The Three Whisky Happy Hour: With Special Guest Star Ken Green

This week's episode expands the format to include a guest appearance by environmental scientist Ken Green, whe recently joined the ranks of contributors to Steve's "Political Questions" Substack (sign up for free if you haven't already), where this week he celebrates the demise of the "Endangerment Finding" that derives from the Statute-That-Cannot-Be-Named in John Yoo's presence. But along the way Ken raised an eyebrow for certain enthusiasms of the MAHA movement, which in turn raised the eyebrows of a certain "Lucretia," so we decided to let then havie out a bit.

The result of one of our livelier episode ever, where discussion of "junk food" and other aspects of America's nitrition was conducted against the background noise of John Yoo munching on a bag of Cheetos. 

We also have brief considerations of the proposal for a mid-decade census, and the fuss over Gerrymandering in Texas and elsewhere. 

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Really quickly. I want you to know that I somehow
was looking for something. I went on the Apple version
of our podcast and I am very unpopular there.

Speaker 2 (00:10):
Oh really, well, whiskey coming fame my pain all right?

Speaker 3 (00:16):
Oh don't why.

Speaker 2 (00:18):
Think alone when you can drink it all in with
Ricochet's three Whiskey Happy Hour, join your bartenders, Steve Hayward,
John You, and the international woman of mystery, Lucretia.

Speaker 3 (00:33):
Where it stopped stopping David ain't easy on the show,
Spy got a givy.

Speaker 2 (00:40):
Well, cheers everybody. It's another three Whiskey Happy Hour with
a special guest and some coming attractions to let you
know about. We're going to start shaking up the format
a little bit more, such as today with a live guest,
and I'm going to start resuming my old one on
one interviews with authors and interesting people. And I have
a terrific interview in the can with Michael Walsh, who's

(01:02):
an extraordinary guy, about his latest book, A Rage to
Conquer that'll be out in a few days, and I'll
let you know, and I have other people lined up
for one on one interviews as we go, but for today,
John and Lucretia with me along with my old partner
in crime from years ago on environmental topics, Ken Green,
I can't welcome.

Speaker 3 (01:21):
Steve, can you? Yeah?

Speaker 2 (01:22):
I don't know if you have. I've got my le
Froyd going because that's how we do these shows often.
John here in like southern California or somewhere.

Speaker 4 (01:29):
I think, Yeah, it's only four o'clock and you're already
drinking after you've already hungover. ELL's going on here?

Speaker 2 (01:37):
Well, I have a bunch of pals in staying while
my wife is away doing rhy.

Speaker 4 (01:41):
Don't you just say why did you just say for
this hour? I'm going to be sober and concentrate on that,
pretending that you have to drink. Yeah, my wife is
away o'clock Scotch on a Thursday.

Speaker 2 (01:54):
Well, I got some pals visiting while my wife is
away during her rock and roll stuff in New York,
and we we were over served last night. We had
some terrific steaks, four bottles of wine for five people
after cocktails, and then cigars later in the evening after
we were done with all that.

Speaker 4 (02:08):
When is this overserved? You make it sound like someone
did something to you.

Speaker 3 (02:14):
It's the act of God.

Speaker 4 (02:16):
You are overseen.

Speaker 2 (02:19):
Right all right. Oh, by the way, I should mention
to you John, a couple of things. One is, I
didn't know this until like the last couple of days
when I was doing some new research. But there turned
out to be some older clean air Acts from the
early sixties at the federal state levels. That means months
of more ways to annoy you and satisfy our listeners

(02:41):
who want more cleaner Act content.

Speaker 4 (02:44):
Yes, all, all three of you, please leave comments so
Steve can communicate with you directly. Actually sorry too, one
of them just died.

Speaker 2 (02:54):
Well, now here's a trivial point for you. It turns
out that I've been reading some old literature saying, oh,
all these people of the emergency rooms in LA and
you know Ken and I and actually Rucresia you grew
up there too. It was really nasty. But it was
David Whitman of US News and World Report who went
and did a very thorough search. He could only find
one death certificate in Los Angeles from the fifties or

(03:17):
sixties that said the cause of death was air pollution.
It was always something else, right, which I think is
I don't know. It deflates a little bit. The exaggerations
that sometimes happened, but only somewhat exaggerated. Right, as Canon Lucretian,
I will tell you, okay, enough of that. I just
had to twist your tail and you're not jumping the bait.

(03:38):
But Ken is here partly because he appeared on our substack.
Is going to appier some more, and we'll come to
that in short order. But look, let's do a couple
of headlines in the week briefly. Here. We wake up
today and see a federal judge in Florida has halted
further construction on Alligator Alcatraz. Why and it's not a

(03:59):
nationwide and John, it's just for that place because it
might violate environmental laws, although not the Clean Air Act apparently,
just other environmental laws. Well, I find this fairly amusing,
and I don't know if that's going to go anywhere.
It's pretty funny. I think anybody noticed that story or
care about it.

Speaker 3 (04:15):
Yeah, I saw that story. It is kind of unethical.
The idea of treating the alligators that badly by feeding
them criminals tred me. When I read an announcement that
they're opening another one in Indianapolis or indian O Place,
I think it is that they're going to call the
speedway speedway something rather than I thought. I realized, what's
happening here is that Donald Trump is making Froger. Because

(04:37):
if you remember the first two rounds of Frogger, you
go crossing a pond with alligators in it to escape,
and the second round you have to cross a highway
full of moving vehicles and moving along the highway. So
I was looking up to find out what level three
of Frog was and know what the next great prison
is going to be. I couldn't find it.

Speaker 1 (04:55):
I have no idea what you were talking about.

Speaker 4 (05:00):
He's playing nineteen eighties. He's playing nineteen eighties video games
while I was studying in high school, studied high school.

Speaker 2 (05:07):
Yeah well that counselor, Yeah, well he's you know, he's
a younger guy. You got to remember this Frogger. I
hadn't thought of that in forever.

Speaker 4 (05:14):
I think that's the eighties.

Speaker 3 (05:16):
That's eighties. Yeah.

Speaker 2 (05:17):
I didn't like Froger very much. I was a yeah, okay,
all right, now now here's a question, uh for a
part of I guess for John. So there's all this
talk of doing a new census right now, it turns
out you're supposed to do a census mid decade, not
for reapportionment purposes and redistricting, but for keeping up to

(05:40):
date with the flow of federal funds that are supposed
to be based on population. So I guess we're supposed
to do one anyway, maybe not a full census, but
a sampling or something like that. And that connects to
the third item, which is we're having a Jerrymander panic.
And what I love about this is Jerry mannering was
never a scandal until Republicans got good at it. Suddenly
now it's a threat to democracy and all the usual slop.

Speaker 3 (06:04):
Right.

Speaker 2 (06:05):
But I don't know what are the legal issues John
involved in either one of those, if you're paying attention
to them.

Speaker 4 (06:11):
Yeah, now I've been paying attention interesting legal issues. First,
people might be surprised to learn that there's nothing in
the Constitution that says you have to have the basically
system we've always had, you know, single member congressional districts
done by population. So the Constitution in Article one, Section four,
says that states set the time, place, and manner of elections,

(06:35):
doesn't actually say anything about congress redistricting and so on.
District so a state could, for example, decide to do
it like the electoral college and say we'll have an
election and the winner of the state shall get all
the members of the House of Representatives. And so I say,
there's a variety of methods you could have.

Speaker 2 (06:52):
Wait, or could you do it by proportional representation?

Speaker 4 (06:55):
Yes, you could have Yes, you could have proportional representation too,
you know, statewide. But from the founder, we've always had,
you know, states drawn up into geographic districts with one
person per district. So that's one thing is there's nothing
in the constitution which says a state can't change the
districting as often as it once. It could do it

(07:16):
every two years, it could do every four years, doesn't
have to be after the census. But because of the census,
we have a separate one man, one vote requirement. Every
state at least does it during the centenus. Second thing
is there's nothing in the constitution that says you can't
have more than one sentence every ten years. The census
requirement is a minimum, not a maximum. And then here's
the third issue which has come up. There's a congressman,

(07:39):
I think Congressman Kylie in California has suggested maybe trying
to stop this competition between the states and passing some
kind of federal regulation. His Article one, section four says
states at the time, place and manner, but subject to
regulations that Congress can make. And so Congress could say,
I think think it has never done this, but it

(08:01):
could say, for example, there shall be only one redistricting
after the census every ten years. The only thing that
worries me about that is that's the same power that
the left wanted to use. And it's remember it's much
valuehooed HR one, which was going to ban ID, you know,
voter ID, which was going to ban this and that

(08:22):
and sort of federalized national elections. And so when we
talk I just want to remind us of our previous positions.
I think when we talked about this last time, we
all basically thought this was a terrible idea, that we
didn't want the federal government taking over the election system
and let states have a diversity of voting and election procedures.

(08:42):
So why don't have a real problem with the federal
governments saying you should only have redistricting once or twice
or connected to the census. It might open the door
though to some kind of federal election code, which I
really would be against. So yet I've been thinking a
bunch about it. I don't mind when states compete and
it's a race to the bottom, although that might be

(09:03):
getting us into more environmental law or Sydney Sweeney topics.

Speaker 2 (09:07):
So the important things right, So.

Speaker 1 (09:13):
I don't entirely agree with John the way John frames
that there is one there. It's one thing to say
that the federal government should stay out of elections because
the Constitution has left that time, place, and manner to
the states, et cetera. However, the Constitution does make four
specific aspects of federal elections federal, and that's, of course

(09:37):
the fifteenth Amendment, the nineteenth Amendment, the twenty third Amendment,
and the twenty sixth Amendment.

Speaker 3 (09:44):
Do I have those right? Okay?

Speaker 1 (09:45):
So on account of no denying vote on account of race, color,
previous condition of servitude. The worst amendment, the one that
stops Coull taxes, and the one that lets eighteen year
olds vote. Those are done because the federal government picked
up the responsibility for making sure that states weren't completely

(10:13):
just abysmal in there the voting regulations that they chose.
I would argue that saying that census based upon people
here illegally and rules that prevent illegals from voting fall
into the same high moral category as say the fifteenth Amendment,

(10:37):
which tried to guarantee to the newly freed slaves the
right to vote. That's what I would argue. It's not
simple politics, it's not partisan hackery. It's actually a worthy goal.
For I get that there are partisan benefits that accrue
to the Republicans because of it, but it is a
worthy goal to keep anybody who is in this country

(10:58):
illegally out of our elections, or even out of counting
for congressional districts in our elections.

Speaker 2 (11:05):
So there, Well, let me let me follow up with
John with a particular question. You know, our pal Richard
Epstein has been saying forever that the way he wishes
redistricting were done is you just let a computer do it. Right,
you'd say, especially state like California. Right, you just start
with one corner, and you plug in parameters that say
you try to have contiguous communities and so forth, and

(11:28):
you start one corner and work down the state, and
it wouldn't be hard to satisfy the voting right sack stuff.
Although I think that is a question report the Supreme Court.
Right now, could the federal government mandate that or does
that go beyond what Article one, section four says about
national control of election procedures.

Speaker 4 (11:50):
I don't see why the federal government couldn't do that
under Article one, section four, because anything the state is
doing for federal elections involving time, place, and manner, which
has been read to include control over districts, to even
the right to to pick districting as the process rather than,
as you said, proportional representation or winner take all, is

(12:16):
because of that provision. So everything the state can do
can be overridden by Congress. And the thing the other
thing that worries me about doing it your was, Steve,
is if you open the door to federal regulation of elections,
it would be really hard to run a separate state
election and for several federal regulation. I mean, in a way,

(12:37):
what the federal government does is a piggybacks off of
state elections, which are held much more often for a
lot more offices. And so I think that if the
federal government steps in and says, okay, this is the
election code, including you know what might be sensible measures
that Lucretia would propose. The states will have to adopt
that for all state elections too, because it just would

(12:58):
be twice as expensive to run separate state and federal
election systems, it seems to me, and the federal government
would effectively know that right now, you don't have to
do that. In fact, I think it's the other way
around that the states basically run the elections as they like,
and the federal government the federal elections just sort of
piggyback off of that. This I think would cause the
reverse that the federal elections would have a lot of

(13:19):
influence on how states are going to do their state
elections because they don't want to have to run two systems.
So but I totally computer could easily do it. I
mean a computer could easily set up or you know,
a computer could also produce any outcome you wanted. If
you said you came to California and say, produce a
one hundred to zero representation of Democrats Republicans, it could

(13:42):
do that too, So I would I think that federalism
is a good thing, and why don't why shouldn't we
have states have different election systems, even when it comes to,
you know, trying to figure out ways to prove voter
identity and validity to go to the ballot. The founders
allowed the states to have all kinds of different systems.

Speaker 2 (14:01):
Well, I think it's which system you choose might have
quite a bit of bearing on which party fares better. Right,
So if you went to proportional representation for all fifty states,
let's say we have a magic wand said they all
went to proportional representation, and we did the way the
Europeans many European countries do their parliaments. I think that
probably helps Democrats for the simple reason that they were

(14:24):
our current system. We know that there's some range here
in some differences from state to state, but Democrats have
packed too many of their voters into urban areas and
Republicans voters are more widely dispersed, which is one reason
why until the last couple of elections, Republicans have done
a little better in a number of House seats than

(14:44):
simply a proportional representation might do. So that's so you
can see why nobody wants to.

Speaker 4 (14:51):
Say point out that that's actually something that the Republican
Party has been and cahoots with Democrats under the Voting
Rights Act, because this was something I think I remember
reading this is something that helped Gigrich come to power
in the Contract of America, was in the first Bush administration,
the Justice Department read the Voting Rights Act to allow

(15:14):
it to create these majority minority districts right, which had
a majority in them of minorities, for the purpose of
electing a minority member of Congress, which Justice Thomas i
think an opinion said was outrageous because it assumes everybody
who say black just wants to have a black congressman,
regardless of ideology. But the Bush uspunt did that had

(15:34):
the effect also, as you say, Steve, of pulling all
the minorities out of the suburban districts, making it easier
to lect more Republicans. So everybody loved doing this. Republicans
loved it, Democrats loved it. The only people who lost
out was the American people on the fourteenth Amendment.

Speaker 2 (15:52):
Yes, right, yeah, right, yeah. I mean I've thought for
a long time, and actually was arguing way back then
that in fact, the majority of minority districts was going
to be bad for Democrats. In the fullness of time,
not just because of the overall numbers, but because of
the way its skewed. Uh, you know, the Black Caucus
became more radical because of that. I think anyway, let's

(16:15):
draw this to a close. I'll just give Lucretia unless
you want to jump in on this again, Lucretia, but
I was going to give you some fun news for you.
One argument for keeping the current system sort of is
it would well, I mean, you know, drawing gerrymandering districts
for you know, minority groups or whatever. It would keep
your favorite Democrat, Jasmine Crockett in Congress. And I think

(16:37):
we want her there. I think we want her to
talk as much as possible. Well, there's a great well, look,
I mean, of course, I'm being somewhat facetious, but not entirely.
The New York Post has a big article out about Surprise, surprise, she's.

Speaker 4 (16:50):
An awful boss us a huge, huge, what did you do?

Speaker 1 (16:57):
He's awful to everybody she's That started with the story
about her getting on an airplane and pushing her way
in front of two disabled people because she was too
important to wait behind them. I mean, that's the kind
of person that she is. She treats her staff like
Kamala Harris treated her staff. We had an entire episode
of this podcast about why the why is it that

(17:19):
people on the left, that Democrats especially are just the
most horrible, despicable people when it comes to how they
treat their staff and the people around them. And you
look at someone like Donald Trump.

Speaker 3 (17:30):
Who.

Speaker 1 (17:32):
You know, the people that work for him, The secret
service people love him. The secret service people hated Hillary,
you know, but they were not as regular service secret
service people. Did you see the meme that is so
the uh Trump administration is trying to fire all the

(17:52):
DEI secrets hired secret Service people, and of course you know,
I mean blah blah blah blah blah blah. And so
they ress signed them to Obama and Biden and Clinton,
and of course they pushed back and said no, they
wanted they wanted to qualified people to be their secret
service agents. Anyway, Sorry, that was a little far film

(18:12):
right leftists are just horrible people. There's no way around it.
They are horrible people, and there's no reason to pretend otherwise, Which.

Speaker 3 (18:20):
Is I think this transcends partisan politics because I don't
know about you, Steve. In fact, I'm pretty sure it
is the case. And quick, quick disclaimer. Not a lawyer,
not a constitutional scholar, but there you go. But I
have experience with testifying before various levels of Congress and
parliamentary committees and subcommittees and getting to see them the
politician in its natural environment, that being in its office,

(18:44):
when it's talking to you, its staff, when it thinks
it's in private. And I've seen both leftists, left and
right conservative Democrat, liberal conservative politicians under various situations of
of spontaneity and speaking freely. By the time you reach
that level of power, you're not a nice person. None

(19:06):
of them. I don't know if they're left or right.
Maybe Joe Lieberman I liked him a lot. But still
that level of power, the power corrupts absolutely. And you've
stepped on an awful lot of people. And you know,
I'm not sure that they have a lock on it.
On the left, they're not as good at hiding it. Yeah,
Tamala Harris, they can't hide how they can't hide that

(19:26):
vicious streak.

Speaker 2 (19:27):
Well, I have I have a couple of competing, not competing,
but complimentary theories about why they get that way. A
lot of people go to politics have never managed people before,
and they're bad at it in the ordinary sense, and
then add to a narcissistic personality and they get abusive.
So you know, John McCain had a terrible reputation. Gee,
I wonder why, well, okay, what do you guys talking

(19:50):
about that? Wait a minute. But then on the other hand,
I mean, now, Pat moynihan was never terribly left but
his staff loved it. By the way, you know who
loved their boss, And we're said, we got treated very
well to Kennedy. You wanted to work for Ted Kennedy
and no, never mind all his crazy problems, but he
was not abusive to staff, is what you I mean.

Speaker 4 (20:07):
I've seen I've seen judge you know a lot of
federal judges, and you know, some liberal judges are very nice,
some are mean, Some conservative judges are nice, some are mean.
I don't think so those where I disagree with Lucretia
and our interloper, non legal, non constitutional scholar friend you're
doing on this podcast again anyway, Well, I just think

(20:28):
it's just it's just randomly distributed in the population. I
don't see why being liberal would lead you to be nice.
I totally I agree with Ken on that, but I don't.
But I don't think it has to do with more
power either. I think, you know, they sort of retain
their natures as they go up the letter. Or you know,
you could also say they are poor people who are mean,

(20:49):
and they're poor people who are nice. The harshness of
their conditions might make them meaner.

Speaker 2 (20:54):
Well, let's let's get out with this. I hadn't meant
I was trying to sort of cheer up Lucretian. She
took me too seriously, crashes and burns on the rocks. Well, look,
it's uh, it's sort of the entitlement mentality that gets me.
I mean, you mentioned you pushed by people on the airplane.
One of the details is is that Crockett insists that

(21:17):
her staff rent her, you know, a big black Chevy
suburban every week to drive her around to everything escale
something like that and open the door for and make
it make it look like she's an ambassador some darn thing,
rather than have a staffer driver and a staffer's car,
which is what you know, most members of the House
and Senate to. So so she's very and and you know,
she just wants to make a splash and be a

(21:37):
social media star. She wants to be an influencer. I
guess having a vote in the House is not influence enough.
But anyway, so I kind of want to have that
kind of person around because I think it causes problems for.

Speaker 3 (21:50):
I would say one should never trust the person whose
eyelashes can course cause tropical storms.

Speaker 4 (21:56):
And with then you don't Ken, you don't get out
enough because I have the opposite.

Speaker 2 (22:03):
Well, with that, Ken, let's let's turn to you. So
you know, you wrote a piece for us about the
end of the Endangerment finding, which does involve a certain
statute that John U bans me from saying.

Speaker 4 (22:13):
Yeah, why do you keep talking about this?

Speaker 2 (22:15):
Well only because well, first of all, and then Lucretia
would like to, I think draw you out further on
a particular paragraph where you talked about maybe there's a
parallel that ought to be taken in by the Maha
faction of the Maga world. I guess we say that, right.
But before we do that, before I turn you over
to Lucretia's tender mercies, who's a sample of which you

(22:38):
have seen already here in the first fifteen minutes. Let's
put it this way, there's a dog that's not barking
right now. Partly I want to joke that the Liberals
are run out of dog whistles to use over Sidney Sweeney.
But the dog's not barking right now, is I don't
see the hysteria protests in the street, you know, lugubrious

(23:01):
speeches on the House and Senate floor about the move
on the Engagement Finding. I don't see the wailing and
gnashing of teeth over the one big beautiful bill pretty
much cutting the heart out of a Biden stupid energy
and win subsidies. And I think they're polling numbers show
that why people didn't like all that stuff, and they
probably agree that getting rid of a lot of it.

(23:22):
So let's try a question like John McLachlan used to do.
Is the climate colt over so on a scale of
one to ten, ten being it's over, what number would
you give it for the sort of long term story
arc of the climate cult?

Speaker 3 (23:39):
I'd say it's actually still about a six, and that's
because of entrenched financial interests really more than anything else.
With med what you were talking about that you know,
we're not seeing a huge amount of tearing rending of
garments and tearing out of hair over endangerment or over
some other regulatory rollbacks and things. I think it's not

(23:59):
because of the same people aren't just as insane about
the issue as they would have been before. It is
that right now they're immersed in other insane issues such
as gaza to point it out, but also because of
the stupefication of discourse over the last since Trump won,
we've had a profound hollowing out of actual any willingness
to read virtually anything involving policy, law or actual principle

(24:22):
or philosophy. It's all purely emotive. And so when you
talk about in danger finding, nobody has been willing for
the last five years. And who are the all of
these advocates who are out there weeping and wailing and
moaning and gnashing their teeth. None of them are willing
to actually even read the summary of what the endangerment
finding is or understand that there's a Clean Air Act
and it has ramifications. And they don't know what a

(24:44):
dingle is other than the opposite of a dongle, right,
so they're not quite sure. They don't know where this
endangering thing came from and what it means, and so
they don't know how to push back into it other
than basically revert to, you know, while Trump did it,
therefore Trump evil must be bad. But they don't. They
don't have a mechanism to engage it because it's like

(25:07):
engagement finding. I don't understand what that means. I don't
I don't know what you know?

Speaker 2 (25:12):
Can I mention one interesting fact? Actually it's two examples,
but one factor points to So one of the reasons
we went down this path is you remember, well from
the Waxman Markie Bill of two thousand and nine and ten.

Speaker 3 (25:25):
Right, So here's the thing.

Speaker 2 (25:27):
That thing went down in flames in the Senate, after
which they said, oh, I guess we have to use
another statute. But the Waxman Markey bill went I went
back and looked this up and confirmed this. It had
interim targets for emissions reduction goals for the year twenty twenty. That's,
you know, the end of Trump's first term. Guess what
we made those targets without the Waxman Markey bill. Okay,

(25:48):
fast forward to Obama's Clean Power Planet came out in
what twenty fifteen or so. It had interim reduction targets
for the year twenty thirty, which we made in twenty
nineteen under the first term of President Trump. That thing
never went into action, right, the Supreme Court blocked it.
The point is, we actually reduced emissions of greenhouse gases

(26:11):
without a splashy signing ceremony on the White House lawn.
And for a certain cast of liberal mind, there's no
progress without a splashy signing ceremony on the White House lawn.
Of course, you and I know the real reasons for this.
It's because gas got so cheap from fracking, which the
Greens hate. Right, if they could get a time machine,
they would ban they would go back and strangle baby

(26:34):
maybe Hitler, Frakker and the cradle.

Speaker 5 (26:36):
Right.

Speaker 3 (26:37):
But there we are, So I don't know how ill
it was that we were. I read about this, was
ready about this, and it was a common motif and
amongst our peers on the right side of the spectrum
or libertarian at the time when there was some overlap
still who understood that decarbonization and de materialization of the
economy in a capitalist economy would naturally reduce the greenhouse

(26:59):
gas mission. This over time, along with other pollutants and
Therefore the regulations specifying exactly how that's to be done
and what time are unnecessary at a hindrance to the
natural discovery process of markets. But as as there you
go see, no ceremonies, no progress as far as the
left is concerned, you know, every politician loves a ribbon cutting,

(27:21):
and none of them like the allocation for maintenance of
the highway. They just cut the ribbon on. Yeah, but
they also won't impose tolls to pay for it. So
it's like it's a ribbon cuttings or everybody loves ribbon cutting,
everybody hates it a let's fix.

Speaker 2 (27:33):
The bridge or right put it as they love ribbon cuttings,
but they don't like to cut red tape. They'll cut
a red ribbon, but not red tape. Well, last thing
I'll do, and I'm gonna turn you over to Lucretia,
is you know, give a plug to your book from
It's an only in Goldie, Yeah, years ago. But the
title is I'm just showing it on the screen, listeners.
It's it's a kens little book. Is abundant energy the

(27:53):
fuel of human flourishing. It's a nice little short. I
guess you could probably still find.

Speaker 3 (27:57):
Us, but it's unlike my leader one which needs me
to That's right.

Speaker 2 (28:02):
In any case, I think the interesting thing here is
the title Abundant Energy, the fuel of human flourishing. Guess
who's saying that now? It's always abundance liberals. So even
if the book itself may be a little dated in
some ways, the ideas are suddenly very current, and that's
kind of, you know, vindication at last for our.

Speaker 3 (28:19):
Side, finally, right, Every once in a while you get
some recognition.

Speaker 2 (28:22):
Right, all right, Lucretia, you you were provoked that never
happens by some of Ken's comments, which were very brief,
and so I thought you should draw him out on it,
and then you guys should go back and forth a
little bit, and then John and I will referee and
pick you guys up off the mat or something.

Speaker 1 (28:38):
So I'm not sure John can even speak to this
whole thing, because I don't think John knows how to
eat of food that's not alto processed.

Speaker 2 (28:44):
I know, I was gonna say. The irony here is John,
you can't drive by McDonald's without getting, you.

Speaker 4 (28:49):
Know, dump on fast foods. Now, I'm leaving, got the covered.

Speaker 1 (28:59):
No, I did not and I did not dump on
Ken either, But Ken had this little throwaway line about that,
you know, the climate science is bunk, It has been
mostly bunked for a long time. Ninety seven percent of
scientists agree, blah blah blah, all this nonsense. And you
can't you can't publish in the climate change world, at

(29:22):
least not until very recently, if you didn't buy into
the entire whole scam.

Speaker 2 (29:29):
John just slashing a bag of cheetohs depends.

Speaker 4 (29:32):
And I'm now going to proceed to eat them, guys,
all right, So so.

Speaker 1 (29:38):
But then there's this little throwaway line that basically relegated
Maha and make America healthy again, and the recent preoccupation
with ultra processed foods, artificial ingredients, seed oils. I don't
think you mentioned seed oils. You think you said Steve
forgot that part. Let's see artificial coloring, et cetera, et cetera,

(30:04):
That that this was all a scam, very much like
the climate change uh science. And there's my scare quotes
everybody that's listening and can't see me. And I took
a little issue with that, And then it seemed when
we went back and forth that we were actually agreeing
a little bit more than we were disagreeing, which was
that I agree with you that nutrition science is really

(30:26):
just my opinion is it's it's it's want to be therapists.
That is what it comes down to.

Speaker 3 (30:32):
So I guess I should clarify first.

Speaker 6 (30:33):
So I am a science guy by training bachelors in
bio masters and molecular genetics, doctorate environmental science and engineering,
and I hew very very tightly in my in my
belief about what is science to the hard science that.

Speaker 3 (30:48):
Is mechanistic, that is deterministic, uh and and the reproducible early, reproducible, empirical.
Everything else I don't think deserves the term science. Right,
So if you get much beyond chemistry, I don't really
want to hear about. I don't want you don't there's
social sciences that's an oxymoron states and social science, anthropology
of science, no sociology, no archaeology. No. If you're not

(31:10):
talking to me in terms of chemistry or biology, or
and only the part you know, Like I said, I
have one two degrees of biology, only the hard parts
of biology. Don't talk to me about ecosystems and stuff.
I understand emergent function and amongst emergent orders and things
like that. But since you can't talk about them without probabilities,
I don't want you telling me what to do based
on your theory about that right, if you don't have

(31:32):
a deterministic outcome, I don't care. What I was getting
at in my faraway line, which wasn't really throwaway, is
that conservatives who were who were literally five years ago
saying sound science, sound science and pillarying the climate people
because they were relying upon utterly lame garbage epidemiological models,

(31:52):
climate models, and biological models of various sorts and amospheric models.
These same people now are saying, oh my god, you
must act over the seed oil crisis because I've got
equally crappy garbage publications and the models showing claiming to
show that seed oils are bad with not a single
lick of evidence anybody could point to. And the same

(32:13):
with the other mahats and many of the other maha things.
They're using the same heard, they're using the same nonscience
as they were pillarying literally so long ago. The echo
may not have died yet in their sound systems on
their computers and their telephones, and that just drives me
a little bit crazy, right because it just tells me
that to me, what it says is you're a you're

(32:35):
not sincere, and or they may not know what they're
talking about, or well, in Robert Kennedy Junior's case, I
never trusted it because I crossed stories with him and
writing many many moons ago and on issues of environmental
things where this is my personal opinion. Well, I won't
say he lied through his teeth, but what he said

(32:55):
was known to me to be at odds with reality. Hey,
so so you know, yeah, So anyway, that's that's my story,
which is, you know, it's fine to say I don't
like seed oils. There's there's a popular chef out and
he's like a magniac about seed oils and I won't
say his name, conservative, and but he's gone on on
about seaed ois and I occasionally said, you know, you

(33:17):
have no evidence for saying this, and you shouldn't be
making health claims about things, especially as you're a chef,
if you can't back them up with something robustly scientific.
And if he said, well, you know, I don't. I'm
not against sea oils because that I'm against because he
tastes that crap. And I said, well, finally you have
a reason for it to disagree. Okay, fine, if you
don't like seed oils because you don't like him, don't
eat them. That's great, But don't make these arguments.

Speaker 1 (33:42):
Nobody's talking about banning them. I would just love to
be able to go into a grocery store and buy
some food. Well I can't. I don't go into the
grocery store and do anything but buy what you what
did you? How did you put it? The process? It
would be at the processed level of food, because if
h ear of corn is is processed, then a can

(34:07):
of corn is more processed, and a bag of Cheetos
is ultra processed.

Speaker 3 (34:14):
I looked up yesterday. In fact, there's a European guideline
that talks about this, yes and what defining because there
actually is the definition of what ultra process is. But
and it would include John, I'm sorry, would include your doritos,
but not because they're ultra processed and what I would
consider to be a chemical way compared to say, if
I got a potato at home, slice it up and

(34:35):
put it into into two oil regular regular oil, that
I've gotten. It's considered ultra process because it's made commercially
at bulk and packaged and you can pull it out
of the package like that and shove it in your face.
It's ready if you look at you.

Speaker 4 (34:53):
Can I just say, can I read the ingredients here?
A rich corn meal, sulf ferrous sulfate and nice in
thim in, mono trait ribo flint foot. This makes me hungry.
I don't know what you guys are complaining about.

Speaker 2 (35:06):
Well, well, can I ask a can this a good
general question here? Because it's I think makes us then
proceed through the through some of the lists here in
seed oil, processed foods, fruit, high fruit, coast whatever.

Speaker 3 (35:20):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (35:20):
So actually let's start with you, ken, why have Americans
gotten fatter? I mean, I mean, it's monstrably true that
we've all gotten fatter in the last thirty forty years.
My view is, as part of that is we quit smoking.

Speaker 1 (35:33):
Oh I wonder I'm smoking and fat.

Speaker 3 (35:39):
That there's a meme on that which is, you know,
why are Americans so why are they not like this anymore?
It's got a picture of the nineteen sixties, and my
joke is basically, well, methamphetamine, cigarettes and nicodine and alcohol
and instead of eating intead of food. I lost a
bunch of weight on a on one of the samatatide basically,
but I use so I used to feel as a

(36:01):
heavy guy. I used to justify it by saying I'm
heavy because I haven't got the ratio of my food's right,
eating too many carbs, I'm eating not enough fat. I
meant too much of this, dude. The reason we're getting
fat is because we're taking in more calories than we're
than we're putting out. The old the old guidelines are right.
It is more or less calories than calories out. And
we're rich and food is cheap, and there's nothing stopping

(36:23):
us from and doing it. We're not active, we don't
we we don't walk to work each day, we don't
walk to school. We don't spend most of our time
on our feet doing shift work that's in moving, involving
physical labor. And so you know, we're we're we are
what they call ad libidum. We're eating freely. Uh. And
the result of that is evolution didn't give us an

(36:44):
off switch with regard to the strategic clipper reserve. Uh.
Many of us. Uh and uh with those of now mind,
you will be the ones laughing during the famine, because
you know, we'll be eating on the residuals of those
who don't know. No, no, no, no no no.

Speaker 1 (36:58):
We those of us, but the heavy arsenals will be
the ones eating during the samo.

Speaker 2 (37:04):
Yeah right, well right, I mean there's this, I mean
a headline from a couple of days ago on the
Wall Street Journal that half of America's caloric intake is
now through processed foods and more I have. Well, okay,
but the point is it's a lot, and you know,
it's like going through I have to confess John likes
his Cheetos. I love Kraft macaroni and cheese, which is
probably some of the worst thing possible to do.

Speaker 3 (37:26):
Right, let's talk about this, right, okay, So processed foods.
Let's say we don't believe in processed foods. What is left?
What is left the outside of the supermarket, your fruits, vegetables,
and frozen foods and meats and eat and dairy maybe
maybe dairy maybe yes. The guy, by the way, the
guidelines a lot don't consider things like yogurt to be processed.

(37:48):
Fermentation to be considered processed. They allow fermentation. So it's
one of my jokes, which is, you don't want soybean oil, right, No,
we eat soy sauce. Yes, okay, that's fermenting soybeans. We
eat soybeans, sure, but you don't, like, you don't want
some you oil? Why? Okay, I have no idea why.
But but if you think about what well food, what

(38:10):
do you have left? You have these outside of the supermarket,
but prior to refrigeration, you don't even have that. And
that's why you don't have much in the way of vegetables.
You don't have much in the way of frozen foods.
You don't have much in the way you have canned foods,
some canning, which is is a long time ago, which
is processing. Right, So you're it's like when when people

(38:33):
they get down on processed foods. And I watch a
lot of cooking programs, as I said, like, oh my god,
why are you using this? Why are you using this
prepared pasta? Though instead of making your own? It's like,
I don't know, why didn't you go the wheat for yours?
Maybe you should have tilled the field in which the
week was growing to grow the wheat and know the
wheat to make your pizza. Though, why didn't you do that?
Why because I don't have time and I don't have
the energy, and it's not gonna bean and no.

Speaker 2 (38:54):
Because of wickered v philburn is the real reason.

Speaker 3 (38:56):
That's without Suss foods, you'd have almost nothing to eat.
You'd have remarketing little choice in what you ate.

Speaker 1 (39:05):
Yes, and that's where you got.

Speaker 3 (39:07):
Processed foods were so such a huge advancement for human
society and social development, except.

Speaker 1 (39:13):
That the problem is is that you're in the United States.
The processed foods are not just ultra process but they
have extraordinary numbers of weird, unnecessary chemicals that for some reason,
our European friends don't have. I was at lunch with
my surgeon friend the other day and she had been
having dinner with a guy who worked for Nestli's, a

(39:36):
chemist who worked for Nestl's. His one job was to
research chemicals that would make their food more addictive.

Speaker 2 (39:44):
That was his job.

Speaker 1 (39:45):
That's what he admitted to. They put so much crap
in our food in the United States. If they're not
even allowed to put in I'm not saying that they
should decide to stop selling seed oil stuffed I'd just
like to have options, and I think that the emphasis
on all of these things has actually made it possible
to have options in the meantime. You know what, other

(40:06):
than I don't grow in my own wheat, but I
do import my flour. I don't buy baked goods. I
buy meat. I don't buy anything that's already cooked or
in a can or frozen anymore. I grow, I have
a garden, and I'm healthy.

Speaker 3 (40:24):
I am.

Speaker 1 (40:25):
I'm the healthiest sixty five year old you ever want
to meet, because.

Speaker 3 (40:30):
It's equally likely that your genetics or why you're healthy
and just as healthy.

Speaker 1 (40:34):
Maybe, but I'm twice as old as both my parents
put together how long they lived. I never met my grandparents,
so maybe I have the genetic I don't have any
There's not a living relative that's not a child of
mine left on the planet, So whatever genetic makeup I
got didn't work for other people.

Speaker 2 (40:53):
The great discussion to.

Speaker 4 (40:54):
Have, but I mean, like the shooting and knife things
had something to do with that.

Speaker 3 (41:00):
You don't need frozen things, well, frozen fish is vastly
superior to Yeah, you're right, I do. I do I
only eat frozen fish if you're eating fish in the
United States, uh, and you you know, in Alaska. And
it's also many vegetables are proving to be better for you.
Frozen peas and things like that. They have more nutrient value,
they're flash frozen at ripeness, they're they're Therefore you're right.

Speaker 1 (41:23):
I said that I don't buy hungry man dinners.

Speaker 3 (41:28):
Oh well, yeah, I don't need too small.

Speaker 2 (41:30):
So that's John, You're gonna jump in there them the sun.
I mean, John, you.

Speaker 4 (41:35):
Would I know what's wrong with hungry man dinners now?
I mean, how much of this assault on America is
going to go on? How much cream, all this foreign
wheat buying going on?

Speaker 2 (41:48):
This people?

Speaker 3 (41:50):
I think we're killed by the cobbler and those hungry
man dinners, perhaps several major wars.

Speaker 2 (41:55):
Well you know, uh, you know, given your support Creatia
for Trump's tariff policy, this is gonna bite you perhaps,
But but John, you know something came back to me
when you were celebrating the label on your Cheetos and
I don't want to press on another aspect of this,
and that took me back to again my old mentor
Stan Evans. Too bad you never met him, because you
guys would have been simpatico. He used to like to

(42:17):
pick up a loaf of wonderbread because everybody was down
on wonderbread. Right. Well, see, he would say in his little,
his little he was saying his u, he would say
in his Tennessee for awl, he'd say, wonderbread. They add
twenty eight different chemicals to make us all healthier and better.

(42:40):
It was worse, all right.

Speaker 4 (42:44):
Someone why they do it?

Speaker 1 (42:46):
Because they don't do it in other places. And that's
why talk to anybody.

Speaker 4 (42:51):
They go.

Speaker 1 (42:52):
You spend a week in Italy, and you eat from
morning till night, and you even if I get you
walk a little more.

Speaker 2 (42:59):
I get that, it's a lot more, I think. But yeah,
but I walk.

Speaker 1 (43:03):
My little smart watch tells me that on any given
day I walk seven to eight miles. So don't tell me.

Speaker 3 (43:12):
You traveled to and from hauling things around the airports
and engaging in unnatural activity levels bracketing your visit to
and from Italy, which advertise out over your week in
Italy adds up to several hundred calories a day probably
that you expended, well, okay, traveled.

Speaker 4 (43:27):
All those foreign countries are better than us. I can't
stand listening to this anymore. What has happened to this podcast?
You know the food?

Speaker 2 (43:38):
Yeah, well it is way better, John. Do I have
to give away your secret? The year at the gym
every morning for like three hours before the sun comes
up and right so that you can just eat all
the McDonald's sloppy welcome.

Speaker 4 (43:49):
But when I see those emails of yours come from
your sub stack, I go to the gym because it's
going to take me hours to understand what the hell
you're talking about. Sometimes you're talking about beautiful women and jeans,
then talking about genetic theory. Now we're talking about the
Cleaner Act, and like all civilization is going to pot
because you're attacking America and it's food. One more thing to.

Speaker 1 (44:09):
Say, though, One more thing, Steve, I just want to
I want to put this out there. I'm not like
this huge fan of RFK. What what you do have
to admit, though, is that the establishment reaction to him
is so profound and negative that makes me wonder. For instance,
when he says that he believes that there could be

(44:29):
a correlation between measles, vaccines, and and autism. Okay, we
don't know what causes autism. He had a brilliant answer
to somebody who says, we, oh, we're just diagnosing it more.
He said, how many how many people my age do
you know have autism? How many people my age do
you know are completely.

Speaker 4 (44:49):
Ancoraus excluding himself, he probably does.

Speaker 1 (44:53):
But but but okay again, I'm not I'm not pretending
science here, not at all. What I am saying is
so much has been couched in terms of science that
we aren't allowed to question, just like we weren't allowed
to question climate changes. Vaccines are no longer subject to

(45:13):
blind tests, the vaccines that they give to children, they're not.
And the idea that he's shaking up that industry makes
me very, very happy. I remember when my thirty five
year old daughter was going in she was probably two
months old, for vaccines, and they wanted me to give
her a hepatitis B vaccine and I said why, well,

(45:36):
because it's you know, it's a good And I said no,
I mean, it's so stupid the number of vaccines they
give children nowadays, and who stands to lose by that?

Speaker 3 (45:48):
But I don't have a problem with Robert Kennedy, and
you're disrupting things. I don't have to like the nature
of my disruptor. It's kind of like Ghostbusters. I don't
actually have to like the form of the destructor to
enjoy destruction. I mean, let them go in and cause
misery to the to the to pharma, and to the
vaccine people. Personally, I think I think they did more
to destroy belief or the utility of science and public

(46:10):
policy during the period of COVID than in the entire
history of science and medicine. And it's unforgivable what was done.
Perhaps the biggest lie of all though, was in there.
Is is associated with the phrase is associated with This
is associated with that. Consumption of seed oils is associated
with warmer They all cause mortality. The vaccines are associated

(46:32):
Having taken a vaccine is associated with autism data Why
is associated with is like it is the number one
lie phrase of no offense John lawyers and politicians. It's
guilt by association right literally, it's it's mcartheism. This is

(46:52):
associated with that? Okay, well, there's a website devoted to
making these correlations that are It's absolutely hilarious. The number
of raw bananas eat in a year compared with the
number of divorces of celebrities, and you can ask you
to show these correlations. There's ninety nine percent perfect correlations
statistically significant to X, you know the N degree. And

(47:13):
it's like, but it's completely insane to think that they're
actually related to banana consumption in Gambia and divorce in
North Dakota. So I mean, that's what the nature are
of Kay. Again, it's exactly what I'm saying. Not ten
years not five years ago, he was attacking. He was
promoting ridiculous environmental policies and ridiculous climate policies that were

(47:36):
unbelieva would have been unbelievably destructive to individual rights and
liberties and economic freedom, were completely unsubstantiable on scientific grounds
in any way, shape or form. Even going a little
beyond Ken's chemistry, still not defensible. And now they and
pretty much most people on the right knew that and

(47:57):
said this is such garbage. And now he's part of
the administration, is like, oh, well, it's okay that he's
doing the same thing with a different hat on.

Speaker 2 (48:04):
Well, well, can I just say that. I mean, I
have had fun with this, but there's a serious point
behind it, which is, first of all, only Trump could
make Democrats hay to Kennedy right, And I wonder ken
if we were mishearing. I mean I was offered twice
the opportunity to bait him twenty years ago and I refused.
Once by NPR invited me. I said hell no. But
I thought maybe I wasn't listening when he was attacking

(48:26):
big oil. Maybe he was saying big seed oil right,
the progression things. But look, there is this to be
said about it, And you kind of hinted the sympathy
with this, which is not just that he's a disruptor
and boy do things and need disrupting and you know,
as a necessary reform, but he's also just as a
political matter which just isn't pure politics. He has given
voice and really very shrewd of Trump in some ways

(48:48):
to attract his endorsement of people who are I won't
say distance, but are unhappy with the state of things,
with the compulsory nature of vaccines. I mean, some people,
I think it's a small number, but some people really
do have harsh reactions to vaccines. And we were talking,
as you point out, five years ago, of making it
mandatory to take the COVID vaccine, requiring covid vaccine passports

(49:11):
to go anywhere, right, And you know, I myself have
always taken the flu vaccine. It's never bothered me. The
covid vaccine, I really did feel it and right and
that so that was a new experience for me. And anyway,
I don't know.

Speaker 4 (49:26):
So look, I take, I take. I fully accept the
attack on lawyers, and that's all RFK Junior is. He's
a lawyer and actually on this autism vaccine thing, it
was the first study that was published that was the
product of these plaintiffs lawyers, and science corrected for it
and showed there was no link and forced the retraction

(49:48):
of the first study was done.

Speaker 3 (49:51):
No, no, I know it.

Speaker 4 (49:52):
But I think that's like I don't trust this guy
to be I'm not saying, you know that doctor Fauci
is free of you know, any kind of blame. But
I honestly think the mr NA vaccine was a god.
I mean, it's a great benefit that that technologies was
used for the production of a vaccine in a year.

Speaker 3 (50:12):
I mean that kind of length John another show, But.

Speaker 4 (50:15):
I just but I think, like to attack, I mean
to trust RFK Junior, who's living was on promoting these
theories to bring lawsuits against drug manufacturers. I just can't
trust this guy as being in charge of Health and
Humans Service.

Speaker 2 (50:29):
Just mentions a point of information for listeners who may
not know what that's. The famous study on the vaccine
autism link was by that guy named Wakefield in England,
published in The Lancet, which was thought to be a
very journal, very top journal at the time. Oh yeah,
they've trusted the reputation. But it took ten years for
that to get fully retracted. So for a long time

(50:51):
you had the Lancet backing up these ideas, and there's
you know, I mean, I have to say whatever RFK
any the else's track record, the through that part of
the medical world has because so discredited himself even before
COVID that it's hard to uh, you know, Gainsay, RFK
or anybody else saying hey, wait a minute, we don't

(51:11):
trust you people.

Speaker 3 (51:12):
Well I will. I will since Steve, what one thing
I've said this before about Trump? And we talked about
this back when Trump one was coming out, which is
people would ask me, you know, what what do you
think about Trump? And I'd say which one? Because there's
five of them, right, there's the there's the huckster, there's
the manager, there's the the showman, there's there, there's the
hiring hiring officer, there's the family, and nd which one

(51:35):
because they're all different. But what he did have was
he had the.

Speaker 2 (51:38):
Finger to see the dissatisfied.

Speaker 3 (51:40):
His gift was that he could put his finger on
the dissatisfaction of a large swath of people, and intuitively
in his head, because I don't think he actually has
the mental capability of this, but he did the numbers
and he figured out, I can assemble the mass of
these people who have these dissatisfactions and form them into
a coherent movement. For me, yeah, really, for me, it's
trump Ism, not not on principles, just they're dissatisfied on

(52:04):
these things, and all he does is service to the dissatisfactions.
That's that's his need, that's his role in life. Is
he's built his cheering section, he's built his base, and
now he will service his base. I think Kennedy has
gotten better at that in a quantum way by moving
to the health stuff, because it's so nebulous. Nobody can
actually contradict them on anything, because there's no science there

(52:25):
at all. Whereas in vaccines and environment and energy, there
he could be contradicted on the grounds of fact. He's
in nutrition, you're in a completely fact free environment. But
he has identified a group of people who are unhappy
with modernity. I don't want vaccines, I don't want pills.
There there, they're reasonably skeptical and cynical about drug companies

(52:49):
and dietary advice and all that thing, that kind of thing,
and they're looking for somebody to say give voice just
to their inco hate dissatisfactions, which is what Trump did.
And yeah, I'll give Kennedy credit for that, but that's
the charisma of a politician that he inherited from his clan.
Right doesn't mean that some.

Speaker 1 (53:07):
Of the stuff that he's talking about isn't absolutely correct.
And so today it came out that the government is
not going to be subsidizing mRNA na's any longer. That
it's not banning them, it's not stopping them, it's not
subsidizing them. So if they're so great and all that
science you've got out there, Ken tells us that they're
so effective, I am sure that the pharmaceutical companies can

(53:32):
go ahead and make their billions anyway, So.

Speaker 3 (53:35):
This one's in my wheelhouse. I was living up in
Socialist Canada at the time of COVID and pulling my
hair out when I heard people speaking about it, because
the first words out of anybody's mouth was that we
have it. We're going to declare war on COVID. We're
going to kill this virus. And it's like, and I
just was screaming at the television, thinking, are you completely insane?
We're going to beat this gravity thing. For God's sake,

(53:58):
We're just going to stop this orbit of dine stuff.
We don't like it and all. It's like, what kind
of fruit loop thinks you can actually control the virus
in the wild. You have to be utterly deranged, dancing
on one foot crazy fried egg on the forehead nuts.
So I looked it up and I just did the
research on the mr ANDA vaccine. I didn't want to

(54:18):
take one. I took to Johnson and Johnson just for
caveat the one shot Johnson and Johnson because it's actually
not the same kind of m RNA vaccine as the others.
It's a different, different technology. I didn't trust the others
because I looked into the technology in the way that
the mRNA is distributed in the body, and I came
to the conclusion that it's a bad idea. It designates

(54:40):
your own tissues as the enemy to your own immune system.
I have an autoimmune problem already. I have soriotic arthritis.
I figured that's pretty it's bad to make that worse.
So I'm not I'm not a big fan of mRNA vaccines,
but I think they Nonetheless, the technology itself has a
huge profit. I blamed the industry for trying to capitalize
on it and profit heer on it and cut short
make shortcuts and end run the regulatory process in order

(55:04):
to get it out fast opportunistically for a virus that
was not what it was portrayed as being.

Speaker 2 (55:09):
I okay, I I think you agree with most of that, Lucretia,
I think, right, okay, Well, yeah, I don't.

Speaker 1 (55:18):
Want to beat it to death. I just want I say,
you know, I take everything RFK says with a grain
of salt, just like I take well, I did more
than that with Fauci, but I assumed everything he said
was a lie, and then unless it could be proven otherwise.

Speaker 2 (55:36):
But all right, well that's this has been a great
exchange and maybe we'll do some more ken because we're
gonna get you more on substack and stuff, and we're
gonna we're gonna another sci fi episode with John, and
I think Lucretia won't care about that at all. John,
do you have a last word here before we go
to a close.

Speaker 4 (55:51):
All I can say is this has made me extremely hungry,
and I'm have to look for htos to doritos, which
I also have here. So thank you Lucretia for sparking
my appetite for man made, highly processed foods. I'm gonna
stop buy Safe Way and see if they even so.
I haven't even seen a hungry man dinner since I
was for thirty five forty years ago.

Speaker 2 (56:12):
But I'm gonna, damn well gonna go find one.

Speaker 4 (56:14):
I'm gonna eat one of Lucretia's honor this weekend.

Speaker 3 (56:16):
Because Steve puts us late in the day. I won't
be cooking good tonight. We'll be ordering from Tariaki Madness
more than likely, so I'm afraid to ask how process
there Tariaki sauces?

Speaker 2 (56:25):
Right? All right, Lucretia, you got any germane Babylon bees
on this stuff? There's got to be something somewhere. But yeah,
we'll just give us a couple.

Speaker 1 (56:33):
We didn't get to everything. But Texas begins construction on
northern border wall to keep Democrat lawmakers from returning.

Speaker 3 (56:41):
Right, yeah, that one's pretty good.

Speaker 1 (56:45):
The top two greatest things about Sydney Sweeney. She's made
in the image of God. She's someone's future wife.

Speaker 3 (56:55):
The top you I know you did.

Speaker 4 (57:03):
You're just showing that she clicked on the story to
see what they were.

Speaker 1 (57:11):
It's all true, you know, news happened so fast. But
this one's still I think relevant. Secret service in awe
as Trump walks on moderately sloped roof.

Speaker 2 (57:24):
Oh yeah, that was fun. Right, yeah, that was be
that meme for the ages now too. Yeah.

Speaker 1 (57:30):
As midterm campaigns ramp up across the country, insiders revealed
that the Republican Party is searching insane asylums for next
popular female politician. You gotta love There was a great.

Speaker 3 (57:44):
Movie about that. It was with Dudley Moore, The mad
was it not mad Man, it was they were all
in the executives in an insane asylum. It was they
did that crazy ads for things like jaguar.

Speaker 2 (57:57):
Oh, I don't I think vaguer. Remember that? Yeah, last one?

Speaker 1 (58:02):
Oh, I got a couple real quick. Okay, Well this
is from Away. I just want a way to know
that Away is a the name of an email account.
W n b A warns if you throw anything on
the court, you will be forced to attend ten more
and w n b A games Right. So this one, okay,

(58:26):
this one's This one's for Ken and his correlation. Uh
you called it association historians warn Hitler also once stood on.

Speaker 3 (58:35):
Roof that one needs a horror cord m right, right.

Speaker 1 (58:44):
Last one, So I promise Trump jerrymanders us to include Canada.

Speaker 4 (58:53):
I won't defend my Canadian friends, all right, John, always
drink your whiskey. We still have nothing to put after that?
And Steve, what strange AI generated poetry? Have you been
digging into this?

Speaker 2 (59:09):
Yeah? Okay, So here's another stanza from chat GPT writing
about the three Whiskey how happy Hour in the style
of Lewis Carroll and Lo. Three hosts in spirited chat
with subtle disdain for this or that, a lawyer, a scholar,
and rogue on the rise all sip through the madness
with mirth in their eyes. Bye, everybody, see you next week.

Speaker 5 (59:33):
They asked me through the years why I shed these teas, I,
of course replied, when you live in Van Nuys, small
debts in your arms. I thought I'd play it wise, so.

Speaker 4 (59:55):
I closed my eyes.

Speaker 5 (59:59):
What do you say, pose When both my eyes I close,
Smog gets in my nose. I went to price an
anti smog device to put behind my car, but all
too quick the smog became so thick I could not
find my car. Ten million cars provide carbon monoxide. If

(01:00:30):
they don't drive a horse, there'd be no smog, of course,
but there'd be something worse.

Speaker 3 (01:00:39):
In your eyes.

Speaker 4 (01:00:48):
Ricochet join the conversation.