November 24, 2025 • 45 mins
ERIC EPSTEIN AND MILLENNIAL BRIAN TALK ABOUT THE TERM PARASOCIAL, AN OXYCONTIN SETTLEMENT, NUREMBERG, AND THE LAST PENNY.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Listen
Watch
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
The coach. It's well for Saturday before it all gets going,
And I'm Eric Epstein. I'm here with Millennial O'Brien. You know,
just had an observation. Or does the weather guy sound
a lot like Michael Parks or is there no similarity there? No,
it's it's Tom Russell. Okay, yeah, Tom Russell, the guy
with two first names. Okay, gotcha, I'm down with that.
(00:22):
So any rate, look right off the bat, what I'd
like to do. Obviously, it's Thanksgiving. Give a brief history
that really the only president that opposed the proclamation for
Thanksgiving was Thomas Jefferson, and that was based on.
Speaker 2 (00:41):
Based on actually the Constitution. His argument was endorsement of
a government endorsement of Thanksgiving is similar to a government
endorsement of religion, and he was the first amendment in
his mind separated it's kind of all religions from the
state or any even state involvement in religion in both ways,
so like obviously positive proclamations but also negative short of connotations.
(01:03):
That was his argument, is that he won the government
completely out of religions.
Speaker 1 (01:07):
Times well, it makes sense. However, as governor of Virginia,
he did endorse the concept, and it wasn't until Lincoln
that the Thanksgiving holiday got the official proclamation. I was
trying to find out how many turkeys don't make it,
and you know, one of the things I noticed is
(01:27):
I was backing into this, is that the percentage of
it's over fifty percent now the percentage of Americans that
go out to eat either through ordering or we're going out,
And it's apparently by generationally, so the baby boomers are
(01:48):
over fifty and then when you get to whatever generation
we're on now, I can't count that Z or alpha. Yeah,
thirty seven, I have some business. I mean that's thirty
seven staying in going out?
Speaker 2 (02:01):
Yeah, I guess say that one's just general move from
cooking the home, getting meals at home first going out
or getting orders. And then the COVID COVID change social
attitudes and kind of social the way people move just
in general, and that's gonna stay, especially with the younger
generation forever. So I think ordering, getting door dashed, going out,
(02:24):
that's gonna be way more common than cooking. Plus, cooking
is labor intensive, and if you if you're not a
good cook, or you don't have a cook in your family.
A lot of times it's better to go out.
Speaker 1 (02:33):
So here's a confusion. If you're ordering, then my assumption
is you're you're ordering with people, but that may not
be the case. I mean, this used to be the
quintessential family holiday. You get together, have a good meal,
fall asleep so A you don't have to talk to
your relatives. Put on a bad TV game so be
you don't have to talk to your relatives. And see,
(02:55):
get drunk so you don't have to talk to your relatives.
So now you got to talk to your relatives. I
mean kind of in a pickle here.
Speaker 2 (03:01):
Brother, Well, we just got to hope the football is good.
The football is good, and then maybe around.
Speaker 1 (03:05):
Well, I'll tell you what I noticed. Not many restaurants
except reservations. They're full. You know, there's so many people
are going out to eat. And there's another question in
the Philadelphia Inquirer today, if you get invited to somebody's
house for Thanksgiving, is it insulting or are you not
(03:25):
you know, pulling your weight if you bring something that's
store bought. In other words, if you're going to a
holiday festival.
Speaker 2 (03:32):
Yeah, so I disagree with this. I heard percent if
you can't cook, you should you should bring something to
store bought because at least you know there's a minimum standard.
I mean, this is this is a misnomal because originally
there's be like someone from every family that could cook.
It's just not the case anymore. And so you can't
take that risk. You come out.
Speaker 1 (03:52):
You know.
Speaker 2 (03:52):
I know some people are like eating bad food that's
cooked by your family's part of Thanksgiving. I disagree. I
think store bought if you can't cook. If you can cook,
and great.
Speaker 1 (04:00):
But well, I'm going to a Thanksgiving. Well I don't
know if I'm you and me and your dad are
going out, but I know I have one in the
morning and one in the afternoon. And what I heard
on Monday is the popularity of fried turkey.
Speaker 2 (04:15):
Fried turkey. I mean that's that's a super American thing.
We had turkey was too healthy. We gotta fry it.
Speaker 1 (04:20):
I mean, that's there's nothing in America you can't fry.
Speaker 2 (04:23):
That's right. Un Listen, there's a reason because it tastes amazing.
It's super unhealthy, but it tastes amazing.
Speaker 1 (04:29):
All right, let me hit you with a couple quick
hitters here, Brian, But uh, millennial. These are really important.
How does the president of the United States who is
called a fascist by the incoming mayor of New York,
and the incoming mayor of New York who is called
a communist by the president. What was that yesterday? Because
(04:49):
I'll tell you the Third Party candidate Curtis Sewa it
was furious and just stead we all got scammed.
Speaker 2 (04:56):
Oh yeah, Well, I think what happens is we're not
a point. We're so poor of politics where you call
you always call your opponent, especially if they're seen in
the extremes as the worst thing you can And I
think this is two things. One is for they both
want something of it. Macdonbie wants mainstream credibility and he
wants his version of the Democratic Party to be the
(05:17):
main opposition to Trump. And so the fact that he
gets invited and he goes, he's sort of puts himself
as kind of the lead figure of the Democratic Party.
Trump wants to still be kind of like the big guy,
and he wants to have the idea that even though
in New York they elected a mayor about as far
left as possible, they still have to go through him.
And he's still started with government.
Speaker 1 (05:40):
It was.
Speaker 2 (05:40):
It was noticeable, but it wasn't crazy because Cuomo was
in it. So I think it was like twelve points,
So it was it was clear that he want And
it's weird because he ran essentially against the democratic governor
who just got elected, who got elected previously obviously a
disgrace democratic governor. But it wasn't it wasn't a normal
mayor election.
Speaker 1 (05:58):
Yeah. I mean, that's the thing how Trump and Cuomo
both were embroiled in sex scandals, and Cuomo apparently that
stayed with him. I mean people view him as kind
of slimy. Yeah, And so for Mandamie and for Trump,
the risk in my mind is that people are gonna
think of Trump, especially after the thing with the Epstein files,
(06:20):
is maybe moving away from America first. And Mondami I
don't know how sure he you know, wants him to.
He's not gonna get anywhere unless he moves to the center. Yeah.
Speaker 2 (06:32):
As far as governing, and we'll have to see, because
governing a city is much different than even governing the
federal government. You can argue you can kind of be
an AOC in Congress, but when you have to actually govern,
you know, dollars and cents, pick up the trash, what
the schools look like. Now you're going to be trust
well to see what happens. And he probably also doesn't
want to lose federal funding, because that's the other thing
(06:52):
is Trump said he was going to withdraw federal funding
from New York, especially if they don't follow his immigration policies,
and Don has been totally against it. So maybe this
is I guess, trying to get a compromise. They don't
lose federal Funny, because I don't know how to New York,
especially with their budget problems long term, because maybe for
a year or two, but like.
Speaker 1 (07:11):
Why nobody saying I don't know how America who has
more severe problem? Yes, you know, it's crazy to me.
Marjorie Taylor Green resigning I think is interesting. I think
she's moved probably more to the center. You know, I
looked at some of her views and she was a
strident cheerleader for Trump. And by her leaving, that means
(07:35):
there's going to be a one vote margin between the
Republicans and Democrats.
Speaker 2 (07:40):
Why is she leaving, Well, she's leaving mainly over the
discriminate of the Epstein files, which is Trump doesn't want
to get in the released. He thinks that they're just
trying to go after him, and then she obviously won.
She ran on kind of this going against the shadowy,
corrupt government, and the Epstein files kind of represent that
as like just in general of these are the types
(08:00):
of people you would have got. You know, we're talking
about a guy who ran like a pedophile ring for
very rich and powerful people. So to get those names released.
I think when her and Trump had the disagreement, you
could see that is the rift it was gonna She
was gonna completely change that. The original mercenary that came
into Congress is not going to be there. So now
(08:22):
I don't know if she wants to resign just to
get out of politics, or she wants to resign and go.
Speaker 1 (08:26):
Become indicate she's not she can't run for senator or
governor in Georgia. Right, she went not too well? You know,
part of it could be maturity. The other problem is
the Epstein files was like the Lightning Rod issue. They
kept you know, Maggot together, and he's kind of undermined
(08:49):
his own credibility with this. The problem I've always had
with Trump on this issue is I don't know in
to what degree he was involved, But it's not really
great judgment when you're hanging out with a guy like
this for an extended period of time.
Speaker 2 (09:01):
That's true. And yeah, and also if you run on
it and then you don't release it, people, I was
just gonna say, what's going on now. They'll correctly point
out that the Democrats only became interested when Trump became president,
that when you know, Bonham was president, they weren't. They
didn't seem to care, and they weren't pushing for it.
But I think that's like beside the point. I think
that the public, if you if you take a Republican dect,
(09:22):
they just want to see what was on the list.
Speaker 1 (09:24):
Now, I think the I think reublic is aware that
both parties were implicating. Yeah, absolutely, and at very very
high levels. You had the president of Harvard who was
Secretary of Treasury, you know, embarrassed and walking away. So
in my mind, that makes the public hungrier.
Speaker 2 (09:39):
And that was over just kind of communications with him.
You're actually engaging in these activities, that's completely It's almost
even worse because we yeah, because he was around New York,
he was around these financial institutions. But that's that's still
different than being completely involved in his island.
Speaker 1 (09:53):
And let me make two observations before we go to break.
You have had a relationship that Clinton had with an
aide that almost brought him down. Yeah, wasn't. It wasn't pedophilia.
It was too consenting adults. And everybody was just really
upset with Clinton, as they should. But if we bring
(10:17):
this full circle, Senator al Franken resigned almost ten years
ago because of a picture. That's right, when he was
in a picture. All right, So I'm not saying it
was a good picture, but I mean our tolerance, our
threshold for putting up with behaviors. I mean, could you
(10:37):
ever have imagined a cabinet secretary getting fifty thousand in
cash and everybody's saying, hey, it's okay. Well here's the thing,
Spenser Potato.
Speaker 2 (10:47):
Che We're I think I don't know when this ended.
Maybe it was twenty sixteen. We're at a polarization point
where we're so team focused that any bad behavior is
not punished. And what I mean by that is is
that I'd rather have someone with moral flaws on my team.
And it's where a protective at all costs, and when
(11:09):
you get this polarized, you know, competency, kind of general
performance or morality that goes out the window. It's all
about my team stopping that team. So you see on
both the Democratic Republican side where you Democrats were very
much more tolerant of Joe Biden's corruption, especially with the
sun around Ukraine, and Republicans are more coloring of Trump.
Speaker 1 (11:28):
You know, you're looking at the magnitude we're gonna have
to break. I mean, before the Saudis came over, they
kind of deal with the Trump family. This this is
a corruption on an unprecedented scale. So that it doesn't
mean that Hunter Biden's a good guy. He's obviously not.
But you know somebody carrying fifty grand in a paper
bag getting off.
Speaker 2 (11:48):
Well that's the Jersey Center who got Yeah, but.
Speaker 1 (11:52):
He didn't get off. But he was also a stupid
gold bricks smart about being corrected anyway. Ericap stigned with
Millennial Brian. We're rock the capital of the program's underdome.
Please check our web We just updated it and we're
being produced by Art Selby. Is it me or that
last commercial was that Doctor Howard, you know with the
joint ligament? Doctor sounded like you could use a little
(12:15):
first jaw.
Speaker 2 (12:18):
He's only.
Speaker 1 (12:21):
Not moving real quickly there. So first of all, I
just want to say really disappointed that Big Lou hasn't
been sponsoring us to this guy in the past. That
I'm grateful to Shippensburg case, you know, into all our
regular sponsors, but he was certainly one of the most
entertaining that we had. So Malania, we have a big
(12:43):
development that nobody is covering on the left or right,
at least that I'm not aware of, and that is
the judge finally approved a seven billion dollars settlement with
oxy cotton maker Purdue, and I'm not really sure I
understand the ownership, but the apparently the deal was overseen
by US bankruptcy judge and the case was returned by
(13:07):
the Supreme Court to this court because apparently the family,
the Sackler family, would have been indemnified, they would have
had to pay anything. So let me raise two things
that really I found remarkable about this case. We're saying
nine hundred thousand people have died in this crisis. That's
almost a million, and so these people are contributing. They're
(13:30):
not going to do any prison time, and they almost
didn't have any you know, financial implication. The other thing
that's amazing on the positive side is that the main
player behind this is the Attorney General of Mississippi, who
was also the main player behind going out to the
tobacco industries and then bringing Deep Horizon to justice. You know,
(13:52):
so some of the stereotypes that you may have about
Mississippi was gone. I mean, the settlement with tobacco was
a billion.
Speaker 2 (14:00):
Yeah, And this is what you kind of want, you
when corporations are our government oversteps the line, you want
to have some type of recourse, either you know, criminally
or civilly, and a lot of times it doesn't happen.
This is a time where it's going to happen. With
the sacl fame we try to do is this. Basically,
they were gonna get sued, so they declared bankruptcy, moved
to Europe and tried to change the hoardings of their
(14:23):
company where they couldn't be criminally or financially liable. They
were able to get away. Basically criminally liable, they were
able to say, well, so we followed all the FDA guidelines,
we got approved. Now you're coming to us saying there's
side effects, but we met all the requirements, so criminally
you couldn't go after them. And then they also changed
the Wayfore.
Speaker 1 (14:42):
You couldn't we hold them, I mean for in terms
of negligence, did they.
Speaker 2 (14:46):
Well, that's what they would try to do, but they
said you couldn't because it went through the FDA process
and it got approved. Now, if you look into how
they got through the FDA process, they basically used their
own studies and the FDA accepted them, which was insane
considering that they didn't follow typical protocol of like having
independent variables and having control rooms and so so that
(15:08):
that's a different question. But then they financially tried to
move their company essentially say that we're not the owners
of the company, the company is actually bankrupt for filing
for bankruptcy, and we're moving it to Europe. And then
that way they could essentially keep the profits because they
made huge profits on oxyconton, and then not pay any palty.
And so now that they basically ruled that you can't
(15:29):
do that, you can't justsentially say hey, you know, we
don't have to pay any of the penalty for causing
all this damage. And they brought back to the United States.
So even though they're overseas now and they move the
ownership group away from their family, they're holding them liable
because they're the ones that profit. It's not not a
holding company that's profit is that it's the family.
Speaker 1 (15:46):
So you know, they've expressed regret, which is somewhat disgusting.
I mean they've been they chose to go bankrupt not
to face the.
Speaker 2 (15:58):
Music, right, and that it was good. They're not going
bankrupt as in they're giving away all the money. They
try to go they try to file bankruptcy and move
the companies such as say oh we have no American
profits and sort of as a way to get away
from pedalines. So they kept all the money. They're still rich.
In fact, this is seven billion dollars, will be great
for the families. But I think overall, if you will
get they made eleven billion dollars from the drug, so
(16:20):
they're still going to profit four billion, which is so
it's it's good and we're I'm glad they got the ruling,
but it's sad. And if you know any even basic chemistry,
you basically this is this is heroin. It's just one
uh one slight. This one bond away from being heroin.
(16:41):
Chemical bond. Yeah, so chemical bond. No, it's one bond
away from being heroin. So watered down heroin. So you're
dealing with water down heroin that you gave to people,
and then that was supposed to only be used for
essentially people suffering from cancer or bullet wounds, to like everyone.
Speaker 1 (16:58):
So if you look at if you put it in
reverse and then look at the trajectory, you know, the
pharmaceutical companies advocated for the implementation of this on a
wide scale, saying America, you know, we were we you know,
we had too high a threshold for pain and this
(17:20):
was non addictive. And so I mean, who were those
folks testifying before Congress. I thought they were the pharmaceutical companies.
Speaker 2 (17:30):
Well yeah, but they're the ones that ran the studies.
If you look at how they set up to studies,
they basically basically for a study in order to get
a drug to studies that got approved by the FDA
and you could put push through. They used their own studies,
and the way they dealt with addiction and placebo is
they basically removed people that were getting addicted or that
didn't fit their mind.
Speaker 1 (17:51):
That's the point. So they gained the study, yes, but
they gained the study with the knowledge that the medicine
was a drug and it was.
Speaker 2 (17:59):
A was addictive. Yes, they might not.
Speaker 1 (18:02):
Is that not a criminal act?
Speaker 2 (18:03):
That's what? Yeah, Well that's the whole problem is that
is that because essentially, because they went through the FDA
and you have to approved their studies, you can't say
the studies were criminal in the sense that you can,
which is just ridiculous because if you anyone who's done
even just basic surveys or studies would realize that you
can't just remove all the results that contradict what you want.
(18:24):
You can't just say, well this, you know, this drug
cures will say Alzheimer's, but you know people are you know,
they're losing arms and legs. You can't just remove from
the study and say, well, but that's essentially what they're doing.
They're saying it cure is pain, which it does because
obviously you're giving people, you know, essentially wire down heroines.
They're gonna feel great, but it's highly addictive. That's why
it's only you for like cancer patients or people receiving
(18:48):
bullet wound care. Like it's super severe injury.
Speaker 1 (18:51):
No, No, I mean, look, I get it. And you know,
at the end of the day, there's nine hundred thousand
people dead in this family made four billion. Yeah, something
to me in terms of morality, legality, however you want
to put it. I know what you're saying with the
justice system did a corrective. But these folks went into
(19:15):
this aware, yes that it was addictive, promoted it, advertised it,
sold it in. Boy, nine hundred thousand lives, man, that's that's.
Speaker 2 (19:29):
And plus you're talking about all the people that say,
let's say they didn't die, but God did the heroin
or had life altering, family altering you know, engagements with
this drug that were horrible, and they will all the time, Well,
they knew this is what this is. They because it
wasn't if you prescribe it only for cancer patients or
people that are getting bullet wounds. This is a small market.
(19:50):
You probably get in hospital repayments on like for Medicaid,
But if you described to a large population as like
over the counter drugs, you can make huge profits. I mean,
they were giving to kids that got the injuries in
high school.
Speaker 1 (20:01):
All right, now, I'm going to say something and it
might have two form of justice. But if you look
at biblical justice, eye for an eye, nose for a nose,
truth for tooth, whatever, prosthetic for a prosthetic. If so,
if you, I don't know what form of justice would
be appropriate other than forcing the family to get addicted.
Speaker 2 (20:25):
I don't think I wish. I wish that you could
just criminally go after them for the studies. I mean,
if you look at the way the studies were set up,
and it's just so ridiculou there's a documentary about how
that's got approved in the first place.
Speaker 1 (20:36):
So let me ask you this, because this, to me
is the crucial point. Nothing indicates to me from the
penalty or the justice system, nothing indicates to me that
this would stop other people from replicating.
Speaker 2 (20:51):
Uh yeah, dissuade them. Now you can say we've changed
the processes with the FDA so they can get approved
for You're right, as far as the actual penalty, basic
they made four billion dollars, they made eleven billion dollars,
had to pay seven billion, so they profited four billion,
had to live in Europe now, and but that's that's enough,
you know, That's all they need and it doesn't matter
anything else. So I think, yeah, we look at these forms,
(21:13):
the penalty never outweighs the benefit. And that's the problem
long term, is that you need you need the penalty
to weigh outwigh the benefit.
Speaker 1 (21:19):
That's so, you know. That's my perspective on the death penalty.
People will say, no, you shouldn't support it because no
study says that it acts as a barrier for other
people committing the crime. My version of the death penalty
and maybe the same thing with the sacklers. If you
have the death penalty, that person is no longer going
(21:40):
to commit Yes, you know. So I don't know what
the similar is for the sacklers. I mean, it's hardly
a hardship to be living in Europe. Oh, sitting on
four billion dollars. Yes, okay, So I just think it
sends the signal that, you know, we can blow through
the red light, we can pay off the cop and
move on. Look, this is Eric Epstein, Millennial, O'Brian worth Underdome.
(22:02):
The show is Thunderdome. The group has rocked the capital.
Art Selby is producing us. He should be very happy.
Notre Dames, what went in three thousand to nothing in
the first quarter mcdeviitt won last night, so you're on
a roll man. We'll be back in a moment. All right,
we're back. Just want to say hi to all the
are hardcore listeners. Uh, they're too numerous to name, so
(22:25):
I'm just gonna identify the team captains Larry and Nancy
and Kathy and Jeanie and Tom. Uh you you know
of the opportunity to sign up to be a team captain.
We're gonna have to look at your financials first. But
I have a question. So why is turkey the meat
(22:45):
for Thanksgiving? Because wasn't it Franklin who actually argued against
the bald eagle and advocated to have turkey as the
national symbol.
Speaker 2 (22:56):
Yeah, well, I mean that was that was wast frank
was a brilliant man, and that was a horrible on.
His is much more intimidating, impressive bird in the turkey.
You know, it's much easier to catch and eat. That's why.
Speaker 1 (23:08):
So I guess what I'm saying is if we had
gone with turkey instead of bald eagle, we'd be eating
bald eagle.
Speaker 2 (23:13):
Yeah, but you wouldn't be because it's super hard to get.
Speaker 1 (23:16):
It's not I mean I'm saying is that we would
try inculcate and grow them, and you know.
Speaker 2 (23:23):
It would raise the standard of the nation. Yeah, this
is like like, well, yeah, Americas can't fry everything. It's like,
that's that's just not true. That's not how we're built.
You know, we will fry everything.
Speaker 1 (23:33):
Well, I'm still kind of surprised by the number of
people that don't prepare. But you know, by the same token,
a lot of times in the family, the one person
would be tied to spending days and you know, it
was like and people wouldn't even clean up, you know,
oh yeah, do all the cooking. So I was the guy.
(23:55):
I don't know if you ever saw the Santa Claus
where you know he burns the turkey and has to
go out to eat getting that art. You know in
the Santa Claus he did he burn the turkey? I
thought that was in the Christmas story. Well one of them.
And you shouldn't be asking the Jewish guy anyway. That
(24:17):
was like me when I was away to college. You know,
I would go out with all these foreign exchange to
a restaurant and it was it was deeply disturbing. But
what there's a couple of movies coming out this week.
Apparently the Bruce Springsteen biopic is really good. And the
sequel to what was the one, the remake a Wizard
(24:39):
of Us?
Speaker 2 (24:41):
Oh yeah, like the Witch?
Speaker 1 (24:43):
Yeah it was a good witch bad Well I think
she was a green Wich green Yeah. Yeah, so there's
a sequel to that. Uh And the one I wanted
to talk about was Nurremberg. Uh So Nurremberg is a
film it's interesting to take on what happened. And here's
my I just you know, right outcome and tell you
(25:06):
what my criticism is. I don't like films that are
faction where it's based on true events, but you take liberties.
That's what Nuremberg is here. That's what it was when
the play first came out. That's what it was when
the film first came out. And what makes this different
and why I would like people to see it given
(25:26):
the time the age that we live in, is that
the first Nuremberg Tribunal two judges from four different countries,
the victorious countries, and people don't appreciate the fact that
the number two Nazi, who was Gurring, went on trial.
Now he was formidable, and people need to understand that
(25:51):
these guys. They did an IQ test and these guys
were all bright except for Striker. But they all know
who was going to die, so nobody cared. Yeah, he
was gonna get hanged, So you and three people got
to quit it as they should. They weren't involved in
the charges that were leveled against him. What is interesting
is I read the biography of the court psychologist and
(26:15):
you get it's just not what you would think introspection
of these guys. This film is about the court psychiatrist
who had a very intense relationship and apparently, if this
is true, he basically said that the chief judge at
(26:37):
the time, Jackson, couldn't hold a candle to Gurring. So
Gurring was compelling and sharp, and you know, when you
have something that says based on true accounts. My philosophy
is this, it's similar to LVZL when you mix fact
(26:58):
and fiction. The truth. Yeah.
Speaker 2 (27:01):
Well, the reason why they do that, and this is
done in Hollywood all the time, is to make the
story more compelling. You know, you know, something happens on it,
even just the timeline events. They'll push it together. They'll
make it seem condensed. It seems like more action happens
that it does. I think for Nurember, the argument is, well,
if you don't make it compelling, people won't watch the
(27:23):
full trick, full trials or you know, boring and long,
and people get the general gist. These are you know,
these are Nazis, are bad guys. We're putting them on trial.
I think if you put in a movie, you get
the more, I guess, a deeper understanding of how this
is set up, the details of the case, but more
how all the people involved and kind of how they
(27:45):
got maybe not to that point, but how how we
you know, how is a world we got to that point?
Is a better way to put it. If we went
through it not just the Holocausts, but one of the
worst world or the worst we ever.
Speaker 1 (27:59):
Yeah. So there was a number of Nuremberg trials. This
was the first. The trials started to wane in intensity
and frequency because of the Cold War. And what happened
is we began collaborating with former Nazis because the Russians,
the Communists, our adversary. The reality is, we don't win
(28:20):
the war without the Russians. Nazi no, no, yeah, we
don't win the war without the Russians.
Speaker 2 (28:26):
Against the Nazis right, and we don't win the Cold
War without.
Speaker 1 (28:29):
Well yeah, that could be said. So look, this is
a bookend. The other part of this is the Eichmann
trial in Israel, where you got to see the main
guy who coordinated and implemented the final solution. He was
kidnapped in Argentina. They kept him in a safe house
for three weeks in the Argentines national birthday, they moved
(28:53):
him out, and there was a trial and he was hanging,
the only person hanged in Israel. Here you have Gerring,
who is I mean, Iikman just looks like a regular guy.
This this is a formidable guy who was a World
War One decorated veteran. And you know what you want
to see normally when you look at people like this
(29:16):
is a monster.
Speaker 2 (29:18):
Yeah, and that's well, that's always hard because they are monsters.
But I think a good point is that is when
you see people, when you see them as more complex characters,
you realize that not they are they are monsters, but
not all monsters appear to be, you know, on the
outside or in the way they act, even though they're
capable of monstrous things, you know. So it's just it's
(29:39):
I mean, I mean even with Iikman, I remember watching
because I watched Aikman was kind always say the initiation
of the massade, Massad really got the first big mission.
If you watch that trial, even though he was as impressive,
he was very stone cold, just like calm. Absolutely, it's like,
how does this type because this guy looks like could
be an accountant. It's capable of so much. I guess
(30:02):
the argument is that if you're put in these positions
more people humans have worse intentions and or at their
heart maybe not as so inherently good as we assume
everyone else.
Speaker 1 (30:16):
Well, I mean, Eichmann is the incremental, the gradual evolution
to evil. He was head of Jewish affairs for the Nazi.
He actually was trying to find a way to resolve
the Jewish question through deportation. And it became clear when
the Allies didn't accept any Jews, and when his plan,
(30:38):
you know, there was a plan not necessarily history of
the Jews to Madagascar. They go to the final solution
during is During and Eichman are both Nazis, you know,
they're true believers, and you know one of the Nazis
on trial during Nuremberg was asked, you know, why didn't
you rebel and he said he's a stuns he was.
Speaker 2 (31:02):
Would Yeah, He's like, why whatever, Yeah, he's like. But
you also remember this is these are the when they're
growing up or they're not, but they're living through the
end of World War One. They're seeing the economy kind
of crash, and they're pushing all the blame, even the
bad agreements, onto that ethnic group of the Jewish community.
And then they went from already a community that was
already a minority to like a true outsider, true separate
(31:24):
from German. So they've it was almost like patriotic or
you know.
Speaker 1 (31:28):
Well, those conditions almost made it inevitable that there was
going to be turbulence. I mean, Germany never had a war,
the economy was awful. Actually, the Nazis were on the
wane when they were got to power. But the Nazis
don't become a power without Gerring as the face of
the Nazis, a World War One hero. So you know,
(31:50):
there is never equitable justice when somebody's you know, implicated
and killing that man.
Speaker 2 (31:58):
But I mean, but I think, but isn't the argument
though that at least set up the number trials and
kind of like the post war war, like a better
form of interaction and engagement in warfare. I mean, it's
weird to say now because there's obviously horrible things going
on in the world now, but we basically had total
warfare up until World War Two. If you think about
(32:20):
that with modern weapons, I mean, think about like nuclear
bombers or chemical attacks and how often that be happening.
Speaker 1 (32:26):
So what changed in World War Two is Churchill and
Roosevelt agreed that it would be unconditional surrender. They were
going to negotiate, so it had to be total surrender
the Russians. Yeah, that was obviously going to be the deal.
So you know what was important and what America should
be proud of is the jurisprudence that was a result
(32:46):
of Nuremberg. You know, they look, Gurring's attorney was good.
These guys were allowed to defense. They didn't allow that
for the right.
Speaker 2 (32:54):
Just yeah, and show the difference between.
Speaker 1 (32:56):
Yeah, so during like Himmler and like Hitler's never hung,
he commits suicide. So there was a US Army captain
that got him. Okay, the believe it was Sinai capsule.
The psychiatrist is more complicated you have to see the movie.
Yes it's true he did magic tricks, and yes it's
(33:19):
true he relied on the roars, yeah, heavily. It's true
that he was removed and in nineteen fifty nine, you know,
maybe thirteen years after the trials. I think I could
be wrong, but I think it was at a birthday
(33:39):
family gathering. He goes upstairs, goes to the bathroom and
commits suicide the same way Gurring did so after Tremor's
posttress whatever we want to call it is, you can't
be and he was in the cell with Gurring for
a long period of time. If you get a chance,
the other one to look at a guy named GM Gilbert.
(34:00):
It's it's a really accessible book. He was a court
psychologist and he was looking at these guys. Gave him
an IQ test. They were all bright, you know, Spear
was Spear was a snake and convincing. He was the
only one smart enough to say I feel bad. So
everybody else. Brian is like, yeah, we did it, we did.
You know. You know, it's like the Austrians, you know,
(34:22):
instead of never again, how about tomorrow. So it's Sara
Kapstein Millennial when we come back, Maniel Brian. The show
is underdome, the organization is rocked the Capitol. We're being
produced by Art. But I wanted to talk about the
the extinction of the penny. Yeah, that's coming right up,
(34:46):
So two penny for your thoughts. So Millennial and I
were talking during the break. I think you have to
see the movie Nuremberg. I don't know that the psychiatrist
Kelly was necessary. I don't know. We'll say that he
wasn't empathetic, but you know, there's a spell that Gerring
(35:06):
casts and he's not this what you think he's supposed
to be. You know, he in the court room, he
gave a spirited defense. His defense attorney was good. And
you know, people have to make up their own minds.
You know, for the most part, with the exception of Spear,
(35:28):
they're either embracing Nazism or justifying right. Yeah, Spear was smart.
He gets out after fifteen years. So yeah, I just
think it's people need to understand that you don't know
what you would do. I mean, I would tell my
students nineteen thirty three, you're in Nuremberg, two hundred and
fifty thousand people marching in Unison, in the shape of
(35:51):
a swastiker. Yeah, you're not going to be the only
You're not gonna be the only person bringing a star
David to the party. I mean, it's honestly, you are
going to go with the flow. And part of what
Gerring said and other people said, there was a feel
to the Nazis that was celebratory, that we should be
proud again and that we're moving forward. So that film,
(36:14):
I know, it's probably not in the holiday spirit. Yeah yeah, yeah, rollindecks.
But so we're gonna stop printing the penny. And what
I didn't know the penny was was around for two
hundred and thirty two years, began in seventeen ninety three
when Philly was the capital, and I guess what really not,
(36:37):
I guess, I know, excuse me. What really surprised me,
millennial is that each penny costs three point sixty nine
cents to make.
Speaker 2 (36:46):
Yes, there's been like this for a little while obviously. Yeah,
because as inflation has gone up and you know, metals
have changed, your prices has become more expensive to make
the penny than to obviously have a penny. And so
this is probably it's from an economic perspective to been
done before. It's just no one wants to be the
guy who gets rid of the penny, who gets rid
of Lincoln. And also if you're just dealing in cash
(37:09):
a lot, or you have like all these weird prices
like we do, you know ninety nine ninety seven, some
people want to have pennies. But I will say this,
if you have pennies, hold on to them, hold on
to them because there because.
Speaker 1 (37:20):
There's that one with the symbol is it omega? What's
the last letter in the Greek alphabit?
Speaker 2 (37:27):
It can't be. I mean, no, it's some symbol like
it might be. Yeah, okay, it might be. I guess if.
Speaker 1 (37:34):
They they're minting the last ones with that symbol on it.
Speaker 2 (37:37):
Okay, yeah, I would listen. If you get out, I
would hold onto your pennies. And just because you never know,
it's kind of like baseball cards or Pokemon cars.
Speaker 1 (37:45):
You know. But isn't that going to facilitate a crunch?
People are going to start hoarding pennies.
Speaker 2 (37:51):
That's true. Yes, they're going to start hoarding pennies. My
hope is that we fixed the problem is that we
have just ridiculous prices in this country that make it
hard to buy and sell things like just make the
prices even. You turn every four into a five dollars.
Speaker 1 (38:06):
But let me ask you, this four ninety nine is seductive.
That's the advertising. People think they're getting a break. I
didn't pay one hundred, I pay ninety nine. That's right,
and that that's always worked. So how do you when
you're like at a register and you're paying cash, with
a few remaining businesses that accept cash, how do you
(38:27):
make the difference?
Speaker 2 (38:29):
Well, they'll probably you'll probably just give a nickel. It'll
probably just be like you can a little over and
be like I'll just take the three cent hit and
that's it. Or the store will take the three cent well,
because otherwise, yeah, you're right, it's gonna be it's gonna
be hard to deal in cash. It's gonna be harder.
Not just for the like because the stores will be good,
but like if you think about like farmers markets and
(38:50):
different stuff, like if pennies become really hard to get,
it's gonna be hard because you know people are they
are dealing with cash, so.
Speaker 1 (38:56):
So hard currency is that a thing that's gonna.
Speaker 2 (38:59):
Be It's never gonna end. It will never end. And
the reason why I will never end is not everyone
wants to have all their information on credit cards and
phones and stuff like that. People want to have cash
for either just very normal reasons of just like it's
easier to deal with their older or even like illicit
reasons like they want to sell drugs and stuff like that.
(39:20):
There's always going to be a cash sport and so
you know, tap for everything or you know how that
is not gonna happen.
Speaker 1 (39:26):
So why I'm looking at the daddy here. And things
actually peaked a couple of years back. They have been
during COVID before there was a pretty large stand down.
Speaker 2 (39:38):
Oh yeah, producing pennies. Well, listen, this has been something
that for years and years everyone knew was economically just wrong.
You know, from the left to the right, this is
a bad idea to produce pennies because it costs more
to make than to than to have, and then it
also apparently slows down. Actually, I think I think I
(39:59):
forget the acts that actual commerce, because you're dealing with
like everyone's pulling out pennies in a little sense, and
that eventually you actually have net loss overall of just
time wasted on you know, dealing with pennies, so eventually
it's it's a bad economic argument. The problem is no
one wants to Abraham Lincoln, and then there isn't versus
(40:21):
for older people that kind of rely on cash or
use cash for more. Do you want to get rid
of the.
Speaker 1 (40:26):
Depend And plus Trump's not gonna want to put himself
be the face of the penny, I mean unless it
was a gold penny. So it said in nineteen twenty
one we had to peak fifteen billion coins and then
it went down to six billion last year.
Speaker 2 (40:43):
Yeah, that's well, it's also this too. So one is
the is the penny argument. The other one is just
everything's becoming digital, especially COVID. I mean looking, that's right
after COVID, every you know COVID, all of it's become
tap digital. I mean you go to a restaurant sometimes
it is empty, but they have tons of door dash orders.
We're just coming in and coming and coming. So we
are switching to it's going to be more tap tap.
(41:03):
And the reason why I will never go one hundred
percent to tap tap is because you have people that
are always going to want to operate in cash, whether
for very illissit reasons for normal reasons of it's easier
to deal with. They like to touch the physical money.
It's sort of like brick and border stores. We know
online stores are taking a huge part of that business,
but people are still always going to want to shop
and go in and buy the clothes.
Speaker 1 (41:25):
I agree, yeah, Uh so how much time do we have?
I'm never really good with this. About four minutes. Yeah,
I need to get a watch. So my birthday is
on Monday. I'm going to be sixty six. Had I
known I would live this long, I would have treated
my body a lot better. That's what I can tell you.
So yet, you know there is a one eight hundred
(41:50):
birthday line. We don't have it yet, but when we
get it, we'll share it with you. So I was
reading just kind of deviate here on Jackie Robinson, and
so you know, I was watching out takes from the
movie and uh, you know the abuse he had to
(42:13):
take and what was interesting in modern day politics. Jackie
told and said argued that black people should not just
be wed to Democrats, that they needed to have a
Republican option. And I don't know, I think he may
have could be wrong. He may have supported Nixon or
(42:34):
worked with them. You know, things things got different for
for gold Water, but it was real. He you know,
his arguments made sense. Uh. And you know when you're
looking at some of the footage from back in the day,
no hard helmet, you know they're clearly thrown at his head.
(42:55):
The spikes are spikes.
Speaker 2 (42:57):
Yeah, it was everything. It's nasty. I think he played
the Phillies. Uh, the manager, I think the manager and
the team Ben Chapman, he was abautiful.
Speaker 1 (43:08):
So so they Commissioner of Baseball May Chapman posed with
Jackie Robinson. Yeah, Chapman was awful, horrible. Philadelphia was work
and Jackie said that that was the most difficult thing
he had to do was take a picture with this guy.
But Chapman said, well, you know, Hank Greenberger's juice and
(43:29):
we call him a kaike. You know, you know Joe Demagio,
we call him a wop. And he just couldn't understand.
It's like, no, it's like he can't ya. But the
biggest thing I think for Jackie was that his teammates
stood up for him.
Speaker 2 (43:42):
That was that was a turning point. And then and
then listen, he could play. He wasn't m VP, but
he was right below that. He was a good, great player,
and then it came over and then listen, sports is
probably one of the best uned flyers in the country,
you know, because his performance based people respect people of
all racist religion that could perform and then at Prince
communities together. So although that initial bump was super hard,
(44:04):
once you got over it, you know, it became a
baseball that was the best guy, and baseball was a
Japanese guy, a Japanese player.
Speaker 1 (44:12):
Yeah, and I think people are still struggling with that.
But with Jackie Robinson, what happened is same thing that
happened to Alabama after they got destroyed by USC and football.
You're you're not going to ignore the talent art. What
do you got going this Thanksgiving? I don't know that
I can make it for dinner. I'm all over the place.
(44:32):
I have family all over the states. I'll be busy,
and of course I'll have to watch the Cowboys at
four point thirty. Who are they playing the Chiefs? Oh okay,
both teams are gonna need to win. Yeah, all right, Brian,
I think I know what you're doing. We may go.
Speaker 2 (44:48):
Out, yeah, we or meet up at least at one point. Yeah,
so it's just just gonna be football. I mean, that's
that's basically.
Speaker 1 (44:54):
So. Did anybody ever think of having a Thanksgiving buffet
at a stripper club?
Speaker 2 (45:00):
I blist. I I bet there's options, There's always options.
There's some of the most innovative places.
Speaker 1 (45:05):
Yeah, I mean, I'm trying to innovate. You know, you
can exercise by what you what we got about a
minute or ah? Yeah, so look moving forward and we
say this every holiday season, as we should. We had
a advertisement for the Mothers Against Druck Driving. One of
the things Millennial has been reporting upon is a concept
known as sober Drive, and that's going to be available
(45:28):
again through the holiday season whenever Thanksgiving is. I don't
know when it ends. I think, what's a twenty dollars
credit you have to be picked up at a bar
or restaurant, but if you're too drunk to drive, just
look into that. It's I think say, is being sponsored
by County.
Speaker 2 (45:47):
Hats So the Tri County Playing Commission, and it's on Uber.
Speaker 1 (45:50):
Yeah. So I don't know if you knew this last
year some guy, Oh
The coach. It's well for Saturday before it all gets going,
And I'm Eric Epstein. I'm here with Millennial O'Brien. You know,
just had an observation. Or does the weather guy sound
a lot like Michael Parks or is there no similarity there? No,
it's it's Tom Russell. Okay, yeah, Tom Russell, the guy
with two first names. Okay, gotcha, I'm down with that.
(00:22):
So any rate, look right off the bat, what I'd
like to do. Obviously, it's Thanksgiving. Give a brief history
that really the only president that opposed the proclamation for
Thanksgiving was Thomas Jefferson, and that was based on.
Speaker 2 (00:41):
Based on actually the Constitution. His argument was endorsement of
a government endorsement of Thanksgiving is similar to a government
endorsement of religion, and he was the first amendment in
his mind separated it's kind of all religions from the
state or any even state involvement in religion in both ways,
so like obviously positive proclamations but also negative short of connotations.
(01:03):
That was his argument, is that he won the government
completely out of religions.
Speaker 1 (01:07):
Times well, it makes sense. However, as governor of Virginia,
he did endorse the concept, and it wasn't until Lincoln
that the Thanksgiving holiday got the official proclamation. I was
trying to find out how many turkeys don't make it,
and you know, one of the things I noticed is
(01:27):
I was backing into this, is that the percentage of
it's over fifty percent now the percentage of Americans that
go out to eat either through ordering or we're going out,
And it's apparently by generationally, so the baby boomers are
(01:48):
over fifty and then when you get to whatever generation
we're on now, I can't count that Z or alpha. Yeah,
thirty seven, I have some business. I mean that's thirty
seven staying in going out?
Speaker 2 (02:01):
Yeah, I guess say that one's just general move from
cooking the home, getting meals at home first going out
or getting orders. And then the COVID COVID change social
attitudes and kind of social the way people move just
in general, and that's gonna stay, especially with the younger
generation forever. So I think ordering, getting door dashed, going out,
(02:24):
that's gonna be way more common than cooking. Plus, cooking
is labor intensive, and if you if you're not a
good cook, or you don't have a cook in your family.
A lot of times it's better to go out.
Speaker 1 (02:33):
So here's a confusion. If you're ordering, then my assumption
is you're you're ordering with people, but that may not
be the case. I mean, this used to be the
quintessential family holiday. You get together, have a good meal,
fall asleep so A you don't have to talk to
your relatives. Put on a bad TV game so be
you don't have to talk to your relatives. And see,
(02:55):
get drunk so you don't have to talk to your relatives.
So now you got to talk to your relatives. I
mean kind of in a pickle here.
Speaker 2 (03:01):
Brother, Well, we just got to hope the football is good.
The football is good, and then maybe around.
Speaker 1 (03:05):
Well, I'll tell you what I noticed. Not many restaurants
except reservations. They're full. You know, there's so many people
are going out to eat. And there's another question in
the Philadelphia Inquirer today, if you get invited to somebody's
house for Thanksgiving, is it insulting or are you not
(03:25):
you know, pulling your weight if you bring something that's
store bought. In other words, if you're going to a
holiday festival.
Speaker 2 (03:32):
Yeah, so I disagree with this. I heard percent if
you can't cook, you should you should bring something to
store bought because at least you know there's a minimum standard.
I mean, this is this is a misnomal because originally
there's be like someone from every family that could cook.
It's just not the case anymore. And so you can't
take that risk. You come out.
Speaker 1 (03:52):
You know.
Speaker 2 (03:52):
I know some people are like eating bad food that's
cooked by your family's part of Thanksgiving. I disagree. I
think store bought if you can't cook. If you can cook,
and great.
Speaker 1 (04:00):
But well, I'm going to a Thanksgiving. Well I don't
know if I'm you and me and your dad are
going out, but I know I have one in the
morning and one in the afternoon. And what I heard
on Monday is the popularity of fried turkey.
Speaker 2 (04:15):
Fried turkey. I mean that's that's a super American thing.
We had turkey was too healthy. We gotta fry it.
Speaker 1 (04:20):
I mean, that's there's nothing in America you can't fry.
Speaker 2 (04:23):
That's right. Un Listen, there's a reason because it tastes amazing.
It's super unhealthy, but it tastes amazing.
Speaker 1 (04:29):
All right, let me hit you with a couple quick
hitters here, Brian, But uh, millennial. These are really important.
How does the president of the United States who is
called a fascist by the incoming mayor of New York,
and the incoming mayor of New York who is called
a communist by the president. What was that yesterday? Because
(04:49):
I'll tell you the Third Party candidate Curtis Sewa it
was furious and just stead we all got scammed.
Speaker 2 (04:56):
Oh yeah, Well, I think what happens is we're not
a point. We're so poor of politics where you call
you always call your opponent, especially if they're seen in
the extremes as the worst thing you can And I
think this is two things. One is for they both
want something of it. Macdonbie wants mainstream credibility and he
wants his version of the Democratic Party to be the
(05:17):
main opposition to Trump. And so the fact that he
gets invited and he goes, he's sort of puts himself
as kind of the lead figure of the Democratic Party.
Trump wants to still be kind of like the big guy,
and he wants to have the idea that even though
in New York they elected a mayor about as far
left as possible, they still have to go through him.
And he's still started with government.
Speaker 1 (05:40):
It was.
Speaker 2 (05:40):
It was noticeable, but it wasn't crazy because Cuomo was
in it. So I think it was like twelve points,
So it was it was clear that he want And
it's weird because he ran essentially against the democratic governor
who just got elected, who got elected previously obviously a
disgrace democratic governor. But it wasn't it wasn't a normal
mayor election.
Speaker 1 (05:58):
Yeah. I mean, that's the thing how Trump and Cuomo
both were embroiled in sex scandals, and Cuomo apparently that
stayed with him. I mean people view him as kind
of slimy. Yeah, And so for Mandamie and for Trump,
the risk in my mind is that people are gonna
think of Trump, especially after the thing with the Epstein files,
(06:20):
is maybe moving away from America first. And Mondami I
don't know how sure he you know, wants him to.
He's not gonna get anywhere unless he moves to the center. Yeah.
Speaker 2 (06:32):
As far as governing, and we'll have to see, because
governing a city is much different than even governing the
federal government. You can argue you can kind of be
an AOC in Congress, but when you have to actually govern,
you know, dollars and cents, pick up the trash, what
the schools look like. Now you're going to be trust
well to see what happens. And he probably also doesn't
want to lose federal funding, because that's the other thing
(06:52):
is Trump said he was going to withdraw federal funding
from New York, especially if they don't follow his immigration policies,
and Don has been totally against it. So maybe this
is I guess, trying to get a compromise. They don't
lose federal Funny, because I don't know how to New York,
especially with their budget problems long term, because maybe for
a year or two, but like.
Speaker 1 (07:11):
Why nobody saying I don't know how America who has
more severe problem? Yes, you know, it's crazy to me.
Marjorie Taylor Green resigning I think is interesting. I think
she's moved probably more to the center. You know, I
looked at some of her views and she was a
strident cheerleader for Trump. And by her leaving, that means
(07:35):
there's going to be a one vote margin between the
Republicans and Democrats.
Speaker 2 (07:40):
Why is she leaving, Well, she's leaving mainly over the
discriminate of the Epstein files, which is Trump doesn't want
to get in the released. He thinks that they're just
trying to go after him, and then she obviously won.
She ran on kind of this going against the shadowy,
corrupt government, and the Epstein files kind of represent that
as like just in general of these are the types
(08:00):
of people you would have got. You know, we're talking
about a guy who ran like a pedophile ring for
very rich and powerful people. So to get those names released.
I think when her and Trump had the disagreement, you
could see that is the rift it was gonna She
was gonna completely change that. The original mercenary that came
into Congress is not going to be there. So now
(08:22):
I don't know if she wants to resign just to
get out of politics, or she wants to resign and go.
Speaker 1 (08:26):
Become indicate she's not she can't run for senator or
governor in Georgia. Right, she went not too well? You know,
part of it could be maturity. The other problem is
the Epstein files was like the Lightning Rod issue. They
kept you know, Maggot together, and he's kind of undermined
(08:49):
his own credibility with this. The problem I've always had
with Trump on this issue is I don't know in
to what degree he was involved, But it's not really
great judgment when you're hanging out with a guy like
this for an extended period of time.
Speaker 2 (09:01):
That's true. And yeah, and also if you run on
it and then you don't release it, people, I was
just gonna say, what's going on now. They'll correctly point
out that the Democrats only became interested when Trump became president,
that when you know, Bonham was president, they weren't. They
didn't seem to care, and they weren't pushing for it.
But I think that's like beside the point. I think
that the public, if you if you take a Republican dect,
(09:22):
they just want to see what was on the list.
Speaker 1 (09:24):
Now, I think the I think reublic is aware that
both parties were implicating. Yeah, absolutely, and at very very
high levels. You had the president of Harvard who was
Secretary of Treasury, you know, embarrassed and walking away. So
in my mind, that makes the public hungrier.
Speaker 2 (09:39):
And that was over just kind of communications with him.
You're actually engaging in these activities, that's completely It's almost
even worse because we yeah, because he was around New York,
he was around these financial institutions. But that's that's still
different than being completely involved in his island.
Speaker 1 (09:53):
And let me make two observations before we go to break.
You have had a relationship that Clinton had with an
aide that almost brought him down. Yeah, wasn't. It wasn't pedophilia.
It was too consenting adults. And everybody was just really
upset with Clinton, as they should. But if we bring
(10:17):
this full circle, Senator al Franken resigned almost ten years
ago because of a picture. That's right, when he was
in a picture. All right, So I'm not saying it
was a good picture, but I mean our tolerance, our
threshold for putting up with behaviors. I mean, could you
(10:37):
ever have imagined a cabinet secretary getting fifty thousand in
cash and everybody's saying, hey, it's okay. Well here's the thing,
Spenser Potato.
Speaker 2 (10:47):
Che We're I think I don't know when this ended.
Maybe it was twenty sixteen. We're at a polarization point
where we're so team focused that any bad behavior is
not punished. And what I mean by that is is
that I'd rather have someone with moral flaws on my team.
And it's where a protective at all costs, and when
(11:09):
you get this polarized, you know, competency, kind of general
performance or morality that goes out the window. It's all
about my team stopping that team. So you see on
both the Democratic Republican side where you Democrats were very
much more tolerant of Joe Biden's corruption, especially with the
sun around Ukraine, and Republicans are more coloring of Trump.
Speaker 1 (11:28):
You know, you're looking at the magnitude we're gonna have
to break. I mean, before the Saudis came over, they
kind of deal with the Trump family. This this is
a corruption on an unprecedented scale. So that it doesn't
mean that Hunter Biden's a good guy. He's obviously not.
But you know somebody carrying fifty grand in a paper
bag getting off.
Speaker 2 (11:48):
Well that's the Jersey Center who got Yeah, but.
Speaker 1 (11:52):
He didn't get off. But he was also a stupid
gold bricks smart about being corrected anyway. Ericap stigned with
Millennial Brian. We're rock the capital of the program's underdome.
Please check our web We just updated it and we're
being produced by Art Selby. Is it me or that
last commercial was that Doctor Howard, you know with the
joint ligament? Doctor sounded like you could use a little
(12:15):
first jaw.
Speaker 2 (12:18):
He's only.
Speaker 1 (12:21):
Not moving real quickly there. So first of all, I
just want to say really disappointed that Big Lou hasn't
been sponsoring us to this guy in the past. That
I'm grateful to Shippensburg case, you know, into all our
regular sponsors, but he was certainly one of the most
entertaining that we had. So Malania, we have a big
(12:43):
development that nobody is covering on the left or right,
at least that I'm not aware of, and that is
the judge finally approved a seven billion dollars settlement with
oxy cotton maker Purdue, and I'm not really sure I
understand the ownership, but the apparently the deal was overseen
by US bankruptcy judge and the case was returned by
(13:07):
the Supreme Court to this court because apparently the family,
the Sackler family, would have been indemnified, they would have
had to pay anything. So let me raise two things
that really I found remarkable about this case. We're saying
nine hundred thousand people have died in this crisis. That's
almost a million, and so these people are contributing. They're
(13:30):
not going to do any prison time, and they almost
didn't have any you know, financial implication. The other thing
that's amazing on the positive side is that the main
player behind this is the Attorney General of Mississippi, who
was also the main player behind going out to the
tobacco industries and then bringing Deep Horizon to justice. You know,
(13:52):
so some of the stereotypes that you may have about
Mississippi was gone. I mean, the settlement with tobacco was
a billion.
Speaker 2 (14:00):
Yeah, And this is what you kind of want, you
when corporations are our government oversteps the line, you want
to have some type of recourse, either you know, criminally
or civilly, and a lot of times it doesn't happen.
This is a time where it's going to happen. With
the sacl fame we try to do is this. Basically,
they were gonna get sued, so they declared bankruptcy, moved
to Europe and tried to change the hoardings of their
(14:23):
company where they couldn't be criminally or financially liable. They
were able to get away. Basically criminally liable, they were
able to say, well, so we followed all the FDA guidelines,
we got approved. Now you're coming to us saying there's
side effects, but we met all the requirements, so criminally
you couldn't go after them. And then they also changed
the Wayfore.
Speaker 1 (14:42):
You couldn't we hold them, I mean for in terms
of negligence, did they.
Speaker 2 (14:46):
Well, that's what they would try to do, but they
said you couldn't because it went through the FDA process
and it got approved. Now, if you look into how
they got through the FDA process, they basically used their
own studies and the FDA accepted them, which was insane
considering that they didn't follow typical protocol of like having
independent variables and having control rooms and so so that
(15:08):
that's a different question. But then they financially tried to
move their company essentially say that we're not the owners
of the company, the company is actually bankrupt for filing
for bankruptcy, and we're moving it to Europe. And then
that way they could essentially keep the profits because they
made huge profits on oxyconton, and then not pay any palty.
And so now that they basically ruled that you can't
(15:29):
do that, you can't justsentially say hey, you know, we
don't have to pay any of the penalty for causing
all this damage. And they brought back to the United States.
So even though they're overseas now and they move the
ownership group away from their family, they're holding them liable
because they're the ones that profit. It's not not a
holding company that's profit is that it's the family.
Speaker 1 (15:46):
So you know, they've expressed regret, which is somewhat disgusting.
I mean they've been they chose to go bankrupt not
to face the.
Speaker 2 (15:58):
Music, right, and that it was good. They're not going
bankrupt as in they're giving away all the money. They
try to go they try to file bankruptcy and move
the companies such as say oh we have no American
profits and sort of as a way to get away
from pedalines. So they kept all the money. They're still rich.
In fact, this is seven billion dollars, will be great
for the families. But I think overall, if you will
get they made eleven billion dollars from the drug, so
(16:20):
they're still going to profit four billion, which is so
it's it's good and we're I'm glad they got the ruling,
but it's sad. And if you know any even basic chemistry,
you basically this is this is heroin. It's just one
uh one slight. This one bond away from being heroin.
(16:41):
Chemical bond. Yeah, so chemical bond. No, it's one bond
away from being heroin. So watered down heroin. So you're
dealing with water down heroin that you gave to people,
and then that was supposed to only be used for
essentially people suffering from cancer or bullet wounds, to like everyone.
Speaker 1 (16:58):
So if you look at if you put it in
reverse and then look at the trajectory, you know, the
pharmaceutical companies advocated for the implementation of this on a
wide scale, saying America, you know, we were we you know,
we had too high a threshold for pain and this
(17:20):
was non addictive. And so I mean, who were those
folks testifying before Congress. I thought they were the pharmaceutical companies.
Speaker 2 (17:30):
Well yeah, but they're the ones that ran the studies.
If you look at how they set up to studies,
they basically basically for a study in order to get
a drug to studies that got approved by the FDA
and you could put push through. They used their own studies,
and the way they dealt with addiction and placebo is
they basically removed people that were getting addicted or that
didn't fit their mind.
Speaker 1 (17:51):
That's the point. So they gained the study, yes, but
they gained the study with the knowledge that the medicine
was a drug and it was.
Speaker 2 (17:59):
A was addictive. Yes, they might not.
Speaker 1 (18:02):
Is that not a criminal act?
Speaker 2 (18:03):
That's what? Yeah, Well that's the whole problem is that
is that because essentially, because they went through the FDA
and you have to approved their studies, you can't say
the studies were criminal in the sense that you can,
which is just ridiculous because if you anyone who's done
even just basic surveys or studies would realize that you
can't just remove all the results that contradict what you want.
(18:24):
You can't just say, well this, you know, this drug
cures will say Alzheimer's, but you know people are you know,
they're losing arms and legs. You can't just remove from
the study and say, well, but that's essentially what they're doing.
They're saying it cure is pain, which it does because
obviously you're giving people, you know, essentially wire down heroines.
They're gonna feel great, but it's highly addictive. That's why
it's only you for like cancer patients or people receiving
(18:48):
bullet wound care. Like it's super severe injury.
Speaker 1 (18:51):
No, No, I mean, look, I get it. And you know,
at the end of the day, there's nine hundred thousand
people dead in this family made four billion. Yeah, something
to me in terms of morality, legality, however you want
to put it. I know what you're saying with the
justice system did a corrective. But these folks went into
(19:15):
this aware, yes that it was addictive, promoted it, advertised it,
sold it in. Boy, nine hundred thousand lives, man, that's that's.
Speaker 2 (19:29):
And plus you're talking about all the people that say,
let's say they didn't die, but God did the heroin
or had life altering, family altering you know, engagements with
this drug that were horrible, and they will all the time, Well,
they knew this is what this is. They because it
wasn't if you prescribe it only for cancer patients or
people that are getting bullet wounds. This is a small market.
(19:50):
You probably get in hospital repayments on like for Medicaid,
But if you described to a large population as like
over the counter drugs, you can make huge profits. I mean,
they were giving to kids that got the injuries in
high school.
Speaker 1 (20:01):
All right, now, I'm going to say something and it
might have two form of justice. But if you look
at biblical justice, eye for an eye, nose for a nose,
truth for tooth, whatever, prosthetic for a prosthetic. If so,
if you, I don't know what form of justice would
be appropriate other than forcing the family to get addicted.
Speaker 2 (20:25):
I don't think I wish. I wish that you could
just criminally go after them for the studies. I mean,
if you look at the way the studies were set up,
and it's just so ridiculou there's a documentary about how
that's got approved in the first place.
Speaker 1 (20:36):
So let me ask you this, because this, to me
is the crucial point. Nothing indicates to me from the
penalty or the justice system, nothing indicates to me that
this would stop other people from replicating.
Speaker 2 (20:51):
Uh yeah, dissuade them. Now you can say we've changed
the processes with the FDA so they can get approved
for You're right, as far as the actual penalty, basic
they made four billion dollars, they made eleven billion dollars,
had to pay seven billion, so they profited four billion,
had to live in Europe now, and but that's that's enough,
you know, That's all they need and it doesn't matter
anything else. So I think, yeah, we look at these forms,
(21:13):
the penalty never outweighs the benefit. And that's the problem
long term, is that you need you need the penalty
to weigh outwigh the benefit.
Speaker 1 (21:19):
That's so, you know. That's my perspective on the death penalty.
People will say, no, you shouldn't support it because no
study says that it acts as a barrier for other
people committing the crime. My version of the death penalty
and maybe the same thing with the sacklers. If you
have the death penalty, that person is no longer going
(21:40):
to commit Yes, you know. So I don't know what
the similar is for the sacklers. I mean, it's hardly
a hardship to be living in Europe. Oh, sitting on
four billion dollars. Yes, okay, So I just think it
sends the signal that, you know, we can blow through
the red light, we can pay off the cop and
move on. Look, this is Eric Epstein, Millennial, O'Brian worth Underdome.
(22:02):
The show is Thunderdome. The group has rocked the capital.
Art Selby is producing us. He should be very happy.
Notre Dames, what went in three thousand to nothing in
the first quarter mcdeviitt won last night, so you're on
a roll man. We'll be back in a moment. All right,
we're back. Just want to say hi to all the
are hardcore listeners. Uh, they're too numerous to name, so
(22:25):
I'm just gonna identify the team captains Larry and Nancy
and Kathy and Jeanie and Tom. Uh you you know
of the opportunity to sign up to be a team captain.
We're gonna have to look at your financials first. But
I have a question. So why is turkey the meat
(22:45):
for Thanksgiving? Because wasn't it Franklin who actually argued against
the bald eagle and advocated to have turkey as the
national symbol.
Speaker 2 (22:56):
Yeah, well, I mean that was that was wast frank
was a brilliant man, and that was a horrible on.
His is much more intimidating, impressive bird in the turkey.
You know, it's much easier to catch and eat. That's why.
Speaker 1 (23:08):
So I guess what I'm saying is if we had
gone with turkey instead of bald eagle, we'd be eating
bald eagle.
Speaker 2 (23:13):
Yeah, but you wouldn't be because it's super hard to get.
Speaker 1 (23:16):
It's not I mean I'm saying is that we would
try inculcate and grow them, and you know.
Speaker 2 (23:23):
It would raise the standard of the nation. Yeah, this
is like like, well, yeah, Americas can't fry everything. It's like,
that's that's just not true. That's not how we're built.
You know, we will fry everything.
Speaker 1 (23:33):
Well, I'm still kind of surprised by the number of
people that don't prepare. But you know, by the same token,
a lot of times in the family, the one person
would be tied to spending days and you know, it
was like and people wouldn't even clean up, you know,
oh yeah, do all the cooking. So I was the guy.
(23:55):
I don't know if you ever saw the Santa Claus
where you know he burns the turkey and has to
go out to eat getting that art. You know in
the Santa Claus he did he burn the turkey? I
thought that was in the Christmas story. Well one of them.
And you shouldn't be asking the Jewish guy anyway. That
(24:17):
was like me when I was away to college. You know,
I would go out with all these foreign exchange to
a restaurant and it was it was deeply disturbing. But
what there's a couple of movies coming out this week.
Apparently the Bruce Springsteen biopic is really good. And the
sequel to what was the one, the remake a Wizard
(24:39):
of Us?
Speaker 2 (24:41):
Oh yeah, like the Witch?
Speaker 1 (24:43):
Yeah it was a good witch bad Well I think
she was a green Wich green Yeah. Yeah, so there's
a sequel to that. Uh And the one I wanted
to talk about was Nurremberg. Uh So Nurremberg is a
film it's interesting to take on what happened. And here's
my I just you know, right outcome and tell you
(25:06):
what my criticism is. I don't like films that are
faction where it's based on true events, but you take liberties.
That's what Nuremberg is here. That's what it was when
the play first came out. That's what it was when
the film first came out. And what makes this different
and why I would like people to see it given
(25:26):
the time the age that we live in, is that
the first Nuremberg Tribunal two judges from four different countries,
the victorious countries, and people don't appreciate the fact that
the number two Nazi, who was Gurring, went on trial.
Now he was formidable, and people need to understand that
(25:51):
these guys. They did an IQ test and these guys
were all bright except for Striker. But they all know
who was going to die, so nobody cared. Yeah, he
was gonna get hanged, So you and three people got
to quit it as they should. They weren't involved in
the charges that were leveled against him. What is interesting
is I read the biography of the court psychologist and
(26:15):
you get it's just not what you would think introspection
of these guys. This film is about the court psychiatrist
who had a very intense relationship and apparently, if this
is true, he basically said that the chief judge at
(26:37):
the time, Jackson, couldn't hold a candle to Gurring. So
Gurring was compelling and sharp, and you know, when you
have something that says based on true accounts. My philosophy
is this, it's similar to LVZL when you mix fact
(26:58):
and fiction. The truth. Yeah.
Speaker 2 (27:01):
Well, the reason why they do that, and this is
done in Hollywood all the time, is to make the
story more compelling. You know, you know, something happens on it,
even just the timeline events. They'll push it together. They'll
make it seem condensed. It seems like more action happens
that it does. I think for Nurember, the argument is, well,
if you don't make it compelling, people won't watch the
(27:23):
full trick, full trials or you know, boring and long,
and people get the general gist. These are you know,
these are Nazis, are bad guys. We're putting them on trial.
I think if you put in a movie, you get
the more, I guess, a deeper understanding of how this
is set up, the details of the case, but more
how all the people involved and kind of how they
(27:45):
got maybe not to that point, but how how we
you know, how is a world we got to that point?
Is a better way to put it. If we went
through it not just the Holocausts, but one of the
worst world or the worst we ever.
Speaker 1 (27:59):
Yeah. So there was a number of Nuremberg trials. This
was the first. The trials started to wane in intensity
and frequency because of the Cold War. And what happened
is we began collaborating with former Nazis because the Russians,
the Communists, our adversary. The reality is, we don't win
(28:20):
the war without the Russians. Nazi no, no, yeah, we
don't win the war without the Russians.
Speaker 2 (28:26):
Against the Nazis right, and we don't win the Cold
War without.
Speaker 1 (28:29):
Well yeah, that could be said. So look, this is
a bookend. The other part of this is the Eichmann
trial in Israel, where you got to see the main
guy who coordinated and implemented the final solution. He was
kidnapped in Argentina. They kept him in a safe house
for three weeks in the Argentines national birthday, they moved
(28:53):
him out, and there was a trial and he was hanging,
the only person hanged in Israel. Here you have Gerring,
who is I mean, Iikman just looks like a regular guy.
This this is a formidable guy who was a World
War One decorated veteran. And you know what you want
to see normally when you look at people like this
(29:16):
is a monster.
Speaker 2 (29:18):
Yeah, and that's well, that's always hard because they are monsters.
But I think a good point is that is when
you see people, when you see them as more complex characters,
you realize that not they are they are monsters, but
not all monsters appear to be, you know, on the
outside or in the way they act, even though they're
capable of monstrous things, you know. So it's just it's
(29:39):
I mean, I mean even with Iikman, I remember watching
because I watched Aikman was kind always say the initiation
of the massade, Massad really got the first big mission.
If you watch that trial, even though he was as impressive,
he was very stone cold, just like calm. Absolutely, it's like,
how does this type because this guy looks like could
be an accountant. It's capable of so much. I guess
(30:02):
the argument is that if you're put in these positions
more people humans have worse intentions and or at their
heart maybe not as so inherently good as we assume
everyone else.
Speaker 1 (30:16):
Well, I mean, Eichmann is the incremental, the gradual evolution
to evil. He was head of Jewish affairs for the Nazi.
He actually was trying to find a way to resolve
the Jewish question through deportation. And it became clear when
the Allies didn't accept any Jews, and when his plan,
(30:38):
you know, there was a plan not necessarily history of
the Jews to Madagascar. They go to the final solution
during is During and Eichman are both Nazis, you know,
they're true believers, and you know one of the Nazis
on trial during Nuremberg was asked, you know, why didn't
you rebel and he said he's a stuns he was.
Speaker 2 (31:02):
Would Yeah, He's like, why whatever, Yeah, he's like. But
you also remember this is these are the when they're
growing up or they're not, but they're living through the
end of World War One. They're seeing the economy kind
of crash, and they're pushing all the blame, even the
bad agreements, onto that ethnic group of the Jewish community.
And then they went from already a community that was
already a minority to like a true outsider, true separate
(31:24):
from German. So they've it was almost like patriotic or
you know.
Speaker 1 (31:28):
Well, those conditions almost made it inevitable that there was
going to be turbulence. I mean, Germany never had a war,
the economy was awful. Actually, the Nazis were on the
wane when they were got to power. But the Nazis
don't become a power without Gerring as the face of
the Nazis, a World War One hero. So you know,
(31:50):
there is never equitable justice when somebody's you know, implicated
and killing that man.
Speaker 2 (31:58):
But I mean, but I think, but isn't the argument
though that at least set up the number trials and
kind of like the post war war, like a better
form of interaction and engagement in warfare. I mean, it's
weird to say now because there's obviously horrible things going
on in the world now, but we basically had total
warfare up until World War Two. If you think about
(32:20):
that with modern weapons, I mean, think about like nuclear
bombers or chemical attacks and how often that be happening.
Speaker 1 (32:26):
So what changed in World War Two is Churchill and
Roosevelt agreed that it would be unconditional surrender. They were
going to negotiate, so it had to be total surrender
the Russians. Yeah, that was obviously going to be the deal.
So you know what was important and what America should
be proud of is the jurisprudence that was a result
(32:46):
of Nuremberg. You know, they look, Gurring's attorney was good.
These guys were allowed to defense. They didn't allow that
for the right.
Speaker 2 (32:54):
Just yeah, and show the difference between.
Speaker 1 (32:56):
Yeah, so during like Himmler and like Hitler's never hung,
he commits suicide. So there was a US Army captain
that got him. Okay, the believe it was Sinai capsule.
The psychiatrist is more complicated you have to see the movie.
Yes it's true he did magic tricks, and yes it's
(33:19):
true he relied on the roars, yeah, heavily. It's true
that he was removed and in nineteen fifty nine, you know,
maybe thirteen years after the trials. I think I could
be wrong, but I think it was at a birthday
(33:39):
family gathering. He goes upstairs, goes to the bathroom and
commits suicide the same way Gurring did so after Tremor's
posttress whatever we want to call it is, you can't
be and he was in the cell with Gurring for
a long period of time. If you get a chance,
the other one to look at a guy named GM Gilbert.
(34:00):
It's it's a really accessible book. He was a court
psychologist and he was looking at these guys. Gave him
an IQ test. They were all bright, you know, Spear
was Spear was a snake and convincing. He was the
only one smart enough to say I feel bad. So
everybody else. Brian is like, yeah, we did it, we did.
You know. You know, it's like the Austrians, you know,
(34:22):
instead of never again, how about tomorrow. So it's Sara
Kapstein Millennial when we come back, Maniel Brian. The show
is underdome, the organization is rocked the Capitol. We're being
produced by Art. But I wanted to talk about the
the extinction of the penny. Yeah, that's coming right up,
(34:46):
So two penny for your thoughts. So Millennial and I
were talking during the break. I think you have to
see the movie Nuremberg. I don't know that the psychiatrist
Kelly was necessary. I don't know. We'll say that he
wasn't empathetic, but you know, there's a spell that Gerring
(35:06):
casts and he's not this what you think he's supposed
to be. You know, he in the court room, he
gave a spirited defense. His defense attorney was good. And
you know, people have to make up their own minds.
You know, for the most part, with the exception of Spear,
(35:28):
they're either embracing Nazism or justifying right. Yeah, Spear was smart.
He gets out after fifteen years. So yeah, I just
think it's people need to understand that you don't know
what you would do. I mean, I would tell my
students nineteen thirty three, you're in Nuremberg, two hundred and
fifty thousand people marching in Unison, in the shape of
(35:51):
a swastiker. Yeah, you're not going to be the only
You're not gonna be the only person bringing a star
David to the party. I mean, it's honestly, you are
going to go with the flow. And part of what
Gerring said and other people said, there was a feel
to the Nazis that was celebratory, that we should be
proud again and that we're moving forward. So that film,
(36:14):
I know, it's probably not in the holiday spirit. Yeah yeah, yeah, rollindecks.
But so we're gonna stop printing the penny. And what
I didn't know the penny was was around for two
hundred and thirty two years, began in seventeen ninety three
when Philly was the capital, and I guess what really not,
(36:37):
I guess, I know, excuse me. What really surprised me,
millennial is that each penny costs three point sixty nine
cents to make.
Speaker 2 (36:46):
Yes, there's been like this for a little while obviously. Yeah,
because as inflation has gone up and you know, metals
have changed, your prices has become more expensive to make
the penny than to obviously have a penny. And so
this is probably it's from an economic perspective to been
done before. It's just no one wants to be the
guy who gets rid of the penny, who gets rid
of Lincoln. And also if you're just dealing in cash
(37:09):
a lot, or you have like all these weird prices
like we do, you know ninety nine ninety seven, some
people want to have pennies. But I will say this,
if you have pennies, hold on to them, hold on
to them because there because.
Speaker 1 (37:20):
There's that one with the symbol is it omega? What's
the last letter in the Greek alphabit?
Speaker 2 (37:27):
It can't be. I mean, no, it's some symbol like
it might be. Yeah, okay, it might be. I guess if.
Speaker 1 (37:34):
They they're minting the last ones with that symbol on it.
Speaker 2 (37:37):
Okay, yeah, I would listen. If you get out, I
would hold onto your pennies. And just because you never know,
it's kind of like baseball cards or Pokemon cars.
Speaker 1 (37:45):
You know. But isn't that going to facilitate a crunch?
People are going to start hoarding pennies.
Speaker 2 (37:51):
That's true. Yes, they're going to start hoarding pennies. My
hope is that we fixed the problem is that we
have just ridiculous prices in this country that make it
hard to buy and sell things like just make the
prices even. You turn every four into a five dollars.
Speaker 1 (38:06):
But let me ask you, this four ninety nine is seductive.
That's the advertising. People think they're getting a break. I
didn't pay one hundred, I pay ninety nine. That's right,
and that that's always worked. So how do you when
you're like at a register and you're paying cash, with
a few remaining businesses that accept cash, how do you
(38:27):
make the difference?
Speaker 2 (38:29):
Well, they'll probably you'll probably just give a nickel. It'll
probably just be like you can a little over and
be like I'll just take the three cent hit and
that's it. Or the store will take the three cent well,
because otherwise, yeah, you're right, it's gonna be it's gonna
be hard to deal in cash. It's gonna be harder.
Not just for the like because the stores will be good,
but like if you think about like farmers markets and
(38:50):
different stuff, like if pennies become really hard to get,
it's gonna be hard because you know people are they
are dealing with cash, so.
Speaker 1 (38:56):
So hard currency is that a thing that's gonna.
Speaker 2 (38:59):
Be It's never gonna end. It will never end. And
the reason why I will never end is not everyone
wants to have all their information on credit cards and
phones and stuff like that. People want to have cash
for either just very normal reasons of just like it's
easier to deal with their older or even like illicit
reasons like they want to sell drugs and stuff like that.
(39:20):
There's always going to be a cash sport and so
you know, tap for everything or you know how that
is not gonna happen.
Speaker 1 (39:26):
So why I'm looking at the daddy here. And things
actually peaked a couple of years back. They have been
during COVID before there was a pretty large stand down.
Speaker 2 (39:38):
Oh yeah, producing pennies. Well, listen, this has been something
that for years and years everyone knew was economically just wrong.
You know, from the left to the right, this is
a bad idea to produce pennies because it costs more
to make than to than to have, and then it
also apparently slows down. Actually, I think I think I
(39:59):
forget the acts that actual commerce, because you're dealing with
like everyone's pulling out pennies in a little sense, and
that eventually you actually have net loss overall of just
time wasted on you know, dealing with pennies, so eventually
it's it's a bad economic argument. The problem is no
one wants to Abraham Lincoln, and then there isn't versus
(40:21):
for older people that kind of rely on cash or
use cash for more. Do you want to get rid
of the.
Speaker 1 (40:26):
Depend And plus Trump's not gonna want to put himself
be the face of the penny, I mean unless it
was a gold penny. So it said in nineteen twenty
one we had to peak fifteen billion coins and then
it went down to six billion last year.
Speaker 2 (40:43):
Yeah, that's well, it's also this too. So one is
the is the penny argument. The other one is just
everything's becoming digital, especially COVID. I mean looking, that's right
after COVID, every you know COVID, all of it's become
tap digital. I mean you go to a restaurant sometimes
it is empty, but they have tons of door dash orders.
We're just coming in and coming and coming. So we
are switching to it's going to be more tap tap.
(41:03):
And the reason why I will never go one hundred
percent to tap tap is because you have people that
are always going to want to operate in cash, whether
for very illissit reasons for normal reasons of it's easier
to deal with. They like to touch the physical money.
It's sort of like brick and border stores. We know
online stores are taking a huge part of that business,
but people are still always going to want to shop
and go in and buy the clothes.
Speaker 1 (41:25):
I agree, yeah, Uh so how much time do we have?
I'm never really good with this. About four minutes. Yeah,
I need to get a watch. So my birthday is
on Monday. I'm going to be sixty six. Had I
known I would live this long, I would have treated
my body a lot better. That's what I can tell you.
So yet, you know there is a one eight hundred
(41:50):
birthday line. We don't have it yet, but when we
get it, we'll share it with you. So I was
reading just kind of deviate here on Jackie Robinson, and
so you know, I was watching out takes from the
movie and uh, you know the abuse he had to
(42:13):
take and what was interesting in modern day politics. Jackie
told and said argued that black people should not just
be wed to Democrats, that they needed to have a
Republican option. And I don't know, I think he may
have could be wrong. He may have supported Nixon or
(42:34):
worked with them. You know, things things got different for
for gold Water, but it was real. He you know,
his arguments made sense. Uh. And you know when you're
looking at some of the footage from back in the day,
no hard helmet, you know they're clearly thrown at his head.
(42:55):
The spikes are spikes.
Speaker 2 (42:57):
Yeah, it was everything. It's nasty. I think he played
the Phillies. Uh, the manager, I think the manager and
the team Ben Chapman, he was abautiful.
Speaker 1 (43:08):
So so they Commissioner of Baseball May Chapman posed with
Jackie Robinson. Yeah, Chapman was awful, horrible. Philadelphia was work
and Jackie said that that was the most difficult thing
he had to do was take a picture with this guy.
But Chapman said, well, you know, Hank Greenberger's juice and
(43:29):
we call him a kaike. You know, you know Joe Demagio,
we call him a wop. And he just couldn't understand.
It's like, no, it's like he can't ya. But the
biggest thing I think for Jackie was that his teammates
stood up for him.
Speaker 2 (43:42):
That was that was a turning point. And then and
then listen, he could play. He wasn't m VP, but
he was right below that. He was a good, great player,
and then it came over and then listen, sports is
probably one of the best uned flyers in the country,
you know, because his performance based people respect people of
all racist religion that could perform and then at Prince
communities together. So although that initial bump was super hard,
(44:04):
once you got over it, you know, it became a
baseball that was the best guy, and baseball was a
Japanese guy, a Japanese player.
Speaker 1 (44:12):
Yeah, and I think people are still struggling with that.
But with Jackie Robinson, what happened is same thing that
happened to Alabama after they got destroyed by USC and football.
You're you're not going to ignore the talent art. What
do you got going this Thanksgiving? I don't know that
I can make it for dinner. I'm all over the place.
(44:32):
I have family all over the states. I'll be busy,
and of course I'll have to watch the Cowboys at
four point thirty. Who are they playing the Chiefs? Oh okay,
both teams are gonna need to win. Yeah, all right, Brian,
I think I know what you're doing. We may go.
Speaker 2 (44:48):
Out, yeah, we or meet up at least at one point. Yeah,
so it's just just gonna be football. I mean, that's
that's basically.
Speaker 1 (44:54):
So. Did anybody ever think of having a Thanksgiving buffet
at a stripper club?
Speaker 2 (45:00):
I blist. I I bet there's options, There's always options.
There's some of the most innovative places.
Speaker 1 (45:05):
Yeah, I mean, I'm trying to innovate. You know, you
can exercise by what you what we got about a
minute or ah? Yeah, so look moving forward and we
say this every holiday season, as we should. We had
a advertisement for the Mothers Against Druck Driving. One of
the things Millennial has been reporting upon is a concept
known as sober Drive, and that's going to be available
(45:28):
again through the holiday season whenever Thanksgiving is. I don't
know when it ends. I think, what's a twenty dollars
credit you have to be picked up at a bar
or restaurant, but if you're too drunk to drive, just
look into that. It's I think say, is being sponsored
by County.
Speaker 2 (45:47):
Hats So the Tri County Playing Commission, and it's on Uber.
Speaker 1 (45:50):
Yeah. So I don't know if you knew this last
year some guy, Oh
Popular Podcasts
Betrayal Weekly
Betrayal Weekly is back for a new season. Every Thursday, Betrayal Weekly shares first-hand accounts of broken trust, shocking deceptions, and the trail of destruction they leave behind. Hosted by Andrea Gunning, this weekly ongoing series digs into real-life stories of betrayal and the aftermath. From stories of double lives to dark discoveries, these are cautionary tales and accounts of resilience against all odds. From the producers of the critically acclaimed Betrayal series, Betrayal Weekly drops new episodes every Thursday. If you would like to share your story, you can reach out to the Betrayal Team by emailing them at betrayalpod@gmail.com and follow us on Instagram at @betrayalpod and @glasspodcasts. Please join our Substack for additional exclusive content, curated book recommendations, and community discussions. Sign up FREE by clicking this link Beyond Betrayal Substack. Join our community dedicated to truth, resilience, and healing. Your voice matters! Be a part of our Betrayal journey on Substack.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com