Speaker 1: I don't know.
Speaker 2: I did not think that it was like treated as
Speaker 2: we'll pay you to advertise or movie. But that makes
Speaker 2: sense because.
Speaker 1: There's every other venue gets money to play an ad
Speaker 1: when you play their ads, right. But yeah, but also
Speaker 1: it's a little different because the movie theater is also
Speaker 1: the place where you it's.
Speaker 2: Arguably to Yeah, they're advertising their own product. Yeah, but
Speaker 2: maybe they're not. That's my question. I think everybody's paying
Speaker 2: Nicole Kidman. Yeah, it's all flowing back to her.
Speaker 1: If she had any if she wanted to fully vertically integrate,
Speaker 1: she would just buy a trailer house and fucking just
Speaker 1: own every that whole twenty five minutes. That's Kidman.
Speaker 2: She just like comes in and is like ooh. After
Speaker 2: every trailer, they just cut back to Nicole Kidman being
Speaker 2: like enjoying the trailer.
Speaker 1: Damn.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean why not because when you're watching Morebius,
Speaker 2: your family, she's not when you're here your family. That's
Speaker 2: all off garden. But it feels like the sort of
Speaker 2: thing you could say.
Speaker 1: Right because there's something in the yeah, the magic in
Speaker 1: a place like this.
Speaker 2: Yeah, because when you're here, you should be watching herself
Speaker 2: in Baby Girl. Yes, Yeah, Yeah, he having some.
Speaker 1: Baby girl milk crazy having some milk.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I didn't. I didn't see baby girls. Just going
Speaker 2: off of what I know.
Speaker 1: Babies, there's milk in it. It works on two levels. Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: baby having milk in that.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Hello the Internet and welcome to Season three, seventy three,
Speaker 2: Episode two of dar Day's I Guys stayt of iHeartRadio.
Speaker 2: Oh hell yeah brother. This is a podcast where we
Speaker 2: take a deep dive into america shared consciousness. We now
Speaker 2: have a YouTube channel, YouTube slash at Daily's like guys,
Speaker 2: you can go check out YouTube. You can go see
Speaker 2: some video apps. It's Tuesday, January twenty eighth, twenty twenty five.
Speaker 2: My name is Jack O'Brien AKA Deep Seek. Yeah coded
Speaker 2: on the down low, the shit in the pants of
Speaker 2: many tech bross. That one courtesy of Christy Amagucci Mane
Speaker 2: a little creep from TLC and speaking of tea. Thrilled
Speaker 2: to be joined in our mile seat by hilarious and
Speaker 2: brilliant producer and TV writer you know him from the
Speaker 2: jozas Racist podcast.
Speaker 1: It's Andrew T. I'm just I'm the come clean. Normally
Speaker 1: I don't have an AKA because I got asked to
Speaker 1: Last Minute is the single mostly time I've ever had
Speaker 1: for I'm gonna be guest hosting, and I completely forgot
Speaker 1: a k A U I T I yeah T I T.
Speaker 2: T Bazz was the of the crazy sexy cool album
Speaker 2: I believe I don't.
Speaker 1: Know correct yeah yeah, Last.
Speaker 2: Chili was sexy cool and you don't know what we're
Speaker 2: talking about.
Speaker 1: And the best Karen haircut have her possible?
Speaker 2: I believe T Bazz she was.
Speaker 1: She's the T Baz was the only good person to
Speaker 1: have that haircut.
Speaker 2: It's so interesting how influential she is with Karens. The
Speaker 2: Karens were like, just give me the ta buzz. Anyways,
Speaker 2: we Andrew are thrilled to be joined in our third
Speaker 2: seat by a poet and lawyer who is the co
Speaker 2: founder and executive director of Partners for Justice, which is
Speaker 2: does to create a new model of collaborative public defense
Speaker 2: designed to on power. You probably read her dive on
Speaker 2: Twitter into Project twenty twenty five last year. Well, now
Speaker 2: Project twenty twenty five is here, and so is she.
Speaker 2: Please welcome back to the show, Emily Galvin Almonza.
Speaker 3: Thank you so much for having me without without any
Speaker 3: ak's at all, just notorious in my own right.
Speaker 2: Glad to be here, The Notorious and Malee if that's something.
Speaker 1: Squire, yeah, I'll take it.
Speaker 2: I'll take it. Yeah, the Notorious ESQ. It's great to
Speaker 2: have you. Thank you so much for coming back during
Speaker 2: these these wonderful times. It turns out that Project twenty
Speaker 2: twenty five stuff that you are warning us about, no
Speaker 2: big deal everything, Everything turned out pretty Wait, I'm seeing
Speaker 2: here that is not the case.
Speaker 1: It's bad.
Speaker 2: It's bad. So we're gonna talk about that. We're going
Speaker 2: to talk about that. We're also going to talk about
Speaker 2: something that following you on Twitter made me aware of,
Speaker 2: which is that Kroger and Microsoft doing a little collabo
Speaker 2: to use your face to give you not boutique. What's
Speaker 2: the thing where it's like gatory predatory pricing, predatory pricing.
Speaker 2: I was going to say bespoke, but that's probably how
Speaker 2: the it was, like, you know.
Speaker 3: Bespoke suits are better. This is like making something worse.
Speaker 3: So it's like the opposite.
Speaker 2: Of a spoke. We're presenting you with bespoke egg prices
Speaker 2: that are designed to charge you as much money as
Speaker 2: you are willing to pay. We're definitely going to talk
Speaker 2: about a bill that would force movie theaters to admit
Speaker 2: when the movie actually starts. All of that plenty more.
Speaker 2: But first, Emily, we do like to ask our guests,
Speaker 2: what is something from your search history?
Speaker 3: Oh my gosh, I looked it up for you. Ex
Speaker 3: said you were going to ask me this, and I
Speaker 3: realized the last thing I searched for was Locutus of Borg.
Speaker 3: Because we are now, yes, I have a seven year old.
Speaker 3: We are phenomenal parents, which means we watch way too
Speaker 3: much Star Trek in the evenings when we're exhausted after work.
Speaker 3: So from school were we're dipping into Star Trek the
Speaker 3: next generation. Now we're like at that point where Patrick
Speaker 3: Stewart's character is about to be overtaken by the Borg collective,
Speaker 3: and I wanted to prep the kid for it, mostly
Speaker 3: so that she doesn't talk about it too much at school.
Speaker 3: We've already had a complaint from another parent that she
Speaker 3: frightened their child by talking about the Borg.
Speaker 2: So, so explain the Borg to me, as though I'm
Speaker 2: not a Star Trek fan.
Speaker 3: Oh man, okay, so the Borg are. I'm going to
Speaker 3: pretend that you're pretending, because of course you are, as
Speaker 3: all good people are The Borg collective is a sort
Speaker 3: of species of quasi species that assimilates other species by
Speaker 3: taking them over, putting technology to their heads, basically making
Speaker 3: them part of a hive mind. And so every creature
Speaker 3: in the universe is at risk of becoming co opted
Speaker 3: by this this hive mind and forced to serve the
Speaker 3: goals of the Borg queen.
Speaker 1: Yah.
Speaker 3: There's a lot of parallels, a lot of parallels you.
Speaker 1: Can talk about.
Speaker 2: Yes, I have heard references to this. I think maybe
Speaker 2: in the Simpsons if you've ever heard of that show.
Speaker 3: Well, yeah, I don't know.
Speaker 2: Yeah, how are you making I have a six and
Speaker 2: an eight year old. We were trying to decide what
Speaker 2: to watch this weekend. It was a dude house weekend.
Speaker 2: My wife was out of town. I was like, they
Speaker 2: still haven't seen Back to the Future. Amazing, We're gonna
Speaker 2: show them back to the future. And then I told
Speaker 2: another parent that and they were like, uh so there's
Speaker 2: that whole like runner about incest and I was like, yeah, okay,
Speaker 2: like in the scene where like the people are getting
Speaker 2: shot with machine guns and so I just pumped the
Speaker 2: brakes on it. But we are you just kind of
Speaker 2: vibing it out? How do you How intentional are you
Speaker 2: on your decision making on what to show your seven
Speaker 2: year old.
Speaker 3: I made a fantastic decision early, which is that I
Speaker 3: don't want to watch any kid stuff. So she just
Speaker 3: has to figure out what things of my of the
Speaker 3: things I actually want to watch, we can watch together,
Speaker 3: which result in a lot of like nineteen fifties musicals consume.
Speaker 1: Yeah, oh wowk Yeah.
Speaker 3: And then you know, she reads a lot, and I
Speaker 3: can't read faster than she does, so she's getting a
Speaker 3: lot of content in the books she's reading that I
Speaker 3: can't keep up with.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 3: I try to just gauge from her reactions what she's
Speaker 3: comfortable with, like, for example, only murders in the Building
Speaker 3: Steve Martin, Martin short Selena Gormas. She loves it. Okay,
Speaker 3: there's death in the show. There's but it's like a
Speaker 3: game of clue.
Speaker 2: Suggest you know that one doesn't sneak up on you.
Speaker 2: I had a feeling there death in that one.
Speaker 3: Yeah, And honestly, like a lot of the like Back
Speaker 3: to the Future, I would not assume that the kids
Speaker 3: would even pick up on. Sure, the ancest joke I
Speaker 3: try to just went from like really gory stuff, although
Speaker 3: she defeated me in that too. There was a while
Speaker 3: when she was like four or five and she got
Speaker 3: really into those veterinarian shows on like whatever reality channel
Speaker 3: just has like doctor Pole, like with his arm all
Speaker 3: the way up inside a cow. She was really into that.
Speaker 1: So, yeah, does that count as gore in your mind?
Speaker 1: I can really think viscera technically gore, I guess would be.
Speaker 1: I'm not a parent. Yeah, if it's of.
Speaker 3: My biological interest, I'm down. If it's gratuitous, not really sure.
Speaker 2: And super producer Victor, who is the into that sort
Speaker 2: of thing, uh no, he says that those types of
Speaker 2: shows get super bloody.
Speaker 1: Out of nowhere, as does medicine, so does surgery.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Wait, we talked about this a little bit yesterday. I
Speaker 1: can't believe. Not I can't believe, but I am impressed
Speaker 1: that you have a seven year old in twenty twenty
Speaker 1: five who can handle the pacing of TNG. I think
Speaker 1: I'm watching as an adult. I'm watching my attention span
Speaker 1: not be able to handle stuff made in the nineties,
Speaker 1: like just like story wise, and I guess editing wise.
Speaker 1: So I think that is amazing.
Speaker 3: Honestly, Hey, I protected her from the brain rot that
Speaker 3: got all of us. Man, She's like she's never been
Speaker 3: on YouTube, but she you know, reads Enid Blyton, so
Speaker 3: TG is like exactly the right vibe for her.
Speaker 2: Right level. Yeah yeah, I yeah. We were talking about
Speaker 2: how there's a thing called the millennial pause on videos
Speaker 2: where with millennials, who are the old ones in this scenario,
Speaker 2: they take like quarter of a second to put their
Speaker 2: phone down before they start talking, and whereas gen Z
Speaker 2: starts talking as they're putting their phone down, and like
Speaker 2: the millennial pause is like making fun of millennials really
Speaker 2: not for not knowing how fast media, like how grabby
Speaker 2: media is supposed to be, because there's a split second
Speaker 2: at the very beginning of their videos where they're putting
Speaker 2: their still putting their phone down. So that's where we're
Speaker 2: at for people who on YouTube. I've managed to keep
Speaker 2: mine off of that, but I did make the mistake
Speaker 2: of showing my eight year old Transformers and so he
Speaker 2: has Michael Michael Bay in his veins.
Speaker 1: All the live action transit.
Speaker 2: Yeah yeah, oh my god, fucked up. I made a
Speaker 2: bus mistake.
Speaker 1: There's just like it's just like a huge, like a
Speaker 1: human being made out of knives.
Speaker 2: It's so pleasant, that's what he's into. What is Emily
Speaker 2: something you think is underrated?
Speaker 3: I think that the commitment of teachers to protect their
Speaker 3: students right now has been heavily underrated. I'm thinking about
Speaker 3: this a lot, obviously, because the conversation right now is
Speaker 3: how far into schools will immigration enforcement get? And you're
Speaker 3: hearing a lot from these schools that are trying to
Speaker 3: get ready for ice agents showing up the door and
Speaker 3: wanting to take children out of school. And I think
Speaker 3: we've really underrated the fact that we've got teachers now
Speaker 3: who have been in these classrooms for decades knowing that
Speaker 3: there's a chance they might have to take a bullet
Speaker 3: for one of these kids, right. And I don't think
Speaker 3: that the government has really thought through how ferociously a
Speaker 3: teacher who's willing to die for their students will protect
Speaker 3: them from being taken by men with guns.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 3: So I think the ferocity of teachers has been substantially underrated.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, I'm seeing people talking about that and you know,
Speaker 2: working together on that question of like how to avoid
Speaker 2: having them use that those students' access to public education
Speaker 2: or education to against their families.
Speaker 3: Well, can I have a lawyer in your moment, not
Speaker 3: just for may I please, may I please. So, what
Speaker 3: I'm liking that I'm seeing from a lot of schools
Speaker 3: is that schools are ready to look for judicial warrants.
Speaker 3: This is really important. I'm going to put it out
Speaker 3: of here right now, because anybody who's listening to this
Speaker 3: should be told that ICE will often kind of show
Speaker 3: up with like their own law warrant that they made
Speaker 3: for themselves, and it's not actually a warrant, it's just
Speaker 3: a document that they wrote for themselves saying, hey, I
Speaker 3: have the right to talk to you in public. Well,
Speaker 3: guess what, ICE, you always have the right to talk
Speaker 3: to people in public. They don't have to talk to you,
Speaker 3: they have a right not to talk to you, right,
Speaker 3: But they make this document. Then when people say, hey,
Speaker 3: do you have a warrant, they show them this document,
Speaker 3: which is, guess what, not a judicial warrant.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 3: If somebody's saying they have the right to come into
Speaker 3: your school, or your home or your business, and if
Speaker 3: they want to enter, they're like vampires. You have to
Speaker 3: either invite them in or they have to have a
Speaker 3: judicial warrant that has like the name of a court
Speaker 3: on it, and it's actually signed by a judge, and
Speaker 3: it actually has this address of this location printed on
Speaker 3: it where the judge has signed and affirmed that. So
Speaker 3: what I want people to know is if ICE shows
Speaker 3: up at your house or your business and they're like, hey,
Speaker 3: you have to let us in, and you say, hey, yeah,
Speaker 3: where's your warrant and they don't have a piece of
Speaker 3: paper signed by a judge, treat them like vampires right
Speaker 3: there you go.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and I also heard is don't even open your door,
Speaker 1: talk to them through the door. And they will also
Speaker 1: break all kinds of rules, right.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, and they will. They're like vampires if vampires
Speaker 2: could arbitrarily just break the rules sometimes and be like, ah,
Speaker 2: fuck it, what are what are the consequences?
Speaker 3: I admit I'm not aware of the full scope of
Speaker 3: what vampires are capable of.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think they're physically like they try to get
Speaker 2: to the door like vampires. So basically I'm saying vampires
Speaker 2: are better than I sations.
Speaker 3: I would also definitely rather have vampires at the door,
Speaker 3: Yeah for sure.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Yeah, what is something you think is overrated?
Speaker 3: M generally chat bots like you keep talking about how
Speaker 3: y'all it's so great, and these chatbots can like write
Speaker 3: stuff for you. First of all, whenever somebody gives me
Speaker 3: a document that has some like chat bot authorship, it's
Speaker 3: very apparent. Sure, But also like the use cases I've
Speaker 3: had for they lie all the time. In the law.
Speaker 3: They're really bad because they'll often just like make up
Speaker 3: cases that sound really plausible that don't really exist. And
Speaker 3: you're like torching millions of gallons of water to have
Speaker 3: some very bland pros produced for you that probably is
Speaker 3: full of lies.
Speaker 2: It just doesn't feel like it's unreliable.
Speaker 1: Yes, yeah, yeah.
Speaker 2: We were talking about this on last week's episode, that
Speaker 2: the Google AI like answer. At the beginning, I was
Speaker 2: trying to find out what scene happens forty five minutes
Speaker 2: into Jaws, A perfectly understandable question because back when the
Speaker 2: movie first came out, somebody died of a heart attack
Speaker 2: forty five minutes into Jaws, or at least that's what
Speaker 2: the movie's marketing. What have you believe? So I was like,
Speaker 2: what scene did it? You know? And I googled that,
Speaker 2: and Google's AI result gave me the most confident answer.
Speaker 2: It was like, forty five minutes into Jaws. This is
Speaker 2: the most famous scene of the movie where a woman
Speaker 2: swimmer is attacked by a shark and it's the first
Speaker 2: time you see the shark and Chief Brody says, we're
Speaker 2: going to need a bigger boat. So they combined like
Speaker 2: four different parts of the Yeah, they just combined all
Speaker 2: the different scenes of the movie and said that that
Speaker 2: was but so confidently, no hint that they're just making
Speaker 2: it up because they want to please to Eddy, which
Speaker 2: is what I'm interesting. But yeah, it's really a bet product.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, it seemed I was. I did a trivia
Speaker 1: night last night at a bar where one of the
Speaker 1: questions is one you could google ahead and the sort
Speaker 1: of long story short version is I We got the
Speaker 1: correct answer even though we knew it was incorrect because
Speaker 1: the AI summary at the very top said the incorrect
Speaker 1: set of facts. And we were like the trivia question
Speaker 1: writer who probably makes minimum wage ish, right, definitely didn't
Speaker 1: look past the AI summary. So whatever AI summary says
Speaker 1: is the answer, even though it is factually incorrect. Right, Yeah,
Speaker 1: you just got to hack one level higher of whatever
Speaker 1: the user is going to be doing. And it's so
Speaker 1: it's the.
Speaker 3: Way we're amazing at trivia night going to be real
Speaker 3: bad in like emergency medicine.
Speaker 2: Right, yeah, yeah, yeah, exactly.
Speaker 1: Well, I mean I think it's like sort of proven
Speaker 1: that the fact that its maximum use case seems to
Speaker 1: be cheating in college is it is exactly that it's
Speaker 1: like a bad college student worth of.
Speaker 2: Brain cheating to get to be like a C student
Speaker 2: in college.
Speaker 1: It seems to be well not even brain. Sorry, but
Speaker 1: just like ojibberish.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean that Deep Seek, the Chinese AI product
Speaker 2: that is cratering the tech economy as of yesterday at least,
Speaker 2: was like that one of the features that they have
Speaker 2: is rather than trying to do the mechanical turk thing
Speaker 2: and like make it a magic trick behind the scenes,
Speaker 2: you're able to look at like how it shows between
Speaker 2: different answers and like what the logic was, like that
Speaker 2: it shows you under the hood, because again, it's not
Speaker 2: a product that they're trying to like make billions of
Speaker 2: dollars better than yeah they're and they're not trying Yeah,
Speaker 2: they're not trying to value with the magic trick. They're like,
Speaker 2: this is a thing we've researched that you using it
Speaker 2: helps us continue to research and make better So that
Speaker 2: seems better, but yeah, I think probably it will still
Speaker 2: be like and the answer is like write sixty percent
Speaker 2: of the time.
Speaker 3: I don't know any curated data sets that the ones
Speaker 3: that work from curated data sets where all the data
Speaker 3: coming in is screened. I like, I'm good with like
Speaker 3: a better search interface. That's fine, letting things loose on
Speaker 3: the internet, just.
Speaker 1: Yeah, right, yeah, yeahah, the famous not chock full of
Speaker 1: lies Internet.
Speaker 2: Right, exactly, good data set. Let's take a quick break
Speaker 2: and we'll come back and talk about executive orders. We'll
Speaker 2: be right back, and we're back. And so, Emily, you
Speaker 2: are a lawyer who understands how all of these various
Speaker 2: things that you know understood when Project twenty twenty five
Speaker 2: was released, like what the implications of all these various
Speaker 2: things mean. And now the executive orders have been issued,
Speaker 2: the pens have been thrown into a cheering crowd like
Speaker 2: their fucking Lebron's arm bands. But just to like start
Speaker 2: not to go again, like you're gonna have to work
Speaker 2: with me here and just pretend this is gonna be
Speaker 2: hard for you. Pretend that I'm an idiot who doesn't
Speaker 2: know exactly what executive orders are, how they work just
Speaker 2: for one hundred miles up. What what are these executive
Speaker 2: orders that and like we've been told they're and like
Speaker 2: that's why Biden and you know other Democrats weren't using them,
Speaker 2: and yet Trump came and like just dropped, flooded the
Speaker 2: zone with bullshit, flooded the zone with executive orders. And
Speaker 2: now it seems like there's a lot of action happening
Speaker 2: as a result of those executive orders. So just like
Speaker 2: trying to find the answer in all that madness.
Speaker 3: Yeah, so I think first of all, we can start
Speaker 3: off with one thing that I think you're not an
Speaker 3: idiot if you don't know this. A lot of people
Speaker 3: don't know this, that an executive order is not the
Speaker 3: same as a law past by Congress.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 3: An executive order does have some legal force, but it's
Speaker 3: basically a thing that the President said the executive branch
Speaker 3: is going to do, and the president only has the
Speaker 3: ability to direct certain people in agencies. So anything that's
Speaker 3: under the executive branch of our government, that's a lot
Speaker 3: of stuff. Because all those big administrative agencies that you
Speaker 3: hear about, or the Department of Justice, the Department of Health,
Speaker 3: the Department of the Department transportation. He can direct all
Speaker 3: of those agencies about how they're going to function, what
Speaker 3: policies they're going to use, how they're going to hire
Speaker 3: and fire. Like he can do a lot of that
Speaker 3: direction through these executive orders. He cannot, though, do a
Speaker 3: lot of the stuff that he's trying. Me he's kind
Speaker 3: of treating executive orders like a magic wand or a
Speaker 3: genie in a bottle, like trying to erase the fourteenth
Speaker 3: Amendment on Martin Luther King Junior day, Like that's what
Speaker 3: he's trying to do with some of these orders, and
Speaker 3: you can't. There's a reason that order got stopped in
Speaker 3: its tracks about fifteen minutes after it left his desk,
Speaker 3: because there are limits to what executive orders can do.
Speaker 3: That being said, there's also a lot of avenues in
Speaker 3: which agencies have a ton of power. So how he
Speaker 3: directs ICE to perform immigration enforcement, for example, or how
Speaker 3: he directs other agencies to address drug prices, or how
Speaker 3: he you know, directs environmental policy, all of that can
Speaker 3: be impacted by executive orders.
Speaker 2: Got it. And so the idea that like Biden could
Speaker 2: be because like so that there's looking at the past
Speaker 2: residential terms that have used executive orders. I think in
Speaker 2: late December, Biden had issued about one hundred and sixty.
Speaker 2: Trump during his first full term did two hundred and twenty.
Speaker 2: FDR did three thousand, seven hundred and twenty one, which
Speaker 2: I guess he was president for a number of years,
Speaker 2: but that's still.
Speaker 1: It's still a lot.
Speaker 2: So it seems like, I don't know, I had just
Speaker 2: always heard, yeah, well, we're not gonna like use executive
Speaker 2: orders because of it's set a bad, bad president and ultimately,
Speaker 2: like you know, could be overturned. But it feels, you know,
Speaker 2: as as somebody who's not a fan of these particular
Speaker 2: executive orders, like they're I don't know, like when when
Speaker 2: you're a sports fan and the other team does the
Speaker 2: thing you don't want them to do, that's usually the
Speaker 2: right thing, you know. It's like, oh that that makes
Speaker 2: me uncomfortable. Therefore that's probably the the they're thing. They're
Speaker 2: doing the thing that like we're everybody like wish they
Speaker 2: weren't doing, which the way that the government currently runs
Speaker 2: seems like is the correct way for them to do
Speaker 2: all the authoritarianism that they have in mind. So I
Speaker 2: guess I'm just curious to hear like, what do you
Speaker 2: think of this strategy like throwing a bunch of these
Speaker 2: at the wall and some of them being outside the
Speaker 2: purview of like a normal executive order and some of
Speaker 2: them being just like making a statement essentially. Do you
Speaker 2: think that that is going to work? Do you think
Speaker 2: that do you wish that more progressive presidential if you
Speaker 2: can imagine a more progressive presidential administration than this one,
Speaker 2: that more progressive presidential administrations like we should be wanting
Speaker 2: them to do.
Speaker 3: So we're at this really difficult crossroads, right, which is that,
Speaker 3: first of all, the idea that Donald Trump would not
Speaker 3: do something because Biden refrained from doing it is hilarious
Speaker 3: to me, like, oh, we wouldn't want to set a
Speaker 3: bad president because clearly, if we don't do the bad thing,
Speaker 3: donald Trump will also not do the bad thing He's
Speaker 3: gonna do. He's gonna if you put a button in
Speaker 3: front of me, he's gonna push it. He's gonna push
Speaker 3: the button until the button breaks.
Speaker 1: But also not just Donald Trump, like Mitch McConnell, Nut Gingridge, Yes,
Speaker 1: every Republican leader since I've been alive and I'm pretty
Speaker 1: old like it. It is just the weird that it's
Speaker 1: it's to me, it's so weirdly willful. It's like, Oh,
Speaker 1: we wouldn't want this, wouldn't want to break this norm
Speaker 1: against the team that only breaks norms.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that has absolutely no compunction about breaking norms and
Speaker 2: in fact seems to do it for fun.
Speaker 3: Well, they've also realized something, which is that whether something
Speaker 3: works has nothing to do with whether it is supposed
Speaker 3: to work or legally structured to work. It has everything
Speaker 3: to do with whether you can get people to change
Speaker 3: their behavior based on what you're doing. Like if an
Speaker 3: executive order is issued that's not supposed to work at all,
Speaker 3: but people take action based on it, nobody stops them,
Speaker 3: then it worked.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 3: So I think there's a certain amount of like just
Speaker 3: try and stuff that we see now and we're going
Speaker 3: to see continually for the next several years. I think
Speaker 3: Democrats could absolutely benefit for more just try and stuff.
Speaker 3: I mean, obviously I don't condone trying to erase a
Speaker 3: constitutional amendment by FIAT. It's very silly and no one
Speaker 3: should do that. But at the same time, I think
Speaker 3: there is a certain amount of creativity and a certain
Speaker 3: amount of precedent breaking activity that is appropriate. I think
Speaker 3: we were not designed to live in a you know this,
Speaker 3: this government was not designed to be fully static and
Speaker 3: frozen in the past. Don't tell Clarence Thomas, he would
Speaker 3: absolutely tell you it's frozen in the past. But in general,
Speaker 3: like evolution and trying new stuff is good and probably
Speaker 3: Democrats could do more of it.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, I mean FDR like there is some stuff
Speaker 2: going on in his during the time that he was president,
Speaker 2: I think, right, I have that, right, he yeah, he had,
Speaker 2: there is some stuff and he you know, he was
Speaker 2: willing to just up there working things out, trying things out.
Speaker 2: You know, it's like, is this something?
Speaker 1: Is it?
Speaker 2: Well? What about the twenty one?
Speaker 1: Not to be a completely left wing lunatic, but I
Speaker 1: will just point out that it does a little bit.
Speaker 1: At this point seem like the Democrats did govern the
Speaker 1: way they wanted to. And it's not a matter of
Speaker 1: not trying stuff. It's that they didn't want to try
Speaker 1: that stuff. Right, They're not big d Democrats are not
Speaker 1: interested in those good things. Yeah, it seems to me
Speaker 1: as an idiot, me a complete idiot, it would seem that, Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean, these ideas were raised, they did not happen
Speaker 1: over the past four years at times when a lot
Speaker 1: of unprecedented ship was happening.
Speaker 2: That bad stuff, not unprecedentedly fun good stuff. Let's talk
Speaker 2: about just the the you know, the executive actions that
Speaker 2: that are jumping out to you, Emily as somebody who's
Speaker 2: kind of following this. I actually don't know if all
Speaker 2: of these are executive orders, but these are the ones
Speaker 2: that have kind of popped, have really popped for me.
Speaker 2: I don't know why I'm getting Hollywood executive here, but
Speaker 2: so we have the mass raids on undocumented people in
Speaker 2: the US and their families, which that is an executive.
Speaker 3: Order, right, yeah, directing ICE, directing ICE enforcement.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 2: Scrapping cancer research is that.
Speaker 3: That had to do a lot with freezing the NIH
Speaker 3: and freezing funding, hiring, firing, the purchasing of supplies for research,
Speaker 3: which resulted in a lot of labs having to let
Speaker 3: people go stop their research they don't have personnel or supplies,
Speaker 3: Like you can't do major medical research without money. Sure,
Speaker 3: And what's really terrible is that by interrupting a lot
Speaker 3: of the work of these labs, we're setting that research back.
Speaker 3: It's not like a lot of this work can just
Speaker 3: be sort of like picked right back up where you
Speaker 3: left off six months now. And it's not just cancer,
Speaker 3: it's Alzheimer's research. It's like a huge quantity of research
Speaker 3: that makes the United States a valuable place to be
Speaker 3: because of its medical advancement capacity. Yeah, we just threw
Speaker 3: that in the trash and lit it on fire.
Speaker 2: What is that? Not that I think there's great reasoning
Speaker 2: behind any of this ship, but I am confused how
Speaker 2: that even ties into any agenda or like any set
Speaker 2: of you know, politics, like any political posturing is like
Speaker 2: we actually think we should see what.
Speaker 3: We hang out with any MAGA people lately, because I mean,
Speaker 3: what I hear a lot of is that they believe
Speaker 3: that all of these researchers are like that it all
Speaker 3: comes back to Fauci and it's all corrupt and it's
Speaker 3: training the swamp. And we're like, I don't think anybody's
Speaker 3: given a lot of critical thought to what if what
Speaker 3: if the researchers are not secretly corrupt oligarchs, but what
Speaker 3: if they actually are people who are poised to save lives,
Speaker 3: perhaps lives within your family sometime in the next few
Speaker 3: years if we let them. I think there's just this
Speaker 3: huge perception of corruption in the medical community, and I'm
Speaker 3: not sure where that comes from. Certainly I could talk
Speaker 3: about it in context related to medicine and health insurance,
Speaker 3: but yeah, when it comes to like hating on cancer researchers,
Speaker 3: I don't get it. But it's a thing that the
Speaker 3: MAGA folks seem to do.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, okay, honestly, And that's the kind of toughest
Speaker 1: thing is like all this data is going to be
Speaker 1: so entangled with our shitty healthcare system that it's not
Speaker 1: even even going to be clear that as a direct
Speaker 1: outcome of this, like life expectancy or health outcomes are
Speaker 1: worse in the United States because they're already so much
Speaker 1: worse than the rest of the like you know, equivalently
Speaker 1: rich world, that like we're never going to be able
Speaker 1: to prove prove until, like I said this Yesterda, until
Speaker 1: Polio's back, but like even then.
Speaker 2: With any of this shit, I feel like we're in
Speaker 2: a really bad position to make those cases because of
Speaker 2: how the.
Speaker 1: Media general healthcare system.
Speaker 2: How bads a general healthcare is. But just all of
Speaker 2: like them very disappointed in the New York Times.
Speaker 3: I mean, it's it's hard to prove a negative, but
Speaker 3: if the New York Times wanted to, and I'm with
Speaker 3: you that they don't want to at all. Right, I mean,
Speaker 3: you could look at over the next few years, how
Speaker 3: many new pharmaceuticals are patented, how many new treatments medical
Speaker 3: devices like. You could look at patents. You could look
Speaker 3: at drugs hitting the market. You could look at requests
Speaker 3: for FDA approval, you could look at all you could
Speaker 3: look at new techniques being published in medical journals. You
Speaker 3: could look at the rate at which US researchers are
Speaker 3: publishing generally. I mean, there's all of these metrics that
Speaker 3: we expect to see slow down when you defund medical research.
Speaker 2: Right, Yeah, the other ones I have pulling the US
Speaker 2: out of the World Health Organization recognizing only two genders,
Speaker 2: turning DEI into like not not just removing funding for DEI,
Speaker 2: but like you know, saying that people need to report
Speaker 2: and anyone they see doing a DEI. I guess is
Speaker 2: the idea. By the way, I did hear somebody pointed
Speaker 2: out that roy Cone came from McCarthyism, So like that
Speaker 2: like roy Cone was worked and like learned under McCarthy.
Speaker 2: So it does make sense that there's this like direct
Speaker 2: line from McCarthyism.
Speaker 3: Too, Trump, Well, it's not just in the federal government.
Speaker 3: There are a lot of people are talking about that EO,
Speaker 3: Like it's just amongst federal employees, right, like, if the
Speaker 3: guy at the cubical nextsu is seeming a little too diverse,
Speaker 3: you better report. But it's also giving these agencies a
Speaker 3: directive to select up to nine entities in the private
Speaker 3: sector that they would like to investigate for compliance. So
Speaker 3: it's also poisoning the federal government to engage in. And
Speaker 3: we're already seeing the impact in like cowardly big companies
Speaker 3: scrubbing any mention of diversity and ending any diversity programs,
Speaker 3: and less cowardly companies refusing to do so, which is
Speaker 3: kind of well to see. But it's McCarthyism writ large
Speaker 3: in the DEI context. I think also we're going to
Speaker 3: see that in the immigration context, with like pressure to
Speaker 3: turn people over and compliance pressures of all kinds. So yeah,
Speaker 3: they're absolutely trying to create a society in which people
Speaker 3: are afraid of their neighbors and afraid to be snitched
Speaker 3: on by their colleagues.
Speaker 2: For being too diverse. Yeah, yeah, yeah, a person's way
Speaker 2: too into diversity.
Speaker 1: It's like actually, like I'm I am curious this speed
Speaker 1: for which this will have repercussions. I mean the immigration
Speaker 1: thing is like if that actually happened, would actually tank
Speaker 1: the agricultural industry. So like you know, if the Trump
Speaker 1: people were mad at the price of eggs, then like
Speaker 1: what the fuck is I'm just like curious, like if
Speaker 1: anything will ever.
Speaker 3: I'm in California, there's we're on our local news. We're
Speaker 3: seeing like fruit sitting in the fields. It's orange season,
Speaker 3: like nothing, like yeah, yeah, it's understandable. It's especially understandable
Speaker 3: because when you're not inside a building, you don't have
Speaker 3: the same Fourth Amendment protections. It's actually a huge issue.
Speaker 3: We see, for example, unhoused people don't have the same
Speaker 3: rights against search and seizure because they don't have a
Speaker 3: home which someone would need a warrant to enter, so
Speaker 3: they don't get this particular constitutional protection. If you're in
Speaker 3: a field, again, ice can come up and go after
Speaker 3: anybody they want. There's no structure that they would need
Speaker 3: a judge to give them permission to enter. So agricultural
Speaker 3: jobs are particularly vulnerable, and we as a country are
Speaker 3: particularly vulnerable to like not having food. We can afford
Speaker 3: as a result.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, but yeah, I mean it's just the unintended
Speaker 1: or yeah, well the food like disaster would be an
Speaker 1: unintended even for them consequence of like you know, enforcing
Speaker 1: immigration in the way they want to enforce it. I'm
Speaker 1: just curious, like what the fuck will actually happen?
Speaker 3: How could it be unintended? I mean that's a question
Speaker 3: I have, is like it's the most foreseeable possible.
Speaker 2: The very first thing everybody's like, hey, so I know
Speaker 2: you only understand profitability, just a quick FYI hear on that.
Speaker 1: I mean I guess yeah. The speculation would be it
Speaker 1: just creates an even more scared or like op pressed
Speaker 1: class of undocumented worker.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean the idea of that they talk about
Speaker 2: a lot that like, yeah, you know, people criticize how
Speaker 2: expensive this is going to be, but it's going to
Speaker 2: lead to like a lot of like self deportation, and
Speaker 2: you know that what that usually means is that people
Speaker 2: just don't can't work because when you like show up
Speaker 2: to work, then like you're you know, putting yourself in
Speaker 2: a position to be taken in. But so that's yeah,
Speaker 2: it just it feels like that is going to be
Speaker 2: a first, Like, it's not going to be a down
Speaker 2: the road thing. It's like a thing that is going
Speaker 2: like based on the things that we're already seeing of
Speaker 2: you know, these like raids that doctor Phil is live streaming.
Speaker 2: We're going to see the results immediately because nobody's gonna
Speaker 2: want to fucking put themselves in a position to be
Speaker 2: arrested and like, you know, treated cruelly. Yeah, so I
Speaker 2: don't know, like I others reversing climate change, bringing back
Speaker 2: the death penalty, not reversing climate change, reversing climate change
Speaker 2: actions and declaring and the emergency is actually how little
Speaker 2: gas we're pulling out of the ground. These are all
Speaker 2: things that I had identified as like, man, the executive
Speaker 2: orders seem to work in this case in the worst
Speaker 2: way possible.
Speaker 1: Do we like, what is there?
Speaker 2: Are there any of these that you're like that that
Speaker 2: one is actually going to be challenged and easy to
Speaker 2: overturn before it does too much damage? Or is this
Speaker 2: all just kind of fore alarm fire territory?
Speaker 3: So I'm really interested to see what happens because a
Speaker 3: lot of people like to act like the law is
Speaker 3: a real thing, and you know, the law will save us.
Speaker 3: The law doesn't support this, and the law. Yeah, but
Speaker 3: the law is just a bunch of humans in rooms,
Speaker 3: Like some of the humans get to wear a special
Speaker 3: dress and sit up higher. But which humans these cases
Speaker 3: are brought in front of will matter a great deal
Speaker 3: because Trump worked very hard during his last term to
Speaker 3: put a lot of judges in place who are heavily
Speaker 3: aligned with the ideology we see in Project twenty twenty five.
Speaker 3: In the past, we saw a judiciary which took their
Speaker 3: responsibility as neutral arbiters way more seriously, and they would
Speaker 3: have been like, really embarrassed to do something nakedly partisan.
Speaker 3: That cultural safeguard is gone, and I don't think we
Speaker 3: realize the degree to which it was a cultural norm,
Speaker 3: a cultural safeguard holding the judiciary in a neutral position.
Speaker 3: It's toast. So some of these I will point out,
Speaker 3: you know, the death penalty one is terrible for innumerable reasons. One,
Speaker 3: Generally Americans don't support the death penalty anymore. So this
Speaker 3: isn't really beating any voters that are demanding this to
Speaker 3: We get it wrong a lot. It's her reversible. Three.
Speaker 3: This EO contains. All of these eos contain ways for
Speaker 3: the government to reach more deeply into the lives and
Speaker 3: actions of private actors and the state. So here this
Speaker 3: EO is directing the federal government to try to exert
Speaker 3: more control over state and local prosecutors and ags. Here's
Speaker 3: why that's a big deal in the federal system. Joe Biden,
Speaker 3: to his credit, commuted the sentences of everyone who's on
Speaker 3: federal death row. So Donald Trump doesn't have anybody he
Speaker 3: can kill right now, as much as he would like to.
Speaker 3: Oh no, and good on President Biden for doing that.
Speaker 3: Eighty seven percent, roughly, that's success. Probably an old stat
Speaker 3: but over eighty five percent of people in prison are
Speaker 3: there on state and local cases, so you can see that, like,
Speaker 3: the federal government only comprises a very small minority of
Speaker 3: people who are impacted by criminal justice decisions generally. So
Speaker 3: what does this executive order do. It pushes the federal
Speaker 3: government to start going after the folks who actually control
Speaker 3: use of the death penalty, who are state ags and
Speaker 3: state and local prosecutors. And that bothers me for many reasons,
Speaker 3: one of which is it's completely contrary to the omnipresent
Speaker 3: states rights argument that we hear all the time that like,
Speaker 3: local people should decide what's right in their locality. Oh
Speaker 3: unless in your locality you don't want the government to
Speaker 3: kill people, in which case you don't get to decide
Speaker 3: what's right for your locality. Your judgment is subsumed by
Speaker 3: a huge and empowered federal government. I thought we did
Speaker 3: like big government. No, no, no, we like big government
Speaker 3: when it's making the government kill people. So that's where
Speaker 3: we are on this.
Speaker 2: Yes, it's not great, And your point about it being unpopular,
Speaker 2: like that was the thing. Just alec Herrick Cattsanas had
Speaker 2: a thread on Twitter this weekend just about this New
Speaker 2: York Times article from last week titled support for Trump's
Speaker 2: policies exceeds support for Trump, And this feel like it's
Speaker 2: the way I'm seeing a lot of people in the
Speaker 2: New York Times and like in that world respond where
Speaker 2: they're like people might not like the man, but are approved.
Speaker 2: You know, they might think his methods are too harsh,
Speaker 2: but he's getting things done. And it's like in line
Speaker 2: with there. And I think what they're referring to is
Speaker 2: like a very specifically worded question that suggests that they
Speaker 2: want people who are undocumented deported, But there's also like
Speaker 2: three questions they're just worded slightly differently. That suggests that
Speaker 2: there's actually a super majority of people who don't who
Speaker 2: don't want that, but they I don't know. There just
Speaker 2: seems to be that an urge to like be like
Speaker 2: what he's doing is like not that out of line
Speaker 2: with like what people want, and I don't think it's true,
Speaker 2: And like what again, they're only focusing on like two
Speaker 2: of these executive orders, two of these policies. They're like
Speaker 2: really having to work hard with the polling and the
Speaker 2: wording of the polling to like make it seem like
Speaker 2: people are in support of these policies. And then they're
Speaker 2: also ignoring like the huge swaths of these executive orders
Speaker 2: that are wildly unpopular for their cruelty.
Speaker 3: And so this is a great feast. I'm so glad
Speaker 3: you brought this up. Because so when we look at
Speaker 3: Project twenty twenty five, there's a couple of like big
Speaker 3: themes that emerge. One is that they're very terrified of boyfriends,
Speaker 3: and they think there's nothing more terrible than a mom,
Speaker 3: a single mom, having a boyfriend. There's a whole fun
Speaker 3: passage I beg you to read, but just just like
Speaker 3: control f boyfriend. Yeah, in Project twenty twenty five. It's
Speaker 3: a ride. But beyond their fear of boyfriends, they really
Speaker 3: don't like information. They don't like people having any information,
Speaker 3: and they would rather the government not gather any information
Speaker 3: because if you gather any information, people might get a
Speaker 3: hold of it, because governments do have to have a
Speaker 3: certain level of transparency. This goes totally to what you're
Speaker 3: talking about. The way you can create false informational worlds
Speaker 3: is by limiting the amount of informationeople actually have. Like
Speaker 3: here you have a poll which doesn't reveal to the
Speaker 3: reader that, oh, in like the next three questions, it
Speaker 3: turns out people don't actually like this policy. They just
Speaker 3: only liked it when it was worded a very specific way.
Speaker 3: And that's really the thing about polling, right, is that like,
Speaker 3: the answer you get from people depends enormously on how
Speaker 3: you ask them a given question. But in the EOS,
Speaker 3: we're seeing a ton of these clauses. In the EOS
Speaker 3: are getting rid of forms of tracking information in government
Speaker 3: so that people will no longer have access to, for example,
Speaker 3: what the demographic makeup of our government even is, or
Speaker 3: of our armed forces, or of you know what the
Speaker 3: impact of various policies and programs, is health tracking in particular,
Speaker 3: like how much are we at danger from bird flu
Speaker 3: versus something else? They would really prefer not to collect
Speaker 3: any data because when you don't collect data, you can
Speaker 3: control people's opinion on policy a lot more through things
Speaker 3: like the framing of the question, because people don't have
Speaker 3: a real informational basis for making decisions. In addition to that,
Speaker 3: there's a whole separate EO on restricting the government's ability
Speaker 3: to go after misinformation and disinformation because to stop to
Speaker 3: stop misinformation and disinformation would impinge on the free speech
Speaker 3: rights of the people who would like to distribute misinformation,
Speaker 3: Like lest the government stop people from lying to you.
Speaker 3: It's it's all this theme of like the government no
Speaker 3: longer wants you to have good information underdone.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean that seemed like the whole Mark Zuckerberg
Speaker 2: like statement was all about like the way in which
Speaker 2: he used like that's like people's opinions and like free speech,
Speaker 2: but he was only talking about like people who support
Speaker 2: Donald Trump's free speech, like very specific definition of that.
Speaker 2: It's it's very strange, but it's like it's not just
Speaker 2: the tech CEOs. It feels like the these you know,
Speaker 2: journalistic institutions are just like currently really not up to
Speaker 2: the task of like dealing with what's happening right now there.
Speaker 3: I can't tell if they're into it or scared. I
Speaker 3: can't tell which it is.
Speaker 1: I think they're into it. I think they've had decades
Speaker 1: to not be into it, and they have never showed
Speaker 1: themselves to not be into it. I mean, I will
Speaker 1: say again, I know I keep beating this drum, but
Speaker 1: we are it feels ever nearer to an actual like
Speaker 1: facts don't care about your feelings, reckoning on just like
Speaker 1: the nature of reality. And I'm just like, I know
Speaker 1: I keep saying it, but it's like, you know, the
Speaker 1: things they believe are largely not true. So like, what
Speaker 1: is it going to be? Just like Made in the
Speaker 1: USA starts to not become the gold standard? Is it
Speaker 1: going to be like you know, fucking like Beijing University
Speaker 1: is where you go instead of Harvard, Like it will
Speaker 1: be something like the rest of the world doesn't have
Speaker 1: to play by these rules and they eventually won't. Like
Speaker 1: what is it going to be? I'm just like, I
Speaker 1: guess I'm hoped. I hope I'll be alive when the
Speaker 1: fucking other shoe drops on this whole shit.
Speaker 2: So I don't know. Sorry, Yeah, I feel like it
Speaker 2: might be sooner than I was expecting prior to a
Speaker 2: couple of weeks ago. But yeah, I don't know. It's
Speaker 2: it's it's Is there anything Emily that is making you
Speaker 2: hopeful besides teachers, which I think is a great example,
Speaker 2: like teachers being willing to fight for their kids, for
Speaker 2: their students, any any other places you're seeing hope.
Speaker 3: One thing I would say is that so much of
Speaker 3: this is local, right, Like I've been watching online as
Speaker 3: like finding videos of a local neighborhood watch like scaring
Speaker 3: off ice agents from their neighborhood and school's not letting
Speaker 3: them in, and you know, ordinary people protecting each other.
Speaker 3: I also think that this is this has the potential
Speaker 3: for a huge informational awakening for Americans in a certain sense.
Speaker 3: I mean, I'm thinking, actually, this is so dumb. But
Speaker 3: do you remember when like TikTok was gone for five
Speaker 3: minutes and everybody got on red note. Yeah, and suddenly
Speaker 3: Americans will like, wait a minute, you get fresh groceries
Speaker 3: for how much? In China? They amaze, like the fantastic
Speaker 3: Chinese grocery halls Americans have managed to become, even without
Speaker 3: a Trump branded isolationism. Americans have for decades been deprived
Speaker 3: of opportunities to really get to know the international community,
Speaker 3: to travel, to learn about the world, to expand their horizons.
Speaker 3: And I think that in that moment you describe Andrew
Speaker 3: of like watching China surpass us in renewable energy and
Speaker 3: get to a clean and low cost energy solution while
Speaker 3: we're still like shoveling coal into furnaces. I think that's
Speaker 3: going to be, I hope, a really healthy awakening for Americans.
Speaker 3: I'm terrified on the healthcare front of the number of
Speaker 3: lives it could cost us to learn this particular lesson.
Speaker 3: But I guess I'm placing a lot of my hope
Speaker 3: in great organizations that are willing to put up a fight,
Speaker 3: in ordinary people who are not naturally compliant and steel
Speaker 3: themselves to say no, even agrins. It's really hard to
Speaker 3: say no to somebody who says, look, I have this
Speaker 3: piece of paper that let's be coming to your home.
Speaker 3: It's really hard to say, nah, judge didn't sign that paper.
Speaker 3: I'm not opening the door. It's hard to do, but
Speaker 3: I have faith in the stubbornness of ordinary Americans. And
Speaker 3: I hope, I hope that if we are able to
Speaker 3: emerge from this without falling prey to the informational lockdown,
Speaker 3: if we're able to retain our ability to get information,
Speaker 3: we're going to come out of this a much better society.
Speaker 2: That is the question, right, That's where like it feels
Speaker 2: like things must be like the way I was talking about,
Speaker 2: like it being a sporting thing where you're like, oh,
Speaker 2: this is the thing that I don't want my opponent
Speaker 2: to do, and they're doing it and that is probably
Speaker 2: smart on their part. Like that's my question thinking through
Speaker 2: for them is like that's going to be the next
Speaker 2: frontier is like, okay, so how do we stop the information?
Speaker 2: Like and it sounds like they're working on that with
Speaker 2: regards to the studies, but just in terms of the
Speaker 2: day to day social media, I'm sure that, you know,
Speaker 2: beyond the TikTok band, I'm sure that's coming too, Right.
Speaker 3: Wouldn't this be great? I mean zcceran bless Zuckerberg's little
Speaker 3: heart is my college classmate.
Speaker 2: Wow, cool guy, cool guy.
Speaker 3: Actually Facebook is old, like I'm old. Facebook's old, Like,
Speaker 3: I also think there's a real chance that like we
Speaker 3: might disconnect from our social media addictions in a really
Speaker 3: different way during these next few years. That could be
Speaker 3: really I mean, once you realize that something you've been
Speaker 3: using as a resource to learn about people around you
Speaker 3: and like what's happening in your community is actually just
Speaker 3: full of junk. I go on Twitter so much less
Speaker 3: now because it's just like so full of like click
Speaker 3: baity anger least just yeah exactly. And if this disconnects
Speaker 3: us from that and we go back to other forms
Speaker 3: of informational engagement and information sharing or we create new forms,
Speaker 3: that'd be great too.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah, I did want to also say a thing
Speaker 1: about the local, like to sort of tag what you
Speaker 1: were sayingly, like even you know, just like doing a
Speaker 1: small amount of mutual aid carding shit around during the
Speaker 1: fires and I mean the fires a just still ongoing,
Speaker 1: but it and just thinking about California. I know I've
Speaker 1: said this on the show closer to when the election was,
Speaker 1: but like you know, liberal ass California couldn't even outlast Slavery.
Speaker 1: So like, there's still plenty of work that you can
Speaker 1: do in your community that will materially move things forward
Speaker 1: and make things better that, however feudile like, and however
Speaker 1: much damage is done and we're watching the repercussions of
Speaker 1: federal government, you can still fix things, repair stuff, help
Speaker 1: people in a way that is material in your community.
Speaker 1: And you should fucking do it because to do it,
Speaker 1: even though you're helping people, you're doing it for yourself
Speaker 1: because you're going to need all this stuff too.
Speaker 3: There's a really good lever for that that nobody thinks about,
Speaker 3: and I want to put it out there for people
Speaker 3: to consider. All of these culture war things. The way
Speaker 3: they get enforced is through prosecution. That's why Donald Trump
Speaker 3: wants to exert so much control over local prosecutors is
Speaker 3: because a lot of this enactment will have to take
Speaker 3: place in the form of criminal prosecution. Public defenders man
Speaker 3: public defenders are so under considered as a sort of
Speaker 3: last bulwark against totalitarianism. They are the people who are
Speaker 3: fighting against you know, the types of detainers that can
Speaker 3: lead to deportation. They are the people that are often
Speaker 3: first to find out when an individual is in jeopardy
Speaker 3: from their government. They are the people best equipped to
Speaker 3: legally intervene. For many people, a public defender is the
Speaker 3: only lawyer they're going to have in their life. They're
Speaker 3: going to have one lawyer, and it's probably the free
Speaker 3: lawyer provided to them, paid by the government to fight
Speaker 3: the government and they there's five nine hundred public defender
Speaker 3: agencies in this country. Most of them are like not
Speaker 3: particularly funded or attended to, but ordinary people can go
Speaker 3: to their account the board of supervisors meeting, say hey,
Speaker 3: how are you resourcing my public defender if my family
Speaker 3: needs a lawyer, Like who is that lawyer and what
Speaker 3: support are they getting and how well are they being paid,
Speaker 3: and like what experts do they have access to and
Speaker 3: what labs are you going to let them use in
Speaker 3: a serious case. I think that it's a moment now
Speaker 3: for people to recognize that public defenders are their counsel
Speaker 3: and they should demand better.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and that's uh, you work on that like that
Speaker 2: executive you're the executive director of Partners for Justice, which
Speaker 2: sounds like that's kind of a focus for you guys, right, Yeah.
Speaker 3: Most of what we do is we help public defenders
Speaker 3: do more stuff beyond the legal matter, So like recognizing
Speaker 3: that a court case can completely upend a person's life
Speaker 3: and cost them their housing, their job, like access to
Speaker 3: their kids, access to medicine. We basically create really strong
Speaker 3: interdisciplinary services inside public defense, a little bit of mutual aid,
Speaker 3: a little bit of services, you know, a lot of
Speaker 3: community networking so that people can walk away from a
Speaker 3: case with their life as intact as possible. It's very
Speaker 3: very pro safety stuff. A lot of the stuff we
Speaker 3: address our underlying drivers of crime. It's also very decarsoral.
Speaker 3: We've eliminated over five thousand years of incarceration in just
Speaker 3: a few years because it turns out what somebody's doing
Speaker 3: really well in the community, a judge is less likely
Speaker 3: to send them to prison. But I'm talking about more
Speaker 3: than that, like more than just what we do. Like
Speaker 3: the daily litigation of public defenders is going to protect
Speaker 3: a lot of people who are being prosecuted for putting
Speaker 3: the wrong book on the library shelf, or seeking an
Speaker 3: abortion or being trans I mean, the lawyer they're going
Speaker 3: to have is probably a public defender. So even beyond
Speaker 3: my work, it's a great place for people to dedicate
Speaker 3: their focus.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and if you're just a citizen talking to your government,
Speaker 1: a great place to find that money is in the
Speaker 1: insane police budget. Just thrown it out there, maybe some
Speaker 1: of those funds that should be taken from the police.
Speaker 2: I don't know, but you know, there's a great study helicopter,
Speaker 2: I don't know, a tank.
Speaker 3: There's a great study on what really well, a lot
Speaker 3: of great studies and won't really create safety. And actually,
Speaker 3: if anybody cares. On the Partners for Justice website, we
Speaker 3: have a little tab that says evidence, and I gathered
Speaker 3: a ton of these studies there if anybody wants data
Speaker 3: on safety. But there's a wonderful overview we did on
Speaker 3: how environmental design creates safety. And it turns out that
Speaker 3: if you want to lower the homicide rate, you are
Speaker 3: better off planting trees than hiring more cops. I mean
Speaker 3: some street lighting trees. And that's not only on homicides.
Speaker 3: Like buildings with more greenery, like more beautifully greened buildings
Speaker 3: are not only less likely to be burglarized, they also
Speaker 3: have less domestic violence inside the building. So there's all
Speaker 3: these things we could spend money on that might work better.
Speaker 3: And more more subway cops playing candy crush, Yeah I.
Speaker 1: Know this is not the way the directionality window or
Speaker 1: arrow goes, but also less domestic violence if there's fewer cops.
Speaker 2: Right, let's just throw it out there could be I
Speaker 2: don't I actually don't know if that's the direction that
Speaker 2: the cause out.
Speaker 1: Guys are bad guy.
Speaker 2: Let's take a quick break. We'll be right back, and
Speaker 2: we're back, and we do have to get to one
Speaker 2: piece of legislation that's giving us hope, and that is
Speaker 2: a Connecticut bill that would force movie theaters to admit
Speaker 2: when the movie actually starts when listening when listing movie times,
Speaker 2: that you know it would have the here's when the
Speaker 2: previous start, but here's when the movie actually starts, like functionally,
Speaker 2: which I don't know. It like people are saying that
Speaker 2: it's like I don't know if these are industry plants,
Speaker 2: but I've read people being like, well, it's easy to
Speaker 2: like know when it is just like don't show up
Speaker 2: for twenty minutes. But I've definitely like it's a moving target.
Speaker 2: Like I showed up at Barbie twenty minutes late because
Speaker 2: I assumed that movie would have so many trailers before
Speaker 2: it because it was like a massive hit. But it
Speaker 2: was like it started five minutes after the showtime because
Speaker 2: they were just trying to like get as much turnover
Speaker 2: as like, so they're trying to cram as many showtimes
Speaker 2: as possible because so many people are going to see it.
Speaker 2: And then I've been to movies where like, I don't know.
Speaker 2: I I'm a let's get there in time for the
Speaker 2: previews type of person. And I was even just like,
Speaker 2: you know, forty five minutes later, like looking at my phone,
Speaker 2: being like, how has the movie still not started? So
Speaker 2: it feels wild sometimes and this, yeah, just I don't know.
Speaker 2: It's there's so few pieces of like I don't know
Speaker 2: any just ideas that seem to be focused on, like
Speaker 2: helping people, maybe helping people's lives be more comfortable. Like
Speaker 2: I'm putting this in the category of the congestion pricing
Speaker 2: in New York the tri state area really coming through
Speaker 2: for the consumers, But I don't know what what are
Speaker 2: what are you guys' thoughts here?
Speaker 1: I also love the trailers, and I was going to
Speaker 1: say this would create pressure potentially to have better trailers,
Speaker 1: more entertaining trailers, which would probably put pressure on having
Speaker 1: more and better entertaining movies. But what I really think
Speaker 1: is going to happen is going to put pressure on
Speaker 1: for like two dollars extra to your ticket, they won't
Speaker 1: run a lower third of the ad concurrently with the movie.
Speaker 2: Yeah, movies with ads.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I suspect that's actually what's going.
Speaker 2: To happen free V the movie theater model that they turn.
Speaker 1: Off the part of your neurallink that just puts the
Speaker 1: trailer in your field of vision while it's going.
Speaker 3: Yeah, oh man, that got dark faster than I expected
Speaker 3: it too, That is what is going to happen. I
Speaker 3: I am all for more information. People have an information
Speaker 3: to make informed choices. I could also say, like, there's
Speaker 3: so much about the movie going experience that could be
Speaker 3: improved to help theaters do better. You know, when I
Speaker 3: moved to New York from California and I found out
Speaker 3: that people were wearing garbage bags to the movie theater
Speaker 3: to not get bed bugs, I was like, you know,
Speaker 3: that's like, we don't do that in California.
Speaker 1: We don't.
Speaker 3: We don't need to wear a hazmat suit. Actually, So,
Speaker 3: if what you're relying on to keep the theater in
Speaker 3: business is people being disgruntled as they unwillingly sit through
Speaker 3: trailers they didn't want to be at, probably not a
Speaker 3: sustainable business model anyway, right, And yeah, yeah, get a
Speaker 3: reclining chair serve people some steak tips. I don't know.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I actually don't like movie theaters that do that
Speaker 2: that aren't I don't only think I like. I don't
Speaker 2: like the ones that are like, we're actually a restaurant
Speaker 2: and you have to just deal with waiters walking in
Speaker 2: front of you. I'm more of an old school popcorn
Speaker 2: and Sarpach kids person.
Speaker 3: How did you feel about the Alamo draft House, Like
Speaker 3: when they got really really strict and everybody loved it
Speaker 3: and their business went through the roof. They were like
Speaker 3: kicking people out for whispering.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I guess I don't. I don't mind that as much.
Speaker 2: I guess I just haven't had like a great Almo
Speaker 2: draft House experience. Maybe that's that's it. I just need
Speaker 2: to I don't know. There's something about the movie going
Speaker 2: experience where I just like want to not have to
Speaker 2: order things in the middle of it, Like I want
Speaker 2: to want that drug to kick in where I'm just
Speaker 2: like in the hands of the director or whatever, you know.
Speaker 1: I like being in the hands of the of the
Speaker 1: cinema and then a waiter goes by to your neighbors,
Speaker 1: like the case I was really hot and it's just
Speaker 1: a fall. It's just delightful. Don't remember where you are.
Speaker 1: I mean, I will say a little bit the counterpoint,
Speaker 1: because any fool could could watch a pretty good, you
Speaker 1: know movie at home these days. Yeah, I do think
Speaker 1: it's a massive humanity is what you want when you
Speaker 1: go to a theater these days, So like, just make
Speaker 1: it fucking crazy pants. I don't care.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, I agree, Like just any anything to get
Speaker 2: in a room with other people and watch a movie.
Speaker 2: Go go nuts, guys. I'm open to everything, but like
Speaker 2: not things that are again, I mean, it came up
Speaker 2: with the AI with like tricking people. It seems like
Speaker 2: it's such a big and accepted part of capitalism these
Speaker 2: days that we're just like, yeah, we just got to
Speaker 2: get better at tricking people. And then this law is
Speaker 2: coming up and people are like, if we stop letting
Speaker 2: us trick people, then we lose a big chunk of
Speaker 2: like revenue for I get because I guess movie theaters
Speaker 2: are paid for showing.
Speaker 1: Well, no, this was this was the question, right or
Speaker 1: did did we did this? Guy looked up? I was
Speaker 1: like kind of speculating on this prior to recording. I think,
Speaker 1: but this happened this weekend. I was talking to my
Speaker 1: friend in the theater, and I was just like, which
Speaker 1: direction does the revenue go when a movie theater plays
Speaker 1: a trailer which is an AD, but it's also an
Speaker 1: ad for a product that they sell at the place
Speaker 1: where they're showing it, right, And I literally have no idea.
Speaker 1: I don't know if you know Warner plays Alamo draft House.
Speaker 1: Alamo draft House maybe pays Warner. That doesn't make that
Speaker 1: much sense or no one?
Speaker 3: I thought I got a distribution deal with the feature.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think that's what it is, actually part of
Speaker 2: the movie. This is not from the AI answer. I'm
Speaker 2: skipping past the aioverview to a article from how Stuff Works.
Speaker 2: Shout out to the old house Stuff Works. Traditionally, production
Speaker 2: companies do not pay to show trailers before movies. Rather,
Speaker 2: producers and theaters benefit from an exchange of services. Theaters
Speaker 2: get to screen their chosen feature films, and in return,
Speaker 2: producers and studios get to show their chosen trailers, so
Speaker 2: they get to decide.
Speaker 3: I'm so happy I remember that from my long ago
Speaker 3: job writing for these sidelines.
Speaker 1: Yeah. But then, so like Sony owns draft House, could
Speaker 1: they force AMC to play draft House ads in front
Speaker 1: of a Sony movie.
Speaker 2: Problem, why not, Yeah, I'm sure they could. A writer
Speaker 2: JM was pointing out. Jam mcknapp was pointing out that
Speaker 2: this is a long distance we've come from. Do you
Speaker 2: guys remember when Meet Joe Black had like a noticeable
Speaker 2: spike in ticket sales because the trailer for The Phantom
Speaker 2: Menace was attached to it, like happened before it, and
Speaker 2: people were just going to buying tickets for Meet Joe
Speaker 2: Black just to watch the trailer for the Phantom Menace
Speaker 2: and then like leaving the theater.
Speaker 1: I mean, I'll watch a movie trailer on YouTube, so
Speaker 1: I'll watch an ad that also has an ad break
Speaker 1: within it. So like, as you know, we're stupid as
Speaker 1: a culture, that's right, or I am stupid as a
Speaker 1: human being. I guess we'll be.
Speaker 3: No, I've been bothered by the same thing. Every time
Speaker 3: I can go to the trailer and the ad starts up,
Speaker 3: I'm like, but it's but I'm already.
Speaker 2: Watching an ad on Purple.
Speaker 3: This was consensual and now it's not exactly.
Speaker 2: Well, Emily, such a pleasure having you, where can people
Speaker 2: find you? Follow you? All that good stuff?
Speaker 3: So on pretty much everything on Twitter on or x
Speaker 3: on blue Sky on Instagram. I'm at Galvin Almanza. It's
Speaker 3: my last name, and you can also check out Partners
Speaker 3: for Justice at Partnersforjustice dot org.
Speaker 2: All right, and is there a work of media that
Speaker 2: you've been enjoying.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean, honestly, I'm reading the new uh Moracami novel.
Speaker 3: It's really good. It's for people who are like into
Speaker 3: Japanese surrealist fiction. It takes place in an imaginary walled
Speaker 3: city where people are deprived of their shadows. So escapism
Speaker 3: is good right now, Like, just go dive into a
Speaker 3: book and live in a different world for three weeks
Speaker 3: at a time.
Speaker 1: I hard recommend that motherfucker loves or hates shadows. I
Speaker 1: can't remember which. I mean.
Speaker 3: He's mean to shiftados, He's like, bad things are happening.
Speaker 3: The shadows are essentially enslaved in this and.
Speaker 1: There's there's shadows Hard Boiled Wonderland at the End of
Speaker 1: the World.
Speaker 2: This is the sequel to that.
Speaker 3: This is Yeah. I wasn't going to go into a
Speaker 3: total nerd conversation for your audience, but yes, if you
Speaker 3: read Hard Boiled Wonderland and The End of the World,
Speaker 3: just right, up where that lived off, same walled city,
Speaker 3: same unicorns, same problematic marginalization of shadows.
Speaker 1: Weird, weird relationship to women and food.
Speaker 2: Years yeah, years, and ship's there? You get Andrew? Where
Speaker 2: can people find you? Is there work Amedia you've been enjoying? Oh?
Speaker 1: Man?
Speaker 2: Uh?
Speaker 1: Just Andrew tea? It doesn't really matter where? Who cares?
Speaker 1: I guess. The last thing that I haven't recommended on Daily's,
Speaker 1: like I sed in some form, is I'm rereading a
Speaker 1: book by China Meeville called Last Days of New Paris,
Speaker 1: which is sort of I forgot, but it's sort of
Speaker 1: a spiritual companion to the other I think I recommended,
Speaker 1: or I said I was enjoying between two Fires, But
Speaker 1: Last Day's of New Paris is another book of just
Speaker 1: like rebels wandering around a fucked up version of France.
Speaker 1: And this one is speaking of surrealists. It's it's in
Speaker 1: a parallel universe, not to the occupied Paris, but all
Speaker 1: the like Surrealists' work of art have come to life,
Speaker 1: and are these enormous monsters wandering around with seemingly no aim.
Speaker 1: And it's it's real depressing. The one thing that really
Speaker 1: has been fucking me up on it is. I've been
Speaker 1: trying to read from a physical book at night without
Speaker 1: my phone, and my knowledge of art history is not
Speaker 1: good enough. So there's a lot of terms of literal
Speaker 1: art being dropped that I am not clear if they
Speaker 1: are science fiction terms that he invented for the book
Speaker 1: or actual art terms. So pink, it's very confusing, Yeah exactly,
Speaker 1: Yeah no, but it's just all these like casual name
Speaker 1: drops and like slang truncations of like famous surrealist works
Speaker 1: of art that I'm just like, I don't know if
Speaker 1: there's a monster you made up, I don't know, there's.
Speaker 2: No anymore.
Speaker 1: B I'm so confused. Anyways, it is a good book,
Speaker 1: and I read it a long time ago, but I
Speaker 1: should not be reading it without a phone, even though
Speaker 1: that's what I'm trying to do.
Speaker 2: It's going very slowly. Godspeed to you, sir. Thanks amazing.
Speaker 2: You can find me on Twitter at Jack Underscore Obrian
Speaker 2: on Blue Sky Jack ob The number one I've been enjoying.
Speaker 2: I watched a movie because I heard that Stanley Kubrick
Speaker 2: called it the most terrifying movie I'd ever seen, and
Speaker 2: so I watched over the weekend, The Vanishing which is
Speaker 2: a Dutch film that is real fucked up, and highly
Speaker 2: recommend a real compelling, interesting watch. And yes I felt
Speaker 2: compelled to go a little highbrow becauseous series right now,
Speaker 2: it's real precious.
Speaker 1: But also I have recommended a bunch of trash TV
Speaker 1: the Lastness.
Speaker 2: Yeah, this is not a super challenging movie as long
Speaker 2: as you're willing to read the SubTime yeah ooo folk
Speaker 2: subtitles all right. You can find us on Twitter at
Speaker 2: daily Zeitgeist, where at the Daily Zeitgeist on Instagram, we
Speaker 2: have a Facebook fan page and a website, Daily zeitgeist
Speaker 2: dot com. You can go to the episode wherever you're
Speaker 2: listening to this and check out the description of the
Speaker 2: episode you listen to, and you will find the footnotes
Speaker 2: which will link off to the information that we talked
Speaker 2: about in today's episode. We also look off to a
Speaker 2: song that we think you might enjoy. Miles is out,
Speaker 2: and when Miles is out, we like to ask super
Speaker 2: producer Justin Conner, is there a song that you think
Speaker 2: people might enjoy?
Speaker 4: Yeah, this is one of the few times where I
Speaker 4: don't have like a long, flowery description of the track.
Speaker 4: I'm going the opposite of pretentious. The counterbalance the recommend.
Speaker 4: But this is a really fun track. It's called Wiggy
Speaker 4: by Puerto Rican rapper Young Miko, and it's just really fun.
Speaker 4: It's got a deeply resonant, elastic like ato weight bass
Speaker 4: and the sporadic rhythm changes in the top end of
Speaker 4: the percussion. Her delivery is just full of swagger and
Speaker 4: it's it's amazing because she's bilingual and I don't know
Speaker 4: what she's saying, but it sounds extremely confident and it
Speaker 4: puts me in a good mood. So this again is
Speaker 4: Wiggy by Young Miko, and you can find that song
Speaker 4: in the footnotes footnotes.
Speaker 2: The Daily Zeitkes is a production of iHeartRadio. For more
Speaker 2: podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the iHeartRadio w ap Apple Podcasts
Speaker 2: or wherever you listen to your favorite shows. That's gonna
Speaker 2: do it for us this morning. We're back this afternoon
Speaker 2: to tell you what is trending, and we'll talk to
Speaker 2: you all then Bye.