The Three Whisky Happy Hour: Successfully Suppressing the Rebellion

After last week's thrashing after leaving John and Lucretia with the car key to the podcast. Steve threatened to return this week like George Washington leading the troops to squash the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794 (which, people who know their history will recall, was a total rout for the rebels), but since he is still in Ireland—the birthplace of Edmund Burke—the virtues of moderation, prudence, prescription, and magnanimity took over, sparing John and Lucretia from a verbal gullitoine blow. (How's that for a triple-historial-referencing!)


But that doesn't mean there wasn't still some warfare, though we turned out bellicosity mostly toward Iran, and went through some arguments about why the U.S. ought to end the matter by taking out Forden, and why we should ignore the media-driven attempt to drive a wedge in MAGA world over the issue.

From there, we have a lot to say about the Skirmetti decision, including savoring the deepening civil war inside the Democratic Party between its implacable identity politics wing and those Democrats who still have a lick of political sense.

And finally, we end with a 3WHH-inspired limerick. That doesn't involve Nantucket.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:02):
Well whiskey coming, fame, my.

Speaker 2 (00:05):
Pain, the money, my ray. 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 easy
on the sold chap got it giving?

Speaker 4 (00:34):
Welcome everybody to another international edition of the Three Whiskey
Happy Hour, because Steve Hayward is still catlevanting around the
world checking out nuclear weapons sites in places like Ireland, Norway,
other places where the enemies of America who tried to
build nuclear weapons before, while Lucretia and I maintained the

(00:57):
ramparts of defense for Fortress America.

Speaker 2 (01:02):
Well, first of all, lucky for you that I am
in Ireland, not far from the birthplace of Edmundburg, and
so I am feeling the full Burkian virtues of moderation, prudence, prescription,
and magnanimity, because otherwise I would go full George Washington
on you guys for last week's risky rebellion. I mean,
good grief. You say it'll be an analogy free episode

(01:25):
and then suddenly you go off talking about Lincoln and
Hamilton and all kinds of historical precedents and analogies, as
though no one would notice this what those things.

Speaker 5 (01:36):
Are actually relevant. It's not that you give historical analogies,
it's that they're irrelevant.

Speaker 2 (01:43):
Oh nonsense. By the way, let's let us recall that
analogy was the method of Socrates in his dialogues. Right, yes,
so they're well, they're often quite puzzling, just as I do. Right,
I am sorry. I will say that Lucretia, your account
of the distinction between political theory and political philosophy was

(02:05):
just as I would have put it. I think, or
I agree with all of it. I was going to
go about it in a complimentary way, not complimentary of
you know, your skill, but I mean compliment your arguments
something like that, right, And I was going to offer
something that I thought would be more accessible to the
thick headed John Yu which is why I mentioned just

(02:25):
to give one example, because some listeners may know this one.
It was a big fashion fifteen years ago, John, you
may remember this. It was the resource curse. It was
all the big thing, and in simple forms what it
said was, as well, you know, countries that have high
amounts of their GDP from mineral extraction correlate with high
measures of correlation on the World Bank Index. And they

(02:49):
had all the fancy regressions, and it turned out it
didn't hold up very well on closer scrutiny by other
social scientists regression modelers. This is their theory. But look,
what was this all about. First, an inability, as Lucretia
points out, to ask sensible questions about, well, what's the
character of the regime. Maybe those countries are corrupt because
they have corrupt rulers, not because they have oil and diamonds. Uh,

(03:11):
And they don't want to ask those kind of questions, Right,
that's a common sense point of view that political philosophy
would bring to the matter, that the social scientists, wanting
to avoid those kinds of moral distinctions, don't want to
ask those questions.

Speaker 5 (03:23):
So that's the example of By the way, it's an
example of why it is you you mess these conversations
up because you take it so far on a tangent
that is so minorly related to the issue at hand
that we lose the train and go off in a
different direction.

Speaker 2 (03:41):
Yeah, it's the same point you made with Marxism, because what.

Speaker 5 (03:44):
But I made it in two sentences.

Speaker 2 (03:47):
Well, I like to give examples that are accessible to
John as I say, well, what I feel.

Speaker 4 (03:55):
I feel like I'm a child of a divorce, and
I've never been the child of a divorce, So this
is really interesting experience for me.

Speaker 2 (04:02):
Keep going, Well, if I can finish that, The point is,
what's what's behind that argument? What generated that argument by
the social scientists? Well, because they're Marxists. They want to
attack capitalism, and they want to attack oil and gas
and minerals and all the rest of that. So you
can come up with a neutral sounding theory that turns
out to not hold up, and that avoids the serious

(04:23):
political questions, and then that doesn't even hold up on
closer example. So it's a variety. It's a three layer,
three layered level of attack. And you like single layer cakes.
I know that Lucretia do.

Speaker 5 (04:36):
Because you know what the problem is is that whenever
you do, That's why John never got it, because you
always wanted to take it off in these things. He
understood it because I kept it at a foundational.

Speaker 4 (04:47):
Wait wait, wait, you're proceeding on the assumption that I
understood the Cretia too.

Speaker 1 (04:50):
I still don't get either of you people.

Speaker 5 (04:52):
Oh, he can't take.

Speaker 4 (04:56):
Sides, analogies, non analogies, you guys, well don't make sense.

Speaker 2 (05:03):
Well, so another day at the office.

Speaker 4 (05:05):
Yes, well, Steve, you're just going to get more beatings
I think today since you started it by attacking Lucretia,
and Lucretia and I have been in your absence, we've
been at a conference for the last two days here
at Berkeley about US and Latin American relations and the
future of governance and AI. It's been very interesting. But

(05:27):
Lucretia wasn't taking any prisoners on the immigration issue, even
though the audience I would think would be relatively pro
immigration rather hostile to Trump's immigration and tariff policies. And
nevertheless we engaged, and I think, I mean, they got
to see the debate that's rung on in the United States.

(05:49):
I'd say, Lucretia taking I think the pro Trump side,
I would say, and me taking the anti.

Speaker 5 (05:56):
You know what, got the most positive comments though from
this there were a lot of students, Latin American students.
But that's a bit of a that's a bit of
a misnomer because most of the Latin American law students
who were there were already practicing lawyers, and didn't we
hear that there were actually two judges among.

Speaker 1 (06:14):
Students there, very good cross.

Speaker 5 (06:17):
Section, but they were all students who were already practicing. Anyway,
several of them came up to me to talk about
the one point I made, which is a very kind
of delicate, sticky point, and that is that the other
problem with illegal immigration, the kind or let me put
it the differently, the other problem with immigration of you know,

(06:40):
and Trump said, they're not sending us their best people.
But when they are sending us their best people, what's
happening to the countries from which they emigrate is that
they're losing those best people. And in terms of say
Latin America, the more of those those a lot smarter,

(07:01):
more capable people, more driven people, whatever you want to say,
they leave Latin America and they end up staying in
the United States, and then Latin American countries lose that
valuable resource as well.

Speaker 1 (07:13):
We were taught.

Speaker 5 (07:13):
I was talking with a young woman from Ecuador who says,
you know, they're just they're just art. I should I
say this nice? I'm trying not to be insulting, but
quality and start universities. I try not on some things,
you know, because I don't want to make fun But
but she she was actually saying, I know I because

(07:35):
she would. I think she told me she studied at
either Cornell somewhere like that. She says, and I know,
I need to go back to my country, but it's
so much easier to want to stay here where there's
so much more intellectual activity. And so anyway, my point
was we don't want Latin America to end up like Haiti,
where anybody with any kind of sensibility at all has

(07:57):
left Haiti and it's you know, I'll leave it at that.
And that was in fact, people didn't say that out
loud in the question and answer period, but at least
a half a dozen people said that to me at
the conference.

Speaker 4 (08:09):
John Well, I think that's certainly aspect consequence of immigration.

Speaker 1 (08:15):
It's certainly good.

Speaker 4 (08:16):
I think good for the United States that the people
more ambitious or people who don't quite fit into their
existing societies but have ambition come to the United States.
But I'm not so sure it makes the home country
that much worse off. You could also say, I mean,

(08:38):
look at the Asian countries and the period after the
passage of the nineteen sixty five Immigration Act. And I
think one thing that happens, you know, countries like Korea
and Taiwan and Japan, places that did see a lot
of immigration here.

Speaker 1 (08:56):
Like my own experience, I.

Speaker 4 (08:57):
Think those home countries improved because one thing, I think
a lot of those a lot of those immigrants sent
capital back, which is a lot of what those countries need.
You know, they have a lot of labor, but they
don't have capital. So if there are Korean doctors, for example,
coming to the United States, they send money back home,
or Filipino nurses, you know, they send money back home,

(09:19):
and that really helps their countries because they really lack,
you know, capital, I think more than labor.

Speaker 5 (09:26):
And then skilled labor.

Speaker 1 (09:28):
Yeah, I think so. And then I think the other
thing is.

Speaker 4 (09:33):
Somehow those countries become Maybe this is I mean, I
don't have no proof, but it seems to these countries
become more American in the sense that they build ties
with us in their political systems, and they become more
allies of ours. Maybe they become more democratic and more
places with the rule of law and constitutional governance. That's

(09:56):
certainly the story I think of Korea and Taiwan and Japan.
But I don't know, so it's not but that doesn't
seem I don't know if maybe that occurred in Latin America.
You know, one thing that I thought, also an interesting
dynamic I saw amongst the faculty and students was not
just that they're sending a lot of people here. A
lot of people want to come, and it is many

(10:17):
of their best and brightest. But Latin America has done
extremely well the last thirty years until just recently that
a lot of these people who came to the US
for training went back to their countries and helped them
adopt the right policies right that led their countries out
of you know, economic stagnation. But once they let the
people vote, the people seem to vote for populist communist

(10:42):
Marxists and are I think, backsliding on the success of
their countries most recently. Anyway, So now that we're done,
now that people don't have to come to our conference,
because Lucretia and I wrapped up basically most of what
we said, we can turn now to beating up on
Steve again and then talk I think about the very
first topic, which of course has got to be the

(11:03):
Israel Iran War.

Speaker 1 (11:05):
Oh Steve, what Steve? You had an interjection?

Speaker 2 (11:09):
Well, no, I was going to say more about the
Latin American stuff you brought up in development, but I
think that would take as far afield as a certain
third person on the podcast might say.

Speaker 1 (11:18):
I've said, well, let's talk that say that.

Speaker 2 (11:23):
I'll just say this one.

Speaker 1 (11:24):
Go ahead, go ahead.

Speaker 2 (11:25):
When you say these countries become more like America, well yes,
but is it the America of Chicago or the America
of Houston, Texas? And that's the real nub of the
question sequels to follow.

Speaker 4 (11:35):
Okay, well, I'm glad Steve wasn't at the conference, So
why don't we turn to the what's going on? I
think everybody of course has to have this on top
of mind. Is what has happened in the I would
say the Israel Iran War.

Speaker 1 (11:57):
I mean, that's what it's become. I want.

Speaker 4 (11:59):
Israel is conducting a massive bombing campaign now and is
over Iran has air supremacy, air supremacy, air superiority over Iran,
where the Iranian Air Force doesn't seem to be able
to get off the ground. Israel is systematically dismantling air defenses,
and they seem to be operating with virtual impunity in

(12:19):
the skies over Tehran, and they have. Israel has tried
to decapitate the military and intelligence leadership of Iran, seems successfully,
and has tried to destroy one of the two major
Iranian nuclear weapons sites. So the big question in Washington
and nationwide is should the United States enter the war? Because,

(12:45):
excuse me, the major Iranian nuclear weapons program is built
under an enormous mountain called four Do and it appears
Israel cannot.

Speaker 1 (12:56):
Destroy that facility.

Speaker 4 (12:57):
The only country that can destroy with conventional weapons, mind you,
is the United States. The United States has in its
possession a special bomb built specifically to destroy such facilities.

Speaker 5 (13:09):
I'm sorry, why can't we just give those to Israel?

Speaker 4 (13:13):
This is this is a possible line of action. Yeah,
the bunker bust, which is thirty two thousand pounds in
one bomb. To give you perspective, the standard massive bomb
the United States uses is two thousand pounds, So this
is a thirty two thousand pound bomb and can only
be delivered apparently by US strategic bombers. So President Trump appears,

(13:39):
according to leaks, has approved the plans to drop these
munitions on the Iranian new cressee, but has said he
will not give the order yes or no on whether
to actually attack until the very last minute. And so, Lucretia,
why don't you start and then Steve, since Steve might
be abroad when the war starts and the United States

(14:02):
bombs around and may be taken hostage by Iranian agents abroad,
and we may never.

Speaker 5 (14:07):
Let him go first, go ahead, Well, I would just
I probably would argue that for many years Iran and
its proxies have unleashed terror on the world. They have
promised that they will destroy Israel. They have called for
death to America. There does seem to be credible information

(14:28):
out there that they've tried to kill Trump. We know,
even your friend the mustache John Bolton, you know, so
there's no doubt that devastating Iran is in the interest
of world peace. You know, we can have all the

(14:48):
moral equivalents in the world. I'm not playing that game. However,
you know, the Iranians have launched something on the order
of a thousand drones and not one of them have
made it into Israel. There's all of it. So's it's
very clear that Israel, as you say, has air superiority.
They have superiority in this fight, but until they can
actually destroy the nuclear facilities, the threat is not over.

(15:13):
So I think what needs to happen. And Trump is
right to keep his plans close to the vest, but
I think he needs to give those bombs to Israel
or somehow make sure that Israel if we have I
don't know how you fly it through to thirty two
thousand pound bomb, but bomb the Iranian nuclear sites. Get

(15:34):
it over with and let the people of Iran re
establish what life the way, get rid of that regime
and re establish life the way they want to do it.
No neat original gangs in New yorkhan nation building. Just
help the get rid of the nuclear problem. The rest

(15:58):
of it, I think will take care of itself.

Speaker 4 (16:00):
Go ah, So Lucretia, notice everyone has broken ranks with
her usual fellow travelers.

Speaker 1 (16:08):
Tucker Carlson and oh Steve.

Speaker 2 (16:13):
Well, no, look, yeah, that's right. I wouldn't be surprised
if Israel has designed it may be built the bunker
buster bomb, but they can't deliver it with the planes
they have. It does take a heavy bomber, and nobody
has that except us, and I guess the British I suppose.
I'm not sure what heavy bombers they used toll le
the Lancasters, whatever. But look, we've got a lot of
B fifty two's that are mothballed. We want to sell

(16:36):
them one and apparently the Israelis several years ago said
would you lease us or sell us a B fifty two?
And Trump one apparently said interesting idea, We'll think about it.
So I think, you know, let them do it, I mean,
or sell them. Are bunker buster bombs. Now you know,
I'm not an expert on these things. I've seen some

(16:56):
people dispute whether even our bunker busting bombs can get
all the way down to the level they may have
buried the sided Ford. Now I have a couple of
strange thoughts on this, which one is is that we've
left the we Israelis have left the place largely untouched
so far, and meanwhile they're degrading the rest of Iran.
And you know, if you actually have a revolution in
Iran that throws out the current regime, then guess what

(17:18):
that problem solves itself. You could let an international force
come in and dismantle that place without having to vombit
with inconclusive results, perhaps without involving us in it. That's
one possible outcome. The other possibility is you have a
multinational force. In other words, is rarely send in a
commando force backed by some Arab states that provide the

(17:39):
sanitary cordon for them to conduct a ground operation against
that facility. That would be an interesting and you know,
typically nervy play that I'll bet the Israelis have a
plan for the thurin Is. Then we do it, like
people are saying, and you know, I'll bet Trump is
willing to, but I'll bet he really doesn't want to
for all the usual reasons that people can name. And finally,

(18:02):
here's the wild card in it. I guess if you
ask me should we do it? I think my answer
is yes we should. And one reason why is I've
heard some rumors from a couple of people whose views
I respect that there's a possibility that Ron has a bomb.
They may have they didn't build on themselves. They might
have been given one by North Korea or Pakistan, who

(18:25):
they have been working closely with on this whole project
for fifteen twenty years now, and they still have some missiles,
and they may be holding back on using a nuke
against Israel because they might only have one or two
and that's not enough. And they know what would happen
if they knew Israel however, if we go in and
take out their nuclear installation, that's the end of their program.
And they know that any nuclear strike on Israel that

(18:47):
now that we're formally allied with them, would bring us
into it and bring down complete devastation on what's left
inn Ran. So there's a few scenarios for you and
why I think we ought to do it, or at
least sell the israelis a B fifty two bomber and
the bomb to.

Speaker 1 (19:00):
Go with it.

Speaker 4 (19:01):
Steve, I always thought you looked like that guy in
Doctor Strangelove who's flying to be fifty two.

Speaker 1 (19:07):
At the end. You know, that's what you know. That
was your hero when you were growing up.

Speaker 2 (19:15):
That was the great Slim Pickens.

Speaker 4 (19:17):
Yes, right, So let me maybe also ask you to
address the domestic dimension of this, which is crackup of
the Mega Coalition. It sounds like you and Lucretia have
now joined on with the Forever War people and turned
your back on the Mega.

Speaker 1 (19:36):
Foreign policy is only.

Speaker 5 (19:38):
About nineteen percent. By the way, John, a megaworld of
Republicans who are totally who are totally against any kind
of activity by the United States whatsoever in the Middle
East only. I mean, it's it's it's an eighty twenty
issue in MEGA. Because MEGA most for the most partns stupid.

Speaker 3 (20:01):
They're you know, this is why does this you say
most of MEGA is Stupidian not stupid, was not stupid,
but but it's they're prominent commentators in MEGA.

Speaker 1 (20:17):
I get Tecker, Carlson, Charlie Kirk.

Speaker 4 (20:19):
I think also uh saying making claims that this is
an effort. It's echoes of Lucretia, right, there's an effort
by the military industrial complex to draw the US back
into foreign wars and foreign engagement.

Speaker 1 (20:35):
That's what they've been saying.

Speaker 5 (20:36):
Distinctions like between getting US involved in Ukraine and getting
US involved in this thing in Middle East. Then you're
hear an idiot and you don't deserve to be talking
about it. I'm sorry, it was what we talked about
really quickly. Sorry, Steve, But what we talked about last week.
What I hate about these theories and the these positions

(21:01):
is that they're you know, they just make you lazy,
intellectually unable to make moral distinctions, political distinctions, all of
those things. There is a distinction between the United States
sending Israel the capability it needs to destroy nuclear weapons
in Iran, which is an existential problem, and the United

(21:21):
States getting involved in Ukraine in its regional conflict with Russia. Sorry,
there you go, Steve.

Speaker 2 (21:29):
Now John typical, you would name a couple of clowns
like Tucker Carlson, who's gone nuts, and Charlie Kirk, who's
not a serious person. I think the most serious sput
it this way. The most interesting commentary on this in
the last couple of days comes from a very unlikely source.
It's Paul Gottfried, one of the original paleocons at Chronicles magazine.

(21:51):
Oh no, he's well known in the paleocon Russell Kirk
type world.

Speaker 5 (21:55):
Right, the paleocons. They don't even get those people.

Speaker 2 (22:00):
But you did not interrupt me, please, Lucretia, just for once, please.
Paul is well known as one of the leading critics
of neocons for thirty years. He said, let me read
you one of the things he said in Chronicles yesterday
quote in my own view as a grizzled anti neocon warrior.
I see no reason why our position should always be
the exact opposite of what the neocons are advocating. Even

(22:23):
the obsessions of our enemies. He thinks neocons are our
enemies can occasionally be correct, as I think they are
about Iran and the danger it poses as a terrorist state. Personally,
I'm delighted that the Israelis have bombed at least some
of the mubbe's nuclear installations, and I wouldn't cry if
President Trump decides to go after the rest of Iran's
nuclear facilities by dropping a bunker bomb. Now I know, Lucretia,

(22:45):
you don't care about Paul Godfrey and don't know who
he is. He carries a lot of weight, He carries
a lot of weight with the paleocon world, and for
him to come out like this is a big deal.

Speaker 4 (22:56):
Sorry, I just don't understand how they the mega people,
sorry I mean maga people is too broad a phrase,
but how you reconcile it with this general attitude right
of the Trump administration to lower our commitments around the
world and to bring them into balance with our which

(23:17):
I think what they believe is our reduced resources to
spend on national defense. That isn't if we participate in
the bombing of Florido, are we not actually getting involved
in the war. And isn't it actually going to cause
us to have to become more involved in whatever whatever
happens there.

Speaker 5 (23:37):
I don't know what that's what. That's why I don't
care what Paul Gottfried or neocons or anti neocons or
whoever those people are if you cannot think about these
things in adult, real terms and you have to fit
it into some stupid box. Yes, the United States has

(23:57):
been too involved in foreign war. Yes, the United States
a foreign policy has been too much affected by raytheon
and North of Grumman and all of those things. I
agree with every bit of that. Does that mean that
there will never ever again be a conflict in which
the United States and extraordinary military power will be necessary.

(24:20):
It's extraordinary capabilities will be necessary. It's just dumb, and
the fact that we even entertain those arguments drives me crazy. Okay,
So Paul Gottfreed, got Freed, got whatever's name is. So,
so he's figured this out, Oh thank god. I mean,
come on, folks, if the the Iranian regime has promised

(24:43):
to destroy Israel and if it has nuclear weapons, it
has the capability for doing so, and it is done.

Speaker 1 (24:51):
Why is that national interest in the United States too?

Speaker 5 (24:54):
Because if they destroy Israel, they'll they'll they will go
for they will completely Really, you're asking me if there's
a I don't even know how to answer that. If
they destroy Israel with a nuclear bomb, how does that
affect us?

Speaker 1 (25:10):
This is what they would say.

Speaker 4 (25:11):
I mean, these people would say that is not a
They're not threatening the United States. They're not right, They're
actually this I mean, I think it's a serious argument.
Is the Middle East has distracted wasted our resources for
so long. We need to pull out of there, and
they don't mind if israel tacks are on, But why
should the United States attack?

Speaker 5 (25:34):
And you really can't. Steve said it, I mean, Steve
said it out actually right when he's not quoting somebody else.
If you you can't, if Israel cannot completely finish the
mission without help from the United States, that doesn't mean
that the United States has you know, bowed down to

(25:54):
the military industrial complex and that Trump has you know,
abandoned everything he said. Trump made a promise in his campaign,
Iran will not get a nuclear bomb. He didn't go
into all the details about you know this or that
we know that Trump won the first time because he
was opposed to the US actions in the Middle East.

(26:14):
We get that Stop seems to be more capable of
nuanced thought than all of these supposed conservative intellectuals. Sorry, Steve,
I know, I know you know exactly what's happening there.
I don't care that Tucker Carlson is doing this, and

(26:37):
I think that that social media has just overblown it.
That's I think my frustration not with you, but with
the idea. Yeah, go ahead, Steve.

Speaker 2 (26:47):
No, Actually, John has not declared himself in this question.
So John, you have to say if you think we should.

Speaker 4 (26:51):
Bomb me ran Oh will you guys obviously know I should.
I'm the original and neo Khanna. I wanted to attack
her on in two thousand and seven. That's why we
have this problem now. See all the trouble. Neocon policies
could have saved you if you just listened to us. Oh,
it would have been so much easier to destroy their
weapons program back then too, eighteen years ago. Oh, you guys,

(27:14):
this just shows Dick Cheney was right again.

Speaker 5 (27:17):
Oh trouble, John, Yeah, I'm not taking the bait on that, Steve.

Speaker 4 (27:22):
I don't think you were finished discussing the the you know,
the domestic political aspects. Is this in fact a crack
up of the MAGA coalition at least when it comes
time to form policy?

Speaker 1 (27:32):
What do you make of it? I mean, there's a
lot of dissension, so I don't think so.

Speaker 2 (27:36):
And that's why I point out, But he's Godfrey's not
the only one. I could quote you three or four
more other influential, significant people who said, no, this is
this is Lucreasi's right. This is a media creation. Uh,
And it's all bogus and you bought it.

Speaker 4 (27:50):
John, I do. I I mean, I take people like
Tucker Carlson. I don't know if I take the rigorousness
of what he said seriously, but I take seriously that
seems to represent the views of a lot of people.

Speaker 5 (28:05):
So I mean, he doesn't have the platform he used
to John when he had a you know, nightly news
show on Fox News.

Speaker 4 (28:12):
And and I mean he I mean, look, President you
see pictures of him with President Trump and Elon Musk
wearing mega hats in the Oval office, I haven't seen you.
I haven't seen either the three of us invited to
the Oval Office to hang out with Trump and give him.
You did not this term as far as cost.

Speaker 5 (28:29):
But it's early. Still. Here's the point, though, I mean,
you know, there are other people who have gone off
the deep end, and I don't think that Tucker Carlson
a speaks for MEGA. I do think he probably has
a following, and it's in some ways it's unfortunate. I
think I'm not going to argue that Tucker Carlson is

(28:49):
an anti Semite, but you know, for some reason, he
seems absolutely fascinated with resurrecting Hitler's reputation, you know, like
like we need to spend more time on that. But
so if it's disappointing to me, But look from the
other point of view, Bill Crystal turned out to be
an absolute moron. And I used to think he was

(29:12):
like the smartest guy I could do.

Speaker 1 (29:14):
He's a smart guy. He is not an absolute moron.
You just disagree.

Speaker 5 (29:18):
No, I don't disagree with him. He has he has
completely gone off the deep end. John he he he
now thinks that that. Let's see, he came out with
a tweet against the Supreme Court's decision that we're going
to get to about transgender If Bill Crystal is not

(29:40):
smart enough to understand why the whole transgender movement is
devastating to the moral fabric of this country after everything
he supposedly learned when he was, you know, studying with
Straussians and so on, he's he's I mean, he's not
even the same person anymore. I don't get it. So
my point is this, I am not a movement follower.

(30:03):
I think right now, Trump is probably the smartest man
out there when it comes to figuring out what we
should be doing about Iranom Jesus.

Speaker 4 (30:12):
Trump is definitely not the smartest man out there trying
to figure out what we're doing with the wrong That
is outrageous exaggeration. I hope that's not true. Oh my gosh, Steve,
let me, Steve, let me, just like Steve did, you
want to finish up any point on the US, because
otherwise we will turn now because Lucretia created the great
segue for us to turn to Scrimetti. Well, Lucretia brought

(30:35):
up the issue of the transgender movement, and we'll turn
to Steve first for something completely different than his views
on bombing Iranian nuclear sites, although maybe he'll find a
common theme between these two topics.

Speaker 1 (30:49):
You never know.

Speaker 4 (30:51):
The Supreme Court this week, in a case called Scrimmetti,
decided that states are allowed to ban transgender medical treatment,
most notably surgery, but not just including surgery, also including
hormone blockers and such that states could ban the use
of these medical treatments four children under the age of

(31:15):
eighteen for the purpose of changing their gender. The case
ran along the usual lines sixty three, with the justices
appointed by the conservative presidents and the majority, and the
three justices appointed by Presidents Obama and Biden in the minority.

(31:36):
Just two points about the decision of note before asking
Steve has views. One, the Court said this law did
not discriminate on the basis of sex and so did
not involve having to ask and this is the second point,
having to ask the question whether transgender people are a

(31:59):
community that the Constitution protects directly along the lines of
racial minorities and sex. So, in an opinion written by
Chief Justice Roberts, so, Steve, what are your thoughts about
the opinion and the maybe also the general issue of

(32:19):
transgender The transgender political movement, and Lucretia's point to claim
that the transgender movement is destroying the country.

Speaker 5 (32:29):
Well, I have moral fabric.

Speaker 2 (32:31):
Well, okay, Well, without good moral fabric, you don't have
a country. It's like not having steel, as Trump might say. Okay,
I have three quick points.

Speaker 1 (32:41):
You mean nip you mean Nippon Steele.

Speaker 2 (32:46):
I have three quick points, the last one being baked
for Lucretia. The first point, by the way, I haven't
had a chance to read the decisions because I've been
on the road, traveling and chasing leprechauns and drinking guinness.

Speaker 1 (32:56):
But so you have been what you have been with
the transgender commun.

Speaker 2 (33:02):
Well, I was in Dublin a few days ago on
blooms Day, the famous day from you know Ulysses. Okay,
it was quite the colorful scene, I have to say,
coming as it does in the middle of Pride month. Okay,
forget all that I've only seen snippets about the opinion
on social media and whatnot. I was struck, however, first
point by a long story in the New York Times
here the Last couple of Days by Nick Confessatory. He's

(33:24):
a very left wing writer, although pretty good journalist. I mean,
he's the guy who wrote the devastating story about Michigan's
DEI program that really helped.

Speaker 1 (33:32):
To sink it.

Speaker 2 (33:33):
And this story is very revealing. Yet to read between
the lines a little about how much division this case
caused on the left. A lot of people, a lot
of people on the left said, this is a terrible idea.
The way the culture of the country is now. You know,
Trump has won re election. It's an eighty twenty issue.
They've read the polls. But the aclu IT not only

(33:54):
insisted on bringing the case, but having a transgender lawyer
who's now celebrity amongst the community. I guess will argue
the case and I'll skip over the Oh. Here's two
sentences from the article. The some believe, some believe. I
love that euphemism of New York Times writers. Some believe
the LGBTQ movement drove itself toward a cliff and took

(34:17):
the Democratic Party with it. I'll bet that's a great understatement.
But then there's a quote in the previous paragraph or
two quoting well, I'll just read you a sentence quote.
This case exposes a lot of ethical problems in the
practice of medicine. End quote. A law professor with expertise
and sex discrimination law told me, speaking on the condition

(34:38):
of anonymity for fear of blowback from students and colleagues. Right,
let that think, So it wasn't you, John. Obviously The
point is is that how did this come about? What's
because the Left lives in this hermetically sealed bubble where
you know, of course, anybody wants to be anything, it
has to be recognized as a protected class. That's point number,

(35:00):
by the way, is you know, so do my own
of dissent try to say, wait a minute, they should
be a protected class. You know, this makes a determination
based on sex. Yes, as though I mean, in other words,
they proved once again that in fact democrats can't tell
men from women, as you know Justice Jackson's famous comment,
and the confirmation here, and the third point is is
that the really strong concurrence in the case came from

(35:24):
Justice Barrett.

Speaker 1 (35:25):
Yes has been attacking for being.

Speaker 2 (35:29):
I know I was aboutence. Thomas joined her opinion. Now
he filed separately with a terrific opinion saying, look, you know,
why should we defer to expertise because expertise has disgraced itself.
So I think you see several things here. You see
the end of the road for the protected classes beloved
of you know, the eco protection movement and all the
rest of that. Uh, the clear marker that I'm sorry,

(35:50):
we're not gonna we're not going to give any difference
to this progressive premise of one hundred years now of
expert rule. But then, yes, I'll stop here with this Lucretia.
Just the sparent looks pretty good this week. Maybe somebody
should say something nice about her.

Speaker 5 (36:05):
Listen, I said something nice about about Kittangy a week
ago or two weeks ago. So no, no, you see, that's
the difference. I am not a member of any categorical
group that if it comes from Kittangy it's wrong, as
it comes from Barren it's right.

Speaker 3 (36:25):
You know.

Speaker 5 (36:26):
I bring my rational skills to every argument that's made,
and I don't care who makes it. It just turns
out that most of the time Clarence Thomas makes the
best arguments, right, That's what it really comes down to,
because probably because he understands things the way I do,

(36:46):
or I guess I should say it the opposite way.
I understand things the way he does. But I'm very
happy about his his and Alito's attack on boss Stock,
which what's her name didn't do Bostoc. It shouldn't even
what I like about Thomas's concurrence over Alito's Alito applies

(37:08):
that it should be overturned. Thomas implies that it's such
a stupid decision we shouldn't even be paying attention to
it one way or the other. And that was probably
my favorite thing about this case. Well, let's go back
for a minute to what John said. Here's the problem John,
if you start to embrace frands, sexual activities, transsexual identities,

(37:33):
I don't know either's such namby Pamby words to begin with.
What you've done is you've actually said that everything about
the human condition that we have understood for millennia to
be defining the marriage, the family, etc. Is destroyed. Now,

(37:54):
people argued that that was also the case after a
Burger foul, that there's always been homosexuality, but to celebrate
it and give it legal sanction and all of that
was to destroy the fabric of the family. Also, I'm
not sure I disagree with that. I'm not sure that
ship hasn't sailed, But I think that a while back,

(38:17):
Steve and I started talking about how this was, this
whole transgender thing was going to be the next major
push by the left, and boy were we right, Probably
more right than we ever realized. It's time to stop it.
We're not going to be able to stop I don't
think we'll ever see a situation where will pass what laws,

(38:39):
widespread laws nationwide that stop people from being transgender if
they're adults. But I think this is an absolute must.
You know, this stand up for yelling stop right that
you cannot go this far or you will destroy your country.

(39:00):
There will be nothing left.

Speaker 4 (39:03):
You raised the example of what happened after the gay
marriage decisions. And maybe I'm wrong to think this, but
I'll ask Steve this society not collapse after gay marriage.

Speaker 1 (39:15):
Uh?

Speaker 4 (39:16):
You know, so people could say the Burkean and Steve
might like that society just move slowly.

Speaker 1 (39:23):
And experiment along the way and nobody.

Speaker 4 (39:27):
Isn't this the implication of the Time story, which I
haven't read, But the Time story people could say their
goal is still to have, you know, equal rights for
the transgender community. They just thought this was rushing things
along too fast and they should have waited a little
longer and let the country's views catch up, and that
was just a mistake to go to the Supreme Court

(39:47):
this early. It doesn't sound like they think the overall
goal is wrong. They just think their tactics are off.
So why wouldn't why wouldn't the transgender movement just take
this long but then continue with the Supreme Court? Actually
the majority opinion in contrast, I think to what Barrett

(40:08):
Thomas and Elido are saying, the majority Pini says we
are taking no view at this time about whether the
trans in their community has constitutional rights because we don't
have to reach it. Doesn't that also give the opening
for the fights about this to continue, Steve.

Speaker 2 (40:24):
Well, I suppose it does. Look let's back up the
opening part of your question, which was Obergefel case. I mean,
there's several ways to look at that. One is, at
least same sex marriage is imitating a normal middle class practice.
And you can say, as a sort of historical matter

(40:45):
that homosexuality is very ancient, all right. You could say
that a lot of the predictions then were by the way,
or that the next step is going to be polygamy,
legalizing polygamy. There were even some lawsuits brought. I don't
know what ever happened to any of those, and.

Speaker 4 (41:00):
I think I think that they I think that they
succeeded in Ireland perhaps, or Norway, where you spend a
lot of your time these days, men decided.

Speaker 5 (41:08):
What a stupid thing to do to have more than
one wife dealing with ones enough?

Speaker 2 (41:13):
Well, no, that's all right, Look, it's uh remember the
popular culture slogan that happened literally the day of Old bergerfelt,
love winds right now there, Yeah, I can't imagineything sort
of stupid than that as an actual idea, right, love winds? Well,
what if I love little children? Or what if I

(41:34):
love three women at once?

Speaker 5 (41:35):
Right?

Speaker 2 (41:36):
And in other words, there were total abandonment that there
was any way of reasoning about any matters of the
distinction or limits. But we didn't get a push for polygamy.
What we got was, I think it was literally six
weeks later you had the first bills in North Carolina
to say let everybody use any bathroom they want, and
transgender rights and all the rest of that. I mean,
I think it was literally decided by the Human Rights

(41:57):
Campaign Fund and other of the identity groups that now
we're going to press the pedal to the metal on
the whole transgender business. And that caught everyone by surprise
because we were expecting something more gradual. It's going to
be polygamy or you know who the heck knows, right,
And so there we are and at you know, the
end of the day, it's a question of human nature.
I'll just say here, and Lucasia may or may not

(42:18):
disagree to one degree or another, but the fact that
you can observe homosexuality in all of human history suggests
that it may be aberrant, it may be beyond the
normal statistical distribution, but maybe not unnatural in the least
in one sense. It's unnatural from the point of view
of telos, which I know you guys bought up last
week in natural law, that's true, but as an actual

(42:41):
human phenomenon that we witness, yes, But to be transgender,
as we now know, you have to you have to
make physical, chemical interventions on the human body and perform
surgeries that cannot be natural under any kind of understanding
of nature and its spectrum.

Speaker 1 (43:01):
I'll stop there, Lucretia. I don't understand what all that
made sense or not, but so go ahead. Well, I mean,
but I don't understand.

Speaker 4 (43:12):
So are you saying that natural uh, natural rights cannot
encompass things that involve change to sort of the basic
human I don't know what genetic or physical condition, but
we have human aided assistance and all kinds I mean
machine aided assistance and all kinds of aspects of life.

Speaker 5 (43:32):
Okay, So so if we were to do.

Speaker 1 (43:33):
Our lives, we distinguished and I won't.

Speaker 5 (43:36):
But what Aristotle says is the basis of human society
is the family, okay, and and you know builds from there.
No no aerorsot a lesson today. But I think in
some ways you're by the way, you're wrong. The problem
is I can only do correlation and not causation between

(43:58):
gay marriage and further destruction of the moral fabric of
our society. And I do think like Steve, that we
probably right away didn't predict the transgender thing. That is
really you know, it started out as a very fringe
kind of kinky I don't even know the right words

(44:20):
for it, and then you know, the Left forced it
to be mainstream on us. But the good average American
person understands there's nothing right about this. If you have
to have if a man who claims his identity as
a woman has to have surgery in order to do so.

(44:42):
Does that make any damn sense? And of course you're
not a woman? What it would actually define it, TANGI
couldn't tell us the normal definition of those things. The
common sense definition of those things is what people understand.
And this is all an attempt to throw it in

(45:02):
their face and say, well, your common sense view isn't
isn't it's bigoted and it's unscientific, and you know people
are too smart for that. Okay, I'm gonna actually apologize
to Steve first before I do this and say it's
really interesting because what popped up on my phone as
Steve was talking was an article from Substak by Matt Tavey,

(45:24):
who says the Supreme Court drives a stake in transgender controversy,
neither party says much. Is this chapter in American politics
headed for the dustbin of history? And he goes on
to say even the New York Times seems to agree
with it. Of course they can't quite come out and
say so. I think that because America. Remember, the most

(45:48):
successful political campaign ad of the twenty twenty four presidential
election was Sama is for they them is for you
people understand that this is that. I think that it's
a vast conspiracy by the evil left to create amongst

(46:10):
the already mentally disturbed out there some sort of place
for them to go to and be, you know, supported,
be part of some movement. And I think that most
people who claim to be transgender are just following trends,

(46:30):
and it's certainly true of children. That turns out that
there aren't very many children in the Amish community who
are claiming to be transgender. Why is that? Why are
they all from Berkeley and you know, Cambridge, Massachusetts and
other places like that. Why aren't they from Springfield, Ohio?
Because it's not a genuine Oh, we must accept who

(46:53):
they believe they are. It's being forced on them by
some sort of massive propaganda campaign. Okay, done to Steve says,
we're unning out of time.

Speaker 4 (47:03):
Okay, Well, now that Lucretia has been gotten this band
on all the other distribution channels we were not already
banned on, why don't we turned very briefly to the
last issue, which just came out last night. And I
can't think of a better place for us to talk
about it than a better place for anyone to talk
about it than the decision last night by the San
Francisco Federal Appeals Court. The Ninth Circuit used to be

(47:27):
one of the most liberal courts in America, upholding President
Trump's right to deploy the National Guard to Los Angeles.
And the implication would be, if you read the opinion
other cities in America where rioters are trying to prevent
immigration authorities from carrying out their duties.

Speaker 1 (47:47):
So, Steve, you know who.

Speaker 4 (47:50):
People may not know this, but Steve is a secret
admirer of Koreans. A particular brand of Koreans, what we
call who we're known and because is the roof Koreans.
And these are the Koreans during the Rodney king riots
who took self defense in their own hands and got
up on the roofs above their buildings while they were

(48:10):
being burned down by riders and shot people from their roofs.
I'm not sure how many people they actually shot, but
they certainly tried to defend their property. And there are
these famous pictures of them with rifles. And people don't
realize this, but Steve has been emailing pictures of these
guys saying which ones look like me.

Speaker 1 (48:28):
Now.

Speaker 4 (48:29):
I don't have big hair anymore. Neither does Steve for sure,
But you know that was Steve was around for the
last set of riots in LA, the last time the
National Guard was deployed. Steve, what do you think about
this opinion? And maybe more broadly, what do you think
about Trump deploying the military to LA? Is it time
for it to come to a close? Does he actually

(48:50):
need to ramp it up? Does it need to be
in places.

Speaker 1 (48:53):
More than Los Angeles?

Speaker 4 (48:55):
Undeniably, this is a big win for the Trump administration,
which would be the top of the news were it
not for the fact that we're about to bomb Iran.

Speaker 2 (49:04):
Well, it seems a perfectly sensible outcome, and I don't
have much to say about whether he should expand it
or into LA or whatever. You know, I'm in overseas
almost a month now, so I'm remote from things.

Speaker 1 (49:14):
Well, I mean, should.

Speaker 4 (49:15):
We send them to Dublin? I mean, Dublin's had troubles.
I hear maybe they could solve their security issues too.

Speaker 2 (49:21):
Well, I am going to a protest tomorrow that's apparently
a populist protest against current Irish policy. That Tommy Robinson's
guy's been promoting it. Look. Actually, all I'm curious about John,
is anybody keeping a one loss tally for Trump. My
impression is he's doing pretty well on appeals with these
many district judges who keep getting in his way. But
I've lost.

Speaker 1 (49:39):
Count Oh yes, No, And this all happened, I think
while you've been away.

Speaker 4 (49:44):
But the trial decision, which was quite activist, right, this
is a judge, you said. I can review whether there
are conditions on the ground that justify using the military.
I can say that Trump did not sufficiently consult with
Gavin Newsom before sending the tree. I can say that
federal law is being enforced enough that Justice this was

(50:06):
no other than Stephen Brier's younger brother, Chuck Bryer, who's
a federal judge, and I think really expressed or the
progressive view of judging here.

Speaker 1 (50:15):
There's no difference.

Speaker 2 (50:17):
All I can say is they must be having too
much Briar's ice cream because they both suffered from brain freeze.

Speaker 1 (50:23):
All right, couldn't.

Speaker 5 (50:23):
Help, and I don't thank you. I said last week
Steve that I didn't think that even Justice Stephen Brier
would have gone as far on that whole No, Kings
and yeah, da da da da. Anyway, maybe we should
have some limits on never mind that anyway, back to

(50:44):
the decision. Of course, the president has this power. John
made it very clear by taking us last week's step
by step through the the legal power that the president has.
So you know, I think that if it keeps going
for or if they keep suing, it will win before
the Supreme Court. Do you think they will even challenge

(51:04):
his decision?

Speaker 4 (51:05):
John?

Speaker 5 (51:06):
At the Supreme Court?

Speaker 4 (51:07):
Oh, well's running for this is Noosom running for president.
But the interesting question is I could easily see the
Supreme Court not granting review the case.

Speaker 1 (51:14):
Now, yeah, because they probably agree with the outcome. Yeah.

Speaker 4 (51:17):
I mean, there's no there's no split in the circuits
on this, and it is an important federal question, but
they probably feel the Ninth Circuit got it right.

Speaker 5 (51:28):
Sah. I did see several commentators try to make some
some get some hope out of this and say that well,
he did say that the court did the Ninth Circuit
Court did intimate that the judges did have some role
to play in all of this, and that made the

(51:48):
only sort of tiny area which could actually find its
way to the court to the Supreme Court. But at
any rate, I think it's good news. I do think
that the tests are are winding down a bit. And
so before Trump actually you know, uses nuclear weapons against protesters,

(52:09):
I am in frustrated.

Speaker 1 (52:11):
Well that would be only a few were secretary defense,
but no.

Speaker 5 (52:15):
I can't imagine. But anyway, so yeah, good thing, and
I think those things are going to keep happening. But
one last comment on this, and Steve had actually put
in his morning substack all of our articles. It's very interesting.
Without any coordination, both John and I decided to write
articles about executive power and and you know, the proper

(52:39):
way to understand executive power within our constitution, the separation
of powers, checks and balances. And I did so out
of not because of John, about although we've had many conversations.
I did so a lot of frustration and about some
of the idiot commentary that was out there, and you know,
just things like well presidents can't call for impeachment. That

(53:02):
would be unconstitutional, dumb dumb thing. Right. So but my
point in making it quickly, because I know we've got
to end, Steve, is that this has in fact for
about you know, ever since the Trump being attacked with
lawfare and so forth. We've had some very serious conversations
for the last couple of years about what is the

(53:24):
nature of executive power, what is the nature of judicial power?
And I think that's been good for the republic. Shall
we say, for people to start seriously considering and debating
and writing about these things, so that the American people
go back to understanding how their constitution is supposed to work?
Am I too optimistic like Steve?

Speaker 1 (53:44):
Oh? I disagree.

Speaker 4 (53:46):
I want the people to remain asleep while their betters
run the government on their path. So we are unfortunately,
I mean, this is I can't believe how fast the
hour went. We are unfortunately at the end of time
we were going to so I want to definitely do this.

Speaker 1 (54:05):
Next week.

Speaker 4 (54:06):
We were planning to talk about Steve and Lucretia's article
and National Affairs, which everyone's going to buy and read
because it has my article about birthright citizenship at the top,
but way down at the way the way down, at
the bottom of the list of table of contents, it
is an article about envy. And I think this was
really I had the luck to read it in draft

(54:28):
many many months ago, and I think this would be
a really interesting thing for us to discuss about envy
and its unfortunate impact on public policy.

Speaker 1 (54:37):
But unfortunately we have to end now.

Speaker 4 (54:39):
So, Lucretia, do you have some Babylon b mine great?

Speaker 5 (54:44):
I have some great ones. So the first one we
didn't even get to this, but again another article, Democrats
announce they will celebrate Juneteenth by giving their slaves an
extra five minute break. Okay, so this one, I like
Democrats confused on what exactly children are for if you

(55:08):
can't mutilate or kill them. And it's a picture of Schumer. Okay,
So we didn't actually talk specifically about Ted Cruz's interview
with Tucker Carlson, but I'm assuming everybody I.

Speaker 1 (55:22):
Don't watch it. No, I don't know about it, but.

Speaker 5 (55:25):
You saw read you read about it. So this is
the babonbee Ted Cruz destroyed in interview as he's unable
to name Iotola's favorite starter Pokemon. You have to think
about that for a minute. British doctor arrested for misgendering
baby he just murdered. Come on that, that one's funny.

(55:51):
I don't care what you say. Iran starting to regret
regret putting old blind Mohammed in charging in charge of
aiming all missiles.

Speaker 1 (56:01):
Yeah that one I like.

Speaker 4 (56:03):
Okay, well let me bring it to a close and
then so always drink your whiskey.

Speaker 1 (56:08):
Meat and Steve, what is.

Speaker 4 (56:10):
The latest ai haiku slash poem slash right epic well
poem about us?

Speaker 2 (56:19):
Since I'm in Ireland and I was driving through Limerick,
I decided we needed a Limerick instead of oh no
legend right. Yeah, I actually did one of my own,
but I'll leave it beside. This one's better. Here's from
chat GPT. Three pals with a dram and a mic,
talk whiskey, their banter just right, with laughs that flow
free like a good PT spree. They're podcasts of Friday

(56:43):
Night the.

Speaker 4 (56:44):
Light, Steve, that's so much better than your usual lyrics
about Nantucket. Why everybody see you next week?

Speaker 5 (57:00):
Month?

Speaker 3 (57:00):
We said, that's a day.

Speaker 1 (57:05):
Because that's you. Livens the beer that keeps un.

Speaker 2 (57:08):
Giving in I'm drinking and I am winning.

Speaker 1 (57:11):
If it's all then I'm feel nice.

Speaker 5 (57:13):
That's you.

Speaker 2 (57:14):
Revenue names the peer that keeps un given some hoddest price,
you get a bigger that Chief takes.

Speaker 4 (57:20):
Twice.

Speaker 2 (57:24):
We got on a plane and flew across the seat.
Next thing that we do a far in Germany, we
met a Donny months we made a dining gutta. They
pointed at the table.

Speaker 5 (57:38):
They said we were drinking under USA likes water done beer.

Speaker 1 (57:44):
That's not drumming on the Upto Bonn in first gear.

Speaker 2 (57:48):
I said, we just came to Polk A hardcore.

Speaker 5 (57:57):
That's still lived, he that keeps on giving, and that
if I'm bringing an eye, am winning better than I
feel nice.

Speaker 2 (58:05):
Ricochet join the conversation.