Not going to the movies

Today on the Jimmy Barrett Show:

• Jimmy is not going to the movies

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:02):
Well, what we need is more common sense.

Speaker 2 (00:06):
Common breaking down the world's nonsense about how American common
sense will see us through With the common sense of Houston.
I'm just pro common sense for Houston. From Houston dot com.
This is the Jimmy Barrett Show, brought to you by

(00:27):
viewind dot Com. Now here's Jimmy Barrett.

Speaker 3 (00:31):
Happy Friday. Thank goodness, gracious. I don't know what I'm
doing this weekend, but the one thing I know I'm
not doing is I'm not going to the movies because
there's nothing to see at the movies, absolutely nothing to see.
I cannot remember the last time I went to the movies.
I used to go to the movies all the time,
especially during the golden age of comedies. I love comedies.

(00:54):
If I go to a movie, I don't usually don't
want it to be serious, unless it's like a world
war or to a movie or something like that you
Band of Brothers kind of thing, then yeah, I'll go
see that. But no, most of the time. No. I
saw Dunkirk again World War Two. But I love comedies.

(01:16):
It doesn't matter how silly they are. Fact that sometimes
the sillier the better, you know, Like I even liked.
I didn't see it at the movie theater I saw it.
Where did I see it? We saw it on TV.
You know. That's the other thing has changed is first
run movies you can generally see on TV now just
about any time you want to. It seems like they go,
you know, right to pay per view. The Happy Gilmore sequel,

(01:40):
Happy Gilmore Too. I saw that. I personally liked it.
A lot of people didn't like it. By the way,
Happy Gilmore the original Happy Gilmore. Will you put that in?
If you had to come up with a list of
the top ten or twenty comedy movies in the last

(02:01):
fifty years, who would make your list? I'm curious who
would make your list. I don't know if Happy Gilmore
would make my list or not. I guess I would
consider Happy Gilmore because I certainly enjoyed it. See, that's
the thing is subjective, it's what do you like. But
there's a list that came out from something called Collander
dot com. They came out with the top ten funniest

(02:22):
movies of the last fifty years, and this is their list.
I'll give you their top ten list, and you're probably
gonna scratch your head over this one a little bit,
Number one Airplane. I agree airplane belongs in the top ten.
I don't know about number one, but it believes it
belongs in the top ten. This is Spinal Tap, The Birdcage, Bridesmaids,

(02:46):
The Big Lebowski Clerks, which is a movie I don't
think I've ever seen. The Life of Brian. That's a
Monty python thing, super Bad, a fish called Wanda, and
Anchorman The Legend of Ron Burgany is their top ten,
and I thought, well, where's Animal House? Animal House is
usually number one on a lot of lists. It didn't

(03:08):
even make the top ten. It was made in nineteen
seventy eight, so it qualifies as being in the last
fifty years. And most, by the way, most of the
funny movies were made in the seventies. In the eighties,
I don't think there's been that many funny movies since then.
Seventies in the eighties were kind of the golden age
for comedy movies. Blazing Saddles was seventy four, so I

(03:30):
guess we can't count that. But I was kind of
curious what our listeners thought, and maybe what you think
about this. If you had to pick the top ten
funniest movies in the last fifty years. Who would be
on your list? Maybe not a whole list, but who
would be on your list?

Speaker 4 (03:48):
Yeah, this is.

Speaker 5 (03:48):
Jason from Spring. I could think of a ton more
movies than what they thought of. Definitely Animal House, how
about Stripes, Caddy Shack Back, this School. I mean half
the movies on their list, they are just stupid.

Speaker 3 (04:05):
Okay, we got Princess Bride.

Speaker 1 (04:07):
It's a mad, mad, mad mad World, The Jerk, Young Frankenstein,
Blazing Settles.

Speaker 3 (04:14):
There's a whole lot of better movies.

Speaker 1 (04:16):
Yeah, this is Richard from Crosby.

Speaker 5 (04:18):
Uh.

Speaker 1 (04:19):
Definitely miss Baseballs. I don't know how they missed that one.

Speaker 6 (04:23):
Uh.

Speaker 1 (04:24):
Also Chropic Thunder and Billy Madison like those should have
made it. Oh, by the way, on the dogs, yeah
they sell. I'll see them on the side of the
road or in a Walmart park lot all the time.
They're people always giving away or selling them. It's it's
more than you think it is.

Speaker 3 (04:42):
But you know, that's the other thing I was talking
about this morning is is the state is moving to
ban the sale of animals roadside. You know, people who
set up shop like in a Walmart parking lot or
what have you, and they, you know, have their little
signed puppies for sale, and you know they're they're selling
dogs out the back of their car or in the
back of the truck or whatever. Yeah, that's that's a

(05:05):
bad situation all the way around. First of all, you're
you're not doing any kind of screening with the people
who are buying the animal. At least if you go
to a reputable breeder or if you go to the
Humane Society, they do at least a little bit of
screening to make sure that you're somebody who is in
a position where they really could take care of a dog.

(05:26):
And if you deal with a reputable breeder, then you're
not gonna have to worry about problems with you know,
inbreeding dogs and some of the people are selling them
by the side of the road. They usually don't care
about that kind of stuff. You know, they're they're there,
they get their money, and they're gone. I can't even
fathom buying a puppy in a Walmart parking lot, for example.
All right, but back to the movies. More suggestions. By

(05:48):
the way, a couple of those movies that were mentioned,
we're not in the last fifty years. It's a mad,
mad mad mad world. For example, Hey, this is Daniel
from Porter.

Speaker 2 (05:56):
Movies that should be on the Funny List Weird Science
and Top Secret.

Speaker 1 (06:01):
I think two movies that should be on the top
ten is still make Noise in Blazing Saddles, especially the
part scene have a good day.

Speaker 7 (06:10):
Hey Jim Man, I know you already mentioned Airplane, but
another wise that I think should have been on the
top fifty funniest movies out there has got to be
Liar Liar. Jim Carrey's take on being a lying lawyer
was absolutely hysterical. Again, Liar liar has to be up there.

Speaker 8 (06:26):
Good morning, Jimmy James from Antaskasita. The reason's fate of
not to Baseballs. The reason Young Frankenstein and Blazing Saddles
didn't make that list those are the two funniest movies
of all time is because those were made in nineteen
seventy four. Your list cuts off at seventy five. Have
a good one in five now.

Speaker 3 (06:44):
I wonder if they cut off the list, because, especially
in the case of Blazing Saddles, that is about as
politically incorrect movies you could ever make. You could never
make that movie again. They'll there'll never be another Blazing Saddles.
I mean, think about the dialogue in the movie. No
way you'd ever see that again. By the way, one

(07:05):
of our calls mentioned Spaceballs. Do you know they're doing
mel Brooks is doing a sequel after all these years
with the original cast, well most of the original cast anyway.
Obviously John Candy has died, so I think they've got
his son, who's gonna play his part anyway, I digress. Yeah,
there's a lot of good stuff. The one that I'm

(07:27):
kind of scratching my head is Steel Magnolius. First of all,
it's a guy who said that how many guys watched
Steel Magnolius. That's a chick flick. Plus she dies at
the end. You know, that kind of negates all the
funny stuff that you got to before. Then, all right,
enough of that, quick little break back with more in
a moment, Jimmy Barrett Show here a nam nine to

(07:47):
fifty KPRC. All right, we have a couple of level
stories in the world of politics that are I think

(08:08):
worth going over. I'm not going to share all the
audio for the Morning show on this, but we had
on our program today we had Martin Langton from the
Houston Firefighters Association. He's thrown his hat into the ring
to run for Harris County judge. So that's kind of interesting.
And then we have Representative Chip Roy, who's been a

(08:29):
guest on our morning program on KATRH a number of times,
numerous times, and was again this morning. I don't have
that inn interview to share, but that's okay. You're going
to get the gist of it from this Fox report.
He has decided. Chip Roy has decided to run for
attorney general. Now that Ken Paxton is going to run
for the US Senate, he wants to run for attorney general.
I think it has a lot to do. He's got

(08:50):
kids in high school. I think that's part of it.
He didn't admit to being frustrated, but I think anybody
who is a things done kind of person, and I
think Chip Roy is one of those people. I think
Ken pax is one of those people too. But I
think if he gets to the US Senate he might
be he might be very frustrated. In a very short

(09:13):
period of time. When you go from state to federal government,
you find out just how slowly things can move. I
mean things move slow enough in the state of Texas.
You get to Washington, DC, you watch it go even slower.
But Chip Roy wants a shot at becoming the attorney
general here in Texas. So he's going to be running
in the primary, And assuming he went to the primery,

(09:35):
I would think he's going to be a runaway winner
in a state wide election. But here he is. I'm
fox announcing that he is going to be making this run.

Speaker 9 (09:45):
You know how important the office of the Attorney general is,
and so I've thrown my hat in the ring to
run for Attorney General of Texas at the end of
the term. I'm currently serving my fourth term representing the
twenty first Congressional district. I'll observe eight years. I don't
think when permanent legislators. I think we need people that
are willing to turn that over and let someone else
now go represent the fine people of the Hill Country.

(10:07):
But I want to come back home and use my
talents and skills as a lawyer, as a former federal prosecutor,
as the former first Assistant Attorney General of Texas, as
someone who serves on the House Judiciary Committee, as the
chairman of the Constitution's Subcommittee, and I want to go
fight for Texas, and I want to do it in
the courtroom. I want to do it alongside the great
men and women are in blue, are law enforcement. And
this really, I got to say it touched me a

(10:29):
lot when I was down in Kerville during the floods
and working alongside the men and women who are doing
all of the hard work of trying to help those people,
the law enforcement community, the Texas Department of Emergency Management,
the Governor's office, local law enforcement, and I really had
a calling, in prayerful calling to come back home to Texas.
I'm unafraid to fight, but more importantly, I'm unafraid to win.

(10:50):
That was the story behind the big, beautiful bill and
working with President Trump to deliver. It's tough stuff in Washington,
but you got to be unafraid to win. And that's
why I want to run for the Attorney Feral of
Texas and come back and defend this great state from
the assault that it's experiencing by radical leftists, Soros DA's,
Soro's judges, putting criminals on the streets, open border politicians

(11:11):
that President Trump is fighting, but we need a long
generational change to save Texas. The Texas of our forefathers will.
We got to save it for our kids and grandkids.

Speaker 3 (11:20):
You know, not that he needs it, wants it, or
whatever asked for it, but he gets my endorsement as
a voter, as a Texas voter, he gets my endorsement.
I think that he would bring a lot of energy
to the job, very similar to Ken Paxson in his
belief system, I think, and a real fighter, and that's
who we need in that position. So I'm glad. I'm

(11:41):
actually very glad that he's running. I like his chances
of winning, and I think that's great. I think that's awesome.
All right. We also had a political discussion on our
morning show with doctor Robin Armstrong, our NC committee man.
We talked about redistricting, and we also talked about, in

(12:02):
fact started the interview with the two party system because
you know, Elon Musk was talking about starting up a
third party. Evidently he's now changed his mind on that
and instead of trying to start up a third party,
he's decided that he's going to get behind jd Vance
for twenty twenty eight. He thinks the Jdvance is somebody

(12:24):
he can support. So there you go, so much for
the talk of a third party. I mean, and when
you get right down to it, there haven't been a
lot of successful third parties in history. So here's my
conversation from earlier today on the Morning show in Katih
with doctor Robin Armstrong. I'm trying to think of the
last successful brand new party, and I want to say

(12:46):
it was probably the Republican.

Speaker 10 (12:48):
Party, absolutely absolutely, led by Abraham Lincoln. Yeah, you know,
led by with the goal of ending slavery. Abolishing slavery.
That's how the party was started in the state to
Texas and also in America. And absolutely so it's just
not going to be successful any longer. We have a
two party system, a strong two party system. The way

(13:09):
that Elon Musk can have a significant impact is to
work within the Republican Party. Has differences with anything that's
going on. So it's exciting that Trump Donald Trump's winning.
A Republican Party is winning partially because the Democrat Party
is self destructing, and so we're doing great things in
the Republican Party and we're excited.

Speaker 3 (13:29):
Well, let me let me ask you this, why is
it that we can't have more than two parties? Why
why have we become a two party system, is it?
Because you know, I look at European countries where they
have multiple political parties and they have divided government and
they have to build coalitions in order to have anybody
in charge of anything. Is that the biggest problem with
having a multi party system.

Speaker 10 (13:51):
Oh? No, I don't think there's anything wrong with it.
I mean, I think in that parliamentary system where they
have the different parties coalesced to form the prime minister,
they elect the prime minister as the leader. I think here,
because we elect the president by by popular vote with
an electoral college, I think it makes it very difficult.
And it's just American tradition. You know that that we

(14:12):
have a two party system, you know, back when when
it was first started, when Thomas Jefferson was fighting with
Alexander Hamilton and and and and and those guys John Adams,
and so I think it just started as a two
party system, and traditionally it's held that way. It's been
very hard for another person to break through. And I
think it's just tradition. And I think it's also just
kind of how we have alliged our aligned ourselves over time,

(14:35):
and so I don't think that's going to be changing
anytime soon. I think it's a good system. It works well,
you know, I think there is certainly parties. The last
time we had one that was that that had an
impact with Ross Perrot, and we ended up with many
years of Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton after that. So
so the result of that was bad, and so I
think I think extra parties, know, let's stay away from that,

(14:57):
work within the Republican or Democrat part par preferably the
Republican Party, and try to change the system that way.

Speaker 3 (15:04):
Okay, before I let you go, i'd like to get
your thoughts on the whole redistricting thing. Governor Gavin Newsom
estate managed to ran through his proposal to claw back
five seats, five additional Democrat seats in California to offset
what we did here in Texas. Do you see, of course,
we don't know if the voters of California are going
to approve it, but assuming that they do, you see

(15:25):
the possibility of a redistricting war. And if so, it
looks like the Republicans would win that one if they
can get the governors from these red states to go
along with redistricting.

Speaker 4 (15:34):
Absolutely we have a sizable advantage. In fact, that happened
to be at an R ANDC meeting now on the
East coast in Atlanta, and we are actually Ohio is
going to redistrict, Missouri is going to redistrict. There's some
other states looking at it as well. So we have
a sizeable advantage if there is a redistricting war. I
don't believe that California is going to be able to
do if they have to change their constitution. I don't

(15:56):
believe they're going to get the numbers of votes that
they need. In fact, they're as an organization that helped
form a Democrat, who helped form the Independent Commission, who
was putting millions of dollars against this effort, and so
I don't believe they're going to be able to get
past the finish line. I think this is a ploy
in its theater for Gavin Newsom running for president. That's
all he's doing. I don't think they're going to get

(16:17):
this through. I don't think they're even going to be
able to redistrict because of their constitution in California, and
so I think we're going to be okay. I think
Texas are doing a great thing. We're leading the country in.

Speaker 10 (16:27):
This and I'm excited that Galvezan County had a lot
to do with that, and so there's certainly a long
backstory to that as well, and so so yeah, we
had a lot to do with redistricting what's going on,
and so we're happy to be leading Texas and actually
leading in the Texas is leading in the country in
that effort.

Speaker 3 (16:45):
That's doctor Robin Armstrong from our morning show today in
ktr H. All right, he brought up Gavin Newsom, who
clearly is running. Yes, he is running to get the
Democratic nomination. Here he is is a quick one. Here,
he is, yes, talking about why he felt the need
to have California redistricting.

Speaker 11 (17:05):
This is radical rigging of a midterm election, radical rigging
of an election, destroying, vandalizing this democracy, the rule of law.
So I'm sorry, I know some people's sensibilities. I respect
and appreciate that, but right now, with all due respect,

(17:28):
we're walking down a damn different path. We're fighting fire
with fire, and when a punch.

Speaker 3 (17:33):
These sons him in the mouth, I'm sorry, I have
to laugh at that. What he just did is describe
what Democrats have been doing in California with their own jerrymandering,
and now now that they're forced to jerrymander even further,
he's trying to make an excuse for why they're doing

(17:53):
what they're doing. But doctor Armstrong just said, you know,
if it becomes a redistricting wars, the red states more
red states than blue states that could redistrict, and I
don't think California can compete with those numbers, even if
Washington State did it or Oregon. If they can, then
I don't think they can redraw the maps enough in

(18:16):
order to be able to make that work. At least
maps it would stand up in Corey. All right, quick
little break. We're back with more in a moment. Jimmy
Bartt show here on name nine fifty KTRCIX. All right,

(18:43):
let's talk about Cracker Barrel. We've been talking about Cracker
Barrel for weeks now. In fact, I think when the
news first came out that Cracker Barrel was going to
remodel and redesign, I'm trying to remember what I said
about that. I know I i out loud why they
were doing it, because it didn't sound like something that

(19:04):
was going to fundamentally change their business, and the reaction
to it has been I think a little bit over
the top. And before we get into that and why,
I've heard a lot of people say Cracker Barrel's going woke.
I don't think it has anything to do with woke.
I really don't, because they aren't making the kinds of
changes that you would make if you really were woke.

(19:27):
But here is a Fox report on how the reaction
has been with Cracker Barrel patrons around the country.

Speaker 6 (19:34):
Cracker Barrel is probably the one restaurant chain that could
have gotten away without ever changing anything, and people would
have been happy. They like it dark and old and
kind of dusty. But they decided to change things like
this thing. I'd sign up there. That's the logo old
man sitting on a chair leaning on a cracker barrel.
Not anymore. It's not just text, although just text is

(19:56):
what it was when the company started back in nineteen
sixty nine. They haven't you since nineteen seventy seven, and they thought,
you know, now's the time to do it because the
prophits have been fading a little bit. You know, people
like the old Cracker Barrel with the dark walls and
all that stuff on the wall, the memorabilia, the farm equipment, tools,
old pictures, signs, But a lot of people apparently told

(20:21):
the company things are getting kind of shabby in here.
So take a look at what they've now posted on
social media. This is Cracker Barrel's new rebrand. It has
stores that are brighter. There are still the memorabilia on
the walls, but they're white walls now. Fireplace still is there,
and a lot of people said no, we don't like

(20:43):
that on social media, people who said they took away
the cracker and the barrel.

Speaker 10 (20:47):
What's the point?

Speaker 6 (20:48):
Absolutely horrible, says someone else. John Rich, the country singer,
says Cracker Barrel has gone woke. All of this has
led to the stock kind of taking a major hit.

Speaker 11 (20:57):
Today.

Speaker 6 (20:58):
It was down I think at one two point twelve percent.
Now it's a little bit off the lows, down about
eight percent right now. The company says this is not
about being woke. Nothing has changed except for trying to
give people a nicer, brighter place to enjoy their diet
busting food.

Speaker 3 (21:18):
And isn't that what it's all about. It's all about
the food, isn't it. It's not like they're taking away
Mama's pancake breakfast. I love that by the way, I
upgrade to become pancakes. But here's the thing. All the
other companies who made changes that were because they were woke,

(21:39):
Cracker Bell finds themselves lumped in with those people simply
for wanting to change. To make a change, that's number one,
number two their clientele. Then this is one of the
reasons why I guess they're trying to change. Their clientail
has gotten older. They definitely appeal to an older crown.

(22:00):
I don't know what the average asia of your Cracker
Barrel patron is, but I'm sure it's, you know, getting
on the older side. Old people don't like change. They
don't like change. Now the changes are not that significant.
I don't know why they took the old man and
the cracker barrel off the Cracker Barrel sign. They're still

(22:20):
calling it Cracker Barrel. If they really were woke, don't
you think they would have changed the name of the restaurant,
taken out the cracker you know, because cracker Barrel. I mean,
if you wanted to, if you wanted to try to
make something racist out of it or woke out of it.
I mean, what do southern white people get called by

(22:41):
black people? Are used to Crackers, so if he wanted
to make it racial, you could, But you're not changing
the name. They're just taking away the old man and
the barrel. But what's the point of taking away the barrel?
Your name cracker Barrel, aren't you? So they changed the
sign that really doesn't change much of anything. They're painting

(23:04):
it white or lighter color. At least it'll be less
dark in there, But I don't know that that really
enhances your dining experience very much. Everything else is pretty
much the same. They've had a few new things they've
added to the menu, but they kind of go along
with a cracker barrel theme. So at the end of
the day, what really got accomplished here for Cracker Burrough

(23:26):
They haven't gotten any good publicity from this. They are
not going to be attracting any more new customers to
the place based on painting the walls white and changing
the logo and the sign. That's not going to bring
new customers in. And all you did was was piss
off the older people who patronize your restaurant. I mean, Scott,

(23:51):
the only good thing is is if you buy the philosophy.
If there's no such thing as bad publicity because they've
gotten attention they maybe haven't gotten in quite some time.
Maybe a bunch of people will flock there to go
to their favorite cracker barrel before they come in and
paint the place. You know, the CEO of cracker Barrel
is somebody who's relatively new. And that's the problem sometimes

(24:14):
with cegos, especially if you're running a company whose profits
are on the way down, is you feel like you
have to do something, You have to leave your mark
on the company. So that's what this new CEO is doing.
She's leaving her mark on the company. Now the question becomes,
will she revive the brand or will she hurt the

(24:34):
brand as a result of these minimal changes they're making.
But again, I don't think it's because it's woke. I
think they're just trying to get the profits up, is
what they're trying to do. You know, maybe if people
keep going to the old cracker barrels and then when
they get remodeled, you know, don't go there anymore, maybe
we'll get the message we don't like the decors. Although
I don't know, you know, why you want to have

(24:56):
dark walls versus white walls. Anyway, still like Mama's Pancake Breakfast.
I think if you really want to, you know, if
you really want to change a restaurant, you just need
to change, you know, don't try to don't mess with
something like a cracker barrel if you want to, if
you want to attract a younger customer, close some of

(25:17):
your cracker barrels and change it into a restaurant a
young person's gonna want.

Speaker 10 (25:21):
To go to.

Speaker 3 (25:22):
That seems to be the smartest thing to do, if
you ask me, I mean, if you're gonna spend money remodeling. Anyway,
y'all have a great weekend. Thanks for listening. I'll see
you Monday morning, bright and early five am on News
Radio seven forty KTRH. We are back here at four
on AM nine to fifty KPRC.