools, the problem is he would look
Speaker 1: like he's trying to essentially go back to the old system,
Speaker 1: which was actually more unfair to the players, more unfair
Speaker 1: to the schools, and only allowed about fifteen or twenty
Speaker 1: schools to do it. So bottom line, this executive order
Speaker 1: is a press release with an August first state stamp.
Speaker 1: It has three legally credible mechanisms, federal contractor leverage, FDC,
Speaker 1: agent enforcement, and a DG challenge to certain state laws,
Speaker 1: but all three face meaningful legal and practical obstacles. None
Speaker 1: of them address the core structural problem. College football generates billions.
Speaker 1: The courts have said players deserve a share, and Congress
Speaker 1: has not passed a framework to govern any of it.
Speaker 1: What this order does most effectively is give the White
Speaker 1: House a political talking point on college sports. That's it
Speaker 1: hands the NCAA a document to hide behind if they
Speaker 1: want to implement unpopular parts of this. But the order
Speaker 1: cannot restore the NCAA's enforcement authority, not grant anti trust immunity.
Speaker 1: It cannot settle the employee question. Only Congress can do
Speaker 1: those things. And the order admits it right there at
Speaker 1: the top, if you know where to look. So that's
Speaker 1: your president trying to insert himself in a situation of
Speaker 1: which he has no controlling legal authority what so ever.
Speaker 1: But we always kind of knew that. Speaking of no
Speaker 1: controlling legal authority, the real question is does even have
Speaker 1: one to conduct the war he's doing in Iran that
Speaker 1: in twenty two days technically expires. All right with that,
Speaker 1: let's sneak in the break and my conversation with my
Speaker 1: friend Mike Pascot. This episode of the Check podcast is
Speaker 1: brought to you by Soul. So if you love that
Speaker 1: end of the day unwined but hate the hangover, Soul's
Speaker 1: out of office is for you. These sparkling THHC. Drinks
Speaker 1: and gummies give you the same relaxed social feeling without
Speaker 1: the alcohol, without the calories, and without the crash. Soul
Speaker 1: is a wellness brand that believes feeling good should be
Speaker 1: fun and easy. Soul specializes in delicious hemp derived, THCHC,
Speaker 1: and CBD products designed to boost your mood and help
Speaker 1: you unwind. They're best selling out of office gummies were
Speaker 1: designed to provide a mild, relaxing buzz, boost your mood,
Speaker 1: and enhance creativity and relaxation. With five different strengths, you
Speaker 1: can tailor the dose to fit your vibe. So also
Speaker 1: has a variety of products specifically designed to help you
Speaker 1: get a better night's rest, including their top selling Sleepy Gummies,
Speaker 1: a fan favorite for deep, restorous sleep.
Speaker 2: Look.
Speaker 1: I have made no secret. I am a believer in
Speaker 1: this stuff, in cannabis and hemp derived. I do not
Speaker 1: partake in alcohol. For the most part. I think this
Speaker 1: stuff is a lot safer than alcohol, a lot less
Speaker 1: addictive than alcohol. And yes, I have to say I
Speaker 1: love these drinks. It is the glass of wine and
Speaker 1: you know after work, that's what this is. So no
Speaker 1: hangover and no excess calories like this. I'm a big fan,
Speaker 1: So bring on the good vibes and treat yourself to
Speaker 1: Sold today. Right now, SOL is offering my audience thirty
Speaker 1: percent off your entire order. Go to getsold dot com
Speaker 1: and use the word podcast that's getsold dot Com promo
Speaker 1: code podcast for thirty percent off. And yes, I too
Speaker 1: am a customer. Well, coming back for a return engagement
Speaker 1: as we would like to do regularly. I think we're
Speaker 1: almost doing this quarterly. It's my my pal Mike Pesca
Speaker 1: of the Just List and all sorts of his his world.
Speaker 1: We were just talking about each other's each other's digital world,
Speaker 1: and we like to have our world's collide. Mike, It's
Speaker 1: good to see you.
Speaker 2: Hey, thanks for having me. Speaking of quarterly, what happened
Speaker 2: to the Trump proposal to do away with quarterly reports
Speaker 2: and only do by any l I guess it would
Speaker 2: be Actually just so there's that's still moving its way
Speaker 2: through the SEC.
Speaker 1: I think I actually just saw an update on.
Speaker 2: That there is which I've talked to like that.
Speaker 1: Oh, it's a good idea I talked to. You know,
Speaker 1: there was a so Jack Welch is considered the he
Speaker 1: got the sort of the godfather of that idea right,
Speaker 1: the quarterly reports to goose stock prices. Back in his
Speaker 1: old ge days and towards the end of his life
Speaker 1: he started expressing like he admitted, I probably that the
Speaker 1: quarterly report idea was it is past. He wouldn't, you know,
Speaker 1: because no person of his ego will ever admit they
Speaker 1: were wrong. He just sort of admitted that they were
Speaker 1: it was no longer useful, and that in some ways
Speaker 1: it was probably hurting companies. He was he was pre right, Yes, yeah, exactly,
Speaker 1: you know the way somebody with a huge ego like
Speaker 1: his son.
Speaker 2: Yeah. The downside to that that I've heard is that
Speaker 2: back when Jack Welsh was pioneering that things were a
Speaker 2: little more stable, and now quarterly reports at least give
Speaker 2: some visibility into possible meltdowns. But also the Ft. There's
Speaker 2: an FT podcast, I know you like the Ft, and
Speaker 2: they were having a debate where I think they said,
Speaker 2: just financially good idea, but what you don't want to
Speaker 2: do is give Donald Trump any wins ever, And these
Speaker 2: were FT journalists right now, but they were embracing I
Speaker 2: guess their activism, which is once he comes up with
Speaker 2: a good idea, that's the most dangerous thing of all.
Speaker 2: And I was contrasting that I did a thing on
Speaker 2: the Gist my show with The Dispatch where viewed Emily Auster,
Speaker 2: who was saying, you know, some of this maga stuff,
Speaker 2: not the vaccines, but the meat and the food pyramid,
Speaker 2: that is a good idea, And then she got blowback,
Speaker 2: how are you giving Trump credit? So even journalistically, it's
Speaker 2: interesting the Dispatch, you know, these former Republicans are maybe
Speaker 2: still identified conservatives. They're saying, we have to be honest,
Speaker 2: and if we need to give Trump a win, we
Speaker 2: give him a win. And the Financial Times, which definitely
Speaker 2: sees himself outside the activism continuum, said no, we can
Speaker 2: never give Donald Trump a win.
Speaker 1: No. Well, you know this is at the core of
Speaker 1: the redistricting fight in Virginia. This is a bad idea,
Speaker 1: this is bad for democracy. But the counter argument from
Speaker 1: people that even admit, yeah, this is not a good
Speaker 1: idea long term, you got to fight fire with fire,
Speaker 1: And it's the whole, this whole mentality. And I just think,
Speaker 1: look what we've turned into is I think both parties
Speaker 1: have become reactionary parties. Right, they don't really they define
Speaker 1: themselves right own the Libs and Trump resistance is really
Speaker 1: the same ideology, don't you think, yes?
Speaker 2: And all we're doing and evall Levine writes about this,
Speaker 2: we're just in this era of going back and forth
Speaker 2: and to and fro, and I don't see how we
Speaker 2: get out of it now as far as the redition.
Speaker 1: I do, but we got out of this before. I
Speaker 1: obsessed over this. This is actually the I'm going to
Speaker 1: pull a muscle padding my promoting something I'm doing here,
Speaker 1: but on my substack this week I sort of go through.
Speaker 1: I'm obsessed with the period between Jackson and lincol in
Speaker 1: American history because it was this we had technically eight
Speaker 1: presidents in twenty four years because of deaths, but it
Speaker 1: was really seven presidencies in twenty four years because you
Speaker 1: had the thirty one day president and each one of
Speaker 1: them and essentially it was like each president was elected
Speaker 1: claiming they were going to solve it. They were going
Speaker 1: to bring the country together, they were going to quote
Speaker 1: solve this problem, right, but not necessarily solve the problem,
Speaker 1: meaning at that time it's slavery. But it would be
Speaker 1: all these papering over ideas, right, So you had whether
Speaker 1: it was the Democrats nominating a Northern or at one
Speaker 1: point in Franklin Pierce or the joint Tickets.
Speaker 2: Which was Harrison and Title dough Face.
Speaker 1: What's it the dough Face, right, Yeah, the signing of
Speaker 1: the Fugitive Slave Act that Millard Fillmore thought was going
Speaker 1: to finally, you know, to break some peace. Right, it was,
Speaker 1: but it was a It was just a series of
Speaker 1: presidents that were trying to paper over right and then
Speaker 1: find only the Whigs were just too weak to deal
Speaker 1: with the issue. And then finally we got a new
Speaker 1: party in the Republican Party. So it led me to
Speaker 1: think which party is going to be the Whigs because
Speaker 1: I'm convinced one of them is going away in the
Speaker 1: next decade or so out of frustration by their bye
Speaker 1: by like you can't you're not you're not accomplishing. You know,
Speaker 1: there's going to be a moment and I think, you
Speaker 1: know Trump won, everybody thought it'd be the Republicans. I'm
Speaker 1: not thinking, well, it could very easily be the Democrats,
Speaker 1: right because they're in some ways performing like the Whigs.
Speaker 1: At the moment where there's a divide inside the party,
Speaker 1: do you go full resistance or do you try to
Speaker 1: persuade those you know, a few more from the other
Speaker 1: side to try to have a more durable majoritarianism. And
Speaker 1: I think that, you know, bottom line is we're not
Speaker 1: We're not done yet with this back and forth we had.
Speaker 1: We went through six presidencies between Jackson and Lincoln. Nobody
Speaker 1: got re elected, no party got reelected. Right, it was
Speaker 1: just a series of this stuff, and we're we're in
Speaker 1: our third one right now, twenty eight get going to
Speaker 1: resolve this. So I think we will eventually resolve it.
Speaker 1: The question is how many people have to get hurt
Speaker 1: before we sober up?
Speaker 2: That's exactly what I was saying. So all it will
Speaker 2: take is six hundred thousand dead, although normed for the
Speaker 2: current population now would be like what two million? Great?
Speaker 1: I know, I'm we're not advocating civil war here, guys.
Speaker 1: No the boat. We're actually hoping we can resolve it
Speaker 1: with it, you know, just short of that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, there are different party systems. I wanted I heard
Speaker 2: your commentary on Virginia. So you think that even without
Speaker 2: this redistricting it would go from now it's six Democrats,
Speaker 2: five Republicans. You think we'd go to nine two eight
Speaker 2: three without eighty three?
Speaker 1: Without it, you got the first and the second. Wait, man,
Speaker 1: you think you think ten to one with it. I
Speaker 1: don't know if they get the ten one ten one max. Yeah,
Speaker 1: but it could end up at nine two. So if
Speaker 1: you end up at nine two, you basically did all
Speaker 1: this work. You sort of peed away political capital of
Speaker 1: Barack Obama and Abigail Spamberger from one seat.
Speaker 2: Right. But do you think, as a general principal Democrats
Speaker 2: who have always said we are better than redistricting for
Speaker 2: political gain, do you think that's what they should say
Speaker 2: or they should be recognizing the moment right now where
Speaker 2: the headwinds are that we don't need to do it
Speaker 2: right now because as a principle, I do not believe
Speaker 2: in unilateral disarmament.
Speaker 1: Sure, I understand that concept. Yeah, I just think the
Speaker 1: problem is, I guess I'm even more Pollyannish about it.
Speaker 1: I think having more swing basically you're taking away swing districts.
Speaker 1: But if you actually have Republicans in light red districts,
Speaker 1: then you have more possibility. Would we be better off
Speaker 1: if a third of the Republican caucus were Don Bacon people, right?
Speaker 1: Or do you create a situation where no, you're just
Speaker 1: gonna have a whole bunch of James Comers, is that
Speaker 1: what you want? And then then there's no ability to
Speaker 1: sort of bridge any device, so that I actually think
Speaker 1: that that's the other part of this is that what
Speaker 1: do you what do you are we really gaining in
Speaker 1: this other than a fight bridge just you know, a
Speaker 1: gavel And again I'm I'm this. Look, we've gone through this.
Speaker 1: Anytime you want to temporarily suspend anything because you think no, no, no, well,
Speaker 1: first of all, how often have parties you know who
Speaker 1: said no, no, no, we'll come back to this have actually
Speaker 1: come back to this.
Speaker 2: Right, Yeah, I think that that's wise, but very specific
Speaker 2: to the moment. And I remember it was before we
Speaker 2: started seeing polls or knew much more than there's usually
Speaker 2: the swing back in the midterms. But New York had
Speaker 2: the choice whether to really to throw out a fairly
Speaker 2: drawn electoral map or the Democrats could try to force
Speaker 2: through their pro democratic map. And I remember thinking to myself,
Speaker 2: these are the Democrats right now kind of violating their
Speaker 2: own principles. And I don't know if they'll be punished
Speaker 2: by the voters for it, but they're showing themselves to
Speaker 2: be cynical. And it is I said, not a good look. Now,
Speaker 2: this was before I thought that they would win anyway.
Speaker 2: And in New York it doesn't really matter that My
Speaker 2: matter is a little bit. You know, Upstate New York
Speaker 2: elects Repubsi Valley.
Speaker 1: There's a whole bunch of places where right now, New
Speaker 1: York is Ohio without the New York City meaniway.
Speaker 2: Well, Pennsylvania's Alabama with a tea in the middle. But
Speaker 2: as a principle, I don't think people really vote on it,
Speaker 2: especially because of the primacy of the primaries. And I
Speaker 2: think this is the biggest problem in American politics. You
Speaker 2: were talking about money. I think whatever can be done
Speaker 2: to make the because we're so polarized. I mean, if
Speaker 2: you want to go back to the EPI phenomenon, the
Speaker 2: primaries of the EPI phenomenon on, our polarization is the worst.
Speaker 2: And I have a b' end and a guy I know,
Speaker 2: Bradley Tusk, and he's tried to get essentially app voting,
Speaker 2: and I think that would be a real game changer
Speaker 2: if it could be done successfully. And he's convinced me
Speaker 2: it can be done, So I don't want to.
Speaker 1: You know, that's a lot of they're going to experiment
Speaker 1: in Alaska with this first.
Speaker 2: One Alaska, and it's done in West Virginia and it's
Speaker 2: been done successfully, and he specifically tried to bring it
Speaker 2: to non blue states. He tried to bring it to
Speaker 2: places where they might be suspicious of this online voting app.
Speaker 2: And think about all the things that we do that
Speaker 2: need to be secure on an app, from you know,
Speaker 2: registering for a citizenship or for our IDs and everything else,
Speaker 2: so it can be done. And once it's done and
Speaker 2: once it's easy, it takes primaries from something with eleven
Speaker 2: percent participation to you know, fifty, And I think that's
Speaker 2: a huge game changer and it's the number one reform
Speaker 2: I think that really can change things.
Speaker 1: Look and I actually think state I think I think
Speaker 1: we've had this conversation before. I think taxpayer funded partisan
Speaker 1: primaries I think are unconstitutional because you're telling me I
Speaker 1: have to join a private organization in order to participate
Speaker 1: in a taxpayer funded event. I think that's a violation
Speaker 1: of equal protection. And now they I don't think they're
Speaker 1: you know, I'm I am pretty I would just call
Speaker 1: it supportive of the folks over at open primaries, and
Speaker 1: I've like pushed this as as sort of I think
Speaker 1: there's a legal I think there's actually you can you
Speaker 1: can sue some of these states that have these that
Speaker 1: essentially bar independence and bar non registered voters from this.
Speaker 1: But looked all party primary, I mean, it is the
Speaker 1: better answer. There's no you know. The fact is, think
Speaker 1: about the office that is the least partisan in America
Speaker 1: these days, it's mayor. And a majority of mayors are
Speaker 1: elected in all party primaries, where the top two candidates
Speaker 1: usually they don't even put parties. A lot of them
Speaker 1: are none are you don't put your party, lay on
Speaker 1: the ballot and top two play. I mean. And the
Speaker 1: thing is is that I love to use the example
Speaker 1: of a congressman named Carlos Sumenez. He's a Republican congressman
Speaker 1: from Miami. When he was mayor of Miami Dade, I
Speaker 1: had no idea he was a conservative Republican because he
Speaker 1: didn't govern that way. He governed the whole county. He
Speaker 1: was elected in a county wide vote. He never put
Speaker 1: his party. You knew he leaned right, okay, and let's
Speaker 1: just see you govern based on how the votes that
Speaker 1: get you in office. And then of course he got
Speaker 1: elected in a partisan Republican primary where the Republican primaries everything,
Speaker 1: and he's voted a lot more. Conserve even even challenged
Speaker 1: that the elect didn't certify in January sixth, right, And
Speaker 1: I remember being surprised that he didn't because I knew
Speaker 1: what kind of Mary was. But I actually chalk it
Speaker 1: up to I always say this, our issue is incentives.
Speaker 1: There are bad people can do good things with good incentives,
Speaker 1: and good people can do bad things with bad incentives.
Speaker 1: And our primary system is mostly a bad incentive.
Speaker 2: Right and are and to be a mayor you have
Speaker 2: to deliver actual material benefits to your voters and you
Speaker 2: will be judged on that. And snow days matter not
Speaker 2: in Miami, but definitely in the Northeast. And then when
Speaker 2: you were a part of an anonymous or by choice,
Speaker 2: a powerless organization like the House of Representatives, then your
Speaker 2: incentives are all to be either a free agent who
Speaker 2: is a burr in the side of your party or
Speaker 2: you know, a party apparatic. Absolutely, what do you.
Speaker 1: What do you think of these independent candidacies and do
Speaker 1: you buy into them or are you one of those
Speaker 1: that just doesn't believe these are going to work.
Speaker 2: Duverger's law, we only have two parties? Do you remember
Speaker 2: that from your political science training? What was it whose
Speaker 2: law Duverger might be du Viage. This was the idea
Speaker 2: that in a first past the post system such as ours,
Speaker 2: you only ever get two parties. But it was one
Speaker 2: of these laws with so many exceptions. I don't know.
Speaker 2: It wound up being like a Tammany Hall law. Like
Speaker 2: look at India, they have first passed the post, then
Speaker 2: they have votre parities. Of course it's India. So I
Speaker 2: think in some of the cases, you know Nebraska, it's
Speaker 2: an imperative, it's the the In that case, the brand
Speaker 2: of the Democrats are so toxic that it makes sense
Speaker 2: to run as an independent, say with McMullen in Utah.
Speaker 2: Not that he could win, but it makes sense to
Speaker 2: win to run that way. And I also think on
Speaker 2: the presidential level there's a real chance at a breakthrough
Speaker 2: of a third party candidate. I think it's so much
Speaker 2: harder at the state level. I kind of support it.
Speaker 2: I like experimentation and mixing up, but you know, just
Speaker 2: because of all the incentives and all the everything that's
Speaker 2: in place, it makes it hard. It would be easier
Speaker 2: with that jungle primarya I think first past, not first
Speaker 2: past the post, but top two. Oh and one other
Speaker 2: thing I wanted to say, it's a light criticism. I
Speaker 2: think that the activists who were so behind ranked choice voting,
Speaker 2: they my rank choice of electoral reforms that would be
Speaker 2: way down the I'd more for it than against it,
Speaker 2: But ninety something percent of the time it doesn't have
Speaker 2: a real impact. There is a certain percentage of the
Speaker 2: time where you could plausibly argue is the are the
Speaker 2: will of the people really being reflected? And they did
Speaker 2: put a lot of effort into that, as opposed to
Speaker 2: jungle primers, which I think would have helped things a
Speaker 2: lot more.
Speaker 1: Well, look the concept of top four then you know
Speaker 1: sort of top four advance. You know the Alaska law
Speaker 1: is everybody's on the same ballot and top four advance.
Speaker 1: Then it becomes ranked choice for the general I'd preferred it.
Speaker 1: I'm with you. My issue with ranked choice goes back
Speaker 1: to my days explaining what was explaining the vote count
Speaker 1: as it was coming in on election nights, and nobody
Speaker 1: can explain the black box that is ranked choice voting.
Speaker 1: There is no way for me to be able to
Speaker 1: open up on election night. Okay, here's the initial run
Speaker 1: and you know, here's what we know about the second choices.
Speaker 1: There appears to be this case and it has more
Speaker 1: second choices of this, and you know, do I think
Speaker 1: we could get there with states and local officials getting
Speaker 1: better at figuring out how to report these things out? Yeah?
Speaker 1: But are we better off not trying to have them
Speaker 1: do two or three different counts on election nine and
Speaker 1: just focus on the main thing being the main thing,
Speaker 1: the actual the first count and then you have a runoff,
Speaker 1: you know, I mean, look, I'm for Louisiana had the
Speaker 1: of all the jungle primary systems, it was Louisiana was
Speaker 1: my favorite jungle system because they did it where the
Speaker 1: all party primary actually was like in October or September,
Speaker 1: was late, and then top if nobody got fifty, top
Speaker 1: two met in the general election itself. So that way
Speaker 1: you had because the fear is that if you have
Speaker 1: a runoff after the general election, you get fewer, lesser turnout,
Speaker 1: and it's less well of the people. That's why the
Speaker 1: timing of the Louisiana system made the most sense of
Speaker 1: how he did it, and then you don't have to
Speaker 1: worry about rank choice voting, but you get all the
Speaker 1: but you get the you get exactly what rankd choice
Speaker 1: voting wants to deliver.
Speaker 2: Yes, And I think that I still think it's true
Speaker 2: that ninety something percent of the vote would be the same.
Speaker 2: And that's why these other reforms I think would deliver.
Speaker 2: I think that Louisiana system has the potential to deliver
Speaker 2: vastly different and more in line with the will of
Speaker 2: the people results unlike us.
Speaker 1: Look, I think that by the way, look at the
Speaker 1: last you know, Louisiana, it's basically created a Republican primary
Speaker 1: system for this cycle just to beat Bill Cassidy. Right,
Speaker 1: it became a but they got there getting rid of
Speaker 1: their They got rid of the system just to defeat
Speaker 1: Bill Cassidy because in the old system, Cassidy would have won.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: And the point being, if you actually look at Louisiana
Speaker 1: election results over the past twenty five years, before you
Speaker 1: know they put this system in, you had a competitive
Speaker 1: two party system. Sure, you had the land Drew dynasty
Speaker 1: was that's right, And you also had you know, John
Speaker 1: Bell Edwards. By the way, Washington State, which has a
Speaker 1: version of this system too, also has had even though
Speaker 1: it's a very blue state, it's been a very competitive
Speaker 1: Republican party for some time up there because of this system.
Speaker 1: And so I just think it actually gives minority voices
Speaker 1: more of an opportunity to have to get their say.
Speaker 1: And I look at Washington, Louisiana, who have Now you know, again,
Speaker 1: we're in this era where each party feels like they
Speaker 1: have to do everything they can to maximize their ability
Speaker 1: to win. In fact, so a buddy of mine who's
Speaker 1: a big consultant in California, I asked him, so, what's
Speaker 1: that What happens if the two Republicans end up in
Speaker 1: the top two and that's the general election, right, Steve
Speaker 1: Hilt and Bianca? And he said Hilton would win, and
Speaker 1: in less than a year there'd be a recall and
Speaker 1: the top two and then the legislature would he and
Speaker 1: then there'd be a a ballot prop to get rid
Speaker 1: of the all party primaries in California would return to
Speaker 1: this old system, basically eradicate all the Arnold Schwarzenegger election
Speaker 1: reforms within essentially eighteen months. Yes, if that is, if
Speaker 1: that's the scenario, and the way he at I said,
Speaker 1: you know what, he's probably right. There would probably be
Speaker 1: a successful recall. Hilton probably would get recalled pretty quickly.
Speaker 1: And you know, you could just see that because we're
Speaker 1: so partisan right now, particularly out on the coasts, that
Speaker 1: would happen pretty quick.
Speaker 2: So there's a classic conundrum there where Stier and Porter
Speaker 2: and Swowell looking at each other, and the mayor of
Speaker 2: San Jose McMahon, who you had on the show the
Speaker 2: other day. You know, he thinks it's on fairies at
Speaker 2: four percent or whatever. I guess you could say, hoo
Speaker 2: blinks first, But is it if someone has to do it?
Speaker 2: You know, it's the classic conundrum of they're all incentivized
Speaker 2: not to go, but but some of them, one of
Speaker 2: them has to go for the good of the trust.
Speaker 1: Don't you trust the voters to figure it out? And
Speaker 1: I just think they'll tune in.
Speaker 2: I don't know. I think that if Styr or Porter
Speaker 2: or swallwell, if one of them doesn't go, the risk
Speaker 2: is so far outweighs their individual choice of a chance
Speaker 2: of becoming governor. It could even ruin all of their careers, right,
Speaker 2: That's maybe how they should think about it. But they
Speaker 2: were so selfish that them would step down.
Speaker 1: I could look at it another way. Isn't this isn't
Speaker 1: the fact that no Democrat has jumped out and indictment
Speaker 1: of the candidates themselves who are running. I mean, you know,
Speaker 1: you do have a lot of I remember remember the
Speaker 1: since you're you're you and I are pretty close in age.
Speaker 1: You remember the nineteen ninety two presidential field when it
Speaker 1: was in nineteen ninety one and called the seven Dwarfs. Yep,
Speaker 1: I remember that because none of them ever all that,
Speaker 1: none of the major Democrats that everybody thought were going
Speaker 1: to be the front runners. They thought, oh, Bush is unbeatable,
Speaker 1: I'm not running. I'm going to wait till ninety six. Right,
Speaker 1: you're Bill Bradley's you're out, Gorge, your dicktep parts, all
Speaker 1: these Jay Rockefeller, all these say I'm none. There were
Speaker 1: all these people that said I'm waiting, and you know,
Speaker 1: so there were those that said, well, every nomination's worth having,
Speaker 1: so why not. And it does feel like the California
Speaker 1: right that the mayor of San Francis. I've talked to
Speaker 1: so many Democrats who are like, I wish the Mayor
Speaker 1: of San Francisco were running. Luriy or you have those
Speaker 1: in southern California. I wish Rick Caruso were running, but
Speaker 1: he's not. I've heard others say I wish Kamala Harris
Speaker 1: are running. I wish Alex Padill were running. There's a
Speaker 1: lot of It is amazing when you look at the
Speaker 1: number of high profile people that don't want to lead
Speaker 1: the world's fourth largest economy. It's surprising how many people
Speaker 1: have taken a pass on that seat.
Speaker 2: Well, you know, maybe some of those names you listed
Speaker 2: have more of an accurate sense of their chances of winning.
Speaker 2: I mean, if Kamala Harris ran for that and lost,
Speaker 2: I think she'd be forever done in politics in any way.
Speaker 2: I mean, it helps her to be Richard Nixon.
Speaker 1: Richard Nixon lost to California governor's racing, became president within
Speaker 1: six years.
Speaker 2: I know we didn't. So you're saying we won't have
Speaker 2: Kamala Harris to kick around anymore with there you got
Speaker 2: democratic cloth code. Yeah. I do think that it's going
Speaker 2: to shake out, and I think that one of them
Speaker 2: will leave, And I don't know if it'll be pressure
Speaker 2: or polling or Tom Steyer really thinks he's going to
Speaker 2: be governor.
Speaker 1: I think Cash Patel is going to get Eric Swawall
Speaker 1: the nomination. If they go and leak that file about
Speaker 1: his in a weird way, that will you know, if
Speaker 1: he becomes a quote target of the Trump administration, right,
Speaker 1: it probably helps him in that primary.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Also, but also the voters aren't paying attention and
Speaker 2: they're turned off by it. I mean, I think I
Speaker 2: don't sense that the voters are paying attention.
Speaker 1: How about the fact that Gavin Newsom doesn't seem to
Speaker 1: have an heir apparent and has no in Tristan. And
Speaker 1: I don't know if any of them would want Gavin's
Speaker 1: endorsement out.
Speaker 2: There, which is odd republic I mean, Democratic front runner,
Speaker 2: but wouldn't even have a positive effect in the race.
Speaker 2: Right now, you know this gets too I know it's
Speaker 2: your show, but let me segue here. So if the
Speaker 2: Democrats gained power.
Speaker 1: Of this is like saying, back of the days when
Speaker 1: I used to have Tom Broke on Meet the Press,
Speaker 1: it would be like, are you going to anchor.
Speaker 2: Meet the Press?
Speaker 1: You know, you know I always said, you know Tom
Speaker 1: was a okay passenger, that he always be instinctively wanting
Speaker 1: to grab the wheel, right, but go ahead, go ahead.
Speaker 2: Well, I could ask you how to question to plug
Speaker 2: my later show how to Know what I wanted to
Speaker 2: ask you was interesting and important for them and everyone.
Speaker 2: Should the Democrats gain power, But what are the things
Speaker 2: they want to do? I know on the national scene
Speaker 2: it's save our democracy, but what are the things in
Speaker 2: the Senate There've been a couple of gigantic bills. Corey
Speaker 2: Booker wants spend seven trillion dollars to give tax cuts
Speaker 2: to everyone except the rich. That would be a rather
Speaker 2: bad program. Chris van Holland has a similar, smaller program,
Speaker 2: but a thing that has gain steam because we're told,
Speaker 2: and I think it's true that this is the affordability
Speaker 2: moment and election is There are different words for it,
Speaker 2: surveillance pricing, predatory pricing, predictive pricing. This is the technology,
Speaker 2: very simple technology that you could change the price based
Speaker 2: on a lot of different things.
Speaker 1: Look, I want to get into this a minute, but
Speaker 1: I actually want to get at the at this specific
Speaker 1: So if Democrats get Congress and they have a Donald
Speaker 1: Trump as president for two years, and this is a
Speaker 1: question that I've had a lot of Democrats freeze up
Speaker 1: on me when I ask them this question, do you
Speaker 1: try to pass legislation with Donald Trump.
Speaker 2: How can you.
Speaker 1: Answer there is a real the base won't be excited
Speaker 1: if you know they negotiate with Donald Trump, you know.
Speaker 1: And yet I'll give you an I'll give you an
Speaker 1: item that I think you could get Jade Vanson to support,
Speaker 1: but I don't know if they would want to help
Speaker 1: jd Vance potentially help his presidential campaign. And that is
Speaker 1: the childcare tax credit. Right, that is something that Vance
Speaker 1: and could get Trump to support. That a lot of
Speaker 1: a lot of sort of main you know, sort of
Speaker 1: the There was plenty of Republican opposition to it, right,
Speaker 1: But this is one of the areas where there is
Speaker 1: some there is some agreement between sort of one wing
Speaker 1: of the Democratic Party and one wing of the Republican Party.
Speaker 1: But to me, I think that's the hardest. I think
Speaker 1: that's the hardest thing. Forget what they're going to do
Speaker 1: when in office. Do you want your bills signed by
Speaker 1: Donald Trump? And are you going to be comfortable if
Speaker 1: you pass things that Donald Trump likes?
Speaker 2: Hey, listen, I don't want my money signed by Donald Trump,
Speaker 2: and I'll still spend it, you know what I'm saying.
Speaker 2: How can you get into office and say we are
Speaker 2: such an alternative to the do nothing Republicans, and we're
Speaker 2: going to prove it by doing nothing. So there's a
Speaker 2: number of people in their constituency who really want to
Speaker 2: do something. There's some who look at they know that
Speaker 2: the map's not going to be as good as it
Speaker 2: was in twenty six and actually working with Republicans and
Speaker 2: being bipartisan will be rewarded. There's a bunch that, you know,
Speaker 2: Democrats tend to be more policy wonks. They actually are
Speaker 2: excited to get some things done. You add that all up.
Speaker 2: I think that the we need to do nothing to
Speaker 2: make a point or to not give JD or Donald
Speaker 2: a win. I think that's a small caucus. Of course,
Speaker 2: you know, just a small faction can have devastating, outsized impacts.
Speaker 1: I was just going to say, I don't disagree that
Speaker 1: it's a small faction, but I think the loudest voices
Speaker 1: in the world we occupy right in new media are
Speaker 1: going to be one. And don't forget you're going to
Speaker 1: have presidential candidates on the trail. That's the other thing.
Speaker 1: You're going to have president candidates who are going to
Speaker 1: do nothing but piss on Washington, right, and they're going
Speaker 1: to look for opportunities to run against those that establishment
Speaker 1: crowd whatever it is. So I think we are absolutely
Speaker 1: going to see nothing get done if there's a democratic Now,
Speaker 1: some might argue that's what they want, right, just paralysis
Speaker 1: is better than giving anything.
Speaker 2: These two investigations, they'll count that as the thing.
Speaker 1: But Noia, I think that will be the highest profile stuff,
Speaker 1: and it won't be. It won't be Trump administration officials
Speaker 1: who will all hide under executive privilege. But I'll tell you,
Speaker 1: and I've told this to my friends in the business
Speaker 1: community when they ask me, what should we be telling
Speaker 1: our business that the you know, corporations who are trying
Speaker 1: to figure out what's happening. Why, I said, be prepared
Speaker 1: for lots of subpoenas, because because congressional democrats aren't going
Speaker 1: to be able to get these Trump officials to answer subpoenas,
Speaker 1: because they'll all hide behind executive privilege and finding out
Speaker 1: what these deals were that were cut with the administration
Speaker 1: and all this stuff. But the private sector doesn't get
Speaker 1: to hide behind executive privilege. And I have a feeling
Speaker 1: that the most high profile impact of a democratic Congress
Speaker 1: is going to be that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I would think that there are a number of
Speaker 2: Democrats who would say, we'll have done our job if
Speaker 2: our investigations by the time we're done lead in two
Speaker 2: years to subpoena's credible subpoenas of Elon Musk. That's a
Speaker 2: big target. He's subpoenable based on his beach.
Speaker 1: Entire AI, all the Tech I mean, I think they're
Speaker 1: coming after Tech in a big way.
Speaker 2: This is with them. I don't know that Tech has
Speaker 2: committed crimes, but you know, there's a plausible case that
Speaker 2: Musk has with how he you know, his website which
Speaker 2: would only register, which would crash if you wanted to
Speaker 2: register as a Democrat, and even guys like Stephen Miller,
Speaker 2: I think our subpoenable.
Speaker 1: Not that he'll answer. I think he's not that privilege.
Speaker 1: He's in the West Wing. Yeah, I think he absolutely
Speaker 1: hides behind executive privilege.
Speaker 2: But investigations that show that, you know, he went to
Speaker 2: California officials and said, forget due process and forget reasonablelek
Speaker 2: cause just go to parking lots of home depots. I
Speaker 2: mean he did say that, or he allegedly or has
Speaker 2: been reported to have said that.
Speaker 1: Now surveillance price, Okay, I know you're you're obsessed about this.
Speaker 1: Let me tell you a fun Let me tell you
Speaker 1: a fun little nugget I got on this. I had
Speaker 1: interviewed Brad Carson, former Democratic congressman from Oklahoma, who's essentially
Speaker 1: the front person for the anthropic AI super Pac, meaning
Speaker 1: the AI superPAC that is pro regulation versus the open
Speaker 1: AI super pac. Right, you know, there's all this money
Speaker 1: flowing around. So were I threw this in there and
Speaker 1: he told me. He says, well, I thank good. Now
Speaker 1: we were talking about AI regulation and I said why
Speaker 1: you're pro and he says, yes, and I want to
Speaker 1: see the states regulate. And he gave me an example.
Speaker 1: He goes, I'm a subscriber to the Washington Post and
Speaker 1: thanks to the law New York, you know, I really
Speaker 1: you know, which said that, you know this has been
Speaker 1: done with surveillance pricing. You know essentially that he was
Speaker 1: being And that was his way of using an example
Speaker 1: why it's good if the state's way in and in
Speaker 1: one state law could actually help people living in other states.
Speaker 1: In one regulatory decision by New York to force disclosure
Speaker 1: on surveillance pricing at least gave a consumer in Oklahoma
Speaker 1: an opportunity to find out what this was all about.
Speaker 2: So, yeah, I like Brek Carson. By the way, I
Speaker 2: think his heart is actually in it. He's not just
Speaker 2: taking a gig. He's a former secret under Secretary of
Speaker 2: the Army and ran University of Tulsa for a while.
Speaker 2: I've had him on my show, not even mad. I
Speaker 2: think he's a straight shooter. And you know, back back
Speaker 2: in a time when you could get elected as a
Speaker 2: Democrat from Oklahoma, maybe that time will come again. So
Speaker 2: the deal with surveillance pricing, which, depending on how much
Speaker 2: you like it or hate it, is called dynamic pricing.
Speaker 2: That seems good the stores, the retailers call it dynamic pricing.
Speaker 1: And I think the remember dynamic scoring. Remember that phenomenon
Speaker 1: in Congressional Budget Office?
Speaker 2: Oh right, yes, yes, no, so.
Speaker 1: Tax cuts, no, no, no, dynamic scoring. The debt doesn't
Speaker 1: go up, it goes down with dynamic scoring.
Speaker 2: For the first time ever, an account and gets accused
Speaker 2: of dynamism. The worth of dynamic duo meaning he has
Speaker 2: the pencil and I have the ice shade.
Speaker 1: Anyway, dynamic scoring, dynamic price pricing, surveillance pricing, predatory pricing,
Speaker 1: you could change.
Speaker 2: That's if you hate it, you call it predatory pricing.
Speaker 2: And if you adopt a bill or propose a bill
Speaker 2: like Letitia James in New York and McMorrow is campaigning
Speaker 2: on this in Michigan. You talk about the egregious example.
Speaker 2: So McMorrow always talks about if you go to book
Speaker 2: an uber but your phone shows that it's under five
Speaker 2: percent battery, it boosts the price because it knows you're desperate.
Speaker 2: No one likes that. That's pretty bad. But another aspect
Speaker 2: of dynamic pricing, and this made the front page of
Speaker 2: the New York Post, is Wendy's was charging more for
Speaker 2: Hamburgers at noon than they were at eleven. And I
Speaker 2: got to say, all this to me is is a
Speaker 2: discount for the eleven o'clock hamburg.
Speaker 1: That doesn't bother me. That's not to me. That's different
Speaker 1: because in theory everybody's eligible for the discount.
Speaker 2: But what about the prices. Here's another one, the prices
Speaker 2: on store shelves. That there are a lot of bills
Speaker 2: in different legislators that would illegalize electronic price tags, like
Speaker 2: what is this nineteen seventy eight, because the idea is
Speaker 2: you could use dynamic pricing, and what they always say
Speaker 2: is charge two people different things. And I guess the
Speaker 2: people who are against this all democrats, think that it
Speaker 2: is just inherently bad to charge two people different things.
Speaker 2: But this is what the circulars and discounts and even
Speaker 2: be longing to Sam's Club gives you. Right, different people
Speaker 2: have different things. The classic example that the retailers use
Speaker 2: is if the bananas are going bad, we could price
Speaker 2: them at ten cents a pound instead of thirty five
Speaker 2: cents a pound, and essentially we might even be taking
Speaker 2: a loss. But what we're really doing is incentivizing the
Speaker 2: shopper to take the bananas home with them instead of
Speaker 2: us putting it in a compost team. So there's so
Speaker 2: much about dynamic pricing that's just modern and that actually
Speaker 2: just helps everyone and is being thought of as a boogeyman.
Speaker 2: And there are bills, literally bills in front of Congress
Speaker 2: that would eliminate the banana pricing scheme. And I identify
Speaker 2: this as though the outrageous examples concentrate the mind. I
Speaker 2: think that if you just publicize them, my libertarian instincts
Speaker 2: would say that the companies wouldn't want to be associated
Speaker 2: with them. I think of it as so if affordability
Speaker 2: is the issue, it's very hard for Democrats not to
Speaker 2: jump on this trend. But are they really improving things
Speaker 2: for the media and voter and consumer.
Speaker 1: That's a look. I think it all depends and what
Speaker 1: you're putting your throwing into this bucket of what we're
Speaker 1: going to call surveillance pricing or whatever. I think the
Speaker 1: where I the problem I have is what the airlines
Speaker 1: want to do, which is use the data, use the
Speaker 1: data that I have voluntarily given them against me to
Speaker 1: price some things right, And that is wait a minute,
Speaker 1: you know, so now it looks like now I'm almost
Speaker 1: regretting ever becoming a frequent flyer because I've given them
Speaker 1: so much information that you know, they now every time
Speaker 1: I book, they know certain things and I'm going to
Speaker 1: get quoted a price. You know, they know where I'm
Speaker 1: They can look at my history to know how price
Speaker 1: sensitive I am on various things and various routes and how.
Speaker 1: And so the I think it's how the how the
Speaker 1: data you've handed over to them, if that's being used
Speaker 1: to inform your individual price. I think when you're saying
Speaker 1: floating price based on supply and demand, that seems very normal,
Speaker 1: fair part of the free market economy. When you're changing
Speaker 1: price based on what you think an individual will do,
Speaker 1: that feels a little bit. That feels like you're bordering
Speaker 1: on discrimination.
Speaker 2: Well, if you write the bill narrowly so it doesn't
Speaker 2: go through broad I guess I support it, but I don't.
Speaker 2: I listened to the rhetoric of Greg Caesar and Luhan
Speaker 2: of New Mexico, and they and Letitia James, and this
Speaker 2: is not what they're saying. They're not allowing I never
Speaker 2: hear the clause, and I listen of now. Of course
Speaker 2: we understand that businesses. It's not just in their ability,
Speaker 2: but helps the business stay afloat and also helps the
Speaker 2: consumer dev different prices at different times. They're just all
Speaker 2: seen as a boogeyman, and in this moment of affordability
Speaker 2: above all else, it's tantalizing to reach for. I also
Speaker 2: don't know do voters really reward you for these small,
Speaker 2: bore quality of life improvements. When Biden tried, and maybe
Speaker 2: this was messaging jump.
Speaker 1: Fees, it was weirdly popular. Though it pulls well.
Speaker 2: It does ask people the question flat out, you want
Speaker 2: to pay more or less? They'll say less, But does
Speaker 2: it really accrue to the statesman who is there and
Speaker 2: trying to fight for you in a big way. Maybe
Speaker 2: on the smaller level it will. I don't think this
Speaker 2: is I am suspicious. I understand why Democrats are reaching
Speaker 2: for I don't think that it is the killer blow
Speaker 2: that some think it is.
Speaker 1: I don't think it's a killer blow. But I do
Speaker 1: believe if you're always seen on the side of the consumer, right,
Speaker 1: not thinking of this as voter, and if you want
Speaker 1: to have a conversation with people that are just not
Speaker 1: in your tribe but are actually members of other tribes,
Speaker 1: then I think it's a way in. Again. Look, I
Speaker 1: believe this. I think part of the news media's trust
Speaker 1: issue is on the national level, we don't think of
Speaker 1: ourselves as consumer advocates. Very often. Local news actually used
Speaker 1: to be. That was the differentiator. Your local news operation
Speaker 1: was much more of a consumer advocate than and I
Speaker 1: think gutting and I've always said when we gutted local news,
Speaker 1: we actually gutted the first line of trust defense, meaning
Speaker 1: because the local news operators were the consumer advocates finding
Speaker 1: out who was getting scammed and hey, there's some bad
Speaker 1: phone calls, right, Always Shasmer protection on you that it
Speaker 1: gave actually media a little bit more trust generally. So
Speaker 1: I agree it's not a single killer app issue. But
Speaker 1: I actually think anytime you're caught being a consumer advocate,
Speaker 1: you're gaining trust.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and if you agree with us, we'll also send
Speaker 2: you a copy of the fight back theme song. That
Speaker 2: was the other David Horowitz they show from the eighties. True,
Speaker 2: then again, and then.
Speaker 1: David Horowitz became a a huge right winger. I remember
Speaker 1: different guys, was it a different there were two David
Speaker 1: there Barwitz does. I remember being very confused, Wait a.
Speaker 2: Minute, right, why are we fighting back?
Speaker 1: But in fact I think the right wing David Horwitz
Speaker 1: became more prominent.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, and he the right wing David horror Whitz
Speaker 2: started off as an extreme left wing you know, smashed
Speaker 2: the state guy, as is often the arc. I also,
Speaker 2: I do wonder though, if the idea of the local
Speaker 2: news and the tip off to a ripoff is of
Speaker 2: a piece with an older era where Chuck Schumer would
Speaker 2: have a press conference every week at a gas station
Speaker 2: and talk about exactly these issues, but he also knew
Speaker 2: that he could get coverage of it. And now what
Speaker 2: are we really paying attention to. Do you think there's
Speaker 2: going to be a ripoff talk, a shame on you talk?
Speaker 2: Do you think this is going to be a predatory
Speaker 2: pricing talk. I don't know that these are the issues
Speaker 2: that are grabbing our attention these days.
Speaker 1: No, but it is a piece of the larger issue
Speaker 1: that we have less control and that somehow we've given
Speaker 1: tech too much control of things in general. So I
Speaker 1: think it's a piece of something bigger. That's why I
Speaker 1: think it resonates.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and I think MGP. I think Marie Glufenkan Perez
Speaker 2: is the ultimate example of someone who's very much on
Speaker 2: the side of consumer and she's mostly associated with the
Speaker 2: ability to fix your own washing machine, and that's her
Speaker 2: brand and it helps her. So yeah, that would be
Speaker 2: an example of where some of it does break through.
Speaker 2: I wonder, I mean, if the Republican Party didn't go
Speaker 2: as crazy as it did. I had wondered for a
Speaker 2: long time, might she defect because she seems very very
Speaker 2: upset with the Democrats, and often is. If you hear
Speaker 2: three Democrats voted against the bill and she's off from one.
Speaker 1: I am and maybe this is the Polypanish in me.
Speaker 1: I am hopeful that what Kevin Kylie did when he
Speaker 1: decided to put an eye next to his name and
Speaker 1: leave the Republican Party. You know that if you told
Speaker 1: me MGP decided to become an I and then you know, look,
Speaker 1: I'm pretty fluent and certainly I converse a lot with
Speaker 1: the folks in the in the forward space, the Andrew
Speaker 1: Yang world, Christy Weapons involved, and and you know, they're
Speaker 1: they're trying they're sort of fighting a two front war. Right.
Speaker 1: One is they're trying to improve ballot access for independent candidates.
Speaker 1: And you know, and that's a that's the thing you
Speaker 1: kind of have, that's almost like a that's the long game.
Speaker 1: The short game is they're looking to do a better
Speaker 1: version of what problem Solvers and no Labels tried to
Speaker 1: do and didn't do it very well, which is create
Speaker 1: a caucus of independent thinkers whatever that is independent Dems,
Speaker 1: independent ours, independent independence right that collectively vote together on
Speaker 1: leadership elections and and become the folkrum like in the
Speaker 1: Senate if you just got you know, take Dan Osborne, right,
Speaker 1: the thing that's keeping him from winning that center race
Speaker 1: is the fact that he you know, it's you know,
Speaker 1: it's he's going to be a vote for Schumer. He's
Speaker 1: going to be a vote for Democrats. So how does
Speaker 1: he convince the voters that he's not a vote for
Speaker 1: Schumer and then he's not a vote for Democrats? Right?
Speaker 1: You know, if he's working with you know, if his
Speaker 1: answer is I'm going to work with Lisa, I'm going
Speaker 1: to Lisa Murkowski, and I'm going to you know, Bernie
Speaker 1: Sanders and Lisa Murkowski and Angus King and you know,
Speaker 1: and John Curtis in Utah, you know, you sort of
Speaker 1: and I'm you know, I'm going to try to forge
Speaker 1: an independ I refuse to have to pick between Donald
Speaker 1: Trump and Chuck Schumer. You're not going to make me
Speaker 1: pick here, because I actually think my election is going
Speaker 1: to create an opening with to work with a whole
Speaker 1: bunch of independents and will make the two parties court
Speaker 1: us to decide who should get the majority. But until
Speaker 1: we have that breakthrough, that's what makes it I think
Speaker 1: tough in these independent Senate campaigns.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think that the structure of it. Yeah, I
Speaker 2: think that it's structurally tough. I think that our politics
Speaker 2: is sclerotic, and it doesn't it doesn't at all comport
Speaker 2: with our media and our attention. And I think that
Speaker 2: there's been a bigger there hasn't ever been a bigger
Speaker 2: mismatch in our lifetime. It's like we're running analog politics
Speaker 2: with next gen digital. Not just this goes to think
Speaker 2: about the world.
Speaker 1: Well, this goes to whether it's it's infrastructure right to
Speaker 1: improve the small de democratic infrastructure like online voting or
Speaker 1: you know, doing things like this, Like we haven't modernized
Speaker 1: the infrastructure of politics to match the needs of today.
Speaker 1: Just like and I'd argue our constitution needs updated, doesn't
Speaker 1: need we don't need to redo it, but there are
Speaker 1: a few things that like, okay, that's sort of that
Speaker 1: doesn't work anymore, and we kind of need this, like
Speaker 1: the garden power. I'm really into this constitutional amendment that's
Speaker 1: been introduced in the House that gives Congress the ability
Speaker 1: to essentially overturn a presidential pardon using sort of but
Speaker 1: realizing it has to be a constitutional amendment. And I
Speaker 1: actually think the parameters they created, which was it has
Speaker 1: to be a super majority to do it, and all
Speaker 1: this stuff feels very founding fatherlike, oh, sort of like okay,
Speaker 1: and the type of modernization that probably is necessary out
Speaker 1: of you know, for the life of me, I don't
Speaker 1: know why there's soul why an individual was given pardon
Speaker 1: power by a bunch of people who were afraid of
Speaker 1: a king. But needless to say that I did happen.
Speaker 2: You know, from reading the history. It was a huge
Speaker 2: compromise and didn't really conceptualize what the president would. I
Speaker 2: give them a lot of leeway. Those guys in those wigs,
Speaker 2: drinking the weak beer they were.
Speaker 1: It was pretty good. What they did come up with
Speaker 1: has been it, yes, right, they were reaffected. They didn't
Speaker 1: think of you know, remember our first constitution didn't even
Speaker 1: last a decade, so so a pretty good thing is
Speaker 1: the most of It's so hard to amend the constitution,
Speaker 1: and the moment to amend the Constitution is a post
Speaker 1: Watergate moment when.
Speaker 2: Everyone realizes, oh my god, that went horribly wrong. And
Speaker 2: I don't think we're going to have that. I don't
Speaker 2: think we're going to have that in twenty twenty eight.
Speaker 2: I don't think we're going.
Speaker 1: To have no, but I think we will buy twenty forty.
Speaker 1: You know, if you look at the eras when we
Speaker 1: have done multiple constitutional amendments in a ten year period.
Speaker 1: They have happened after huge moments. Right. We had a
Speaker 1: period around the Civil War. We had a period essentially
Speaker 1: in the industrial right, the Industrial Revolution and the pushback
Speaker 1: on that. That's why we got direct election of senators
Speaker 1: when we suffrage the ability to tax rich aggressive. Right.
Speaker 1: So you know, do I think it's twenty twenty eight? No?
Speaker 1: But do I think remember all of those constitutional amendments
Speaker 1: that passed were like introduced twenty years earlier.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 1: It is one of those things that it does take
Speaker 1: you know, it takes time to do it, and you know,
Speaker 1: I think we will eventually get there. Hey, let me,
Speaker 1: are you an NBA fan?
Speaker 2: I am, in fact.
Speaker 1: Okay, because I thought this would be a good way
Speaker 1: for us to close. We're buttoning up here in the
Speaker 1: forty five close seven times during the interview. Shock, yeah,
Speaker 1: you have you keep trying to get out. That's really
Speaker 1: the sneaky little thing. I have this annual conversation with
Speaker 1: a whole group of friends of mine and it always
Speaker 1: happens at the same time a year. Why during March
Speaker 1: madness do I end up realizing how much I hate
Speaker 1: the NBA sucks? NBA regular season sucks, And it's like
Speaker 1: it like it always, just it's a stark reminder that,
Speaker 1: like the NBA has a massive regular season problem. I'll
Speaker 1: say this both as a fan of basketball and as
Speaker 1: a gambler. Okay, I enjoy gambling. I know that's not
Speaker 1: popular to say that, but.
Speaker 2: It's not popular to say that. It's popular to do
Speaker 2: it exactly.
Speaker 1: But I also want I also believe in honest I
Speaker 1: want to gamble honestly, meaning if you know, I don't
Speaker 1: gamble on the NBA because I don't believe every team
Speaker 1: is trying every night, and if I know that people
Speaker 1: aren't trying, then I don't want to. I'm not risking
Speaker 1: my money on something that is that is that is
Speaker 1: not going to be, that is not going to match
Speaker 1: what the data indicates generally it should match, right. And
Speaker 1: I don't know, but I think the NBA has a
Speaker 1: massive regular season problem. And I don't know how they should,
Speaker 1: how they're going to fix it, but I think they've
Speaker 1: got to fix it. I'm embarrassed about the Wizards, you know,
Speaker 1: but if they're not alone here with this tanking mess,
Speaker 1: but it really has made the NBA is useless to
Speaker 1: watch when a tanking team is playing anybody It doesn't
Speaker 1: matter if they're playing Wemby or if they're playing you know,
Speaker 1: it is baseball. Yeah, think about baseball, baseball, whatever you
Speaker 1: think of baseball in September. Of the teams that are eliminated,
Speaker 1: those players try hard because.
Speaker 2: They want to all up and it's their slot.
Speaker 1: Yeah right, And somehow the I mean literally you have
Speaker 1: the Wizards. As soon as a player does well that
Speaker 1: he gets benched. Yes, I mean literally, the coaches get
Speaker 1: involved to do this, and I do think it's screwed
Speaker 1: up the product. And I do think the NCAA tournament
Speaker 1: always becomes this moment to remind people, oh yeah, boy,
Speaker 1: this time. I can't wait for the NBA playoffs because
Speaker 1: we're literally at the crappiest time of year to watch
Speaker 1: the NBA.
Speaker 2: Right, So my counters, I don't know if they're counters.
Speaker 2: And by the way, this would make a great how too.
Speaker 2: You should come on my new show how to Fix
Speaker 2: the NBA.
Speaker 1: And I don't have a good answer this.
Speaker 2: We need question askers, so you would ask, how how
Speaker 2: do I fix the How do I gamble correctly and
Speaker 2: do this?
Speaker 1: And I want to get I enjoy Well, put it
Speaker 1: this way, the NCAA Tournament's been great. This has been
Speaker 1: great cause basketball. By the way, a reminder, money can't
Speaker 1: improve things creating financial incentives to you know, we have
Speaker 1: some of the most competitive basketball and improved quality that
Speaker 1: we've had in thirty years. This feels like the eighties. Again,
Speaker 1: how good college basketball is right now.
Speaker 2: So I'm a huge Saint John's fan. Without Mike Ropole
Speaker 2: of Vitamin Water and some horses inchecting tens of million
Speaker 2: dollars into that franchise to get Patino and to pay players,
Speaker 2: they'd be regular old probably not even gonna make the tournament.
Speaker 2: Saint John's. I agree with you on an il. I
Speaker 2: definitely think they need a bunch of reforms, Like you
Speaker 2: need to know how much the players will pay.
Speaker 1: You need to know that everybody's following the same rules.
Speaker 2: Yes, we need to We need to know what the
Speaker 2: market is. It screws the players. It's opaque, it's not
Speaker 2: working for anyone except the agents. Would you rather have
Speaker 2: It's almost unfair because the NBA is a one and
Speaker 2: done situation. So that's unbelievably exciting. But it's a six. Yes,
Speaker 2: sorry March Maddis is that's a six game tournament, and
Speaker 2: not only for money and attention, but even for the
Speaker 2: actual the actual pace of play and how sophisticated these
Speaker 2: guys are. You want longer series in the NBA, not
Speaker 2: by being selfish and trying to milk the fans. Long
Speaker 2: series where teams get to know each other and get
Speaker 2: to know each other's every move are amazing. They're great.
Speaker 2: So I'd rather have an NBA where people are trying,
Speaker 2: where teams are trying, than in NCAAA, which gins up
Speaker 2: this March Madness excitement because of the one and done
Speaker 2: nature of the tournament. In fact, I think the tournament
Speaker 2: itself is this great product, and people don't view NCAA
Speaker 2: basketball is this great product. They do a little bit lately.
Speaker 2: People are interested in the fresh better.
Speaker 1: Oh, I think it's quality of play. Look, March Madness
Speaker 1: kept the conversation about the crappiness of college basketball over
Speaker 1: the last twenty years at Bay because the tournament was
Speaker 1: still good right even at the team, even if we
Speaker 1: saw a lot of just crappy games.
Speaker 2: The tournament is a great product. Absolutely, it's great marketing,
Speaker 2: gambling helps, and one and done. In Jacka's drama into it.
Speaker 1: I would argue that the improved the fact that you
Speaker 1: have players now staying longer. Right, anybody under six to
Speaker 1: six isn't isn't leaving to go play in Europe anymore,
Speaker 1: staying here because they can make the same money here
Speaker 1: that they could make playing in Turkey or in France
Speaker 1: or whatever. So you've got you know, you've got these
Speaker 1: veteran teams, right, So you've got just in the same
Speaker 1: way four year point guards were the key to winning
Speaker 1: the tournament in the eighties. Four year point guards again
Speaker 1: have become important in the n club a. So I
Speaker 1: think that in that sense, let me throw an idea
Speaker 1: at you. It at the NBA. So look, I hear
Speaker 1: you on a seven game series. There's nothing like it
Speaker 1: for the NBA finals and for the conference finals. But
Speaker 1: you know, baseball would have a bigger problem about the
Speaker 1: Dodgers if it wasn't for the fact that they have
Speaker 1: a five game series in their playoffs.
Speaker 2: Because it introduces randomness, correct, And if you had a
Speaker 2: little bit more randomness in the NBA in that first round.
Speaker 1: Now, remember they used to have it two out of
Speaker 1: three was a bad idea. They tried that once and
Speaker 1: eliminated the Lakers. In the first round. That was a
Speaker 1: disaster for them, so they quickly got rid of that.
Speaker 1: I remember this back in Green was heard, but like
Speaker 1: they loose to the Rockets two out of three the
Speaker 1: year after they win the title, is just screw it.
Speaker 2: Eighties.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but a five game series in the first round
Speaker 1: and allowing some randomness in the first round. My thesis
Speaker 1: is those nine, ten to eleven teams. You know, and
Speaker 1: I'm not a big fan of the play in as much.
Speaker 1: I get why they tried it, but instead of doing
Speaker 1: the play in, I'd rather see the five game first
Speaker 1: round series because it then makes the eighth seed and
Speaker 1: seven seed worth having as it is, and you might
Speaker 1: get more nine through twelve teams who are deciding do
Speaker 1: I tank or not. You're not beating Oh, you're not
Speaker 1: going to win a one You're not going to beat
Speaker 1: a one seed in a seven game series. It's happened
Speaker 1: once or twice, but it mostly doesn't. But you could
Speaker 1: do it in a five game and then suddenly that's
Speaker 1: an incentive to get into the playoffs. Just like in baseball,
Speaker 1: the eighty eight win team that sneaks in with a
Speaker 1: great pitcher can knock off the one seed in a
Speaker 1: five game series because that picture can pay twice.
Speaker 2: And I know that's exciting, but I don't know that
Speaker 2: that's fair. Just on the baseball side of things, I
Speaker 2: used to analogize it too. There was a lot of
Speaker 2: u There was a lot of discussion about if college
Speaker 2: admissions were fair or not fair, and I said, well,
Speaker 2: what you could do is inject a lot of randomness,
Speaker 2: which is your SAT score would just correlate to the
Speaker 2: number of spots you had on a big prize wheel,
Speaker 2: and that would be if you got into college. So
Speaker 2: that would be more I guess fair or random, or
Speaker 2: it would deprioritize the SATs. But I don't think that
Speaker 2: would be a fairer system. But what we want in
Speaker 2: sports is entertainment. So I definitely want to say this
Speaker 2: one thing. I have a solution, And I have a
Speaker 2: critique of something. You said you don't bet because you
Speaker 2: don't know if the teams are trying. That is true.
Speaker 2: I think you're probably over indexing for the Wizards, who
Speaker 2: are horrendous on this score, Absolutely shameful.
Speaker 1: I've had to deal with this for three years now.
Speaker 1: I mean, your best DC could be a great basketball market.
Speaker 1: It's the d the NBA and the Wizards have just
Speaker 1: been you know, made screwed it up.
Speaker 2: The players, of course always try, but like you say,
Speaker 2: the management doesn't give you the good players, or they
Speaker 2: shut you down, or the coaches will pull you out
Speaker 2: if you weren't you bet. I mean on the Nuggets
Speaker 2: are playing the Rockets, or the Knicks are playing the Rockets,
Speaker 2: or the Nuggets are playing the Lakers. These guys are
Speaker 2: going at it. Let's right, Luca is going at it
Speaker 2: as hard as he could. I'm seeing Jamal Murray with
Speaker 2: facial lacerations as he drives down the lane. There is
Speaker 2: a lot of effort and the way to stop the tanking.
Speaker 2: It's very interesting because they thought that, well, instead of
Speaker 2: giving teams the guaranteed number one pick, we'll just give
Speaker 2: them the highest odds at the number one pick. And
Speaker 2: I think a behavioral economists will say that will never
Speaker 2: change behavior. If all you're doing is saying, well, do
Speaker 2: I have any chance of it? Is it a better
Speaker 2: chance than everyone else? I'm still going to do it.
Speaker 2: The downside of tanking, isn't that bad what you do.
Speaker 2: It's a fundamental change, But really, if you think about it,
Speaker 2: it's fine. It works. It solves a lot of problems.
Speaker 2: Rotate the number one pick among all thirty two teams
Speaker 2: in the league, or we expand thirty five thirty eight.
Speaker 2: So that's fine. I mean, one year Oklahoma City will
Speaker 2: have it after winning the National Championship and one or
Speaker 2: the NBA Championship, and one year the Spurs will have
Speaker 2: it after being in last place, as they did when
Speaker 2: you know, when they picked David Robinson. So if you
Speaker 2: just do a rotation and then some modification, I don't
Speaker 2: think teams are jockeying so much to get the three
Speaker 2: or four or five pick. I think it's a lot
Speaker 2: better than what we have now. You have to address
Speaker 2: tanking silver I think could lose a job over how
Speaker 2: bad the tanking issue has become.
Speaker 1: Well, and the other thing is, I think more transparency.
Speaker 1: I mean, look, it is true. Am I gonna see
Speaker 1: certain players when they come to my city once? Right?
Speaker 1: When they come to my city once and then I
Speaker 1: spend all this money, you know, and then you don't
Speaker 1: get to see that one star playy you kind of
Speaker 1: want to to see, right, And that's the fact. I mean,
Speaker 1: they try to mess around with load management by having
Speaker 1: a mandatory number of games to qualify for awards and stuff.
Speaker 1: I don't think that's worked right. I think we still
Speaker 1: we still have it, and part of the load management
Speaker 1: gets it too. This is why I think tinkering with
Speaker 1: the playoffs, where you incentivize making the regular season matter more,
Speaker 1: you've got and I think ultimately, if the regular season
Speaker 1: matters more, you will over time have less handing. And
Speaker 1: I don't know how you do. When you allow twenty
Speaker 1: of the thirty teams to make the playoffs, have you
Speaker 1: made the regular season matter anymore?
Speaker 2: No, it doesn't matter that much. But you know, I'm
Speaker 2: sure you've been watching it for a while. If you
Speaker 2: compare a random second quarter of an NBA game now
Speaker 2: just the defense that's being played to the eighties or nineties.
Speaker 2: I used to think, are they even really trying? And
Speaker 2: they weren't, and just go to a.
Speaker 1: Defense we know And I get it. But again I
Speaker 1: go back, Baseball doesn't have this problem.
Speaker 2: Well, baseball has a lot of other problems.
Speaker 1: They have other problems. I'm not going to sit there
Speaker 1: and say they don't, but they don't have this problem.
Speaker 1: And they have, you know, even fewer teams that make
Speaker 1: the playoffs in a given year. By the way they've
Speaker 1: they have a rule that seems like a pretty simple
Speaker 1: rule on their lottery. If you got the number one
Speaker 1: pick this year. I remember the Nats. One year they
Speaker 1: got the first overall pick, and they were ineligible to
Speaker 1: get the first overall the next year the mat the
Speaker 1: highest they could get was eleven. Yeah, so you know,
Speaker 1: that seemed like a pretty so that way you're not
Speaker 1: doing the process i e. The Sixers where you're tanking
Speaker 1: three years in a row or what the Astros did,
Speaker 1: right that was that was what happened in baseball. The
Speaker 1: Astros did a huge tank job in twenty ten, twenty eleven,
Speaker 1: twenty twelve, which got them to a corea Bregman, and
Speaker 1: you know, and then they ended up, you know, having
Speaker 1: this great run.
Speaker 2: And the Rains were sort of doing a tank job
Speaker 2: except when they weren't, but they just didn't want to
Speaker 2: spend any money. But the baseball draft matters a lot
Speaker 2: less than the NBA draft, just for in terms of predictability,
Speaker 2: but also in terms of development. The guys making the picks,
Speaker 2: probably if they screw it up too often, won't be
Speaker 2: in the front office years later, whereas in the NBA
Speaker 2: you know, those are your picks that are that you
Speaker 2: hang on the GM.
Speaker 1: Well, it's just it's just funny. I can't tell you.
Speaker 1: It feels like every April there's this group of friends
Speaker 1: of mine and I we have this argument about God,
Speaker 1: what's wrong with the NBA and it and I think
Speaker 1: part of it is again, it's recency bias. The tournament
Speaker 1: is so much fun, right, and and you're just sitting
Speaker 1: there going, oh, there's no urgency. And we're at the
Speaker 1: tail end of the season, right, We're at this and
Speaker 1: so you do have that, you know, there's a little
Speaker 1: bit of let's save people a little bit for the playoffs.
Speaker 1: So it is, and it's a if I'm the NBA,
Speaker 1: it's a bummer. You've got a whole bunch of people
Speaker 1: excited about basketball, they tune into the pros, and you're
Speaker 1: not giving them nearly the same urgency. And you know,
Speaker 1: I think it's a missed opportunity for the NBA as well.
Speaker 2: I've always thought on and that first Thursday of the
Speaker 2: NCAA Tournament, which is one of the best days in
Speaker 2: sports structurally the same as the next day, but just
Speaker 2: wall to wall games that the NBA even plays a
Speaker 2: game or two is kind of laughable. It's just setting itself.
Speaker 2: Get out of the way, parata failure.
Speaker 1: More importantly, make the Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday of the following
Speaker 1: week some of the best matchups you you know, make
Speaker 1: sure Lakers Celtics, make sure thunderspurs, make sure, you know,
Speaker 1: have a big prime time, you know, something like counter.
Speaker 1: You know, take advantage of this moment that you have
Speaker 1: on those days.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think that the NBA just has too many
Speaker 2: games in the season, and of course they do, but
Speaker 2: this is what you're going to get. The last ten
Speaker 2: games of the NBA season is always going to be boring.
Speaker 2: If there are more than fifty games in the NBA season. Hey,
Speaker 2: if you want to balm for all of this. WNBA
Speaker 2: they've gone to a forty four game season, but they
Speaker 2: have three game series and it's all tight and taut.
Speaker 2: And though again with the new deal, which I congratulate
Speaker 2: the players for, as more money comes into the league,
Speaker 2: they're going to want to if they can fill an arena,
Speaker 2: as they will, and that's what's going to happen with
Speaker 2: the WNBA, and they will be grousing about this. We'll
Speaker 2: be saying, oh, the Links always get the number one pick.
Speaker 1: Well, it seemed like in the eighties, don't you remember it,
Speaker 1: like the Lakers and Celtics always ended up with the
Speaker 1: number one pick.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it was.
Speaker 1: It was just like but somehow the Clippers traded the
Speaker 1: Lakers the number one pick, and you're like, how did
Speaker 1: I mean it was? I mean, that's why they had
Speaker 1: to create the lottery, because too many teams were dumping
Speaker 1: their picks to the to the better teams.
Speaker 2: But if there were, if there's ever a counter argument
Speaker 2: to good old days with the sport of basketball in
Speaker 2: the fifties, they had the regional picks, so that the
Speaker 2: this is why, this is why the Celtics got everyone
Speaker 2: who went to a New England institution. And the draft
Speaker 2: went like fifteen rounds. I don't understand. There were ten
Speaker 2: teams in the league. How are they picking fifteen players?
Speaker 2: Although you know you always hear Dave Debusha a thirteenth
Speaker 2: round pick.
Speaker 1: I know, well, but that NFL was that way. Bart
Speaker 1: Star famously was a seventeenth round pick.
Speaker 2: But seventeen on a roster of fifty two versus fifteen
Speaker 2: on a.
Speaker 1: Rock you only had like twelve. But back then you
Speaker 1: only had like twelve teams, right, right, So it made
Speaker 1: sense that you had you had all these rounds. But
Speaker 1: then again, remember Mike Piazza was famously drafted in like
Speaker 1: the twenty ninth round, and you're.
Speaker 2: Right as a favorite of Tommy Lasorda because their dads
Speaker 2: were friends or maybe just Italian.
Speaker 1: I don't know, that's exactly. Well, you've got some technical
Speaker 1: issues that you're going to mess with.
Speaker 2: Huh, it's just the camera. Somebody like microphone sound great?
Speaker 1: They do, and ninety percent of my audience, I think.
Speaker 1: I think the interviews are more audio. Do you know
Speaker 1: the distinction between your audio and your video? Yes, it's
Speaker 1: uh ninety five to five ninety five, yeah, yeah, and
Speaker 1: so that it seems like if you don't offer video,
Speaker 1: that's an important five, you're you're missing out.
Speaker 2: It is true. It's the cutting edge five and they're
Speaker 2: gonna going to lose them. To call your daddy. I fear.
Speaker 1: A couple shows, please, Okay. I think I think I'm
Speaker 1: due to be in our Home and Away series. I
Speaker 1: think I'm due on here soon and.
Speaker 2: I can't wait.
Speaker 1: I've got more to plug there. I've got a new
Speaker 1: sports show.
Speaker 2: And I do have this show how to I said,
Speaker 2: we can pair you with a how to bet better
Speaker 2: the episode that is up right now. So every week
Speaker 2: we someone asks how to question, we get an expert, uh,
Speaker 2: my friend Nate Silver, who I'm sure I don't know
Speaker 2: if you've interviewed him. He's a brilliant thinker and he's
Speaker 2: a good talker, but he uses these filler words like
Speaker 2: right and um. So this week's episode is how not
Speaker 2: to say um with Nate Silver, and he's not embarrassed
Speaker 2: about he gets created it by the end. Let me
Speaker 2: tell you. So, we've had how to Emigrate as a
Speaker 2: throuble to the to Europe. We've had how to be
Speaker 2: a Ghostbuster. We're doing next week how to Talk to
Speaker 2: My Cats? Some good practical advice there. I do have cats,
Speaker 2: So tune into how to for you please clectic and
Speaker 2: practical pieces of advice, and i'd let you want to
Speaker 2: ask a question.
Speaker 1: Seriously, I love the series, and I do hope how
Speaker 1: to fix the NBA. Count me in, all right, count
Speaker 1: me in for that. But by the way, the cat,
Speaker 1: I mean, that's plain to algorithms, aren't you. That's play
Speaker 1: into the algorithm there, How to Talk to Cats?
Speaker 2: Except my experts like, don't don't try, just operate in
Speaker 2: their world. She's a very good cat expert. The guy
Speaker 2: asking the question said, am I doing it right? My
Speaker 2: cat named mister Bad wakes me up at four thirty
Speaker 2: in the morning and I lock them in the closet.
Speaker 2: Then at six I show them my watch and say
Speaker 2: now it's time for feeding. And it turns out that
Speaker 2: wasn't how to talk to a cat.
Speaker 1: By the way, how do people get your daily newsletter?
Speaker 1: I love it and I find so many fun little
Speaker 1: stories from it. Tell people how to get it.
Speaker 2: The gist list is at Mike Pasca dot substack dot
Speaker 2: com and they also have some I've been doing going
Speaker 2: some deep diving information on the pit and their background,
Speaker 2: character and why you're obsessed.
Speaker 1: With all the A holes. Yeah, that's just been a
Speaker 1: running gag of yours, hasn't it.
Speaker 2: Yes, Well, I'm keeping the official tracker. You know, you
Speaker 2: gotta have someone doing it.
Speaker 1: I have a I have a submission for the just list.
Speaker 1: You know, there's a pencil running for governor of Oregon.
Speaker 1: Oh really a pencil, Yes.
Speaker 2: A pencil and it actually is a series running is
Speaker 2: a writing candidate?
Speaker 1: Hey, there you go.
Speaker 2: See it just writes itself. Is he hoping to come
Speaker 2: in number two?
Speaker 1: Well?
Speaker 2: Does he believe in carbonations?
Speaker 1: Man? This is I had We did not plan this.
Speaker 1: I just threw it up there and there it is.
Speaker 1: You know you dad pund it out of the ballpark.
Speaker 2: Make a good point.
Speaker 1: Guess who's lasting reading on K through three? The state
Speaker 1: of Oregon?
Speaker 2: Is it really?
Speaker 1: Yeah? So that's the irea that.
Speaker 2: The Mississippi miracle. Someone has to.
Speaker 1: It's exactly what needs to happen is go learn about
Speaker 1: you know, go get hooked on phonics. I think we learned.
Speaker 1: Go get hooked on phonics. It works.
Speaker 2: Found it out people. I love the pencil all right.
Speaker 1: Anyway, go check out Governor penns. So we need that's
Speaker 1: you know, I think people would be happier with inanimate
Speaker 1: objects as our political leaders as it is. So, you know,
Speaker 1: the stapler is next.
Speaker 2: I hope a red stapler that I think has niche appeal.
Speaker 1: Well, you have the red staples. You have the red
Speaker 1: staples and the blue staples. They don't always you know,
Speaker 1: it gets a little polarizing.
Speaker 2: And that's what third party paper fastener.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you know, the big bulky clip people. You know
Speaker 1: Mike Pasca. It is always a pleasure.
Speaker 2: Oh, thank you, Chuck. Pleasure for me too.
Speaker 1: Hey, I'd love to hear your taking thoughts. By the
Speaker 1: way I went through the cut, I went through Nate
Speaker 1: Silver's convoluted. And I say convoluted because you got to
Speaker 1: read the whole thing idea of turning the draft into
Speaker 1: an auction and then creating a whole new currency system
Speaker 1: in the NBA of auction dollars or auction box or
Speaker 1: you know, maybe call them silvers, little Adam silvers and
Speaker 1: Nate silvers. Are you gonna call them silvers? You don't
Speaker 1: know whether an homage to Nate or homage to Adam,
Speaker 1: but you know, how many silvers do you have to
Speaker 1: participate in this draft? I didn't hate the idea of
Speaker 1: somebody who prefers auction over snake drafts and fantasy sports,
Speaker 1: but the tanking problem is just a real problem. And
Speaker 1: what's interesting is we go through this what's wrong with
Speaker 1: the NBA. It's always at this time of year, and
Speaker 1: it's all because of how great the NCAA tournament is
Speaker 1: and how great especially if the basketball is really good,
Speaker 1: which this year it is, and we sit there and
Speaker 1: so anyway, I'm curious your tanking solutions. It's really it
Speaker 1: really bothers me. I want to be a good Wizards fan.
Speaker 1: I'm embarrassed. It bothers me. I don't like I don't
Speaker 1: like not competing for multiple years in a row, and
Speaker 1: they have not competed. Right, even when baseball teams tank,
Speaker 1: the on the field is an effort. That's what bothers.
Speaker 1: It's really gross. But anyway, you know, it is Monday,
Speaker 1: so let's jump into the time machine. So let me
Speaker 1: tell you this week was a doozy, right. This week
Speaker 1: in history, with the anniversaries they have in this coming
Speaker 1: seven day period, is one of those weeks that simply
Speaker 1: stops you when you actually look at it. April twelfth,
Speaker 1: eighteen sixty one. The Battle of Fort Sumter. The Civil
Speaker 1: War begins. April ninth, eighteen sixty five. Surrender of Appomatics
Speaker 1: at the Appomatics Courthouse. The Civil War ends. April sixth,
Speaker 1: nineteen seventeen. US entry and too World War One, the
Speaker 1: United States enters its first global war. Just sit with
Speaker 1: that a second, right, This week alone two wars one week.
Speaker 1: One of those wars this week both its beginning and
Speaker 1: its end. Both fall within the same seven days fifty
Speaker 1: four years apart. That's not something historian engineers. It's just
Speaker 1: the calendar being strange and almost poetic at the same time.
Speaker 1: But you know, history geeks and history in general loves
Speaker 1: weeks like this. They're clean markers, their dates. We can
Speaker 1: teach their moments, we can point to and say they're
Speaker 1: that's when it started, that's when it ended. But here's
Speaker 1: what I keep coming back to. When I looked at
Speaker 1: this week and I thought about what should I do
Speaker 1: the deep dive on, what should I make the history lesson?
Speaker 1: And I thought, you know, we kind of knew we
Speaker 1: there may be something deeper here. We're really good at
Speaker 1: marking the beginning of conflicts, and we're also good at
Speaker 1: marking the end of them. What we are almost never
Speaker 1: good at is resolving the argument that caused them. We
Speaker 1: stop fighting the actual war, but we don't don't resolve
Speaker 1: the argument itself, not slowing it down, not changing its shape,
Speaker 1: actually resolving the argument. And this week makes that uncomfortable
Speaker 1: truth almost impossible to ignore. Because these two wars, in
Speaker 1: particular World War One in the Civil War, they both
Speaker 1: have end dates, but neither were resolved Let's start with
Speaker 1: the Civil War, because if you're looking for a clean
Speaker 1: ending in American history, it doesn't get any cleaner than appomatics. Right,
Speaker 1: Sometimes you just have to say it. Sometimes people will
Speaker 1: reference or we're going to have an appomatics moment. Right,
Speaker 1: that's how that's how important this moment is in American history.
Speaker 1: April ninth, eighteen sixty five, Roberty Lee surrenders to Ulysses s.
Speaker 1: Grant's terms are notably generous. Lee's officers keep their side arms,
Speaker 1: his soldiers keep their horses. There's no triumphalism. There's almost
Speaker 1: a deliberate effort to make it feel like a closing.
Speaker 1: The fighting stops most immediately, the country begins telling itself
Speaker 1: a story. The war is over the nation as whole.
Speaker 1: Let's move forward. But what exactly was resolved? Slavery, yes,
Speaker 1: formally abolished, but the argument underneath the war, the one
Speaker 1: that made the war necessary in the first place. Who
Speaker 1: belongs in the country, on what terms, with what rights?
Speaker 1: Who gets to be an American? That did not end
Speaker 1: in eighteen sixty five. We did not resolve that argument.
Speaker 1: Three years later, the fourteenth Amendment of the United States
Speaker 1: Constitution put birthrights citizenship directly into the Constitution settles it supposedly,
Speaker 1: if you're born here, you're an American, full stop. Except
Speaker 1: it wasn't full stop. Even with that language in the Constitution, Citizenship,
Speaker 1: its meaning, its application, its daily lived reality, has remained
Speaker 1: bitterly contested. On paper, black Americans were citizens. In practice,
Speaker 1: they were systematically denied what citizenship was supposed to guarantee
Speaker 1: for nearly a century, through law, through violence, through deliberate exclusion.
Speaker 1: And here's the part that should give us some pause,
Speaker 1: that argument who gets to be an American? What birthright
Speaker 1: citizenship actually means? Who qualifies? It's not a historical debate,
Speaker 1: It's an active one right now. Just last week, right
Speaker 1: in front of it was argued in front of the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court. We didn't resolve the question at appomatics. We
Speaker 1: didn't resolve it with the fourteenth Amendment. We didn't resolve
Speaker 1: it with the court case that settled birthright citizenship. We
Speaker 1: continue to relitigate it in different forms ever since. So
Speaker 1: the Civil War ended the argument that caused it did not.
Speaker 1: We just keep finding new occasions to happen. Guess what,
Speaker 1: that's not just an American problem. Now, take that same
Speaker 1: pattern and scale it globally. On April sixth, nineteen seventeen,
Speaker 1: the US formally enters World War One, the Great War,
Speaker 1: it was called at the time. Frame me is explicit
Speaker 1: make the world safe for democracy, hard stop. This was
Speaker 1: supposed to be the war to end all wars. November eleventh,
Speaker 1: nineteen eighteen, the war ends. Armistice Day, remember that celebration
Speaker 1: relief another clear clean marker, another date we can point to.
Speaker 1: We've now changed into Veterans Day, because it's not like
Speaker 1: that was a real peace day, was it. I actually
Speaker 1: think it's wrong to try to celebrate Armistic's Day if
Speaker 1: you ended up with another World war essentially some twenty
Speaker 1: years later, because the peace that followed wasn't resolution, it
Speaker 1: was rearrangement. The Treaty of Versailles punishes Germany without stabilizing Europe,
Speaker 1: and across the broader conflict, empires collapsed, most consequentially the
Speaker 1: Ottoman Empire, which I had controlled much of the Middle
Speaker 1: East for centuries. And into that vacuum, some outsized powers,
Speaker 1: outside powers, primarily Britain and France, drew new borders. They
Speaker 1: created new states, assigned new rulers. You get a kingdom,
Speaker 1: You get a kingdom. Hey, we've decided this straight line
Speaker 1: is a border. Let's paper over ethnic, religious, and national
Speaker 1: claims that had never actually been resolved. Well, guess what.
Speaker 1: Their maps didn't settle anything. They didn't settle those competing claims.
Speaker 1: They just drew lines through them and moved on. And
Speaker 1: this is what I want you to think about. We
Speaker 1: talk about the modern Middle East as though it's a
Speaker 1: series of separate crises, as though each conflict is its
Speaker 1: own thing, But it's not much of what we're navigating
Speaker 1: in that region today. The instability, the competing claims, the
Speaker 1: borders that don't match the people living inside them. That
Speaker 1: is the direct, unresolved consequence of a map drawn in
Speaker 1: the aftermath of World War One, as I used to joke,
Speaker 1: by a couple of drunk Frenchmen and Brits. Maybe they
Speaker 1: weren't drunk, but I hope they were, because they made
Speaker 1: so many mistakes that I'd like to chalk it up
Speaker 1: to their brains not fully functioning. But they were drawn
Speaker 1: by people who weren't from there, settling claims they didn't
Speaker 1: fully understand, and for interest that often had very little
Speaker 1: to do with the people actually living inside those manufactured lines.
Speaker 1: That's not ancient history, that's the architecture virtually every conflict
Speaker 1: the United States has been involved in over there for
Speaker 1: the last half century. We ended World War One in
Speaker 1: nineteen eighteen, we declared another World War in nineteen thirty nine,
Speaker 1: and more than a century later, we are still dealing
Speaker 1: with what was left unresolved when the first one ended.
Speaker 1: The fighting stopped, the argument did not. This is the
Speaker 1: pattern I keep coming back to, not just in these
Speaker 1: two wars cross history again and again. We treat wars
Speaker 1: like chapters, beginning, middle, and an end. We closed the book.
Speaker 1: We build the monuments in the holidays. But most wars
Speaker 1: aren't chapters. They're arguments. And arguments don't end when the
Speaker 1: shooting stops. They end if they end when you actually
Speaker 1: attempt to resolve the thing that made people willing to
Speaker 1: fight in the first place, identity, power, belonging, who controls what,
Speaker 1: who counts as whom. That's a lot harder than winning.
Speaker 1: That requires the real diplomacy. It requires more than a
Speaker 1: surrender ceremony and generous terms. It requires a willingness to
Speaker 1: actually finish what you started. That just keeps, not just
Speaker 1: stop fighting about it, and that willingness, historically speaking, is
Speaker 1: pretty rare. So that brings us back to this week.
Speaker 1: Fort Sumpner appomatics America entering World War One. They're some
Speaker 1: of the cleanest markers in history. Dates, we teach, moments,
Speaker 1: we commemorate stories with supposedly a satisfying shape of a
Speaker 1: beginning and an end. But what those dates don't tell
Speaker 1: you is that argument underneath them are still running. Who
Speaker 1: gets to be an American is still being litigated, the
Speaker 1: consequences of the post World War One map still being
Speaker 1: lived today. We marked the endings, we celebrated them, we
Speaker 1: built monuments to them. What we didn't do, and what
Speaker 1: we almost never do, is finish the argument. And unfinished
Speaker 1: arguments don't disappear. They don't respect the calendar. They don't
Speaker 1: care about anniversaries. They just wait for the next occasion,
Speaker 1: for the next generation to pick up where the last
Speaker 1: one left off. History gives us dates to remember, it
Speaker 1: almost never gives us the resolution we thought we earned.
Speaker 3: And we still got a lot to learn about World
Speaker 3: War One if we're still in the middle of fighting
Speaker 3: another war there today, ask Chuck.
Speaker 1: All right. First question comes from Tom l and he
Speaker 1: goes first time writing, I was introduced to you by
Speaker 1: watching me the press as you help keep my wife
Speaker 1: and I stay sane during the chaos of Trump one point. Oh, well,
Speaker 1: thank you for saying that finding your podcast now is
Speaker 1: again helping me through the next level of chaos and
Speaker 1: Trump two point zero and your level headed analysis of
Speaker 1: current events. Loving the time machine too. What are your
Speaker 1: thoughts on ranked choice voting. You've mentioned that electing independence
Speaker 1: could help our dysfunctional Congress. To me, voting for an
Speaker 1: independent risks throwing away your vote and allowing a candidate
Speaker 1: you oppose win. Ranked choice seems to be a way
Speaker 1: to safely take a chance on an independent, you prefer
Speaker 1: by choosing a traditional party candidate as a backup. And
Speaker 1: then he adds go Dodgers, Well, Tom, the theory of
Speaker 1: ranked choice voting I like a lot. And why do
Speaker 1: I say it's a theory because of this idea of hey,
Speaker 1: when you're voting, rank them, And I accept the premise
Speaker 1: that maybe if we implemented it within ten years, everybody
Speaker 1: would get comfortable and then we'd be like, what's the
Speaker 1: big deal? That's also true, but getting from there to
Speaker 1: you know, basically, from point to point B. I think's
Speaker 1: extraordinarily difficult. I think the challenge is, Look, what we're
Speaker 1: trying to do is solve for a problem, right, and
Speaker 1: problem one is primaries have way too much impact on
Speaker 1: our politics. It sort of independence don't really have much say,
Speaker 1: they're kind of underrepresented. They don't get to participate in
Speaker 1: these primaries. They don't get to have much choice into
Speaker 1: actually who shows up in the ballot. So, you know,
Speaker 1: ranked choice voting is a way to try to fix,
Speaker 1: to try to improve. Essentially, we're not dealing with the
Speaker 1: core problem, which is primaries themselves, and instead rank choice
Speaker 1: voting sort of papers over it. My issue with rank
Speaker 1: choice voting is I think you have a hard time.
Speaker 1: I think it's too easy to exploit. It's too easy
Speaker 1: to make people think that you're messing around with the numbers. Right,
Speaker 1: It's hard to follow the ballot all the way. Like
Speaker 1: I just think about what I did for over a
Speaker 1: decade on NBC, almost two decades, right, basically explaining returns
Speaker 1: as they came in, And you could explain the first
Speaker 1: count and you're like, all right, but it is hard
Speaker 1: to cleanly audit for the average American to consume cleanly
Speaker 1: audit that second choice, third choice, and all of that.
Speaker 1: It's doable. It's just you've got to rely on the
Speaker 1: government giving us more access to these ballots. You're going
Speaker 1: to show a lot of the ballot itself. It's very difficult. Ideally,
Speaker 1: I'd like the what ranked choice vote voting gives us,
Speaker 1: but to just do it in stages. So I think
Speaker 1: the ideal system is a combination of California, Washington, and Louisiana.
Speaker 1: All three states have had jungle primaries. What do I
Speaker 1: mean by that? Everybody appears in the same primary ballot.
Speaker 1: Now they each resolve how and now Alaska's that way,
Speaker 1: but with the rank choice voting. Right, So the idea
Speaker 1: is everybody votes, it's just round one of the general election,
Speaker 1: rather than call it prime. But it's sort of round one.
Speaker 1: It's the first round, and the top four advance. Right now,
Speaker 1: California has a top two, Washington has a top two,
Speaker 1: and one the top from each party meets. Louisiana was
Speaker 1: just top two generally, kind of like California, but some
Speaker 1: form of that. I think Alaska is top four and
Speaker 1: then they go to rank choice voting. So, however, you
Speaker 1: want to.
Speaker 2: Look at it.
Speaker 1: I think it's I'd like to say I think we are.
Speaker 1: I think the American electorate is better divvied up in
Speaker 1: four than by two. I think we're not cleanly left right.
Speaker 1: I think there really is. There's plenty of degrees there
Speaker 1: on the spectrum. But I think having progressive center, left,
Speaker 1: center right, and pop and sort of nationalists is probably
Speaker 1: a better populoist right nationalists kind of same thing. So
Speaker 1: sort of nationalists, progressive right on and so those four
Speaker 1: flavors if you're looking for avatars, so Sanders on the left,
Speaker 1: Trump on the right, and then some combination of oh,
Speaker 1: let's say Jos Shapiro, Glenn Younkin, all right, or maybe
Speaker 1: it's maybe a better version of it is Josh Shapiro,
Speaker 1: Nikki Haley all right, how's that right? Sort of occupy.
Speaker 1: So there's your sort of avatars for the four and
Speaker 1: then top two. You know, if somebody gets fifty out
Speaker 1: of that top four, they don't have to go to
Speaker 1: a runoff. But you sort of hold it right. We
Speaker 1: might have April, you know, sort of regional primaries throughout
Speaker 1: the month of April. Each week is a different region
Speaker 1: that votes, say October, you'd have the all four and
Speaker 1: if somebody got over fifty, This is the way Louisiana
Speaker 1: used to work. Somebody got over fifty, they didn't have
Speaker 1: to go to a runoff, they got they won the
Speaker 1: election right there. But if you know, nobody got fifty,
Speaker 1: then the top two ended up in a runoff that
Speaker 1: was held on the November election day. So that, to
Speaker 1: me is my ideal. So what rank choice voting is
Speaker 1: trying to accomplish I agree with. I think the execution
Speaker 1: of it though papers over the larger problem of the
Speaker 1: primaries themselves and the fact that all voters don't have
Speaker 1: a say it who gets to be who gets to
Speaker 1: represent you know, team A, Team B, TEAMC, and TMD
Speaker 1: in that sense, and all part putting and giving independence.
Speaker 1: Right now, the state sanctioning a primary but then excluding
Speaker 1: certain residents because they've chosen not to become members of
Speaker 1: a private club feels like a violation of your constitutional rights.
Speaker 1: And I think, frankly some of these taxpayer funded primaries
Speaker 1: can be attacked on those grounds lack of equal protection.
Speaker 1: And I think you're seeing my friends over at the
Speaker 1: open primaries are trying to do. So that's where I
Speaker 1: come down on ranked choice voting. It's a solution to
Speaker 1: the primary problem. If you're not going to fix the
Speaker 1: primary system, but if we can attack the root cause,
Speaker 1: which is how we do this primary system, then maybe
Speaker 1: ranked choice voting would be less necessary. Just my two cents,
Speaker 1: I think we're disagreeing on how to implement, not on
Speaker 1: the larger solution that.
Speaker 2: We're looking for.
Speaker 1: Next question comes from George RSIs Chuck Levy show is
Speaker 1: a proud Stetson grad. I have to correct you. I
Speaker 1: appreciate that Stetson's main campus is into Land, which I
Speaker 1: did get correct, But the law school is in Gulfport,
Speaker 1: which is a small sitting next to Saint Petersburg. And
Speaker 1: since BONDI went to Stetson, they also have another law
Speaker 1: school campus in Tampa, so go hatters there and literally yes,
Speaker 1: Stetson hats, so they adopted the hatters. On that front,
Speaker 1: I did not know that. I probably should have known it.
Speaker 1: George Mason's law school is in Arlington. It's not in
Speaker 1: fair fact, so I should know better on that. A
Speaker 1: lot about Georgetown's law school is not on the campus
Speaker 1: of Georgetown. It's actually in your Capitol Hill. So that
Speaker 1: is an error on me and I wish I do it.
Speaker 1: I appreciate the correction, so thanks George. Next question comes
Speaker 1: from Patrick C. With your end of round snake draft
Speaker 1: picks I employ you to take. To take two questions
Speaker 1: from Patrick in Los Angeles, I'd enter the Chuck Tad
Speaker 1: two timers club and three way club. One. What current
Speaker 1: player or manager in the big three sports leagues would
Speaker 1: best transition into politics?
Speaker 2: Two?
Speaker 1: Convince me otherwise China sweeps in to secure the straight
Speaker 1: in exchange to peg oil, to the Ewen, ending the
Speaker 1: Petro dollar, and tanking the US economy. Interesting, all right,
Speaker 1: So I got to take I see you're quite all right.
Speaker 1: The first quote, which current player or manager in the
Speaker 1: big three sports leagues for NHL? Right, you're assuming doing MLB?
Speaker 1: Have to say? I think right now? I think right now,
Speaker 1: I'd probably go Steve Kerr. I think he's become fairly
Speaker 1: active on the left a little bit. I think he's
Speaker 1: I think if you told me in four years he's
Speaker 1: being recruited to run for governor of California or something
Speaker 1: like that, because their last it's been a debacle and
Speaker 1: the party's infighting, right like, I could see him transitioning
Speaker 1: to it. I saw a nice story about him writing
Speaker 1: a handwritten note to the manager of the Toronto Blue
Speaker 1: Jays just after they lost Game seven John Schnyder. Schnyder
Speaker 1: shared the note. Curtdn't right. Schnyder shared the note. It
Speaker 1: was just a hand written note from courgasing how much
Speaker 1: he admired Schneider and how prepared his team was, and
Speaker 1: how just he knows it's painful that he'd been there,
Speaker 1: and it was just the type of thing that just
Speaker 1: to you know, he didn't that's something he didn't have
Speaker 1: to do. He didn't know, John Snyder. He might have been,
Speaker 1: as he admitted, he was rooting for the Dodgers, but
Speaker 1: he admired how well Schneider was managing that game. Clearly
Speaker 1: he sort of was on top of things, had sort
Speaker 1: of gotten there was you know, look, let's be realistic,
Speaker 1: the Dodgers. The Dodgers won the World Series by a
Speaker 1: cleat if those of you that recalled that Game seven,
Speaker 1: but it was interesting the athletic story on that. Sin
Speaker 1: Kerr was asked about how he got how what inspired
Speaker 1: him to do this? And he's done this six or
Speaker 1: seven times, not very often, and he didn't say which
Speaker 1: coaches he's sent it to but because he said he
Speaker 1: got a note out of the blue from Sean Payton
Speaker 1: after his first NBA Finals appearance, and he says he
Speaker 1: didn't know Sean Payton. This was now the coach of
Speaker 1: the Broncos, then was the coach of the Saints, and
Speaker 1: just sort of a similar message like merely impressed with
Speaker 1: you know how you've transitioned to coaching, et cetera. And
Speaker 1: you know, I'm always I always admire people when they
Speaker 1: get when when they're doing something that they didn't They
Speaker 1: didn't do for public praise. They just did it because
Speaker 1: they wanted to make somebody they did un They literally
Speaker 1: followed the golden doing to others that you hope someone
Speaker 1: does unto you or maybe you passed it, you paid
Speaker 1: it forward because someone did it for you. So I'd
Speaker 1: probably put Steve Kerr in that in that first category.
Speaker 1: I'm trying to think of a few others. Look, Bruce
Speaker 1: Burrow may end up running for office, and you know,
Speaker 1: I think he you know, I'm not. I'm not sure.
Speaker 1: Alabama is an odd place for him. I don't know
Speaker 1: if it. If I know he's he's he wouldn't be
Speaker 1: the first former Auburn coach to try to win state
Speaker 1: white office. But I do wonder if you have to
Speaker 1: have this othern accent to win state white office in Alabama,
Speaker 1: that would be that That's my strong curiosity there. But
Speaker 1: you already have a guy like Bruce Pearl's thinking about it.
Speaker 1: And by the way, I know, like I said, if
Speaker 1: you follow Bruce Pearl on Twitter, you're at and you
Speaker 1: follow him for basketball, but you get his political stuff,
Speaker 1: you might say, oh, he seems to be decidedly on
Speaker 1: one side of the aisle. And I know it makes
Speaker 1: some people, you know, judge him just based on his politics,
Speaker 1: But I tell you, I really enjoyed his commentary, you know,
Speaker 1: regardless of what his politics are on this front. And
Speaker 1: he's pretty pretty defensive of the state of Israel in general.
Speaker 1: But he clearly I think has the I think he's
Speaker 1: got the ambition, So I think he's somebody else I
Speaker 1: would I would throw into there, and I think they
Speaker 1: would both manage politics better than Tommy Tupperville. Put it
Speaker 1: this way, I've never had Tommy Tupperville on my calendar,
Speaker 1: and I still don't think he makes a really good politician.
Speaker 1: I think he's burming that every day. And while I don't, well,
Speaker 1: I assume he does become governor, I have a feeling
Speaker 1: that ain't gonna go well. You know, he's not known
Speaker 1: as a hard worker, and I don't think he realizes
Speaker 1: big governors actually work. Being a senator ain't a real job.
Speaker 1: Being a governor is a real job. So I'll be
Speaker 1: let's just say I'm not I'm I've set the bar
Speaker 1: pretty low for him there, and he's facing a pretty
Speaker 1: tough candidate for the Democrats and Doug Jones and who
Speaker 1: of course won that senate's special Senate election a few
Speaker 1: years back against Roy Moore. Topperville's no Roy Moore as
Speaker 1: far as the morality stuff is concerned. But I think
Speaker 1: I have a feeling that's going to be a close race.
Speaker 1: I think a lot of people are going to be
Speaker 1: aware that Tommy ain't up to this job. He probably
Speaker 1: wins because that state's pretty conservative, but this is the
Speaker 1: whiff of one four year term, and I'll just leave
Speaker 1: it at that. As for your second one, look, that's
Speaker 1: the conversation I had with Thyke Friman. I mean, in well,
Speaker 1: that's an And as far as China, you're taking avantage
Speaker 1: of this Trump term to get what they want. In
Speaker 1: my interview with Daniel Jurgen, I asked him if not
Speaker 1: the United States to secure the Strait. He basically said,
Speaker 1: there's only one other country that can, and that's China.
Speaker 1: And he says, look, he says, going back to Jimmy Carter,
Speaker 1: we basically have made a deal with the Golf States
Speaker 1: that we had them. We were their defense umbrella. And
Speaker 1: if we're not there to open up the straight and
Speaker 1: we don't do it, they will turn to China. And
Speaker 1: China would love to have those golf States as their
Speaker 1: number one ally rather than right now, those Golf States
Speaker 1: they play us their eyes with bo but we're in
Speaker 1: the number one camp. China's decidedly number two. We do
Speaker 1: not want that to flip. And you're right, that is
Speaker 1: the price that would be. But they don't want to tank.
Speaker 1: Remember it's actually not in China's interest to tank the
Speaker 1: American economy. The Chinese economy would tank if they tanked
Speaker 1: the American economy, so that actually is something they wouldn't
Speaker 1: want to do. But do they want more influence in
Speaker 1: the golf, Yes, they would want that. Next question comes
Speaker 1: from Johnny Goes. Hello from a two timer working towards five.
Speaker 1: Thanks for the Mattman interview. He will have my vote
Speaker 1: for governor. Much has been made about Congress since Operation
Speaker 1: Desert Storm relinquishing its authority to commit the country to
Speaker 1: foreign wars is required by the Constitution. Has their inaction
Speaker 1: produced a precedent that would be difficult to overcome? What
Speaker 1: would be required for Congress to take this power back
Speaker 1: from the executive branch? John, it's sitting right there, hold
Speaker 1: a vote. I think they have. You know, the Constitution
Speaker 1: is pretty clear. But if they fail to the precedent
Speaker 1: they set is that they if they fail to attempt
Speaker 1: to use their power, then yes, what the what the
Speaker 1: executive does? They can't They don't do anything about unless
Speaker 1: they deny him money. And I think that's the point
Speaker 1: of John Curtis's op ed saying, Hey, the clock is
Speaker 1: ticking and we're twenty two days away from the expiration
Speaker 1: of the sixty day clock. But this administration has a
Speaker 1: unitary view of the executive and every administration has. Every
Speaker 1: president since the passage of the War Powers Act has
Speaker 1: at least abided by its rules. But most anybody that
Speaker 1: there are a lot of constitutional lawyers who believe that
Speaker 1: the War Powers Act does is not that does not
Speaker 1: have the constraints that the Act thinks it does. Ultimately,
Speaker 1: the real power Congress has is the purse. That's the
Speaker 1: power hard stop period and that they can use any
Speaker 1: time they want. None of this has been precedent per se,
Speaker 1: because it's not as if. But I do think if
Speaker 1: if Congress is says, actually went to the courts and
Speaker 1: claimed that the President was violating the War Powers Act,
Speaker 1: I don't think they'd lose that court fight. I don't
Speaker 1: think the administration would want that court fight. But it
Speaker 1: may not be a slam dunk and we and it
Speaker 1: would be something that might get litigated for months while
Speaker 1: the administration just continues to opt to to conduct this war.
Speaker 1: All right. Last question comes from Natalie or Nathalie, an
Speaker 1: expat nat in Skien, Norway. He says, Hey, Chuck, big
Speaker 1: Nuggets fan here, and while this was one of the
Speaker 1: best times to be a basketball fan, the Joker Wenby
Speaker 1: matchup the other night was a masterclass. Hey, I caught
Speaker 1: the last five minutes. I will thank Bill Simmonson a
Speaker 1: tweet who said, I hope you're catching this match up
Speaker 1: here at the end I was like, first of all,
Speaker 1: it took me three apps to go find the game.
Speaker 1: I first went to YouTube TV, not there. Then I
Speaker 1: went and to my NBA app, Nope, Prime. Then I
Speaker 1: finally found it on Prime and caught the last minute
Speaker 1: and a half plus the overtime. I mean, just amazing,
Speaker 1: And it was a reminder the Nuggets can that was
Speaker 1: it's Wemby's league. Now we're just it's Wemby's world. We're
Speaker 1: just lucky to be want to be a part of it.
Speaker 1: So anyway, but I digress. Let me continue with your question.
Speaker 1: The stain on the NBA right now is tanking. So
Speaker 1: here's my question. Is relegation structurally possible in the NBA.
Speaker 1: The idea of being the three lowest ranked teams dropped
Speaker 1: to the G League and have to earn promotion back
Speaker 1: it would make tanking suicidal overnight. But the G League
Speaker 1: isn't an independent division like the Championship the way the
Speaker 1: Championship League works over in Europe. It's a network of
Speaker 1: franchise owned affiliates, and relegated teams would likely hemorrhage broadcast
Speaker 1: revenue in ways that could make major market valuations impossible
Speaker 1: to sustate, has anyone actually modeled this or does the
Speaker 1: franchise ownership structure make it a non starter? By definition?
Speaker 1: You just essentially and asking your question also made the
Speaker 1: essentially the rest of your question explains why it's never
Speaker 1: going to happen. There's a chance that if you told
Speaker 1: me in thirty years that the European League and the
Speaker 1: North American NBA League were in the sort of original
Speaker 1: NBA in the European NBA were sort of on par leagues,
Speaker 1: could we see something that way where the punishment for
Speaker 1: tanking in the United States would being, No, you're stuck
Speaker 1: with an overseas. You're gonna be stuck with overseas. You're
Speaker 1: still playing professionally. Maybe the revenues are somewhat equal, but
Speaker 1: you you know, your fan base isn't happy because you're
Speaker 1: playing all these European teams that nobody knows. Like. As
Speaker 1: the NBA develops a league in Africa, a league in Europe,
Speaker 1: plus expansion of the North American situation, I think you
Speaker 1: could eventually see a structure that does this, But not
Speaker 1: with the G League at the moment because of all
Speaker 1: the reasons. You just stay right now. But this making
Speaker 1: things a gigantic problem. You know, do you expand rosters?
Speaker 2: You know?
Speaker 1: Is that an answer that would help I? You know, look,
Speaker 1: Pasca and I went through a whole bunch of this
Speaker 1: or in earlier in this in this full episode, if
Speaker 1: you're listening to these questions after you've heard my past interview,
Speaker 1: we go through a bunch of things, like I'd like
Speaker 1: to see a best of five in the first round
Speaker 1: of the playoffs. I wonder if you add them a
Speaker 1: little bit of randomness the way baseball is a little
Speaker 1: bit of randomness in it the playoffs because of their
Speaker 1: best of fives. Because look at the Dodgers, the big
Speaker 1: great evil Empire. The Dodgers have been denied the World
Speaker 1: Series essentially because of losing in the five game. They
Speaker 1: don't know, haven't lost in the seven games very often.
Speaker 1: But the Nats won the title in nineteen because they
Speaker 1: beat the Dodgers in a five game. Could they have
Speaker 1: beaten them in a seventh game a seven game series?
Speaker 1: I don't know. The Diamondbacks when they got to the
Speaker 1: World Series, they did it. They beat the Dodgers in
Speaker 1: a five game. When the Philly got to the World Series,
Speaker 1: they beat the Padres who beat the Dodgers in a
Speaker 1: five game, you get the thing. So I kind of
Speaker 1: I wonder if you had the five game, if more
Speaker 1: teams would think, hey, I could win around in the
Speaker 1: playoffs and get to the second round. Would that discourage something?
Speaker 1: So I anyway, I think there's a few things to
Speaker 1: try first on this tanking thing. But it's embarrassing, it's terrible.
Speaker 1: And again, I know we go through this. We beat
Speaker 1: up the NBA, and it's always right around n C
Speaker 1: double a time because those college players always try that.
Speaker 1: We that we know. All right, I got a few
Speaker 1: odds and ends in the sports world real quick. I
Speaker 1: went to the Nats home opener. Everything looked great except
Speaker 1: the makeup of the of the Nats bullpen and then
Speaker 1: some I am already lamenting the idea that we're going
Speaker 1: to trade C. J. Abrams. I worry about that. I
Speaker 1: think that if you were, if you believe you're going
Speaker 1: to be a win in the next two to three years,
Speaker 1: you should keep c. J. Adams. If you've decided you're
Speaker 1: not going to be a winner for five years, then
Speaker 1: sure be my guest, trade him. So a trade of C. J.
Speaker 1: Adams will be more Another reminder that this team is
Speaker 1: not serious about trying to put a competitor on the
Speaker 1: field sooner rather than later, because I don't think you're
Speaker 1: going to get from Abrams what you think. Look, if
Speaker 1: you get a haul that looks like the Hall you
Speaker 1: got for Sodo, sure do it. But that ain't gonna happen.
Speaker 1: And if you don't, don't trade him unless it's for
Speaker 1: that kind of hall, Just don't do it. I think Abrams,
Speaker 1: I think there's a I think he and Wood are
Speaker 1: collectively could be an interesting foundation. Speaking of what he's
Speaker 1: got a problem with his swing, he's clearly either the
Speaker 1: word is out on it. I noticed that when he
Speaker 1: swings at the first pitch, he has better luck than
Speaker 1: when he takes pitches. The minute he starts taking pitches,
Speaker 1: it's almost inevitable that he's going to get strike out. Looking.
Speaker 1: But he seems to have an issue. We need. There
Speaker 1: needs to be some coaching there. There needs to be
Speaker 1: somebody there. Something's off there. Basically, he's not been the
Speaker 1: same since the home run, since participating in the home
Speaker 1: run derby in the All Star Break. I mean, you
Speaker 1: look at it, it's a definitive line and he's beginning
Speaker 1: the season. The way he ended the season, it's a
Speaker 1: little bit of cause for concern. I'd like to know
Speaker 1: what the Nats are doing to help him and fix that.
Speaker 1: But I want to be mindful of another thing. The
Speaker 1: Dodgers are just like, right, the top three. First of all, right,
Speaker 1: there's nothing like the Nats home opener to be the
Speaker 1: elixir for the supposedly struggling top of the order of
Speaker 1: the Gnats. Right. I was at the game that the
Speaker 1: number one guy in the batting order show Aotani Homer,
Speaker 1: the number two guy in the batting order Kyle Tucker Homer,
Speaker 1: the number three guy in the batting order Mookie Betts Hobert,
Speaker 1: and the number four guy Freddie Freeman said hey, I
Speaker 1: want a part of this. Will Smith seemed the only
Speaker 1: one that didn't get to go to the home run party.
Speaker 1: Andy Pie is wow. Right. The point is the Dodgers
Speaker 1: have such depth in that lineup. Task for Fernandez is
Speaker 1: into the seventh hole. So I don't want to crush
Speaker 1: the Nats too much here. The Dodgers are essentially they're
Speaker 1: the number one team. There is no number two, right,
Speaker 1: I think that's it. There's nobody close to them that
Speaker 1: doesn't mean they can't lose a series. That doesn't mean
Speaker 1: they didn't come a cleat away from losing to the
Speaker 1: Blue Jays. But on paper, there's nobody close to them. Now.
Speaker 1: They've got some starting pitching issues, but they had them
Speaker 1: last year and they will figure out how to you know,
Speaker 1: they'll just buy themselves another picture that I'm convinced of.
Speaker 1: We brought up the Wemby stuff that was unbelievable. Just it.
Speaker 1: It really was worthwh and I am looking forward. These
Speaker 1: NBA playoffs could be great, particularly in the West. It's
Speaker 1: sad about what's happened to the Lakers that a healthy
Speaker 1: Lakers inserted into this sort of three team juggernaut that
Speaker 1: is the Thunder, the Spurs, and the Nuggets. It's a bummer,
Speaker 1: but those hamstring strains are tough. Are tough, so enjoy
Speaker 1: Lebron in the playoffs kind of by himself. I have
Speaker 1: a feeling we might see a game or two where
Speaker 1: Lebron just has a game one more reminder, forty one
Speaker 1: year old Lebron, and he'll will them to a sixth
Speaker 1: you know, to probably sneaking out a first round win
Speaker 1: and then probably inevitably running into one of the top
Speaker 1: three Juggernauts and then it's over. But that's a bummer,
Speaker 1: and the only other people more bummed are the TV
Speaker 1: rights holders on that losing both Luke and Austin Reeves.
Speaker 1: That's a tough situation, all right. It was a long
Speaker 1: Monday episode. We got through a lot. There's a little
Speaker 1: something for everybody in here. I will see you in
Speaker 1: forty eight hours.