The Three Whisky Happy Hour: Woman Troubles?

Helen Andrews' Compact article on "The Great Feminization" is causing a stir, provoking responses from left, right, and in-between. And I just know that everyone wants to hear David French's take on it, because how can we form a judgment about anything without hearing from the Conscience of the World. (Actually, just go with the normally mild-mannered Charles Murray's take: "I'm still waiting to read something by David French that doesn't irritate me. Even when I agree with the substance, the sanctimony drives me nuts. In this case, I wholly disagree with his take on Helen Andrews.")

John Yoo files a dissent of his own that Steve and Lucretia find worthy of certain members of the Supreme Court just now, but keep your eyes out on this one; Steve, naturally, has an analogy on offer.

The gang also wonders if some Chinese lab has come up with a new, more potent strain of Trump Derangement Syndrome, because how else can you explain how insane Trump-haters are over . . . a White House ballroom? (You can guess the exit music this week. Yup, it's that 1970s standard, "Ballroom Blitz" by Sweet.)

We end with a few sober thoughts about health care, and then it's back to arguing about . . . neckties. 

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:02):
Well, whiskey, come and take my pain. Honeys my ry,
oh whiskey. Don't why 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 where the lapped it up? And David,

(00:27):
ain't you busy on the show? Tap you gotta giving?
And let that whiskey flo It's the three Whiskey Happy
Hour with your three bartenders. I had a Gen and
tonic earlier because I am dehydrated from flying on airplanes
all day from Mississippi. More about that in a moment.
But Hi Lucretia, Hi John, what are you guys using
to celebrate the end of the week with the.

Speaker 2 (00:49):
Task of a monteato? Ha?

Speaker 1 (00:52):
Right right? And John, you're still doing a lot of
media tonight, so you probably can't enjoy your show on TV.

Speaker 3 (00:57):
So I'm contrary to what people believe, I am not
drunk when I'm on TV. Well, you know, maybe on
this podcast.

Speaker 1 (01:05):
Yes, well you know. I think I have told the
story before of getting advice from a well known public
speaker never to have a drink before you're doing a
public appearance, and it was PJ. O'Rourke of all people, right,
a man for whom there was no illicit substance. He
hadn't tried, right, He was.

Speaker 3 (01:24):
Like to be smoked, didn't he like smoke during things?

Speaker 1 (01:26):
And well, yes, smoking is different than drinking. He said,
don't drink before you speak. And you know he's the
guy who hung out with Thompson. Right, So it's.

Speaker 2 (01:35):
Smoking doesn't do anything to alter your state of mind.

Speaker 1 (01:38):
Well, wait a minute, nicotine is good for that. You
know that you were a smokerlone.

Speaker 2 (01:43):
No, no, no, no, you don't get any kind of
You don't get the effects of an aberration. You don't
get hallucinogenic effects. You might get just a little bit.

Speaker 1 (01:52):
Of a why bother?

Speaker 3 (01:53):
Then why bother?

Speaker 2 (01:55):
Because first you get a kind of energy you get
at the same time you get calming effects from it.
You know my great story about the priest at Lent
who's coming back at two o'clock in the morning, the
worst part of Chicago, middle of winter, and some guy
sticks a gun adimsy, just give me your wallet. So
he opens up his overcoat and and it sees that

(02:18):
the robber sees his collar and uh, he said, oh, oh, father,
I'm so sorry. I had no idea. You're a priest.
Don't put your wallet back. Put your wallet back. And
the priest reaches in for his cigarettes and offers the
robber a cigarette, you know, because you're nervous and it
calms me down. That's the point. And of course the
punchline is it's supposedly a t too story. The punch

(02:40):
line is, oh no, no, no, I gave those up
for lent.

Speaker 1 (02:45):
Doesn't get it, I know, even though he even though
he went on Episcopal press school and a million years ago.
Yeah all right, well, but but.

Speaker 2 (02:56):
The point is Robert versus smoking. Never mind, I have
to explain it to you.

Speaker 1 (03:01):
There is research showing that nicotine sharpens your concentration. I think.
I think it's right, really yeah, I think. But it's
not something that you feel, well, well okay, I don't know.

Speaker 2 (03:11):
No, no, I mean, it's just it's not mind altering,
is what I'm trying to tell you. You don't get
that kind of anything from it. I smoked for a
long time. I know this.

Speaker 1 (03:20):
Yeah, well, okay. All I know is when I see
people smoking, especially Europeans, so that just looks so great.
I wish it wasn't so bad for.

Speaker 2 (03:29):
You or stunk so much. Yes, right, you've probably anybody
who's ever watched us on YouTube knows that I have
a very hard time keeping my hands still when I talk,
and having a cigarette made it very simple.

Speaker 3 (03:46):
I'm just I think someday we'll look back and say
the barbarack, like we used to take weeds and burn
them in our mouths, and for centuries it seems bizarre.
Actually we think.

Speaker 1 (03:58):
Well, I don't know. I don't know if if I've
told the story on our podcast or not. LUCREATI Jull
can tell me. But I remember seeing Alan Bloom at
Claremont paired with James Buchannan right after Buchanan had won
the Nobel Prize. So here you have the famous Nobel
Prize guy and Bloom the now monster best selling author.
And Bloom was making fun of the Chicago guys. He
ran circles around Buchanan on his panel. It was amazing,

(04:20):
but it's like nineteen eighty eight. I would say, you
can still smoke in the lecture halls in Claremont at
that time. But Buchannan was talking about sorry, Bloom was
doing his usual flamboyant routine about you know. Now at Chicago,
I used to go listen in on these seven hours
of Milton Friedman and Frank Knight, a really famous guy
earner than that, who Bloom was very close to, and

(04:42):
Hiak and all these people. And he says, and I
always say to me, Bloom, if you're so smart, how
come you're not rich? And Bloom pauses, takes a big
drag on his cigarette and says, well, I am. Now
the whole room busts up right. I highly recommend it
to everybody. Way bega cigarette around, ashes flag everywhere.

Speaker 2 (05:01):
I will tell you that more than once, Steve I
I bummed a cigarette in class from Peter Shram.

Speaker 1 (05:08):
Oh I'm sure, yes, right, because Shram could ever read
without a cigarette. And sadly that's partly why yeah years ago,
so right right, yeah, Well, a couple of little chotskis
to show you, guys, one just for you and then
one for listeners and viewers, all ten viewers. Maybe I
got from United Airlines today my official two million mile

(05:29):
plaque to put up on my shelf. Two million flight
This is stupid. I have too many of these things.
I can't I don't like chotskis like this, but it's
still nice. They sent me this thing. And but more
important than that, you know, we've been talking about this
and I did a sample press run of the three
Whiskey Happy Hour coffee mug, and there it is.

Speaker 3 (05:49):
I don't think it's too beautiful.

Speaker 1 (05:51):
You don't want it too colorful? Well, you don't like
the black and white you want? Well, all right, but
I think i'll say this about it. It is up.
It's not a decal, which means it's dishwashers safe. You know,
a lot of coffee mubs are decal stuck on and
they won't last ten times in your washing machine. This
is actually, you know, imprinted on it. And well, I'll

(06:12):
tell you what, John, I'm gonna post this up and
see who you get.

Speaker 3 (06:14):
Out like a black and white sketch kind of thing.
Well that was having that garish multi colored that's like
what like this a multi colored dream code or something
from some bad seventies Broadway musical.

Speaker 1 (06:29):
Appreciate who side are you want here? I mean, what
is wrong with John here? This is a great logo,
that's fantastic.

Speaker 2 (06:36):
I don't know if I like it with the red
on the inside. Because it doesn't match. But okay, anyway,
I think it probably doesn't matter either. You're gonna pick
it up because.

Speaker 1 (06:49):
You know you're loyal. You know it's for I won't
send you one then John back with you. You know.

Speaker 3 (06:55):
I want there to be some like small secret symbol
that only people in the note will understand.

Speaker 2 (07:00):
What.

Speaker 1 (07:00):
Well now, okay, well I'm toying with that idea too.
I mean, we can have more than one. You can
have just a little thing that says three w h
h the people who know no, right, and that's like
a secret handshake. So all right, no you're not.

Speaker 2 (07:15):
Okay, so you got you two million miles. By the way,
the US Army awarded me the let's it called Meritorious
Public Service Award for something incredible service to the US Army.

Speaker 1 (07:30):
And during a government shutdown this happened. That's important.

Speaker 2 (07:35):
They yes, they it was very interesting. It was Wednesday
and a lot of the I mean all the all
the green suitors there, the salad suitors who are obviously
they're paid unpaid, working unpaid, but they had gotten paid
on Wednesday.

Speaker 3 (07:50):
But all of the.

Speaker 2 (07:50):
Civilians and the commanding general told me that he I said,
I can't believe you guys are doing this now, why
didn't you just wait? He says, it's too important and
we had to give it to you right away. So anyway,
I was trying to share the picture, but it doesn't
seem to work with the way you have the authority
sometimes nowhere course, But anyway, the interesting thing is the

(08:14):
metal is like a meritorious service award that the that
a soldier would get, and the way the metal comes
to me. I get a nice plaque and everything, but
it came in a nice little box with a medal
for my you know when you see the generals and
all of their one of those one to go on
my blue my dress blues, and one to go I

(08:37):
mean absolutely nothing that I ever. You know, I'm not
in the army, so I don't actually wear army uniforms.
But that's what I got, three different medals for the
purpose of the different uniforms that I don't wear anyway,
So there you go.

Speaker 1 (08:52):
Okay, Well, so I thought what we do this week
is put off a couple of headlines till later in
the show and talk about something that I think, at
least I think it's a sensation that may have some legs.
And also I was in Mississippi all week. Let me
just say give a shout out to the University of
Mississippi and the Declaration of Independent Center. By the way,
many of whom are listeners to our show. They're a

(09:14):
fantastic bunch at a great time. I gave a lecture
series that's going to I think become a book soon
called Against Mediocrity. That's the working title anyway. Now Lucretia
will mock me right away saying, how nevermind, I won't
finish that slur anyway. So I wasn't following the news
that closely this week, But what has been on my
mind for ten days now is this article by Helen

(09:36):
Andrews called the Great Feminization that appeared on Compact. And
there's a backstory to this very briefly. Helen was until
recently the editor of the American Conservative magazine and she
was fired and the magazine's gone weird. And we'll leave
that story for another time. But I think she's very
talented and Lucretia, you remember we interviewed her a couple
of years ago at the Philadelphia Society about her book. Yeah,

(10:00):
about her book Attacking Baby Boomers, which I love because
I'm a self loathing baby boomer, and I think he's
very bright and very talented. And the article really is
the adaptation of a speech she gave John. Yeah, you
may not follow this at the latest National Conservatism Conference. Now,
most of those speeches, they put them all up on YouTube,
and most of them get a thousand, two thousand views.

(10:23):
For some reason, her speech the Great Feminization went viral
and it's up to something like one hundred and fifty
thousand views. So that's clearly totally different from the other.
And you know they have famous people of that Jadie Vance,
you know, Peter Thiel, but Helen has been the big
breakout star of this last meeting. So the Great Feminization,

(10:45):
you might guess for the title is it's an attack
on feminism. And how is that new, because you know,
people like Christina Hoff Summers and others have been doing
this for thirty years. But let me share with listeners,
and I will post a link to her compact article,
but let me post the listeners. There's a few sentences
from it, and then I'm a lot tossed to depreciative
because of course, the chief advocate for appealing to the

(11:06):
nineteenth Amendment. This is her Bailey Wick, right, But the
point is he's saying, you know, people say WOKERI is,
you know, cultural Marxism, almost leftist dogma. And she says
that that's all true. But she says, I think it's
actually feminism and not feminism the ideology. But too many
women in high places. She's that blood about it. Okay,

(11:26):
here's a few samples for listeners that I think we'll
convey the whole article early on. All cancelizations are feminine.
Cancel culture is simply what women do whenever there are
enough of them in a given organization or field. Everything
you think of is wokeness involves prioritizing the feminine over
the masculine, empathy over rationality, safety over risk, cohesion over competition.

(11:54):
Wokeness is not a new ideology, an outgrowth of Marxism,
or a result of post Obama illusionment. It is simply
feminine patterns of behavior applied to institutions where women were
few in number until recently. And here, John, I'll call
on you for this next part because very germane. A
much more important tipping point is when law schools became

(12:16):
majority female, which occurred in twenty sixteen, or when law
firm associates became majority female, which occurred in twenty twenty three,
and she goes on through other feels like medicine and
corporate management, and then John says, this the field that
thrightens me, that frightens me most is the law. All
of us depend on a functioning legal system, and to

(12:38):
be blunt, the rule of law will not survive the
legal profession becoming majority female. Lucasia, I'll let you have
first spite at all this.

Speaker 2 (12:48):
Well. I actually think that her strongest argument is in
the area of law, and because she goes on in
a little more detail and talks about how the rule
of law, to put it over, simplified, been replaced by
feminist feminine empathy and rather than you know, color blind

(13:10):
blind justice and the rule of law carrying the day,
it's empathy. I have to feel sorry for this criminal
because of the root causes, and you know, on and
on and on, And I think there's a lot to
be said for that observation, and I do think that
it is also very very uh e bodes for a

(13:34):
lot of danger, I think for the entire criminal justice
system and the law in general. So I think that's
a really strong one. Before I go on, let me
just let John speak up and see if he has
any thoughts on this or if he's too afraid to
say anything because he still has.

Speaker 3 (13:54):
No I mean, I I wasn't persuaded by the article.
So for some two reasons.

Speaker 1 (14:01):
One is.

Speaker 3 (14:03):
I'm not sure. I mean, you guys would know the
literature better than me, but I don't. I don't know
if I agree with the idea that women all think
one way and not all, but you know, in general
as a group, is her point. Women think in this
sort of non rule of walwegh, and men think in
a rule of lawwegh. I've met if you look at
the justices on the Supreme Court. I mean, you know,

(14:26):
you have some women on the Supreme Court who today
who you know, probably like balancing more. But there's a
woman in the majority who doesn't. And I don't think
and certainly these divides were on the Supreme Court when
they were all men. I don't I don't think they're
but you know, I you know, she referred to a
book that was allegedly what it was about like primitive men,

(14:52):
and said like men were warriors and women who fought
and tried to take resources from, you know, the hostile environment,
and women were at home and fighting each other over resources.

Speaker 1 (15:06):
I just don't.

Speaker 3 (15:07):
I think that's a thin read to make these broad
generalizations that men and women think so differently in a
professional setting. That just hasn't been my experience in the law.
And then the second thing is, suppose she's right that
women and men in law or these other professions do
think fundamentally differently. It still doesn't. It could be you

(15:30):
know what you call you know, they call it an
independent variable problem. There could be something else causing changes
and institutions. And so maybe the law changed in a
certain way first, and then women started going into law
because the law had changed already because of something else.
If I was to attribute these problems, it wouldn't because

(15:51):
of gender. I think it would be because of race.
I think it's been this corrupting influence of affirmative action
in particular that change law schools and change the nature
of the legal profession. Because if you are determined that
you to have a certain percentage of minorities or any

(16:12):
groups in law school, regardless of their relative merits in
terms of testing grades and so on, then you have
to start eliminating grading systems, and you have to make
the classroom less tough, because the tougher it is and
the more grades you are, that it's going to be
more obvious who should be there and who shouldn't. And

(16:32):
I think that process is not gender related. I think
it's a corrupting effect on that affirmative action and its
attack on merit has had in the law. That's what
I saw, not that there were more women in my
law school classes. That caused a lot of my colleagues,
for example, to give up on teaching class in the
Socratic method. I still teach class and the Socratic method.

(16:55):
I mean, people are shocked when I described, you know,
I call on basically one student for the cases for
a whole class, and I ask the questions the whole time.
People seem shy. That's the way it was when I
you know, that's the way law school was when I graduated.
I don't think it was the presence of women that
changed most colleagues to start using the you know, lazy

(17:16):
undergraduate method you two favor, which is just lecturing to
the students and going on and on and then let
them message.

Speaker 2 (17:22):
So many of our classes. But I don't necessarily disagree,
But I think you're doing the same thing that she's
guilty of, which is attributing all of these things to
a kind of single, uh causation. And I actually think
it goes deeper than that. I think that all of
these things are effects causing further effects. But I mean,

(17:46):
I think it's that the rule of law was destroyed
by say, uh, what's it called critical legal theory, the
idea that there is no rationality to the law that
there is. You know that it's impossible, for instance, for
a judge to be either in deciding a case or

(18:09):
deciding some kind of appellate issue, to be rational and
objective in all of those things. It's just impossible that
according to critical legal theory. And once you have conceded that,
which of course is an outgrowth itself of progressivism, then
it becomes very easy to adopt things like affirmative action

(18:31):
and critical race theory and feminist empathy. That part I
had to agree with her, whether again it's a cause
er and effect. It's one of the reasons why I
have a really hard time stomaching women most of the time.
There's a few that I can they're wonderful your wife,
for instance, Steve Janice Rogers Brown. There are others, but

(18:54):
these touchy feely women who watch the hall Mark channel
the View, the View. Yeah, and so there's something to
what she's saying, and there's also something to what she's
warning against. Again, Steve's gonna post this. But when she
calls it that it was done by social engineering, that

(19:19):
this sort of initiative was feminist initiative was forced on
us by social engineering, I think it's kind of the opposite.
That social engineering had these goals and feminism was one
of the things that helped it get there. But I
do think that her her analysis of the workplace is

(19:44):
not altogether inaccurate. You know, think about it. You really
can't have pinups, and you can't you can't tell dirty jokes,
you can't. What you can't do is create an unsafe
environment or a a hostile workplace. You know, I've told
the story many times. When I was a graduate student,

(20:06):
more than one professor had a slightly insulting, slightly affectionate
both nickname for me. Tricksy's right, they called you tricksy. Oh,
I'd want to call me bright eyes, you know, just
you know, just things like that.

Speaker 4 (20:26):
I mean like like the Monkey and like the Monkey
and the movie like right, yeah, okay, it's not affectionate,
that's insulting.

Speaker 2 (20:38):
Well, they might, and I'm sure that in many cases
it probably was intended to be insulting. My point is
is that I guess, you know, I could have gone
crying to the to the provost or the dean or
something and say, oh, but you know, I'm a little
tougher than your average female. In case you didn't know
that we were wondering, you know, that was an open question.

Speaker 3 (21:01):
But we should we should we be kicking Should we
be kicking you off the podcast?

Speaker 2 (21:06):
Now? If I take article, Yes, yes you should. I know,
because I'm much more I'm much more on the manly
side than our good friend David french Is. We'll come
back to that. Let me let me come back. Let
me give you one other thing. When I was in
graduate school at Davis, my PhD advisor, if I was

(21:27):
going to get a cup of coffee, would not allow
me to bring him a cup of coffee.

Speaker 1 (21:32):
Oh is that Larry Peterman?

Speaker 2 (21:35):
Yeah, okay, absolutely, why exactly why because that would have
been uh gender, you know, outdated gender roles, and it
would have been you know, advancing some notion of female
inferiority and blah blah blah. And I was forty years ago,

(21:56):
so it's not like this happened yesterday. But but it
is different. You mentioned Charles Murray earlier to me, Steve.
One of the most amazing things that I heard in
person from Charles Murray, again probably forty five years ago,
was talking about the legally defining and punishing sexual harassment

(22:17):
and all of the difficulties attendant to that, which you
know she talks about as well. Here too, the idea
that females believe everyone who says I've been sexually assaulted
has to be believed, et cetera, et cetera. But Charles
Murray said something really interesting. He said, you know, there's
always been women in the workplace. They've always been subject
to the boars and the you know, the crude guys,

(22:41):
the guys with no class, et cetera, et cetera. What
happened in the old days. They didn't go to HR
and say I mean sexually harassed. They went to their
they went to their brother, They went to their father,
and the father showed up and punched the guy in
the face and then it was over with.

Speaker 1 (22:55):
Well or oh yeah, this is sorry.

Speaker 2 (22:57):
Charles Murray said, go, yeah, well, I mean.

Speaker 1 (23:00):
Actually, this is what my mother and mother My mother, well,
my mother and my mother in law both said the
same thing. They didn't have to go to boyfriends or
brothers because my mother's case, she didn't have a brother,
just had a sister. My mother's in the workplace, as
was my mother in law in the late forties. You're
working for lawyers or something, and they would occasionally get
frisky and pinch you on the bottom, and so what
they do you can't run to HR, they slap them

(23:21):
and then it never happened again. Now I mentioned this.
I remember I got in trouble for this ten years
ago when I was at Colorado and I said, you know,
the problem with all these bureaucracies is, you know, if
there's some bad behavior at a frat party over the
weekend and you run to HR on Monday, that's a
bad remedy because then now it comes a bureaucratic, drawn
out thing. I said, women should just slap some guy

(23:42):
who's out of line and the oh and I was
on an NBR station that was another mistake I made.
The eruption was unbelievable. I had faculty saying, this crazy
conservative professor is advocating violence, And my response was, I
thought self defense was a basic principle of lockey in liberalism.
Have we lost that completely?

Speaker 2 (24:01):
Right?

Speaker 1 (24:02):
But anyway, that's where we are. That was the old
remedy and it worked, and now that we want to
make it some kind of process, it doesn't work worth
a dog, no.

Speaker 3 (24:10):
But did you rather have so one? I think David
French has a good point, which is it's got to
be the case that our society is better off with
the large number of women we have in the workplace
today and in the you know, opportunity, higher levels of
the jobs they can have than it was, you know,
pre nineteen seventies. Mean, I just think that's undeniably better

(24:33):
for our society that half the population can now be
fully part of the workplace.

Speaker 2 (24:38):
It's not too well, all.

Speaker 1 (24:41):
Right, go ahead, let John.

Speaker 3 (24:43):
Enharmis under you have ununi, you have underutilized resources in
our population. If half the people are going to be
subject to discrimination various kinds, it keeps them out of
different jobs. I mean, it's like it's just better. It's
more productive for society for everybody too, So that's one
I think he's right about that. Well, I want to
hear your counttercase two. If you are going to start

(25:06):
having large amounts of women in the workplace, then you
are going to have a lot more friction between the sexes.
And I'd rather have rules that might be legal rather
than people slapping the crap out of each other left
and right. Okay, you're just going to have larger numbers
of these interactions. Unfortunately, you're going to have to have
more rules. And I don't think that you know, relying

(25:27):
on minor violence kid. I mean, maybe it worked when
there were less women in the workplace, but we're going
to fifty percent of the workplace pe women. I don't
think that that that's a that you can run a
system that way.

Speaker 2 (25:41):
And both women have to change behavior. I'm just going
to say that I'm going to let you Steve, But
in both cases you have to change behavior. Which one
works better? And that's the question. You've changed people's behavior.
I never accused my PhD advisor of treating me like
a sex slave or anything like that, but at the
same time, he was already completely conditioned to the idea

(26:02):
that you can't let your graduate student get you coffee
because then you'll be a sexist, you know, patriarchal pig
change behavior. How best to do it?

Speaker 1 (26:12):
Go ahead, Steve, I'm well so, first of all, so John,
I don't think anyone disagrees with your basic point that
we now have a lot more talented women in the
workplace whose talents are not used that may be their
highest and best use. However, I think the real cause
of that was not feminism. You know, this is all
glural power and his whole business has grown up as
a feminist resolution revolution values. No, it was the washing

(26:35):
machine that made this possible. I actually mean that literally. Well,
the washing machines a metaphor, right, and look up someday
this wonderful video by the Swedish demographer named Hans Rosling,
and it's about the washing machine, and it's about how
liberated women and that's what made so. By the way,
if you point out that it is technology that has
made it possible for women to enter the workplace to

(26:56):
a feminist, they go absolutely berserk out of their minds.
They hate that idea, right, So that's point number one before.

Speaker 2 (27:05):
One can I just illustrate that point. I used to
tell my students reading the part in Jefferson in the
Notes on the State of Virginia where he says it
is civilization alone which has brought women into the enjoyment
of their natural equality. And I would tell them exactly
what you just said, which is before technology, before civilization,

(27:28):
and that you know, there's more to it than just
the technology part. But I'll keep it to your analogy.
I can. I can come home and cook dinner for
my family after working a ten hour day. Why because
hominos no, no, no, actually cook a dinner. Because I
don't have to go kill a chicken. I don't have

(27:52):
your you know, and I don't have to feed them
at four o'clock in the you know. There's all of
these things.

Speaker 3 (27:56):
It's not just technology though, because there are lots of
countries to day which have access to that technology don't
have the same level of women in the workforce. So
we do although the same amount of right opportunities and
ability to be professors or.

Speaker 2 (28:14):
For women.

Speaker 1 (28:15):
Well, now wait a minute, John, that's an interesting point.
If you go to let us say more patriarchal societies,
say in the Middle.

Speaker 3 (28:22):
East, like Pakistan or likes like South Korea and Japan,
although Japan just had its first right female ministry. Right,
but if you talk to people in those countries, which
are you know, technologically maybe even more events in ours,
they have very few women at the upper echelons society
organized that way.

Speaker 1 (28:42):
Well, well, this is going to get us too far
off on a tangent. But I think if you look
at places like Pakistan, you'll find that smart talented women
go into the sciences, they don't go into gender studies.

Speaker 5 (28:55):
And there's something we said about all that that's a
that's a lot of story with that. Yeah, I think
it's a combination of both. And I just don't I
don't see what country would you rather be than.

Speaker 1 (29:07):
Us in this world?

Speaker 3 (29:09):
Then?

Speaker 1 (29:11):
Well think about that.

Speaker 3 (29:14):
I mean, I think it's better here has imperfection, it
has imperfections, But right, which country is actually better in
terms of balancing having more movement in the workplace?

Speaker 2 (29:27):
Right?

Speaker 3 (29:28):
I mean we have maybe gone to we went too
far with wokeism, but I think the basic rules are
good for everybody, men and women, and it's been.

Speaker 1 (29:36):
Let me point to the second as Let me second
point of the second aspect of why I think the
story is important and why this debate. We can go
back to this, by the way, in future episodes. Here's
my analogy. You know, I'm baiting Lucretia here and see John.
I think this is starting to remind me of Ed
Meese in the late eighties picking the fight over rigial intent. Now,

(29:58):
if the left and the legal academy had ignored him,
it might have gone away. Instead, you had Supreme Court
justices and law reviews and prominent people freaking out and saying, oh,
this is terrible, we can't and that ignites a debate
on original intent or originalism that the left lost. So
it's not just David French. Hold on, he said, what

(30:18):
is it to be? Well, here's the point is her
article has elicited a huge response from the left. And
then you know David French, who say he's a conservative.
He's in the New York Times. His article is we
have met the enemy of civilization and it's women. Hold
that for a moment. A lot of smart lefties like
Matt Iglesias and others saying, no, this is terrible, this

(30:40):
is ridiculous. Is this is where the right is going?
This is awful? There a couple of people have actually
chimed up and said her article could have been more substantive.
And here's some journal articles with the typical peer reviewed
statistical analysis to show some important statistical differences between men
and women that are relevant. So the point is, I
think she's touching off bait. So there's David French, and

(31:03):
I just I'll end with this and let you take
it from here. Lucas, you got a little hand of
me on this. She provoked. See, I actually did French.
She is pretty good. That's a good slip. David French's
column we have met the enemy of a civilization, that's women.
It provoked Charles Murray to a tweet. And you know, Charlie,
you know Charles, he's a pretty mild mannered guy. Here's

(31:24):
what his tweet said. I am still waiting to read
something by David French that doesn't irritate me. Even when
I agree with the substance, The sanctimony drives me nuts. Amen,
that's mindsert continue with Charles in this case, I wholly
disagree with his take on Helen Andrews.

Speaker 2 (31:43):
Uh.

Speaker 1 (31:43):
You know, Charles brings a lot of batistics and learned
social reflections to these kind of debates. I think this
is the beginning of something. I host the beginning of something,
and it's it could get wild and wooly. But who
thought that?

Speaker 2 (31:56):
This?

Speaker 3 (32:00):
All I know is law, So I mean the legal
profession all that well, in this period where this has
allegedly been happening, originalism has arisen. Right, if this started
in the seventies, this is actually during this period where
women were allegedly weakening standards in the law and introducing
all this huggy, touchy feely stuff in the law. Actually,

(32:22):
that's the same period where originalism has kind of driven
out all this stuff from the Warren Court, which is
where a lot of these attributes happened. And we have
a conservative Supreme Court. We've overturned the Harvard Harvard overturned
right back right, we overturned roversus. I mean, I don't
understand where all this corruption is occurring. When to me,

(32:43):
during the same time period where this is allegedly happening,
I think the legal profession from our perspective, has vastly
improved from the way it was before. I don't know,
what do you want to change it back?

Speaker 1 (32:56):
What do you want to change it to there.

Speaker 2 (33:00):
You brought her up as an example of someone who's
not some whiny cry baby feminists.

Speaker 1 (33:07):
I didn't say.

Speaker 2 (33:11):
So. The other three are, okay. Remember what she said
about January sixth that no, excuse me, I take it
back about George Floyd that she and her eight children
held hands, cried and prayed because they were all so

(33:34):
empathetic about what happened to George Floyd. If that is
not he was all I'm sorry that a drug addicted
felon violent criminal died an unfortunate death. I would certainly
didn't discuss it holding hands with my children and cry

(33:55):
about it.

Speaker 1 (33:56):
Well, but you know, Lucretia John has a bit of
a point here. I can't be a reaction. Well, no,
we have. There are a lot of great originalist female judges,
our friends, Edith Jones, Alice Batch Elder, there's Janice Rogers Brown, right.

Speaker 2 (34:09):
Remember she says that. Helen says that, you know, it's
just like I'm a better shot than you two, even
though I think men are mostly better shots than women are.

Speaker 3 (34:20):
Wait, you never that is that is that has not
been proven. There you go with your touchy feeling, non
fact based.

Speaker 2 (34:29):
Reality because you are too afraid to challenge me.

Speaker 3 (34:36):
I just believe in automatic weapons. You don't have to
be a good shot, just spray everything with bullets.

Speaker 2 (34:40):
I think originalism is a reaction to this stuff. It's
an attempt to say empathy has no place in a courtroom.
It might have some place in a pardon, but it
has And maybe a judge at the end of the
day looks at a woman who uh lit the house
on fire when her husband after beat her senseless, uh God,

(35:02):
because he was drunk, and and she lights the house
on fire and burns him up and burns him to death.
If the judge wants to have a little bit of
empathy for a situation like that, that's not what I
would call well feminism.

Speaker 1 (35:15):
Let me restate the thesis and then move on to
another topic, which is uh. I'll put it this way.
My thesis is she's touched off a debate that may
go somewhere.

Speaker 3 (35:25):
Uh.

Speaker 1 (35:25):
And second, this is why.

Speaker 3 (35:27):
I don't understand. I don't think so because I don't
see what is supposed to change. Well, all right, let
me it's an I legal perfision. What would we change?

Speaker 1 (35:35):
Well, let me do with her.

Speaker 3 (35:36):
You would like sell and I have quotas on women
and the.

Speaker 1 (35:41):
How associates, Well, you put you mentioned, you mentioned it, John,
we go back to the aggressive socratic method of classroom teaching,
which a lot of not just women actually but the
men who've been feminized object to. But the second point
is this is an argument that you couldn't say five
years ago.

Speaker 3 (36:00):
Ah, and now I've heard people argue about this in
the law for a while now because it was a
big women become a majority of the law schools, and
people do talk about it.

Speaker 2 (36:10):
But but now it's breaking up her opening salvo. Remember
what that was the Summers making the comment that there's,
you know, some actual biological differences between men and women,
And what's the reaction. It's not somebody pulling out their
their med cat M cat scores or you know, this

(36:33):
is my research and it's Oh my god, I ahs fainted.
Oh I was so upset. Oh my god. That is
just a perfect microcosm of modern academia, feminine academia. Let me,
I'm so upset you said I wasn't equal.

Speaker 1 (36:56):
What do we get our ai parody? Let me let
me add it this way for listeners who don't know
lucretions referring to Helen begins the article by recalling the
firing of Larry Summers for saying, was it twenty years
ago now that there may be a difference in aptitudes
and dispositions about math and science between men and women?
That is statistically true? And for that the Harvard faculty

(37:16):
voted no confidence and the Board of Overseers with the
Board of Governors forced him out as president. I'm not
sure that would happen right now. Maybe it would. I
thought Howard Somers was kind of a coward for surrendering
so easily, But.

Speaker 2 (37:29):
I'm not would say it either.

Speaker 1 (37:32):
Well, he wouldn't say it he in a normal lot
of other people. But now maybe people will see, all right, look,
let's have some fun with other stuff, because there's some
fun stuff in the news this week, not so much
about issues and you know, legal issues. John. But first
of all, well, I don't know, we want to spend
a lot of time on this. But last weekend we
had the great No Kings rallies, and I want our

(37:53):
team to have a No Parliament's rallies. That's a response
No Kings. I don't know. I mean, you have any guys,
have anything you want to say about all that spectacle.
It's just the usual protest that Trump is president and
so what butter Joan Biez concert. Okay, that's good, right,

(38:14):
but more interesting to me and I guess there's a
tiny legal angle of this is the way people are
freaking out about Trump's construction of the ballroom at the
White House.

Speaker 3 (38:25):
Yeah. I find that so bizarre, isn't it. I just,
you know, it's understand why people are so freaked out
about it.

Speaker 1 (38:32):
They're just going I think.

Speaker 2 (38:34):
It's a shutdown, to be honest with you, I really do,
even though that's not always the perspective that the anti
ballroom left is bringing out. I think it is a
to distract attention away from the shutdown, or to try
and make the argument because all the polls now say

(38:55):
that Trump's Trump's approval ratings are up, that looks like
the Democrats are going to end up actually being the
ones blamed for the shutdown. They're trying desperately, but it's
not working. People. You know, people don't really feel sorry
for someone who's Obamacare subsidies are going to triple, because
they recognize what a disaster Obamacare was in the first place.

(39:18):
And I think it's because here's what you can do.
You can lie about it, as the left always does,
and say, in the middle of a shutdown and people
aren't getting paid, Trump is spending two hundred million dollars
on a gold ballroom, you know, just because he wants
to stay in power, and he's not leaving in twenty

(39:40):
eight because he's building himself a gold ballroom. And I
think that they're just hoping against you know, Chelsea Clinton
had the unmitigated gall to come out today and say
that that Trump is desecrating the White House.

Speaker 1 (39:57):
Yeah, really really really went on that. Oh my god,
to live in it.

Speaker 3 (40:09):
Seems to me a sign of weakness because if this
is the issue of contention on the part of the left,
then they're really not prepared to debate policy. They're just
like they're giving It's almost like a sign like they're
giving up. If that's the kind of thing they're really
making their case on is because we're not there, absolutely right.
I think someone said, like, after it's finished, no one's
going to remember I look much better White House.

Speaker 2 (40:34):
How many how many times has the White House been renovated?
Yeah a lot, Yes, maybe the first those friends weren't
there before been there since the forties. This may be
the first time where the entire thing was financed by
private donors, including Trump himself. Yeah, it's only two hundred
million dollars if you're a billionaire, it's not that big

(40:55):
of a deal. By the way, there's a billionaire.

Speaker 3 (40:58):
It's like as usual, they're getting ripped off the contractors.
I could do it for ten million. Jeez, well you
just give just give that to Marco Rubio to do too.

Speaker 2 (41:12):
I won't.

Speaker 1 (41:13):
I won't, I won't. Right now, go through the reasons why.
But there's actually a good logic from eating a bigger
events space at the White House for steak dinners and
other things. And and you know, Trump's absolutely right about that,
but other people thought so too. They've improvised by putting tents.
But if the grass is wet, you' you know, the
women's high heels, it's the big problem.

Speaker 2 (41:31):
And yeah, much more difficult, correct.

Speaker 1 (41:36):
That's right. Yeah, I mean I told that I did
twenty years ago. You get to go to a state dinner,
and they're pretty small, intimate affairs because the White House
facilities are not big enough to have big crowds. And
sometimes you want bigger crowds for those things. So okay, well,
all right, so that's kind of silly to watch the
intensity of it.

Speaker 2 (41:52):
I think he's just doing it because of the former
Doze employee that got beat up, you know, and he
needs a place to fit everything. I'll just leave it
at that.

Speaker 1 (42:04):
Well, I do as one of you just said something significant,
which is, look, all the polls show that the Democrats'
strongest issue is healthcare. They kind of own that issue.
And maybe it's true that Obamacare premiums will go way
up without extending the Biden subsidies that were reckless to
begin with. I think I'm hearing a policy I'm being

(42:25):
a policy wont here. I think Republicans are missing a
major opportunity and or responsibility to go on the attack
and say Obamacare has failed. We need to start over
again and have real reform. But I've always had a
this sounds this will sound LUCRETIONI like something John might say,
which is I've long thought for years, just the way
politics falls out for decades, and let me finish both

(42:47):
parties here, that only Republicans can fix healthcare because they're
a party that is more competent with all the market
based logic, you would need to have a real healthcare marketplace. Okay,
that's if democrats'll let them, right, and that's a big
problem with our gridlock in politics. The reverse is also true.
Only Democrats can fix entitlements like Medicare and Social Security

(43:10):
if they want to, which I'm not sure they do,
and if Republicans will let them, because Republicans will be
against well in the case of Medicare tax increases, because
the Medicare tax has always been too low from the
very beginning. And Okay, I'll just stop there and say
that to me, has always been the political landscape of
these things, and Republicans ought to go first and say
we want to fix healthcare. Are you with us or not?

(43:32):
And then you blame the Democrats for blocking a healthcare
reform that would work. I will say one more thing
to annoy Lucretia. The guy who actually had the right
idea on this was John McCain in two thousand and eight,
except it wasn't his idea and he never could explain
it because he got it from Douglas holtz econ a
very competent policy WONK. But we ought to go back
to that, and I'll stop there because it gets wonky.

(43:53):
But anyway, I think Republicans are missing a huge opportunity
right now.

Speaker 2 (43:58):
I had something interesting this morning to take what you
said a step further, and this was the premise of
the article. It was a real clear investigations kind of thing,
but it was about how Maha make America healthy again
was the key to Republicans maintaining the House in twenty

(44:21):
twenty six and perhaps the sentence Senate, and that if
they could get Republicans in congressional districts to embrace Maha.
Do people say Maha, Yeah, well, okay, the same way
that Trump and has has embraced it because the Maha

(44:44):
moms out there are the new soccer moms, and that
this particular uh, you know, it's not monolithic in what
Maha means, but you know, some skepticism about vaccines, overdoing
vaccine means, artificial ingredients in foods, junk foods, overprocessed foods,

(45:05):
lack of exercise, too many medicines for made up conditions,
all of those things, pesticides growing in the food. The
MAHA movement doesn't necessarily join on all of those things.
But the fact that Trump is paying attention to them,
the fact that RFK is out there trying to do
something about it, that this could actually give Republicans back

(45:27):
to what tying it into what you were saying, Steve
the opportunity to take the initiative on healthcare and say
we're about making America healthy again, not just about paying
more and more and more and more for useless medical
treatments that make people sicker. And so it was an

(45:50):
interesting perspective. I don't know, you know, there's a lot
more subtlety to it than what I just gave it.
But if Republicans could actually be seen as the party
that cares about the health of Americans. And you'll notice
whenever trolls like Mark Kelly come out with their nonsense,
I'm trying to use big girl words today and not

(46:13):
usual adjectives that you know, Republicans don't care about Americans healthcare. Yeah,
this isn't about healthcare at all. It's about more money
to those medical health insurance companies who drew up Obamacare
in the first place, got exactly what they wanted with it.
They want more money to ensure Americans. It's not about healthcare.

(46:37):
Nobody's getting any less sick because of Obamacare these days,
and if Republicans would just run with that, they could
abolish Obamacare. John was shaking his head, Yes, that needs
to be done, and they could actually figure out ways
to make America healthy.

Speaker 1 (46:54):
So there.

Speaker 2 (46:56):
It was okay for Melior.

Speaker 3 (46:58):
There's an interesting study out right showed not by any
partisan people but just scholars who showed that all that
increased in spending and Obamacare didn't improve health outcomes. So
sad we've wasted trillions of dollars. Yeah, and you know
the money that's at stake with the lockdown is just

(47:18):
extra subsidies egoing beyond Obamacare that were just to be
short term because of COVID. Yeah, and there I don't
know what I think of. I mean, I don't really
trust Robert Kenny and the MAHA stuff, but that's I
think independent of Can't we just go to the American
people just say this has been a policy failure, wasted
trillions of dollars, and I think the political support is there.

(47:40):
Remember that Trump only came within one vote in the
Senate of getting Obamacare overruled thanks to John McCain.

Speaker 1 (47:47):
Right, And who is that vote?

Speaker 2 (47:48):
Right?

Speaker 1 (47:48):
Yes?

Speaker 3 (47:49):
Yeah, but I mean at least in twenty right, that's
twenty seventeen and eighteen. You had just one vote short
of a supermajority to get rid of Obamacare. Yeah, it's
just but unfortunately, like there's other entitlement programs. Once the
middle classes getting subsidized with these government benefits, it's hard
to uproot them. I mean, isn't there like studies which

(48:13):
say there's only like one or two tiny programs entitlement
programs that have ever been undone by Congress.

Speaker 1 (48:20):
Every time.

Speaker 3 (48:21):
It just gets everyone to dictate the free stuff which
is not free. It's politically impossible to get rid of them.
And that he sounds like what's happened with Obamacare. It's
probably what Obama intended all along.

Speaker 1 (48:32):
Of course, Well, yeah, it.

Speaker 2 (48:34):
Would move even further in the direction of universal single
payer it.

Speaker 1 (48:38):
Wanted to fail. Is the Cloward pivots strategy. It's been
famously called for years. Perhaps let's do this. Let's move
to our Babylon B segment of the show, because our
our ah, oh no, hold on, hold on, let me
keep going, our AI parody segment we've been closing with
is actually a separate topic of its own. It won't
take long, but there's an interesting wrinkle to it today,

(49:00):
so that's why it will still be a regular links show. So, Lucritia,
what are our Babylon bes?

Speaker 2 (49:05):
Okay, before I get to the Babylon Bees, I've been
saving this for you, Steve since this morning. I've been
cackling and rubbing my hands like this. So somebody you know,
Michael Lynde, Oh yeah, unheard, Yeah, says.

Speaker 1 (49:23):
Turn to the mic.

Speaker 2 (49:25):
Oh, I'm sorry. Let me move this over so I
can read it.

Speaker 1 (49:28):
Then.

Speaker 2 (49:28):
Plenty of other grave parallels have been drawn of late
with the First and Second World Wars. Yet one hundred
and eleven years after the first began and eighty years
after the second ended, perhaps it's time we dropped the analogies.
That three decade cataclysm will surely never be forgotten. But
when it comes to thinking about and making foreign policy,

(49:50):
these conflicts provide few, if any, lessons of history that
are of value in today's world. On the contrary, these parallels,
whether drawn by history dotorians, pundits, or policymakers, are likely
to do more harm than good as they seek to
impose anachronistic patterns on the realities of today.

Speaker 1 (50:11):
Well, this won't be my first rodeo with Michael Lynd,
who I do know of it and I have tangled
with sharply before. Did I send you, guys my lady
about Sean what idiot? What idiots said that?

Speaker 3 (50:21):
I don't know who that is, Michael.

Speaker 1 (50:23):
You don't know who Michael lind is. See you just.

Speaker 3 (50:28):
I's smart.

Speaker 2 (50:30):
The really disappointing thing was you didn't make a single
analogy today.

Speaker 1 (50:33):
I did too. I did an analogy to me an
original intent. He started off.

Speaker 3 (50:38):
He kicked off with the analogy see it for the middle, but.

Speaker 1 (50:43):
The whole piece, and then I'll send it to you
guys quickly.

Speaker 3 (50:48):
We should make analogies to World War one and two?

Speaker 1 (50:51):
What an idiot? Well, by the way, I took it
out of context, so I'll go read it. But what
you gave me sounds pretty bad. I can't imagine the context.
It was about appeasement and oh well he's a lightweight
on that.

Speaker 2 (51:06):
Because never mind, I think that was totally unfair to
spring on you guys, But I think I didn't.

Speaker 1 (51:13):
I send to both of you guys my my response
to Sean mckeekon that has not been published yet, and
so listeners will know. Okay, Well, let's hold that for
now because when it comes out, when it comes out,
will be a big deal. That's okay, I didn't want Yeah, good, good,
good good.

Speaker 2 (51:31):
Next, No, King's protest to end by four pm so
everyone can get home in time for Matt Locke. This
is my personal favorite. Worse and worse. Platner also has
a nickelback tattoo.

Speaker 1 (51:45):
Oh for that, Steve, Yeah, he's the guy running for
the Senate in Maine, a Democrat wh apparently has.

Speaker 3 (51:51):
A nickelback tattoo. I mean I gets a Nazi tattoo.

Speaker 1 (51:54):
Yeah. Well, he's running for the Senate as a Democrat
in Maine, and he has a Nazi tattoo and nickelback.
John As, you had another of the many blank spots
in your cultural knowledge. But we'll let that go for now.

Speaker 2 (52:05):
It's me.

Speaker 3 (52:07):
For everything upstairs, you got to prioritize, that's true. So
much stuff going on about Taylor Swift upstairs? Do you
have time to think about it?

Speaker 2 (52:18):
The loub announces they have installed a ring camera.

Speaker 1 (52:23):
That's good.

Speaker 2 (52:25):
I thought you'd like that.

Speaker 3 (52:26):
That's good Trump.

Speaker 2 (52:28):
Oh sorry. White House construction crew finds one three and
fifty seven more cocaine stashes right, Democrats enjoy their favorite
pastime of holding all white rallies.

Speaker 1 (52:42):
Yeah, that's.

Speaker 2 (52:44):
Where's the one. I got to go back to the top. Sorry,
the really good one. Shoot it was. Sorry I've lost it,
but it's basically Trump is stopping deportations until the ballroom misconstructed.

Speaker 3 (53:03):
Well, that's why it's going to be so extensive.

Speaker 1 (53:05):
It takes so long.

Speaker 2 (53:06):
No, right, all right, Okay, there's all sorts of ones
about the Dodgers, but I don't want to get you
too knowing on that, so I'll just let it go. Okay,
and Steve Ais to death.

Speaker 1 (53:24):
Well, let's interapt the normal flow of things, John, because
I don't know if you followed all this. But I
had a person emailed me the other day, Personna real Well,
and said, hey, I'm trying to find your article, and
he gave it title and the date was nineteen ninety eight,
and I thought, huh, I don't remember that title. And
I looked for it and I can't find it either
my own archives, you know, on my old hard drives

(53:45):
that I have, or on the internet. And so I
finally wrote him back saying, by the way, the date's wrong.
I wasn't working for AI in nineteen ninety eight is
could this have been an excerpt from something? Could it
have been a transcript from a panel? So no, it
came up in an AI I search for your work
on the environment. Oh, in other words, another AI not

(54:05):
fabrication but invention. So, as you know, John, there have
been these several instances lately of judicial opinions at state courts,
usually that got out with phony case citations, cases that
don't exist. And this in the last few days I've
heard or seen on Twitter and elsewhere several law professors
people you and I know and Lucretian know who said,
I keep hearing about a lot of you articles I've

(54:28):
written that I've never written that AI have generated. So
there's something going badly wrong here with all this AI stuff.

Speaker 3 (54:35):
That's all price scholars are probably doing better, probably better
off with this mistake, because their productivity would being weigh up.

Speaker 2 (54:45):
It's called hallucinations.

Speaker 1 (54:47):
Well well there, you know though, that's I mean, that's the.

Speaker 2 (54:50):
Natural technical term when AI introduces when it makes something
up that doesn't exist, which is actually I mean it's
they're getting a little bit better time. But it's yeah,
they're called hallucinations when you have faulty facts, faulty whatever
it might be.

Speaker 1 (55:09):
Right, Okay, well that's preface, kind of preface to saying
that I asked this week Rock, I moved on from
chat GPT to GROCK and the prompt was produce a
satire of Lucretia in the style of Three Whiskey Happy Hour.
And one it produced was really pretty boring and not
very good at all. But if you gave a note,
it's said, this insult. Well the way, there's the rescue itself.

(55:33):
When I gave a different prompt, So stay tuned, but
it's say the note. This will convey some of the note.
This satirical article is written in the style of Lucretia,
the sharp tongue, quick witted persona from the Three Whiskey
Happy Hour podcasts, known for her biting humor and unapologetic takes. Well, well,
that's true, but kind of uninspiring. So then I went

(55:53):
back and said, not satire, produce a parody in the
style of Lucretia in the Three Whiskey Happy and it
produced a transcript of you know, an actual, actual podcast,
and it's a lot better. I'll just give you two
samples from it and I'm jumping in right in the middle. Lucretia. Oh, Steve,
your darn right, I'm itching. And it's not just because

(56:14):
John's wearing that hideous tie. Again, seriously, John, did you
pick that out of a law school lost and foult?

Speaker 3 (56:23):
Well, and the subject was about it said that about
Steve's ties like that?

Speaker 1 (56:28):
Well, but then that the made up subject was a
proposed department of meme regulation, and says so John, Now,
hold on, Lucretia, The legal argument here is that memes
can be a form of speech, and regulating them could
fall under the commerce clause or national security, you know, misinformation,
foreign interference. Lucretia, Oh, spare me the law review lecture, John, Okay,

(56:50):
So like that? It's pretty good. I think it's uh.
And then again the notes on this, the show notes, Uh,
this one's a better one, right? So is tone content
something else? Style? Tone? Lucretia's style is bold, sarcastic, and
unafraid to take swings that both her co hosts and
her targets. She is quick with equip but grounds her

(57:12):
rants in deep skepticism of government overreach and a love
for individual liberty.

Speaker 2 (57:18):
So I kind of like all that you know, Steve,
you never Actually it's not bad, but you didn't include
it because you weren't gonna be there when we had
our no no, no, no, it's okay. I'm not trying
to insold You're really not we I had AI produce
a short happy hour between John and me and the

(57:41):
yeah as the kids, but before that, I actually had
the transcript produced, and the transcript was based upon the
question of John, John and me discussing whether or not
Trump should go ahead and make no South America the
fifty second state because we were going to be going

(58:03):
to a conference with our friends from Latin America and
South America. And it's actually quite funny. So maybe you
should put that one in at the bottom too, Steve,
if I can find it.

Speaker 1 (58:12):
Again, Okay, by way, John, I think we will wrap
there and let you go find a tie from the
Lost and Found in Law School for your TV.

Speaker 3 (58:21):
I know where where I get that from. I mean,
you're picnic when I'm going to wear on TV tonight.
Which one looks those are actually so actually one of them,
this one does look like it was from the Lost
and Found. That's the one, Steve would probably that is
a good tie. It's like weird stuff like yellow shirts
and orange ties. I can't go down.

Speaker 1 (58:44):
Do you know what I used to do? I used
to this going on too long here. I used to
buy a box of fifty ties on like eBay or
somewhere for like fifteen dollars, and I'd get a box
of ties and I'd throw out forty five of them,
but five of them would be pretty good. And that's
how I acquired the very few Donald Trump ties that
I have.

Speaker 3 (59:04):
Mister, why don't you just do that for everything? Why
don't you just buy like, well you can't, like fifty
oranges and throw them all forty five of them out?

Speaker 2 (59:14):
That moment said I'm never wearing a tie again. Mister
Brooks Brothers threw away or gave away almost all of
his ties.

Speaker 3 (59:23):
Oh, I would take some of those ties.

Speaker 2 (59:27):
I don't know that some of them were Jerry Jerry
grateful dead Jerry Jerry Garcia ties.

Speaker 3 (59:39):
You are bane wearing that he kept.

Speaker 2 (59:41):
We're both Trump ties, which he's been wearing for years.

Speaker 3 (59:44):
Trump's ties are so ugly. I mean, come on, they're blue,
they're like they shine, they're shiny, they're clearly not made
of so.

Speaker 1 (59:54):
All right, you guys, it's time for us to say
goodbye to our long suffer See everybody next week. Have fun,
John bye, everybody. Everybody was buying.

Speaker 6 (01:00:07):
The music was soothing, said everyone attacked about listen.

Speaker 2 (01:00:19):
I'm gonna said by one to do about.

Speaker 1 (01:00:23):
Lessen Ricochet join the conversation