September 26, 2025 • 58 mins
Steve reached 2 million lifetime miles on United Airlines this week, which meant party hats and free drinks on his flight to Washington (yet still no invitation to join Global Services), but despite all that he botched the YouTube livestream of this episode, such that the 12 subscribers who tried to tune in live saw only Steve, could neither see nor hear John Yoo (this week's hosts) or Lucretia. So we'll try to get it fixed, hopefully before Steve reaches the 3 million mile mark in a month or two.
You can guess the topics: The Comey indictment (two-and-a-half thumbs up), the prospects for the upcoming government shutdown where, for once, Republicans have all the high cards, and then some extended discussion of Steve's article on how to apply Max Weber's famously dense lecture "Politics as a Vocation" to the deteriorating political atmosphere that contributed to the assassination of Charlie Kirk. More to come on that, including how Steve's threat to grind up some Thomas Aquinas to put in John's tea to see if it has any effect on him.
Given the lede of this episode and the title, you can easily guess the exit bumper music, though it's a cover rather than the original artist.
You can guess the topics: The Comey indictment (two-and-a-half thumbs up), the prospects for the upcoming government shutdown where, for once, Republicans have all the high cards, and then some extended discussion of Steve's article on how to apply Max Weber's famously dense lecture "Politics as a Vocation" to the deteriorating political atmosphere that contributed to the assassination of Charlie Kirk. More to come on that, including how Steve's threat to grind up some Thomas Aquinas to put in John's tea to see if it has any effect on him.
Given the lede of this episode and the title, you can easily guess the exit bumper music, though it's a cover rather than the original artist.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
Well, whiskey coming fame, my pay money all right, oh whiskey.
Why think alone when you can drink it all In
with Ricochet's three Whiskey Happy Hour, join your bartenders Steve Hayward,
John Yu and the International Woman of Mystery Lucretia where.
Speaker 2 (00:25):
They lapped it up and David hates you measy on
the should happy got to give it and welcome everyone
to the two million miler episode of the Three Whiskey
Happy Hour. And the reason we called that is because
one of our co hosts, I will let you guess
which one recently hit the two million mile mile frequent flyer.
(00:48):
I don't know what you call it achievement with United Airlines,
which means that our own Steve Hayward both flies around
too much, talks too much, and is a glutton for
punishment on United Airlines.
Speaker 1 (01:01):
Well, that's certainly true.
Speaker 3 (01:03):
How are you friendly skies?
Speaker 1 (01:07):
Well, I don't know if it's an achievement or not.
Someone said congratulations, and I said, I'm not sure it
might mean condolences because it doesn't mean you've been on
airplanes too much. But I was a little surprised. I
thought maybe they you know, they gave me this really
fancy pen and they gave me a medallion. And then
when I got off the plane, they gave me this
listeners can't you know, I'll crack it for listeners to hear,
(01:28):
like Russia Limbaugh used to do. But they gave me
the initial official print out of the flight planned, signed
by the entire crew, with little messages from the captain
and the co pilot and the first officer and everything.
And so I guess they do this for people who
make multiple millions of miles. And the captain said. Captain
came down the aisle before we took off to greet
me and shake my hand and said there's anything I
(01:48):
can do for you? And I said, well, sure, you
could get me Global services status, right, I mean, and
that's a mysterious thing, right, John? Are you global services? John?
Speaker 2 (01:58):
No, never been.
Speaker 1 (02:00):
Yeah, Well it's not something you'll apply for. It's you
get a mysterious invitation in the mail to join it.
And it's nobody's been able to reverse engineer it very
clearly the way you know people do lost.
Speaker 2 (02:12):
You should have asked to land the plane, you idiot.
Any want to let you do that? That's easier than
getting global services. I'll tell you that much.
Speaker 1 (02:21):
I think that's probably true anyway.
Speaker 2 (02:23):
So, Lucretia, how are you are you going to be
Steve's free guest ticket that he's no doubt gets every
time he flies.
Speaker 3 (02:30):
Now, no comment on that one. I'm just fine, thank you. John.
I have to tell you that this is this global
warm and climate change stuff. It's the end of September,
which is usually the lovely time of the year, at
least where I live. Everything's still green and fully blossomed.
(02:53):
And we have had nothing but rain for the last
ten days. And I am sitting in my house with
the life because even though it's three o'clock in the
afternoon here, it is almost completely dark because it's such
a horrible storm. So if I if I disappear, guys,
you'll know why happened to me during.
Speaker 1 (03:10):
Zoom we got some of them our way.
Speaker 3 (03:12):
Did the rain and thunderstand it some kind of hurricane system.
Speaker 2 (03:15):
Yeah, it was cool, it was I saw lightning, but
I heard no thunder and there was no rain.
Speaker 3 (03:20):
Well, I blame global warming, I blame Trump.
Speaker 1 (03:23):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (03:23):
Well, I actually don't mind the rain at all, but yeah.
Speaker 1 (03:26):
No, we had a ferocious thunder and lightning storm that
lasted hours on my central coast location, and that happens
about once every ten years. It's very rare and very
humid weather. And now I'm here in d.
Speaker 3 (03:37):
C because you guys don't drive electric cars.
Speaker 2 (03:40):
Yes see you're saying you're here in d C.
Speaker 1 (03:45):
But well, yeah, just for a day for you know,
a quick event. But it's hot and humid here when
usually late September is pretty pleasant, and it's still kind
of gross.
Speaker 2 (03:54):
So okay, Well, let's kick off the show with a
DC story then, which is the news that has in
broiled Washington, DC. The Trump Justice Department has indicted Jim Comy,
the former director of the FBI, just a few days
(04:14):
before the statute of limitations run, which means the time
in which after the commission of the alleged crime that
the government has basically five years to bring charges, and
the charges are for lying to Congress. Specifically, under questioning
from Senator Ted Cruz, did Comy lie when he said
(04:35):
he did not authorize people at the FBI to leak
law enforcement information to the press and the actual thing
he wanted leaked was that the FBI was vigorously pursuing
its investigation into Hillary Clinton's classified emails back in the
twenty twenty elections. So, Steve, why did you start us off?
(04:57):
Since you're actually there. The reports sound like all of
DC has been thrown into chaos by the news of
this prosecution, with Democrats saying that this is Trump's abuse
of the legal system to go after his enemies and
opponents and Trump figures. No doubt TRUMP supporter is not
(05:20):
happy that one of the major figures who started the
whole Muller investigation is being brought to justice. Steve, what's
your view? What's your impression in DC since you're hanging
around with all those swamp figures and fitting in very
nicely with your two million mile status.
Speaker 1 (05:36):
Don First of all, I don't think Washington's in a
tizzy over this. You have to stop watching MSNBC and
writing slot for the Washington Post. I don't know. I
think it's just a distraction ahead of what's really coming,
which is going to be the budget showdown I think
on Monday. But a couple of things, and you know,
we talked about it already separately on the Ricochet podcast.
I know we have some crossover listeners. I'm still mad
(05:58):
about the Scooter Libby prosecution twenty years ago. And remember
in that case, you had a special counsel investigating who
leaked Valerie Planes name to Robert Novak, and Novak wouldn't
tell the reporter. Turns out they knew that it was
a Richard armitage, but he's a full fledged member in
good standing of the swamp. So they decided not to
(06:21):
prosecute him for leaking. I don't know, I forget the
reason why, but they continued the tertiary investigation to get
somebody because Fitzgerald seemed to believe, the special counsel Pat Fitzgerald,
that somebody has to be charged with a crime. And
so they decided to charge Libby, you know, with the
crime of lying to the FBI. And was that really
a deliberate lie or is his memory faulty? But it
(06:43):
was a really picky you and prosecution, I think, and
even the DC jury at the end of it, when
he was sentenced, said, well, wait a minute, you know,
we thought, you know, they made a case that he'd
actually committed to the technical violation of lying the FBI,
but we didn't think he deserved any jail time. DC
jury thought this was a bit of a reach, okay.
Speaker 3 (07:02):
But then of course the spineless, slimy George W. Bush,
when he had the opportunity to pardon him, just commuted
his sentence like the scumbag that he is.
Speaker 1 (07:13):
Well, I thought that was I thought that was weak
of him too, And then it came along, Yeah, and
I didn't. I don't know Scooter Libby very well, but
we belonged when I lived back here in the same
swim club. He's just the nicest guy in the world.
You must know him some John, I think maybe not
a little bit. He's the nicest guy in the world.
And what a huge injustice it was. So I have
(07:35):
a bad attitude about this. And I also mentioned earlier that, look,
this is not unprecedented. Perjury was the charge brought against Algerhiss,
and you know that took two trials to convict him
of perjury. And by the way, people say there's no
politics involved in these things, I mean, I don't know
naive people these are. But a little detail about the
(07:55):
Hiss case was there were a lot of people in
the Truman Justice Department who wanted to bring a grand
jury indictment against Chambers for perjury. And this was you know,
the Hiss Force is saying, wait a minute, I'm not
the perjury. That other guy's the perjurer. Yeah, and then
only unraveled after we had the pumpkin papers and all
the rest of that story, which is so fun.
Speaker 3 (08:13):
But the point is the analogy.
Speaker 2 (08:16):
Man.
Speaker 1 (08:16):
Yeah, well, I thought you might like that. I would think, Lucretia,
you'd be delighted of this indictment.
Speaker 3 (08:21):
I am delighted. I'm absolutely. The reason that I'm delighted
is because the left figured out a long time ago
that the uh, you can beat the rap, but you
can't beat the ride. And they want to make sure
that they want They wanted to make sure for say
Michael Flynn and even Trump and many many others, that
(08:44):
the ride would be the worst thing. And you know,
for someone like Trump who's really really wealthy, it was
still an incredible distraction and all those other things. But
he he was okay. The rest of the people, like
the Ginnuary six protesters two hundred and forty seven FBI
(09:06):
agents or informants on the ground on January sixth, John,
I hope you saw that today, Remember I told you,
of course not. They don't post it in the Washington
post they don't report it.
Speaker 2 (09:18):
Or where did they post? Which one say your conspiracy
theory sites? Was this song?
Speaker 3 (09:23):
No, the FBI todt to it. I admitted to it
anyway anyway, So I don't know. The press is trying
very hard to make it seem as if there isn't
enough evidence. And you know, the grand jury wasn't wasn't
unanimous in this, and that the Eric whatever his name is,
(09:46):
guy he didn't prosecute because he didn't see enough evidence.
But of course, the truth of the matter is is
that they just don't come any worse than Komy. And
I'm hoping that he gets not only bank but gets
the five year jail term that he deserves. I believe,
if I'm correct, that guy Eric what is his name,
(10:08):
I can't be bothered to remember, but he was trying
to hold out until the Statute of limitations runs out
next week on the thirtieth. So it's just a scummy
just everything about this political elite classes just drives me crazy.
So I'm glad. I hope he goes down. I hope
he takes Hillary Clinton with him. I hope he takes
(10:29):
Struck and Lisa Page and McCabe and all of those
other traders to the group right club fit. Wouldn't that
be awesome? But remember that the judge that that God
assigned the case is some Biden appointee or Obama appointee
and in a really sketchy venue to begin with. They
(10:50):
should move for a change, but they won't get it.
But still, anyway, that's all I have to say about
Komy Hope he goes down hard.
Speaker 2 (10:59):
Well, it's a I mean a lot of to me,
and I was talking about this on TV today. This
reminds me of the kinds of prosecutions that used to
be brought against mob leaders. You know, they couldn't get
the mob leader for all the bad things he did,
so they prosecuted al Capone for tax evasion. And here,
you know what Comy's really guilty of is you know,
(11:22):
turning using the FBI in this political way to investigate
I mean, first he I botched the Hillary Clinton email investigation.
Then he tried to entrap Trump into obstruction of justice
and really set off the whole Moeller investigation. But the
actual crime is just this one sentence he allegedly lied
(11:43):
in which he allegedly lied to Congress about whether he
told McKay to leak to the press or not to
lead to the McCabe. Interestingly, under oath has said that
he was told to leak to the press, and now
Comy is saying, no, I didn't tell him to do that.
Do you have any question worries about the fact that this,
you know, the charge is actually on this, you know,
(12:04):
pretty small scale example of he said, she said about
testimony to Congress.
Speaker 3 (12:12):
No, here's what I don't Can I answer that, because
I want to ask a question in that, and then
I'll defer to Steve. My first question is I thought
that there was more to it than simply what he
encouraged McCabe to do. Comy himself admitted to giving those
classified documents to his friend Richard somebody or other who's.
Speaker 2 (12:30):
That's a different that's a different thing for which he
I thought he should have been prosecuted.
Speaker 3 (12:35):
But I thought that was one of the charges that
they indicted him for.
Speaker 2 (12:39):
No, not yet. I mean, maybe they could change it, but.
Speaker 3 (12:42):
Oh, I thought I read it in the indictment.
Speaker 2 (12:47):
I read the indictment. I think it's only the it's
only about the statement.
Speaker 1 (12:51):
Now.
Speaker 2 (12:51):
They could always add to it later, but those events
might have been from too long ago. And also I
might add that he was the Spector General of the
Justice Department when they did the investigation referred uh comy
Ford prosecution, but then the Just Department did charge him.
But I don't think the thing that I think that, Yeah,
(13:12):
one of the terrible things Comy did was, as you say,
he wrote these memos that were classified about his conversations
with Trump about prosecutions, and then he leaked it ted
his friendly get to the New York Times. But I
don't that's not what this one. This one is just
this you're questioning by Ted Cruz. Well, it's only one
paragraph long in the indictment, basically, okay.
Speaker 3 (13:36):
One more comment than before I turned over to Steve.
Did either of you ever read The Bonfire of the Vanities?
Speaker 1 (13:44):
Oh?
Speaker 3 (13:44):
Yeah, back, I guess maybe saw the movie Pard Terrible.
So there was a movie star Tom.
Speaker 1 (13:52):
Hanks and Hans and Bruce Willis.
Speaker 3 (13:55):
Bruce Willis. I don't remember if this came It is
clear in the movie, but in the book. One of
the things that happened to the Tom Hanks character in
the book I forget his name, is that he goes
from being this elite Titan. You know, his suits cost
seven thousand dollars back in the day, to being purp walked,
(14:19):
to being treated just like, you know, just the average
scum of the earth, kind of dirt bag next door.
And he starts wearing polyester clothes when he shows up
in court, and there's just all this lovely Tom Wolfe
kind of undercommentary about how he's taken down from his
(14:40):
high place. And if nothing else, if Komy actually gets
prosecuted on that, even that one charge, and is actually
found guilty, which I think he has to be. It's
not the best jury or judge, but okay, then at
least it'll take him down from his lofty, sort of elite,
snobbish uh place in society to being just your average criminal.
(15:07):
That's what I'm hoping. Sorry, Steve, go ahead.
Speaker 2 (15:10):
Well, Steve, is he is Jim Comy going to be
the next hero of the next Tom Wolf novel?
Speaker 1 (15:16):
Well, first of all, Tom Wolf has departed this availed yes. Second,
just say a quick announcement sort of. Uh, my live
stream attempt, which had to do through Google, is not
working right. It's only presenting my screen. Although I think
you can hear everything going on. We actually have two viewers,
but I think, yeah, I know. I think I'm going
to end the live stream.
Speaker 2 (15:36):
I think they clicked on the wrong link and are
expecting to see some Jim Comy live testimony or something.
Speaker 1 (15:41):
I don't know. Well, maybe I'll leave it up if
people want to.
Speaker 2 (15:44):
Steve.
Speaker 1 (15:45):
The chat windows not working either, so we're trying. We're
gonna get this right eventually.
Speaker 2 (15:49):
But all right, when st when Steve hits four million miles,
he'll screw the audio up too.
Speaker 1 (15:56):
I'll leave it up for our two viewers who were
subscribed to the YouTube, Channe, and we'll get this figured out.
But they got to stare at me for the whole
lot to start.
Speaker 3 (16:03):
Steve better than the last time.
Speaker 1 (16:05):
Progress.
Speaker 2 (16:06):
So, Steve, the question is does the does the this
lightness of the charges were you against Komy? I mean,
don't don't conservatives, not like you know, the government, you know,
going after people who are public enemy number one but
then charging them with small scale things just to get them.
Speaker 1 (16:26):
No, it really doesn't bother me at all. And here's
why I do think this sends out a sign that
we're now having zero tolerance toward you know, career people
and senior bureaucrats and people who think they can take
it upon themselves to be you you know, to a
sanctioned things like the Russia hoax and all the rest
of that. I think it's a good shot across the
(16:46):
bow that our civil servants need to behave themselves properly.
And I think Comy was, you know, played a very
devious game. And maybe he was sloppy too, I don't know,
but the point is there should be consequences for some
of the stuff that he set didn't stop, you know,
upuntil actually, up until that first Hillary Clinton press conference,
I had formed a favorable opinion of him as FBI director.
(17:09):
But when he shrunk from charging her, I thought, ah,
he's becoming a political FBI director. And maybe they all
have been, except you know, I think Hoover had somewhat
more in his favor for the way he conducted his office.
Speaker 3 (17:22):
But Hoover was at least bipartisan in his political approach
to everything anti communists.
Speaker 1 (17:28):
And that's really the good part, right, That's right, Yeah.
Speaker 3 (17:32):
Which was why it was when when the presidential from
presidents from either party were still anti communists, right, I mean,
that's not unfair to wait to look at it for you.
Speaker 1 (17:44):
I mean, my guess is, John, is I think future
FBI directors are going to be more careful about how
they touched these things that have large political consequences and
factors involved.
Speaker 2 (17:56):
Yeah, I you know, just to close the loop on it.
I think was one of the worst FBI directors we
ever had, and he really politicized the agency. Not Democrat Republican,
but got the FBI really embroiled with presidential politics. And
it's something you also said. See he was a senior
(18:16):
government official who I think similar to the mindset of
some of them. We could think of doctor Fauci in
this vein too. Another favorite of Lucretia's is that they
think they knew better. They know better so much that
they ignore the Constitution and the laws and just all
the rules that exist to keep the government's power in check.
(18:39):
So think about what Comy did. Remember right up until
the twenty sixteen election, he probably announced that Hillary Clinton
was not guilty of any federal crimes, but then proceeded
to describe and criticize what she had done. When the
traditional rule is if if you don't charge someone, then
you don't say anything one way or the other. I mean,
just comy thought he should decide what the American public
(19:01):
should know or not know, and his view on it
before the you know, just a few weeks before the election.
And then then he thought President Trump was unfit to
be president, so he tried to get a special counsel
appointed when she succeeded in order to bring down his presidency.
This is the kind of attitude I think we should
(19:21):
I agree with you, Steve, we should root out from
senior officials in the government. Lucretia has a special feature.
Do you want to use it at the end of
the show.
Speaker 3 (19:34):
I can do it now, I could do it.
Speaker 2 (19:35):
Do it as a special feature, which she calls the
Darwin effect of the week.
Speaker 3 (19:40):
I do because Okay, so everybody heard that Trump came
out and it's absolutely crazy. Trump came out and said
that they are recommending and passing the guidance along to
medical doctors across the country that pregnant women not take
Thailand All, which was the only, uh only supposed safe
(20:05):
painkiller that you're supposed to take when you're pregnant. Now, okay, sorry,
a little bit of a sideshow here. Lucretia's youngest when
she was pregnant with her youngest. I had every opportunistic
infection known to man because of a condition I had.
I had an elbow infection. I mean it was ridiculous.
Speaker 2 (20:27):
Affected. Wow, it's just the boat.
Speaker 3 (20:30):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (20:30):
No, no, I guess, I guess when you it the
way lucretia hasn't. There's the sides of liberals.
Speaker 3 (20:38):
You know, why don't take talent all. This is my
favorite X post ever. One thing I like about Thailand
all is how if you have a bad headache and
you take it, nothing happens anyway anyway, So so uh,
you know, maybe there's association a correlation. They haven't proved causation,
but those kinds of things in the medical world are
(20:59):
rarely ever proven to the point of causation recommendation. Don't
take Thailand all unless you know it's really really necessary.
You've got one hundred and four fevers blah blah blah blah.
Because it was Trump who said it from all of
these stupid pregnant women out there, lefty liberal pregnant women
(21:20):
just downing huge handfuls of thailandol.
Speaker 2 (21:27):
Oh.
Speaker 3 (21:28):
Yes, and here's the crazy thing Thailand all is there
are more overdoses as a result of overdosing on Thailand
All that was until recently than there were from oxycodone.
I'm guessing that's probably not true anymore since the real
but but thailandol is a very dangerous It is anything
(21:48):
but safe and effective. One of my personal favorites was
a commentator who said, you know, I don't take tailando.
If I want to destroy my liver, I'm gonna deal
with alcohol like any any real man. Well, so, my
Darwin effect of the week is all of those stupid liberal,
leftist pregnant women downing entire bottles of Thailand all in
(22:13):
their Trump derangement syndrome, because it is actually fatal.
Speaker 2 (22:18):
I'm sorry that I did not realize that this should
come at the end of the show, But this is
a great segue, and it gives Stephen I time to
think of our own Darwin nominees by the end of
the show. It's also a great subject seguay to our
next topic, which is the budget shutdown, because if the
Congress and the President don't agree, then the Medicare medicate
(22:40):
systems won't be able to buy up all that Thailand
all distribute it and give it to everybody. But there
you have a looming budget shutdown that apparently will occur
this upcoming week unless the Congress and the President can
agree on spending. And apparently the House is already passed
a short term spending bill, but apparently Democrats in the
(23:03):
Senate are refusing to go along unless the Congress restores
the cuts from just the big beautiful bill on various
Obamacare subsidies for health insurance. Steve, once again you are
in the swamp, where again the city has thrown into
chaos at the idea that the federal government might actually
(23:24):
shut down again. Steve, what do you think will happen?
Do you think that Republicans will stick to their guns?
They were not reversing the spending cuts we just passed
a few months ago and let the government shut down,
or well, people cave and gave into the Democrats' demands
in order to get a budget passed.
Speaker 1 (23:44):
Well, they better hold firm, because for one thing, Republicans
for a change, hold all of the high cards here
that hasn't really ever been true. Republicans usually get blamed
for budget shutdowns depending on even when they run Congress.
Speaker 2 (23:57):
Don't they get blamed this time? Since the House, Senate
and the president here all under the control.
Speaker 1 (24:01):
Of Well, I think uh no, I mean, here's what
I think should happen. Well, first of all, I think
we're also seeing something new here, and that is Trump,
as always on the offense, saying, well, you know what
we're you know, if we're going to furlough non essential employees,
why do we have to have them back? You know,
back in the nineties, I think it was one of
the Clinton budget shutdowns, and Phil Graham said at the time,
(24:23):
you know, I thought the only mistake was opening the
government back up again. Well, you know what, that may
actually become the party position this time. And and I
think this threat it's terrifying some Democrats, especially you know
two Virginia Democrats, Warner and uh the the guy who
ran Hillary, Tim Kane. It's amazing that you don't remember
(24:45):
this guy.
Speaker 2 (24:45):
I mean, you know that's where Tim Waltz is headed
into Tim kine Land exactly can remember he was vice president.
Speaker 1 (24:52):
But here's the I think this fits in with the
this comes, by the way, uh, and we should probably
leave this another time. It comes at the same time
the Supreme Court has granted cert on a case saying
please tell us if we should overrule Humphrey's executor. Boom,
right out there. They're presenting the question without trimming it
at all. And in that case, this just fits in
with the Trump agenda to gain real executive branch control
(25:16):
over the executive branch. So they're threatening this and that
ought to terrify Democrats if he follows through on that.
Here's another thing, and here I can actually break a
little news. I did get to spend a little bit
of time with a small group this morning with two
of Lucretia's favorite Republicans, Tim Massey and Ran Paul, and
I have to say I thought they were really good
(25:36):
and really impressive. They didn't beat up on Trump. They
just said, look, we you know, we're free traders, we're
also budget hawks, and we're kind of disappointed that things
are going the opposite way. Okay, fine, but on this
budget question they pointed out some really interesting things. First
of all, we're about to do our third continuing Resolution
in a year, because we can't seem to ever do
(25:57):
budgeting anymore. The first one was passed in Biden's lame
duck period, and then Trump passed another one, which is
just continue where we were going. So we are now
voting again on what was essentially the last Biden budget,
all these you know, nine months into the Trump administration.
So one of the points they made is a curious one.
They said, you know, Doage did all this great work
(26:18):
to cancel for an aid and you know, all these
other things, but that old Continuing Resolution restores those funds.
If we're saying we're going to just continue the Biden
spending plan from a year ago, and he says, no,
I don't know if they'll be able to spend them
or not if we've gotten rid of the people in
the organizations, but who knows U And so there they're point.
And so they're pointing out that even the Continuing Resolution
(26:40):
is in some ways a small victory for Democrats. Now
they really want to restore all that health care funding,
and I think they're leaning on that because the polls
show that's one issue that Americans are still upset about,
is healthcare. And I thought a bomb affixed that forever,
but apparently not. And a lot of that spending was
simply way approxy way to expand the welfare state. So
(27:03):
what I think Trump should do next week, if if
we get him lockdown, is every day he and his
fabulous Press secretary Carolyn Levitt. They ought to come out
every day and say, Okay, here's what they want and
just give some particular outrageous piece of spending from the
existing regime. They want to continue with this, and then
(27:25):
every day, I think the Republican position should be, Okay,
we won't pass that continuing resolution. Today's resolution has this,
and it's it's you know, the current level minus something
the Democrats want, and every day you up the ante
of how much less they're gonna get the longer they
hold out. Trump would be a genius at that. You
just do your Golden Fleet spending awards like that every
(27:46):
single day, and I think that after a week or
ten days or longer, the Democrats will fold. Finally. My
hunch is, you know, Schumer is a coward. He's a
very smart guy. You know. He he made his caucus
in the Senate go along with a continuing resolution back
in the winter, and boy did he catch flak for
(28:07):
that from the party base and a lot of his
own members on the far left, like Lizzie Warren. And
I think this time, I don't think he really wants
to do this either, but he feels like he has to,
and so I think you know he's gonna end up folding.
But it's just a matter of how long and how
much pain the Trump people, if they're determined, which I
think they are, will exactly out of him. So I'm
(28:29):
sitting back with extra popcorn to go along with my
Kamala Harris book tour popcorn, and I'm going to enjoy
the show.
Speaker 2 (28:36):
Cretia, what do you think about this other story that
OMB under Russ Vode is trying to escalate beyond just
the shutdown. I believe he has said that if there
is a garment shutdown, we will just use as as
an opportunity to fire more people and to shut down
(28:57):
more programs because Congress no longer is paying for them.
And then if they want to recreate these programs, they're
gonna have to pass a new law. What do you
think of that?
Speaker 3 (29:05):
I think it's wonderful. I think I think it's a
game changer. As I told you guys that So the
OMB memo from from Russ says, I need you to
identify all of the non essential employees who are engaged
in activities that are not consistent, not aligned with the
(29:25):
Trump administration. Priorities, and those people will be furloughed and
then they won't be hired back. And so who are
those people. They are members of the Federal Employees Union,
which is what ninety nine point nine nine nine ninety
seven Democrat, So they're all Democrats losing their jobs. The
really interesting thing is that Trump has already set the
(29:52):
stage so that unlike say the shutdown in the Obama years,
where they remember open airport arcs, where nobody actually ever
patrolled them, no federal park rangers or anything patrolled them
to begin with, they shut them down so that they
could maximize the pain felt by average Americans. Trump has
(30:15):
done the opposite. So no even the rays in military
pay will go through. ICE will get its money, you know,
on and on and on. None of the priorities of
the Trump administration that are on behalf of the American people,
generally speaking, none of those will actually see any cuts
(30:38):
to funding. Part of that's because of the passage of
the Big Beautiful Bill, part of it is some other things.
But anyway, so if they decide to shut down the government,
all of those people that have been identified by the
heads of all the federal agencies will lose their jobs,
they won't be able to come back, and I will
be dancing the biggest happy dance in the world when
(30:59):
that happened. I'm just going to tell you.
Speaker 2 (31:02):
Ahead, Like you two, I actually was the subject of
one of these Oh but go ahead, Steve.
Speaker 1 (31:08):
Well, okay, I was just going to say this. We
always hear government shut down and the mainstream media goes nuts.
And I always like to ask people the day one
of these things started, or two days after it starts,
the police still patrolling your streets. Are your local schools
still open? Is the planning department in your city open
to process your building permit or give you your business license?
(31:29):
Is the state tax collector still getting your state income
taxes collected from you? The point is is that we
have I think something like fifty thousand governing units in
the country. If you go all the way down to
the local Mosquito Abatement unit in Marin County, right Mosquitobatement District,
and all those governments stay open. It's just one government
that shuts down, and not even as Lucretia points out,
(31:51):
the whole of it, just some parts of it, the
really essential parts, like you know, the military, social security, checks.
They keep going along, say that we're shutting down government
is completely wrong and misconstructs people about who actually governs
us and where and most of the really important parts
of government, like you know, our local police. They go
(32:11):
on completely unchanged, unaffected by this. So this is again,
you know, so Washington New York media fascination that most
Americans will look up and say, oh, okay, government and
Washington shutdown doesn't bother.
Speaker 2 (32:23):
Me much, Chris right, Sorry, well, just the you know,
my perspective on it was. I was there for the
ninety six shutdown, I give, probably the first one between
Robert Doles Congress and the Dole Gingrich Congress.
Speaker 1 (32:41):
And that was not the first. Present started in the seventies,
but never mind that they really ramped up in the
eighties and nineties. But anyway, go ahead, sorry.
Speaker 2 (32:49):
And so eventually Gingrich caved, and it was only because
the polls started to turn against the Republicans and in
Bill Clinton's favor. And the only thing I would say
that's different, isn't it than the Clinton ones or the
Obama year Obama ones, both of whose poll numbers apparently
went up after the shutdowns, is at this time Trump's
(33:10):
president and Trump's not in favor of government spending. So
it's that I don't know whether the past really is
a good predictor, because usually it's Republicans in Congress trying
to shut down the government to save money. Democrat presidents
want to spend it, so they would oppose it, and
now it's the reverse. And so I don't know what
that means in terms of what the public polls would show.
(33:32):
But I think that's the polling is what's going to
determine how long it goes on for and who caves first.
That was my express from watching it up close. Although
I got to be declared an essential employee so I
still got to work anyway. And I was also in
the Senate at the time, working in the Senate, so
we weren't going to shut ourselves down, of course, but.
Speaker 3 (33:53):
We question before you go out to please. So Jeffries
and Schumer, are you know, calling the voit guy all
sorts of nasty names, that he's a malignant political hack,
excuse me, on and on, and Schumer says it doesn't matter.
Trump can make these threats, but the courts are going
(34:15):
to overturn him, my understanding. But you're you're my lawyer,
John Personal and otherwise that if these rifts come as
a result of the government shut down, there is no
legal mechanism for a rift employee to appeal to to
(34:35):
get their job back. Am I wrong about that?
Speaker 2 (34:38):
Well, so it depends how each statute's written for each agency.
And so if agency, yeah, it's agency by agency, But
I could see some agency statutes, you know, if the
money runs out and then Congress doesn't reappropriate it or
they don't reauthorize the employee, I could see it terminating,
and I could see other ones not. It really does
(35:00):
depend on how each agency's written. But you know one
thing that I think the O and B guys have
in their favorite there's this This has related to this
question of the pocket recisions, where you know, basically now
that if the government shuts down, Vote's going to say, well,
we're not going to spend any more appropriated money for
the rest of the year because we were going to
do that, remember he wanted to you know, cut the
(35:24):
appropriate spending anyway. I think that's going to work now.
I think the government shutdown almost guarantees that the administration
is going to succeed in cutting currents spending down to
the levels they wanted. So the Democrats are almost playing
right into Trump's hands. I think on this, and then,
as Steve's point is, I think truth when people notice
that they still get their Social Security checks to Medicare, Medicaid,
(35:46):
and that all these other things the government does that
doesn't really perform any real public service, the life will
go on, that people might the poles might swing in
Trump's favor. Okay, we have.
Speaker 3 (35:58):
Down the parks.
Speaker 2 (36:00):
Yeah, well, so in our last segment, we're going to
return to this format about talking you. We have about
fifteen minutes about talking about an article, so we thought
we would talk about Steve's interesting article about Believe it
or Not, comparing Max Weber to Charlie Kirk. Steve, why
(36:21):
don't you Lucretia. Lucretia, will you wake up? Please? I'm sorry,
you gotta stop taking all that til in awe wake up.
Speaker 1 (36:31):
Steve.
Speaker 2 (36:32):
You describe the thesis of your article, and then Lucretia
will be the first critic, and then I'll go second. Steve,
go ahead, Oh yeah, well two minutes or less.
Speaker 1 (36:41):
Right, I'm not really comparing him. I mean the title
is misleading that way. From Max Weber to Charlie Kirk
is the main title. And this is very hard to
do because you know, I Lucasia thinks I'm nuts as usual.
I have long been fascinated with that famous lecture of
Webers from nineteen nineteen, Politics as a Vocation. It's twenty
eight thousand words long. It took three hours to deliver.
(37:03):
The students were very disappointed with it, which is a
relevant point, and the first two thirds are really boring.
Weber's attempt to try, without acknowledging it to overcome the
challenges to democracy from Karl Marx on the left and
Nietzsche on the right. It doesn't say that's what he's doing.
But if you actually know the whole story of Weaber,
that's what's going on. In the meantime. You have all
(37:24):
these radicalized students coming out of World War One, and
it's chaos in Germany. People keep saying, and you know,
I've been playing with another famous line from forty years ago.
Speaker 3 (37:36):
Now.
Speaker 1 (37:36):
It's Alan Bloom's famous line in the closing of The
American Mind, where it says, American today is a Disneyland
version of the Weimar Republic. Well, you're going to strike
the Disneyland part of it now, because you know, we're
actually having real violence coming from the left, and in
Germany it was different leftist factions clashing with one another.
And that's a you know, a separate story for another day.
But lots of assassinations, lots of mass violence in the street,
(37:59):
and you had very unstable students and young people who
and I'm not talking about Charlie See Kirk is the
one guy who I think resembled the maturing of political
judgment that Faber's trying to point out at the end
of that complicated lecture. And I don't have time to
unwind all that. I may give a longer version of
that article as a lecturer and seminar sometime soon down
(38:22):
at Pepperdine. In any case, I think what Weaber was
describing of the instability and the irresponsibility of young people
working from their passions describes what's happened to well. For example,
the person who shot Kirk anyway, Weber was trying to
head them off. He failed at it. Vabor, by the way,
(38:42):
died a few months later. The Spanish influenza, you know,
it's an interesting little coincidence. And several of the students
who he had in mind. In my article, I identify
two particular students of his that he had in mind,
one of whom later committed suicide because he just couldn't
cope with the world, and the other one having been well.
It was that famous Hungarian theorist George Lukoch, who became
(39:05):
one of the sort of Frankfurt Marxists and wrote inspiration
for Gromsky and all those guys. He'd been a critic
of communism and then suddenly turned on a dime and
became a Leninist. And the point is is that I
think we see, you know, we're not quite Weimar Republic,
We're not quite in a revolutionary situation, but things are bad.
(39:25):
And what I noticed when I was looking at all
these clips of Charlie Kirk maturing from this eighteen year
old I thought was kind of brash and a flash
in the pan to how fast the guy matured, and
how sophisticated and subtle he was in his campus appearances,
and what a genius he was in building this huge organization.
Who knows where he was going to go in life right,
(39:47):
and his religious faith was central to it. By the way,
Weber I always assumed he was an atheist. I think
maybe that's not right, but he was always very respectful
of religious people involved in politics. He was admirer of
Martin Luther. It's a complicated story, and I tried, in
the space of two thousand words to just pass a
little that along as a cautionary table, again really intended
(40:11):
more for young people, but also saying the adults in
the room. I have a whole paragraph about how irresponsible
Democrats have been with their language, you know, Chris Murphy saying,
you know we're in a revolutionary situation, and you know
we've got to stop Trump by any means necessary. Well,
that language has always meant sanctioning violence, and that has
to stop, and I'll stop.
Speaker 2 (40:32):
Okay, Lucretia's not convinced, based on the many different kinds
of faces she made while you were talking. Lucretia, why
did this essay fail?
Speaker 3 (40:42):
It's not so much that I don't know that the
essay failed. It began with such weak material that I
think it was probably a resounding success. As I told
Steve when I read it, before he'd even told us
it was out there, I happened to come across it,
I said, I enjoyed reading your piece. But the one
thing that stood out to me is how little Weber
(41:02):
has to teach us. I got nothing of Steve's own,
you know, admonishments to the to the left, to the
Schumers and so forth of the world. I got nothing
of that from Weber. Seriously, I mean the guys that
the guys that you can't You can't bring prudence into
(41:24):
a discussion when you don't have the philosophical foundations from
which prudence would emanate, is how I would put it.
And maybe Steve kind of hinted out that he was
trying to get at that a little bit, But I'm
not sure why anybody has to read Weber to to
figure that one out. I do think that the the
(41:45):
pull between Nietzsche's nihilism and Marx's ultimately nihilism too, but
from an entirely different way. I mean, the the nothingness
that we try to put a substitute in for give
some meaning to life. That's I think a very interesting question.
(42:08):
And I honestly, Steve, I would have been interested to
see you if you had another five thousand words. Uh,
play that one out a little bit farther. No, No,
I don't mean it like that.
Speaker 1 (42:17):
I get it.
Speaker 3 (42:18):
He had a subject and he did what he could
with the subject. But the really interesting question again is
what is it about the emptiness of our young people's
souls that that you know, gets filled God. Filling them
with Marx or Nietzsche is actually much preferable in these
(42:40):
these days to filling them with furry, pedophilic anime online.
But it's all a little bit of a piece of
the same thing, right, So, so I from that point
of view, I thought it was a very interesting article.
I meant it when I said I I enjoyed reading it.
But Weber to me seems just I know you're gonna
tell me that all of our teachers thought he was
(43:02):
so important, But I don't think so. I don't think
he has that much to teach us.
Speaker 1 (43:06):
Well, no, I agree with that criticism, and I now
I did it very quickly. I have a sentence in
there that conveyed some of that criticism, saying, one of
the problems with ethics, with the Vabor's famous Ethics of
Responsibility and Ethic of Ultimate Ends, is that he completely
punts on the question of prudence. He can't recover it
at all, and and that it goes with this his
abandonment of the foundations of American democracy or all democracy
(43:30):
and natural rights social contract theory. He thought that nietzsch
and Marks had been so successful that you had to
find a new ground for it. And he's wrong about that.
Speaker 3 (43:38):
And uh, look, I mean here's I think that, And
Charlie Kirk proved him that.
Speaker 1 (43:43):
Yeah, sadly, yes, right, there's a meme. Well the uh,
first of all, I do I kind of find Faber interesting,
even though he's boring much of the time except the
last through the lecture. I just think is gripping reading,
especially when you learn more about the background. And by
(44:05):
the way, the person who torn me on to reading
Weber more closely John was your Harvard instructor, Daniel Bell.
He wrote a classic artic classic article. It's sort of obscure,
but a few of us know it.
Speaker 2 (44:16):
And charity, Yeah, this article, you were talking about it
his I'd never heard of. He never mentioned it in class. No,
but he was a socialist.
Speaker 1 (44:24):
Oh that's right, No, that it said. That's one of
the famous places where Belle said I'm a socialist and economics,
but a conservative in culture. Bell didn't have the answer. Yes,
But the point is I think Weber is more interesting
and more useful. And by the way, you can use
Weber to go on and make our points to the cretia.
That's part of why I like to bring him up,
because everything gets worse from there. I mean, if you
(44:45):
told me that I'm stuck in a room and I
either got to work from Weber or work from John Dewey,
I'll take Weber every time. You know, Dewey is much worse.
Speaker 3 (44:53):
Fortunately, those are our choices, Steve, I understand that.
Speaker 1 (44:57):
And by the way, I don't know if you caught
my little throwaway line along the way saying that Weber's
sort of rival, not a rival figure in competition, but
his sort of closest analog was Woodrow Wilson, which I
think is correct. And Wilson didn't write at the great,
turgid length of Weber, but they came close to it
a couple of ways. So anyway, I mean, I think
(45:18):
the fact that Weber labor was alert to the problems.
One of the things he said. Weber said is that
I hate communism because these are horrible people. They're they're violent,
they're do horrible things, and they will discredit socialism. For
one hundred years, and that's kind of what happened with
the Soviet Union, right, I mean, socialism is back now.
(45:40):
And that's because, as Jaffa warned us in nineteen ninety one,
when everyone said it's all over for the left, he said, no,
it's not. They're about to get much worse, and socialism
will be liberated from its toxic association with the Soviet Union,
and boys.
Speaker 3 (45:54):
Has never been tried anywhere yet.
Speaker 1 (45:56):
Steve, Well, there is that, right, real. Okay.
Speaker 2 (46:02):
My two cents on the essay before we close is
I enjoy reading about Max Weber because it helps you
understand progressivism what Joe Wilson's just a rhetoricician compared to Weber,
who I think really had the real ideas. I wasn't
sure what I had to do with Charlie Kirk, That's
the part of the sea I didn't really understand. But
(46:23):
I really loved the talking about Weber. And to defend
my old professor teacher of Daniel Bell. You know, he
was interested in the same questions as Faber, and I
thought had a more satisfying answer. So one of the
great books that Bell wrote was about whether capitalism and
I think it actually kind of answers lucreassl crecious question
(46:44):
about what's happening to our youth, because I remember Max
Weber's maybe the one work that people most know him
for is Protestant Capitalism, the idea that the Protestant work
ethic produced capitalism, which doesn't really seem to explain it's
why Asia has been doing so well, but right, I mean,
it just doesn't. But you know, but Bell was interested
(47:07):
whether capitalism could keep going once it produced so much
luxury and surplus. And maybe that's part of the answer
to Lucretia's question, why do we have so many young
people who are like Charlie Kirk's assassin or maybe now
the guy who shot at the Dallas ice officers. These
young men who become fascinated with these, you know, bizarre
(47:29):
ideologies from surfing the internet and lead very anti social lives.
Maybe it's because they lead such lives of luxury compared
to any other time in human history, the kind of
luxuries we have. And you know, that was Bell's thought
that in the name of his book is the cultural
contradictions of capitalism, though the capitalism have produced such wealth
that it would undermine the work ethic that's necessary for
(47:51):
capitalism to succeed.
Speaker 1 (47:53):
But he really got that from Schumpeter, who wrote that
first back in the thirties. And but here's the if
I was doing the five thousand or seven thousand word version,
I might move on to this question. So I just
mentioned a moment ago that Bell was famous for saying,
I'm a socialist and economics, but I'm a conservative and culture.
The question now that relates to this whole period right now,
with parbolie Kirk and all the rest of it, is
(48:15):
why is it that the socialist left is also culturally
so far left with things like the LGBTQ, which all
the rest of this stuff. Right Bell of course is
dead now, but he would have resisted all this, I'm
quite sure. But why is it that there's no that
the left has not followed Bell. There's almost nobody on
the left that I can think of who's who who's
(48:35):
a Bell self description applies to, which tells me there's
something wrong with socialism with this, you know, the again,
the romantic sensibility that we can achieve utopia through you know,
socialist revolution. It always comes with the other leftist nihilist
stuff and all the rest of that lucretia and ready
to jump And no.
Speaker 3 (48:54):
I'm not going to jump. I'm just going to see
you guys are making this too Sorry. I don't mean
this to be insulting. I don't pretentiously intellectual, and I
don't mean you're being Here's what I mean by that.
It's really very simple. I keep going back to it.
There's there's basically two positions in the world today, and
(49:18):
one of those looks at human nature and discovers that
human nature, God, the laws of nature. It doesn't have
to be religious and focused, but at some point I
guess it probably does anyway, because you have to believe,
at least in a creator, that we are created. We
don't create ourselves, we don't evolve into whatever we choose to,
(49:38):
nor does history evolve with us. That that position is
different from the entire position of the left, socialism, nihilism, atheism,
and if anything you look at they want, they want
to be God. You've got two choices. Either you recognize
there is a God, and and that that recognizing that
(50:02):
there's a God, a creator, Nature's whatever you want to
call it, actually tells us how we ought to live.
If we but consult it, or I don't have to
consult anything, and I can just will exactly the way
I want to live. I can be my own God.
And that's what explains all of those contradictions in my
(50:22):
view that Steve was rightly talking about you too. John.
It's not capitalism that destroys men's souls. It's the rejection
of God. It's the rejection of anything greater than yourself.
Because if you reject the idea that there's something greater
than yourself, then you do become a God. And of course,
(50:45):
ultimately you unless you have a genuine Nietzsche will to
power you, you know, you face the abyss and the
abyss gets you. That's my think.
Speaker 2 (50:58):
I think that you're narrowing the grounds on which you
can believe in good government if you associate it that
you have to be Christian. You know I did, Chris,
But you're saying the natural rights have to have some
source and a belief in God. I don't see why
atheists can't can't organize a well run society of very
similar principles to the ones that you support.
Speaker 1 (51:19):
I don't see when when did you sign on the
Tim Kan campaign?
Speaker 3 (51:24):
No, nor is it just God nature if consult nature
and the way Aristotle did learn study the ways of
human beings. You know, I, of course believe that there
is a God who created the world, and that he's
accessible to some extent through human reason but also by faith.
(51:47):
But you don't have to believe in that God to
believe in the natural rights theory of the Declaration of Independence.
That's why it says the laws of nature and Nature's God.
It's it's it's it's the most brilliant thing produced by
man in terms of setting up a government in the
history of humankind. John, Laws of Nature and Nature's God.
Speaker 1 (52:08):
Sorry, I am going to grind up a little fragments
from Thomas Aquinas and drop it in your tea for
the next couple of months and see if it doesn't.
Speaker 2 (52:16):
I am sure it will taste terrible, but.
Speaker 3 (52:19):
Better than a Korean hot dog.
Speaker 2 (52:22):
Oh there you are, sorry, tastes better than so many flavors,
So you know, we're speaking of Koreating things. We didn't
get to talk about k pop Demon Hunters, which I
watched under the rest from Steve Hayward, and we're going
to get a chance to discuss it. We'll talk about
it next week, maybe but we're at the come to
(52:42):
the end of the show. So Lucretia Babylon b headline.
Speaker 3 (52:46):
Oh man, so good. More winning. We didn't talk about
the UN speech either, but we ran out a time
more winning Trump to demolish UN building and replace with
UFC Arena. Hillary says we must all stop pointing fingers,
(53:07):
as we all know the Republicans are to blame. We
also didn't discuss Jimmy Kimmel because Steve was bored with it.
But anyway, Americans return to not watching Jimmy Kimmel by choice.
Sorry Donald Troull. This one's for you, John, because we
didn't discuss your article either, which was very interesting. John
(53:29):
wrote a great piece about the Trump administration's use of
the military to destroy drug cartel drug wrinners.
Speaker 2 (53:39):
Although Steve just accused me of being the worst article
I've ever written.
Speaker 3 (53:43):
I don't know about the worst kidding. Nor did we
discuss the Pete Haig Sath. I just want you guys
to know that we talked. We had all this great
plans for what we're going to discuss. Pete Haig Sath
has summoned to UH to Quantic all of the senior
commanders in the Army, all the admirals and generals that
(54:05):
are commanders, and you know the internet is a buzz
about it all. I just want you guys to know
that they were on the army base next to me.
They were going to have a big ceremony, this is
serious honoring me on Tuesday, and it had to be
postponed because the general wants to be there, but he
(54:26):
has to go see Pete, who I believe is going
to tell these generals either you get in line, yes sir.
You give your objections to any lawful orders. Absolutely give
your objections. But when those objections are disregarded, you get
in line and you say yes sir, and you move
out and draw fire. And if you're not willing to
(54:48):
do that, turn in your resignation. Right now. That's what
I think is going to happen. We'll see what do
you think, John Well, the.
Speaker 1 (54:53):
Left, well ahead, Steve. The left is all spun up
that it's a coup and that's just the left being paranoid.
I'll just say this. I speak earlier in the week
before this announcement was made with a pretty well placed
person in town who I think is very sound, who
said there's a big internal fight going on inside different
parts of the Trump administration over the next Defense strategy review,
(55:15):
which they do every couple of years, and it may
or may not have something to do with that. I
don't know. They might want to get ahead of it,
but we'll see.
Speaker 3 (55:21):
Those things are bureaucratic.
Speaker 2 (55:23):
So I figured what was going to happen was he
was going to fire some people and but then but
then I heard the Creatia wasn't coming, so as I cool,
he wasn't going to bring the sort of damacles with
them to fire them all with. So since since Lucrete
is not going to be there, it is just going
to be namby pamby talking and no serious firing, all right,
(55:44):
So I guess I'll do the exit line, which is
always drink your whiskey, meat, buy more books, and Steve,
what's your latest AI excursion?
Speaker 1 (55:55):
This week it's William Faulkner on the Three Whiskey Happy Hour.
It's a little long, but not too bad. In the
dim lit, smoke thick air of some forgotten bar on
the edge of town, the Three Whiskey Happy Hour hums
along like an old worn clock that tells no time
but the moment a moment, stretched long, slow, and filled
(56:17):
with the murmur of voices. They those men and woman,
voices like whisky itself, rich and deep, drawled and twisted
through tails and truths, real and imagined, beneath the laughter
that comes not from joy, but from some deeper hunger,
a need for the sound to fill the space left
by silence. And they drink those three whiskey to silence
(56:39):
the ghosts, to drown the present and the roar of
the past. And every hour is happy, for every hour
is the same hour as it always was and always
will be. Parts of that I think are pretty good.
Parts of it are just you know, voice.
Speaker 3 (56:54):
Okay, I get sorry forty chests. Trump says chugging windex
may be harmful, causing millions of Democrats to chug windex.
Speaker 1 (57:05):
For years.
Speaker 2 (57:06):
Right, yeah, all right, everybody. We hope our two watchers
enjoyed our first video of the three whiskey happy hour. Hopefully,
you know, two million mile or Steeve will figure out
how to fix that while he's sitting on the plane
for another million miles. And we'll see everybody next week. Bye, everybody,
(57:26):
leaving home. Out on the road. I've been down before,
riding along on his big old Jimplane.
Speaker 1 (57:36):
I've been a thinking about my home, but my love
life seem so far away, and I feel like it's
all and done.
Speaker 2 (57:48):
Well. Somebody's trying to make me stay.
Speaker 3 (57:51):
You know, I got to beam move and on ool
big old jety Liner.
Speaker 2 (58:00):
Don't carry me too far away, Oh big old Jatyliner.
Speaker 1 (58:07):
Cause of him that I got to stay. Good Bye
to all my friends. Ricochet joined the conversation
Well, whiskey coming fame, my pay money all right, oh whiskey.
Why think alone when you can drink it all In
with Ricochet's three Whiskey Happy Hour, join your bartenders Steve Hayward,
John Yu and the International Woman of Mystery Lucretia where.
Speaker 2 (00:25):
They lapped it up and David hates you measy on
the should happy got to give it and welcome everyone
to the two million miler episode of the Three Whiskey
Happy Hour. And the reason we called that is because
one of our co hosts, I will let you guess
which one recently hit the two million mile mile frequent flyer.
(00:48):
I don't know what you call it achievement with United Airlines,
which means that our own Steve Hayward both flies around
too much, talks too much, and is a glutton for
punishment on United Airlines.
Speaker 1 (01:01):
Well, that's certainly true.
Speaker 3 (01:03):
How are you friendly skies?
Speaker 1 (01:07):
Well, I don't know if it's an achievement or not.
Someone said congratulations, and I said, I'm not sure it
might mean condolences because it doesn't mean you've been on
airplanes too much. But I was a little surprised. I
thought maybe they you know, they gave me this really
fancy pen and they gave me a medallion. And then
when I got off the plane, they gave me this
listeners can't you know, I'll crack it for listeners to hear,
(01:28):
like Russia Limbaugh used to do. But they gave me
the initial official print out of the flight planned, signed
by the entire crew, with little messages from the captain
and the co pilot and the first officer and everything.
And so I guess they do this for people who
make multiple millions of miles. And the captain said. Captain
came down the aisle before we took off to greet
me and shake my hand and said there's anything I
(01:48):
can do for you? And I said, well, sure, you
could get me Global services status, right, I mean, and
that's a mysterious thing, right, John? Are you global services? John?
Speaker 2 (01:58):
No, never been.
Speaker 1 (02:00):
Yeah, Well it's not something you'll apply for. It's you
get a mysterious invitation in the mail to join it.
And it's nobody's been able to reverse engineer it very
clearly the way you know people do lost.
Speaker 2 (02:12):
You should have asked to land the plane, you idiot.
Any want to let you do that? That's easier than
getting global services. I'll tell you that much.
Speaker 1 (02:21):
I think that's probably true anyway.
Speaker 2 (02:23):
So, Lucretia, how are you are you going to be
Steve's free guest ticket that he's no doubt gets every
time he flies.
Speaker 3 (02:30):
Now, no comment on that one. I'm just fine, thank you. John.
I have to tell you that this is this global
warm and climate change stuff. It's the end of September,
which is usually the lovely time of the year, at
least where I live. Everything's still green and fully blossomed.
(02:53):
And we have had nothing but rain for the last
ten days. And I am sitting in my house with
the life because even though it's three o'clock in the
afternoon here, it is almost completely dark because it's such
a horrible storm. So if I if I disappear, guys,
you'll know why happened to me during.
Speaker 1 (03:10):
Zoom we got some of them our way.
Speaker 3 (03:12):
Did the rain and thunderstand it some kind of hurricane system.
Speaker 2 (03:15):
Yeah, it was cool, it was I saw lightning, but
I heard no thunder and there was no rain.
Speaker 3 (03:20):
Well, I blame global warming, I blame Trump.
Speaker 1 (03:23):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (03:23):
Well, I actually don't mind the rain at all, but yeah.
Speaker 1 (03:26):
No, we had a ferocious thunder and lightning storm that
lasted hours on my central coast location, and that happens
about once every ten years. It's very rare and very
humid weather. And now I'm here in d.
Speaker 3 (03:37):
C because you guys don't drive electric cars.
Speaker 2 (03:40):
Yes see you're saying you're here in d C.
Speaker 1 (03:45):
But well, yeah, just for a day for you know,
a quick event. But it's hot and humid here when
usually late September is pretty pleasant, and it's still kind
of gross.
Speaker 2 (03:54):
So okay, Well, let's kick off the show with a
DC story then, which is the news that has in
broiled Washington, DC. The Trump Justice Department has indicted Jim Comy,
the former director of the FBI, just a few days
(04:14):
before the statute of limitations run, which means the time
in which after the commission of the alleged crime that
the government has basically five years to bring charges, and
the charges are for lying to Congress. Specifically, under questioning
from Senator Ted Cruz, did Comy lie when he said
(04:35):
he did not authorize people at the FBI to leak
law enforcement information to the press and the actual thing
he wanted leaked was that the FBI was vigorously pursuing
its investigation into Hillary Clinton's classified emails back in the
twenty twenty elections. So, Steve, why did you start us off?
(04:57):
Since you're actually there. The reports sound like all of
DC has been thrown into chaos by the news of
this prosecution, with Democrats saying that this is Trump's abuse
of the legal system to go after his enemies and
opponents and Trump figures. No doubt TRUMP supporter is not
(05:20):
happy that one of the major figures who started the
whole Muller investigation is being brought to justice. Steve, what's
your view? What's your impression in DC since you're hanging
around with all those swamp figures and fitting in very
nicely with your two million mile status.
Speaker 1 (05:36):
Don First of all, I don't think Washington's in a
tizzy over this. You have to stop watching MSNBC and
writing slot for the Washington Post. I don't know. I
think it's just a distraction ahead of what's really coming,
which is going to be the budget showdown I think
on Monday. But a couple of things, and you know,
we talked about it already separately on the Ricochet podcast.
I know we have some crossover listeners. I'm still mad
(05:58):
about the Scooter Libby prosecution twenty years ago. And remember
in that case, you had a special counsel investigating who
leaked Valerie Planes name to Robert Novak, and Novak wouldn't
tell the reporter. Turns out they knew that it was
a Richard armitage, but he's a full fledged member in
good standing of the swamp. So they decided not to
(06:21):
prosecute him for leaking. I don't know, I forget the
reason why, but they continued the tertiary investigation to get
somebody because Fitzgerald seemed to believe, the special counsel Pat Fitzgerald,
that somebody has to be charged with a crime. And
so they decided to charge Libby, you know, with the
crime of lying to the FBI. And was that really
a deliberate lie or is his memory faulty? But it
(06:43):
was a really picky you and prosecution, I think, and
even the DC jury at the end of it, when
he was sentenced, said, well, wait a minute, you know,
we thought, you know, they made a case that he'd
actually committed to the technical violation of lying the FBI,
but we didn't think he deserved any jail time. DC
jury thought this was a bit of a reach, okay.
Speaker 3 (07:02):
But then of course the spineless, slimy George W. Bush,
when he had the opportunity to pardon him, just commuted
his sentence like the scumbag that he is.
Speaker 1 (07:13):
Well, I thought that was I thought that was weak
of him too, And then it came along, Yeah, and
I didn't. I don't know Scooter Libby very well, but
we belonged when I lived back here in the same
swim club. He's just the nicest guy in the world.
You must know him some John, I think maybe not
a little bit. He's the nicest guy in the world.
And what a huge injustice it was. So I have
(07:35):
a bad attitude about this. And I also mentioned earlier that, look,
this is not unprecedented. Perjury was the charge brought against Algerhiss,
and you know that took two trials to convict him
of perjury. And by the way, people say there's no
politics involved in these things, I mean, I don't know
naive people these are. But a little detail about the
(07:55):
Hiss case was there were a lot of people in
the Truman Justice Department who wanted to bring a grand
jury indictment against Chambers for perjury. And this was you know,
the Hiss Force is saying, wait a minute, I'm not
the perjury. That other guy's the perjurer. Yeah, and then
only unraveled after we had the pumpkin papers and all
the rest of that story, which is so fun.
Speaker 3 (08:13):
But the point is the analogy.
Speaker 2 (08:16):
Man.
Speaker 1 (08:16):
Yeah, well, I thought you might like that. I would think, Lucretia,
you'd be delighted of this indictment.
Speaker 3 (08:21):
I am delighted. I'm absolutely. The reason that I'm delighted
is because the left figured out a long time ago
that the uh, you can beat the rap, but you
can't beat the ride. And they want to make sure
that they want They wanted to make sure for say
Michael Flynn and even Trump and many many others, that
(08:44):
the ride would be the worst thing. And you know,
for someone like Trump who's really really wealthy, it was
still an incredible distraction and all those other things. But
he he was okay. The rest of the people, like
the Ginnuary six protesters two hundred and forty seven FBI
(09:06):
agents or informants on the ground on January sixth, John,
I hope you saw that today, Remember I told you,
of course not. They don't post it in the Washington
post they don't report it.
Speaker 2 (09:18):
Or where did they post? Which one say your conspiracy
theory sites? Was this song?
Speaker 3 (09:23):
No, the FBI todt to it. I admitted to it
anyway anyway, So I don't know. The press is trying
very hard to make it seem as if there isn't
enough evidence. And you know, the grand jury wasn't wasn't
unanimous in this, and that the Eric whatever his name is,
(09:46):
guy he didn't prosecute because he didn't see enough evidence.
But of course, the truth of the matter is is
that they just don't come any worse than Komy. And
I'm hoping that he gets not only bank but gets
the five year jail term that he deserves. I believe,
if I'm correct, that guy Eric what is his name,
(10:08):
I can't be bothered to remember, but he was trying
to hold out until the Statute of limitations runs out
next week on the thirtieth. So it's just a scummy
just everything about this political elite classes just drives me crazy.
So I'm glad. I hope he goes down. I hope
he takes Hillary Clinton with him. I hope he takes
(10:29):
Struck and Lisa Page and McCabe and all of those
other traders to the group right club fit. Wouldn't that
be awesome? But remember that the judge that that God
assigned the case is some Biden appointee or Obama appointee
and in a really sketchy venue to begin with. They
(10:50):
should move for a change, but they won't get it.
But still, anyway, that's all I have to say about
Komy Hope he goes down hard.
Speaker 2 (10:59):
Well, it's a I mean a lot of to me,
and I was talking about this on TV today. This
reminds me of the kinds of prosecutions that used to
be brought against mob leaders. You know, they couldn't get
the mob leader for all the bad things he did,
so they prosecuted al Capone for tax evasion. And here,
you know what Comy's really guilty of is you know,
(11:22):
turning using the FBI in this political way to investigate
I mean, first he I botched the Hillary Clinton email investigation.
Then he tried to entrap Trump into obstruction of justice
and really set off the whole Moeller investigation. But the
actual crime is just this one sentence he allegedly lied
(11:43):
in which he allegedly lied to Congress about whether he
told McKay to leak to the press or not to
lead to the McCabe. Interestingly, under oath has said that
he was told to leak to the press, and now
Comy is saying, no, I didn't tell him to do that.
Do you have any question worries about the fact that this,
you know, the charge is actually on this, you know,
(12:04):
pretty small scale example of he said, she said about
testimony to Congress.
Speaker 3 (12:12):
No, here's what I don't Can I answer that, because
I want to ask a question in that, and then
I'll defer to Steve. My first question is I thought
that there was more to it than simply what he
encouraged McCabe to do. Comy himself admitted to giving those
classified documents to his friend Richard somebody or other who's.
Speaker 2 (12:30):
That's a different that's a different thing for which he
I thought he should have been prosecuted.
Speaker 3 (12:35):
But I thought that was one of the charges that
they indicted him for.
Speaker 2 (12:39):
No, not yet. I mean, maybe they could change it, but.
Speaker 3 (12:42):
Oh, I thought I read it in the indictment.
Speaker 2 (12:47):
I read the indictment. I think it's only the it's
only about the statement.
Speaker 1 (12:51):
Now.
Speaker 2 (12:51):
They could always add to it later, but those events
might have been from too long ago. And also I
might add that he was the Spector General of the
Justice Department when they did the investigation referred uh comy
Ford prosecution, but then the Just Department did charge him.
But I don't think the thing that I think that, Yeah,
(13:12):
one of the terrible things Comy did was, as you say,
he wrote these memos that were classified about his conversations
with Trump about prosecutions, and then he leaked it ted
his friendly get to the New York Times. But I
don't that's not what this one. This one is just
this you're questioning by Ted Cruz. Well, it's only one
paragraph long in the indictment, basically, okay.
Speaker 3 (13:36):
One more comment than before I turned over to Steve.
Did either of you ever read The Bonfire of the Vanities?
Speaker 1 (13:44):
Oh?
Speaker 3 (13:44):
Yeah, back, I guess maybe saw the movie Pard Terrible.
So there was a movie star Tom.
Speaker 1 (13:52):
Hanks and Hans and Bruce Willis.
Speaker 3 (13:55):
Bruce Willis. I don't remember if this came It is
clear in the movie, but in the book. One of
the things that happened to the Tom Hanks character in
the book I forget his name, is that he goes
from being this elite Titan. You know, his suits cost
seven thousand dollars back in the day, to being purp walked,
(14:19):
to being treated just like, you know, just the average
scum of the earth, kind of dirt bag next door.
And he starts wearing polyester clothes when he shows up
in court, and there's just all this lovely Tom Wolfe
kind of undercommentary about how he's taken down from his
(14:40):
high place. And if nothing else, if Komy actually gets
prosecuted on that, even that one charge, and is actually
found guilty, which I think he has to be. It's
not the best jury or judge, but okay, then at
least it'll take him down from his lofty, sort of elite,
snobbish uh place in society to being just your average criminal.
(15:07):
That's what I'm hoping. Sorry, Steve, go ahead.
Speaker 2 (15:10):
Well, Steve, is he is Jim Comy going to be
the next hero of the next Tom Wolf novel?
Speaker 1 (15:16):
Well, first of all, Tom Wolf has departed this availed yes. Second,
just say a quick announcement sort of. Uh, my live
stream attempt, which had to do through Google, is not
working right. It's only presenting my screen. Although I think
you can hear everything going on. We actually have two viewers,
but I think, yeah, I know. I think I'm going
to end the live stream.
Speaker 2 (15:36):
I think they clicked on the wrong link and are
expecting to see some Jim Comy live testimony or something.
Speaker 1 (15:41):
I don't know. Well, maybe I'll leave it up if
people want to.
Speaker 2 (15:44):
Steve.
Speaker 1 (15:45):
The chat windows not working either, so we're trying. We're
gonna get this right eventually.
Speaker 2 (15:49):
But all right, when st when Steve hits four million miles,
he'll screw the audio up too.
Speaker 1 (15:56):
I'll leave it up for our two viewers who were
subscribed to the YouTube, Channe, and we'll get this figured out.
But they got to stare at me for the whole
lot to start.
Speaker 3 (16:03):
Steve better than the last time.
Speaker 1 (16:05):
Progress.
Speaker 2 (16:06):
So, Steve, the question is does the does the this
lightness of the charges were you against Komy? I mean,
don't don't conservatives, not like you know, the government, you know,
going after people who are public enemy number one but
then charging them with small scale things just to get them.
Speaker 1 (16:26):
No, it really doesn't bother me at all. And here's
why I do think this sends out a sign that
we're now having zero tolerance toward you know, career people
and senior bureaucrats and people who think they can take
it upon themselves to be you you know, to a
sanctioned things like the Russia hoax and all the rest
of that. I think it's a good shot across the
(16:46):
bow that our civil servants need to behave themselves properly.
And I think Comy was, you know, played a very
devious game. And maybe he was sloppy too, I don't know,
but the point is there should be consequences for some
of the stuff that he set didn't stop, you know,
upuntil actually, up until that first Hillary Clinton press conference,
I had formed a favorable opinion of him as FBI director.
(17:09):
But when he shrunk from charging her, I thought, ah,
he's becoming a political FBI director. And maybe they all
have been, except you know, I think Hoover had somewhat
more in his favor for the way he conducted his office.
Speaker 3 (17:22):
But Hoover was at least bipartisan in his political approach
to everything anti communists.
Speaker 1 (17:28):
And that's really the good part, right, That's right, Yeah.
Speaker 3 (17:32):
Which was why it was when when the presidential from
presidents from either party were still anti communists, right, I mean,
that's not unfair to wait to look at it for you.
Speaker 1 (17:44):
I mean, my guess is, John, is I think future
FBI directors are going to be more careful about how
they touched these things that have large political consequences and
factors involved.
Speaker 2 (17:56):
Yeah, I you know, just to close the loop on it.
I think was one of the worst FBI directors we
ever had, and he really politicized the agency. Not Democrat Republican,
but got the FBI really embroiled with presidential politics. And
it's something you also said. See he was a senior
(18:16):
government official who I think similar to the mindset of
some of them. We could think of doctor Fauci in
this vein too. Another favorite of Lucretia's is that they
think they knew better. They know better so much that
they ignore the Constitution and the laws and just all
the rules that exist to keep the government's power in check.
(18:39):
So think about what Comy did. Remember right up until
the twenty sixteen election, he probably announced that Hillary Clinton
was not guilty of any federal crimes, but then proceeded
to describe and criticize what she had done. When the
traditional rule is if if you don't charge someone, then
you don't say anything one way or the other. I mean,
just comy thought he should decide what the American public
(19:01):
should know or not know, and his view on it
before the you know, just a few weeks before the election.
And then then he thought President Trump was unfit to
be president, so he tried to get a special counsel
appointed when she succeeded in order to bring down his presidency.
This is the kind of attitude I think we should
(19:21):
I agree with you, Steve, we should root out from
senior officials in the government. Lucretia has a special feature.
Do you want to use it at the end of
the show.
Speaker 3 (19:34):
I can do it now, I could do it.
Speaker 2 (19:35):
Do it as a special feature, which she calls the
Darwin effect of the week.
Speaker 3 (19:40):
I do because Okay, so everybody heard that Trump came
out and it's absolutely crazy. Trump came out and said
that they are recommending and passing the guidance along to
medical doctors across the country that pregnant women not take
Thailand All, which was the only, uh only supposed safe
(20:05):
painkiller that you're supposed to take when you're pregnant. Now, okay, sorry,
a little bit of a sideshow here. Lucretia's youngest when
she was pregnant with her youngest. I had every opportunistic
infection known to man because of a condition I had.
I had an elbow infection. I mean it was ridiculous.
Speaker 2 (20:27):
Affected. Wow, it's just the boat.
Speaker 3 (20:30):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (20:30):
No, no, I guess, I guess when you it the
way lucretia hasn't. There's the sides of liberals.
Speaker 3 (20:38):
You know, why don't take talent all. This is my
favorite X post ever. One thing I like about Thailand
all is how if you have a bad headache and
you take it, nothing happens anyway anyway, So so uh,
you know, maybe there's association a correlation. They haven't proved causation,
but those kinds of things in the medical world are
(20:59):
rarely ever proven to the point of causation recommendation. Don't
take Thailand all unless you know it's really really necessary.
You've got one hundred and four fevers blah blah blah blah.
Because it was Trump who said it from all of
these stupid pregnant women out there, lefty liberal pregnant women
(21:20):
just downing huge handfuls of thailandol.
Speaker 2 (21:27):
Oh.
Speaker 3 (21:28):
Yes, and here's the crazy thing Thailand all is there
are more overdoses as a result of overdosing on Thailand
All that was until recently than there were from oxycodone.
I'm guessing that's probably not true anymore since the real
but but thailandol is a very dangerous It is anything
(21:48):
but safe and effective. One of my personal favorites was
a commentator who said, you know, I don't take tailando.
If I want to destroy my liver, I'm gonna deal
with alcohol like any any real man. Well, so, my
Darwin effect of the week is all of those stupid liberal,
leftist pregnant women downing entire bottles of Thailand all in
(22:13):
their Trump derangement syndrome, because it is actually fatal.
Speaker 2 (22:18):
I'm sorry that I did not realize that this should
come at the end of the show, But this is
a great segue, and it gives Stephen I time to
think of our own Darwin nominees by the end of
the show. It's also a great subject seguay to our
next topic, which is the budget shutdown, because if the
Congress and the President don't agree, then the Medicare medicate
(22:40):
systems won't be able to buy up all that Thailand
all distribute it and give it to everybody. But there
you have a looming budget shutdown that apparently will occur
this upcoming week unless the Congress and the President can
agree on spending. And apparently the House is already passed
a short term spending bill, but apparently Democrats in the
(23:03):
Senate are refusing to go along unless the Congress restores
the cuts from just the big beautiful bill on various
Obamacare subsidies for health insurance. Steve, once again you are
in the swamp, where again the city has thrown into
chaos at the idea that the federal government might actually
(23:24):
shut down again. Steve, what do you think will happen?
Do you think that Republicans will stick to their guns?
They were not reversing the spending cuts we just passed
a few months ago and let the government shut down,
or well, people cave and gave into the Democrats' demands
in order to get a budget passed.
Speaker 1 (23:44):
Well, they better hold firm, because for one thing, Republicans
for a change, hold all of the high cards here
that hasn't really ever been true. Republicans usually get blamed
for budget shutdowns depending on even when they run Congress.
Speaker 2 (23:57):
Don't they get blamed this time? Since the House, Senate
and the president here all under the control.
Speaker 1 (24:01):
Of Well, I think uh no, I mean, here's what
I think should happen. Well, first of all, I think
we're also seeing something new here, and that is Trump,
as always on the offense, saying, well, you know what
we're you know, if we're going to furlough non essential employees,
why do we have to have them back? You know,
back in the nineties, I think it was one of
the Clinton budget shutdowns, and Phil Graham said at the time,
(24:23):
you know, I thought the only mistake was opening the
government back up again. Well, you know what, that may
actually become the party position this time. And and I
think this threat it's terrifying some Democrats, especially you know
two Virginia Democrats, Warner and uh the the guy who
ran Hillary, Tim Kane. It's amazing that you don't remember
(24:45):
this guy.
Speaker 2 (24:45):
I mean, you know that's where Tim Waltz is headed
into Tim kine Land exactly can remember he was vice president.
Speaker 1 (24:52):
But here's the I think this fits in with the
this comes, by the way, uh, and we should probably
leave this another time. It comes at the same time
the Supreme Court has granted cert on a case saying
please tell us if we should overrule Humphrey's executor. Boom,
right out there. They're presenting the question without trimming it
at all. And in that case, this just fits in
with the Trump agenda to gain real executive branch control
(25:16):
over the executive branch. So they're threatening this and that
ought to terrify Democrats if he follows through on that.
Here's another thing, and here I can actually break a
little news. I did get to spend a little bit
of time with a small group this morning with two
of Lucretia's favorite Republicans, Tim Massey and Ran Paul, and
I have to say I thought they were really good
(25:36):
and really impressive. They didn't beat up on Trump. They
just said, look, we you know, we're free traders, we're
also budget hawks, and we're kind of disappointed that things
are going the opposite way. Okay, fine, but on this
budget question they pointed out some really interesting things. First
of all, we're about to do our third continuing Resolution
in a year, because we can't seem to ever do
(25:57):
budgeting anymore. The first one was passed in Biden's lame
duck period, and then Trump passed another one, which is
just continue where we were going. So we are now
voting again on what was essentially the last Biden budget,
all these you know, nine months into the Trump administration.
So one of the points they made is a curious one.
They said, you know, Doage did all this great work
(26:18):
to cancel for an aid and you know, all these
other things, but that old Continuing Resolution restores those funds.
If we're saying we're going to just continue the Biden
spending plan from a year ago, and he says, no,
I don't know if they'll be able to spend them
or not if we've gotten rid of the people in
the organizations, but who knows U And so there they're point.
And so they're pointing out that even the Continuing Resolution
(26:40):
is in some ways a small victory for Democrats. Now
they really want to restore all that health care funding,
and I think they're leaning on that because the polls
show that's one issue that Americans are still upset about,
is healthcare. And I thought a bomb affixed that forever,
but apparently not. And a lot of that spending was
simply way approxy way to expand the welfare state. So
(27:03):
what I think Trump should do next week, if if
we get him lockdown, is every day he and his
fabulous Press secretary Carolyn Levitt. They ought to come out
every day and say, Okay, here's what they want and
just give some particular outrageous piece of spending from the
existing regime. They want to continue with this, and then
(27:25):
every day, I think the Republican position should be, Okay,
we won't pass that continuing resolution. Today's resolution has this,
and it's it's you know, the current level minus something
the Democrats want, and every day you up the ante
of how much less they're gonna get the longer they
hold out. Trump would be a genius at that. You
just do your Golden Fleet spending awards like that every
(27:46):
single day, and I think that after a week or
ten days or longer, the Democrats will fold. Finally. My
hunch is, you know, Schumer is a coward. He's a
very smart guy. You know. He he made his caucus
in the Senate go along with a continuing resolution back
in the winter, and boy did he catch flak for
(28:07):
that from the party base and a lot of his
own members on the far left, like Lizzie Warren. And
I think this time, I don't think he really wants
to do this either, but he feels like he has to,
and so I think you know he's gonna end up folding.
But it's just a matter of how long and how
much pain the Trump people, if they're determined, which I
think they are, will exactly out of him. So I'm
(28:29):
sitting back with extra popcorn to go along with my
Kamala Harris book tour popcorn, and I'm going to enjoy
the show.
Speaker 2 (28:36):
Cretia, what do you think about this other story that
OMB under Russ Vode is trying to escalate beyond just
the shutdown. I believe he has said that if there
is a garment shutdown, we will just use as as
an opportunity to fire more people and to shut down
(28:57):
more programs because Congress no longer is paying for them.
And then if they want to recreate these programs, they're
gonna have to pass a new law. What do you
think of that?
Speaker 3 (29:05):
I think it's wonderful. I think I think it's a
game changer. As I told you guys that So the
OMB memo from from Russ says, I need you to
identify all of the non essential employees who are engaged
in activities that are not consistent, not aligned with the
(29:25):
Trump administration. Priorities, and those people will be furloughed and
then they won't be hired back. And so who are
those people. They are members of the Federal Employees Union,
which is what ninety nine point nine nine nine ninety
seven Democrat, So they're all Democrats losing their jobs. The
really interesting thing is that Trump has already set the
(29:52):
stage so that unlike say the shutdown in the Obama years,
where they remember open airport arcs, where nobody actually ever
patrolled them, no federal park rangers or anything patrolled them
to begin with, they shut them down so that they
could maximize the pain felt by average Americans. Trump has
(30:15):
done the opposite. So no even the rays in military
pay will go through. ICE will get its money, you know,
on and on and on. None of the priorities of
the Trump administration that are on behalf of the American people,
generally speaking, none of those will actually see any cuts
(30:38):
to funding. Part of that's because of the passage of
the Big Beautiful Bill, part of it is some other things.
But anyway, so if they decide to shut down the government,
all of those people that have been identified by the
heads of all the federal agencies will lose their jobs,
they won't be able to come back, and I will
be dancing the biggest happy dance in the world when
(30:59):
that happened. I'm just going to tell you.
Speaker 2 (31:02):
Ahead, Like you two, I actually was the subject of
one of these Oh but go ahead, Steve.
Speaker 1 (31:08):
Well, okay, I was just going to say this. We
always hear government shut down and the mainstream media goes nuts.
And I always like to ask people the day one
of these things started, or two days after it starts,
the police still patrolling your streets. Are your local schools
still open? Is the planning department in your city open
to process your building permit or give you your business license?
(31:29):
Is the state tax collector still getting your state income
taxes collected from you? The point is is that we
have I think something like fifty thousand governing units in
the country. If you go all the way down to
the local Mosquito Abatement unit in Marin County, right Mosquitobatement District,
and all those governments stay open. It's just one government
that shuts down, and not even as Lucretia points out,
(31:51):
the whole of it, just some parts of it, the
really essential parts, like you know, the military, social security, checks.
They keep going along, say that we're shutting down government
is completely wrong and misconstructs people about who actually governs
us and where and most of the really important parts
of government, like you know, our local police. They go
(32:11):
on completely unchanged, unaffected by this. So this is again,
you know, so Washington New York media fascination that most
Americans will look up and say, oh, okay, government and
Washington shutdown doesn't bother.
Speaker 2 (32:23):
Me much, Chris right, Sorry, well, just the you know,
my perspective on it was. I was there for the
ninety six shutdown, I give, probably the first one between
Robert Doles Congress and the Dole Gingrich Congress.
Speaker 1 (32:41):
And that was not the first. Present started in the seventies,
but never mind that they really ramped up in the
eighties and nineties. But anyway, go ahead, sorry.
Speaker 2 (32:49):
And so eventually Gingrich caved, and it was only because
the polls started to turn against the Republicans and in
Bill Clinton's favor. And the only thing I would say
that's different, isn't it than the Clinton ones or the
Obama year Obama ones, both of whose poll numbers apparently
went up after the shutdowns, is at this time Trump's
(33:10):
president and Trump's not in favor of government spending. So
it's that I don't know whether the past really is
a good predictor, because usually it's Republicans in Congress trying
to shut down the government to save money. Democrat presidents
want to spend it, so they would oppose it, and
now it's the reverse. And so I don't know what
that means in terms of what the public polls would show.
(33:32):
But I think that's the polling is what's going to
determine how long it goes on for and who caves first.
That was my express from watching it up close. Although
I got to be declared an essential employee so I
still got to work anyway. And I was also in
the Senate at the time, working in the Senate, so
we weren't going to shut ourselves down, of course, but.
Speaker 3 (33:53):
We question before you go out to please. So Jeffries
and Schumer, are you know, calling the voit guy all
sorts of nasty names, that he's a malignant political hack,
excuse me, on and on, and Schumer says it doesn't matter.
Trump can make these threats, but the courts are going
(34:15):
to overturn him, my understanding. But you're you're my lawyer,
John Personal and otherwise that if these rifts come as
a result of the government shut down, there is no
legal mechanism for a rift employee to appeal to to
(34:35):
get their job back. Am I wrong about that?
Speaker 2 (34:38):
Well, so it depends how each statute's written for each agency.
And so if agency, yeah, it's agency by agency, But
I could see some agency statutes, you know, if the
money runs out and then Congress doesn't reappropriate it or
they don't reauthorize the employee, I could see it terminating,
and I could see other ones not. It really does
(35:00):
depend on how each agency's written. But you know one
thing that I think the O and B guys have
in their favorite there's this This has related to this
question of the pocket recisions, where you know, basically now
that if the government shuts down, Vote's going to say, well,
we're not going to spend any more appropriated money for
the rest of the year because we were going to
do that, remember he wanted to you know, cut the
(35:24):
appropriate spending anyway. I think that's going to work now.
I think the government shutdown almost guarantees that the administration
is going to succeed in cutting currents spending down to
the levels they wanted. So the Democrats are almost playing
right into Trump's hands. I think on this, and then,
as Steve's point is, I think truth when people notice
that they still get their Social Security checks to Medicare, Medicaid,
(35:46):
and that all these other things the government does that
doesn't really perform any real public service, the life will
go on, that people might the poles might swing in
Trump's favor. Okay, we have.
Speaker 3 (35:58):
Down the parks.
Speaker 2 (36:00):
Yeah, well, so in our last segment, we're going to
return to this format about talking you. We have about
fifteen minutes about talking about an article, so we thought
we would talk about Steve's interesting article about Believe it
or Not, comparing Max Weber to Charlie Kirk. Steve, why
(36:21):
don't you Lucretia. Lucretia, will you wake up? Please? I'm sorry,
you gotta stop taking all that til in awe wake up.
Speaker 1 (36:31):
Steve.
Speaker 2 (36:32):
You describe the thesis of your article, and then Lucretia
will be the first critic, and then I'll go second. Steve,
go ahead, Oh yeah, well two minutes or less.
Speaker 1 (36:41):
Right, I'm not really comparing him. I mean the title
is misleading that way. From Max Weber to Charlie Kirk
is the main title. And this is very hard to
do because you know, I Lucasia thinks I'm nuts as usual.
I have long been fascinated with that famous lecture of
Webers from nineteen nineteen, Politics as a Vocation. It's twenty
eight thousand words long. It took three hours to deliver.
(37:03):
The students were very disappointed with it, which is a
relevant point, and the first two thirds are really boring.
Weber's attempt to try, without acknowledging it to overcome the
challenges to democracy from Karl Marx on the left and
Nietzsche on the right. It doesn't say that's what he's doing.
But if you actually know the whole story of Weaber,
that's what's going on. In the meantime. You have all
(37:24):
these radicalized students coming out of World War One, and
it's chaos in Germany. People keep saying, and you know,
I've been playing with another famous line from forty years ago.
Speaker 3 (37:36):
Now.
Speaker 1 (37:36):
It's Alan Bloom's famous line in the closing of The
American Mind, where it says, American today is a Disneyland
version of the Weimar Republic. Well, you're going to strike
the Disneyland part of it now, because you know, we're
actually having real violence coming from the left, and in
Germany it was different leftist factions clashing with one another.
And that's a you know, a separate story for another day.
But lots of assassinations, lots of mass violence in the street,
(37:59):
and you had very unstable students and young people who
and I'm not talking about Charlie See Kirk is the
one guy who I think resembled the maturing of political
judgment that Faber's trying to point out at the end
of that complicated lecture. And I don't have time to
unwind all that. I may give a longer version of
that article as a lecturer and seminar sometime soon down
(38:22):
at Pepperdine. In any case, I think what Weaber was
describing of the instability and the irresponsibility of young people
working from their passions describes what's happened to well. For example,
the person who shot Kirk anyway, Weber was trying to
head them off. He failed at it. Vabor, by the way,
(38:42):
died a few months later. The Spanish influenza, you know,
it's an interesting little coincidence. And several of the students
who he had in mind. In my article, I identify
two particular students of his that he had in mind,
one of whom later committed suicide because he just couldn't
cope with the world, and the other one having been well.
It was that famous Hungarian theorist George Lukoch, who became
(39:05):
one of the sort of Frankfurt Marxists and wrote inspiration
for Gromsky and all those guys. He'd been a critic
of communism and then suddenly turned on a dime and
became a Leninist. And the point is is that I
think we see, you know, we're not quite Weimar Republic,
We're not quite in a revolutionary situation, but things are bad.
(39:25):
And what I noticed when I was looking at all
these clips of Charlie Kirk maturing from this eighteen year
old I thought was kind of brash and a flash
in the pan to how fast the guy matured, and
how sophisticated and subtle he was in his campus appearances,
and what a genius he was in building this huge organization.
Who knows where he was going to go in life right,
(39:47):
and his religious faith was central to it. By the way,
Weber I always assumed he was an atheist. I think
maybe that's not right, but he was always very respectful
of religious people involved in politics. He was admirer of
Martin Luther. It's a complicated story, and I tried, in
the space of two thousand words to just pass a
little that along as a cautionary table, again really intended
(40:11):
more for young people, but also saying the adults in
the room. I have a whole paragraph about how irresponsible
Democrats have been with their language, you know, Chris Murphy saying,
you know we're in a revolutionary situation, and you know
we've got to stop Trump by any means necessary. Well,
that language has always meant sanctioning violence, and that has
to stop, and I'll stop.
Speaker 2 (40:32):
Okay, Lucretia's not convinced, based on the many different kinds
of faces she made while you were talking. Lucretia, why
did this essay fail?
Speaker 3 (40:42):
It's not so much that I don't know that the
essay failed. It began with such weak material that I
think it was probably a resounding success. As I told
Steve when I read it, before he'd even told us
it was out there, I happened to come across it,
I said, I enjoyed reading your piece. But the one
thing that stood out to me is how little Weber
(41:02):
has to teach us. I got nothing of Steve's own,
you know, admonishments to the to the left, to the
Schumers and so forth of the world. I got nothing
of that from Weber. Seriously, I mean the guys that
the guys that you can't You can't bring prudence into
(41:24):
a discussion when you don't have the philosophical foundations from
which prudence would emanate, is how I would put it.
And maybe Steve kind of hinted out that he was
trying to get at that a little bit, But I'm
not sure why anybody has to read Weber to to
figure that one out. I do think that the the
(41:45):
pull between Nietzsche's nihilism and Marx's ultimately nihilism too, but
from an entirely different way. I mean, the the nothingness
that we try to put a substitute in for give
some meaning to life. That's I think a very interesting question.
(42:08):
And I honestly, Steve, I would have been interested to
see you if you had another five thousand words. Uh,
play that one out a little bit farther. No, No,
I don't mean it like that.
Speaker 1 (42:17):
I get it.
Speaker 3 (42:18):
He had a subject and he did what he could
with the subject. But the really interesting question again is
what is it about the emptiness of our young people's
souls that that you know, gets filled God. Filling them
with Marx or Nietzsche is actually much preferable in these
(42:40):
these days to filling them with furry, pedophilic anime online.
But it's all a little bit of a piece of
the same thing, right, So, so I from that point
of view, I thought it was a very interesting article.
I meant it when I said I I enjoyed reading it.
But Weber to me seems just I know you're gonna
tell me that all of our teachers thought he was
(43:02):
so important, But I don't think so. I don't think
he has that much to teach us.
Speaker 1 (43:06):
Well, no, I agree with that criticism, and I now
I did it very quickly. I have a sentence in
there that conveyed some of that criticism, saying, one of
the problems with ethics, with the Vabor's famous Ethics of
Responsibility and Ethic of Ultimate Ends, is that he completely
punts on the question of prudence. He can't recover it
at all, and and that it goes with this his
abandonment of the foundations of American democracy or all democracy
(43:30):
and natural rights social contract theory. He thought that nietzsch
and Marks had been so successful that you had to
find a new ground for it. And he's wrong about that.
Speaker 3 (43:38):
And uh, look, I mean here's I think that, And
Charlie Kirk proved him that.
Speaker 1 (43:43):
Yeah, sadly, yes, right, there's a meme. Well the uh,
first of all, I do I kind of find Faber interesting,
even though he's boring much of the time except the
last through the lecture. I just think is gripping reading,
especially when you learn more about the background. And by
(44:05):
the way, the person who torn me on to reading
Weber more closely John was your Harvard instructor, Daniel Bell.
He wrote a classic artic classic article. It's sort of obscure,
but a few of us know it.
Speaker 2 (44:16):
And charity, Yeah, this article, you were talking about it
his I'd never heard of. He never mentioned it in class. No,
but he was a socialist.
Speaker 1 (44:24):
Oh that's right, No, that it said. That's one of
the famous places where Belle said I'm a socialist and economics,
but a conservative in culture. Bell didn't have the answer. Yes,
But the point is I think Weber is more interesting
and more useful. And by the way, you can use
Weber to go on and make our points to the cretia.
That's part of why I like to bring him up,
because everything gets worse from there. I mean, if you
(44:45):
told me that I'm stuck in a room and I
either got to work from Weber or work from John Dewey,
I'll take Weber every time. You know, Dewey is much worse.
Speaker 3 (44:53):
Fortunately, those are our choices, Steve, I understand that.
Speaker 1 (44:57):
And by the way, I don't know if you caught
my little throwaway line along the way saying that Weber's
sort of rival, not a rival figure in competition, but
his sort of closest analog was Woodrow Wilson, which I
think is correct. And Wilson didn't write at the great,
turgid length of Weber, but they came close to it
a couple of ways. So anyway, I mean, I think
(45:18):
the fact that Weber labor was alert to the problems.
One of the things he said. Weber said is that
I hate communism because these are horrible people. They're they're violent,
they're do horrible things, and they will discredit socialism. For
one hundred years, and that's kind of what happened with
the Soviet Union, right, I mean, socialism is back now.
(45:40):
And that's because, as Jaffa warned us in nineteen ninety one,
when everyone said it's all over for the left, he said, no,
it's not. They're about to get much worse, and socialism
will be liberated from its toxic association with the Soviet Union,
and boys.
Speaker 3 (45:54):
Has never been tried anywhere yet.
Speaker 1 (45:56):
Steve, Well, there is that, right, real. Okay.
Speaker 2 (46:02):
My two cents on the essay before we close is
I enjoy reading about Max Weber because it helps you
understand progressivism what Joe Wilson's just a rhetoricician compared to Weber,
who I think really had the real ideas. I wasn't
sure what I had to do with Charlie Kirk, That's
the part of the sea I didn't really understand. But
(46:23):
I really loved the talking about Weber. And to defend
my old professor teacher of Daniel Bell. You know, he
was interested in the same questions as Faber, and I
thought had a more satisfying answer. So one of the
great books that Bell wrote was about whether capitalism and
I think it actually kind of answers lucreassl crecious question
(46:44):
about what's happening to our youth, because I remember Max
Weber's maybe the one work that people most know him
for is Protestant Capitalism, the idea that the Protestant work
ethic produced capitalism, which doesn't really seem to explain it's
why Asia has been doing so well, but right, I mean,
it just doesn't. But you know, but Bell was interested
(47:07):
whether capitalism could keep going once it produced so much
luxury and surplus. And maybe that's part of the answer
to Lucretia's question, why do we have so many young
people who are like Charlie Kirk's assassin or maybe now
the guy who shot at the Dallas ice officers. These
young men who become fascinated with these, you know, bizarre
(47:29):
ideologies from surfing the internet and lead very anti social lives.
Maybe it's because they lead such lives of luxury compared
to any other time in human history, the kind of
luxuries we have. And you know, that was Bell's thought
that in the name of his book is the cultural
contradictions of capitalism, though the capitalism have produced such wealth
that it would undermine the work ethic that's necessary for
(47:51):
capitalism to succeed.
Speaker 1 (47:53):
But he really got that from Schumpeter, who wrote that
first back in the thirties. And but here's the if
I was doing the five thousand or seven thousand word version,
I might move on to this question. So I just
mentioned a moment ago that Bell was famous for saying,
I'm a socialist and economics, but I'm a conservative and culture.
The question now that relates to this whole period right now,
with parbolie Kirk and all the rest of it, is
(48:15):
why is it that the socialist left is also culturally
so far left with things like the LGBTQ, which all
the rest of this stuff. Right Bell of course is
dead now, but he would have resisted all this, I'm
quite sure. But why is it that there's no that
the left has not followed Bell. There's almost nobody on
the left that I can think of who's who who's
(48:35):
a Bell self description applies to, which tells me there's
something wrong with socialism with this, you know, the again,
the romantic sensibility that we can achieve utopia through you know,
socialist revolution. It always comes with the other leftist nihilist
stuff and all the rest of that lucretia and ready
to jump And no.
Speaker 3 (48:54):
I'm not going to jump. I'm just going to see
you guys are making this too Sorry. I don't mean
this to be insulting. I don't pretentiously intellectual, and I
don't mean you're being Here's what I mean by that.
It's really very simple. I keep going back to it.
There's there's basically two positions in the world today, and
(49:18):
one of those looks at human nature and discovers that
human nature, God, the laws of nature. It doesn't have
to be religious and focused, but at some point I
guess it probably does anyway, because you have to believe,
at least in a creator, that we are created. We
don't create ourselves, we don't evolve into whatever we choose to,
(49:38):
nor does history evolve with us. That that position is
different from the entire position of the left, socialism, nihilism, atheism,
and if anything you look at they want, they want
to be God. You've got two choices. Either you recognize
there is a God, and and that that recognizing that
(50:02):
there's a God, a creator, Nature's whatever you want to
call it, actually tells us how we ought to live.
If we but consult it, or I don't have to
consult anything, and I can just will exactly the way
I want to live. I can be my own God.
And that's what explains all of those contradictions in my
(50:22):
view that Steve was rightly talking about you too. John.
It's not capitalism that destroys men's souls. It's the rejection
of God. It's the rejection of anything greater than yourself.
Because if you reject the idea that there's something greater
than yourself, then you do become a God. And of course,
(50:45):
ultimately you unless you have a genuine Nietzsche will to
power you, you know, you face the abyss and the
abyss gets you. That's my think.
Speaker 2 (50:58):
I think that you're narrowing the grounds on which you
can believe in good government if you associate it that
you have to be Christian. You know I did, Chris,
But you're saying the natural rights have to have some
source and a belief in God. I don't see why
atheists can't can't organize a well run society of very
similar principles to the ones that you support.
Speaker 1 (51:19):
I don't see when when did you sign on the
Tim Kan campaign?
Speaker 3 (51:24):
No, nor is it just God nature if consult nature
and the way Aristotle did learn study the ways of
human beings. You know, I, of course believe that there
is a God who created the world, and that he's
accessible to some extent through human reason but also by faith.
(51:47):
But you don't have to believe in that God to
believe in the natural rights theory of the Declaration of Independence.
That's why it says the laws of nature and Nature's God.
It's it's it's it's the most brilliant thing produced by
man in terms of setting up a government in the
history of humankind. John, Laws of Nature and Nature's God.
Speaker 1 (52:08):
Sorry, I am going to grind up a little fragments
from Thomas Aquinas and drop it in your tea for
the next couple of months and see if it doesn't.
Speaker 2 (52:16):
I am sure it will taste terrible, but.
Speaker 3 (52:19):
Better than a Korean hot dog.
Speaker 2 (52:22):
Oh there you are, sorry, tastes better than so many flavors,
So you know, we're speaking of Koreating things. We didn't
get to talk about k pop Demon Hunters, which I
watched under the rest from Steve Hayward, and we're going
to get a chance to discuss it. We'll talk about
it next week, maybe but we're at the come to
(52:42):
the end of the show. So Lucretia Babylon b headline.
Speaker 3 (52:46):
Oh man, so good. More winning. We didn't talk about
the UN speech either, but we ran out a time
more winning Trump to demolish UN building and replace with
UFC Arena. Hillary says we must all stop pointing fingers,
(53:07):
as we all know the Republicans are to blame. We
also didn't discuss Jimmy Kimmel because Steve was bored with it.
But anyway, Americans return to not watching Jimmy Kimmel by choice.
Sorry Donald Troull. This one's for you, John, because we
didn't discuss your article either, which was very interesting. John
(53:29):
wrote a great piece about the Trump administration's use of
the military to destroy drug cartel drug wrinners.
Speaker 2 (53:39):
Although Steve just accused me of being the worst article
I've ever written.
Speaker 3 (53:43):
I don't know about the worst kidding. Nor did we
discuss the Pete Haig Sath. I just want you guys
to know that we talked. We had all this great
plans for what we're going to discuss. Pete Haig Sath
has summoned to UH to Quantic all of the senior
commanders in the Army, all the admirals and generals that
(54:05):
are commanders, and you know the internet is a buzz
about it all. I just want you guys to know
that they were on the army base next to me.
They were going to have a big ceremony, this is
serious honoring me on Tuesday, and it had to be
postponed because the general wants to be there, but he
(54:26):
has to go see Pete, who I believe is going
to tell these generals either you get in line, yes sir.
You give your objections to any lawful orders. Absolutely give
your objections. But when those objections are disregarded, you get
in line and you say yes sir, and you move
out and draw fire. And if you're not willing to
(54:48):
do that, turn in your resignation. Right now. That's what
I think is going to happen. We'll see what do
you think, John Well, the.
Speaker 1 (54:53):
Left, well ahead, Steve. The left is all spun up
that it's a coup and that's just the left being paranoid.
I'll just say this. I speak earlier in the week
before this announcement was made with a pretty well placed
person in town who I think is very sound, who
said there's a big internal fight going on inside different
parts of the Trump administration over the next Defense strategy review,
(55:15):
which they do every couple of years, and it may
or may not have something to do with that. I
don't know. They might want to get ahead of it,
but we'll see.
Speaker 3 (55:21):
Those things are bureaucratic.
Speaker 2 (55:23):
So I figured what was going to happen was he
was going to fire some people and but then but
then I heard the Creatia wasn't coming, so as I cool,
he wasn't going to bring the sort of damacles with
them to fire them all with. So since since Lucrete
is not going to be there, it is just going
to be namby pamby talking and no serious firing, all right,
(55:44):
So I guess I'll do the exit line, which is
always drink your whiskey, meat, buy more books, and Steve,
what's your latest AI excursion?
Speaker 1 (55:55):
This week it's William Faulkner on the Three Whiskey Happy Hour.
It's a little long, but not too bad. In the
dim lit, smoke thick air of some forgotten bar on
the edge of town, the Three Whiskey Happy Hour hums
along like an old worn clock that tells no time
but the moment a moment, stretched long, slow, and filled
(56:17):
with the murmur of voices. They those men and woman,
voices like whisky itself, rich and deep, drawled and twisted
through tails and truths, real and imagined, beneath the laughter
that comes not from joy, but from some deeper hunger,
a need for the sound to fill the space left
by silence. And they drink those three whiskey to silence
(56:39):
the ghosts, to drown the present and the roar of
the past. And every hour is happy, for every hour
is the same hour as it always was and always
will be. Parts of that I think are pretty good.
Parts of it are just you know, voice.
Speaker 3 (56:54):
Okay, I get sorry forty chests. Trump says chugging windex
may be harmful, causing millions of Democrats to chug windex.
Speaker 1 (57:05):
For years.
Speaker 2 (57:06):
Right, yeah, all right, everybody. We hope our two watchers
enjoyed our first video of the three whiskey happy hour. Hopefully,
you know, two million mile or Steeve will figure out
how to fix that while he's sitting on the plane
for another million miles. And we'll see everybody next week. Bye, everybody,
(57:26):
leaving home. Out on the road. I've been down before,
riding along on his big old Jimplane.
Speaker 1 (57:36):
I've been a thinking about my home, but my love
life seem so far away, and I feel like it's
all and done.
Speaker 2 (57:48):
Well. Somebody's trying to make me stay.
Speaker 3 (57:51):
You know, I got to beam move and on ool
big old jety Liner.
Speaker 2 (58:00):
Don't carry me too far away, Oh big old Jatyliner.
Speaker 1 (58:07):
Cause of him that I got to stay. Good Bye
to all my friends. Ricochet joined the conversation
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Ruthie's Table 4
For more than 30 years The River Cafe in London, has been the home-from-home of artists, architects, designers, actors, collectors, writers, activists, and politicians. Michael Caine, Glenn Close, JJ Abrams, Steve McQueen, Victoria and David Beckham, and Lily Allen, are just some of the people who love to call The River Cafe home. On River Cafe Table 4, Rogers sits down with her customers—who have become friends—to talk about food memories. Table 4 explores how food impacts every aspect of our lives. “Foods is politics, food is cultural, food is how you express love, food is about your heritage, it defines who you and who you want to be,” says Rogers. Each week, Rogers invites her guest to reminisce about family suppers and first dates, what they cook, how they eat when performing, the restaurants they choose, and what food they seek when they need comfort. And to punctuate each episode of Table 4, guests such as Ralph Fiennes, Emily Blunt, and Alfonso Cuarón, read their favourite recipe from one of the best-selling River Cafe cookbooks. Table 4 itself, is situated near The River Cafe’s open kitchen, close to the bright pink wood-fired oven and next to the glossy yellow pass, where Ruthie oversees the restaurant. You are invited to take a seat at this intimate table and join the conversation. For more information, recipes, and ingredients, go to https://shoptherivercafe.co.uk/ Web: https://rivercafe.co.uk/ Instagram: www.instagram.com/therivercafelondon/ Facebook: https://en-gb.facebook.com/therivercafelondon/ For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the iheartradio app, apple podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.