The Three Whisky Happy Hour: Neoconclave Edition!

We're up a day early with this special emergency edition of the 3WHH because it isn't every millennium when you get an American Pope. With John Yoo hosting this week we hold ecumenical court on what to think about an American Pope who displays some progressive political sympathies, but is a math major and an Augustinian, which are more promising indications. We offer a few things to watch for as this papacy unfolds.

Next up: what to make of Trump's foreign policy, especially in light of the firing of NSA Mike Waltz. John is confused (so what else is new?), and once again Steve and Lucretia have to sort him out about how foreign policy analysis ought to begin, with the first step being, throw out all your academic IR theories! Meanwhile, the title for today's episode arises from a joke in the middle of this topic. (You'll just have to listen to find out what it is, and if you don't like it, blame Richard Samuelson!)

Finally, we use the latest disgrace at Columbia to judge whether colleges are starting to shape up or not, and why we want the Trump Administration to keep up the pressure.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:02):
Well whiskey, come and take my pain, the money, my ray.

Speaker 2 (00:10):
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.

Speaker 3 (00:25):
Where they slapped it up and David, ain't you busy?

Speaker 2 (00:28):
On the should taps got a giving.

Speaker 1 (00:33):
Welcome everybody to another issue episode of the Three Whiskey
Happy Hour on a day that will live in history
because it is the day for the first time that
an American has been elected? Is that the right word appointed?
Appt chosen by the hand, chosen by the hand of God.

Speaker 2 (00:58):
To be Pope?

Speaker 1 (01:00):
Pope? It used to be right. He even went by
Bob right, Bob pre host Now Hope, Oh Bob, Bob
now Ope Leo amazing And so I'm hoped we will
have a very interesting, deep discussion about Pope Leo and
the meaning of it with my two co hosts, Steve Hayward, Steve.

Speaker 4 (01:26):
Where are you?

Speaker 1 (01:26):
How are you? How's your whiskey?

Speaker 2 (01:28):
I home? And by the way, we are the perfect
podcast for this subject, at least if you're a Graham
Green reader. I was having flashbacks through the last couple
of hours to the whiskey priest of the Power in
the Golden So I'm not legend anything about Father Bob
except he used from Chicago. That's is just awesome.

Speaker 1 (01:48):
Yes, the South side of Chicago.

Speaker 3 (01:50):
No.

Speaker 1 (01:50):
Less, I wonder if he ever played basketball with O
Barack Obama. And of course we're joined by the international
woman of mystery, Lucretia. Lucretia, how are you. How's your whiskey?

Speaker 3 (02:04):
I'm drinking Italian wine. It's I don't want to say
it's a protest drink, but protest drink.

Speaker 1 (02:11):
Okay, let's get right into it. Lucretia, what is your
beef with the new pope? What do you think about
the new pope? You know i'd be your listeners can't
see your face full of disappointment.

Speaker 3 (02:22):
No, it's not. I shouldn't say that. I'm going to
try to withhold judgment. I wish he were a pope
who had stayed out of politics altogether. I wish all
of them would stay out of politics altogether. I have
I have priests in my church. I have several of them,
both of whom, actually many of them. The two senior priests,

(02:43):
the senior pastors I know quite well. But we've had
a you know, it's pretty steady stream of younger priests
coming through, and they've all almost always been really conservative.
But you only know that when you have private conversations
with them and they go out of their way not
to be overtly political about things, and because you know,

(03:08):
because that's what that's not what the Catholic Church should
be doing. And the Catholic Church should not be telling
the American president or the American vice president what they
should be doing about immigration or about climate change. Those
are the two things that actually worry me a great
deal about this one.

Speaker 1 (03:25):
What is lucas What has the new pope said about immigration?
Are about climate change?

Speaker 3 (03:32):
I think it's a little bit less and Steve can
probably back me up on this, a little bit less
about what he personally says and what he decides to
repost or retweet.

Speaker 1 (03:41):
Yeah, and this is everything who uses oh.

Speaker 3 (03:45):
Yes, yes, quite frequently. And he has been critical of JD. Vance.
He has been critical of the failure of church members
of the Catholic Church not taking their responsibility for Mother
Earth much more seriously. And it's a reciprocal relationship and

(04:05):
even though the Bible says that we should have dominion
over the earth, we shouldn't really look at it that way.
And we're going, you know, just dumb stuff. So that
bothers me on the other hand, and I'm going to
try to be as balanced as i can about this tonight.
He does seem to have about issues that do matter.
Who cares about climate change? If God can't fix the world,

(04:29):
If God can't fix the atmosphere or the rising oceans,
God can't do anything, and so shut up. If your pope,
you shouldn't be talking about that. But anyway, on the
other hand, what you should be talking about are things
like abortion and denying biological sex and the natural order
of things that God put on earth. Those are things

(04:49):
that are appropriate for popes, and I don't consider them political.
They're moral issues that find their way into our political discourse.
And he seems to be slightly better on those issues.
Thing I'll say is he came out with some more
kind of conservative vestments on I guess, Pope, you know,
I'm a convert. I'm not a cryio Catholic, so some

(05:11):
of these things are a little bit lost on me.
But Pope Francis would sort of shun all of the trappings,
the traditional trappings of the of the papacy. And this
guy came out in some traditional vestments, traditional garments, and
gave a fairly traditional blessing. So maybe there's hope. Maybe

(05:32):
he'll just stay away from that nonsense. And you know,
when you're when you're just a bishop, you can probably
have especially if you're a US Catholic bishop, you can
probably have opinions about politics, but once you're the pope,
you should stay out of it. Opinions.

Speaker 1 (05:48):
What do you think you think, Pope?

Speaker 3 (05:50):
Really quick, John, I just want to say one last thing.
I became a Catholic because of the witness of John
Paul the second I really, I mean that was what
sort of got me intrigued by it all. And you
know his politics were not politics, they were His anti

(06:14):
Soviet was was because the Soviets were atheists. And anyway,
you guys know that I don't have to go in it. Sorry,
go ahead, Steve, I just want to get that out.

Speaker 2 (06:22):
There, Steve.

Speaker 1 (06:23):
Your view on pop Leo the fourteenth Is he going
to do better than the first thirteen? What is with
you Catholics?

Speaker 2 (06:31):
Well, I'm a non union Catholic. Remember I'm Eastern Orthodox.

Speaker 1 (06:34):
Although what really, I didn't know that I am, because
that's okay, we're gonna have to find a new coast
co host.

Speaker 2 (06:44):
No, it is the most conservative branch of Christianity.

Speaker 1 (06:47):
Right.

Speaker 2 (06:48):
They stay assiduously out of politics. Okay, Look, several things
to be observed about him, just to statements of fact.
I didn't realize until a couple hours ago. He's only
been a cardinal for two years. He's really new to
the rank. So Francis elevated him. That's interesting. He spent
almost twenty years down in Latin America in Peru. Now,

(07:10):
of course, now Francis Francis had been buddy buddy with
some of those liberation theology folks back in the eighties
and nineties in Argentina. I always said liberation theology was
just Marxism with salsa, and that was all very bad stuff.
But I do think that the ranks of bishops in
Latin America had been divided and the clergy there as
they have been in a lot of places. By the way,

(07:32):
on the climate change business, yeah, he had one retweet
of some stupid thing on climate and I remember Lucretia
and you will too. Professor Jaffa picking up the Catholic
bishop's statement in the early eighties saying the existence of
nuclear weapons calls in the question the sovereignty of God,
and he said, when did Catholics stop believing in the
omnipotence of God? Right? Just swap out climate change for

(07:55):
nuclear weapons and you have the same thing. And I
think the much lower intensity of the climate issue with
the Catholic clergy and bishops sort of shows you it
doesn't have a lot of staying power there. Yeah, they'll
say stupid things, but they were really a very bad
force in the eighties on those issues.

Speaker 1 (08:13):
Now.

Speaker 2 (08:13):
I do remember a couple other observations. It is a
curious thing that Pope John Paul two was made pope,
the first non European pope and well ever right, sorry,
non Italian pope in four hundred years. Francis was the
first non European pope ever. And I kept thinking, well,
it's going to be maybe African, That's what I was

(08:35):
hoping for.

Speaker 3 (08:35):
I wanted Robert Sarah.

Speaker 2 (08:37):
So yeah, or another conservative person from Asia. Right, So
in picking an American I really can't get past the
fact that is it really a pure coincidence they picked
an American, which they said they never didn't say they'd
never do it, but it was always assumed you'd never
have an American pope because America runs the world, and

(08:58):
why give them the Vatican two. So the fact that
is a pure coincidence that you have an American pope
who has dissented on immigration issues in his retweets at
the very moment that you have Donald Trump as this
world historical force arriving on the scene, it's hard to
rule that out as a pure coincidence. You don't want

(09:19):
to dissect what they were really discussing there behind closed
doors of the Vatican. But you know, my sense is
there's a lot of people who think I'm one of them,
that Trump is worldwide, is going to outlast Trump. I mean,
the pope will be here for what twenty years, maybe longer,
but Trump has gone in another three and a half years.
But I think trump Ism will live on in various

(09:39):
forms because I think he has changed the world and
the Catholics want to be part of that action. Maybe
they do, I don't know, hard to rule it out.

Speaker 3 (09:48):
He went out of his way to not be American today.
That's for sure.

Speaker 2 (09:53):
Well, I don't know.

Speaker 3 (09:54):
I mean, yes, he did.

Speaker 2 (09:57):
By speaking Italian.

Speaker 3 (09:59):
She spoke Italian here. Well, there was nothing that would
indicate that he and he hasn't lived in America all
that much. Most of the time he's been in Perune.
He's been in the Vatican for the last few years,
since ever since he became that Bishop of something something.

Speaker 2 (10:14):
Yeah, well, okay, but I do know how he's going
to get canonized as a saint in the fullness of time.
John turns out the poor man is a White Sox fan,
and it will take a miracle for the White Sox
to ever compete well again in Major League Baseball in
the next decade.

Speaker 1 (10:28):
So now I've seen this on the internet that people
say he has a Costco card, which impresses me. But
I know why why do people say this. Have they
seen him in Costco?

Speaker 2 (10:39):
I don't know.

Speaker 3 (10:40):
But he won't be excited about seeing an Ammo bag
in Costco because he's also my gun.

Speaker 1 (10:46):
I know that I sent that picture. So I was
in Costco. I'm in Texas, and I went by the
Costco in Texas to see the difference, and they had
Ammo bags for sale. I didn't even know what they were.
I've never seen one, so that all these kind of
new compartments and fancy and all kinds of things like that.
But let me let me ask you, Lucretia, what are

(11:07):
the challenges that face Pope Leo the fourteenth? And I
see these headlines as say, Pope Leo to take over
divided church or to take over church under stress or
church under pressure? What are they were fraying? I'm glad
I'm the host this week because I'm not Catholic. I
don't really I don't see all the why it's so

(11:30):
important who the pope is. But then I'm a Protestant,
so I don't understand it. What what are these challenges?
What are these divisions? What are these right obstacles?

Speaker 3 (11:40):
So let me put this to you in terms that
perhaps makes sense to a Protestant if one believes, as
Catholics do, that this is the two hundred and sixty
seventh Vicar of Christ. This is the heir to Peter,
to whom Jesus said, you are Peter, the rock upon
whom I build my church, and the gates of Hell

(12:01):
shall not prevail against it. And then, you know, gives
to the Peter and the apostles, certain divine dispensations. You know,
who you forgive will be your sins will be forgiven
all of those things. If you are a traditional Catholic,
you have certain ideas about the Church that come not

(12:23):
only from the Bible, but of course from the long
history of Catholic theology and Catholic dogma and so forth.
And now where we are in the modern day, in
the modern secular Western world, should the Catholic Church stop
being so strict about things like not giving the sacrament

(12:44):
of communion to someone who's divorced. Should we be more
open to the idea of women fully participating in every
aspect of church life, you know, bishops and things like
that that you Protestants like to do. Should we have

(13:04):
Latin Masses? Is there anything about the traditions of the
Mass that have been handed around down for centuries that
are valuable? And the reason that's important, John, is because
in America, at least in the United States, where Catholicism
is having a revival among young young people, it's not

(13:25):
in the Oh yeah, go ahead and be transgender. Go
ahead and have your same sex girlfriend or boyfriend and
have sex with them outside of marriage and all those
other things that you know, some parts of the church
are insisting the Catholic Church embrace instead. They want they
want the certainty, they want the tradition, they want the rules,

(13:48):
the regulations, the outlines by which they can more easily
live their lives in this time of CERVI. So that's
true not just in America, but around the world. So
the real divide in the church, to short shorten my
answer and get to the point that you asked, is
between those people who think the Church should bend to
the ways of the world versus the ways of the

(14:09):
world would be better off bending back to the church.
That's really the question I think, And that's the divide
that is in the church today. Sure there's there's other
minor issues. But if the pope is infallible when he
speaks in what's it called in u, there's a certain

(14:32):
way that I forget, I forget the word.

Speaker 1 (14:34):
But speaking in tongues, no, no, no, no, no, no, I know.

Speaker 3 (14:40):
I just they have it in Catholic churches too, Steve,
they have they have charismatic groups in Catholic churches.

Speaker 1 (14:47):
Oh really, I might convert. Now that's the best part
of the ceremony, the speaking in tongues having been miracles
and gospel music.

Speaker 3 (15:00):
Right, all of that. No, but really it is a
In many ways, the Catholic Church is at the same
sort of crossroads that Western civilization in general is is
are the traditions. And I've seen people say this about
Pope Leo, that he may be the person who can
restore in many ways Western civilization that Christians he believes

(15:25):
can and he has said this and gives me some hope.
Christians are the ones who can restore the moral foundation
that made Western civilization great. And what's happened, probably since
Vatican too, is that the Church has looked for ways
to embrace modernity and even secularism, to bring supposedly bring

(15:45):
be more inclusive. Pope Francis was absolutely foul about all
of that. I'll just leave it there, and I don't
think Pope Leo will be that bad, but he does
have a challenge there.

Speaker 1 (15:59):
What's the Steve Steve d c it the same way.
This is a church that's divided between one camp that
wants to modernize the views of the church to be
more harmonious with where I guess progressive society is going
versus how would you put it, people who want the

(16:20):
church to return back to earlier principles. Maybe a more
conservative direction is that, well, look, that's pulling the church apart.

Speaker 2 (16:28):
The way I always put it is it's between a
modernist and the traditionalist. And that's true. And by the way,
most denominations, it's not just a Catholic church. Modernization or
modernists are usually bad. But here's some interesting things about Leo.
One is, you know, he was a math major at
Villanova and he even published a book.

Speaker 1 (16:46):
When I grew up near Villanova, when I was in
eighth grade, I could have gotten a BA in mathematics
of Villanova. You know that.

Speaker 3 (16:54):
Not only does he know sin, he also knows post
sign right, yeah.

Speaker 2 (16:58):
You saw my that's well. But he actually published, he
published he published an article about Bayesian statistics and theology
that that's kind of the Yeah, so I mean, oh,
but then add to it. At first I thought, well,
he's a you know, quantitative socialist, not really quantity of
social scientists, but how many priests are literate and Bayesian statistics.

(17:20):
I'm not even literate in Bayesian statistics. I mean, I
can give me half an hour.

Speaker 1 (17:24):
So illiterate and you don't know pronoun.

Speaker 2 (17:28):
Well, I like Bayesian better, but okay, I.

Speaker 3 (17:33):
Didn't know what you're talking about it first.

Speaker 1 (17:36):
Okay, well now then, but Steve, we forgive you. Go ahead.

Speaker 2 (17:41):
The other thing that's interesting about him is that he
is part of the Augustinian Order. In fact, I think
he was.

Speaker 1 (17:48):
Significant.

Speaker 2 (17:49):
Well, he's a follower of San Augustine, who's you know,
very you know, this is promising, I think, because if
there's anybody who is an anchor to a traditionalist Catholic
theology and philosophy, it would be Augustine as much as
are maybe in some ways even more so than a quitness.
In other words, he's not a Jesuit. The Jesuits are always,
in my mind, very suspect, although I've known many very

(18:10):
fine Jesuits, conservative theologically and philosophically, so they're always harder
to pin down. And you know, the Benedictines and Transiscan Franciscans,
they're always a little dodgy, right, They're prone to modernist temptations.

Speaker 1 (18:24):
And so we're about opus day, how do they fit in?
Since I'm not a fan of the Dan Brown movies.

Speaker 2 (18:34):
Oh no. The only thing stupider than those movies are
the ones where Nicholas Cage steals the Declaration of Independence.
Those are stupid otherwise so so.

Speaker 1 (18:48):
But Steve, see you see the challenge for the church
going forward as a struggle which we use of modernists
and traditionalness. How does the new Pope Leo fall on
that scale? I mean, how do you think he's going
to direct the church? And one towards the modernists side.
I mean the tweets that Lucretian was mentioning make it

(19:08):
sound like he's worried about climate change and immigration and
maybe he wants to move things in the modernist direction,
which it sounds like you're not in favor of.

Speaker 2 (19:18):
Well, I mean, we'll see. I mean, skip the current
headline issues with the newspaper for a moment. I have
seen some data showing that the younger, the current generation
of seminarians in the Catholic seminaries are much more conservative
than the last generation. The future of the church appears
to be from the rising ranks of the next generation

(19:40):
of clergy looks to be traditionalists.

Speaker 3 (19:43):
Can I just add to that for really good second, Steve, So,
there was a very important article that came out of
the I think it was called the Oxford Review. It
was a Catholic probably yeah, probably, yeah, probably, And it
talked about how the especially the America and seminaries. I mean,
I'm going to be a little cross forgive me, folks

(20:04):
were hotbeds of homosexualism, and that, in fact, you were
unlikely to be a successful seminarian if you came in
being masculine. That they looked for. It was, you know,
basically they were grooming priests at the seminaries.

Speaker 2 (20:24):
And well, yeah, I think it's worse than this. Oh yeah, no,
think I mean, well, look I put it this way. Well,
there were long rumors, I think, well founded rumors. This
is thirty forty years ago that seminaries attracted people who
were gay and or pedophiles, right, And we know some

(20:44):
cardinals like Cardinal McCarrick was covered this up and participated
in it. Cardinal Mahoney and Los Angeles was investigated by
the Los Angeles Police Department. Do you know that I
had looked this up earlier because I had forgotten the details.
The Diocese of Los Angeles paid out eight high hundred
and eighty million dollars in damages for the pedophile priests

(21:04):
that they covered up and shuffled around. It was my
late friend Kelly Clark who had a big hand in
some of that those cases. And another lawyer is still
a live I know, Orange County and.

Speaker 3 (21:14):
One of the the accomplishments of John Paul, the second,
who you know is often accused of not being quite
as hands on about this as he should have been.
He is the one who actually got the seminaries cleaned up.
And I will tell you I know quite a few seminaries.
I support seminarians, and they are entirely different breed today,

(21:36):
and I do think John Paul gets a lot more
credit for doing that Benedict's Francis Nunn. Francis was terrible
on that whole issue in a lot of ways which
we won't go into right now, but that has made
a huge difference. I do remember getting into a have
to tell you guys this really quick, a dispute with
my neighbor one time, who tried to tell me that

(21:56):
the problem with all of the pedophile priests out there
was because they didn't let the priest marry. And so
I looked at my neighbor and I said, okay, Chris,
if your wife Sue is gone for six or eight months,
is the first thing you do look to a little
boy to have sex with. That is the dumbest argument

(22:20):
I've ever heard in my life. It don't start, you know,
But but those kind of arguments made a difference. Oh yeah,
we need to let priest marry. I don't know what
I think about priest marrying, but it certainly shouldn't be
so that we can stop them from trying to have
sex with little boys.

Speaker 2 (22:35):
Sorry, now, can I make a last comment? Don Johnny
me when I moved on, But the last comment about
popes and politics. So John Paul two, we know, scared
the hell out of the Soviet Union when he was picked.
The Soviet Union was hugely alarmed. I tell this in
my book. But he was very prudent about it, you know.
His his anti communist statements were always elliptical, subtle in

(23:00):
direct but people understood what he meant when when he
went to Poland in seventy nine and said, be not
afraid when the whole country turns out for him. Right,
And I don't know just one detail when when when
John Paul went for that first trip in seventy nine,
the Soviet Union ordered all of its troops confined to
base because they knew that they had lost control of

(23:20):
the country for the week that the Pope was there. Okay, however,
he but he didn't like leftists, so he knew liberation
theology was a threat to everything decent and good. And
I remember two things in particular. One was in nineteen
eighty here's an old name that a few older listeners
might remember. You had father Drymen Robert Drynen, a congressman.

Speaker 1 (23:43):
From Massachusetts Georgetown.

Speaker 2 (23:44):
He was, well, he actually is from Massachusetts, but he, yeah,
maybe went to I forget. The point is he would
wear his collar, you know, at committee hearings on the
floor of the House. And John Paul two put out
an edict saying, you can either be a priest or
you can be an elected official. You cannot be both.
And Drynan did not run for reelection and return to

(24:04):
the priesthood, where he was promptly forgotten happily. Secondly, you
know the Nicaragua business boy, I was following that right.
That was a hotbed of liberation theology. And one of
my vivid memories of the mid eighties was Pope John
Paul going to Nicaragua getting off the airplane, walking across
the tarmac to a bishop who had been suborned into

(24:27):
the Santainista government. He was one of these lefty liberation theologians,
and there in front of everybody, John Paul two poked
him in the chest and wagged his finger at him,
and it was clear he was dressing this guy down
for participating in the politics of the Sandinista government. Again
at not in private, out where the world could see it.

(24:47):
It was a very public statement he met. You couldn't
hear what he was saying, but you knew what the
substance of it was. I'm hoping that this pope will
have the same disposition, even if the theatrics aren't quite
as elevat as they were in those well least days.

Speaker 1 (25:02):
One last question, then, because I sense a difference between
the both of you, because Lucretia started out saying, I
wish popes would stop talking about politics, and Steve, you're
praising John Paul the second for being involved in politics. Well, no,
but he was, but still he was, But still he was.

(25:24):
I mean, he helped the end the Soviet Union, so
all the more credit to him for it. But does
that what do you mean, what do you think this
means for the future of the church and Pope Leo
the fourteenth should you see pull back what from Francis
was doing or from the other side, what Pope Benedict
was doing?

Speaker 2 (25:41):
Maybe?

Speaker 1 (25:41):
Or is it even possible to have political neutrality in
the church, given it's great.

Speaker 3 (25:47):
Right important, it may not be partible.

Speaker 1 (25:49):
Of members it has And sorry, go ahead.

Speaker 3 (25:53):
I just want to I want to go back to
something I said probably didn't make clear. There is a
difference between taking a a sort of crass political position
like oh, climate change or liberation theology, even this idea
that basically becoming a Marxist, which is what liberation theology was.

(26:14):
It was Marxism. And of course Marxism and Catholicism can
they cannot be combined. They cannot be synthesized Marxism, you know,
the Christianity is opiate for the masses. So to say
that Pope John Paul was political in recognizing that communism

(26:37):
was the greatest source of evil in the world is
not to say that he was outrightly political. He was
pushing back against that political influence on the church. I
will suggest to you two books John that I find
I think you would find riveting if this interests you
in the slightest in the political side of it. And

(26:58):
one of them is our book by our friend John
Sullivan on Reagan, the Pope and and Marcot Thatcher. I
forget the actual name of it, but it's a terrific book,
very very short, very easy read. The other book is
Witness to Hope, which is is the autobiography of aoh yeah,

(27:19):
biography excuse me, not auto biot. He didn't write.

Speaker 2 (27:24):
Right now. He was on the network news yes night.

Speaker 3 (27:26):
Yeah, And it is like reading a novel. His life
was so extraordinary and amazing, but you get you can
really see the difference between someone who's just you know,
playing playing politics with things like immigration policy or climate change,
and someone who understands that that Marxism, Communism, Soviet for Stalinism,

(27:47):
all of those things were a direct threat to humanity,
and you can see the stark difference. And that's what
I'm hoping that we can see out of Pope Leo
the fourteenth, which is that he won't play the silly
Oh I am going to be some lefty politician playing pope.
I want, you know, he'll actually understand what's important for

(28:11):
the Pope as a world leader to be stressing in
terms of what's you know, the faithful expect out of him.
That's what I would say.

Speaker 2 (28:19):
See, Nope, I'm done. No, I agree with that.

Speaker 1 (28:27):
Okay, good, well, I mean the there's so many things
to talk about this week. I thought another interesting issue
is we haven't taped an issue since Mike Waltz was
removed as National Security Advisor and got a pro quasi promotion.

(28:48):
He's now going to be the ambassador to the United Nations.
I wouldn't myself consider that a promotion, but some people.

Speaker 3 (28:55):
Said, does anybody Well?

Speaker 1 (28:57):
I think the vice president of VANCE said it was
a promotion because it requires Senate consent. But I think
that's just trying to put a nice face on what's
really a firing. But I thought it would be interesting
to talk about not because of the removal of Mike Waltz,
but because our friend Michael Anton has been appearing on

(29:19):
many of the shortlists for the replacement, and so I
thought it might be interesting to hear from your from
you both. Michael Anton is a great fan and friend
of the Claremont Institute. Got did he get his? He
got his PhD from Claremont Graduate University. What would be

(29:43):
the difference between a kind of Claremont approach to foreign
policy that we would see in the Michael Anton versus
say someone like Michael Waltz or even Marco Rubio. Who's
That's the other interesting thing. Only Henry Kissinger and Marco
Rubio have helped both jobs.

Speaker 3 (30:02):
Nine jobs, right.

Speaker 1 (30:05):
Funny meme, Yeah, very typical for hard working you know
in the United States, would be that everyone turns to
him when they can't figure something out. He's got like
nine jobs. It's very funny. But maybe start with Steve
this time. What do you think would be the difference
between the way, say Michael Anton and the Claremont fellow

(30:26):
would approach the job of national security advisor? What kind
of ways of thinking would be different or distinguish him
from say, Marco Rubio is holding the job now, or
Michael Waltz or the prominent national security advisors we've had
in our time.

Speaker 2 (30:41):
Well, first of all, let me just push back what
Lucretia just said about the u N being a stupid job.
I mean, Pat Mornihan parlay that it was Senate seat.
It did wonders for Nicky Haley's profile. Even if you
don't like her, that's not the point. The point is
is that.

Speaker 3 (30:54):
Job she's she's doing gangbusters these days.

Speaker 2 (30:57):
Well but wait a minute, that is that is not
the right way to think about it. She would she
wouldn't have even been a contender in the field she
had not had that job. By the way, right now
that the UN is apparently weeks away from running out
of money to make payroll, and I would like, I
would like, well exactly, I'd like our ru went ambassador
to rub his nose in it. And by the way,

(31:18):
I mean, I think it's actually decent of Trump to
give the guy a job with a title that you
may not like it, but look, he made the guy
give up the guy.

Speaker 1 (31:26):
By the way. By the way, listeners, this is Steve
is saying all this because as we all know, he
always had the hots for Jen Kirkpatrick. You get.

Speaker 2 (31:36):
No, no, that's not true. But look, uh, you know.
The point is is that our best UN ambassador has
been the ones who went there to attack the place.
Haley did some of that, you could have done more.
But the point is, Uh, the Waltz gave up his
house seat to go to work for Trump and then
to be turned out right away. It's kind of cold.
I think that's rather decent of them to say we'll
give you a job with a nice title, even if

(31:56):
Lucreatia doesn't care for it. But look the I think
the first John has sorted out what's going on here.
One of the reasons maybe that Rubio is the interim
National Security Advisor, and maybe you miss this, John, but
Michael was appointed to be the head of the Iranian
nuclear negotiations that are going on right now. And I've

(32:19):
heard some people criticize that. I'll come back to reasons why,
but my first point is is ah, that means that
as much as Trump likes this witcough guy, he wants
somebody who's more tough minded than that to be in
the room with the Iranians, and that would be Michael.
I think, by the way, I'll remind readers that back
before you joined us, John, so it's five or six
years ago, we had Michael on a couple of times

(32:41):
on the three Whiskey Happy Hour, and I may go
back and try and re listen to those because he's
not a he's not an isolationist, he's not a never
intervene anywhere. He does regret his support twenty some years
ago for the Iraq War and the Afghanistan War, but
that doesn't mean that he is one of the lines
going around right now as well. Waltz was turned out

(33:03):
because he's too aggressive on Iran, and you know the Yeah,
I think this is wrong. I think I'm not quite
sure all the reasons might be, but I don't think
that's it.

Speaker 3 (33:13):
Uh.

Speaker 2 (33:14):
And but I also equally think that the people to
say that Michael is part of the cabal who wants
us to never fire a bullet at anyone outside our
own borders are equally wrong, right. I think that's a mistake.
And too Yeah, that's right. I mean I I I've
talked to a few people said not too sure. But
I think they're actually believing, oddly enough, what the left

(33:36):
is saying about Michael, which is all wrong. And I'm
very disappointed that some people who I normally think are
pretty sound and sensible are skeptical. No, no, no, I well,
I'm not going to name names. I'm talking about some
very hard core.

Speaker 3 (33:49):
That a new one Stevens.

Speaker 1 (33:53):
That's the best part of the show. That's why people
to in they want you to list the names so
Lucretia can stab him in the wrong with the Knight.

Speaker 3 (34:01):
Well, but I do want to say that that one
of the things I've always appreciated about Michael is that
I think Michael may be one of the few people
who has as hardcore as I am about most things.
He is he and he like me. He doesn't care
in many ways, who's offended by you know what he

(34:21):
has to say. He's probably less actually concerned about that
than I am. Once in a while, I only like
to offend my friends because I know they'll forgive me.
But no, Michael's wonderful. I have so much respect for him,
and I think that what it really comes down to,
I would say more than anything, John, I don't know

(34:43):
that I could tell you exactly what his foreign policy
views are, what his national security views are, exactly what
he would do in any given situation. What I do
think is that the training that he got from Jaffa,
from others at Claremont, the education he's given to himself
over the years, has has given him incredibly good judgment. Remember,

(35:05):
he's deseus. He's the guy who wrote what was it
called the Flight ninety three election. He was saying stuff
before before anybody else. He was recognizing what the problems
were and what needed to be done about them. And
you know, gosh, if I was very disappointed when that

(35:27):
scumbag Bolton pushed him out last time, I get that's
the way those things went in the first term. But
if Trump is smart enough to bring him back, more
power to him. That's what I say, And go, Michael,
I'll be cheering you on every step of the way.

Speaker 1 (35:43):
Well, I'm an old Neil Cohn, and I don't think
Bolton's a scumbag, but I think that a trainer. The
view of Bolton is a very traditional Republican approach, and
I think Anton and Claremont in is tutor. Trump represents
something very different. Although by the way, John, it goes
to what you say, it goes to what Steve said.

(36:03):
You know, Trumpism may survive Trump. I still think in
foreign policy it's still harder to say this is trump
Ism compared to domestic policy. And I get that sense
from both of you. Both. You stress Michael Anton's qualities
of thought and character, but it's harder to say this
is what right the Clermont or Trump form policy that

(36:26):
Michael would pursue these are its pillars, these are its principles.
It's still right for me, perhaps.

Speaker 3 (36:32):
Yeah, because prudence tells you you shouldn't have these theories
that define every way that you look at the world,
whether it's economic theory, international relations theory, national security theory.
Those theories are but they're just they're binding in all
the wrong ways. You need to be.

Speaker 1 (36:52):
Against the scientific method. Now, I mean, come on, you guys,
make funny guys. Prudence is just this elastic term you guys.

Speaker 2 (36:59):
By the way, on since you, since you are the
O g n C original gangster neo kon, exactly what
do you call it? When Bill Crystal and John Bolton
get together to pick a new godfather to neo conservatives,
you call it a neo conclave.

Speaker 1 (37:18):
That's right. I told him, just encourage him.

Speaker 3 (37:24):
I've heard them.

Speaker 2 (37:29):
I've got a worse one than that. But I'll say, look,
I mean a couple of declarations which hopefully will horrify you, John.
I think Michael is the closest successor we have to
Angelo Codevilla, and.

Speaker 1 (37:42):
Oh I agree with that. That doesn't harm me.

Speaker 2 (37:44):
Okay, Well, whether's that whether you.

Speaker 1 (37:46):
Want that Angelo to be national security advisors. Another question, Oh,
I very much do I agree. I see lost, I
think that that Michael would like to be the heir
to Angela.

Speaker 2 (37:56):
Yeah, and and uh, the other thing was is you
were just saying maybe Lucretia was saying theories of this
and that. So both Angelo and to Lester extentton Michael
because at this point Harold Rude was near retirement. But
they were both proteges of Harold Rude, who had no
use for theory. Remember, as I mentioned in another podcast,
Rude was a tank driver for Patent in the Third

(38:18):
Army in nineteen forty four. And he would in class.
Now listeners can't see this because he was he would
say this is a theory. He'd wave his hands in
the air and then he'd go knock on the wall.
He says, this is reality. You know, he'd bang it.
You can feel the wall. You have to go through
the wall sometimes to kill your enemy.

Speaker 1 (38:34):
And anyway, and Steve Lee, look, can I see is
because the thing that I like about the Claremont Institute
actually is that you have a lot of political theory
about domestic affairs. Why are you guys so critical about
having theories about international.

Speaker 3 (38:49):
Affairs because we don't you have a theory about the No, No,
we learn we learned the history of political thought. We
don't have political theories that inform what we do. We had.

Speaker 2 (39:05):
Really this gets back to the argument we had several
weeks ago, John about why to the extent there is
a theory and I will agree with Lucasia, it's not
a theory. Step one in your foreign policy analysis is
what is the character of the regime that you were confronting.
That's why Churchill was right about It's why Lincoln was
right about where the South was headed. It's why Churchill

(39:27):
was right about Germany when now all sophisticated opinions said, well,
you know, these are just their value crap like that.
And likewise, I think, just as Trump proved in his
first term that he has no hesitation of killing General Soulamani,
I think Trump, and I think Michael with him, has
no hesitation on bombing Iran if they think that is

(39:48):
the necessary step to stop them from getting a nuclear weapon.

Speaker 4 (39:52):
So, you know, I'm reminded of you first folks, why
is that that is based on that that is based
on the characters wanted to do too?

Speaker 2 (40:03):
Well, Yeah, but they want to do it for stupid reasons.
You know, we're going to build democracy and fix the
Middle East and all the rest of that. The fact
that they might coincide on this point is it does
not It does not mean that they actually had the
same first step on how you decide how you're going
to do this.

Speaker 3 (40:20):
I want to go back for just a moment before
we lose this topic entirely because I didn't get a
chance to defend myself against Steve. Of course, I think
the two United Nations, I mean I I don't disagree
that that putting him that that to some extent a
being ambassador to the United Nations is at least uh

(40:43):
you know what do you call it a well no, no, no,
but but a second place prize?

Speaker 1 (40:51):
Okay, yeah, you get the.

Speaker 2 (40:55):
Guy.

Speaker 3 (40:55):
The guy's a bit of a rhino himself. He's a
bit of a vishy and that was some of the
in the background, the signal thing. Okay, But to say
that somehow we can compare putting someone in the UN
today with say, putting Gene Kirkpatrick in the UN back
in the nineteen eighties, that's ridiculous. The UN was never

(41:16):
a good idea It was always a terrible idea, but
it has become, with every passing day, a worse and
worse idea, and it is such a joke. I agree
with you guys. I can't wait till it runs out
of money. I think that they should kick the UN
out of New York and reclaim all of that valuable
property in New York. If they think it's so important,

(41:38):
put it in, put it in Somalia, and tell ilan
Omar to go there with it. I mean, nobody cares.
It's never done anything good, at least not in the
last forty years. And so you know, again, I don't
think that the job is without prestige, but I think
that the UN is a worthless organization. It's worse and worthless.

(41:59):
It's you know. So if he goes there and does
a little bit of slamming it. John Bolton did a
little bit of that too. It's about the biggest thing
I give him credit for. Then I'm okay with that
that I wanted to get out there, Steve, Not that
I think it's a dumb job. It is a dumb
job because the UN's dumped.

Speaker 2 (42:19):
Well, all right, I'd have been with you. You said
that it would be better if Trump said no ambassador
that you had, that would be a good statement. I
would agree with that.

Speaker 3 (42:26):
And no more un in Manhattan.

Speaker 1 (42:29):
Yeah, speaking of New York City and other institutions that
should be disestablished, We've got news out of Columbia University.
Columbia University rocked again by pro Hamas protests, and this
time the pro Hamas protesters took over the main Columbia

(42:51):
library while students are studying for exams. Police, the NYPD
came in made several arrests. Yeah, who knows whether any
of this dudents will actually be disciplined or suspended or
even god for a bit, expelled.

Speaker 3 (43:05):
Uh.

Speaker 1 (43:05):
But it seems that Columbia has not solved the problems
that for which the Trump administration is cut off its
federal funding.

Speaker 2 (43:13):
Uh.

Speaker 1 (43:15):
We started the CIA, Steve lasson U Cretia. What should
happen at Columbia continuing failure of you know, university administrators
of which you are one, to handle this, to combat
anti semitism, to stop racism on their campuses. Do they
deserve what the Trump administration is doing with the Is

(43:36):
this a reminder that are college?

Speaker 3 (43:40):
Of course they deserve it. And I do believe. My
understanding is John that there was a little bit more
pushback from the administration on this one than there has
been in the past. Not a great deal. Again, I
don't know will they expel these students, but they did
arrest them, they did send the police in. They didn't
just let them get away with what they were doing.

(44:01):
I heard on my way to work early this morning
some one of the Fox people interviewing a young man
who is in the master's program, a veteran and was
in the library when this particular takeover happened. And he,
you know, he was saying that it is really tough
because for all their obvious reasons, but he also said this,

(44:24):
this in some ways, this really sucks. He says, because
it was my dream to go to Colombia, prestigious school,
this and that I worked hard, blah blah blah. And
he says, and now, quite rightly, all of these employers
are saying we're never going to hire anybody who graduates
from Columbia. And now hopefully maybe he'll be you know,
an exception to that rule. But that's I think what
is going to ultimately, along with along with Trump taking

(44:50):
away their money, eventually that's going to have an impact.
But if they can't get their people hired. We saw
that happen a little bit with Yale Law School. Remember
or was judge who said he wasn't going to do it.
I forget all of the details of that, but that's
going to make a difference. Bill Ackman saying, you know,
I don't want any of your damn Harvard graduates, and
on and on. So there are a lot of forces

(45:13):
in society that are finally pushing back on what just
you know, you feel like you're in Alice in Wonderland.
You feel like you're in some sort of weird nightmare
when you you see these people in cafeas and masks
and they're these stupid twit women. If they spent one
day in Gaza, Uh, we all know what would happen

(45:35):
to him. And you know, they're just these spoiled, rotten,
little entitled brats. And I just hope they get the
book thrown at him and that maybe, you know, other
students will learn that this this ugly anti semitism, uh,
is not really the best path to go down. I
don't know how else to say it. They just make

(45:56):
me sick. There you go Steve brings the some some
logic to that whole thing.

Speaker 2 (46:03):
Well, I'll try a couple of things. You mentioned.

Speaker 1 (46:05):
He's going to defend the free speech rights of the.

Speaker 2 (46:08):
Well no, well no, first of all, slight aside, but
Lucatia says none of these women have actually been to Gaza.
There was a major air this week by the Israelis
or somebody, somebody attacks some relief ship bound for Gaza
in Malta somewhere. Greta Thunberg was on that ship. Greta
Thunberg was on her way to Gaza, and I think
they should have let her go there. That was okay, that's.

Speaker 3 (46:32):
Just the way to be rescued.

Speaker 2 (46:35):
I'm sure exactly by the ship the ships look. A
couple of things. One is, uh, you know, there are
all these old laws that's on the state and federal
level that banned masking in public except for medical reason.
They were done for the Klan years ago, decades ago. Right,
Why aren't theyse being enforced The minute someone steps foot

(46:56):
on the Columbia campus, they should be intercepted and arrested
or told to take their masks and things off. Kudos
to the police when they wanted to get out of
the library, saying no, you can't leave unless you show ID.
So they're gonna take names and we'll see who gets
punished and so forth. I do note in passing that
news out this week is that the Trump administration has

(47:16):
stripped thirty seven student visas from students at Johns Hopkins
University for who. By the way, they didn't just suspend
federal grants. They canceled some very large ones because Hopkins
gets a ton of maybe number one sometimes in federal
receipts for medical research and so forth. Did you know, finally,
in the factual basis that there are now fewer Jews

(47:37):
at Harvard as a percentage of the student body than
there were back in the thirties when Harvard had quotas
against admitting Jews, And that is you know, I think
this is again another reason whyther Trump people should be
absolutely pressing them to the wall about this. And that's
the final thing Columbia they're really after, and they're using

(47:57):
something the left has been using for fifty years, which
is a consent decree. We want to enter a consent
decree with Columbia that you're going to do one, two, three, four, five, six,
and maybe that some of these demands are legally weak.
I don't know, but the point is the alternative is always, well,
then let's go to court, and that's going to cost
you a lot of money. And by the way, Harvard,

(48:19):
your track record in court isn't very good lately. And
Columbia is apparently playing ball on this because I think
they're in a weaker position than Harvard is financially and otherwise.
But I kind of like, once again, I like it
that this administration is using the traditional tools of the
left against the left. So I want to see consent
decrease every five hours every day.

Speaker 3 (48:41):
Can I ask you? Guys? I sent you a couple
of articles, and I know we don't want to go
into them in any depth, but there was a kind
of dichotomy between two of them. One of them was
by our friend Harvey Mansfield, where he was he was
explaining that the humanities were this, the sciences were that,
and typical Harvey, it was a little bit you know,

(49:04):
esoteric and whatnot. But there was another article that I
sent you, and I thought it was very interesting because
it was a bit of a different perspective. And the
perspective was this and We've had this discussion, especially about
some of your science colleagues at Berkeley, and that is
that this silly notion that somehow the sciences, the hard sciences,

(49:25):
have been exempt from the DEI corruption of the last
say forty years or so, is really a joke, and
that in fact, the whole research enterprise that everyone's so
upset about that Trump is you know, dismantling before their eyes.
That it has been a really corrupt process now for

(49:46):
some years, that innovation, that discoveries, that things that used
to happen inside of universities, in the STEM programs, in
the with the research scientists and so on, they just
don't happen anymore because the peer viewed process just doesn't
reward any kind of innovative thinking. And more and more

(50:07):
it rewards the status quo. It rewards, uh, you know,
the status quot thinking. And so the only place where
you're actually seeing genuine innovation, whether it's in the medical
field or the physics, whatever you want to call it,
is in private in the private sector, where it's not

(50:28):
pure reviewed by other scientists who all have the same
orthodoxy informing what they do. You guys may not have
had time to read it, but I just thought it
was a really interesting perspective. I see it all the time.

Speaker 2 (50:42):
Yeah. Is that Michael Culture's article in American Greatness? Right? Yeah,
I know Michael, he's he teaches. Well he went to Claremont,
by the way.

Speaker 3 (50:51):
I know that, but I didn't say it.

Speaker 2 (50:52):
Steve Well, okay, but I you know, I know, well,
I think it. But I think all things to be said.
One is this look a lot of private industry. This
is a problem with Jay baticharist I trying to sort out.
They will tell you that NIH research grants, some of
which go to university labs, some of which go to

(51:15):
the big pharmaceutical companies. They're responsible for a lot of
basic research, some of which I am persuaded has been
useful for pharmaceutical development now, but then a lot of
it is going to be politicized, and of course the
Biden people added all the DEI conditions for grants. Okay,
So that's one thing. Second is I think that the yes,

(51:39):
one of the things that Harvey's again subtly suggesting, is
that the scientists haven't pushed back on this, and in
some cases have gone along with it. But I think
that is and I'm just this is a hunch here.
I'd have to look at real data, but I think
this has been at second tier universities are the worst.
My perception at Berkeley, and John, you can back me
up with this is have got to know some people

(52:00):
in the physics department. First of all, a lot of
them are closet Republicans. Second, a lot of them are
climate skeptics, I mean in a serious way. But third,
they have better things to do. I mean, one guy
who was really impressive, very conservative, he's off to the
CERN super collider in Switzerland every couple of months. I mean,
he's doing some really amazing stuff. And the other thing

(52:23):
I know about Berkeley is they'll talk about the DEI stuff.
They leave the physics department alone. Why. I mean, the
fact is that the left on campus gives them a
pass too, because Berkeley's administration, as bad as they can be,
they are not about to mess with science departments at
Berkeley that win Nobel Prizes, right, John, I mean that's

(52:46):
my percentage.

Speaker 1 (52:47):
I mean that's my sense of it too.

Speaker 2 (52:48):
Is that but that won't be true in the University
of Illinois or other places like that.

Speaker 1 (52:53):
I'm gonna think like the DEI warriors and the mandates
at Berkeley leave the sciences relatively on, although they are
still subject to what Linda talked about, which is profession wide,
the journals and the grant funding is starting to get
conditioned on compliance with DEI principles, or they were until
President Trump's executive orders. But that there's a kind of

(53:15):
detent and our uned and the you know, the Berkeley
campus where the scientists, the mathematicians, the hard you know,
the hard social sciences, they aren't going to interfere with
all this and madness as long as they get left alone.
They're like, if the sociology department was to destroy itself,
why are we going to stop them? By the way,
you know, but they think it's all I think they

(53:36):
think it's all crazy, right, They don't they don't use
affirmative action for admissions to the physics.

Speaker 3 (53:42):
Actually, but that's where I want to stop you guys.
I don't think you were there, John, but Steve and
I were at something at Newport Beach, I think for
the Claremont Institute, and we had.

Speaker 1 (53:52):
To We never get invited to the best Claremont parties,
I think, But you were part you were.

Speaker 3 (53:58):
We hadn't, we hadn't asked you to join. But then
but we had a whole variety of people that were
at this event come and sit and be part of
our podcast, and they came in and out, and I
think Jeremy Carl was one of them. And anyway, but
one of the things that Steve said at the time
was now, I know it's probably not the case anymore,

(54:19):
but that Berkeley had put out a thing that said,
even in the stem fields, every higher had to be
a Dei higher, even in physics, even in nuclear physics,
even in and you know, space aerospace would go on
and on and on, every single higher had to be

(54:40):
a Dei higher that had to have some kind of
negative influence on the intellectual integrity of those departments, even
if it was a short term.

Speaker 2 (54:53):
I suspect at many universities that would would take hold.
I suspect strongly at Berkeley, the physicists, the chemic department
would have said, that's nice, go away, we're.

Speaker 1 (55:02):
Going to hire who they would I don't think, yeah,
I don't think they would tolerate it.

Speaker 2 (55:06):
And then the Dei dean, who is a total clown.
Now it wasn't my first got there it could say
more about that. It was a guy from the chemistry
department who seemed physics. Was he an Oscar Dubon. He
was fine, But then they hired some crazy woman who
was a colone of Kamala Harris from Howard University. But
the point is, I'm pretty sure those people, well the

(55:26):
physics apartment says go away, we're not listening to you.
They don't say another word. But again, but Berkeley's a
special case because they went always Nobel Prizes and they're
not believe me, the trustees and all the rest, they're
not gonna want to mess with that. Now go down
a step from there. So once you get down below Harvard, Yale,
places like that, University of Illinois, University of Michigan, they're

(55:46):
fair game for that. And there I think what you're
pointing to has had a very bad effect.

Speaker 3 (55:51):
Yes, one last thing, because I don't want to beat
this to death. But when you said go down a step,
how about going down a step like this, which is
who do they the PhD students they choose to work with,
the graduate students that they choose to work with, and
what they allow them to do their dissertations on and
and where those what those students have to do in
order to get published in peer reviewed journals in order

(56:12):
to get tenure. So it's one thing to say that
about your Nobel Prize Nobel Prize winning full professors who
bring in millions every year in grants. It's another thing
in the STEM departments to see how it's been corrupted
down to the very you know, dregs of the bottom.
I guess you could say that. And I don't know.
I'm not in a STEM department, and I'm definitely not

(56:34):
at Berkeley. I'm in the as my friend Michael Lee
calls it, this pathetic cow college in the middle of
the desert.

Speaker 2 (56:42):
So you don't even have any cows there, do you.

Speaker 3 (56:48):
Okay, so yeah, he calls it the pathetic cow College.
And by the way, I love it. Yeah. Anyway, sorry,
I'm done. I just I just thought it was a
really interesting perspective that may maybe it's not just the
humanities that have destroyed our educational systems. Are higher education?
That that was all?

Speaker 2 (57:06):
Oh, No, I know, you're you're I mean, well, your
general point, I'd put it this way. It's you know,
Churchill's line about appeasement is this crocodile, and people will,
you know, think the crocodile will eat them last. And
that's what too many people and the sciences have thought.
And then they went along with it, and it's too
late for them to fight back on it.

Speaker 1 (57:23):
And so the interesting implication is that a lot of
these scientists and mathematicians secretly like what Trump's doing.

Speaker 2 (57:30):
Yes, well yeah, although as they'd never admit it. They're
the ones who are bearing the brunt of the funding
cuts and to which I have little sympathy. Well, you
should have spoken up and said no to this crap,
but the faculty senator elsewhere and they, well I did.

Speaker 3 (57:44):
I will tell you I did have a friend, one
of my dearest friends at the university who has subsequently retired,
but he was one of those guys that discovered the
black took the pictures of the black holes back about
I don't know, maybe it's been ten years ago now,
who is an austrophysicist and as and and you know,
his colleagues tried to shun him because he actually worked
for a while like you did, John in the George W.

(58:08):
Bush administration, and he probably has a paper mache a
head of him out there somewhere too, But.

Speaker 1 (58:14):
You know, there's only me. I don't think that they
went to the trouble for anybody else.

Speaker 3 (58:18):
But really, well, because you look so cute in paper mache,
That's what it comes down to. Any So, enough of that, I.

Speaker 1 (58:25):
Think we've we've come to the end of our hour
with many topics left unaddressed, which we'll have to say
for the next episode. Uh, Lucretia, what are your favorite
Babylon B headlines?

Speaker 3 (58:38):
I have to ask you first before I start with
the first one, what you think about because I could
be wrong on my geography, but I believe that you
can get just a bare glimpse of Alcatraz from your house.

Speaker 1 (58:52):
Uh No, I can't see it from my house, but
if I walk five minutes, I could see it clearly.

Speaker 3 (58:57):
Okay, from the other side, I get it. So what
do you think about sending I actually want to send
the Congress persons that they find guilty of this massive
fraud that they're discovering. I want to send them to Alcatraz.

Speaker 1 (59:10):
But I guess to be purely self interested. I mean,
it's good for my business because I can run out
my house for Airbnb for visits to the convicts by
their family members. This is great for me.

Speaker 3 (59:24):
You could you could even get a little, you know,
a little craft, a little watercraft and ferry them out.

Speaker 1 (59:30):
Yeah, I know, I ferry people over, that's right, and then.

Speaker 3 (59:32):
Talk to them about sharks like you did our Italian friends. Okay, yeah,
well yeah, you gotta love Trump when he does stuff
like that, you really do. Uh. It leaves a lot
of people scratching their heads. We're still wondering about the
fifty first state. Never say never Canada, the fifty first state.

(59:57):
Bernie Sanders unveils his new golden crusted beat the oligarchy dirigible.
Here you go. Oh sorry, India retaliates hard me. We
didn't even talk about that. India retaliates against Pakistan by

(01:00:18):
scamming them out of millions in Amazon gift cards. Do
you guys get it?

Speaker 2 (01:00:24):
Well?

Speaker 3 (01:00:24):
All right, that's here's a picture of that despicable Somali woman.
I don't know how they ever let her into Congress,
but anyway, it's a picture of her. You know who
she is. Woman terrified of white men, leaves Africa from Minnesota. Oh.
This was sent to me by one of our loyal listeners.

(01:00:46):
It's a picture of Corporal Clinger from mash. It says
Corporal Clinger finally discharged from army after trans military band.
Is that one gonna stand? John, You didn't write article
about that one. What do you think?

Speaker 1 (01:01:03):
Uh, well, you know, the decision was just about you know,
preliminary junctions and not on the mats. But you know this,
the courts have always deferred to the president over the
management of the military. Yeah. Always, I mean from Truman
desegregating the military and even Bill Clinton's don't ask, don't tell.
I mean this is I can't believe the judiciary would

(01:01:25):
interfere with the president's decisions on management of the fighting force.
They never have. The courts never have before.

Speaker 2 (01:01:33):
Well, there was that the first time. There was the
case in the eighties and the soldier wanted to wear
the yamuka and that was against regulation because it was
a hat. I'm trying to remember how that came out.
That's forty years ago now.

Speaker 1 (01:01:45):
But the free exercise case, Yeah, it's I have to
look that one up.

Speaker 5 (01:01:50):
Yeah, but you know when it comes to you know,
for example, the courts never ordered the military to change
his view on women and come right, that was that
was the president, but they would.

Speaker 1 (01:02:03):
Not overrule even though they required sex gender quality, sex
quality throughout the rest of society. So that has always
been the courts have always been deferential. But back to
the being, I'm not saying this court will be the
first one.

Speaker 2 (01:02:16):
Sorry. Now, Lucretia, you're going to mention the Babylon B
item that I'm in the you're in the.

Speaker 3 (01:02:22):
Problem is that I have to read them all. Steve, Actually,
I think I think I think Steve is. It could
have been our friend David Diebel who put it in there,
but there's they often use Steve as you know, it's
not usually a picture of you. Yeah, remember I made

(01:02:42):
a few of you not very long ago.

Speaker 1 (01:02:46):
So describe to the listeners what you're talking about it.

Speaker 2 (01:02:49):
They have an item that says ten people Trump ascending
to the reopened Alcatraz, and it's.

Speaker 1 (01:02:54):
Yeah, number ten with Steve. But why do you think
that's you?

Speaker 2 (01:02:57):
Steve? He knows what he did well, because I think
David people, who writes a lot for the B I
think you wrote it, and I think it's it's been
kind of an inside joke between him and me. Anyway,
Maybe you.

Speaker 1 (01:03:06):
Don't think he has other people named Steve that he
hates as much as you. Why do you think you're
the only one.

Speaker 2 (01:03:15):
Well, I've asked him and he hasn't responded yet.

Speaker 3 (01:03:18):
So how about this one? Trump to expand Alcatraz by
putting up fence around San Francisco.

Speaker 2 (01:03:26):
That's good.

Speaker 1 (01:03:28):
I saw that one. I was like, that was like
the Remember there was the Escape from New York movie
and there was an Escape from LA I mean, Escape
from San Francisco is coming next, Yeah, but.

Speaker 3 (01:03:39):
You escape from there to Alcatraz. So it's a picture
of Nancy Pelosi with a bunch of money in her
hand saying Democrats offer illegal immigrants one thousand, one dollar
to stay in US. I assume you know what that means. Yeah,
how about we'll go off on a little sports here
for I guess it's not even really sports. I'm not

(01:04:00):
really following it, but there's so many headlines you can't
miss it. Bill Belichick's girlfriend leaves him for Lou Holtz.

Speaker 2 (01:04:07):
Oh yes, yeah, yeah, Okay, well.

Speaker 3 (01:04:12):
Last one Marco Rubio named interim long guy.

Speaker 1 (01:04:19):
Yeah, they stole our choke. Okay, Well, let me wrap
it up with always drink your whiskey, Meat and Steve,
what's your latest A I rhyme in praise of our podcast.

Speaker 2 (01:04:32):
It is three whiskey happy hour. Nothing sacred, All is real.
Sip the sky, devour the flower, Chase the clock with
zeal or steal. It's the hour you cannot steal. M

(01:05:27):
Ricochet joined the conversation