Interview Only w/ Matt Higgins - How Drones Are Reshaping Modern Warfare & Why America Is Behind - The Chuck ToddCast

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Having good life insurance is incredibly important. I know from
personal experience.

Speaker 2 (00:05):
I was sixteen when my father passed away.

Speaker 1 (00:07):
We didn't have any money. He didn't leave us in
the best shape. My mother single mother, now widow, myself
sixteen trying to figure out how am I going to
pay for college and lo and behold, my dad had
one life insurance policy that we found wasn't a lot,
but it was important at the time, and it's why
I was able to go to college. Little did he

(00:28):
know how important that would be in that moment.

Speaker 2 (00:32):
Well, guess what.

Speaker 1 (00:33):
That's why I am here to tell you about Etho's life.
They can provide you with peace of mind knowing your
family is protected even if the worst comes to pass.
Ethos is an online platform that makes getting life insurance
fast and easy, all designed to protect your family's future
in minutes, not months. There's no complicated process and it's
one hundred percent online. There's no medical exam require you

(00:56):
just answer a few health questions online. You can get
a quote and it's a little ten minutes, and you
can get same day coverage without ever leaving your home.
You can get up to three million dollars in coverage
and some policies start as low as two dollars a
day that would be billed monthly. As of March twenty
twenty five, Business Insider named Ethos the number one no
medical exam instant life insurance provider. So protect your family

(01:20):
with life insurance from Ethos. Get your free quoted Ethos
dot com slash chuck. So again, that's Ethos dot com
slash chuck. Application times may vary, and the rates themselves
may vary as well, but trust me, life insurance is
something you should really think about it, especially if you've
got a growing family.

Speaker 3 (01:43):
All right.

Speaker 1 (01:43):
Joining me now is somebody who quite a bit of
experience in the in the world of startups and business
and sports, also dabbled.

Speaker 2 (01:50):
In politics a little bit, and it is I.

Speaker 1 (01:55):
Thought it would be an interesting conversation with somebody more
in the entrepren newer space, given I'm also in my
own entrepreneur space.

Speaker 2 (02:02):
So it's Matt Haggins.

Speaker 1 (02:04):
I hope I've he sort of dabbled in politics at
a time, working for Rudy Giuliani back when he was
mayor of New York City, but has mostly been on
the business side over the last twenty years. But understands
both sides of the street, and I kind of want
to get a better understanding with the business community how
they really view politics necessary, evil or partner in different aspects. Matt,

(02:28):
how'd I do in describing your background?

Speaker 3 (02:30):
Pretty good? I mean that hit the most important points.

Speaker 2 (02:33):
Are you you consider yourself a serial entrepreneur? How do
you describe your path and business?

Speaker 3 (02:41):
Yeah, I would say I'm a super a serial entrepreneur.
I'm a builder, and my building impulses come from childhood.
I grew up abject poverty in Queens, New York. And
what does that mean. It took care of a disabled parent.
I would sell flowers on street corners and scrape gum
tables and McDonald's. Literally, I really grew up with nothing,

(03:03):
and then I had to create my own path to
get out of poverty. I dropped out of high school
when I was sixteen, tok gd to go to college
so I could get a job. So that that faith
that I could architect my own life then began to
translate into into just building businesses. And we can go
deeper into any of that, but.

Speaker 1 (03:20):
Well, you know, it's interesting. I'm going to start there
a little bit because I for somewhat different reasons. I also,
I always say, ended up growing up early. In some ways,
my childhood ended when my dad died at sixteen. And
you just does right your childhood you didn't sounds like
you didn't really you didn't have the traditional childhood and
there and I'm curious, as you've gotten more resources where there,

(03:42):
how you've scratched that itch. And I'll get to that
in a minute. But that is sort of what makes
this country. I always say, what makes this country different
is that there are different paths up the ladder. Yes
there are. It does feel like there are hers that
sometimes are bigger than they should be for the average American,

(04:05):
But it's not impossible to climb over them, right it is.
But I'm curious how you view Do you view your
success as hey, anybody can do this, or do you
think you had unique help at certain forks in the road.

Speaker 3 (04:21):
Such a great question. The answer is both. I do think.
I always believe that education and work was my way
out of poverty, and those two never failed me, so
that's definitely true. I remember as a kid realizing it
was a lot better to be the person who bought
the flowers and put margin on them, r, I'm the

(04:42):
kid who knocked on your window. That was like my
first lesson on capital deployment. I grew up in a
really poor neighborhood and Queen's but I was also very
cognizant of the fact that there was a difference between
being a white kid and a black kid growing up
in that area. And to this day, I still feel
and people say, what do you mean, what advantages did
you have? You grew up with nothing. Your mother literally

(05:03):
died when you were twenty six, so I was living
in a roach motel, and I was like, there still
was an advantage of being a kid who grew up
in that context, and so I had.

Speaker 2 (05:12):
To be totally cynical about this.

Speaker 1 (05:14):
You could get a cab a lot easier than a
black man your age.

Speaker 3 (05:18):
Well, you know what it was. And I see. The
good part is I can transcend both sides because I
have a gd that came from nothing. So you can't
tell me I'm not credible to speak on this topic
of you know, is there any kind of eyes in
the world if you back when I was growing up,
if you had a kid back then, at least in
the eighties, a black kid who had a ged maybe
there would be a degree. It's confirmatory, right, Lots of
kids and I never had you meet, you know, smiley,

(05:40):
little white kid, you know who's out there hustling and
he has a GD and you say, oh, what happened?
So I talk about that in my book like that
is that is a difference. Does that mean you can't overcome?
But of course not. I also have my own things
to overcome. I had a mother who's completely not equipped
to take care of kids, sadly, and she died rotting
in a chair. We had no health insurance, right, so

(06:00):
I had to overcome the absence of health insurance and
the trauma of raising a parent. So and then other
kids had to overcome the color of their skin. And
so I don't think any it doesn't you know, that's
we're in a funny time. It doesn't invalidate anybody's journey
to say that you had some type of built in advantage, you.

Speaker 2 (06:17):
Know, so well, it goes actually the other way. It's funny.

Speaker 1 (06:20):
It's like it doesn't matter whether it's somebody who's a
scholarship football player on college team or somebody. We are
almost we have convinced ourselves we all have to tap
into a her radio Alger story or we don't have
a story to share. And I don't know whether I

(06:41):
Sometimes I think I worry that it almost encourages victimhood.

Speaker 3 (06:45):
That's so funny you said that. I say. I get
asked this question recently. Somebody said a teacher at Harvard
Business School, and they were saying, oh, when you get resumes, now,
are you like, you know, you throw away those kids
from those elite schools because you only look at the
kids from who are dog Downtrod? And I said, no,
that's not true at all. Actually, I have a greater
appreciation for what it would actually take to go to Harvard.

(07:07):
Number one. Number two, I have a built in excuse
why I didn't go to Harvard. I was working and
taking care of my mom for seven years going to
Queen's College. But could I really gotten into Harvard even
if I didn't have the circumstances. So I agree everyone
now has to have this, you know, come up and
story of transcendence, and I think, honestly a lot of
people make it up or amplify it, but it does

(07:27):
create this culture of victimhood, and I completely reject it.
The reality is if I didn't grow up in that circumstance.
There is zero chance that I would end up going
from sixteen, you know, and Julian's secretary of twenty six.

Speaker 2 (07:41):
And I, you know, it's funny I say that. It's
like it's it is. It is true. It's sort of like.

Speaker 1 (07:48):
Sometimes you see this with super successfully ambitious people where
in some ways they needed chase something, you know, in politics.
I always say, it's fascinating to me how many presidents
we've had that have had daddy issues. And I say
this with no disrespect to anybody. I have my own.

Speaker 2 (08:07):
I my dad died.

Speaker 1 (08:08):
At sixteen when I'm constantly trying to to help live
the life that he should have had, and he never
got to live. And he had a variety and there's
a variety of reasons for that. And I've watched all
these presidents, but there's something about if you don't have
that drive, maybe you don't run for president.

Speaker 2 (08:25):
George W. Bush or Donald Trump or Barack Obama.

Speaker 1 (08:27):
But if you look at our particularly the last five presidents,
they've all had some form either they were looking, you know,
searching for the father figure they never had. See Bill Clinton,
see Barack Obama, or they were trying to prove something
to a father figure, right see Donald Trump, see George W.

Speaker 2 (08:43):
Bush.

Speaker 1 (08:44):
Arguably even you see it a little bit in Joe
Biden's story. But it is funny how This is why
I always say, you know, and I'm gonna guess it
is hard to imagine an alternative path because.

Speaker 2 (08:56):
You know no other path than the one than the
one you travel, right.

Speaker 3 (09:00):
I love the patterns that govern us. I always govern us.
I get made fun of a lot because I use
psychologists a lot in business all the time. Because one
time I went through one twenty five years ago and
revealed everything I thought I was hiding was perfectly on
display to anybody who worked for me or around me.
So I was like, apparently I'm bleeding out in front
of everyone. But my decisions to this day, you're talking

(09:21):
about daddy issues, minor mommy issues that nobody helped, you know,
nobody cared to intervene. And I got to witness what
powerlessness looks like up front, and that there's no happy endings.
She died without ever taking a plane, and so I
have these you know, un boundless empathy that shows up
for a single love. But he I agree We're all
just little creatures.

Speaker 1 (09:40):
Primitively, what is your Let me ask you this, what
is it? How has it informed your views of the
role of government? And where where do you think government
should be involved in your life? Looking back now, where
should government have been more involved or less? In law?

Speaker 3 (09:55):
Such a great question. I mean, I take a cynical
view of both sides because I've been on both sides.
I've been up close. My earliest days. We're working for
a Democratic Congressman, Gary Ackerman back in Queen's I got
to see what that looked like, and I worked for
Rudy Giuliani for a while. Then I helped mid Romney's
campaign and John Mcca. I've been everywhere, and the reality is,

(10:15):
you know when when let's just take on the left,
you know this sort of cynical over promising and then this,
you know, populous blame somebody for what you're not given.
I as a kid, I was subjected to those feelings too,
like who's wronging me? Why is no one taking care
of me? And that didn't do me any to be honest.
What did me good was cultivating my belief that I
have agency, that I can transcend my circumstances, and so

(10:38):
the answer is where does government belong level the playing field?
Passionate conservatism is something that has really resonated with me
as I've gotten older, but didn't What.

Speaker 1 (10:47):
Do you think that means now? I mean, because I
don't know what it means. I had an idea of
what George W. Bush meant by it. But what do
you think compassionate conservatism means?

Speaker 3 (10:55):
I think it begins with empathy of somebody's circumstances and
trying to figure out a solution that you wish would
be advocated for if you were in the same position.
And so what does that really mean? We should figure
out a way that everybody can have health care, because
you would want that if you were not in that position.
There's nothing wrong though, with requiring people to work and
work as the path to self respect and self esteem.

(11:18):
That's a good question. I don't know what it means,
but weirdly resonates with me. Is probably closer to the truth, right.
I just remember as a kid when I would be
sold those empty promises too and trying to point you know,
who's to blame for my circumscs. They didn't do anything
for me. What did something for me was work, And
so I think government's role is leveling the playing field
and approaching everything with a degree of empathy.

Speaker 2 (11:40):
You've been sounds like the last chopped I know.

Speaker 3 (11:44):
That's not like I didn't give you no.

Speaker 1 (11:47):
I mean I get it. I mean I think it's
a fair no. And I think ultimately you know your description.
I find that to be a fair description. I have
no you know, I don't feel the need to make
you follow up, which is, you know, sounds like you
believe in equal access, not equal outcomes, right, And I
think that sometimes there is a different I think some
people want equal outcomes, and that is that gets you

(12:09):
in one type of redistribution of wealth versus equal access,
equal opportunity, which I think is ultimately probably at the
core of even what the founders thought they were creating
here in the United States, right, like this is about
creating so that you don't have to be related to
the king or you don't have right you know at
that time, right, you have an equal opportunity versus equal outcome.

(12:34):
And I think that that's always been arguably one of
the simplest ways to differentiate left and right at times.

Speaker 3 (12:41):
And one thing remains true whatever we are in our
current political climate and what people think, like what's great
about this country that die is never cast. I love
the fact that I always say I'm here. I'm here
in the circumstances I'm in through an accident of birth
that I didn't make a choice. But I'm really glad
that nothing about my future is going to be pretty
determined based upon where I was born.

Speaker 1 (13:01):
I knew one at every single person born in America
or frankly born in the world. In theory, right, this
is what the Founders said, right, the life, liberty and
the pursuit of happiness. In theory, they were saying that
that all of us, that that's we have the those
are the inalienable rights that we are born with.

Speaker 3 (13:19):
Yeah, and I think we're struggling with where that pendulum
is right. Where where does leveling the playing field in
terms of trying to reckon with the past fit in
with that excluding other people had nothing to do with
it rights. It's a really I mean, I'm hoping that
the pendulum comes right back to where it's supposed to be,
which is probably what will happen in the long arc of.

Speaker 2 (13:37):
His It always does, right, It always does.

Speaker 3 (13:40):
I would say, I'm not sure what period we're in
and what we're reckoning, to be honest, because there was
a period in which we had the exclusion with the
other direction, which isn't right answer either.

Speaker 1 (13:48):
Well, what's interesting is that in the in the moment
when we're living through one of these transitional periods, right,
and I think we're in the middle of a realignment,
and we think every election is an answer to the realignment. Oh,
re alignment so or no, we just don't have another
election for another two years, right, like we're it just
because we hold you know, an election happens as a
main realignment stopped. Right, We're sort of we're in the

(14:10):
middle of something, and we have been, frankly since the
end of the Cold War. Right, the country had a
north star defeating communism in the Soviet Union, Well, then
we did it. We've actually struggled with our next north star.

Speaker 3 (14:22):
And what I find I wrote, I gave a commencement
of speech at my mom's college from where my mom
had went the place she had any dignity, and I
came back and gave gave the speech, and I was
in my speech I noted that when I was when
she had when I was there, when she was graduating
on that you know, same quad, the percentage of people
that believed in gay marriage was completely flipped. So in
the time that it took for me to graduate and

(14:44):
give that speech, you know, a decade. And so I
always think, I use this metaphor of attacking, you know,
with a boat that doesn't look like it's looking forward progress,
But if you were looking down from above, you would
see it's moving. We are always moving. Our values aren't evolving.
And then there are these reckonings where the pendulum swings
violent leave one way or the other.

Speaker 1 (15:01):
Way, turning an aircraft carrier, you know, I mean we
are an aircraft carrier and moving. It takes a long
time to turn, but watch out when we turn. You know,
we're a powerful force.

Speaker 2 (15:12):
So let's get into the world of business.

Speaker 1 (15:14):
It sounds to me over the last twenty five years,
the first half of it you spent in politics, the
second half in business.

Speaker 2 (15:20):
Is that roughly the split?

Speaker 3 (15:21):
Yeah, that's probably right. I mean I started so young,
so I've had a degree of a little bit before
a scum career, because if I started with Giuliani, I
started as a reporter. Actually a cub reporter in when
I was seventeen, and then I started Rudy when I
was maybe twenty, and I became Pressbactoria by twenty six.
So I've been able to lead multiple lives. So I
was a first employee and one of the first of

(15:43):
the redevelopment of the World Trade Center site, and then
I became chief operating officer. So I spent two years
of ground zero at the age of twenty nine. I
guess my government career ends. So and I'm fifty, which
I cannot believe. Fifty one.

Speaker 1 (15:53):
Yeah, yeah, thought every check engine light's going to go off. Brother,
just trust me.

Speaker 3 (15:58):
Yeah, I'm feeling it.

Speaker 1 (15:59):
Yeah, yeah, because I rarely I don't think I interview
anybody older than me anymore. It feels like everybody I'm
interviewing any three. Yeah, I know, I'm making you feel
better a couple of years older than you. So tell
me on the transition to business. The longer you've been
on the business side, has it, how has it changed

(16:20):
your view of politics?

Speaker 3 (16:21):
Well, when you're in politics. Anybody in politics can relate
to this when they leave one of these heady jobs,
like when I had to leave being press secretary to
the mayor, the you know, ground zero. There is this
fear that you're just not going to be valued the
same by the society. And then once you step out,
you realize you're in an ecosystem that a lot of
people are frankly apathetic about. First that bothers you don't

(16:42):
you realize how important it is to, you know, work
with the mayor. And I worked all night and I
showed up to every crisis, and you realize, oh, it's
because you're trying to feed yourself and you want government
to exist in the background and you don't want it
to occupy every minute of your life, which is.

Speaker 1 (16:56):
The theory of I ascribe to the theory of the
clog toilet that most people view don't want to think
about government, and then when the toilet's clogged, they don't
want to think about the plumber until the toilet's clog,
and they really hope they don't have to call the plumber.
That's how most people view government. They just don't, Yeah,
just make sure the toilet.

Speaker 3 (17:13):
Plushes I thought that was like, that was unsophisticated and apathetic.
I do you understand how important it is to be
dialed in? But as I've gotten over, I realized, no,
people just want to take care of the family of
a degree of peace, which is why I'm sure we
have collective adrenal fatigue at the moment because you're bombarded
with politics, you know, every day.

Speaker 2 (17:28):
But yeah, so yeah, go ahead, finish.

Speaker 3 (17:30):
No. No, I was making the point that was one
of the things that was the first transition I had
to get used to going into is that that people
didn't care as much as I thought they cared, and
then as a result, there is a degree of narcissism
when you're in government that you think there's nothing more important.

Speaker 1 (17:49):
This episode of The Chuck Podcast is brought to you
by Waldgrain. Waldgrain is the first bake from Frozen subscription
box for our teasonal breads, seasonal pastries, and fresh pastas,
plus all items conveniently bake in twenty five minutes or less.
Unlike many store bought options, Wild Grain uses simple ingredients
you can pronounce and a slow fermentation process that can

(18:12):
be easier on your belly and richer in nutrients and antioxidants.
Wild Grains boxes are fully customizable. They're constantly adding seasonal
and limited tibing products for you to enjoy it. In
addition to their classic box, they now feature a gluten
free box and.

Speaker 2 (18:26):
A plant based box.

Speaker 1 (18:28):
I checked out the gluten free box, and let me
tell you, they have a gluten free sour dough bread.

Speaker 2 (18:34):
It is.

Speaker 1 (18:35):
We got two loads of it and we've done one
loaf already. It's a cranberry and almond sour dough bread.
It's like the best raisin bread you've ever had, except
it's not raisin. It's great. You're gonna love this. You know,
it's in or miss if you mess around in the
gluten free bread world.

Speaker 2 (18:51):
This is a hit.

Speaker 1 (18:52):
Seriously, I was impressed, So look for a limited time,
Wild Grain is offering our listeners thirty dollars off your
first box, plus free croissant in every box when you
go to wildgrain dot com slash podcast. To start your subscription,
follow these instructions. Free croissants in every box, thirty dollars
off your first box when you go to wildgrain dot
com slash podcast. That's wild grain dot com slash podcast.

(19:15):
Or simply use the promo code toodcast at checkout. Always
use the code get the discount.

Speaker 2 (19:21):
I'm telling you it's excellent, excellent, bread.

Speaker 1 (19:27):
It's interesting and it's it's true, right, it's by the
way true the media side.

Speaker 3 (19:31):
Apologies at city Hall or where No.

Speaker 1 (19:35):
I mean, I think, you know, look, I didn't get
into this to become a celebrity reporter or whatever you
want to call that. And unfortunately or it happened, right,
It just it's I say unfortunately because I think the
personalization of the media has politicized the media, where when
we were more of the fourth estate mindset, where we
you know, we were there, we were the we were

(19:56):
a check and balance. You know, we were a branch
in some ways, the fourth branch, and that meant we
were supposed to be a check and balance, not necessarily
picking a side type of mindset. But then you know,
the politicians in some ways surfaced us up individually in
order to whack us down, right like.

Speaker 2 (20:14):
And that's that's the mistake.

Speaker 1 (20:15):
We collectively made it because we individually could get more
station and more prominence, but it actually collectively weakened us
as the individual became this.

Speaker 3 (20:27):
Conversation I was obsessed about when I was there. I
started as a CUB reporter. I thought I was I
was going to go work for the city section of
the Times and always investigative pieces. Bob Wouldward owned a
piece of my newspaper, so he nominated me for a
pulz er anybody by the way, but it sounded good
when I was at city halls of press. I used
to be obsessed with the fact that each reporter has
their own, their own context, that they live in that

(20:49):
cultivation bias. But yet you're holding me accountable in a
pseudo objective way. We believe all the news that's you know,
but no one's actually revealing your bias. I used to
be a assessed by shouldn't there be a way in
which I could look into your bib your backgrounds, I
can assess whether or not you bring some type of
bias to the table. Now, well the other direction.

Speaker 1 (21:09):
But I would argue this, and this is where I
just don't accept the premise of I think bias is
the wrong part of this conversation to have, right because
we're born you just you said it earlier in this conversation.
We're all born with original bias. Who you're born to,
where you're born, your circumstances, your geography, your socioeconomic status,
color of your skin, all of that is original bias.

(21:30):
All right, And it's just the life you lead, where
you grow up, how you grew up, It just, you know.
So I always want to know where somebody, I always
want to know where you grew up and how you
grew up that I have an idea of the different
biases that may have contributed to your political worldview. I

(21:52):
sort of get it, you know. I do my best
to try to be transparent about I. You know, I
always say I was lucky enough to grow up and
household where my parents canceled each other's.

Speaker 2 (22:01):
Vote out and talked about it.

Speaker 1 (22:03):
So I heard the conversation that they had about Reagan
versus Carter, and I remember it very intuitively. And my
mother just couldn't bring herself to vote for Reagan. Thought
Carter had to go. So she writes in Gerald Ford,
my father's a big Reagan guy. But hearing the conversation
and then reading about it later as an adult, you
realized that was the conversation of many voters were having.

(22:24):
It was sort of like they knew Carter needed to
be fired. They just weren't comfortable yet handing the reins
to Reagan, and they were trying to figure that out.

Speaker 2 (22:30):
And it is so I grew up I was.

Speaker 1 (22:33):
I always say I was lucky to grow up hearing
those conversations, so at least understanding how my parents were
a microcosm of a debate about that. But you know,
as far as bias and a reporter, to me, it's
not about bias. Every reporter is going to have a bias.
Are they fair? I think fairness is the only That's

(22:56):
why I never accepted the premise of fair and balanced.

Speaker 2 (22:58):
You can't balance the truth. All you can do is
be fair. Are you a.

Speaker 1 (23:04):
Jerk to boat everybody that's the press secretary to the mayor?
You know those reporters. Some reporters are just irascible, right,
They're just going to be a pest no matter who
which side of the aisle they come from. And then
there are those that get in the tank, and you
know who those are pretty quickly too.

Speaker 3 (23:20):
Yeah. No, I think we're saying the same thing. But
I was saying twenty five years ago, the idea that
somehow a context, let's not call bias, let's call this
your framework. Wherever you grow up at the environment sure
influenced how you chose the lead or how you chose
The first quote was sort of rejected. Back there, that's like,
you know that there was some theoretical objectivity about writing,

(23:41):
which is impossible to obtain. And now I think the
pendulum has gone so far the other way that we
can't trust anything, which I don't think is the right view.
The right view is we should assess how you've chosen
to present those facts and understand that you have your
own implicit context that's shaping how you write an article.
Now we've gone well, now we can't trust anything, which
I completely reject. But back then it was interesting saying
you couldn't have the debate that somehow are you the

(24:02):
way you chose that first quote might have been influenced
by your background.

Speaker 1 (24:06):
Now you're right and it's true and you get that,
and then the question becomes and I always say this
about covering a story or covering a person. Right, there
was this debate about plat, you know, deplatforming Trump, which
I think when if I were to say, what did
legacy media, why did they essentially knock themselves out right?
And I always believe this was a self inflicted wound

(24:29):
in this respect, deep platforming Trump was couldn't have been more,
you know, couldn't have been a bigger mistake. And I
thought it internally, I thought it externally because it sort
of got to this. It it sort of the voters
decided to platform these people, right, You as a reporter,

(24:52):
are there to explain what's happening, to tell people what's happening.
But hey, the voters have done this. And if you
don't accept the PREMI as a political reporter, that you
know so and so is important because the voters have
decided it is, then you don't accept the premise of
the democracy.

Speaker 3 (25:09):
Which is amazing. I never would have thought, I mean,
you were similar ages that we could have such a
shift in the collective way we express ourselves and social norms.

Speaker 1 (25:17):
And these are the algorithms. To me, it's the algorithms
that have destroyed us. I mean, to constantly feed people.
I mean, you strike me as somebody that probably sought
out you want contradictory information, I do. The tech companies
make it impossible to get contradictory information that isn't sort
of overly contradictory, right, It isn't well thought out contradictions.

(25:38):
It's just almost partisan contradictions. It's very hard to get
a more balanced view because I can't curate what I want.
The algorithms keep trying to curate what they think I
want because I match some profile. That is what I
think has been so destructive to the trust of the
of the media.

Speaker 3 (25:55):
Yeah, it's true. If you're on Twitter, I mean that's
your whole existence, right, you could see where you're spending
your time.

Speaker 1 (26:00):
I want Elon Musk needs to get off his own platform.
You know, if you spend only your time on there,
you think the world is on the brink of a
civil war every night.

Speaker 3 (26:10):
It's true.

Speaker 1 (26:10):
Get off of online and you realize now most people
are pretty comfortable living in this country. They're basically pretty
you know, they're you know, they wish the economy were
more even, and they wish a lot of things. But
we're not ready to pull guns on each other. But
that's not the way it feels on Twitter sometimes.

Speaker 3 (26:25):
Yeah, I have a new approach, by the way, which
has really been helpful for how I approach both business
and my sanity. Is that ideal after I check in
on it, so I have to go through the extra
step of reinstalling it, which has been so healthy productivity
wise and otherwise. Because to your point, it was I
couldn't tell what's real? Or are we on the brink,
you know, or are we as Kim Kardashian launching a
new you know, sweatpants on skins, Like it's like what's reality?

(26:49):
So I literally deal everything? But LinkedIn LinkedIn is like
eating vegetables and lima beans all day, like it's not
going to hurt you.

Speaker 1 (26:55):
Well, you know, it's funny you say that because LinkedIn
has become a fairly trusted space, and I've been interested
as to why that is. And I think the users
of LinkedIn don't want it to become like X. And
I think LinkedIn at least those folks realize, hey, be careful,
don't overserve people what they want here, or you might
create yet another Instagram or another X or another Facebook

(27:17):
that just divides and that isn't what the LinkedIn community wants.

Speaker 3 (27:22):
Yeah, and to your point, now, you don't get the extremes,
which is good, but you also don't get any toxic toxicity.

Speaker 2 (27:29):
No, it doesn't.

Speaker 1 (27:30):
Well, let me get back to your world of entrepreneurship
and you it is you've had more of a background
in sports than any other sector of business.

Speaker 2 (27:43):
Or is that am I overreading?

Speaker 1 (27:44):
No?

Speaker 3 (27:44):
It is I can give you a quick for the audience.
So I've had a crazy career of business and that
I partnered up after running the Jets, and then I
ran the Dolphins as a vice chair. So I ran
two NFL teams in one capacity at least off the field.

Speaker 2 (27:58):
For career post So you worked for Woody Johnson? Did
you work for Steve Ross?

Speaker 3 (28:03):
Well, I have this philosophy and for anyone listening is like,
never put yourself in a box. So as a kid
who grew up in a certain box right abject poverty,
total dysfunction, I had to get out of that box,
and government was my path. What's great about government is
it has a bias towards young people because then it's
dumb enough to work these hours and they believe too. Finally,
like you know that the cause matters and you know

(28:24):
whatever it takes. So I put in those crazy hours.
But in fairness, government didn't judge me for being a
poor kid wearing second hand clothes and living in a
roach motel. Was I going to put in the hours
and that was my first path out. So that was
one box. I knew that if I didn't transcend from
being a press secretary, ID always be the press guy.
But as you know, Chalk, the press guy or girl
ends up running a lot of the power. Right, they

(28:45):
have a lot more power than you would ever believe.

Speaker 2 (28:47):
More now and not at first.

Speaker 1 (28:49):
Boy, when I first started covering politic ninety two was
my first campaign professionally, and the press shops were definitely.

Speaker 3 (28:58):
Down.

Speaker 1 (28:58):
The totem pole rights were held in higher esteem, the
media consultants were held in higher esteem, the policy person
was held I think in the twenty first century that
is completely flipped. And I think now the communication side.
I mean, look, even in business in two thousand, there
was probably not a single Fortune five hundred company that
had a chief Comms officer that the word Comm's office

(29:20):
comms in a C suite title did not exist. Now
that a majority of Fortune five hundreds have that title.
So I do think we've transitioned to believing that communicating,
whether in politics or business, is now a front of
you know, brain lob right, it's a frontal lobe necessity
in order to succeed.

Speaker 3 (29:41):
I think that's true so externally, but internally in the
Apparasa government, that comms person, if they were good, was
all powerful because they had proximity. They have proximity, so
I was close to power and I had a power
externally though back to your point, it would not be
seen as anything. So my whole life is career in
business has been about breaking out of the boxes. And

(30:01):
the first box was to become an operator. I became
chief operating officer of the World Trade Center site, and
now I had this new skill of being able to
manage complex variables in a land use context in a
city of New York, and I use that to join
the Jets to run their effort to build a stadium.
Now I'm in a new box. I'm in a business guy.
I'm running a sports team. And then but my dream
was to build businesses from scratch. And then I became

(30:23):
partners with Steve Ross, owner of the Dolphins, so left
that last skill to run the team, but started doing
what I would really want to do was build businesses
from scratch. And so now I'm at the end of
this journey of Okay, Now I'm a builder. I build businesses,
and I've been able to do it in different different
contexts communications, but also i'm military of a pretty significant
drone company. Now that is very important and it serves

(30:47):
the US Army and a bunch of other government agencies
that I'm the co founder of. So so it's been
this constant evolution, but leveraging the last thing I did
to get out of that box.

Speaker 1 (30:59):
Let me start with the drones, because I think I
had a long podcast interview with Dexter Filkins, who's one
of the best war correspondents, living war correspondents that we have,
always embeds himself in different variety of places. It's just
one of those a war correspondent is just wired differently
than most reporters.

Speaker 2 (31:17):
And you know, he wrote a big piece.

Speaker 3 (31:20):
Is a great movies in the Civil War. By the way,
have you seen it about it War? About war photographers.
You have to see this.

Speaker 2 (31:25):
Movie a doc a documentary.

Speaker 3 (31:27):
It's a movie. I don't think it did that that well,
but it's actually fantastic and it covers it's a theoretical
you know.

Speaker 2 (31:33):
Oh, the Civil War movie. I refused to watch it.
I didn't like.

Speaker 1 (31:36):
I don't well because I think it plays off of
some cynical stereotypes of our political discourse these days.

Speaker 2 (31:43):
Not the actual but I war a photographer.

Speaker 1 (31:49):
That I yeah, well, what I know what Filkins was
writing about though, was just like, how much warfare has
changed just in the three and a half years we've
been in a hot war between the Russians and the Ukrainians,
and how that is probably and it's panicking the Pentagon
at the moment that basically we are prepared for a
war we'll never fight, but we are not prepared for

(32:11):
the next war we're going to fight. And it's been
the acceleration of drone war drone warfare that is really
catching the Pentagon off guard, and I imagine has been
a pretty big boom for your business.

Speaker 3 (32:26):
Right we'll tell you the origin story, since we were
talking about patterns than childhood. But when I partnered with
Steve Rosby started writing checks into some nascent sports. The
first check I wrote was into the drone Racing League
in twenty fifteen, and my partner, who's you know now
eighty five? And back then it's like, what the hell
and why is anybody gonna watch flying Robots's fair point,
But nonetheless took a flyer and as I got closer

(32:49):
to the technology that way, By.

Speaker 2 (32:50):
The way, two hundred years ago, do you think people said,
why would anybody want to watch two horses race?

Speaker 1 (32:55):
And eventually it became a thing. Why would anybody want
to watch two cars race go ahead?

Speaker 3 (33:00):
That was my logic, and also who cares to fly?
But as I got close to what we were inventing,
we broke the Guinness Book. We're records for flying a
drone one hundred miles an hour. We were organizing drone
races and stadiums, so you had to fly around the crevice,
you know, make sure there was no latency between the
drone and the pilots.

Speaker 2 (33:17):
Sounds like the Star Wars prequels.

Speaker 1 (33:19):
It was that you're describing in arenas and stadiums and stuff.

Speaker 3 (33:23):
Getting to the point of the story. Because of my
pattern recognition and because I was on the ground at
the World Trade Center site on Church Street looking up
at that building, I always have had that terror and
that just intersectional military very clear to me early on
and my co founders that Pandora's box has been opened,
and that actually at the time, China was running an

(33:45):
economic sabotage campaign undermine the entire US drone market. Those
close to it knew what China was doing. We didn't
know the ultimate endgame, but completely undermining the US drone market.
So in twenty seventeen, we started working on standing up
sub Rosa a company to make sure that we had
this technology on us soil. Nobody at the time there
was no market, there was no anything, So we put

(34:06):
it into all Alabama. We put tens of millions of
dollars through the value of death, which is the long
period of time it takes place to win a single contract.
So my point to you is, I've been living this
nightmare for a long time, and then Ukraine starts and
everything changes. So let me bring you forward. Our drunes
are fitting a rugsack. They can enable a warfire to

(34:26):
call in their own air support on the edge. It
does a ton of things. But what's remarkable is how
incredibly behind our country is and how hard this administration
has been working to catch up. You could say whatever
you want politically, but what the Trump administration has tried
to do in this category is so overdue and so necessary.
But for the longest time, people just were ignoring it.

(34:48):
Ukraine has been on the radar for years now, right,
but there wasn't a lot devoted to it in any
meaningful way. So when you see the Pentagon scrambling to
catch up, it's because the need is so urgent, and
it was going unaddressed, not not entirely. A lot of
good people in the military were trying to sound the alarm.

Speaker 1 (35:04):
Right, So are we to you know, sort of sort
of going forward if all warfare is going to be
to start with, Yeah, I was just going to say,
we go to robotic war. Of course, the biggest, you know,
the biggest concern I would have about that, right, is
the unintended consequence of automating warfare. Does it one allow

(35:26):
smaller countries to potentially be on equal footing if you're
essentially just buying robots that's one.

Speaker 2 (35:33):
Two? Does it make if if does it make it
easier to kill?

Speaker 1 (35:41):
If it looks like a video game, right, which has
always been a I think of fear that the the
the drone wars, if you will become sort of almost like,
you know, life imitating sci fi, right, the Clone wars.
You know, if the if the damage to humanity is minimal,
does it increase the likelihood.

Speaker 2 (36:00):
That people go to war?

Speaker 1 (36:02):
Or does it decrease it because there's less casualties war?

Speaker 3 (36:05):
Does it decrease it because it's futile and we just
simply know it's ai generated you know, warfare about.

Speaker 1 (36:10):
Allow so that it's mutual assured destruction to go back
to the old ICBM.

Speaker 3 (36:15):
Right. But let's before we get to that deterrent, we
need to go through this phase. I'll tell you my hierarchy.
Hierarchy of things I worry about so well. Number one,
the United States needs a drone arsenal that we don't
currently have, particularly FDV drones. The Administration is working over
time to fix that problem, to their credit. But when
I care more about I was watching a documentary some reason.
I'm obsessed with this nineteen eighties period of the Mujahdin,

(36:37):
and you know what we did in Afghanistan through proxy wars, right,
and then we gave them the Stinger missiles you know,
to the Mujaddin, right, And it ended up haunting us
because now Stinger missiles are everywhere similar in Ukraine, our
adversaries are getting a PhD and how to operate an
FPV and all the tactics, which is forget about IP.
That knowledge is very scary. That knowledge. Once this war ends,

(36:58):
it's going to be disseminated actors all over the world.
So you pst Afghanistan and we need and don't have
nor does any country on Earth have a multi layered
solution to an incoming drone attack for not just a swarm,
but just like any drones. And so there's a whole
effort behind the scenes to do whatever we can to
get ready. But I think that is the scariest part

(37:20):
of it. So how are they related. You need to
master offensive drone tactics on your soil, including the supply chain,
to also be able to understand defense because they go
hand in hand. So there's a tremendous effort behind the
scenes to redomesticate all the means of production around drones.
And the most important part of that is magnets. You
cannot make drone motors without magnets, and magnets are not

(37:42):
made in the United States. So when you read all
this geopolitical stuffing magnets, it all goes back to drone wars.
So back to your point, Chuck, maybe one day it
becomes mutually assured destruction and therefore deterreent, But in the
interim there are a lot bigger problems.

Speaker 1 (37:56):
I think to get that, you view this as an
arms race, right, China's trying to drone up that we're
in the sort of in the early days. This is
like nuclear weapons circa nineteen fifty five.

Speaker 3 (38:06):
I think it is the biggest arms race that we've
had since nuclear weapons and is not one answer to it.
And I think drones eventually become like the rifle or
the artillery, the one five to five shell. You need
all sorts of different kinds. But there's no question, and
it was very intentional. I don't know if China had
the foresight to recognize we're going to undermine the US

(38:27):
domestic drone industry through And for those who don't know,
I know I'm going on on about this, but I
will make it very simple. We used to make a
lot of drones in this country and then Dji came
along and started selling exquisite drones that are really to
this day incredible atred a suspiciously low price. And what
ended up happening is a lot of the drone makers
in the US disappeared, and at the same time, all

(38:50):
law enforcement in the U In the United States, I
think almost ninety percent now used Chinese made drones. So
a dependency was created in the US on these rones,
and now there's no drone industry of fill it. So
they said Okay, well, why can't we just build a
drone industry. It costs a lot of money to make
a competitive consumer drone. It's up four billions of dollars.
And then okay, well the military can help. If there's

(39:11):
no demand signal from the military, then there's no market.
So that's what's being fixed right now. Government is putting
out affirmative demand signals so that a domestic dun industry
can sprout up.

Speaker 1 (39:22):
There's a reason results matter more than promises, just like
there's a reason. Morgan and Morgan is America's largest injury
law firm. For the last thirty five years, they've recovered
twenty five billion dollars for more than half a million clients.
It includes cases where insurance companies offered next to nothing,
just hoping to get away with paying as little as possible.
Morgan and Morgan fought back ended up winning millions. In fact,

(39:45):
in Pennsylvania, one client was awarded twenty six million dollars,
which was a staggering forty times the amount that the
insurance company originally offered. That original offer six hundred and
fifty thousand dollars twenty six million, six hundred and fifty
thousand dollars. So with more than a thought, lawyers across
the country they know how to deliver for everyday people.
If you're injured, you need a lawyer. You need somebody

(40:06):
to get your back. Check out for the People dot com,
Slash podcast or now Pound Law, Pound five to two
nine law on your cell phone. And remember all law
firms are not the same. So check out Morgan and Morgan.
Their fee is free unless they win. What's the biggest impediment?

(40:27):
So if you've got a defense department that says, hey,
we're ready to be the biggest customer, that obviously matters
a lot. What's the next impediment you talked about magnets?
What would it take for us to be able to
produce our own.

Speaker 3 (40:38):
Government has to speak in very concrete demand signals so
that the different drone companies out there can raise the
venture funding against it. We still aren't quite in that place.
Two as just having the means of production to build
those drones at scale all very insurmountable in the next
twenty four to thirty six months.

Speaker 2 (40:55):
You know, the surmountable, not insurmountable.

Speaker 3 (40:57):
I'm sorry I should have said surmountable. Thank you.

Speaker 2 (40:59):
Insurmountable. I know that's one of those words, but we
don't always you know, we.

Speaker 1 (41:03):
Say insurmountable a lot. We never say surmountable.

Speaker 3 (41:06):
That is surmountable in the next thirty for thirty six months.
What we need to work on as a country before
there's a disaster is this multi layered counter drone solution. Yeah,
that part is the part. There's lots of directed energy
and you know, catch a drone with a net. There's
all sorts of you know, geeky solutions, but none of
them quite broad together stitch together in a solution that

(41:26):
could protect a city.

Speaker 1 (41:28):
Well, I was just going to say, let's let's go
back to your coming Arguably, I'm going to guess is
in some ways you're almost coming of age moment right
being being pressed secretary on the ground during nine to eleven.
You know, now, if those nineteen hijackers and if those
folks planing that attack on America, they you know, they
wouldn't have used airplanes, they'd be they'd be it would

(41:51):
have been a drone like assault on us that we
were quote unquote not ready for, right, we were.

Speaker 2 (41:57):
Not back then.

Speaker 1 (41:58):
The biggest what was the biggest criticism of the intelligence
community both. You know, it didn't matter partisanship, it was
simply failure of imagination.

Speaker 3 (42:06):
Rights all the time. We have a failure imagination right now.

Speaker 1 (42:09):
And I think right now it sounds like what you're advocating.
And some might be a little say, well, he'd make
his business, will make money on this fet Well, look,
the drone wars are here, whether whether whether we like
it or not, we got to come up with some
sort of.

Speaker 2 (42:24):
Per perimeter.

Speaker 1 (42:25):
I mean, I look, some of us laugh at the
Golden Dome, right you know, a'llah, the Iron Dome type
of security structure that we've helped Israel build. I don't
know if we can put an entire dome essentially invisible
dome over the continental United States, but we do need
some sort of security field on drones that you could
picture could suddenly. I mean, look at the panic. Do

(42:48):
you remember the panic about six to nine months ago
over the drones off the coast of New Jersey And
it turns out they were weather drones, right, you know.

Speaker 2 (42:56):
I mean that's the problem.

Speaker 1 (42:57):
We don't even know the inventory of drones that are
constantly in the air all the time as it is.

Speaker 3 (43:01):
Yeah, So first of all, I live in New Jersey,
So everyone assumed I had the answer to that, which
I which I I don't believe anybody did, which should
tell you something. Second, whether I stand a benefit, I
actually don't do counter uas. But regardless, that's not even
the point the point of course, But I did want
to know that everybody. Yeah, it would be a fair
It would be fair. I don't want people to reject
it base it on, So it's fair. It's a fair suspicion.

(43:24):
More importantly, we live in a paternalistic society subconsciously, so
we presume when we walk into a stadium, somebody's got
that figured out, right, Like there's a way that somebody
could get and let me tell you something. They don't
have it figured out. And so if you know that
they don't have it figured out and you, we are vulnerable.
We know that nine to eleven was a failure of imagination.
We know that there was a cell, for example, in Europe,

(43:45):
a has bal of cell that had been ordering drone
parts on Amazon. We know that AI is going to
make autonomy and automatic target recognition, these kinds of tools
that enable a drone to fly with no signature. They're
going to make it possible for anybody to do a
eighteen year old, you know, aspiring Paris in the next
twenty four months. We know these things are happening, then
we know that we need a national, multi layer solution.

(44:07):
Unfortunately the problem is we don't always learn from the past,
so we don't respond until something happens. That's my biggest fear.
And again maybe like I saw a lot of traunta
from nine to eleven. To be honest, if I take
the train to New York and I get stuck underneath
the tunnel, I have a total panic attack. I'll start
texting my wife just stay with me. I know this
sounds totally unbalanced, and I'm fifty years old. So I

(44:28):
live with the memory standing under those towers, just thinking like,
how does that happen?

Speaker 1 (44:33):
Well, I always thought, I'll be honest, I always thought
meant that DC in New York nine to eleven was
personal for us. I mean, I was in d C.
I was at the Watergate building. We were seeing smoke
come from a pentagon. I was trying to keep my
staff as calm as you could in a situation you
had no idea what was happening.

Speaker 2 (44:53):
Our offices were acrossed from the Saudi Embassy. We were
all freaked.

Speaker 3 (44:55):
Out and.

Speaker 1 (44:59):
The It's always been remarkable to me that the rest
of America cared for as long as they did. But
the fact of the matter is, think about your reaction
to Oklahoma City. You probably had a visceral reaction at first,
and then over time because it wasn't in our face
every day, we sort of it ventured to.

Speaker 2 (45:18):
The back of your brain. Being a New Yorker.

Speaker 1 (45:21):
Nine eleven doesn't venture back to your brain being a
DC or nine to eleven never ventures back to my brain. Right,
I know I live. We can argue about whether it's
New York or d C, but we know that they
are two of the most biggest targets in the world.
Right you know, I've always sort of since nine to
eleven had a All Right, if I think a nuke's coming,

(45:41):
what am I doing?

Speaker 2 (45:42):
You know?

Speaker 1 (45:43):
Where am I going? And can I leave in time?
How much time would I actually have and find way
would I need?

Speaker 3 (45:48):
I go? In the last subway car, I was thinking,
that's not the one to tear. It was a strike.
You'd strike the middle. I mean, like we.

Speaker 1 (45:53):
Interesting, it's good, But that's the point It's sort of
like I and I do wonder, right, when you think
about it, we don't really have you know, there's most
you know, yes, there's a New Yorker's president, and there's
two New Yorkers in leadership, and certainly people that were
here when nine to eleven happen that are kind of

(46:14):
still in power, though not many of them left. You
do wonder how much of that contributes to this lack
of realizing that, hey, we might want to look at
nine to eleven is okay, what's the next nine to
eleven look like?

Speaker 2 (46:27):
What could we be missing?

Speaker 1 (46:28):
Drones feels like some combination of cyber sabotage and drones
feels like the most likely way next sort of tragedy
that we quote miss as a society that we have
to fix.

Speaker 3 (46:42):
Yeah, I agree, And I don't know quite how you
sound the alarm to make people hacked, because then people say, well,
what am I supposed to do about that? Right at
the end of the day. But the difference the next
nine to eleven is next nine to eleven doesn't require
elaborate flight training at a flight school. It's a simulator
that you do online. It requires parts that you could
buy in Amazon. It's just so much very it's just
a different attack. There is a way to there is

(47:04):
a way to counter it, but it requires such a
multi layered federal, state, local solution that that I think
is the part that hasn't come into focus. So when
you read the government pentagony one advocating, it's because they
know more than you do about the true nature of
it and how at the moment where you are unflanked.

Speaker 1 (47:23):
I could go this, I don't have it done. But
that's that's all right. That's what makes a good that's
what makes a good conversation. Let me get you out
of here. On sports, I was like you, I've gone
back and forth in sports and politics in the media.
I helped found the Sports Business Journal, which is used

(47:45):
to be called the Sports Business Daily, So you probably
were familiar with it back in your Jets and Dolphins days.

Speaker 2 (47:50):
So let me ask it.

Speaker 3 (47:52):
Thank you, Chuck for that.

Speaker 1 (47:53):
Congrats all right? You know my man ad met Core,
he knows that identify him, so good.

Speaker 2 (47:56):
Good for you. So what makes a good NFL owner?
And does it matter?

Speaker 1 (48:04):
Because it is a socialistic enterprise, right, even a bad
owner makes money because everybody makes money in the NFL.

Speaker 2 (48:11):
What do you think.

Speaker 1 (48:12):
Separates a good owner from a bad owner?

Speaker 3 (48:14):
Such a great question. Well, yeah, your audience might be
surprised if I've been around a lot of owners, work
for two directly, but know all of them sit at
the table at the NFL for a long time. Every
single one of them desperately wants to win. So there's
some sentences and they're in for the money. No, they're
in it to compete the competing.

Speaker 1 (48:31):
They bought a trophy. I've always said, they bought trophies.
There's thirty two trophies to own in the NFL. And
these guys, you know, they're just another Bill Simmons has this,
He's like, you know, if Woody Johnson doesn't.

Speaker 2 (48:43):
Own a sports team, nobody knows who Whatdy Johnson is.

Speaker 3 (48:45):
Well, there's that also, any one of them have different
levels of success and failure. They're not on display every Sunday,
so they're now stepping into the arena where the where
their success. So that's number one. I never met somebody
who was appetetic about winning and didn't.

Speaker 1 (48:58):
Really know, right because they're already rich guys, so they
want something to get as much money as they got, right,
now they want to Now they're get to play in
the rich guys circle, and they want to beat the
other rich guys.

Speaker 3 (49:08):
Right. I think what makes a good owner for owner,
probably makes what makes a good CEO or business owner
anywhere else, is you have very strong values and you
telegraph them and apply them consistently throughout the entire organization.
Like you really you believe in what you believe you
are Consistent values can form around that. Consistent because an
owner is an asset too, because it means it's not

(49:28):
changing every every two years. Right, we're not president the
United States got eight years, right, an owner could have
thirty years. And so I think consistent values that spread
through willingness to invest and play the long game, maybe
not respond to headlines and make changes, you know, on
a win. Number one bad quality would be placating the
press you know, or or or or an uprising of

(49:49):
sorts by making a short term move, because then you're
then you're under You're undermining the very benefit of the
fact that no one could displace you. You're an owner,
no one could fire you. So you should be able
to make long term decisions, even more so than a
but we traded CEO right, Yeah, Yeah, at the end
of the day, it's.

Speaker 1 (50:02):
It's I mean, do you think in some ways there's
it's it's look, you're you're part of this larger organism
that's the NFL, where there's thirty two equal partners, and
there's just you actually don't have enough leeway where in baseball,
for instance, the Dodgers could actually have a more unique
way of building because they can spend money in ways
that you actually can't spend money in the NFL. Well,

(50:23):
that's imagine.

Speaker 3 (50:24):
So they're the the the the the advantage you can
gain is so marginal that one, no one advantage is
going to be outcome to determinative. I've seen that on
the sports science space all these years I was involved.
There were different ebbs and flows depending on the coach.

Speaker 1 (50:37):
Eventually everybody gets the same data. So then what are
you gonna do?

Speaker 3 (50:40):
Yeah, but then you search for some kind of advantage
and you realize the end of the day, it's not
making that much of a difference. I just think that
it's really truly a you know, game of inches. And
so I'm sorry to give you a diplomatic answer. I
just think fondly of both of them, and I don't,
and I would not the right answer as to what
would make the difference.

Speaker 2 (50:57):
Well, it's funny, it is. It is.

Speaker 1 (51:00):
It's a head scratcher to me that the Giants and
the Jets don't win as much as they should.

Speaker 3 (51:07):
It's a head squirrel. So again, you have to give
us the formula to what they need to do. And
it's not obvious. No, it's not.

Speaker 2 (51:15):
Well it is.

Speaker 1 (51:16):
It is obvious, but it's not easy. Which is you
just you know you need the right quarterback and it
is it really.

Speaker 3 (51:22):
Is around the most important issue. Yeah.

Speaker 1 (51:24):
No, And the more you realize, I don't think even
today's really smart football fan understands that quarterback is ten
times harder to be, no matter whether it's a bad
quarterback or not, than it is to be a running back.
Like I'm all for Jonathan Taylor being the NFL MVP,
but I promise you all thirty two starting quarterbacks job
is much harder than Jonathan Taylor's, and it's hard to

(51:48):
convey that. I think the Manning broadcast does a good
job of conveying the difficulty of being the coach on
the field, but it's the only place you get that cough.

Speaker 3 (51:55):
It's the other hard job to hire as the coach.
I've been involved multiple coaching searches. One thing consistency. I've
seen that the pendulum always swings violently from one direction
of the other. Players coach think a disciplinarian and yeah.

Speaker 1 (52:07):
Well the joke is like, you know, the first thing
a new coach does is decides what to do with
a ping pong table.

Speaker 2 (52:14):
If there's a ping pong table in the locker room,
they take it out. Oh, this is a serious coach.

Speaker 1 (52:19):
If there wasn't a ping pong table in the in
the locker room, they put one in.

Speaker 2 (52:23):
Oh, this is a different But it's like.

Speaker 3 (52:25):
The second thing they do they paint. They paint the
walls and they put up new slogans. I always look
sobody good. Now some of them are good, Rex Ryan
Gamy one, you appreciate you play through the whistle, play
through the way, her her herm ed where's you played?
You play to win the game? You know Eric Mangini,
who is you know, very smart, the man genius. Yeah,

(52:46):
he had all his own things like what found. There
is always a consistent attempt on the coach level to
bring a control and try to isolate some variables that
can make the difference, you know.

Speaker 1 (52:58):
But yeah, it is true. But what whatever the culture was,
you just change it to the other culture.

Speaker 3 (53:03):
Right, So back to what you wanted. Would you a
good owner? You want to go owner as a culture
that can transcend coaching changes.

Speaker 1 (53:11):
Matt, this was great. I am out of I think
we're both running up against time.

Speaker 2 (53:15):
I appreciate the uh so is the drone world your
full time job? Is? That?

Speaker 3 (53:21):
Is that where? This is what I was meant to
be working on. It's from a degree of destiny. It's
that brings me. It's the most important work I've ever
done in my life. I get to be around the
military all the time, and it is mostly what I
focus on now peacefully.

Speaker 1 (53:33):
You how much of your business is commercial and how
much of it is all defense contracting?

Speaker 2 (53:37):
These days?

Speaker 3 (53:38):
Oh so hard. We only own a lot of brands
and a lot of businesses. But in terms of where
I put my time, over half a half of my
time is spent on this. We have other businesses, but
this is where my heart, my energy goes because the
mission is so important, That's where I spent my time.

Speaker 1 (53:52):
Well, this is something that I have a feeling I
want to be checking in with you a lot more
because I do. I don't think Washington official Washington is
fully aware of how dramatically warfare is changing right now,
and we are we we just are. It explains why
they you know, why there's so much effort in the

(54:14):
in the tech community. And I know it's at times
I'm uncomfortable with how much government and tech are fusing.
But it is because of this panic of the nature
of the change in warfare is.

Speaker 3 (54:25):
A danger We're so part is and only leave you
with this. It's so easy to dismiss the efforts based
upon which side of the Ali you're on. But the
one thing I can deliver you from the other side
a dispatch, which is the response is because there's exiting
crisis happening that we need, we need to stand up
this industry and you. Lastly, the seventy percent of all

(54:47):
you know kills or casualties in Ukraine are caused by
a flying object the size of a dinner plate that
you can make for eight hundred dollars. You can't make
it here for eight hundred dollars, But that what does
that tell you? So the second question is our adversaries
North Korea, all our different enemies are getting a PhD
and how to make these at scale and listen very quickly.
So what you're reading about is because of that threat,

(55:09):
and that we're not no.

Speaker 1 (55:11):
I think we just generally all need a better education
in what is happening at the moment. I mean, this
is unfortunate. We cover the war in Ukraine now through
the prism of how it ends. We don't actually cover
the war in Ukraine collectively anymore through what's happening in
the moment, and that that's probably actually is hindering your

(55:31):
ability to communicate the urgency of this and frankly mine
as well. We need more pictures of what's happening in
the moment.

Speaker 3 (55:38):
I agree, Thanks for.

Speaker 2 (55:40):
That was exactly. Other than that, enjoy the end of
the year holiday.

Speaker 3 (55:45):
That was the plan. Exactly.

Speaker 2 (55:48):
Good to meet with you like that.

Speaker 1 (55:53):
Do you hate hangovers, We'll say goodbye to hangovers. Out
of Office gives you the social buzz without the next
day regret. Their best selling out of office gummies. We're designed
to provide a mild, relaxing buzz, boost your mood and
enhance creativity and relaxation with five different strengths you can
tailor the dose to fit your vibe, from a gentle
one point five milligram micro doose to their newest fifteen

(56:14):
milligram gummy for a more elevated experience. Their THHC beverages
and gummies are a modern, mindful alternative to a glass
of wine or a cocktail. And I'll tell you this,
I've given up booze. I don't like the hangovers. I
prefer the gummy experience. Soul is a wellness brand that
believes feeling good should be fun and easy. Soul specializes
in delicious HEMP derived THHD and CBD products, all designed

(56:38):
to boost your mood and simply help you unwine. So
if you struggle to switch off at night, Soul also
has a variety of products specifically designed to just simply
help you get a better night's sleep, including their top
selling sleepy gummies. It's a fan favorite for deep restorative sleep.
So bring on the good vibes and treat yourself to
Soul today. Right now, Soul is offering my audience thirty

(56:59):
percent off your entire order, So go to gitsold dot
com use the promo code podcast don't forget that code.
That's getsold dot Com Promo Code Podcast for thirty percent
off

All Episodes

Interview Only w/ Matt Higgins - How Drones Are Reshaping Modern Warfare & Why America Is Behind

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang

Crime Junkie

The Brothers Ortiz

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

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}Interview Only w/ Matt Higgins - How Drones Are Reshaping Modern Warfare & Why America Is Behind