Executive Orders 101, If Movie Times Were Honest 01.28.25

In episode 1804, Jack and guest co-host Andrew Ti are joined by poet, lawyer, and co-founder and Executive Director of Partners for Justice, Emily Galvin-Almanza, to discuss… Executive Orders: Now That They Seem to Run the US… How Do Those Work? NYTimes Trying to Manufacture Consent for Trump Policies? Kroger X Microsoft Collab To Make Surge Pricing Groceries A Thing, A Connecticut Bill Would Force Movie Theaters To Admit When The Movie Actually Starts and more!

1. NYTimes Trying to Manufacture Consent for Trump Policies?
2. Support for Trump’s Policies Exceeds Support for Trump
3. A Connecticut Bill Would Force Movie Theaters To Admit When The Movie Actually Starts
4. When does a movie really start? Connecticut official wants theaters to post accurate times
5. ‘Star Wars: The Phantom Menace’ Introduced Trailer Culture 20 Years Ago

LISTEN: wiggy by Young Miko

L.A. Wildfire Relief:

1. DONATE: Support the Kaller/Gray Family's Recovery
2. Zeitgang Lightsaber Auction and Fundraiser
3. Displaced Black Families GoFund Me Directory

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:05):
I don't know.

Speaker 2 (00:05):
I did not think that it was like treated as
we'll pay you to advertise or movie. But that makes
sense because.

Speaker 1 (00:12):
There's every other venue gets money to play an ad
when you play their ads, right. But yeah, but also
it's a little different because the movie theater is also
the place where you it's.

Speaker 2 (00:24):
Arguably to Yeah, they're advertising their own product. Yeah, but
maybe they're not. That's my question. I think everybody's paying
Nicole Kidman. Yeah, it's all flowing back to her.

Speaker 1 (00:38):
If she had any if she wanted to fully vertically integrate,
she would just buy a trailer house and fucking just
own every that whole twenty five minutes. That's Kidman.

Speaker 2 (00:48):
She just like comes in and is like ooh. After
every trailer, they just cut back to Nicole Kidman being
like enjoying the trailer.

Speaker 1 (00:58):
Damn.

Speaker 2 (00:59):
Yeah, I mean why not because when you're watching Morebius,
your family, she's not when you're here your family. That's
all off garden. But it feels like the sort of
thing you could say.

Speaker 1 (01:10):
Right because there's something in the yeah, the magic in
a place like this.

Speaker 2 (01:14):
Yeah, because when you're here, you should be watching herself
in Baby Girl. Yes, Yeah, Yeah, he having some.

Speaker 1 (01:24):
Baby girl milk crazy having some milk.

Speaker 2 (01:28):
Yeah, I didn't. I didn't see baby girls. Just going
off of what I know.

Speaker 1 (01:35):
Babies, there's milk in it. It works on two levels. Yeah, yeah,
baby having milk in that.

Speaker 3 (01:45):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (01:52):
Hello the Internet and welcome to Season three, seventy three,
Episode two of dar Day's I Guys stayt of iHeartRadio.
Oh hell yeah brother. This is a podcast where we
take a deep dive into america shared consciousness. We now
have a YouTube channel, YouTube slash at Daily's like guys,

(02:14):
you can go check out YouTube. You can go see
some video apps. It's Tuesday, January twenty eighth, twenty twenty five.
My name is Jack O'Brien AKA Deep Seek. Yeah coded
on the down low, the shit in the pants of
many tech bross. That one courtesy of Christy Amagucci Mane

(02:36):
a little creep from TLC and speaking of tea. Thrilled
to be joined in our mile seat by hilarious and
brilliant producer and TV writer you know him from the
jozas Racist podcast.

Speaker 1 (02:51):
It's Andrew T. I'm just I'm the come clean. Normally
I don't have an AKA because I got asked to
Last Minute is the single mostly time I've ever had
for I'm gonna be guest hosting, and I completely forgot
a k A U I T I yeah T I T.

Speaker 2 (03:14):
T Bazz was the of the crazy sexy cool album
I believe I don't.

Speaker 1 (03:20):
Know correct yeah yeah, Last.

Speaker 2 (03:24):
Chili was sexy cool and you don't know what we're
talking about.

Speaker 1 (03:31):
And the best Karen haircut have her possible?

Speaker 2 (03:35):
I believe T Bazz she was.

Speaker 1 (03:37):
She's the T Baz was the only good person to
have that haircut.

Speaker 2 (03:41):
It's so interesting how influential she is with Karens. The
Karens were like, just give me the ta buzz. Anyways,
we Andrew are thrilled to be joined in our third
seat by a poet and lawyer who is the co
founder and executive director of Partners for Justice, which is
does to create a new model of collaborative public defense

(04:03):
designed to on power. You probably read her dive on
Twitter into Project twenty twenty five last year. Well, now
Project twenty twenty five is here, and so is she.
Please welcome back to the show, Emily Galvin Almonza.

Speaker 3 (04:20):
Thank you so much for having me without without any
ak's at all, just notorious in my own right.

Speaker 2 (04:24):
Glad to be here, The Notorious and Malee if that's something.

Speaker 1 (04:31):
Squire, yeah, I'll take it.

Speaker 2 (04:33):
I'll take it. Yeah, the Notorious ESQ. It's great to
have you. Thank you so much for coming back during
these these wonderful times. It turns out that Project twenty
twenty five stuff that you are warning us about, no
big deal everything, Everything turned out pretty Wait, I'm seeing
here that is not the case.

Speaker 1 (04:54):
It's bad.

Speaker 2 (04:57):
It's bad. So we're gonna talk about that. We're going
to talk about that. We're also going to talk about
something that following you on Twitter made me aware of,
which is that Kroger and Microsoft doing a little collabo
to use your face to give you not boutique. What's
the thing where it's like gatory predatory pricing, predatory pricing.

(05:22):
I was going to say bespoke, but that's probably how
the it was, like, you know.

Speaker 3 (05:27):
Bespoke suits are better. This is like making something worse.
So it's like the opposite.

Speaker 2 (05:31):
Of a spoke. We're presenting you with bespoke egg prices
that are designed to charge you as much money as
you are willing to pay. We're definitely going to talk
about a bill that would force movie theaters to admit
when the movie actually starts. All of that plenty more.
But first, Emily, we do like to ask our guests,

(05:53):
what is something from your search history?

Speaker 3 (05:57):
Oh my gosh, I looked it up for you. Ex
said you were going to ask me this, and I
realized the last thing I searched for was Locutus of Borg.
Because we are now, yes, I have a seven year old.
We are phenomenal parents, which means we watch way too
much Star Trek in the evenings when we're exhausted after work.
So from school were we're dipping into Star Trek the

(06:18):
next generation. Now we're like at that point where Patrick
Stewart's character is about to be overtaken by the Borg collective,
and I wanted to prep the kid for it, mostly
so that she doesn't talk about it too much at school.
We've already had a complaint from another parent that she
frightened their child by talking about the Borg.

Speaker 2 (06:35):
So, so explain the Borg to me, as though I'm
not a Star Trek fan.

Speaker 3 (06:41):
Oh man, okay, so the Borg are. I'm going to
pretend that you're pretending, because of course you are, as
all good people are The Borg collective is a sort
of species of quasi species that assimilates other species by
taking them over, putting technology to their heads, basically making
them part of a hive mind. And so every creature

(07:04):
in the universe is at risk of becoming co opted
by this this hive mind and forced to serve the
goals of the Borg queen.

Speaker 1 (07:11):
Yah.

Speaker 3 (07:11):
There's a lot of parallels, a lot of parallels you.

Speaker 1 (07:13):
Can talk about.

Speaker 2 (07:14):
Yes, I have heard references to this. I think maybe
in the Simpsons if you've ever heard of that show.

Speaker 3 (07:21):
Well, yeah, I don't know.

Speaker 2 (07:23):
Yeah, how are you making I have a six and
an eight year old. We were trying to decide what
to watch this weekend. It was a dude house weekend.
My wife was out of town. I was like, they
still haven't seen Back to the Future. Amazing, We're gonna
show them back to the future. And then I told

(07:45):
another parent that and they were like, uh so there's
that whole like runner about incest and I was like, yeah, okay,
like in the scene where like the people are getting
shot with machine guns and so I just pumped the
brakes on it. But we are you just kind of

(08:05):
vibing it out? How do you How intentional are you
on your decision making on what to show your seven
year old.

Speaker 3 (08:11):
I made a fantastic decision early, which is that I
don't want to watch any kid stuff. So she just
has to figure out what things of my of the
things I actually want to watch, we can watch together,
which result in a lot of like nineteen fifties musicals consume.

Speaker 1 (08:23):
Yeah, oh wowk Yeah.

Speaker 3 (08:25):
And then you know, she reads a lot, and I
can't read faster than she does, so she's getting a
lot of content in the books she's reading that I
can't keep up with.

Speaker 1 (08:33):
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (08:33):
I try to just gauge from her reactions what she's
comfortable with, like, for example, only murders in the Building
Steve Martin, Martin short Selena Gormas. She loves it. Okay,
there's death in the show. There's but it's like a
game of clue.

Speaker 2 (08:46):
Suggest you know that one doesn't sneak up on you.
I had a feeling there death in that one.

Speaker 3 (08:51):
Yeah, And honestly, like a lot of the like Back
to the Future, I would not assume that the kids
would even pick up on. Sure, the ancest joke I
try to just went from like really gory stuff, although
she defeated me in that too. There was a while
when she was like four or five and she got
really into those veterinarian shows on like whatever reality channel
just has like doctor Pole, like with his arm all

(09:14):
the way up inside a cow. She was really into that.

Speaker 1 (09:17):
So, yeah, does that count as gore in your mind?
I can really think viscera technically gore, I guess would be.
I'm not a parent. Yeah, if it's of.

Speaker 3 (09:28):
My biological interest, I'm down. If it's gratuitous, not really sure.

Speaker 2 (09:33):
And super producer Victor, who is the into that sort
of thing, uh no, he says that those types of
shows get super bloody.

Speaker 1 (09:40):
Out of nowhere, as does medicine, so does surgery.

Speaker 2 (09:45):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (09:46):
Wait, we talked about this a little bit yesterday. I
can't believe. Not I can't believe, but I am impressed
that you have a seven year old in twenty twenty
five who can handle the pacing of TNG. I think
I'm watching as an adult. I'm watching my attention span
not be able to handle stuff made in the nineties,
like just like story wise, and I guess editing wise.

(10:07):
So I think that is amazing.

Speaker 3 (10:09):
Honestly, Hey, I protected her from the brain rot that
got all of us. Man, She's like she's never been
on YouTube, but she you know, reads Enid Blyton, so
TG is like exactly the right vibe for her.

Speaker 2 (10:21):
Right level. Yeah yeah, I yeah. We were talking about
how there's a thing called the millennial pause on videos
where with millennials, who are the old ones in this scenario,
they take like quarter of a second to put their
phone down before they start talking, and whereas gen Z
starts talking as they're putting their phone down, and like

(10:41):
the millennial pause is like making fun of millennials really
not for not knowing how fast media, like how grabby
media is supposed to be, because there's a split second
at the very beginning of their videos where they're putting
their still putting their phone down. So that's where we're
at for people who on YouTube. I've managed to keep

(11:02):
mine off of that, but I did make the mistake
of showing my eight year old Transformers and so he
has Michael Michael Bay in his veins.

Speaker 1 (11:11):
All the live action transit.

Speaker 2 (11:13):
Yeah yeah, oh my god, fucked up. I made a
bus mistake.

Speaker 1 (11:18):
There's just like it's just like a huge, like a
human being made out of knives.

Speaker 2 (11:22):
It's so pleasant, that's what he's into. What is Emily
something you think is underrated?

Speaker 3 (11:29):
I think that the commitment of teachers to protect their
students right now has been heavily underrated. I'm thinking about
this a lot, obviously, because the conversation right now is
how far into schools will immigration enforcement get? And you're
hearing a lot from these schools that are trying to
get ready for ice agents showing up the door and

(11:51):
wanting to take children out of school. And I think
we've really underrated the fact that we've got teachers now
who have been in these classrooms for decades knowing that
there's a chance they might have to take a bullet
for one of these kids, right. And I don't think
that the government has really thought through how ferociously a

(12:12):
teacher who's willing to die for their students will protect
them from being taken by men with guns.

Speaker 1 (12:18):
Right.

Speaker 3 (12:19):
So I think the ferocity of teachers has been substantially underrated.

Speaker 2 (12:23):
Yeah, yeah, I'm seeing people talking about that and you know,
working together on that question of like how to avoid
having them use that those students' access to public education
or education to against their families.

Speaker 3 (12:41):
Well, can I have a lawyer in your moment, not
just for may I please, may I please. So, what
I'm liking that I'm seeing from a lot of schools
is that schools are ready to look for judicial warrants.
This is really important. I'm going to put it out
of here right now, because anybody who's listening to this
should be told that ICE will often kind of show
up with like their own law warrant that they made

(13:03):
for themselves, and it's not actually a warrant, it's just
a document that they wrote for themselves saying, hey, I
have the right to talk to you in public. Well,
guess what, ICE, you always have the right to talk
to people in public. They don't have to talk to you,
they have a right not to talk to you, right,
But they make this document. Then when people say, hey,
do you have a warrant, they show them this document,
which is, guess what, not a judicial warrant.

Speaker 2 (13:25):
Right.

Speaker 3 (13:25):
If somebody's saying they have the right to come into
your school, or your home or your business, and if
they want to enter, they're like vampires. You have to
either invite them in or they have to have a
judicial warrant that has like the name of a court
on it, and it's actually signed by a judge, and
it actually has this address of this location printed on
it where the judge has signed and affirmed that. So

(13:46):
what I want people to know is if ICE shows
up at your house or your business and they're like, hey,
you have to let us in, and you say, hey, yeah,
where's your warrant and they don't have a piece of
paper signed by a judge, treat them like vampires right
there you go.

Speaker 1 (13:58):
Yeah, and I also heard is don't even open your door,
talk to them through the door. And they will also
break all kinds of rules, right.

Speaker 2 (14:06):
Yeah, yeah, and they will. They're like vampires if vampires
could arbitrarily just break the rules sometimes and be like, ah,
fuck it, what are what are the consequences?

Speaker 3 (14:14):
I admit I'm not aware of the full scope of
what vampires are capable of.

Speaker 2 (14:18):
Yeah, I think they're physically like they try to get
to the door like vampires. So basically I'm saying vampires
are better than I sations.

Speaker 3 (14:26):
I would also definitely rather have vampires at the door,
Yeah for sure.

Speaker 1 (14:29):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (14:30):
Yeah, what is something you think is overrated?

Speaker 3 (14:33):
M generally chat bots like you keep talking about how
y'all it's so great, and these chatbots can like write
stuff for you. First of all, whenever somebody gives me
a document that has some like chat bot authorship, it's
very apparent. Sure, But also like the use cases I've
had for they lie all the time. In the law.
They're really bad because they'll often just like make up

(14:56):
cases that sound really plausible that don't really exist. And
you're like torching millions of gallons of water to have
some very bland pros produced for you that probably is
full of lies.

Speaker 2 (15:10):
It just doesn't feel like it's unreliable.

Speaker 1 (15:12):
Yes, yeah, yeah.

Speaker 2 (15:14):
We were talking about this on last week's episode, that
the Google AI like answer. At the beginning, I was
trying to find out what scene happens forty five minutes
into Jaws, A perfectly understandable question because back when the
movie first came out, somebody died of a heart attack
forty five minutes into Jaws, or at least that's what
the movie's marketing. What have you believe? So I was like,

(15:35):
what scene did it? You know? And I googled that,
and Google's AI result gave me the most confident answer.
It was like, forty five minutes into Jaws. This is
the most famous scene of the movie where a woman
swimmer is attacked by a shark and it's the first
time you see the shark and Chief Brody says, we're

(15:57):
going to need a bigger boat. So they combined like
four different parts of the Yeah, they just combined all
the different scenes of the movie and said that that
was but so confidently, no hint that they're just making
it up because they want to please to Eddy, which
is what I'm interesting. But yeah, it's really a bet product.

Speaker 1 (16:20):
Yeah, yeah, it seemed I was. I did a trivia
night last night at a bar where one of the
questions is one you could google ahead and the sort
of long story short version is I We got the
correct answer even though we knew it was incorrect because
the AI summary at the very top said the incorrect

(16:40):
set of facts. And we were like the trivia question
writer who probably makes minimum wage ish, right, definitely didn't
look past the AI summary. So whatever AI summary says
is the answer, even though it is factually incorrect. Right, Yeah,
you just got to hack one level higher of whatever
the user is going to be doing. And it's so

(17:04):
it's the.

Speaker 3 (17:04):
Way we're amazing at trivia night going to be real
bad in like emergency medicine.

Speaker 2 (17:09):
Right, yeah, yeah, yeah, exactly.

Speaker 1 (17:11):
Well, I mean I think it's like sort of proven
that the fact that its maximum use case seems to
be cheating in college is it is exactly that it's
like a bad college student worth of.

Speaker 2 (17:21):
Brain cheating to get to be like a C student
in college.

Speaker 1 (17:24):
It seems to be well not even brain. Sorry, but
just like ojibberish.

Speaker 2 (17:28):
Yeah, I mean that Deep Seek, the Chinese AI product
that is cratering the tech economy as of yesterday at least,
was like that one of the features that they have
is rather than trying to do the mechanical turk thing
and like make it a magic trick behind the scenes,

(17:50):
you're able to look at like how it shows between
different answers and like what the logic was, like that
it shows you under the hood, because again, it's not
a product that they're trying to like make billions of
dollars better than yeah they're and they're not trying Yeah,
they're not trying to value with the magic trick. They're like,
this is a thing we've researched that you using it

(18:12):
helps us continue to research and make better So that
seems better, but yeah, I think probably it will still
be like and the answer is like write sixty percent
of the time.

Speaker 3 (18:25):
I don't know any curated data sets that the ones
that work from curated data sets where all the data
coming in is screened. I like, I'm good with like
a better search interface. That's fine, letting things loose on
the internet, just.

Speaker 1 (18:37):
Yeah, right, yeah, yeahah, the famous not chock full of
lies Internet.

Speaker 2 (18:43):
Right, exactly, good data set. Let's take a quick break
and we'll come back and talk about executive orders. We'll
be right back, and we're back. And so, Emily, you

(19:07):
are a lawyer who understands how all of these various
things that you know understood when Project twenty twenty five
was released, like what the implications of all these various
things mean. And now the executive orders have been issued,

(19:27):
the pens have been thrown into a cheering crowd like
their fucking Lebron's arm bands. But just to like start
not to go again, like you're gonna have to work
with me here and just pretend this is gonna be
hard for you. Pretend that I'm an idiot who doesn't

(19:47):
know exactly what executive orders are, how they work just
for one hundred miles up. What what are these executive
orders that and like we've been told they're and like
that's why Biden and you know other Democrats weren't using them,
and yet Trump came and like just dropped, flooded the

(20:09):
zone with bullshit, flooded the zone with executive orders. And
now it seems like there's a lot of action happening
as a result of those executive orders. So just like
trying to find the answer in all that madness.

Speaker 3 (20:24):
Yeah, so I think first of all, we can start
off with one thing that I think you're not an
idiot if you don't know this. A lot of people
don't know this, that an executive order is not the
same as a law past by Congress.

Speaker 2 (20:33):
Right.

Speaker 3 (20:34):
An executive order does have some legal force, but it's
basically a thing that the President said the executive branch
is going to do, and the president only has the
ability to direct certain people in agencies. So anything that's
under the executive branch of our government, that's a lot
of stuff. Because all those big administrative agencies that you
hear about, or the Department of Justice, the Department of Health,

(20:56):
the Department of the Department transportation. He can direct all
of those agencies about how they're going to function, what
policies they're going to use, how they're going to hire
and fire. Like he can do a lot of that
direction through these executive orders. He cannot, though, do a
lot of the stuff that he's trying. Me he's kind
of treating executive orders like a magic wand or a
genie in a bottle, like trying to erase the fourteenth

(21:19):
Amendment on Martin Luther King Junior day, Like that's what
he's trying to do with some of these orders, and
you can't. There's a reason that order got stopped in
its tracks about fifteen minutes after it left his desk,
because there are limits to what executive orders can do.
That being said, there's also a lot of avenues in
which agencies have a ton of power. So how he
directs ICE to perform immigration enforcement, for example, or how

(21:42):
he directs other agencies to address drug prices, or how
he you know, directs environmental policy, all of that can
be impacted by executive orders.

Speaker 2 (21:51):
Got it. And so the idea that like Biden could
be because like so that there's looking at the past
residential terms that have used executive orders. I think in
late December, Biden had issued about one hundred and sixty.
Trump during his first full term did two hundred and twenty.
FDR did three thousand, seven hundred and twenty one, which

(22:14):
I guess he was president for a number of years,
but that's still.

Speaker 1 (22:17):
It's still a lot.

Speaker 2 (22:19):
So it seems like, I don't know, I had just
always heard, yeah, well, we're not gonna like use executive
orders because of it's set a bad, bad president and ultimately,
like you know, could be overturned. But it feels, you know,
as as somebody who's not a fan of these particular
executive orders, like they're I don't know, like when when

(22:41):
you're a sports fan and the other team does the
thing you don't want them to do, that's usually the
right thing, you know. It's like, oh that that makes
me uncomfortable. Therefore that's probably the the they're thing. They're
doing the thing that like we're everybody like wish they
weren't doing, which the way that the government currently runs

(23:04):
seems like is the correct way for them to do
all the authoritarianism that they have in mind. So I
guess I'm just curious to hear like, what do you
think of this strategy like throwing a bunch of these
at the wall and some of them being outside the
purview of like a normal executive order and some of
them being just like making a statement essentially. Do you

(23:29):
think that that is going to work? Do you think
that do you wish that more progressive presidential if you
can imagine a more progressive presidential administration than this one,
that more progressive presidential administrations like we should be wanting
them to do.

Speaker 3 (23:48):
So we're at this really difficult crossroads, right, which is that,
first of all, the idea that Donald Trump would not
do something because Biden refrained from doing it is hilarious
to me, like, oh, we wouldn't want to set a
bad president because clearly, if we don't do the bad thing,
donald Trump will also not do the bad thing He's
gonna do. He's gonna if you put a button in
front of me, he's gonna push it. He's gonna push

(24:08):
the button until the button breaks.

Speaker 1 (24:10):
But also not just Donald Trump, like Mitch McConnell, Nut Gingridge, Yes,
every Republican leader since I've been alive and I'm pretty
old like it. It is just the weird that it's
it's to me, it's so weirdly willful. It's like, Oh,
we wouldn't want this, wouldn't want to break this norm
against the team that only breaks norms.

Speaker 2 (24:31):
Yeah, that has absolutely no compunction about breaking norms and
in fact seems to do it for fun.

Speaker 3 (24:36):
Well, they've also realized something, which is that whether something
works has nothing to do with whether it is supposed
to work or legally structured to work. It has everything
to do with whether you can get people to change
their behavior based on what you're doing. Like if an
executive order is issued that's not supposed to work at all,
but people take action based on it, nobody stops them,
then it worked.

Speaker 2 (24:57):
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (24:57):
So I think there's a certain amount of like just
try and stuff that we see now and we're going
to see continually for the next several years. I think
Democrats could absolutely benefit for more just try and stuff.
I mean, obviously I don't condone trying to erase a
constitutional amendment by FIAT. It's very silly and no one

(25:18):
should do that. But at the same time, I think
there is a certain amount of creativity and a certain
amount of precedent breaking activity that is appropriate. I think
we were not designed to live in a you know this,
this government was not designed to be fully static and
frozen in the past. Don't tell Clarence Thomas, he would

(25:38):
absolutely tell you it's frozen in the past. But in general,
like evolution and trying new stuff is good and probably
Democrats could do more of it.

Speaker 2 (25:45):
Yeah, yeah, I mean FDR like there is some stuff
going on in his during the time that he was president,
I think, right, I have that, right, he yeah, he had,
there is some stuff and he you know, he was
willing to just up there working things out, trying things out.
You know, it's like, is this something?

Speaker 1 (26:05):
Is it?

Speaker 2 (26:05):
Well? What about the twenty one?

Speaker 1 (26:08):
Not to be a completely left wing lunatic, but I
will just point out that it does a little bit.
At this point seem like the Democrats did govern the
way they wanted to. And it's not a matter of
not trying stuff. It's that they didn't want to try
that stuff. Right, They're not big d Democrats are not
interested in those good things. Yeah, it seems to me

(26:32):
as an idiot, me a complete idiot, it would seem that, Yeah,
I mean, these ideas were raised, they did not happen
over the past four years at times when a lot
of unprecedented ship was happening.

Speaker 2 (26:46):
That bad stuff, not unprecedentedly fun good stuff. Let's talk
about just the the you know, the executive actions that
that are jumping out to you, Emily as somebody who's
kind of following this. I actually don't know if all
of these are executive orders, but these are the ones
that have kind of popped, have really popped for me.

(27:10):
I don't know why I'm getting Hollywood executive here, but
so we have the mass raids on undocumented people in
the US and their families, which that is an executive.

Speaker 3 (27:22):
Order, right, yeah, directing ICE, directing ICE enforcement.

Speaker 1 (27:25):
Yes.

Speaker 2 (27:26):
Scrapping cancer research is that.

Speaker 3 (27:28):
That had to do a lot with freezing the NIH
and freezing funding, hiring, firing, the purchasing of supplies for research,
which resulted in a lot of labs having to let
people go stop their research they don't have personnel or supplies,
Like you can't do major medical research without money. Sure,
And what's really terrible is that by interrupting a lot

(27:52):
of the work of these labs, we're setting that research back.
It's not like a lot of this work can just
be sort of like picked right back up where you
left off six months now. And it's not just cancer,
it's Alzheimer's research. It's like a huge quantity of research
that makes the United States a valuable place to be
because of its medical advancement capacity. Yeah, we just threw
that in the trash and lit it on fire.

Speaker 2 (28:13):
What is that? Not that I think there's great reasoning
behind any of this ship, but I am confused how
that even ties into any agenda or like any set
of you know, politics, like any political posturing is like
we actually think we should see what.

Speaker 3 (28:37):
We hang out with any MAGA people lately, because I mean,
what I hear a lot of is that they believe
that all of these researchers are like that it all
comes back to Fauci and it's all corrupt and it's
training the swamp. And we're like, I don't think anybody's
given a lot of critical thought to what if what
if the researchers are not secretly corrupt oligarchs, but what

(28:59):
if they actually are people who are poised to save lives,
perhaps lives within your family sometime in the next few
years if we let them. I think there's just this
huge perception of corruption in the medical community, and I'm
not sure where that comes from. Certainly I could talk
about it in context related to medicine and health insurance,
but yeah, when it comes to like hating on cancer researchers,

(29:21):
I don't get it. But it's a thing that the
MAGA folks seem to do.

Speaker 1 (29:24):
Yeah, yeah, okay, honestly, And that's the kind of toughest
thing is like all this data is going to be
so entangled with our shitty healthcare system that it's not
even even going to be clear that as a direct
outcome of this, like life expectancy or health outcomes are
worse in the United States because they're already so much
worse than the rest of the like you know, equivalently

(29:45):
rich world, that like we're never going to be able
to prove prove until, like I said this Yesterda, until
Polio's back, but like even then.

Speaker 2 (29:55):
With any of this shit, I feel like we're in
a really bad position to make those cases because of
how the.

Speaker 1 (30:03):
Media general healthcare system.

Speaker 2 (30:05):
How bads a general healthcare is. But just all of
like them very disappointed in the New York Times.

Speaker 3 (30:12):
I mean, it's it's hard to prove a negative, but
if the New York Times wanted to, and I'm with
you that they don't want to at all. Right, I mean,
you could look at over the next few years, how
many new pharmaceuticals are patented, how many new treatments medical
devices like. You could look at patents. You could look
at drugs hitting the market. You could look at requests
for FDA approval, you could look at all you could
look at new techniques being published in medical journals. You

(30:34):
could look at the rate at which US researchers are
publishing generally. I mean, there's all of these metrics that
we expect to see slow down when you defund medical research.

Speaker 2 (30:43):
Right, Yeah, the other ones I have pulling the US
out of the World Health Organization recognizing only two genders,
turning DEI into like not not just removing funding for DEI,
but like you know, saying that people need to report
and anyone they see doing a DEI. I guess is

(31:03):
the idea. By the way, I did hear somebody pointed
out that roy Cone came from McCarthyism, So like that
like roy Cone was worked and like learned under McCarthy.
So it does make sense that there's this like direct
line from McCarthyism.

Speaker 3 (31:22):
Too, Trump, Well, it's not just in the federal government.
There are a lot of people are talking about that EO,
Like it's just amongst federal employees, right, like, if the
guy at the cubical nextsu is seeming a little too diverse,
you better report. But it's also giving these agencies a
directive to select up to nine entities in the private

(31:42):
sector that they would like to investigate for compliance. So
it's also poisoning the federal government to engage in. And
we're already seeing the impact in like cowardly big companies
scrubbing any mention of diversity and ending any diversity programs,
and less cowardly companies refusing to do so, which is
kind of well to see. But it's McCarthyism writ large

(32:05):
in the DEI context. I think also we're going to
see that in the immigration context, with like pressure to
turn people over and compliance pressures of all kinds. So yeah,
they're absolutely trying to create a society in which people
are afraid of their neighbors and afraid to be snitched
on by their colleagues.

Speaker 2 (32:20):
For being too diverse. Yeah, yeah, yeah, a person's way
too into diversity.

Speaker 1 (32:27):
It's like actually, like I'm I am curious this speed
for which this will have repercussions. I mean the immigration
thing is like if that actually happened, would actually tank
the agricultural industry. So like you know, if the Trump
people were mad at the price of eggs, then like

(32:48):
what the fuck is I'm just like curious, like if
anything will ever.

Speaker 3 (32:54):
I'm in California, there's we're on our local news. We're
seeing like fruit sitting in the fields. It's orange season,
like nothing, like yeah, yeah, it's understandable. It's especially understandable
because when you're not inside a building, you don't have
the same Fourth Amendment protections. It's actually a huge issue.
We see, for example, unhoused people don't have the same
rights against search and seizure because they don't have a
home which someone would need a warrant to enter, so

(33:15):
they don't get this particular constitutional protection. If you're in
a field, again, ice can come up and go after
anybody they want. There's no structure that they would need
a judge to give them permission to enter. So agricultural
jobs are particularly vulnerable, and we as a country are
particularly vulnerable to like not having food. We can afford
as a result.

Speaker 1 (33:36):
Yeah, yeah, but yeah, I mean it's just the unintended
or yeah, well the food like disaster would be an
unintended even for them consequence of like you know, enforcing
immigration in the way they want to enforce it. I'm
just curious, like what the fuck will actually happen?

Speaker 3 (33:55):
How could it be unintended? I mean that's a question
I have, is like it's the most foreseeable possible.

Speaker 2 (34:00):
The very first thing everybody's like, hey, so I know
you only understand profitability, just a quick FYI hear on that.

Speaker 1 (34:08):
I mean I guess yeah. The speculation would be it
just creates an even more scared or like op pressed
class of undocumented worker.

Speaker 2 (34:20):
Yeah, I mean the idea of that they talk about
a lot that like, yeah, you know, people criticize how
expensive this is going to be, but it's going to
lead to like a lot of like self deportation, and
you know that what that usually means is that people
just don't can't work because when you like show up
to work, then like you're you know, putting yourself in

(34:42):
a position to be taken in. But so that's yeah,
it just it feels like that is going to be
a first, Like, it's not going to be a down
the road thing. It's like a thing that is going
like based on the things that we're already seeing of
you know, these like raids that doctor Phil is live streaming.

(35:04):
We're going to see the results immediately because nobody's gonna
want to fucking put themselves in a position to be
arrested and like, you know, treated cruelly. Yeah, so I
don't know, like I others reversing climate change, bringing back
the death penalty, not reversing climate change, reversing climate change

(35:25):
actions and declaring and the emergency is actually how little
gas we're pulling out of the ground. These are all
things that I had identified as like, man, the executive
orders seem to work in this case in the worst
way possible.

Speaker 1 (35:42):
Do we like, what is there?

Speaker 2 (35:44):
Are there any of these that you're like that that
one is actually going to be challenged and easy to
overturn before it does too much damage? Or is this
all just kind of fore alarm fire territory?

Speaker 3 (35:56):
So I'm really interested to see what happens because a
lot of people like to act like the law is
a real thing, and you know, the law will save us.
The law doesn't support this, and the law. Yeah, but
the law is just a bunch of humans in rooms,
Like some of the humans get to wear a special
dress and sit up higher. But which humans these cases

(36:18):
are brought in front of will matter a great deal
because Trump worked very hard during his last term to
put a lot of judges in place who are heavily
aligned with the ideology we see in Project twenty twenty five.
In the past, we saw a judiciary which took their
responsibility as neutral arbiters way more seriously, and they would
have been like, really embarrassed to do something nakedly partisan.

(36:40):
That cultural safeguard is gone, and I don't think we
realize the degree to which it was a cultural norm,
a cultural safeguard holding the judiciary in a neutral position.
It's toast. So some of these I will point out,
you know, the death penalty one is terrible for innumerable reasons. One,
Generally Americans don't support the death penalty anymore. So this
isn't really beating any voters that are demanding this to

(37:04):
We get it wrong a lot. It's her reversible. Three.
This EO contains. All of these eos contain ways for
the government to reach more deeply into the lives and
actions of private actors and the state. So here this
EO is directing the federal government to try to exert
more control over state and local prosecutors and ags. Here's
why that's a big deal in the federal system. Joe Biden,

(37:26):
to his credit, commuted the sentences of everyone who's on
federal death row. So Donald Trump doesn't have anybody he
can kill right now, as much as he would like to.
Oh no, and good on President Biden for doing that.
Eighty seven percent, roughly, that's success. Probably an old stat
but over eighty five percent of people in prison are
there on state and local cases, so you can see that, like,

(37:47):
the federal government only comprises a very small minority of
people who are impacted by criminal justice decisions generally. So
what does this executive order do. It pushes the federal
government to start going after the folks who actually control
use of the death penalty, who are state ags and
state and local prosecutors. And that bothers me for many reasons,

(38:11):
one of which is it's completely contrary to the omnipresent
states rights argument that we hear all the time that like,
local people should decide what's right in their locality. Oh
unless in your locality you don't want the government to
kill people, in which case you don't get to decide
what's right for your locality. Your judgment is subsumed by
a huge and empowered federal government. I thought we did

(38:34):
like big government. No, no, no, we like big government
when it's making the government kill people. So that's where
we are on this.

Speaker 2 (38:40):
Yes, it's not great, And your point about it being unpopular,
like that was the thing. Just alec Herrick Cattsanas had
a thread on Twitter this weekend just about this New
York Times article from last week titled support for Trump's
policies exceeds support for Trump, And this feel like it's

(39:00):
the way I'm seeing a lot of people in the
New York Times and like in that world respond where
they're like people might not like the man, but are approved.
You know, they might think his methods are too harsh,
but he's getting things done. And it's like in line
with there. And I think what they're referring to is
like a very specifically worded question that suggests that they

(39:24):
want people who are undocumented deported, But there's also like
three questions they're just worded slightly differently. That suggests that
there's actually a super majority of people who don't who
don't want that, but they I don't know. There just
seems to be that an urge to like be like

(39:45):
what he's doing is like not that out of line
with like what people want, and I don't think it's true,
And like what again, they're only focusing on like two
of these executive orders, two of these policies. They're like
really having to work hard with the polling and the
wording of the polling to like make it seem like
people are in support of these policies. And then they're

(40:08):
also ignoring like the huge swaths of these executive orders
that are wildly unpopular for their cruelty.

Speaker 3 (40:16):
And so this is a great feast. I'm so glad
you brought this up. Because so when we look at
Project twenty twenty five, there's a couple of like big
themes that emerge. One is that they're very terrified of boyfriends,
and they think there's nothing more terrible than a mom,
a single mom, having a boyfriend. There's a whole fun
passage I beg you to read, but just just like
control f boyfriend. Yeah, in Project twenty twenty five. It's
a ride. But beyond their fear of boyfriends, they really

(40:40):
don't like information. They don't like people having any information,
and they would rather the government not gather any information
because if you gather any information, people might get a
hold of it, because governments do have to have a
certain level of transparency. This goes totally to what you're
talking about. The way you can create false informational worlds
is by limiting the amount of informationeople actually have. Like

(41:00):
here you have a poll which doesn't reveal to the
reader that, oh, in like the next three questions, it
turns out people don't actually like this policy. They just
only liked it when it was worded a very specific way.
And that's really the thing about polling, right, is that like,
the answer you get from people depends enormously on how
you ask them a given question. But in the EOS,
we're seeing a ton of these clauses. In the EOS

(41:23):
are getting rid of forms of tracking information in government
so that people will no longer have access to, for example,
what the demographic makeup of our government even is, or
of our armed forces, or of you know what the
impact of various policies and programs, is health tracking in particular,
like how much are we at danger from bird flu
versus something else? They would really prefer not to collect

(41:46):
any data because when you don't collect data, you can
control people's opinion on policy a lot more through things
like the framing of the question, because people don't have
a real informational basis for making decisions. In addition to that,
there's a whole separate EO on restricting the government's ability
to go after misinformation and disinformation because to stop to

(42:07):
stop misinformation and disinformation would impinge on the free speech
rights of the people who would like to distribute misinformation,
Like lest the government stop people from lying to you.
It's it's all this theme of like the government no
longer wants you to have good information underdone.

Speaker 2 (42:23):
Yeah, I mean that seemed like the whole Mark Zuckerberg
like statement was all about like the way in which
he used like that's like people's opinions and like free speech,
but he was only talking about like people who support
Donald Trump's free speech, like very specific definition of that.
It's it's very strange, but it's like it's not just
the tech CEOs. It feels like the these you know,

(42:46):
journalistic institutions are just like currently really not up to
the task of like dealing with what's happening right now there.

Speaker 3 (42:54):
I can't tell if they're into it or scared. I
can't tell which it is.

Speaker 1 (42:58):
I think they're into it. I think they've had decades
to not be into it, and they have never showed
themselves to not be into it. I mean, I will
say again, I know I keep beating this drum, but
we are it feels ever nearer to an actual like
facts don't care about your feelings, reckoning on just like
the nature of reality. And I'm just like, I know

(43:23):
I keep saying it, but it's like, you know, the
things they believe are largely not true. So like, what
is it going to be? Just like Made in the
USA starts to not become the gold standard? Is it
going to be like you know, fucking like Beijing University
is where you go instead of Harvard, Like it will

(43:45):
be something like the rest of the world doesn't have
to play by these rules and they eventually won't. Like
what is it going to be? I'm just like, I
guess I'm hoped. I hope I'll be alive when the
fucking other shoe drops on this whole shit.

Speaker 2 (44:00):
So I don't know. Sorry, Yeah, I feel like it
might be sooner than I was expecting prior to a
couple of weeks ago. But yeah, I don't know. It's
it's it's Is there anything Emily that is making you
hopeful besides teachers, which I think is a great example,

(44:21):
like teachers being willing to fight for their kids, for
their students, any any other places you're seeing hope.

Speaker 3 (44:31):
One thing I would say is that so much of
this is local, right, Like I've been watching online as
like finding videos of a local neighborhood watch like scaring
off ice agents from their neighborhood and school's not letting
them in, and you know, ordinary people protecting each other.
I also think that this is this has the potential
for a huge informational awakening for Americans in a certain sense.

(44:53):
I mean, I'm thinking, actually, this is so dumb. But
do you remember when like TikTok was gone for five
minutes and everybody got on red note. Yeah, and suddenly
Americans will like, wait a minute, you get fresh groceries
for how much? In China? They amaze, like the fantastic
Chinese grocery halls Americans have managed to become, even without
a Trump branded isolationism. Americans have for decades been deprived

(45:16):
of opportunities to really get to know the international community,
to travel, to learn about the world, to expand their horizons.
And I think that in that moment you describe Andrew
of like watching China surpass us in renewable energy and
get to a clean and low cost energy solution while
we're still like shoveling coal into furnaces. I think that's

(45:39):
going to be, I hope, a really healthy awakening for Americans.
I'm terrified on the healthcare front of the number of
lives it could cost us to learn this particular lesson.
But I guess I'm placing a lot of my hope
in great organizations that are willing to put up a fight,
in ordinary people who are not naturally compliant and steel
themselves to say no, even agrins. It's really hard to

(46:02):
say no to somebody who says, look, I have this
piece of paper that let's be coming to your home.
It's really hard to say, nah, judge didn't sign that paper.
I'm not opening the door. It's hard to do, but
I have faith in the stubbornness of ordinary Americans. And
I hope, I hope that if we are able to
emerge from this without falling prey to the informational lockdown,
if we're able to retain our ability to get information,

(46:24):
we're going to come out of this a much better society.

Speaker 2 (46:27):
That is the question, right, That's where like it feels
like things must be like the way I was talking about,
like it being a sporting thing where you're like, oh,
this is the thing that I don't want my opponent
to do, and they're doing it and that is probably
smart on their part. Like that's my question thinking through
for them is like that's going to be the next

(46:48):
frontier is like, okay, so how do we stop the information?
Like and it sounds like they're working on that with
regards to the studies, but just in terms of the
day to day social media, I'm sure that, you know,
beyond the TikTok band, I'm sure that's coming too, Right.

Speaker 3 (47:05):
Wouldn't this be great? I mean zcceran bless Zuckerberg's little
heart is my college classmate.

Speaker 2 (47:11):
Wow, cool guy, cool guy.

Speaker 3 (47:13):
Actually Facebook is old, like I'm old. Facebook's old, Like,
I also think there's a real chance that like we
might disconnect from our social media addictions in a really
different way during these next few years. That could be
really I mean, once you realize that something you've been
using as a resource to learn about people around you

(47:34):
and like what's happening in your community is actually just
full of junk. I go on Twitter so much less
now because it's just like so full of like click
baity anger least just yeah exactly. And if this disconnects
us from that and we go back to other forms
of informational engagement and information sharing or we create new forms,

(47:56):
that'd be great too.

Speaker 1 (47:57):
Yeah. Yeah, I did want to also say a thing
about the local, like to sort of tag what you
were sayingly, like even you know, just like doing a
small amount of mutual aid carding shit around during the
fires and I mean the fires a just still ongoing,
but it and just thinking about California. I know I've
said this on the show closer to when the election was,

(48:18):
but like you know, liberal ass California couldn't even outlast Slavery.
So like, there's still plenty of work that you can
do in your community that will materially move things forward
and make things better that, however feudile like, and however
much damage is done and we're watching the repercussions of
federal government, you can still fix things, repair stuff, help

(48:43):
people in a way that is material in your community.
And you should fucking do it because to do it,
even though you're helping people, you're doing it for yourself
because you're going to need all this stuff too.

Speaker 3 (48:55):
There's a really good lever for that that nobody thinks about,
and I want to put it out there for people
to consider. All of these culture war things. The way
they get enforced is through prosecution. That's why Donald Trump
wants to exert so much control over local prosecutors is
because a lot of this enactment will have to take
place in the form of criminal prosecution. Public defenders man

(49:16):
public defenders are so under considered as a sort of
last bulwark against totalitarianism. They are the people who are
fighting against you know, the types of detainers that can
lead to deportation. They are the people that are often
first to find out when an individual is in jeopardy
from their government. They are the people best equipped to

(49:39):
legally intervene. For many people, a public defender is the
only lawyer they're going to have in their life. They're
going to have one lawyer, and it's probably the free
lawyer provided to them, paid by the government to fight
the government and they there's five nine hundred public defender
agencies in this country. Most of them are like not
particularly funded or attended to, but ordinary people can go
to their account the board of supervisors meeting, say hey,

(50:01):
how are you resourcing my public defender if my family
needs a lawyer, Like who is that lawyer and what
support are they getting and how well are they being paid,
and like what experts do they have access to and
what labs are you going to let them use in
a serious case. I think that it's a moment now
for people to recognize that public defenders are their counsel
and they should demand better.

Speaker 2 (50:21):
Yeah, and that's uh, you work on that like that
executive you're the executive director of Partners for Justice, which
sounds like that's kind of a focus for you guys, right, Yeah.

Speaker 3 (50:32):
Most of what we do is we help public defenders
do more stuff beyond the legal matter, So like recognizing
that a court case can completely upend a person's life
and cost them their housing, their job, like access to
their kids, access to medicine. We basically create really strong
interdisciplinary services inside public defense, a little bit of mutual aid,
a little bit of services, you know, a lot of

(50:53):
community networking so that people can walk away from a
case with their life as intact as possible. It's very
very pro safety stuff. A lot of the stuff we
address our underlying drivers of crime. It's also very decarsoral.
We've eliminated over five thousand years of incarceration in just
a few years because it turns out what somebody's doing
really well in the community, a judge is less likely
to send them to prison. But I'm talking about more

(51:14):
than that, like more than just what we do. Like
the daily litigation of public defenders is going to protect
a lot of people who are being prosecuted for putting
the wrong book on the library shelf, or seeking an
abortion or being trans I mean, the lawyer they're going
to have is probably a public defender. So even beyond
my work, it's a great place for people to dedicate

(51:35):
their focus.

Speaker 1 (51:36):
Yeah, and if you're just a citizen talking to your government,
a great place to find that money is in the
insane police budget. Just thrown it out there, maybe some
of those funds that should be taken from the police.

Speaker 2 (51:50):
I don't know, but you know, there's a great study helicopter,
I don't know, a tank.

Speaker 3 (51:57):
There's a great study on what really well, a lot
of great studies and won't really create safety. And actually,
if anybody cares. On the Partners for Justice website, we
have a little tab that says evidence, and I gathered
a ton of these studies there if anybody wants data
on safety. But there's a wonderful overview we did on
how environmental design creates safety. And it turns out that
if you want to lower the homicide rate, you are

(52:17):
better off planting trees than hiring more cops. I mean
some street lighting trees. And that's not only on homicides.
Like buildings with more greenery, like more beautifully greened buildings
are not only less likely to be burglarized, they also
have less domestic violence inside the building. So there's all

(52:38):
these things we could spend money on that might work better.
And more more subway cops playing candy crush, Yeah I.

Speaker 1 (52:46):
Know this is not the way the directionality window or
arrow goes, but also less domestic violence if there's fewer cops.

Speaker 2 (52:52):
Right, let's just throw it out there could be I
don't I actually don't know if that's the direction that
the cause out.

Speaker 1 (52:58):
Guys are bad guy.

Speaker 2 (53:00):
Let's take a quick break. We'll be right back, and
we're back, and we do have to get to one
piece of legislation that's giving us hope, and that is

(53:21):
a Connecticut bill that would force movie theaters to admit
when the movie actually starts when listening when listing movie times,
that you know it would have the here's when the
previous start, but here's when the movie actually starts, like functionally,
which I don't know. It like people are saying that

(53:45):
it's like I don't know if these are industry plants,
but I've read people being like, well, it's easy to
like know when it is just like don't show up
for twenty minutes. But I've definitely like it's a moving target.
Like I showed up at Barbie twenty minutes late because
I assumed that movie would have so many trailers before
it because it was like a massive hit. But it

(54:05):
was like it started five minutes after the showtime because
they were just trying to like get as much turnover
as like, so they're trying to cram as many showtimes
as possible because so many people are going to see it.
And then I've been to movies where like, I don't know.
I I'm a let's get there in time for the
previews type of person. And I was even just like,

(54:27):
you know, forty five minutes later, like looking at my phone,
being like, how has the movie still not started? So
it feels wild sometimes and this, yeah, just I don't know.
It's there's so few pieces of like I don't know
any just ideas that seem to be focused on, like
helping people, maybe helping people's lives be more comfortable. Like

(54:51):
I'm putting this in the category of the congestion pricing
in New York the tri state area really coming through
for the consumers, But I don't know what what are
what are you guys' thoughts here?

Speaker 1 (55:03):
I also love the trailers, and I was going to
say this would create pressure potentially to have better trailers,
more entertaining trailers, which would probably put pressure on having
more and better entertaining movies. But what I really think
is going to happen is going to put pressure on
for like two dollars extra to your ticket, they won't

(55:24):
run a lower third of the ad concurrently with the movie.

Speaker 2 (55:30):
Yeah, movies with ads.

Speaker 1 (55:32):
Yeah, I suspect that's actually what's going.

Speaker 2 (55:34):
To happen free V the movie theater model that they turn.

Speaker 1 (55:38):
Off the part of your neurallink that just puts the
trailer in your field of vision while it's going.

Speaker 3 (55:44):
Yeah, oh man, that got dark faster than I expected
it too, That is what is going to happen. I
I am all for more information. People have an information
to make informed choices. I could also say, like, there's
so much about the movie going experience that could be
improved to help theaters do better. You know, when I

(56:04):
moved to New York from California and I found out
that people were wearing garbage bags to the movie theater
to not get bed bugs, I was like, you know,
that's like, we don't do that in California.

Speaker 1 (56:12):
We don't.

Speaker 3 (56:13):
We don't need to wear a hazmat suit. Actually, So,
if what you're relying on to keep the theater in
business is people being disgruntled as they unwillingly sit through
trailers they didn't want to be at, probably not a
sustainable business model anyway, right, And yeah, yeah, get a
reclining chair serve people some steak tips. I don't know.

Speaker 2 (56:36):
Yeah, I actually don't like movie theaters that do that
that aren't I don't only think I like. I don't
like the ones that are like, we're actually a restaurant
and you have to just deal with waiters walking in
front of you. I'm more of an old school popcorn
and Sarpach kids person.

Speaker 3 (56:54):
How did you feel about the Alamo draft House, Like
when they got really really strict and everybody loved it
and their business went through the roof. They were like
kicking people out for whispering.

Speaker 2 (57:02):
Yeah, I guess I don't. I don't mind that as much.
I guess I just haven't had like a great Almo
draft House experience. Maybe that's that's it. I just need
to I don't know. There's something about the movie going
experience where I just like want to not have to
order things in the middle of it, Like I want
to want that drug to kick in where I'm just

(57:23):
like in the hands of the director or whatever, you know.

Speaker 1 (57:27):
I like being in the hands of the of the
cinema and then a waiter goes by to your neighbors,
like the case I was really hot and it's just
a fall. It's just delightful. Don't remember where you are.
I mean, I will say a little bit the counterpoint,
because any fool could could watch a pretty good, you

(57:47):
know movie at home these days. Yeah, I do think
it's a massive humanity is what you want when you
go to a theater these days, So like, just make
it fucking crazy pants. I don't care.

Speaker 2 (57:58):
Yeah, yeah, I agree, Like just any anything to get
in a room with other people and watch a movie.
Go go nuts, guys. I'm open to everything, but like
not things that are again, I mean, it came up
with the AI with like tricking people. It seems like
it's such a big and accepted part of capitalism these

(58:18):
days that we're just like, yeah, we just got to
get better at tricking people. And then this law is
coming up and people are like, if we stop letting
us trick people, then we lose a big chunk of
like revenue for I get because I guess movie theaters
are paid for showing.

Speaker 1 (58:34):
Well, no, this was this was the question, right or
did did we did this? Guy looked up? I was
like kind of speculating on this prior to recording. I think,
but this happened this weekend. I was talking to my
friend in the theater, and I was just like, which
direction does the revenue go when a movie theater plays
a trailer which is an AD, but it's also an

(58:55):
ad for a product that they sell at the place
where they're showing it, right, And I literally have no idea.
I don't know if you know Warner plays Alamo draft House.
Alamo draft House maybe pays Warner. That doesn't make that
much sense or no one?

Speaker 3 (59:10):
I thought I got a distribution deal with the feature.

Speaker 2 (59:13):
Yeah, I think that's what it is, actually part of
the movie. This is not from the AI answer. I'm
skipping past the aioverview to a article from how Stuff Works.
Shout out to the old house Stuff Works. Traditionally, production
companies do not pay to show trailers before movies. Rather,
producers and theaters benefit from an exchange of services. Theaters

(59:36):
get to screen their chosen feature films, and in return,
producers and studios get to show their chosen trailers, so
they get to decide.

Speaker 3 (59:46):
I'm so happy I remember that from my long ago
job writing for these sidelines.

Speaker 1 (59:50):
Yeah. But then, so like Sony owns draft House, could
they force AMC to play draft House ads in front
of a Sony movie.

Speaker 2 (01:00:02):
Problem, why not, Yeah, I'm sure they could. A writer
JM was pointing out. Jam mcknapp was pointing out that
this is a long distance we've come from. Do you
guys remember when Meet Joe Black had like a noticeable
spike in ticket sales because the trailer for The Phantom

(01:00:23):
Menace was attached to it, like happened before it, and
people were just going to buying tickets for Meet Joe
Black just to watch the trailer for the Phantom Menace
and then like leaving the theater.

Speaker 1 (01:00:37):
I mean, I'll watch a movie trailer on YouTube, so
I'll watch an ad that also has an ad break
within it. So like, as you know, we're stupid as
a culture, that's right, or I am stupid as a
human being. I guess we'll be.

Speaker 3 (01:00:52):
No, I've been bothered by the same thing. Every time
I can go to the trailer and the ad starts up,
I'm like, but it's but I'm already.

Speaker 2 (01:00:58):
Watching an ad on Purple.

Speaker 3 (01:01:00):
This was consensual and now it's not exactly.

Speaker 2 (01:01:04):
Well, Emily, such a pleasure having you, where can people
find you? Follow you? All that good stuff?

Speaker 3 (01:01:10):
So on pretty much everything on Twitter on or x
on blue Sky on Instagram. I'm at Galvin Almanza. It's
my last name, and you can also check out Partners
for Justice at Partnersforjustice dot org.

Speaker 2 (01:01:23):
All right, and is there a work of media that
you've been enjoying.

Speaker 3 (01:01:28):
Yeah, I mean, honestly, I'm reading the new uh Moracami novel.
It's really good. It's for people who are like into
Japanese surrealist fiction. It takes place in an imaginary walled
city where people are deprived of their shadows. So escapism
is good right now, Like, just go dive into a

(01:01:50):
book and live in a different world for three weeks
at a time.

Speaker 1 (01:01:53):
I hard recommend that motherfucker loves or hates shadows. I
can't remember which. I mean.

Speaker 3 (01:01:58):
He's mean to shiftados, He's like, bad things are happening.
The shadows are essentially enslaved in this and.

Speaker 1 (01:02:04):
There's there's shadows Hard Boiled Wonderland at the End of
the World.

Speaker 2 (01:02:07):
This is the sequel to that.

Speaker 3 (01:02:08):
This is Yeah. I wasn't going to go into a
total nerd conversation for your audience, but yes, if you
read Hard Boiled Wonderland and The End of the World,
just right, up where that lived off, same walled city,
same unicorns, same problematic marginalization of shadows.

Speaker 1 (01:02:26):
Weird, weird relationship to women and food.

Speaker 2 (01:02:30):
Years yeah, years, and ship's there? You get Andrew? Where
can people find you? Is there work Amedia you've been enjoying? Oh?

Speaker 1 (01:02:38):
Man?

Speaker 2 (01:02:39):
Uh?

Speaker 1 (01:02:39):
Just Andrew tea? It doesn't really matter where? Who cares?
I guess. The last thing that I haven't recommended on Daily's,
like I sed in some form, is I'm rereading a
book by China Meeville called Last Days of New Paris,
which is sort of I forgot, but it's sort of
a spiritual companion to the other I think I recommended,

(01:03:00):
or I said I was enjoying between two Fires, But
Last Day's of New Paris is another book of just
like rebels wandering around a fucked up version of France.
And this one is speaking of surrealists. It's it's in
a parallel universe, not to the occupied Paris, but all
the like Surrealists' work of art have come to life,

(01:03:21):
and are these enormous monsters wandering around with seemingly no aim.
And it's it's real depressing. The one thing that really
has been fucking me up on it is. I've been
trying to read from a physical book at night without
my phone, and my knowledge of art history is not
good enough. So there's a lot of terms of literal

(01:03:42):
art being dropped that I am not clear if they
are science fiction terms that he invented for the book
or actual art terms. So pink, it's very confusing, Yeah exactly,
Yeah no, but it's just all these like casual name
drops and like slang truncations of like famous surrealist works
of art that I'm just like, I don't know if

(01:04:04):
there's a monster you made up, I don't know, there's.

Speaker 2 (01:04:08):
No anymore.

Speaker 1 (01:04:09):
B I'm so confused. Anyways, it is a good book,
and I read it a long time ago, but I
should not be reading it without a phone, even though
that's what I'm trying to do.

Speaker 2 (01:04:19):
It's going very slowly. Godspeed to you, sir. Thanks amazing.
You can find me on Twitter at Jack Underscore Obrian
on Blue Sky Jack ob The number one I've been enjoying.
I watched a movie because I heard that Stanley Kubrick
called it the most terrifying movie I'd ever seen, and

(01:04:39):
so I watched over the weekend, The Vanishing which is
a Dutch film that is real fucked up, and highly
recommend a real compelling, interesting watch. And yes I felt
compelled to go a little highbrow becauseous series right now,
it's real precious.

Speaker 1 (01:05:01):
But also I have recommended a bunch of trash TV
the Lastness.

Speaker 2 (01:05:06):
Yeah, this is not a super challenging movie as long
as you're willing to read the SubTime yeah ooo folk
subtitles all right. You can find us on Twitter at
daily Zeitgeist, where at the Daily Zeitgeist on Instagram, we
have a Facebook fan page and a website, Daily zeitgeist
dot com. You can go to the episode wherever you're

(01:05:27):
listening to this and check out the description of the
episode you listen to, and you will find the footnotes
which will link off to the information that we talked
about in today's episode. We also look off to a
song that we think you might enjoy. Miles is out,
and when Miles is out, we like to ask super
producer Justin Conner, is there a song that you think

(01:05:48):
people might enjoy?

Speaker 4 (01:05:50):
Yeah, this is one of the few times where I
don't have like a long, flowery description of the track.
I'm going the opposite of pretentious. The counterbalance the recommend.
But this is a really fun track. It's called Wiggy
by Puerto Rican rapper Young Miko, and it's just really fun.
It's got a deeply resonant, elastic like ato weight bass

(01:06:14):
and the sporadic rhythm changes in the top end of
the percussion. Her delivery is just full of swagger and
it's it's amazing because she's bilingual and I don't know
what she's saying, but it sounds extremely confident and it
puts me in a good mood. So this again is
Wiggy by Young Miko, and you can find that song
in the footnotes footnotes.

Speaker 2 (01:06:32):
The Daily Zeitkes is a production of iHeartRadio. For more
podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the iHeartRadio w ap Apple Podcasts
or wherever you listen to your favorite shows. That's gonna
do it for us this morning. We're back this afternoon
to tell you what is trending, and we'll talk to
you all then Bye.