5/7/24: Israel Launches Rafah Invasion, ICC Warns Senators After Threats, Trump Fined Over Gag Order, DeSantis Bans Lab Grown Meat, Columbia Cancels Commencement, Jerry Seinfeld Faceplants On PC Culture, Gaza Doc Details Rafah Horrors

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hey, guys, ready or not, twenty twenty four is here
and we here at breaking points, are already thinking of
ways we can up our game for this critical election.

Speaker 2 (00:08):
We rely on our premium subs to expand coverage, upgrade
the studio ad staff, give you, guys, the best independent.

Speaker 3 (00:15):
Coverage that is possible.

Speaker 2 (00:16):
If you like what we're all about, it just means
the absolute world to have your support. But enough with that,
let's get to the show. Good morning, everybody, Happy Tuesday.
We have an amazing show for everybody today.

Speaker 3 (00:28):
What do we have personal?

Speaker 1 (00:29):
Indeed, we do lots of big news coming out of
Israel where the RAFA ground invasion has begun. They've taken
over a key border crossing. And there's also a lot
going on with regards to ceasefire deal Homash accepted and
then Israel went ahead and invaded. So we'll break all
of that down for you. Also have some Trump on
trial updates for you. The judge and the hush money

(00:50):
case issuing yet another fine against Trump for violating the
gag order and threatening him with jail time. So talk
about that. The long anticipated meet debate lab grown meat
to hopefully we're getting to it today, Hopefully Sager and
I will be able to avoid talking so much that
we have to skip it once again, because I know
you guys are very excited about our takes on lab

(01:11):
grown meat. Columbia has officially canceled their commencement this after
they claimed that one of the big reasons they were
clearing out the encampment was to get ready for said commencement.
So we'll take a look at that as well as
polling about how people feel about these protests, about the
response to the protests, a lot of interesting stuff to
get dig into. Their speaking of interesting saga, taking a

(01:32):
look at some recent Jerry Seinfeld comments that seemed to
be from like circa twenty fifteen, So that's going to
be a good one. I'm looking forward to that. And
on a much more serious note, we are hoping to
be able to speak with a doctor who just returned
from Gaza to talk to us about the conditions on
the ground there and what she saw in the context

(01:52):
of trying her best to treat patients. So very much
looking forward to speaking with.

Speaker 3 (01:56):
Her as well.

Speaker 2 (01:57):
That's right, we want to get in on the ground update.
She literally just returned from the war zone and she
can give us actual view as to what's going on
before we get to that. Thank you to everybody who's
been signing up and helping us out for becoming a
premium subscriber. We've got a big Counterpoints debate. Everything is
ready and it's set to go. It's going to be
on free speech. We won't get let give you away
who the contestants are, but I think suffice to say

(02:18):
you're going to know them, You're going to like it,
and there's going to be some fiery moments. So go
ahead and sign up, you guys get early access to that.
On top of supporting all of our work here, we've
got big plans now for the DNC. I think it
is official. It is definitely going to be nineteen sixty
eight ESK. We will all be on the ground there.
So if you want to be able to support that
type of work Breakingpoints dot com, we deeply appreciate you.

Speaker 1 (02:38):
All Right, guys, let's go ahead and turn two developments
out of Israel and the Gaza strips. Specifically, we can
put these images up on the screen, so these are
images of air strikes. This has actually taken from the
Egyptian side of the border. Of course, Rafa there all
the way at the southern end of Gaza. These are
more images you can see of air strikes that are occurring.

(03:00):
This is I think an IDF soldier TikTok running what
appears to be a tank over the welcome to Gaza
sign and this was released by the IDF. I know
it looks like a video game. To me, it looks
like a video game, but this is official footage that
the IDF released of the beginning of this invasion into Rafa.

(03:20):
And these are more drone images that were also released
by the IDF. So we don't know a lot at
this point. We know that the ground invasion has obviously begun,
We know there has been a significant increase in terms
of air strikes, and we know there have been some
additional palastidian depths. We also know that the IDF has

(03:43):
actually taken control of the Rafa crossing on the Palace
to the inside. This is something that Egyptian officials are
already expressing alarm about and has major implications not only
in terms of military strategy, but most significantly in terms
of humanitarian situation on the ground. That Rafa Crossing is

(04:05):
one of the most significant entry points for aid into Gaza.
We know that yesterday the Israelis had closed another entry
point into Gaza. This after Hamas rockets had hit a
nearby military installation, and in retaliation they closed that crossing
as well. This comes, of course, as the un IS

(04:26):
saying they are Asidney McCain of the un IS officially saying, hey,
northern Gaza is in full blown famine. This is creeping south.
We also know in Rafa you have some six hundred
thousand kids, all of whom are in bad shape, many
of whom are already malnourished. And yesterday, of course reported
on the fact that the Israelis had asked one hundred

(04:47):
thousand Palestinian sheltering in Rafa to leave. I read some
accounts of some of those individuals Saga, and you know,
many of these people they've already been forcibly displaced multiple times.
They have literally no money, they have no idea where
to go. There is nowhere that is actually safe. And

(05:09):
that's not according to me. That's according to New York
Times and NPR and other analysts who have looked at
the quote unquote safe zones that people have been told
to move to in the past in fact, Rafa was
one of these safe zones that people were originally told
to move to. And now you have this long threatened
invasion occurring. Let's go ahead and put this next element

(05:30):
up on the screen. Give you a little bit of
background here, because this ground invasion came immediately after Hamas
had actually accepted a ceasefire proposal, and the details of
that proposal are very clear. The US was involved in
helping to negotiate this along with Egypt and Katar, and

(05:52):
you know, there's a lot of details about three different phases,
et cetera, et cetera. The bottom line here is that
Hamas wanted to release all of the hostages in order
to secure an end of the war. So all the
reporting is that the Israelis, after Netanyahu, really went out
of his way to try to scuttle this deal, to

(06:12):
try to sabotage it, as we covered yesterday, by announcing
after there was some indications Hamas might be favorable towards
the deal, by announcing really clearly, no, no, no, We're going
into Rafa no matter what, as an attempt to undercut it.
Also by banning Al Jazeera that Al Jazeera obviously a
product of linked to the Katari government. That was an
effort to piss off Gatar as well to try to

(06:34):
undercut this deal, because Bebie's whole play is to pretend
like he's opened to a ceasefire deal for the international audience,
but to really do everything to block it, and of
course exposes the lie that they you know this thing
that we've heard a million times, Oh, if Hamas just
released the hostages, the war could be over tomorrow. Well
here's Ama saying, hey, we'll release all the hostages, and
isral Is like, no, we want to continue the war

(06:55):
and we're going to go ahead right now with this
invasion of Rafa. Let me just put the next piece
up on the screen and I'm I get your reaction, Sager.
So the Israeli media, after they were kind of stunned
by this Hamas acceptance of the proposal, Israeli media started
reporting that Israel was not likely to accept a ceasefire deal.
They claimed it was softened or one sided Egyptian version.

(07:18):
But again, we actually we have all the details of
what this deal entailed, and it is release of all
the hostages, which is something that Israel demanded. The key
sticking point is that the Hamas side wants the war
to end and the Israeli side wants the war to continue.
One side actually wants a ceasefire and the other doesn't.
So that's kind of an irreconcilable difference.

Speaker 2 (07:39):
Yeah, that's basically where we're at. This is a complicated backstory.
There's a lot of sniping. People are saying this is
a Hamas pr move. According to the Israelis, Basically the
background appears to be this, this was a ceasefire proposal
that was given by the Egyptians in Cairo with the
input and knowledge of the United States.

Speaker 3 (07:57):
Hamas sees this deal and they're like, cool, we're in.
You know, we're on that.

Speaker 2 (08:01):
You already saw the details, crystal, which you put up
there on the screen. According to the Israelis, they were
never aware of that, and according to them, the US
never delivered the details of that proposal to them, and
the first they had heard of it is after Hamas
had accepted that. Now the US Western diplomats behind the
scenes were leaking and saying that's not true, actually at all,

(08:23):
we did communicate the details of that. They were under
consideration whenever Hamas accepted that deal. Another point against the
Israelis is they didn't have anybody in Cairo, so it's
their fault that they had nobody at the table with
Hamas and with Egypt and all the other negotiators, despite
the fact that the US has been begging them to

(08:43):
come and to be available. Because Israel is not blaming
the United States for being bamboozled into a situation where they,
according to them, have been screwed because Hamas agreed to
a ceasefire deal that they view not as acceptable. There's
also a sticking point right now around the number of
hostage just to be released. The Hamas counteroffer was that
they'll release thirty three hostages. That these thirty three, though

(09:07):
are some are alive and some are dead. The Israelis say, no,
we want forty hostages in the first deal, but they
all have to be alive. I don't know, you know
exactly who is telling the truth. It obviously is conceivable
that some of these hostages have sadly perish either from
you know, malnutrition, from bombing.

Speaker 1 (09:23):
They've been in an a war zone for a semele more.

Speaker 2 (09:24):
We're in bad captivity and we have no idea, right
you know, in terms of it's been a long time
since somebody has actually been released from Hummas. There's been
some proof of life images and all that that have
been released. So my only point is that in terms
of the background on all of this, there is a
lot of pointing fingers, but the end result is clear
they're using this as a pretext to go forward with

(09:46):
the Rafa invasion, and I do think that it's a
tremendous mistake from the international community side. We can put
this up there on the screen, for example, just if
you look at the wording of their justification. The war
cabinet has unanimously decided that Israel continues the operation to
exert military pressure on Hamas in order to promote the

(10:06):
release of our hostages and the other goals of the war.

Speaker 1 (10:09):
They already agree to the release of the host amas.

Speaker 2 (10:11):
He's like, no, no, no, we'll give you the hostages though,
and they're like, but you know, we're squabbling over seven
whether some are alive or dead. I'm not saying that
stuff isn't important, but I think we should point crystal
to the fact that there are massive protests in Israel
calling for the acceptance of this. To show you that
the members of hostages themselves, family members are pleading with
them to.

Speaker 3 (10:31):
Take this deal. So that's very important to underscore.

Speaker 1 (10:33):
A couple things to add to that. So I want
to read Mooing Raboni's ad, a fantastic lengthy thread on Twitter.
I just want to read a small portion of it
because it gets to what's really going on here. He says,
among the key sticking points in the negotiations is that
Hamas demanded an end to Israel's war, well Israel insisted
on continuing it. That's, like I said, kind of an
irreconcilable difference when one side wants to cease fire on

(10:56):
the other side does not want to cease fire. He
goes on to say, given this contradiction, the mediators could
not incorporate explicit wording that either ended or failed to
end the war and still clinched the deal. What appears
to have happened is that a sufficiently vague formula was
included in the proposal, paired with informal American assurances that

(11:16):
if Hamas implemented the first stages of the three stage deal,
Washington would guarantee an Israeli cessation of hostilities by the
end of its final stage. So Basically, the Americans were like, listen,
we can't put into this deal that it will definitively
end the war. But trust us, we're going to make

(11:36):
sure that there is a permanent cessation of hostilities. That
we didn't even get to covering this because it happened
on like Thursday, Friday, Saturday somewhere in that timeframe when
we were off air, that actually leaked out that the
Americans were telling Hamas like, no, this is actually going
to end the war, even though the language doesn't explicitly
say that in the deal. Then the Israelis come out.

(11:59):
That's when you get BB saying no, absolutely not, and
we're still going into rafa et cetera, et cetera, which
was an attempt basically to kill the deal because he
doesn't actually want a deal. And just to be really
clear about the hostage situation. So first of all, the
Israelis are also holding thousands of Palestinians. We've covered here
and many other news outlets have covered the abhorrent conditions

(12:20):
they've been kept in under, including torture and sexual abuse.
You actually just recently had a doctor from Gaza who
died from the torture that was from being tortured in
Israeli custody. So those Palestinian hostages are also part of
this deal. And while there are may be some quibbling
about how many hostages in phase one, phase two, et cetera,

(12:43):
very clear that Hamas has as part of this deal,
accepted releasing all of the hostages and all of the
remains of the hostages. Know one thing, Sager, that I've
been thinking about. I was talking to Yegor about this too.
He had the same thought, which is a really dark thought,
which is is I don't actually think that bib Netnaho

(13:04):
or the rest of the war cabinet wants these remaining
hostages to be released and talk about what their experience
was like, because basically their experience was having their lives
risked by their own government, being left in a war
zone for seven months god knows, and what conditions God
knows what sort of injuries they sustained from, potentially IDF

(13:27):
bombing and starvation, And I'm not sure that that's a
political reality that bib Netnaho wants to deal with.

Speaker 2 (13:35):
Well, that happened last time around, right whenever we had
the previous tranch of hostages that were released, they were
all were like, you were literally bombing us.

Speaker 3 (13:42):
Yeah, and then three of them were killed.

Speaker 2 (13:44):
I mean, I think that the family members of these
people know that, for example, we can play this video please.
This happened immediately after Hamas accepted the ceasefire. This is
in Hebrews, so we'll just read you a translation. But
the families of these prisoners are saying Hamas has agreed
to the deal.

Speaker 3 (13:59):
The government must agree now, otherwise we will burn the country.

Speaker 2 (14:03):
And there actually were massive demonstrations last night in Tel
Aviv and across the entire country, led by many members
of the hostage families that were begging for the government
to take that deal. Because I think you're right. I
think look the smart ones they know and they can
see it. Now. I'm not saying all of them are
unanimously of some of that opinion. I know some have

(14:26):
come out with a different opinion as well, But you
could also see there is a widespread celebration at the
population level on both sides of this conflict at the
idea of a ceasefire. Maybe not the Israeli government. Here,
we have a video came out in the immediate aftermath
that we can go ahead and play This was actually
in Rafa the immediately after it was announced that a

(14:48):
ceasefire was agreed to. You know, obviously these people didn't
know what was coming in the immediate aftermath, which was
the invasion. But it's important just to point out there
that there is obviously a widespread want, not just at
the Palestinian level, but at the Israeli level for a
cease fire.

Speaker 3 (15:05):
But the problem is the government. Crystal.

Speaker 2 (15:08):
You pulled this clip which is one of the most
insane things I've ever seen. Let's go ahead and play
it that we have here. This is Simon Boucair. He's
the vice chairman of the World Licued Arm of the party,
and he says, here the abductee families, they're going to
be murdered. They see what we're doing, and so then
they're asking him and what they should be done. He says,
I think we should have gone into Rafa already to

(15:30):
get in, and they go okay, and then what happens.
He says that they'll pop up from under the ground.
There are no uninvolved civilians. You have to go in
and kill and kill and kill, and she says, okay,
I got it. Will that bring back the hostages? And
he says we will then kill them before they get us.
And they say, well, are you going to get the hostages?
And he says, at the end, we will try to
get them. So again, this is the international arm of

(15:52):
the Bevinis and Yahoo Party who is on Channel twelve
Israeli News Crystal. He's saying this out in the open.
I think the hostage families at this point no and
hear this, and that's why there's so much consternation in Israel.

Speaker 1 (16:03):
Actually, yeah, yeah, this is this view is not it's
fairly prevalent in terms of hard right factions in Israel,
and it is almost a unanimous view, I would say,
in terms of the actual Israeli government administration. And you know,

(16:23):
we talk a lot, and I think understandably so about
bebing Net Nahu's calculations and how he wants the war
to keep going because he needs to do that to
keep his grip on power. But we should make no
bones about it. The war cabinet voted unit, including quote
unquote moderates, voted unanimously to invade Rapa. So you know
they have their own political calculation, they're own ideology too.

(16:46):
They are all now as being part of the war Cabinet.
They are all responsible for the conduct of this war.
They know they have not accomplished the purported objectives that
they set out to accomplish. So they have just as
much invested in keeping the brutality going as anyone else.
They have as much invested in making sure these hostages

(17:07):
can never come out and tell their story, frankly, as
anyone else. And that is at odds with the population.
When we brought you some pulling that even right leaning
members of Israeli society think that we should prioritize getting
our hostages back, even if it means sending the word,
even if it means new elections, we want our hostages home.

(17:29):
And you see that sentiment certainly expressed in the street.
And you know, we're talking about huge protests, tons of
thousands of people in the street saying okay, Hamas said, yes,
they give us our hostages back. What the hell are
you waiting for? And so, you know, a couple more
things to say about this. First of all, Saga you
said this was being framed as like a Hamas pr move.

(17:50):
I think that that's I think that's fair in a
certain regard, because I think they had every expectation that
BB's government and by the way, US officials also were
leaking to this press that they weren't engaged in good
faith in these negotiations, that they have no intention of
taking the deal. And so I think in a sense
they did say, Okay, we're going to call your pluff.
We're to say yes even to this deal that doesn't

(18:10):
explicitly say the end of the war. We're going to
take the American assurances for it, which you know, right
I wouldn't recommend, but anyway, we're going to take America's
word for it. This will actually result in a sensation
of hostilities. We're going to say yes to a ceasefire
and put the ball in your court. Bb Net, Yahoo,
what are you going to do now? Because now it
is exposed the entire world that all you're bullshit about

(18:33):
concern for hostages and hey, if the if they return
the hostages, the war can end tomorrow. This was all
complete and unor not. So this has been clear for
a while, but now it's undeniable, and I think it's
undeniable to the Israeli population as well. The last thing
that's really important to say about this is Biden has
been sounding the oppositional alarm to a ground invasion into

(18:55):
Rafa for months now. He even sort of kind of
said it was a red line before immediately saying I'll
never leave Israel, but he sort of kind of said
Rafa was a red line. We've heard about these tough
conversations from Blincoln just recently and Jake Sullivan and co.
And these sort of vague threats that hey, we may

(19:17):
even change US policy, we may not have unconditional support
if you go into Rafa. If you especially if you
go in a way that we don't like, well guess
what they're doing it. So, Joe Biden, what are you
going to say? What are you going to do? This
is a direct rebuke. This is bebe calling your bluff

(19:38):
and saying, yeah, you expressed concern about some other things
in the past either and at the end of the day,
you did nothing. You did exactly what we wanted you
to do, and that's exactly what we think is going
to happen now. So in that manner, the ball is
now in Joe Biden's court. Do your words of concern

(19:58):
mean anything? Does your supposed red line doesn't mean anything
at all? Are you just going to let the Israelis
get away with literally fit anything they want, anytime they want,
till the end of time, unconditional support, no matter what,
no matter how humiliating it is for you, no matter
how awful it is for Palestinians. That's the real question

(20:20):
that's on the table right now.

Speaker 2 (20:21):
Yep, absolutely, I mean it's humiliating for him that the
fact that it even happened. And so even if he
which you very likely is going to be unable to
bring to the brink. So I think we all know
which way things are headed.

Speaker 1 (20:33):
This is also another extraordinary story we didn't want to
lose sight of we had covered previously. There's kind of
a freak out going on in the net Nyahu government
right now about possible arrest warrants being issued for net
nyahuu yoav Gowan and a few other individuals and possibly
Hamas leaders as well, coming from the International Criminal Court.

(20:54):
So let's put this up on the screen. The ICC
issued this rather extraordinary statement warning any entities against bullying
and threatening them. Let me read you some of this.
They say. The Office of the Prosecutors where their significant
public interest in its investigation. It welcomes comments communication of
concerns and engagement in its activities. But they go on

(21:17):
to say independence and impartiality cannot be undermined, and they
are when individuals threaten to retaliate against the Court or
against court personnel should the Office and fulfillment of its
mandate make decisions about investigations or cases falling within its jurisdiction.
Such threats, even when not acted upon, may also constitute
an offense against the administration of justice under Article seventy

(21:41):
of the Rome Statute. That provision explicitly prohibits both retaliating
against an official of the Court on account of duties
performed by that or another official, and impeding, intimidating, or
corruptly influencing an official of the Court for the purpose
of forcing or persuading the official not to perform or
to perform them properly his or her duties. They conclude,

(22:01):
the Office insists that all attempts to impede, intimidate, or
improperly influence its officials cease immediately. So they put this
out and everyone was like, hmm, okay, what is what's
going on? What is this about? Now we had some
guesses because there had already been some reports about you know,
these railies using all the tools they had about the

(22:23):
US pressuring the ICC. But now we have these specific
details of what this likely was in reference to, and
this is really quite extraordinary. Let's put this up on
the screen. This scoop came courtesy of Zeteo, that's Maddie
Hassen's new news outlet. He got a hold of a
letter that was sent from a number of high profile

(22:46):
Republican centers, including Mitch McConnell, that directly threatened the ICC
prosecutor and threatened their family members. This is this is
really crazy. Let me read you a little bit of this.
They say in a terse one page letter obtained exclusively
by Zeteo and signed by twelve GOP senators, including Tom Cotton,
Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz Kahn. That's the prosecutor is informed

(23:07):
that any attempt by the ICC to hold net in
Yahoo and as colleagues to account for their actions in
Gaza will be interpreted not only as a threat to
israel sovereignty, but to the sovereignty of the United States.
Quote target Israel, and we will target you, adding they
will sanction your employees and associates and ban you and
your families from the United States. The letter concludes, quote

(23:32):
you have been warned, so I mean direct threats being
made against the ICC, their employees, their family members, direct
threats made by these twelve Republican senators. They got a
statement response from Democratic Senator Chris mann Holland, who said, quote,
it's fine to express opposition to possible judicial action, but

(23:54):
it is absolutely wrong to interfere in a judicial manner
by threatening judicial officers, their family members, their employees with retribution.
This thuggery is something befitting the mafia, not US senators.
So pretty wild this situation.

Speaker 2 (24:07):
I was not aware of something called the Hague Invasion Act,
which authorizes the US President to use all means necessary
and appropriate to bring about the release not just of
US persons, but also allies who are imprisoned or detained
by the ICC. Who wants to guess who signed that
one into Lodge George W. Book two thousand and two. Now, look,
if it's one thing. If it's it's one thing, if

(24:28):
the ICC is attacking and going after US service members,
for US to exert extraordinary influence to prevent that, it's
another thing to do so on behalf of a foreign
nation who is not even a treaty ally who we
have no obligation actually I legally to defend at all.
It's just the quote unquote non but like, just so

(24:49):
people understand, Israel has the same treaty designation or ally
designation as Argentina, So you know, just so everybody understands
that in terms of our actual obligations the country. Now,
as we can see here though very clearly, they are
saying that this would constitute an attack on the US itself,
where further evidence of dual loyalty and of exactly how

(25:10):
much these people are willing to you know, basically expend
extraordinary US effort and influence on behalf of the Israeli government.

Speaker 3 (25:20):
It's just crazy.

Speaker 1 (25:21):
Well, I think it's in part too because there is
some risks because the US has been so involved in
this assault on Gaza. So they're not crazy to see
this as like this could be a problem for US too,
given what we've known about these war crimes, given the
you know, overwhelming support in Congress and from the presidential

(25:43):
level to ship these weapons in contravention of US law,
leave alone international law. So I don't think they're crazy
to see this is like this could be a problem
for US too. And speaking of the Hague Invasion Act,
they actually name check it has some other like sort
of like Orwellian name like the service Member Protection Act
or something like that, is the official name. The nickname

(26:03):
for it is the Hague Invasion Act because it, as
it indicates, authorizes military action in the event that you know,
our service members were detained or any there was any
sort of you know, threat to quote unquote US sovereignty.
So it authorizes extraordinary measures. And they're saying that this

(26:23):
could be invoked. The Hague Invasion Act could be invoked
even if there are just arrest warrants for Bibi Yahu
yoav Goalan, et cetera. So this is this is wild,
Like this is really wild. And I guess it also
does speak to the fact that it's easy to dismiss
like UN resolutions and whatever. Is like they don't have

(26:44):
any you know, they don't have a police force. What
do they gotta do. They're not going to actually arrest
net Nyahu or whatever. Clearly from the freakout from these individuals,
the direct threats that are being issued in this letter
and the freakount that's been reported on from the Israeli side,
they clearly think it means something. They clearly feel like
this is not a little nothing that they can just

(27:05):
handwave by.

Speaker 3 (27:06):
I mean, I've said this before.

Speaker 2 (27:07):
I don't think anybody will get arrested or anything is
going to happen. But international isolation is a problem. And
that's really what they're more afraid of than anything is.
They just want to be able to I mean, what
does anybody want. They will a land without having to
even worry or negotiate or have the US to excerpt influences.
Ultimately what they want bbe also backing this, putting this

(27:29):
up on the screen. Please Yesterday was actually Holocaust Remembrance
Day in Israel, and Netsan Yahu, in his message frankly,
in a very insulting message to all of us, says, quote,
Israel will defend itself even if it is forced to
stand alone. Now, if this was a country that had
not received more military aid than any other country literally

(27:51):
in the world from the United States, it would be
one thing. But this is a country that owes not
only its foundation and its existence, but every military development
post nineteen seventy two to the United States taxpayer. So
the idea that they're forced to stand alone and it's
just them against the world is bullshit.

Speaker 3 (28:10):
I mean, it's just insulting to us.

Speaker 2 (28:13):
And they just say that like as if their isolation
at this point is a real because not if you
look at the way that the West is supporting them
to be to sell this idea that it's like oppositional,
when in reality they are the greatest benefactors of the
US superpower then probably maybe any other nation in the

(28:33):
history of the world. So anyway, it just shows you
that their foundational myth is like we stand alone. We
stand where the underdoge, where the undergo said, come on, man,
like you know not whenever you've been we've been funding.

Speaker 1 (28:45):
Your own country wouldn't even exist without us.

Speaker 3 (28:49):
It's literally the case, actually true.

Speaker 1 (28:51):
The UN partition plan was originally passed. It only came
after we like bullied and coerced and threatened a few
countries to demand their vote. Okay, So I mean it's
just ridiculous, but it does speak to this sense of
constant victory. We're the only legitimate victims. That's no. Number one.

(29:13):
Everything that we do has to be seen in the
context of the horrors of the Holocaust, and so since
that horror was done to us, we can never be
the ones perpetrating the horse. No matter what we do,
we get a free pass. That's number one. And number
two this self conception, which you know, people like like
Christian Zionists like Joe Biden others also buy into this

(29:33):
like outdated notion of which was never really accurate. Of
Israel as the underdog, as the you know, the David
against the Goliath, which is a preposterous concept when you
look at the power disparity between them and the Palestinians
at this point. So but he said, specifically in this
message with regard to the ICC, he said, which also

(29:55):
speaks to that dual like you know, victimhood and underdog situation.
Issuing arrest warrants for Israeli officials would leave an indelible
stain on the edifice of international law and justice. He stressed,
the ICC was founded as a consequence of the Holocaust
and should not attempt to undermine Israel's fundamental right to
self defense. So again, and the ideas like because of
the Holocaust, we can do no wrong. This institution isn't

(30:18):
about making sure that the laws applied equally no matter
who does it in making sure these whoors that were
perpetrated against us that nothing like it can happen to
anyone in the world. No, no, no, this was set
up explicitly to like give us a pass and make
sure that it's never done specifically to us. Which again
I want to reiterate that the reporting is that the

(30:40):
ic C of rust wots if they come, which is
a big if. The reporting is that they will likely
be against Israeli officials and Hummas leaders. So keep that
in mind as this is all unfolding.

Speaker 3 (30:52):
All said, all.

Speaker 2 (30:54):
Right, let's turn to the Trump trials. So some major developments.
Donald Trump being held in contempt again giving a speech
where he says he is very happy to serve in jail.
Let's take a listen to what he said.

Speaker 4 (31:05):
And it's a disgrace. And then you have the other
thing that maybe is even more disgraces, the gag order
where I can't basically I have to watch every word
I tend to do. People, you ask big question, a
simple question, I'd like to give it, but I can't
talk about it because judge just give me a gag
order and say you'll go to jail if you violated,

(31:27):
and frankly, you know what, our constitution is much more
important than jail.

Speaker 3 (31:31):
It's not even close.

Speaker 2 (31:33):
So our constitution is more important in jail, It's not
even close. Allegedly, and further going on saying that he
would be happy to do it. Let's put this up
there on the screen. This happens after Trump has been
fined for contempt the tenth time now in the trial,
has been fined one thousand dollars each time a sternest
warning yet from the judge who says that clearly the
money is not enough and that future gag order violations

(31:54):
would send him to jail. So obviously that is pretty
significant because the thousand dollars in the exactly cracking the
wallet of Donald Trump, he especially with all of his
truth social stock. But this is kind of overtaken the
fact that there have been some significant developments in the
trial itself. The most significant testimony actually happened on Friday.

(32:16):
I've been wanting to give everybody an update. Let's go
ahead and put this up there on the screen. It
entails Hope Hicks wants his most closest advisor, his communications
director in the White House. She was integral to the
entire operation. She gave a tearful testimony at times over
two hours quote with a behind the scenes glimpse into
how his inner circle operated and responded to negative media stories.

(32:38):
So Hicks actually was testifying there about learning about the
Access Hollywood tape, about what the inside of how they
learned about the Karen McDougall story, who previously also alleged
an affair with Donald Trump, and then also Michael Cohen's
role in the Stormy Daniel's hush money payment. So Hicks,

(32:58):
despite being one of Trump's closest advisor's crystal called here
to trial to try and offer evidence as to the
fact that this was a payment given to Stormy Daniels
motivated purely by the campaign and not as Trump is
alleging that it was a personal expense that was done
on his behalf.

Speaker 1 (33:15):
Yeah, and you know, a lot was made of the
fact she was very emotional. Reportedly she's still quite loyal
to Trump. I mean, this is someone who's known him
from times. She was quite a young woman, you know,
thrust into the spotlight and into this big national position,
and really was especially in the early days of the
Trump presidency, just at the heart of everything that was

(33:38):
going on, and you know, in terms of what impact
it has on the trial, I think it's significant her
testifying to the nature of the campaign and how they
operated from just a you know, interest remembering that time.
It was also really fascinating to hear her perspective on
what happened the day that they got, you know, the
media inquiry about hey, you want to respond to this
whole Access Hollywood tape. They first got the transcript from

(34:01):
the Washington Post. She's reading through it and is like,
this is terrible. And her first thing that she sends
to everyone is we need to deny, deny. Very quickly,
they also get the video and realize, okay, that's probably
not going to be a workable strategy, and she takes
you into the room where she's the person who has

(34:22):
to talk to Trump about what is about to come out.
She said in her testimony. I shared the email with
mister Trump sort of verbally, and we were at the time,
based on the conversation outside the conference room, trying to
get a copy of the audio or the tape to
assess the situation further. We weren't sure yet how to respond.
We were kind of just trying to gather more information.
Everyone was observing the shock of it than She's asked.

(34:43):
When you say you shared the content verbally, did you
read mister Trump the email you receive from mister Farrenhold.
He was the reporter who had asked for comment on this,
She says, I write him in the email. I have
a rag recollection of starting to read the transcript, and
then he finished reading it himself. I believe did you
hand the email for him to read? Yes, that's my recollection.
And what if anything did he said say? He said

(35:04):
that it didn't sound like something he would say. Oh really,
it definitely sounds like something you would say, and obviously
it's on tape, but I mean it is. It's extraordinary.
She says. She was stunned, hard to describe. It was
definitely concerning. I had, you know, a good sense this
is going to be a massive story and sort of
dominate the news cycle for the next several days at least,
And she indicates it was a damaging development. This is

(35:24):
all the reason this is relevant to this case, because
you might think, like, why are they talking to This
isn't actually directly related to the Stormy Daniels thing is
to provide insight into the way that they reacted to
negative stories that would come out about Trump, especially with
regards to any sort of like you know, sexual relationships
or commentary, et cetera, and how much they understood these

(35:46):
things could be damaging to the campaign, because remember, the
core this question is, okay, was this payment, these payments
to Stormy Daniels, Should these have been a campaign expense
or were there other reasons that Trump they have wanted
to bury the story, like for example, his wife not
you know, him not wanting his wife to find out.
So that's why this piece is relevant, trying to provide

(36:09):
context of like, yes, this was all about the campaign. Yes,
when these Neggat stories would come out, they realized they
were really damaging, they moved you did whatever they could
to try to mitigate that damage, et cetera, et cetera.
And the speculation about why Hope was a much. I mean,
anyone could kind of relate and understand. But this is
someone she feels loyal to, and here she is testifying
on the stand and feeling like she's providing information that's

(36:30):
likely damaging. I think that's probably why it was difficult
for her on the stand.

Speaker 2 (36:34):
Absolutely I will say she did give some evidence that
would help be helpful for Trump. I mean in terms
of reasonable doubt. She said that Donald Trump was concerned
about the impact of the Stormy Daniel's news on Malania Trump,
his wife, and apparently said he was very concerned about
how it would be viewed by his wife and wanted
to make sure the newspapers weren't delivered to the residents
that morning. And quote the former president really values his

(36:57):
wife's opinion, so giving at least room possibly for reasonable doubt.
One of the things you know, I want to prepare
everybody for is that it is Remember you only need
one person to declare a mistrial or a hung jury.
Like it's very possible to create reasonable doubt. I think
he's actually presented despite all the craziness around it, you know,
enough reasonable doubt for at least maybe one or two

(37:19):
so called impartial people to say, yeah, maybe he did
do it for you know, for personal reasons, and that's
all you really need to actually win this. Let's put
this up there on the screen. Trump is trying to
turn this to really to his political advantage.

Speaker 3 (37:31):
Quote.

Speaker 2 (37:31):
Trump escalates a tax on prosecutors, says that the Democrats
run a quote Gestapo administration. This was actually made at
a fundraiser. My favorite part of the fundraiser, Crystal is
he said, anyone who donates a million dollars here at
this fundraiser can come up here and can say whatever
they want. And he was taken up on it by
a couple of people. So effective strategy. One million dollar

(37:55):
donation right now, I will let you come up and speak.

Speaker 3 (37:58):
Quote.

Speaker 2 (37:59):
Two donors then came to the stage and told the
crowd Donald J. Trump is the person that God has chosen.
Oh so, I don't know who you are with a
million dollars with beliefs like that and a million dollars
in disposable income.

Speaker 3 (38:10):
But I guess I.

Speaker 1 (38:11):
Guess money really is speech. Soaga, there we go.

Speaker 2 (38:14):
That's right, pretty amazing. Our main takeaway again here is
that Trump. I've seen a lot of analysis on this.
I'm curious what you think. Trump seems to believe that
him getting rested would create another mar A Lago type moment,
or being thrown in jail would create a mar A
Lago type moment where it would force again the Republican

(38:34):
Party to co list around him the same way that
we had the mar A Lago raid. You already see
evidence that Ron DeSantis is meeting with Donald Trump and
doing campaign events set in the future on the schedule together.
You haven't seen Nicky Haley or any of those others come.
But he remembers how mar A Lago really saved him
back and I was in November of twenty twenty two,
and he believes you can recreate that if he was

(38:54):
held in contempt and sent to jail and turn it
into a free speech thing.

Speaker 1 (38:57):
So you're ann that's what ye Yeah, yeah, I don't know,
but your analysis is that he's repeatedly violating the gag
order to sort of intentionally court getting thrown in prison.

Speaker 2 (39:09):
I think it's possible because I don't know what's the
other possible reason.

Speaker 3 (39:12):
I mean, nobody, because he's just beyond.

Speaker 1 (39:14):
Pops off of the mouth all the freaking time. Other thing.
It's just like wildly undisciplined. Because I mean, if I
don't I think that's possible too, that he is actually
wants the spectacle of getting thrown into jail and is
like kind of asking for it. I think that is possible. Yeah,
I don't think it's a particularly wise strategy. I wouldn't

(39:35):
do it either, because it's one thing in the context
of a Republican primary, right, Yes, that rallied all the
troops around him. In the context of Republican primary in
general election, I think it's very different political dynamic. He's
already got all Republicans on board. I don't think DeSantis,
you know, coming on board as any surprise or has
really anything to do with this trial. It's just like, yeah,
he's the nominee, he's very possibly the next president. If

(39:58):
I'm going to have a political future, I better make
things right with this dude. So that was always going
to happen. So that piece I don't think is really connected.
But yeah, the prospect of Trump actually getting thrown into jail,
you know, it just brings this story to the forefront
of the public. It provides images of him actually like

(40:20):
in prison that I don't think are really great for him.
And then the other thing here too, is the reason
why this latest fine was levied is he was like,
you know, like smearing basically the jury, which I know
they're supposed to be disconnected from the media and not
know what's going on, but if you're out there just
like repeatedly going after the jury or the ones that
are responsible for your fate, or the judge who's very

(40:42):
important in terms of being responsible for your fate. It's
not really a great legal strategy, I would say, and
you're right that he has things to work with legally
in this case. You know, I think, like you said,
Hope Picks testified in particular with regard to the Karen
McDougall story, which is relevant here, that's one of the
catch and kill situations National Inquirer, that he was worried
about what Malani would think and that that could be,

(41:03):
you know, a real part of what was going on.
I don't think it's a huge requires a huge leap
of imagination for people to imagine that he didn't want
his wife to know about his affair with a porn star,
so legally has things to work with here if he
genuinely is like trying to get thrown in jail. First
of all, I'm not sure it's going to work, because
the judge did indicate that that might be required, but

(41:24):
also expressed a lot of understandable reluctance about taking what
would be an absolutely extraordinary step. But I'm also not
sure that that political analysis from Trump really holds up.

Speaker 3 (41:34):
We'll see. All right, let's get to the polling.

Speaker 2 (41:39):
That's something that we also wanted to make sure we
keep everybody updated on things actually possibly looking up for
Joe Biden. Always want to show the other side of
the coin. Let's put this up there on the screen.
Six months out quote a tight presidential race with a
battle between issues and attributes. Trump has a forty six
support amongst US adults and Biden forty four in a
head to head matchup. But don't let that deceive you

(42:00):
because as we see here in the graphic in front
of us, this is ABC News IPSOS all adults, it
shows Trump forty six Biden forty four, but if you
go to registered voters you see forty six to forty five,
and if you look at likely voters you actually get two.

Speaker 1 (42:14):
All right, how's my hairs?

Speaker 3 (42:15):
Gray sor right? Usually we can move last.

Speaker 1 (42:24):
That was a little too it's too clangy two one.

Speaker 2 (42:28):
Don't let those numbers deceive you though, as you guys
can see on the graphic in front of you on
the right, all adults forty four percent, Biden forty six
percent Trump, but registered voters forty six forty five likely
voters forty nine to forty five for Joe Biden, with
a huge lead there, four points outside the margin of
error within the likely voter sample. Now obviously that matters

(42:49):
because likely voters of the people were probably going to vote. Now,
the same actual phenomenon comes out even clearer in our
next piece. Let's put this up there please. This was
from NPR. Maris just came out out again just a
couple of days ago. The headline there on their poll
was Democrats if your fascism, Republicans worry about a lack
of values.

Speaker 3 (43:07):
But here again, just check this out.

Speaker 2 (43:09):
Among people who say they are definitely voting in November,
Biden's lead expands to five points, fifty two to forty seven.
The survey shows Biden is doing better with groups that
they are likely or definitely voting, older voters and college
educated whites in particular. What do I always tell you,
people don't get don't ever bet against suburban ladies and boomers,

(43:32):
and because they'll drag their ask to vote no matter what.
So I guess and this will be the most basic
election analysis I've ever given. If it's a high turnout election,
that's going to be really good for Donald Trump because
it means low propensity voters are coming out to the polls.
If it is a normal or low turnout election like
let's say twenty twenty two or anything prior, then it's

(43:53):
going to be very good for Joe Biden. Basically people
who love to vote, like basically Democrats and highly educated
and boomer if those are disproportionately the number of people
comprise the electorate, and Biden has a huge edge. Best said,
I would never bet against Trump. He has a historic
track record of always being able to bring out people
who are very low propensity and have never voted in
the past. So I have no idea. History says one thing.

(44:15):
We have no idea if that's necessarily a good predictor.

Speaker 1 (44:17):
Yeah, and it used to be you could kind of
bacon like, Oh, the polls are understanding Trump's support. We
really don't know anymore. It's in some of the polls
they've been under est demanding Democratic support. So it's impossible
to like even read into the polls what it might
really mean. But this dynamic of Biden doing better with
the likely voter screen when the polling companies are trying

(44:40):
to look at ari who's actually going to show up
and vote versus the overall electorate is a dynamic we've
been seeing for a while. It's basically remember how back
in twenty sixteen, I think it was Schumer who famously
said for every blue collar Democrat we lose in western Pa,
we'll pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs in Philadelphia.
Can repeat that in Ohio and Illinois and Wisconsin. Basically,

(45:02):
these poles are like, maybe that strategy is finally coming
to fruition. Maybe that was actually going to work out
for them this time. Maybe. If it is the case,
I do think abortion is a significant part of that.
And then also just like you know, the negative sentiment
around Trump, you know, which one of these men do
people find to be more distasteful. That's going to be

(45:23):
a key question here as well. How to young people
factor into all of this. Who are you know, not
only disgusted with Biden, but some number have actually shifted
to Trump. Some number are just like I'm not going
to vote at all. Some number are like, hey what
about these third party candidates? That's the other big question
mark is these numbers were showing you are just the
head to head they don't have RFK Junior, they don't
have Jill Stein, they don't have Cornell West. What ballots

(45:46):
are those candidates going to be on? I just I
just don't know. I just don't know. Like it's seems
to me that it is really fifty to fifty. Every
day that I see a like, oh, Biden's doing okay,
the next day I see a one that's like, oh, oh,
Trump's winning every swing state. And I think that is
another thing important thing to bring up, Zager, is it
seems pretty consistent that the swing state polls appear to

(46:09):
be better for Donald Trump than Joe Biden, whereas the
national polls are more of a mixed BacT.

Speaker 3 (46:14):
Great point.

Speaker 2 (46:14):
That's exactly right, and we don't know for sure. Just
to give some turnout evidence, I just have it in
front of me. Midterm turnout actually was about fifty two
percent of the vote in twenty twenty two, but that
is ten points lower than where we were in twenty twenty.
So sixty per sixty three percent of people came out
eligible voters came out to vote in the twenty twenty

(46:35):
election only fifty two percent. That's actually quite high for
a midterm election, but clearly the Democrats had a major
performance advantage with fifty two percent of people come into
the polls in twenty twenty two, So in presidentials they're
usually higher, But is it going to be sixty or
sixty three? There's actually quite a big difference between those numbers,
and you know who they are. But like you said, two,

(46:56):
the swing voter stuff here really matters. At the same time,
you're like, Okay, I see a poll Arizona ands say
they're fed up with the economy, all that stuff. Well
we saw all of that before twenty twenty two, and
then what happened. They all came out on the elected
bunch of Democrats, so I could see the exact same
thing happening. Their state legislature has to try eight times
to overturn a.

Speaker 3 (47:13):
Total abortion band. So I'm like, well, I don't know,
you never know you're with them.

Speaker 1 (47:18):
You got a number of states, including Florida that I
think Trump won by four points. If memory three serves
three to four, that has a you know, abortion initiative
on the ballot, that could be impactful. I'm not saying
Democrats are gonna win Florida, but Biden seems to actually
do better with old people than young people at this point,

(47:39):
so you never know which puts. If Florida's in play,
then you're like, oh, well, this could be a landslide
for Joe Biden. I could honestly see it going either.
I could see it all going to Joe Biden, like
all the swing states plus some outlier like Florida. I
could see it going to the other direction and be
in like a sweep for Trump, perhaps with some assists
from third party candidates. I could see the third party

(48:00):
Canid's cutting the other way. We see Trump freaking out
about RFK Junior right now. I will say just in
terms of anticipating turnout, I pulling indicates, and I think
the vibes indicate as well. And what we see in
terms of response to the you know, horse race segments
that we do here, people are way less engaged than
they were in twenty twenty, twenty twenty. They're just completely apathetic.

(48:22):
I don't blame them. I feel the same freakin way.
I'm like, what kind of a choice is this that
we have? Our great democracy and this is the choice
we have. This is disgusting. So I think people a
lot of people are like, who really cares? Who cares
which one of these like terrible people ends up being
the next president of the United States.

Speaker 2 (48:37):
Very important point, and yet we can see it in
our own data. I mean, you know, our show began
as an election show back in twenty twenty. We know
just how ripping election coverage can be when people are interested.
That is not the case these days. And actually we're
doing better than most national news outlets. In fact, most
national news outlets have had a reduction in their overall

(48:58):
ratings six months a head of the election, which is
insane because that's never supposed to happen. It didn't happen
in twenty sixteen, didn't happen in twenty twenty. I mean,
there was even more interest frankly in the twenty twelve election.
You know, at that time, Obama being tested in all that.
I mean, I remember, I'm sure you do too, that
primary and Mitt Romney and everything.

Speaker 3 (49:19):
I think there was.

Speaker 1 (49:19):
More interest in like the twenty eighteen mid terms. Yeah,
I think you're right than it's generally, you know, typically
just in terms of you know, media business whatever. Typically
there are a few media brands that really and we
were one of these, that really like establish themselves and
make themselves in and become known in the context of
presidential races. I mean, this is the this is the peak.

(49:41):
Usually the idea is that ratings and interest and clicks
and views and all of that really spike and are
an outlier, you know, order magnitude higher in presidential election years.
And now, I mean, listen, it's it's a little early,
but it's may. It's not that early, and people like
who cares? And I feel the same way. Frankly, I

(50:02):
feel the same way.

Speaker 2 (50:03):
I agree with you, and just give to give you
even more evidence here also about how propensity and low
propensity people may even turn out. We cannot erase RFK Junior.
Let's put this up there on the screen. News Nation
just did a poll. RFK Junior actually more popular. Here
is showing with younger voters and specifically with Republicans, fifty
seven percent of younger voters say they have a favorable

(50:24):
review of RFK Junior, and amongst Republicans, he's got a
very high approval rating. So let's say that you have
more low propensity anti institutional folks who hate liberals or
hate the Democrats, who want to stick it to somebody. Previously,
they were just going to vote for Trump in twenty sixteen.
This time around, they may come out and they may
vote for RFK Junior if they do turn out to vote,

(50:46):
So we cannot erase his role either in this election.
There's a lot of X factors, but I agree, I mean,
all indicators are right now is a much lower turnout
than twenty twenty that the interest in a lot of ways.

Speaker 3 (50:57):
I mean, this might be.

Speaker 2 (50:57):
This almost feels like the nineteen ninety six election, which
I think is the least important election of my lifetime,
where you're like, eh, you know, you never whichever one
you get.

Speaker 3 (51:05):
I'm not saying it won't be.

Speaker 2 (51:07):
Consequential, of course it will, right Like ninety six was
consequential for a variety of reasons beyond the Gangrich era,
welfare reform, etc. Like on a policy level, but in
terms of the way people felt about it, they just
didn't really care that much. And I think people do
care this time around, but like you said, know that
their choices are so limited that they're just turning the
dial off. Mostly sports coverage, pop culture coverage and all

(51:29):
of that is record highs, while political coverage is a
very very.

Speaker 1 (51:33):
Yeah, And I think part of that I think part
of it too, is the fact that you basically didn't
really have a primary on either side. I mean, the
Republicans went through the motion, but it was a foregone conclusion.
Trump didn't even participate in the debates, So that there's
a natural progression where people get engaged in the primaries,
they get excited about the elections. They've got some candidate,
some horse on their side of the aisle that they're

(51:53):
getting excited about, and then you know that starts to
spark interest in the stakes of the election. And so
you have that dynamic of on the Democratic side, they
just literally basically canceled the primary and we're like, nope,
we don't care, no dissent, we don't care that the
majority of Democrats actually would like to have someone else.
We're just sticking with Joe. That's that. And on the
Republican side, as I said, Trump didn't participate in the primaries,

(52:13):
and he was massively ahead in the polls nearly once
they people actually engaged the entire time. So there's that,
and then there's just the fact that you've cut a
majority of Americans who say they don't like Biden and
a majority of Americans who they don't like Trump, and
the most unifying sentiment in the entire country is utter
disgust at the nature of our choices for this election.

Speaker 3 (52:33):
Big go. That's right.

Speaker 2 (52:34):
At the same time, the segment everybody's been waiting for
lab grown.

Speaker 1 (52:38):
Meat really built this puppy up, didn't we Let's put it.

Speaker 2 (52:41):
Up there on the Florida Ron DeSantis has banned lab
grown meat, as other states way a ban quote what's
their beef with cultured meat?

Speaker 3 (52:50):
Good headline there from the USA.

Speaker 2 (52:52):
Today, Governor rond De Santas signed into law this bill
which bans any quote cultivated meat because it has grown
from animals. He says, take your fake lab grown meat elsewhere,
We're not doing that in the state of Florida. To
be clear, the ban does not include things like impossible meat,
which is made from plant based ingredients and is meant

(53:13):
to protect cattle ranchers and the integrity of American agriculture.

Speaker 3 (53:18):
Now, critics have come after Governor.

Speaker 2 (53:21):
DeSantis, saying that it goes against regulatory approvals that came
in through the US just a year ago.

Speaker 3 (53:27):
There's actually been a huge backlash. Crystal.

Speaker 2 (53:30):
You'll find funny to know amongst the technology community. There's
a lot of venture capitalists who to Florida who are
very pissed off. They are calling this anti science and
anti tech.

Speaker 3 (53:40):
However, there have.

Speaker 1 (53:41):
Been I think I saw like Bezos invested in.

Speaker 3 (53:43):
That's right, Bezos just invested a lot of money.

Speaker 1 (53:45):
This is the point against me. I shouldn't have brought.

Speaker 2 (53:46):
That Jeff Bezos to invest about sixty million dollars in
Lab grown Meat company. He has picked up though, some
interesting fellow travelers in the movement.

Speaker 3 (53:55):
Let's put this up there on the screen.

Speaker 2 (53:57):
John Fetterman has supported Rond DeSantis's lab Meat bands, saying quote,
the fake meat is slop, and he says it pains
me deeply to agree with the crass and burn ron,
but I co sign this as a member.

Speaker 1 (54:08):
Picture of health, both Betterment and Santas.

Speaker 2 (54:11):
Okay, now that doesn't necessarily anything. Says as a member
of Senate Agricultural Democrats, and as some dude who would
never serve that slop to my kids, I stand with
American ranchers and farmers. So this has picked I guess
it's an interesting discussion which we wanted to have here
about lab grown meat. So I will at least give
my perspective and my advocacy for the bill. Now, I

(54:33):
think it is a fair point just to preempting criticism.
Why wouldn't you say this about factory meat. I agree
with you. I think factory meat is poison. I was
telling you us meat is actually banned in one hundred
and sixty countries because a lot of the additives that
we put in there, many of the ways that we
have are in our meat supply Tyson's foods and all
of this is repulsive and discussing, and if you have

(54:53):
the ability, I would genuinely urge you to not eat
it and to try and either buy local meat, which
is a pastur ray, organic grass fed, et cetera, from
people who actually both treat animals well, harvest them sustainably
and responsibly.

Speaker 3 (55:05):
I understand it's more expensive. Not everybody can afford it.

Speaker 2 (55:08):
That's part of the curse, though, has been a factory
and you know, vertically integrated meat production here in the
United States. Now, the reason I'm against lab grown meat
and all of this is I believe very strongly in
a principle called the Lindy principle. This was you know,
by Nassim Teleb and the idea is basically like the
longer it's been around, the better it is. And there

(55:30):
is just something deeply dystopian and terrible to me about
the ideas of like the future technology companies like these
tech guys Jeff Bezos and others, not just owning land
where food production actually happens, but synthesizing meat and then
possibly I mean, who knows what you're even gonna put
into it. I mean, just imagine, you know, our current
vegetables already are not even real vegetables. They're like genetically modified,

(55:54):
and they have all this crap in them to make
them last longer in the freezer car on the way.

Speaker 3 (56:00):
From Chicago or whatever to overhere.

Speaker 2 (56:02):
And I just feel like more that we do that
I understand is better for feeding eight billion people at scale.
So I'm not going to criticize it, I guess in
that way, but I don't think it is healthy and
moving more in that industrialize food way, and it's also
stripping away, you know, the tradition, and I think the
benefactor of cattle ranching and trying to move to a

(56:22):
pre nineteen sixties food market, which I would like to see.

Speaker 3 (56:25):
I'm supportive of the measure Oka anyway.

Speaker 1 (56:27):
With all that, yes, so there first, let's talk a
little bit of background the two things that are really
driving this move to ban lab grown meat, which, by
the way, what this is, I mean not that I
really understand the process, but they take some stem cells,
yes exactly, from an animal, animals not harmed, and they're
able to use amino assets to basically like grow actual

(56:49):
meat out of these stem cells, which is extraordinary, right
and has potentially you can imagine the potential massive benefits
because the meat that we consume, is Sager is actly
pointing out, is actually really terrible. And industrial factory farming
is also really horrifying and is bad obviously for the animals,
but it's also bad for people. You have this massive

(57:12):
use of antibiotics, which has led to you know, straight
antibiotic resistant strains of infections, and that being a problem
you have even like right now, there's a bird flu
situation that comes directly out of the result of the
way that these factory farms operate in the close integration
with humans, and these factory farms which are disgusting, dystopian places,

(57:34):
these animals are tortured from birth until the time that
they are slaughtered. It's horrifying, horrifying situation. And that's before
you even get into the climate impact. Okay, so that's
number one. Number two, as I was beginning to say,
the reason this is happening now is not because Ron
DeSantis is deeply concerned about the quality of the food
that our children consume. It's because number one, there's a

(57:58):
lot of money in the factory farming industry that is
concerned about this. And number two, Republicans have made it
into this like culture war thing where it's like, and
even Desanta says in his bill, like the World Economic
Forum elites want us to eat fake meat and bugs
and who cares about climate change, et cetera. So it's
this culture war issue that has the benefit of also

(58:20):
overlapping with a lot of big money interests. Fetterman, I
think picking it up likely given his the demonstrated level
of corruption and how influenced he is by money that
is given or withheld from his campaign, I think it's
very reasonable to assume that maybe a factor for him
as well. But yeah, it's not like the rest of
our food system is so pristine that it makes any

(58:44):
sense to single out this one potential innovation. And then
the other thing to say is this is like, this
is a long way from coming to fruition.

Speaker 3 (58:51):
Yeah, that's definitely true, right.

Speaker 1 (58:52):
It's still very early in the development. So, you know,
I think what we talked the other day, I think
it was me and Emily you were out about lunchables.
Like to me, things like that are probably a much
bigger problem than lab grown meat, which has all of
the genetic indications of being just basically like meat. So
to have a hard ban on this, it's more culture

(59:14):
war signaling than it is actual concern for anybody's health,
because if you're concerned for anybody's health, you have a
lot more critiques of our food system than you have.

Speaker 3 (59:23):
Sure, but I mean take where you can get, right.

Speaker 2 (59:24):
I mean, to me, lab grown meat is the epitome
of the Jurassic Park. Mean, your scientists were so preoccupied
whether or not they could they didn't stop to think
if they should.

Speaker 3 (59:33):
I mean the idea.

Speaker 2 (59:34):
Look, as we have seen with a lot of the
regenerative farming movement and others that are out there, you
can actually minimize a lot of the climate impact. You
can actually raise animals sustainably, you can have much healthier meat,
and you can even buy directly from the sources. One
of the amazing things about the internet is you can
buy meat online today and you can get a ship
to your house from ups. You're going to pay maybe

(59:54):
fifteen percent more than you would buy at the grocery store.
I totally understand a huge portion of the public cannot
afford that. So I am not saying that it is
anywhere where it needs to be. But imagine if those
people got the same federal subsidies that Tyson's Foods and
Purdue Farm and all these other people are getting. I mean,
that's a totally different type of food system which we
could get to pro technology in the way that people

(01:00:16):
could still get access to or even better buy something
locally which is properly raised. So I would just say
this lab grown direction is one where look, there's something
both in terms of the playing god, but second, I
just really believe and we're gonna talk we have a
guest later who we're going to be posting later on
about ozempic and there is just there is this idea

(01:00:39):
of hubris where we seem to believe that we can
just synthesize amino acids and that there isn't something intangible
over hundreds of millions or tens of millions of years
of evolution of an animal being grown from birth to
wherever it is, and then us eating the animal protein
that can just be synthesized through a tube into something

(01:01:02):
that we're going to eat and is going to give
us all the nutrients that we could ever possibly want.
There's no you know, history of medical science that shows
you that, like Western medicine itself right now, if you
were to ask me to how to fix the bone,
they know how to do that, but they don't know
what makes us tick. That's why nobody has ever solved
depression or you know, why you can't just take vitamins

(01:01:23):
instead of eating vegetables.

Speaker 3 (01:01:24):
If it was that easy, then it would already have
been done.

Speaker 2 (01:01:27):
So for me, it doesn't pass the Lindy test at all,
and I think we should say that always.

Speaker 1 (01:01:30):
I mean, your tick is just basically like I assume
all technology is bad, not all, but a lot, I mean,
and it's very it's very dissonant with other technological like
embrace of you know, the Apple Vision pro and other
things that you're very life and also it's very it's
very dissonant also with your you know, your view that

(01:01:53):
we don't really need to worry about climate change because
science is going to solve it. Well, this is one area.
I mean what it's like twenty five percent of carbon
emissions come from its food delivery. It's very high. So okay,
this is part of science solving the climate change crisis
and making it so that we don't have to make
some of the more dire trade offs that some of
us fear that ultimately will have to make. So listen,

(01:02:17):
study it, make sure it's safe. But to just have
no evidence that it's a problem and be like I'm
going to ban it because I want to own the
World Economic Forum elites, it's just silly. It's just silly.
And like I said, it's so different than the way
the entire rest of the food system is viewed. It's
just this sort of like based on nothing, reactionary view

(01:02:38):
that I believe, based on nothing, this is going to
be a problem. When you know, it's nice that you
can get like your organic whatever, small ranch raised beef,
et cetera. Ninety nine percent that's the stat of animals
consume for food production are factory farms and it's horrible.
It's horrible for the animals, it's horrible for human beings.

(01:02:59):
But I don't see Santis or John Fetterman upset about that,
of course not, because that's where they're getting the money from,
that is being used to drive this position. And then
also this just like culture war.

Speaker 3 (01:03:09):
Virtue signal, I don't disagree.

Speaker 2 (01:03:11):
I think there's also I mean, look, I understand the
whole World Economic Forum thing, but really what they are saying,
let's say the best faith version of it is basically
in a lab grown system.

Speaker 3 (01:03:19):
What does it mean.

Speaker 2 (01:03:19):
It means you have to go to a company in
order to buy your meat. You can never actually be
fully sustainable or harvest something if you want it to yourself.

Speaker 3 (01:03:26):
What okay, because.

Speaker 1 (01:03:28):
People can still have their own cat, they can still
buy their meat.

Speaker 3 (01:03:30):
I mean what if they outlaw that as okay.

Speaker 1 (01:03:32):
Well, then you take a stand of back against that.
But instead of saying, hey, let's study it and see
and actually maybe this is healthier for people. Maybe this
reduces the cost of meat so that people can have
more whole foods versus the like, you know, lunchables crap
that they're eating now, rather than that you're just like,
let's ban it before we even know.

Speaker 2 (01:03:52):
I understand what you're saying, and I'm not disagreeing that
it is a culture based argument. Yeah, only telling you
where it comes from. The skepticism. Again, for me, it
doesn't pass Thelindy test literally at all. The idea that
you can just grow something in a lab and that's
going to replace it. If again, if it were true,
then vitamins would have replaced all of vegetables. But all
medical scients would tell you that a vitamin is not

(01:04:12):
a direct you know, is not a direct substitute. Now,
could it get there maybe, but they've been trying, you know,
for what forty fifty years, So in this case, maybe
they will get there. But it does seem like, just look,
it makes me uncomfortable the idea that these people are
trying to consolidate the food system such that the fake.

Speaker 1 (01:04:32):
System is already consolidated.

Speaker 3 (01:04:33):
Yeah, but we can have a problem. We have some
level of self exit.

Speaker 2 (01:04:36):
Right now, I'm saying, what if we get to the
point where you have a total control of the food
system there, which I do think that.

Speaker 1 (01:04:41):
There is actually competitor to the consolidated food system. That's
why there's a reaction against it from the political class
because of these monopolists who want to be able to
continue their factory farming with no alternative and have consolidated
the marketplace. That's exactly the problem. They don't want a competitor.

Speaker 3 (01:04:56):
Well, but they don't.

Speaker 2 (01:04:57):
The competitors who are coming in are Jeff Bezos and
the Facebook. The VC guys who I see tweeting about
this on Instagram or on are on Twitter, who are
you know, multi billionaires or have funds themselves. It's like
Facebook taking over the monopoly of newspapers is like did
we win? I mean, like if that's competitions not necessarily
a good competition, Like is the new boss really as
good as the old boss or is it just basically

(01:05:18):
the exact same type of boss that we have here?

Speaker 1 (01:05:21):
Not?

Speaker 2 (01:05:21):
Again, is DeSantis corrupt? Do they really care about the
food system? No, because they're from the top sugar producing
state in the whole country. Like I'm with you, Like
I'm not saying that it's not a good thing. If
we could ban sugar, we probably better off doing that
than we would with lab grown meat or any of
this other stuff. But we could go after the agricultural
subsidies and Purdue and Tyson's and all these other companies,

(01:05:42):
and you know, like lunchables, which is I don't even
know if that doesn't even qualify in my head as
meat or hot dogs or so many of these other
things with all those disgusting additives and things like that.

Speaker 1 (01:05:52):
Hot dogs are a great point. Actually, yeah, no, people
are fine with hot dogs. You're worried about this, Okay,
looked by the way, hot dogs.

Speaker 2 (01:06:00):
Fut and I don't eat any hot period. I'm not
putting that poison into my body.

Speaker 1 (01:06:05):
Yeah. Well, listen, if you actually care about the food system,
you would do a lot more good rather than banning
something that hasn't even really been developed yet. You do
a lot more good, just like killing the corn subsidies
and the sugar subsidies and putting those subsidies instead towards
whole foods, whole fruits, vegetables, meat, et cetera. But for

(01:06:26):
some reason, political.

Speaker 3 (01:06:26):
Classmen, I think that's a fair point. Yeah, we were
just trying to zoom out a little bit.

Speaker 1 (01:06:33):
All right, let's get to what's going on in terms
of the college protests panic across the country. Some significant
news broke yesterday with regard to Columbia University, let's put
this up on the screen. So they announced their decision
yesterday to cancel their university wide commencement amid protests. This
headline says, and they cite specifically some vague quote unquote

(01:06:57):
security threat. Note that previously the justification for like bringing
in the cops and clearing out in the encampment and
all that was, Hey, we got to like, we got
to get it together so we can host a commencement.
Could put this up on the screen. This is part
of the statement from the President of Columbias. It's going
to take time to heal, but I know we can
do that. I hope we can use the weeks that

(01:07:18):
head to restore calm, all our students complete their academic
work and honor their achievements at commencement. But apparently, I mean,
I don't think anyone should take their like security threat
thing here seriously. They're worried about it being disrupted. They're
worried about a show of you know how widely supported
these protests are not only among the students, but among

(01:07:38):
the faculty. They're panicked about, you know, the donor class
meltdown that they've already seen, and so like UCLA before them,
they decided better just to cancel it all together so
no one can see any potential exercises of free speech.
Because I'm Cyer recovered yesterday. There have been graduation ceremonies
that have had protests. It hasn't been a big deal.

(01:08:00):
You know, some people stand up with flags, they you know,
get cheered or boot or whatever. They're scorted out and
that's the end of the story and it really continues
with their day. So you know, there's I guess two
things to say. Number One, like I said, it's not
about security, it's about they don't want to be embarrassed
and they don't want to be out of control. And
number two, you know, this has everything to do with

(01:08:23):
the manufactured panic that has been created and they just
want it to end and be able to, you know,
silence everyone in move.

Speaker 2 (01:08:31):
It is about the donors and the parents who would
be coming there more than it is about anything else. Obviously,
as as evidenced, like you said, at previous ones, there
were annoying protesters. By the way, at my graduation, if
I recall, I think it was at the height of Ferguson.

Speaker 1 (01:08:44):
It's very common to we did at mine as a
but I can barely even remember because it wasn't even
like that big a deal.

Speaker 2 (01:08:52):
You know, I'm with you, I agree with you. I mean,
I don't particularly care I remember. But at the same time,
if I recall, the university was like, there will be
no political songs on people's hats. And then people did
it anyway because they're like, what are you going to do?
Care well my degree? Yeah, and then people's parents were
some people's parents were outrage, and other parents were supporting.
I guess this is a time honored tradition. Let's put
the next one, please up there on the screen. This

(01:09:13):
kind of gets to some of what we previewed yesterday
about where we were going to talk about. There's been
some interesting new polling now about how Americans feel about
these quote pro palest Indian college protests.

Speaker 3 (01:09:26):
So I'll go through support and oppose.

Speaker 2 (01:09:29):
The top line US adults is twenty eight percent strongly
or somewhat support, not sure twenty four strongly or somewhat
oppose is forty seven percent, so deflarent plurality. Now there
is an age gap eighteen to forty four. Forty percent
strongly or someone support, thirty one percent not sure, thirty
percent strongly or somewhat oppose, forty five and older basically

(01:09:50):
completely flipped. You got sixty two percent who completely opposed,
nineteen percent only who support.

Speaker 1 (01:09:55):
Ninety wild age gap.

Speaker 3 (01:09:56):
What do I tell you about boomers votes? What I
college graduates?

Speaker 2 (01:10:00):
This is another important one, important to me because it's
the support figure and the don't know figure which are
really interesting where the oppose is relatively similar. So you
got thirty eight percent college grads who support, fifteen percent
not sure, forty eight percent of pose non college is
twenty four percent support, twenty nine percent is not sure
as in probably just don't care, and then forty seven

(01:10:21):
percent who oppose. Amongst Democrats, you got forty six percent
Democrats who support independence, twenty four Republicans sixteen. And then
on the opposition you've got thirty one percent Democrats, forty
four percent independence, sixty nine percent Republicans. Not a surprise,
they've got a breakdown there by religion. But do you
want to comment on this before we go through more
of them.

Speaker 1 (01:10:39):
Yeah, I mean, I'll just say I actually to be
honest with Hugh this, you know, as someone who does
support the protests. Given what I know about historic disapproval
of protests, and given what I've seen in terms of
being overwhelming media and political class manufacturing of consent around
these protests, I'm actually surprised aren't worse, Like the fact

(01:11:01):
that you still have eighteen to forty four year old's
plurality of whom are in favor, the fact that the
Democratic number, I mean, Joe Biden is really going against
his own base, because there's a very clear plurality forty
six percent of Democrats who are in support specifically of
the college campus protests and only thirty one percent who oppose.
You know, the religion gap is also quite quite extraordinary,

(01:11:24):
quite notable. But to be honest with you, these numbers
are not as bad as I frankly feared.

Speaker 5 (01:11:30):
That they would be.

Speaker 2 (01:11:30):
Interesting, I cope, in my opinion a little bit, because
there's still forty seven percent of pose figure there in
terms of the plurality of the public is against it.

Speaker 1 (01:11:39):
But if you look at like Vietnam War protests, which
we have these numbers, we can get to in a
message that they were way more negative than this.

Speaker 2 (01:11:46):
So, oh no, we'll get to that. Let's go to
the next part this is about too harsh or not
harsh enough. This again is where I would say there's
some warning signs. Amongst US adults, thirty three percent the
plurality here at least in this one are saying that
has not and harsh enough of a response. Thirty one
percent not sure about right, twenty sixteen percent say too

(01:12:06):
harsh eighteen to forty four. You've actually got a plurality
who are saying it's about right or not sure. Twenty
two percent say too harsh, sixteen percent not harsh enough.
But again look at that older figure. Forty five percent
and older forty five and older forty eight percent are
saying not harsh enough.

Speaker 1 (01:12:23):
Yeah, and twelve loves there. They love their order.

Speaker 2 (01:12:26):
College graduates actually very similar. There's definitely more who will
say too harsh, but there's still a plurality amongst college
grads for the not harsh enough figure. Same for the
non college graduates figure, although if the number is higher
amongst not sure amongst Democrats, even the about right figure
is the one that really takes the cake at thirty percent,
So even amongst people who necessarily support the protests are

(01:12:48):
saying it is about right for the police response Republicans
and independence. Independence actually relatively split Republicans obviously saying it's
not been harsh enough, and then a similar breakdown there
amongst religion. Finally, let's go to the next part. This
is just on the latest parts. This is about protecting
free speech. This can be relatively grim as somebody who
definitely supports a free speech do Americans think cologists would

(01:13:11):
focus more on protecting free speech or stopping hate speech?
US adult citizens say both equally, even though stopping hate
speech is a fake thing and is not real.

Speaker 1 (01:13:19):
I mean, you can understand how people say it though
you know, yeah, I mean, this is one of the
most unifying questions. Actually, where you see some divides among
like older people are more likely to say stop hate
speech was most people who are like yeah both, Like
I want to predict hate speech is bad and free
speech is good. Let's do both. So I don't know,
even though from an ideological perspective, obviously I think protecting

(01:13:43):
free speech is more important, but it doesn't I understand
why they got these results.

Speaker 2 (01:13:48):
I guess I would say, I see what you're saying. Yeah,
you're a no one personally not thinking, well, actually, there's
no speech as opposed to free speech.

Speaker 1 (01:13:53):
But yeah, technically the first timement even applies it.

Speaker 3 (01:13:56):
You're like, which is true?

Speaker 1 (01:13:56):
You're like, let's do both. If both's an option, let's
do both. Right, Okay? Fair enough?

Speaker 2 (01:14:00):
As Crystal teased, though, there definitely is a difference in
terms of Vietnam War.

Speaker 1 (01:14:05):
Before we get to that shirt, I want to ask you,
because I want to ask you what your takeaway or
what you think the implications of these polls are.

Speaker 2 (01:14:13):
My implication is that it's either a wash, it will
be marginally important. But the reason why I actually don't
pay attention to much as this as I do to
there was a recent column we didn't cut it unfortunately
that I just read this morning about why this is
very different from Vietnam is that all of the polling
that we have says that Israel Paleson is not number

(01:14:34):
one or even top five, and if anything, is a
fifteen out of sixteen issue for the vast majority of people,
including for young people, whereas in Vietnam, Vietnam was top
five and in many cases was number one and number two.

Speaker 3 (01:14:46):
The truth is that most people either.

Speaker 2 (01:14:49):
Don't care or they're marginally just like kind of interested
they're like, yeah, whatever, those chaos. Maybe I'll support it,
maybe I don't. And the real evidence to me was
the huge not sure numbers in all of these because
one things that really comes out in Vietnam, people were
damn sure how they felt. They either felt strong or opposed,
because people had thought a lot about Vietnam, Whereas with

(01:15:10):
this one, I mean, look, I've said this before. If
you watch the show every single day, you're in like
the top one to two percent of news consumers in
this whole country. And yeah, you know, we cover the
news in the same way. If you go to the
front page of the New York Times Israel, white House,
Trump tile trial and all that stuff, maybe five ten
percent of the country you know, actually checks in every
single day. Because at that time, one point nine million

(01:15:31):
Americans had been drafted into the armed forces fifty five
thousand killed, the level of civic, like, the level of
civic engagement around the issue was just so much higher
that I just I don't really see it making all
that much of a difference. Based on the polling, I
would say I would probably be on the side, you know,
polling just pure like popularity wise of either the about
right figure or of the crackdown. That just seems to

(01:15:54):
be the more popular spot. I'm not saying I support that.
I don't for free speech purposes, but I'm just telling you, like,
for political purpose, that's probably where I would align if
we're a politician.

Speaker 1 (01:16:02):
So you think Joe Biden is handling.

Speaker 2 (01:16:03):
This well, unfortunately, he's probably doing them his best given
the coalition that he has. He's got the suburban ladies,
he's you know, the abortion ladies are coming out to
vote for him.

Speaker 1 (01:16:12):
Yeah, because I heard them.

Speaker 3 (01:16:13):
The boomers are loving it.

Speaker 2 (01:16:15):
The young people mostly don't vote in particular, they're making
life miserable for everybody else. It's like, well, you know
most people, we know how that turns out. Most people
going to turn against that, even amongst colleges.

Speaker 1 (01:16:25):
Who are they making life miserable for it? Well, this
unimpacted your life for my life, I mean, it's different than.

Speaker 3 (01:16:30):
I'm just waiting to get stuck in traffick.

Speaker 1 (01:16:32):
It is different from like the Black Lives Matter protests.
So we've obviously we've talked about that. So I think
your point about the probably more important numbers are how
many for how many people? This is a critical issue, right,
This is their number one issue. This is their voting issue.
And I agree with you. I think that's probably a
small number, but it only really takes a small number. Yeah,

(01:16:56):
well see, you know, I mean, look at the uncommitted
vote in Michigan. There were a few states where the
uncommitted vote itself in a Democratic primary was larger than
the margin that Joe Biden won against Donald Trump. So
you know, in that way, even if it's only a
small percentage, you say this is my number one issue,

(01:17:18):
you clearly have some part of the young population in particular,
who were likely Biden voters who were like, no, not
doing it. Can't vote for someone who is funding a
Jen'm just not going to do it, And that's a
problem for him. The reason I disagree about his response
goes back to the analysis. It's similar to the analysis

(01:17:42):
of why I thought he made a big mistake in
terms of how he handled immigration. Okay, And there's studies,
especially of politicians in Europe that show when they try
to move to the right and be like no, I'm
actually an immigration hardliner as well, it demoralizes their base
and divides their base, and it seeds ground to that

(01:18:04):
right wing perspective. So that if people are like, oh well,
even this guy agrees with the the right on immigration,
So why am I going to go for the water
down version of that? If I want the law and
order crackdown, dude, I'm going with Donald Trump all day long.
So I think that's number one. Number two is that

(01:18:24):
the thing that has caused the impression of like chaos
is not actually the students who are in relatively small
numbers on each of these campuses, like setting up tents.
It's the crackdown. It's the police response. It's the police
coming in brutalizing these students. In fact, the initial crackdown

(01:18:45):
at Columbia sparked a massive increase in these protests across
the country. So I think the response itself has created
this impression of chaos. That is a problem for Joe
Biden with his like moderate suburban voters. Now, in my opinion,
those moderate suburban voters are already voting for him, like

(01:19:08):
they're not going back to Trump. They're voting for him.
Many of them very energized by jobs. As you're accurately
pointing out, this issue is not important to them. They
don't really care either way. So I think he has
Number one divided his own basic coalition. We see that
in some of the numbers. Number two further alienated some
potentially small but also potentially determinative number of young people

(01:19:32):
who are like you just called me a Nazi, Like, no,
I'm not voting for you, and there's nothing you can
say it's going to change my mind at this point.
And number three has created exactly the scenes of chaos
that can lead to a conservative backlash that is not
going to be like your law and order to do.
They're going to be like Trump's law and order do.
That's own going man.

Speaker 2 (01:19:50):
Counter to what you're saying is BLM is that if
Joe Biden had embraced defund, he one hundred percent would
have lost.

Speaker 3 (01:19:56):
I'm absolutely convinced of it.

Speaker 5 (01:19:58):
Now.

Speaker 3 (01:19:58):
He basically tries to distance from the protest.

Speaker 1 (01:20:00):
He actually was. He were much more sympathetic so rhetorically
to BLM than he was here one.

Speaker 2 (01:20:06):
But he did enough of a job of dissing himself
from the violence and not all riot is the voice
of the unheard, and everybody's suddenly MLK Junior all of
a sudden back. In twenty twenty, No Black Squares on
Instagram and no anti racism in Brahem Kendy, and that
was enough for some moderate voters to come along with him.

Speaker 1 (01:20:24):
But let me say, though, that contradicts some analysis from
you in the past, where you've said, and this is
true even you know, you've made this point about Republicans
an abortion for example, or with the Democrats, like even
though I don't know, did any Democratic politicians elected members
of Congress, did any of them actively say defund the police?

(01:20:44):
Joe Biden certainly didn't. But your point was assailient one,
which is like, it doesn't really matter because they're associated
with this thing, right, And Joe Biden was associated with
that thing. He was, as I said rhetorically, much more
sympathetic to the protesters, was very clear about yes, I
condemn the violence, but let's not use that to distract
from the core issues in these core concerns, which are legitimate.

(01:21:06):
And you know, obviously he became president of the United States.

Speaker 2 (01:21:09):
The point I'm trying to make is that I definitely
think he paid a political price. I think though that
if he had not navigated it in more of the
way that he did, which was trying to split the difference,
like in a kind of establishment friendly way.

Speaker 3 (01:21:22):
I think he would have lost. I think if he'd.

Speaker 2 (01:21:23):
Been more AOC on the topic, let's say, in terms
of people are stealing bread because they're hungry, and more like, listen,
you know, we got to hear people out.

Speaker 3 (01:21:30):
But at the end of the day, I don't condemn violence.
He would have lost the election.

Speaker 1 (01:21:33):
So let me make the counterpoint, which is that if
you look back at the polls, when Trump really started
to have a problem was after remember the whole Bible
photo op and the I don't remember which federal agency
it was. There are peaceful protesters that were like cracked down.
The horses came in. It was crazy, it was great,
and there was a huge backlash to that. And the

(01:21:55):
problem part of the problem for him in terms of
his response at the time is there was chaos and
it was happening under him. So my point is that
Joe Biden, by green lighting this crackdown, has created the
very chaos that yes, is a problem for him, and
that it sort of doesn't really matter what he says
about it because the chaos is happening under him. And

(01:22:17):
if his response is to be like, we need a
crackdown and who we'll see what he says about college
student protesters today is giving some big speech on anti Semitism. Like,
if you're looking for the if you were horrified by
what you're seeing on college campuses and you want the
law and order guy, that's never going to be Joe Biden.
That's going to be Donald Trump.

Speaker 2 (01:22:36):
The thing is about the Trump thing, though, is that
there were a majority of the public at the time
who supported calling in the National Guard in response to
the riots.

Speaker 3 (01:22:42):
So it is more complicated.

Speaker 2 (01:22:45):
And I don't disagree he owns a chaos because in
a lot of ways he was like police response, but
then wouldn't go all out, and he was all over
the place in terms of his Bible and then what
he hid in his bunker during the protest. I remember
that being a big story as well. And don't forget
COVID on top of that either. So you're not wrong.
He paid a price, for sure. Now was it all rights?

(01:23:06):
Was it COVID?

Speaker 3 (01:23:07):
I mean it's very difficult to say. I guess.

Speaker 2 (01:23:09):
Just focusing on this, let's turn to Vietnam because this
is actually important instructive.

Speaker 3 (01:23:13):
Let's put this up there on the screen.

Speaker 2 (01:23:14):
For example, how Americans felt about the campus protests against
the Vietnam War. So, as you accurately pointed out in
your monologue yesterday, a majority of respondents blamed the students,
not just for violence, but specifically in the debts of
the four students.

Speaker 1 (01:23:28):
Yeah, we actually have put the next piece up because
we have an overall number about approve or disapprove of
public protests seventy five, which is why I'm like, well,
the protests perception now is actually not that bad compared
to this.

Speaker 3 (01:23:39):
No, You're not wrong.

Speaker 1 (01:23:41):
The other point I want to make about this, which
was which was noteworthy to me and looking into this,
is that you know, this was taken in November sixty nine.
At this point, public sentiment had already really turned against Vietnam.
You had a majority, in fact, I have somewhere the
actual numbers, but you had a very clear majority who
were opposed to it. I said it was a mistake

(01:24:01):
to ever send US soldiers there, and you had I
think it was somewhere in like the thirties who were
still supporting it. So even though public sentiment at this
point agreed with the protesters, there was this very like
visceral reaction against the protests themselves, which is you know,
it's just interesting that that can be two separate questions,
so they could support the issue in general but also

(01:24:24):
be like, you know, no to these protests.

Speaker 2 (01:24:27):
It makes sense to me, though, because what you're saying
is actually, unfortunately was very different in terms of Vietnam context.
So even though the majority the people who had supported
and said it was kind of like Iraq, where we're like, well,
we never should have gone, but now that we're there,
we need peace with honor. And that was Nixon's entire thing.
And that's again I think point the protest. What I mean,
Remember Nixon is elected in sixty eight and escalates the

(01:24:51):
war in Vietnam. The number of debts actually increased, we
have the secret bombing of Cambodia. Vietnamization doesn't happen until
later on in the nix In presidency, where US soldiers
are still dying by the hundreds every week in Vietnam.

Speaker 3 (01:25:04):
It's insane actually to go back and to think about.

Speaker 2 (01:25:07):
So I kind of think that the protest movement, you know,
in terms of the evidence from back in the day,
is very strong for the fact that it was an
immediate backfire. It didn't work in the immediate term or
the near term. We didn't really look back, like quote
unquote fondly on Vietnam War protesters until like the nineteen
nineties when Bill Clinton was elected. Actually, this was an

(01:25:28):
important thing in the ninety two election, when I think
hw Bush called him a draft dodging bum or something
because he got a college exemption for a Rhodes scholarship,
and he had hair and he smoked weed at the
Vietnam protests, and that was the first time it kind
of didn't matter that somebody had opposed the Vietnam War.

Speaker 3 (01:25:48):
And that was thirty years later after.

Speaker 2 (01:25:50):
Something so saying the political fallout from those protests basically
led to quasi republican rule from nineteen sixty eight with
a brief aberation of Jimmy Carter up until what, yeah,
nineteen ninety two. The same thing actually can be said
of the civil rights protests. Do we have the sit
in graph?

Speaker 1 (01:26:06):
We do, that's like I think the last graphic that
we have.

Speaker 2 (01:26:10):
So this question, this is an important one too. This
gets to what I talked about previously. Nineteen sixty one,
people are asked about the sit in protests. Do you
think sit ins at lunch counters? Freedom busters and other
demonstrations by Negroes will hurt or help a Negro chance
of being integrated in the South. Hurt fifty seven percent,
help twenty seven percent.

Speaker 3 (01:26:29):
Now you can look at that two ways, you can say,
and I.

Speaker 2 (01:26:31):
Totally disagree with whoever this tweeter is as the most
iconic and effective protest movement. I don't think it was
effective actually at all in the moment. And this gets
to a point that I was dying to bring up
with you, which is about abolition and about how the
history of these things actually happen. So in eighteen sixty
eighteen sixty one, you have the Southern secessionists, they go

(01:26:53):
out and the radical Republicans come to link and they're like,
we got to do abolition, man, we got to do
the emancipation Proclamation. It's time the rabble rousers are gone.
And Lincoln famously says, I would like to have God
on my side, but I must have Kentucky as in,
we have to have the border slave states who stay
within the Union.

Speaker 3 (01:27:10):
So who was correct?

Speaker 2 (01:27:12):
In the long run, the practical political you know, practitioner
Abraham Lincoln, who understands abolition, is becoming incredibly unpopular that
these radical abolitionists quote unquote who we view fondly now
at the time, but who had maybe nine percent approval rating,
you know in eighteen sixty. What were they correct, you
know to try and to push him to do something

(01:27:33):
that was very unpopular or was he correct to basically
lie about his position and work within the political system
at the time and force abolition and the emancipation through
basically as a war aim lying to the American people
and saying, well, we're doing it to win the Civil War.
It has nothing to do actually with black liberation, even
though that's an end result. And I think that's a
very important question, is like, you know, who is who

(01:27:55):
is really responsible?

Speaker 3 (01:27:56):
I would say Lincoln is the one who is.

Speaker 1 (01:27:58):
Well, so let me ask you that is your opinion
that no protest movement in history has ever mattered or
been successful. But that seems to be what you're laying
out here.

Speaker 2 (01:28:08):
But I'm giving people good evidence. But the chances of
a Civil Rights Act was zero.

Speaker 1 (01:28:15):
You're creating a binary choice though. I mean, what you're
basically saying is the only thing that matters is these
individual great men. None of the social movements, none of
the protest move the sit ins, the freedom writers, the abolitionists,
the suffragettes, the anti apartheid protests, and none of these
things matter at all. All that matters is that you

(01:28:35):
get one dude in there who's going to do the
right thing. And I think that that is a fundamental
misreading of history. I think it's you have to have
a confluence of factors, right. The social movements are critical,
having like the labor movement, pressuring FDR. These things are

(01:28:56):
critical for pressuring these people in power to make these
steps in history that are important. So I just can't
go along with the idea that protest never works, it
always backfires, It's always fool hardy, you know, because when
I look at the lunch counter sit in numbers, like

(01:29:17):
the conclusion is the exact opposite. It's not only do
people disapprove, they found it disorderly, chaotic, etcetera, etcetera. Just
like the reaction you know, among many to the protests. Now,
not only that they said this is going to hard,
this is going to create a backlash, just like you're
saying this is going to be a problem, it's going
to make it worse. And I don't think any reading
of history can look at that and say that's accurate.

(01:29:41):
And so the fact that a protest movement is not
accepted by NORMI Americans is you know, uncomfortable for them,
rejected where they think it's going to be backlash, et
cetera is not at all determined if you look at
history of how successful those movements are ultimately going to be. So,
you know, the apartheid movement eighties is like a great

(01:30:01):
example of that, you had to say, And it's probably
a more close example to Israel than Vietnam, because you're right,
there was much more focus on Vietnam. It was much
longer period of time. You had Americans getting drafted, you
had Americans dying. I mean, this was massive, right. The
apartheid example, I think is a much more closely related one.
But you still had the same like normy backlash. You

(01:30:23):
still had I feel like freed Zakaria out there, you know,
like what are you kids doing? And yeah, you was
on the wrong side of that one. Yeah yeah, that
got dug up recently in terms of context of it whatever. Anyway,
But they mattered, they helped. Were they the only thing? No,
But they were part of a global movement combined with
internal struggle with in South Africa itself that contributed to

(01:30:46):
a climate that ended that racist regime. So I guess
my question for you is, like, put yourself in the
shoes of these college shoes and I don't know, you
don't agree with their perspective, that's fine, but I think
you are. I think you understand they're not doing this
for like clout. They genuinely feel very passionate that there
is a genocide that is being conducted in their name

(01:31:07):
with their dollars, and they want to do whatever they
can think of to do to throw some sand into
these gears and to desperately try to stop these horrors
that they see unfolding in front of their eyes. Like,
what would you tell them to do?

Speaker 3 (01:31:20):
It's a tough question.

Speaker 2 (01:31:21):
I mean sometimes you have to understand too that you
have no influence on the system. I mean I felt
this way whenever Congress passes Ukraine AID and we spend
two years talking about how it's useless, how it's a
stupid cause, how it's just going to waste more life,
and we get the majority of the American public on
our side, and then Congress passes it. Any Way, what
did I do the next day, I put on my
suit and I came back to work.

Speaker 3 (01:31:41):
I mean, like, what else are you going to do?
Always got a beat.

Speaker 1 (01:31:44):
No significant protest movement with regard to Ukraine, And I
think it is not correct to look at the response
of Joe Biden the Democrats and say they're not feeling
the pressure the very they very clearly are. I mean,
I think, like we know the US was involved, and
I believe this reporting was involved in trying to secure
this ceasefire deal. Barack Ravine, who is you know, the

(01:32:07):
White House whisperer, and all of this is saying like
they see this as really important politically, because but Joe
Biden obviously doesn't care about Palestinians, He's obviously committed Zionist.
He is feeling political pressure from this protest movement. That
to me is very clear. And so since we don't
really live in the kind of democracy where the majority

(01:32:28):
like rules and just you get public sentiment on your
side and that's it, that pressure that he feels from
this movement is what counts way more than whether Normanis
are upset about a campus building and a window broken
and the you know, what's the encampments, the disruption itself
is creating the pressure. That is the thing that could

(01:32:50):
I'm not saying it's guaranteed, but that could change things.

Speaker 3 (01:32:53):
I don't disagree.

Speaker 2 (01:32:54):
I do think there's we're flirting right along the line
right now of the same danger that happened back in
the nineteen six where the disruption can turn and can
actually be going against the disruption can become a political asset.
The reason I bring all these things up is not
because I revel in the fact that America was frankly
very sympathetic with the Jim Crow South, or at the
very least didn't think it was their problem. It's only

(01:33:16):
to say that I know that that was the reality,
and so like, let's you know, the sit in thing
is the perfect example. Like this person calls it the
most effective protest, It's just not true. Nineteen sixty one
was a time when the President of the United States,
John F. Kennedy and Robert F. Kennedy, his Attorney General,
support rhetorically the civil rights protesters. At the day that

(01:33:36):
Kennedy died, the likelihood of a civil Rights Act being
passed zero percent. It was his death and LBJ that
eventually the genius of LBJ ushers in the nineteen sixty
four Civil Rights Act. But then even to say that
you know that these people were wrong. I don't think
they were wrong. The truth is that race politics then
rules the Republican Party in the South for what nineteen

(01:33:59):
sixty eight, race riots are basically the reason that Nixon
gets elected. Then Ronald Reagan, everybody seems to just forget this,
happens to launch his nineteen eighty campaign in Mississippi at
the very heart of like some serious segregationist sympathies. I mean,
the year I was born, in nineteen ninety two in
the in Texas, fifty percent of the public did not

(01:34:21):
support interracial marriage, which is nuts.

Speaker 3 (01:34:24):
But that actually happened in the year that I was born.

Speaker 1 (01:34:26):
But the question then, the logical question of that then
is okay, so was it worth it? And I think
most people would say myself included of course, of course
getting the Civil Rights Act passed and ending segregation, ending
Jim Crow, even knowing that it did create this You
know this, LBJ. We lost the South for a generally

(01:34:46):
him being right, like he knew that that was going
to happen, it was still worth it. And so you're Like,
if your argument to me is like, oh, now Democrats
are going to lose elections, you think I fucking care
about that. I don't care about.

Speaker 3 (01:34:59):
That's a fair point.

Speaker 1 (01:35:00):
Like if I knew that Democrats were going to lose
elections for the next twenty years straight, but the genocide
in Gaza was going to end, sign me up for
that deal today. And I think that's the way that
many of these students, they're not worried about how Democrats
are going to do in the fall. The fact that
they're a threat to democratic electoral chances is the only

(01:35:23):
thing that gives them power because the Democrats certainly don't
care about human life in Gaza. So yeah, it's a
problem for Democrats electorally. Their policy in Gaza is a
problem for them electorally. The way they're treating them people
is a problem for them electorally. The chaos that they
themselves created is a problem for them electorally. And to that,

(01:35:43):
I say, good, it should be. It should be a
problem for you.

Speaker 2 (01:35:46):
I agree, and I'm glad. I mean, you're honest about it.
But they're not right. I mean, these people are craven
self interested with politicians, like I'm saying you, and the
protesters are like, yeah, we don't care about the Democrat.

Speaker 3 (01:35:55):
I'm with you, by the way, I'm with you.

Speaker 2 (01:35:57):
What I'm saying for them is these pos politicians, they're craven,
they don't care, they're you know, narcissistic. All they want
to do is really get re elected right at the
end of the day.

Speaker 1 (01:36:07):
Which is why causing problems for their reelection is the
only strategy, because it's not like we've.

Speaker 3 (01:36:12):
Been, it's more electorally beneficial, which we have been.

Speaker 1 (01:36:15):
There, we've been, you know, ceasefire has been a majority
of position since like day two of this war. Definitely,
public opinion has been on the side of these protesters,
not maybe in terms of the protest tactics, but in
terms of what they're actually protesting for a long time now,
and it hasn't matter. So if this is your number
one issue, if you cannot sleep at night, see like

(01:36:38):
seeing these children starving to death, children being bombed, knowing
these are tax dollars, Like what else are you going
to do? This is the the only And they have
been so disciplined, ninety nine percent nonviolent, Like the worst
thing they've done is break a window and enter one
campus building. Okay, that's that is incredible discipline, very big
contrast definitely with the seventies protests and with the Black

(01:37:00):
Lives Matter protests as well, Like this is the this
is not guaranteed to work, but at least it has
a chance of working. And I think that's that's all
you can That's all you can bet on, is that, like,
I'm doing everything I can think to do. I'm being
principled in my non violent tactics, which they really have been.

(01:37:21):
And even now, even with the I mean incredit, I've
never seen a media propaganda campaign like what we're seeing
with this. I genuinely this is beyond war and tearor
whole of politics, congressional response banning, TikTok, Dana bash and
you know Fox News making common cause with bab Net
and ya whoever these kids are Nazis and Joe Biden, mcgrid,

(01:37:43):
the whole bit, everybody in league. And you still have
a clear plurality of Democrats who are like, no, I'm
with the protesters. I mean, that is kind of that
is pretty extraordinary. Like the Democratic base is quite split
with specifically regards to the protest tactics in spite of
the most insane propaganda campaign I've ever seen, and American
public is very clearly on the side of the protesters

(01:38:04):
in terms of wanting to secure a ceasefire and the
end and not supporting for their aid to Israel and
saying that Israeli military has gone too far, like they're
on their side and that. So, yeah, I think this
is the only thing that has even a chance of
making a difference. And so I you know, I say,
God bless these protesters, Thank God for them.

Speaker 3 (01:38:23):
We'll find out. We'll find out whether there's a cost
or not.

Speaker 1 (01:38:28):
All right, Siger, what are you looking at?

Speaker 3 (01:38:29):
Well?

Speaker 2 (01:38:29):
Political correctness is killing comedy. That's a sentiment I may
have agreed with, like seven years ago, when Louis c.
K lost tens of millions of dollars over a New
York Times story and decades old allegations. It's a comment
maybe I would have agreed with when comedy movies themselves
were basically stopped being made in Hollywood, like a decade ago,
as the latest Marvel films were coming out.

Speaker 3 (01:38:49):
But it's not really a sentiment.

Speaker 2 (01:38:50):
That I agree with anymore, and in fact, increasingly think
is being used by people who aren't funny to complain
about their own mediac This monologue was really inspired by
both the hoost of Tom Brady that I watched on
Netflix yesterday and juxtaposed next to another Netflix star, Jerry Seinfeld.
Seinfeld is hot off of his latest project, Unfrosted, where
doing his media tour he made some interesting comments about

(01:39:12):
comedy and what is stifling it.

Speaker 3 (01:39:14):
According to him, let's take a listen.

Speaker 6 (01:39:16):
Oh Cheers is on, Oh Mash is on, a Mary
Tyler Moore is on, all the families on. You just
expected there'll be some funny stuff we can watch on
TV tonight. Well guess what where is it? This is
the result of the extreme left and PC crap and
people worrying so much about offending other people when you
write a script and it goes into four or five

(01:39:38):
different hands, committees groups. Here's our thought about this joke. Well,
that's the end of your comedy. They move the gates,
Like in the scheme culture, the gates are moving. Your
job is to be agile and clever enough that wherever
they put the gates, I'm going to make the gate.

Speaker 3 (01:39:55):
So Gordon and seinfeldt the extreme left and PC crap
has killed comedy. Now.

Speaker 2 (01:39:59):
Maybe there would be something to that if it wasn't
for the fact that the movie he produced, Unfrosted, is
probably one of the dumbest Anadyne and Born comedies that
I've ever had the indignity to suffer through for research
purposes of this monologue. What really revealed to me, though,
is how dumb Seinfeld's take here is, especially with the
release of the Tom Brady.

Speaker 3 (01:40:18):
Roast that just happened. Now, everyone should go watch this roast.

Speaker 2 (01:40:22):
I don't even watch football, and I got all the references,
but what I really took away from watching it was
how dead political correctness and so called woke left limits
on comedy are.

Speaker 3 (01:40:31):
Now.

Speaker 2 (01:40:32):
This is mainstream comedy roast on the most establishment of
all places, Netflix, with people like Kim Kardashian and Ben
Affleck in attendance. It's about as establishment as it gets.
And with that, they allowed the madman Tony Hinchcliff to
sound off like this.

Speaker 7 (01:40:49):
Tom is afraid of the giants, which is why Kevin
Hart is hosting Tonight All Night. He's been using the
stool that Aaron Hernandez kicked out from under himself is
so small that when his ancestors picked cotton. They called
it deadlifting. Tom Brady is a Patriot, which is surprising
considering he looks like a Confederate fag. Clearly your ex

(01:41:10):
wife takes after you. I hear she's out there draining
balls right now. People love you, Tom. You have the
same fan base as Kyle Rittenhouse Gronk. I'm happy you
could take a break from writing Santa letters to be
here today. I knew you were here when we were
all out of chocolate milk backstage. You look like the
final boss in George Floyd the video game. Jeff is

(01:41:31):
so Jewish he only watches football for the coin toss.
Nikki has such a bad eating disorder the industry keeps
shoving her down our throat. You might recognize over our
podcast appearances, specials and winning the Triple Crown at Churchill Downs.
You might recognize Kevin is the jockey that wrote her,
and that's Churchill Downs the racetrack. Not to be confused
with what Jeff Ross looks like when he smokes a cigar.

(01:41:53):
Sam Jay in Obese African American lesbian. So by having here,
Netflix checked off a lot of boxes. Andrew Schultz, I'm
glad you took a break from watching YouTube videos on
how to tap up black dudes. Correctly, Schultz's mom is
a professional ballroom dancer, which means she's a stripper that
talks too much. Bert Kreischer is a king. He looks

(01:42:14):
like at the Tiger King and the Liver King, only
ate Burger King and had a liver that looked like
Martin Luther.

Speaker 3 (01:42:19):
King got beat up by Rodney King.

Speaker 7 (01:42:21):
And how about the parents from the Great Ron Burgundy
huh ah whales vagina which reminds me Kim Kardashian's here.
She's had a lot of black men celebrating her end zone. Kim.
Word of advice, close your legs. You have more public
beef than Kendrick and Drake. Thank you guys, Thank you Tom,

(01:42:43):
thank you joke, Thank you Netflix.

Speaker 2 (01:42:45):
So we have gay jokes, black jokes, ju jokes, sex jokes,
retard jokes. I mean, is it me or is it
two thousand and five? Am I watching the Office? And
is Comedy Central on the best part? Despite the fact
that this was watched by millions, including Hollywood darlings, like
I said, Kevin Hart, Ben Affleck all these others, I
couldn't even find a single think piece about how mean

(01:43:08):
spirited it was, or how Tony Hinchcliff and Andrew Schaltz,
Bird Krascher, Jeff Ross.

Speaker 3 (01:43:12):
Or any of these other people should never work again.

Speaker 2 (01:43:15):
If you need proof that the PC comedy era is over,
that's the proof right there.

Speaker 3 (01:43:19):
And let's not forget the real.

Speaker 2 (01:43:21):
Sign that before Seinfeld even spoke about how dead this
comedy is, Shane Gillis, who was literally canceled from Saturday
Night Line for his jokes about Asians in twenty nineteen,
was invited to host Saturday Night Live this year twenty
twenty four, and while while he was there, he made
jokes about people with Down syndrome. Now, there may have
been a few tweets criticizing him at the time, but

(01:43:43):
let's be real, nothing even close to the cancel brigade
of the late twenty tens. If anything, Shane Starr is
even brighter, and he is hosting shows with Schultz directly
for Netflix, selling out massive arenas. Now, I don't write
any of this to say that political correctness and woke
influences on comedy we're never a problem, only to say
that I don't think it's really a problem anymore. And

(01:44:05):
that people who rely on the crutch for why it's
ruining comedy, maybe they have another agenda that they're trying
to push, like, I don't know, maybe the fact that
Jerry is deciding to make these comments at the exact moment,
that his wife is donating huge amounts of money to
pro Israel protesters, and that he has been urging people
to read Barry Weiss's The Free Press, and Broadley has

(01:44:25):
decided to now enter the fray as a pro Israel
voice since October seventh, Camp help, But notice that Unfrosted
co star Amy Schumer also been doing the exact same
thing lately. If anything, they appear to be the new Snowflakes,
crying about the fact that people disagree with them in
public and then blaming their middling performance or their products
on the very forces that they participated in when it

(01:44:46):
was something that was on their side. Now, as for
why any of this matters, it's because I've always thought
comedy is like a decade ahead of where a lot
of the media ends up.

Speaker 3 (01:44:54):
It's not a coincidence.

Speaker 2 (01:44:55):
A comedy podcasts are really what birth the podcasting format.
It was the falling apart of the establishment comedy on
control forces that gave rise to YouTube and podcast popularity,
and that presses show like ours many others who entered
that fray later on.

Speaker 3 (01:45:09):
So take from this what you will.

Speaker 2 (01:45:10):
I'll just take the victory and notice that what's really
popular again today and what even establishment forces are okay with,
maybe that's a bright spot for the future.

Speaker 3 (01:45:18):
I mean, Chrissell, how can you see that?

Speaker 1 (01:45:19):
And if you want to hear my reaction to Sagre's monologue,
become a premium subscriber today at Breakingpoints dot com. We
are extraordinarily fortunate to be joined by a remarkable guest
this morning. Moira Lang is a palliative care doctor. She
just recently returned from Gaza, where she visited many places,
including Anajar hospital which is in Rafa. Obviously it's very

(01:45:43):
relevant given the ground invasion that just began in Rafa. Doctor. Welcome,
it's great to have you, Thank you, it's great to
be here. Yeah, So first, just tell us the context
in which you were in Gaza and a little bit
of what you saw there.

Speaker 5 (01:45:57):
Sure, I mean, I've had the privilege, incredible privileg You're
traveling to Gaza for ten years and working with colleagues
in hospitals, in universities, and this particular visit, I was
able to see what was happening to people who are
living with illnesses such as cancer, kidney disease, heart disease,
and to visit the colleagues and healthcare colleagues who are

(01:46:19):
taking care of them. We were looking particularly, for example,
at pain relief. Pain relief has been almost zero in
Gaza during this last period, and I spent time yes
in Alijar Hospital in fatimaal Zacha Hospital that's the oncology
service that has been displaced three times already, and as

(01:46:40):
well as neonatal hospitals and primary care hospitals in Rufa.

Speaker 2 (01:46:44):
Doctor, what can you tell us about some of the
remaining health care facilities. You're talking there about the reduction
in pain medicine, Others we hear about the destruction of
the infrastructure. What was it like to actually witness firsthand?

Speaker 5 (01:46:57):
Yeah? Yeah, Number one, it's an absolute privilege always to
spend time with colleagues in Gaza, some of the most inspirational, courageous,
compassionate people that I know. The first thing that struck
me was that the healthcare colleagues were utterly and completely exhausted.
They had been working under these conditions for six months.

(01:47:18):
They had been displaced personally and professionally. Every time your
hospital displaced, you lose what little supplies you'd built up.
They had not been paid any salary for six months.
The price of basic foodstuffs was sky high, making it
impossible for their families. They were not sleeping any night.
I was not sleeping any night, continually all night, drones

(01:47:41):
and bombs, and yet they were still coming to work
and doing the best they could. So that's the first
thing I'd say. And it was a pleasure to see
people that I've known. I've taught in the medical school,
so you know some of the young doctors. Would you
believe I was teaching communication and ethics just last August,
and that brought up many a conversation about what ethics

(01:48:02):
looked like in healthcare. But it was a pleasure to
see people doing there at most best. But I couldn't
believe how exhausted they were. There was a little bit
of teasing about how much weight everybody had lost, but
the reality was minimum fifteen to twenty kilograms, and that
was in a place that had some access to food.

(01:48:22):
I was only able to be in telephone contact with
those in the north. So that's my first thing that
struck me. The second is everywhere was full. The hospital
on the shar a small district hospital. Over the years,
RAFA has said, you don't give us a big hospital,
but there was a big hospital just a few miles
up the road in han Juniz, and then the major

(01:48:43):
one obviously in North Gaza. That hospital should have had
sixty beds. It had anything between six hundred seven hundred
patients coming through the hospital and even more than a
thousand in the accident emergency. It was the first point
of call for trauma, even though it only had a
simple X ray machine and some ultrasound now. In fact,

(01:49:05):
the doctors told me they felt they were working with
their hands tied behind their back, and they told me
stories of young people with diabetes coming in with very
dangerous blood tests something called potassium very very low. It's
a known complication. Yet they couldn't test for that, and
so the patient should have been an ICU, should have

(01:49:26):
had blood tests. All the time they were still managing
to care for those patients, and a one young doctor
told me how we slept for forty eight hours next
to the bed of a young man his age who
was dying of diabetic keto acidosis, that's this complication of diabetes,
and actually managed somehow to help that patient survive. So

(01:49:46):
exhausted healthcare staff, dreadful, dreadful circumstances, patients in huge trouble
with their chronic illness and then their new illness such
as a pneumonia or infection, and then maybe also a
traumatic event with an injury, so all of those combined
and still people trying to care with compassion.

Speaker 1 (01:50:08):
Doctor you talked about how there was basically no pain management,
which sounds very, I guess, sanitized when you say it.
If you are a patient who's suffering from a traumatic injury,
if you are struggling with aggressive cancer, what does that
actually look like, and what does it look like to

(01:50:29):
try to care for these individuals who are in absolutely
excruciating pain, because we've all seen the reports of even
children having to undergo amputations with no anesthetic, women having
to have cesareans with no anesthetic.

Speaker 5 (01:50:42):
Yeah, thank you for that question. I want to put
it in a context that globally this is a big issue.
I've spent thirty years of my professional career with other
brilliant colleagues trying to work on this issue, because this
is a problem in many places, but when you're in
this kind of situation, it is unbelo be the level
of suffering. Just imagine the healthcare workers doing these procedures

(01:51:06):
with that anesthetic. The children, the mothers with cesarean sections
without anesthetic or with minimal or you get maybe one
dose of a painkiller because that's all there, but nothing afterwards.
Think of rehabilitating from your severe injury, all the dressings changes.
Think of the burns patients. I spoke to some of
my colleagues whose parents died of severe burns and they

(01:51:28):
watched them cry as they died. And this is no
criticism of my colleagues. And then you moved to the cancer.
I had just had the privilege of working with my
GAZA colleagues to train twenty amazing multidisciplinary GAZA colleagues in
pain and palliative care. They have the skills, we were
about to graduate them. They were pharmacists and doctors and

(01:51:49):
physios and nurses, and they were saying, you gave us
the skill and we can't use it. And the stories
they told of the cancer patients children as well as
adults just crying, crying in pain was absolutely devastating. I
have to say. The day we were there, they had
got a small donation through UNISEEF had arrived in fatimal Zacha.

(01:52:12):
That was the clinic for the oncology hospital, beautiful oncology
hospital called the Turkish Palestine Friendship Hospital in northern Gaza
that had been displaced now the three times, and they
got some and immediately my colleagues were coming to me
and saying, you know, we know how to do this,
Let's get on and do this. But they also told
me that every time they were displaced, they usually lost

(01:52:33):
all their supplies. And yesterday that clinic was displaced again.
And I have no idea whether where they've been displaced too.
I mean, where can they be displaced too? We'll even
have a drop of anaalgesia, and it's absolutely heartbreaking and
unimaginable suffering.

Speaker 2 (01:52:48):
Yeah, doctor you mentioned there the weight loss, just to
translate for our us audience, that's about thirty three to
forty four pounds that you're describing.

Speaker 3 (01:52:57):
In terms of that.

Speaker 2 (01:52:57):
We've heard a lot here about the destructive of act
of famine and the lack of aid what did you
witness with respect to famine and also to the lack
of humanitarian aid being allowed into the strip As you.

Speaker 5 (01:53:10):
Come into Rufa through across the sin idea is that
the first thing you say, that's the cross thing from
Egypt into Gaza at the south, the first thing you
see is queues and ques and cues of trucks. And
I have to say, my heart sank and I had
a deep sense of shame that. You know how humanitarian
and access to manitarian aid is a basic right, it's
enshrined in international law, and it was awful to see that.

(01:53:35):
What we saw in Rafa at that point was people
somehow getting by. I mean a kilo of chicken or
two kilos of chicken. They haven't had any for months,
arrived frozen from Egypt, and I think it was fifty
or sixty dollars to buy enough for a family. And
remember I said no one had been paid, so they
were somehow managing. There was a few tins coming in

(01:53:57):
and people were getting by, but were still lose weight.
And of course, once you start losing below a certain level,
you're using up all of your protein stores. You become
liable to infections. I saw people dying of pressure sores.
Now that's a combination of untreated wounds, of not enough water,
no hygiene because you're living in circumstances where there is

(01:54:19):
either no toilet facilities or one share between hundreds, and
can imagine hygiene. It's getting hot now, that kind of
infections were rising. That's a result of malnutrition. But even
worse I was hearing from Northern Gaza. I had two
long calls with the very dear colleague I've worked with
a long time. A tomato was costing seven dollars. People

(01:54:41):
were dying trying to catch the food coming from the sky.
I think you've seen the and all of this is
one hour from where I used to come into Asa
when the area is crossing, So you know, it's not
like an earthquake in a distant mountainous place. This is
just beside where food and water are available. And I

(01:55:02):
also attended the meeting where we got an update on
the nutritional status. And there's four stages before you get
to famine, and each of those stages had been crossed
and crossed, and now we were looking at moving Northern
Gaza fully into famine. And that is not severe malnourishment.
That is imminent death of thousands, and it hardly ever happens.

(01:55:24):
We see malnutrition, but a man made famine is almost unheardle.

Speaker 1 (01:55:32):
Doctor. When we covered this morning, how the ground invasion
long threatened of Rafa has begun along with air strikes,
the Idea has taken control of Palestine inside of the border,
has shut that crossing with Egypt there in Rafa. As
someone who has been in Rafa, when you hear that news,
when you see those images, what does that mean to you?

Speaker 5 (01:55:56):
Yeah, I mean, it wasn't a lot of sleep last night. Obviously,
we were communicating, trying to find out who was okay,
where people were, what had happened. The very house that
I was living in while I was there with colleagues
has been evacuated. While I was there, there were bombs
killing people in the house next door, and of course
we remember the very public well publicized deaths killings of

(01:56:18):
World Central kitchen stuff. I mean, what I was hearing
last night was just absolute panic. No one had fuel.
They knew this might happen, but they'd nowhere to go.
They're trying to get out the way. Where can they go?
They say they're moving for peace, but there's nowhere to go,
there's nowhere safe to go, and people are just trying
to desperately find a way to survive. I spoke to

(01:56:40):
a colleague in northern Gaza, a very dear colleague working
through the whole of this time, and he said to me,
dear Moira, I'm so happy to hear you and Gaza,
but we have lost hope in the international community, and
our people are simply awaiting our fate. And that's the
sense I had last night. Number One is the international

(01:57:00):
community to protect civilians, to protect healthcare, to protect the
children and the sick, and also where is the humanity?
I see humanity every time I go to Gaza, and
I've described already what I've seen, but I felt a
deep sense of shame that as an international community we

(01:57:23):
have not we have not upheld the dignity and humanity
of the Gadsen people.

Speaker 1 (01:57:30):
Doctor. Last question that I have for you is, you know,
the healthcare system has been under attack routinely by the
idea of some of the justification that's been used as
the context of Alshifa and other hospitals has been that
these have been places where Hamas has been sheltering, understanding
that you were not in all places at all times,
et cetera. I just wanted to ask you if you

(01:57:51):
saw any evidence that would lead you to believe that
there were Hamas operatives in any of the hospitals where
you were.

Speaker 3 (01:57:59):
Thank you.

Speaker 5 (01:58:00):
I absolutely not. I saw no evidence in ten years,
and all the hospitals that have been mentioned in news reports,
particularly alshipa hospital, was a hospital. I knew well. This
In your colleagues that have been detained, I knew well,
and can I just mentioned the courage of my Gaza colleagues.
They are still going to work even when they know

(01:58:20):
if that hospital is overrun, they will be detained. And
we're hearing very very serious, disturbing eyewitness reports of torture
on any particularly productors. So I saw absolutely none of that.
I only saw. I didn't see any military presence at all,
And there has not been any credible evidence shared. And

(01:58:42):
I would really again say, we need independent journalism. We
need independent international colleagues who can investigate and look into
any of those allegations, but also can document which, according
to the evidence presented to the international criminal courts, are
evidence of war crimes.

Speaker 3 (01:59:01):
Got it well?

Speaker 2 (01:59:02):
Thank you very much. Doctor, are a very courageous woman.
We appreciate your time very much.

Speaker 1 (01:59:06):
Thank you, Thank you, doctor. Thank you so much for
everything you've done. It's truly extraordinary.

Speaker 5 (01:59:11):
Thank you.

Speaker 2 (01:59:11):
Thank you guys so much for watching. We appreciate you.
Great Counterpoint show tomorrow, See you later.

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Dateline NBC

Stuff You Should Know

The Nikki Glaser Podcast

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}Dateline NBC

Stuff You Should Know

The Nikki Glaser Podcast

All Episodes

Dateline NBC