Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Clackl. I agree with you.
Speaker 2 (00:01):
The guy that's in charge of the Secret Service right now,
he should actually have been fired for this mistake. This
is ridiculous that they let him slide. I mean that
detail was amateur hour had its finest.
Speaker 1 (00:15):
One last comment about that before we move on, because
I want to talk for a minute about kill ma
Abregold Garcia. We haven't heard about the Maryland Dad in
a while since he got brought back from that El
Salvador prison. But and I don't know. Maybe I'm wrong
about this, but I don't think so. I think that
(00:37):
DEI diversity, equity, inclusion, ESG, environmental, social and governance, all
of these progressive things that have sought to really diminish accountability, responsibility,
the idea of excellence, the idea that we are a
(00:59):
maritimeocracy is starts to permeate everything. I'm a firm believer.
I Uh, it was kind of interesting because somebody on
the text line let me just see.
Speaker 3 (01:17):
Uh.
Speaker 1 (01:18):
Guber fifty five ninety wrote, is there an operational difference
with the Secret Service being under Homeland Security instead of Treasury?
I asked this because I was loosely listening to News
Nation yesterday I'm too cheap. Tok bah blahlah blah, that's okay,
and you were streaming on my heart. We'll good for you.
And there were several former Secret Service brasts discussing that
(01:40):
there are problems being in the DHS bureaucracy and Secret
Service operations were better managed when Secret Service was under
Treasury howllelujah, Amen, past the beer or the ammo. I
think this is one reason among others, but I think
(02:03):
this is one of many reasons why Ralph Basham, the
former Director of the Secret Service, and I became friends
because we were both heads of organizations that got subsumed
by the Department of Homeland Security, and we both had
the same bitching and moaning about how it was destroying.
It was one destroying the culture. Two it was putting
(02:24):
a bureaucracy on top of a bureaucracy. And third, it
was demoralizing the bureaucrats that we were trying to, you know,
get enthusiastic. I mean, we obviously a new administration. We
gone from Clinton to Bush, so you know, there was
you know, the deep state, the administrative state was loath
(02:45):
and difficult to you know, bring along with we got
new priorities get here again. We got new things to do,
and that takes a lot of leadership and a lot
of heavy lifting. And then when you throw DHS on
top of that, which to this day I still maintain
was the biggest mistake that we've ever made, and well
(03:06):
not since Cobble, since withdrawing from Afghanistan. That withdrawal is
now superseded even DHS, but it created, which is ongoing
to this day, this monstrous bureaucracy that is of forty
five different cultures. You know, they're they're For example, within
(03:28):
this building, there's different cultures. There's the sales group that
has their own culture, which neither Dragon nor I understand.
There is the fourth floor AM culture and you know,
the news and top division of whatever we call this floor.
(03:52):
And then there's the FM music people on the third floor.
They're all different cultures. But yet you have to manage
each of those cultures and figure out a way to
get them to intertwine. And that's a heavy lift, and
that's difficult. And I'm talking about now obviously I'm I'm
(04:16):
talking about this building, but this building is replicated in
the how many you know, eight hundred or six hundred
whatever it is stations that iHeart owns all across the country. Now,
they don't all have I mean, well not all of
them actually have sales departments, and they don't all have
a m or news talk, they don't all have fam
(04:38):
They're a missmash of everything. But every market manager in
every one of those places has to take those diverse
cultures and figure out a way to make them work.
In the private sector, that's fairly easy to do because
people even like me with a contract, I no, I've
(05:00):
got a contract, and i got buyout provisions, and I've
got bonus provisions, and I've got all of that kind
of crap in it. Nonetheless, I still, at the end
of the day, am sort of kind of like an
at will employee. So it's easy to manage in the
private sector because well, you pretty much got to salute
and you know, sloop the flag and follow the marching orders.
(05:20):
In the public sector, not so much, because they're protected.
They're protected by a bloated, out of date civil service
system that doesn't reward meritocracy but actually rewards never rocking
the boat. Just go along and be quiet and fly
(05:41):
under the radar and nothing will ever happen to you.
Then you have in addition to that, you have it's
one thing to have like the FM culture, you know,
with the rock stations and the news talk culture like
you have on the fourth floor with conservative talk that
(06:02):
doesn't involve life and death matters. But when you have
two cultures, one of which is a collaborative organization, like
THEMA was where we didn't carry guns. What we did
was we tried to collaborate with state and local governments,
(06:23):
which collaborated with our partners at the federal level. You know,
because everybody, you know, every department that's in the cabinet,
at some point I would have to call upon to
assist in a disaster. So we had a collaborative effort.
Even with our secret ops programs. You had to get
(06:44):
buy in with the congressional with the legislative branch. You
had to get buy in with the US Supreme Court,
so that for continuity of operations or continuity of government programs.
While you would put the plans together, you had to
put those plans together in concert with Hey, Chief Justice Roberts,
(07:05):
if we had to relocate the Supreme Court, what do
you need? You know, how can I help you? And
by the way, if I ever have to tell you
you're going to pack up and move to an undisclosed
location somewhere in order to keep operating, You're going to
do what I tell you to do. But I want
to do it cooperatively so that when I tell you
(07:27):
it's time to go, you know it's time to go.
So I might not have a gun, but I got
the power of I can keep you operating, but you've
got to agree what I tell you to do. When
I tell you to go, do it. And the same
with members of Congress with those particular programs. But where
(07:48):
it's difficult to mesh cultures is when one culture is
law enforcement. It's like fire departments and police departments. Fire
departments don't carry guns, although maybe in some cities they
probably should. Fire departments are to do what they're to
(08:08):
protect property and save lives. Law enforcement is what well,
again to protect property and save lives, but sometimes at
the point of a gun. So sometimes you got to
we're gonna tax payer relief shots next hour, we'll probably
have in those tax pray relief shots a cop that
kill somebody that's part of their culture, that's not part
(08:31):
of a culture. In a fire department. Oh, you're a
felon and you're in a burning building, so you know what,
We're just gonna let you burn to death. No, that's
not what firefighters do, not at all. So there's always
this clash between fire departments and police sparms. So they'll
tell you there's not, but trust me, I know that
there is. So yes, even today there is. There's this
(08:58):
bureaucratic and look, whatever the future of FEMA is, I
don't know. I've got my own ideas. I've been asked
about them. I've been on television talking about it a
little bit. But the problem currently is, while they're trying
to figure out what to do with FEMA, I found
(09:19):
out yesterday that Christino has told FEMA that they can't
spend more than I mean, it was some absurd amount
five hundred dollars. You can't spend more than five hundred
dollars without getting approval from the Secretary of Homeland Security.
I would have walked, because there are oftentimes that I
would walk into a disaster and I would say, we
(09:41):
need X, whatever X might be. I know I need.
I need urban search and rescue teams from five different states.
I need Colorado, Florida, Virginia, California, and Washington to respond
to this disaster. Well, that means I got to spend
money to deploy those teams and to backfill those people
(10:07):
that come out of fire departments in Colorado or Florida
or Texas or Washington or California. I've got to backfill
those firefighters. So that's going to cost me money. So
to deploy a team is going to cost me millions
of dollars. And I can't wait for the Secretary to
approve that. I've got to make that decision now. I
(10:29):
can't wait for the Secretary of Homeland Security, who this
one seems to be on television a lot. I can't
track her down and say, hey, by the way, as
soon as you get off air, could I ask you
to I need to deploy a team. I don't have
time for your questions. I'm the under Secretary. I make
those calls. I'm responsible for him. I'll be held accountable
for them, and if you don't like them, then you
(10:50):
can chew my ass out. We've just created this huge
monstrosity with the DHS. Let me you know, this is
not what I intend to talk about this hour let's
talk per minute about TSA and the whole idea that
you're gonna take. You don't no longer have to take
your shoes off. Well, I'm happy about that. I really
am happy about that, because I thought it was KABOOKI
(11:12):
security to begin with. Richard Reid was never going to
blow up that plane that was flying like what was
it Paris of Miami or something he was He was
never gonna be able to blow up that plane. And
even if he was able to get his his it
wasn't C four, I forget it. It was PTN I
(11:34):
think he had in his shoe. Even if he's able
to get it to explode, it wasn't going to cause
enough damage to bring the plane down. But oh my god,
we gotta take our shoes off, right, Well, guess what's
going to happen now? And I bet some of you
are going to experience this. You're not gonna take your
shoes off, but the metal detector is going to go
(11:56):
off anyway. And you know what, I think that's true
because TSA probably hasn't thought through far enough that they're
going to have to change the level of the the
X rays that go through that magnetometer, not really X rays,
but the whatever waves it is that that detect metal.
(12:18):
Because for example, I got sneakers that have zero metal
in what's there's no metal whatsoever. But nonetheless they may
set off a metal detector because of the thickness of
the souls. It'll bounce back, the waves will the millimeter
(12:39):
wave will back bounce back just enough to set off
that magnetometer. So people are now going to think to themselves, Hell,
I don't know, to take my shoes off so I
can see a bunch of I can see some cowboys
coming up from you know, they've they've gotten off the ranch.
They got to fly to Chicago for some reason, and
they just got their boots on and they go through
(13:00):
and those maybe they don't even have steel toes on
their boots, but they got heavy, thick, really thick heels.
That's off the magnetometer. It's gonna cause a cluster because
TSA is not gonna take the time, and nobody's ever
thought to tell them, Hey, just the sensitivity on the magnetometer,
(13:21):
so that anything you know, that's you know, let's just say,
what would it be maybe six inches off the floor. Uh,
you're gonna ratchet down the sensitivity of the magnetometer that
level to virtually zero, right, But then they're gonna worry about, oh,
it was somebody hides a gun there, when we'll be
able to detect the gun. So the sensitivity is never
(13:43):
gonna change, and people still end up having to go
back through again and take their shoes off. Because if
you ever look at those magnetometers, sometimes you can't see it,
but if you, if you turn around and watch other people,
you'll see that the magnetometer indicates to the tsa person
where the metal was detected. So it might be a pie,
(14:05):
it might be around your waist. That's oftentimes why they'll say, hey,
give a belt on, because the red lights go off
about where your waist level is. Now they're going to
see it going off where your shoes are. We were
just we're just stupid, you know what. We're just stupid,
and some of are stupid. Is driven by this idea
(14:29):
that government can protect us from everything, or the government
has the answer to everything, or the idea that we're
all terrorists. And out of three hundred and fifty nine
million Americans and whatever percentage of that number actually flies
on any given day, one of them might be a terrorist. Well,
(14:52):
somebody pulls out let's just say they get a gun
on a terrorist, not somebody accidentally, because I've read of
people who accidentally ca I eat a gun on board
haven't been caught because they missed it. Even TSA's own
spector general failed all the time. Somebody pulls a gun
out on a plane, You think that now passengers. Passengers
(15:17):
will just sit back and go, oh, he forgot his gun. No,
we're gonna tackle the guy.
Speaker 4 (15:22):
Yeah, they'll pull out their phone and video it.
Speaker 3 (15:28):
You know.
Speaker 1 (15:28):
The sad part is is I is I punder that comment?
Speaker 5 (15:31):
Yes, yes, seventy five, twenty five, seventy five video twenty
five will yeah, yeah, And I.
Speaker 1 (15:37):
Think that's being generous because it's generally like ten percent
to get everything done and saying get you know.
Speaker 4 (15:44):
Don't get me wrong. The guy will be tackled.
Speaker 5 (15:47):
Yes, there's probably not the number of passengers that you
think it might be.
Speaker 1 (15:51):
Right, It might just be me sitting next to him. Well,
everybody else grabs her phone. That's America twenty twenty five.
But back to the whole point about operational difference with
Secret Service. Absolutely there's an operational difference because we keep
trying to well, not we, but Congress wants to be
(16:12):
seen doing stuff. Have you have you have you thought
about this tax on tips? Somebody asked me on the
text line about have I heard the story. I've heard
the story that Colorado is thinking about. There's I don't
have enough info to comment on about it. But have
you thought about the fact that people think that no
tax on tips means no Colorado state income tax? Well
(16:37):
that's not true. And how many people who think that
no tax on tips is now at infinitum it's going
to go on forever. It goes on to infinity. No
just goes on for a year or two. Yeah, the
dumbing down of America everywhere you turn.
Speaker 6 (17:19):
Be nice to your sales reps. Nothing happens without a sale.
Speaker 4 (17:25):
They are the first.
Speaker 6 (17:25):
Line in everything except for government. But look at it
like this, Without a sale, nothing gets done, Nobody gets paid.
Speaker 1 (17:37):
You don't have a show.
Speaker 6 (17:39):
So be nice to your sales reps and respect their culture.
Speaker 1 (17:46):
Who said I don't respect their culture? I just said
it's a different culture.
Speaker 4 (17:49):
We don't understand it, we don't respect it.
Speaker 1 (17:52):
Well, it's not that we don't understand their culture. Sometimes
we don't understand their managers' strategies. Can I put it
that way? Or am I in trouble for saying that.
Speaker 5 (18:03):
You're close there? You're tap dancing on the line for sure.
Speaker 1 (18:08):
Oh. I look the the aes that worked with me.
They're wonderful. I love them. They're they're funny.
Speaker 4 (18:17):
Because the only ones willing to work with you are
like you.
Speaker 1 (18:21):
Which means they're wonderful human beings. Right, God die Coche.
I think about this. When a Supreme Court justice tells
you that the decisions that her colleagues pose an existential
(18:42):
threat to the rule of law, I think that's more
than a legal disagreement. That's performing, that's performative art. Well,
Justice Katanji Brown Jackson Brown. These recent descents that she's written,
particularly in Trump Versus, show that one I truly do
(19:03):
believe that she's unqualified to be a US Supreme Court justice.
She's no more qualified to be a Justice of the
Supreme Court than I am. Instead of offering careful counterpoints
that are really rooted in constitutional reasoning, reasoning, she's posing
her descents that are really monologues that sound more like
(19:28):
she's a talking head on MSNBC or at the essence fest.
You know what the essence fest is. I'll thing just
a minute now. I'm not going to critique the descent
itself because I think descents. Uh. There have been many
times in briefs that I have cited the descent in
(19:49):
such and such case, trying to get the judge that
I'm in front of to agree with the descent, because
the descent is an essence, another person's, another judge's justice's
interpretation of what the Constitution says or means. You think
(20:09):
about Justice Scalia, his almost his entire legacy, are descents
scorching in tone? Of course they were, absolutely they were
scorched earth descents, but always grounded in the law. Even
(20:30):
Justice so tom Or, whom I vociphrasy disagree with and
leans progressive, stays within the framework of doing actual legal analysis.
But there's something different about Justice Jackson. They're emotional, which
has no place, I don't think in a Supreme Court decision.
(20:53):
It sounds like a political stump speech, not a deliberative
tone of a judicial opinion. And I'm not talking about style,
and I'm talking about purpose. In Trump versus Casa, about
whether the they could block the Trump era executive order
regarding birthright citizenship. She went way beyond the descent. She
(21:14):
warned that the Court had opened the door to uncontainable
executive power and executive lawlessness, claiming that this decision placed
the very structure of American government at risk. Now that
sounds like something I would say, not some sort of
legal analysis. And that's the case where Justice Barrett, writing separately,
(21:37):
took issue with both the tone and the lack of
jurisprudence in Justice Jackson's descent, and rightly so. In my opinion,
legal descents, no matter how passionate they are, and if
you want to see passion again, go back and reach
some of Justice Scillia's descents, they should nonetheless be rooted
in precedent logic and a serious engage with the constitutional
(22:02):
questions that you that you're I don't want to say opponents,
but your other justices disagree with you about She sounds
like cable news, is what she sounds like. But what's
telling And I'd read about her talking about her approach
(22:23):
to dissents, but I didn't know where it was. She
did it at the Essence Festival in Knowledge. That's a
culturally rich but a highly political venue. So there she
was in front of a very progressive Marxist kind of audience,
(22:45):
and she doubled down. She said the public needed to
know the stakes, that transparency strengthens democracy. But I think
there's a difference between transparency and theatrics, because when the
Supreme Court justice positions herself as a political narrator warning
of institutional collapse, she's not interpreting the Constitution. She's presenting
(23:10):
you with a narrative. And that's grand standing, and obviously
that's going to get applause from the progressive left, but
it comes at a steep cost to the institution of
the Court itself. Judicial authority. We often forget that judicial
authority is built on the perception of impartiality and in
(23:32):
the idea that we simply agree that we will we
will give those decisions the kind of respect that they deserve,
and we will follow those decisions. I think she is
absolutely aware of the effect that she's having, because at
(23:55):
the Stupid Essence Festival, she noted that she had authored
twenty fourinions this term, second only to Clarence Thomas, and
that she had spoke nearly seventy nine thousand words during
oral arguments. Well, you know, Justice Thomas for years went
without asking a single question during oral arguments. So am
(24:19):
I to assume by that that he's not qualified? Or
am I instead to assume that he's simply listening to
the arguments presented by the litigants in front of the
Supreme Court. He's listening to their rationale and he's going
to go back and he's either going to agree with it.
Who's going to eviscerate it? When you're telling an audience
(24:42):
of progressive leftists that you know, I've authored twenty four opinions,
I've spoken seventy nine thousand words during oral arguments. That's
the profile of somebody that is more concerned about visibility
and using her platform, as opposed to like Justice Thomas
using his legal mind. She wants to become a political symbol.
(25:07):
Go back to her confirmation hearing, Can you define force
what a woman is?
Speaker 3 (25:11):
No?
Speaker 1 (25:12):
I can't do that. I'm not going to do that.
I think that Justice Jackson represents something bigger than the Court,
that her voice is necessary to challenge what I think
a lot on the left see as a hard right turn,
but they're in is exactly the problem when a justice
(25:32):
views the bench, their position as a justice as a
place to challenge the court, rather than to serve on
the court. We're no longer in the realm of the
rule of law. We're now in the realm of political ideology.
And the robes are just their costumes. And I think
(25:53):
there's a double standard going on too. Imagine Clarence Thomas,
who again rarely speaks publicly, suddenly started going to conservative
rallies to call liberal rulings in existential threats to the Constitution.
The cabal would go backcrab crazy. They'd started to question
his impartiality. They'd start questioning the very legitimacy of the court. Yeah,
(26:19):
when Justice Jackson does it, it's celebrated, as was she
speaking truth to power? Wait a minute, think about that,
speaking truth to power. You're one of only three branches
of government, three separate but equal branches of government. How
do you need to speak truth to power? You're telling
(26:42):
a coequal branch, separate but equal, that you're wrong. Okay, well,
guess what that coequal branch could do if it's let's say,
you do you declare a statute to Congress pasted on constitution?
Was that speaking truth to power? Because Congress can go, go, okay,
we'll just rewrite the statue, or you've told the president
(27:06):
he can't do something, and Congress says, here, hold my beer,
and they give the power to the president to do
that which the Court said it can't do by simply
passing a statue that says we hereby authorize the president
to do X, y Z. See what I mean there,
she's being performative, she's being political, and on top of that,
(27:32):
she's not being very judicial in the sense that you
know in the most recent case where they turned down
a request for the case to be reviewed, they turned
down cert to put it in legal ees. She was
the only one that issued a descent, just as Soda
(27:54):
mayor came out. And because she wrote the descent, she wrote,
in concurring with the other eight justices that this is
not the place and this is not the manner in
which we write descents. She in essence chewed out her colleague.
(28:15):
So she's now. Justice Jackson has now been challenged not
just by Amy Comy Barrett, but by one of her
so called cohorts in the left wing of the United
States Supreme Court. The greatest threat to the rule of
law is not a conservative majority. It's transforming an associate
(28:38):
justice of the Supreme Court into a political pundit that
actually ought to be just be on MSNBC.
Speaker 7 (28:44):
Mica based on the last Stotus decision, they said they
can't go around Trump's decisions with its class action lawsuit
actually covered that base before. Some of these guys wouldn't
try that, and here we are. Are they're going to
try it, or they are trying. I should say, no,
how do you think about that?
Speaker 1 (29:04):
No, I actually I disagree with you. They said that
if you do try to use class action lawsuits, then
you're going to have to make certain that you follow
to a t the rules governing the assertation and the
defining of a class It has to meet all of
the prerequisites of I think it's civil rules Civil Procedure
(29:27):
fifty six that defines a class action. So they didn't
say you couldn't do it. They just said that if
you do try to go that route, we're going to
be watching to make sure that you follow it the
right way. So there's a little bit of difference in
than what you said, Greg.
Speaker 4 (29:45):
You've been to an emergency room lately, not in a
few years.
Speaker 1 (29:49):
Well, you might want to just check the Oh, I
don't know the political leanings of any nurses that might
want to treat you.
Speaker 3 (30:01):
I just thought of a way to combine my Maggie
heating and my work in the er. MAGA supporters are
like people who hold onto fireworks too long. You love
it until it hurts you, kind of like, uh, you
know how, you love it until you can't retire until
the age of seventies. So see it in the er, folks,
(30:22):
When your fingers get blown off, I have a good day.
Speaker 4 (30:27):
Wow, that was a bit tough to hear.
Speaker 5 (30:30):
She was saying that she would most likely the people
that got their fingers blown off from fireworks were MAGA supporters.
Speaker 1 (30:37):
Yeah, so she would take hold on to the fireworks
too long until it hurts, and she'll just, I guess,
just let you hurt in the arf because you.
Speaker 5 (30:46):
Like her, she'll she'll take her sweet time get into Yeah,
got three.
Speaker 1 (30:50):
Burns, Hang on, it's my coffee break. Yeah. Oh, your
skin just melted off because of a burn. I'll be
right back. I gotta see if I can't line.
Speaker 5 (31:02):
Color me skeptical, but I don't think only MAGA supporters
are shooting off fireworks.
Speaker 1 (31:09):
Why do I hear bagpipes? Do you hear bagpipes?
Speaker 4 (31:12):
That's just you.
Speaker 1 (31:17):
No, it's not either. Don't you're not lying to me.
They're bagpipes somewhere. Oh my god, I'm going out of
my mind. Don't you do you know you hear them?
Why are the bagpipes in the building? I hear the
outro bad You're lying, sack of the bagpipes playing right now?
(31:38):
You say so.
Clackl. I agree with you.
Speaker 2 (00:01):
The guy that's in charge of the Secret Service right now,
he should actually have been fired for this mistake. This
is ridiculous that they let him slide. I mean that
detail was amateur hour had its finest.
Speaker 1 (00:15):
One last comment about that before we move on, because
I want to talk for a minute about kill ma
Abregold Garcia. We haven't heard about the Maryland Dad in
a while since he got brought back from that El
Salvador prison. But and I don't know. Maybe I'm wrong
about this, but I don't think so. I think that
(00:37):
DEI diversity, equity, inclusion, ESG, environmental, social and governance, all
of these progressive things that have sought to really diminish accountability, responsibility,
the idea of excellence, the idea that we are a
(00:59):
maritimeocracy is starts to permeate everything. I'm a firm believer.
I Uh, it was kind of interesting because somebody on
the text line let me just see.
Speaker 3 (01:17):
Uh.
Speaker 1 (01:18):
Guber fifty five ninety wrote, is there an operational difference
with the Secret Service being under Homeland Security instead of Treasury?
I asked this because I was loosely listening to News
Nation yesterday I'm too cheap. Tok bah blahlah blah, that's okay,
and you were streaming on my heart. We'll good for you.
And there were several former Secret Service brasts discussing that
(01:40):
there are problems being in the DHS bureaucracy and Secret
Service operations were better managed when Secret Service was under
Treasury howllelujah, Amen, past the beer or the ammo. I
think this is one reason among others, but I think
(02:03):
this is one of many reasons why Ralph Basham, the
former Director of the Secret Service, and I became friends
because we were both heads of organizations that got subsumed
by the Department of Homeland Security, and we both had
the same bitching and moaning about how it was destroying.
It was one destroying the culture. Two it was putting
(02:24):
a bureaucracy on top of a bureaucracy. And third, it
was demoralizing the bureaucrats that we were trying to, you know,
get enthusiastic. I mean, we obviously a new administration. We
gone from Clinton to Bush, so you know, there was
you know, the deep state, the administrative state was loath
(02:45):
and difficult to you know, bring along with we got
new priorities get here again. We got new things to do,
and that takes a lot of leadership and a lot
of heavy lifting. And then when you throw DHS on
top of that, which to this day I still maintain
was the biggest mistake that we've ever made, and well
(03:06):
not since Cobble, since withdrawing from Afghanistan. That withdrawal is
now superseded even DHS, but it created, which is ongoing
to this day, this monstrous bureaucracy that is of forty
five different cultures. You know, they're they're For example, within
(03:28):
this building, there's different cultures. There's the sales group that
has their own culture, which neither Dragon nor I understand.
There is the fourth floor AM culture and you know,
the news and top division of whatever we call this floor.
(03:52):
And then there's the FM music people on the third floor.
They're all different cultures. But yet you have to manage
each of those cultures and figure out a way to
get them to intertwine. And that's a heavy lift, and
that's difficult. And I'm talking about now obviously I'm I'm
(04:16):
talking about this building, but this building is replicated in
the how many you know, eight hundred or six hundred
whatever it is stations that iHeart owns all across the country. Now,
they don't all have I mean, well not all of
them actually have sales departments, and they don't all have
a m or news talk, they don't all have fam
(04:38):
They're a missmash of everything. But every market manager in
every one of those places has to take those diverse
cultures and figure out a way to make them work.
In the private sector, that's fairly easy to do because
people even like me with a contract, I no, I've
(05:00):
got a contract, and i got buyout provisions, and I've
got bonus provisions, and I've got all of that kind
of crap in it. Nonetheless, I still, at the end
of the day, am sort of kind of like an
at will employee. So it's easy to manage in the
private sector because well, you pretty much got to salute
and you know, sloop the flag and follow the marching orders.
(05:20):
In the public sector, not so much, because they're protected.
They're protected by a bloated, out of date civil service
system that doesn't reward meritocracy but actually rewards never rocking
the boat. Just go along and be quiet and fly
(05:41):
under the radar and nothing will ever happen to you.
Then you have in addition to that, you have it's
one thing to have like the FM culture, you know,
with the rock stations and the news talk culture like
you have on the fourth floor with conservative talk that
(06:02):
doesn't involve life and death matters. But when you have
two cultures, one of which is a collaborative organization, like
THEMA was where we didn't carry guns. What we did
was we tried to collaborate with state and local governments,
(06:23):
which collaborated with our partners at the federal level. You know,
because everybody, you know, every department that's in the cabinet,
at some point I would have to call upon to
assist in a disaster. So we had a collaborative effort.
Even with our secret ops programs. You had to get
(06:44):
buy in with the congressional with the legislative branch. You
had to get buy in with the US Supreme Court,
so that for continuity of operations or continuity of government programs.
While you would put the plans together, you had to
put those plans together in concert with Hey, Chief Justice Roberts,
(07:05):
if we had to relocate the Supreme Court, what do
you need? You know, how can I help you? And
by the way, if I ever have to tell you
you're going to pack up and move to an undisclosed
location somewhere in order to keep operating, You're going to
do what I tell you to do. But I want
to do it cooperatively so that when I tell you
(07:27):
it's time to go, you know it's time to go.
So I might not have a gun, but I got
the power of I can keep you operating, but you've
got to agree what I tell you to do. When
I tell you to go, do it. And the same
with members of Congress with those particular programs. But where
(07:48):
it's difficult to mesh cultures is when one culture is
law enforcement. It's like fire departments and police departments. Fire
departments don't carry guns, although maybe in some cities they
probably should. Fire departments are to do what they're to
(08:08):
protect property and save lives. Law enforcement is what well,
again to protect property and save lives, but sometimes at
the point of a gun. So sometimes you got to
we're gonna tax payer relief shots next hour, we'll probably
have in those tax pray relief shots a cop that
kill somebody that's part of their culture, that's not part
(08:31):
of a culture. In a fire department. Oh, you're a
felon and you're in a burning building, so you know what,
We're just gonna let you burn to death. No, that's
not what firefighters do, not at all. So there's always
this clash between fire departments and police sparms. So they'll
tell you there's not, but trust me, I know that
there is. So yes, even today there is. There's this
(08:58):
bureaucratic and look, whatever the future of FEMA is, I
don't know. I've got my own ideas. I've been asked
about them. I've been on television talking about it a
little bit. But the problem currently is, while they're trying
to figure out what to do with FEMA, I found
(09:19):
out yesterday that Christino has told FEMA that they can't
spend more than I mean, it was some absurd amount
five hundred dollars. You can't spend more than five hundred
dollars without getting approval from the Secretary of Homeland Security.
I would have walked, because there are oftentimes that I
would walk into a disaster and I would say, we
(09:41):
need X, whatever X might be. I know I need.
I need urban search and rescue teams from five different states.
I need Colorado, Florida, Virginia, California, and Washington to respond
to this disaster. Well, that means I got to spend
money to deploy those teams and to backfill those people
(10:07):
that come out of fire departments in Colorado or Florida
or Texas or Washington or California. I've got to backfill
those firefighters. So that's going to cost me money. So
to deploy a team is going to cost me millions
of dollars. And I can't wait for the Secretary to
approve that. I've got to make that decision now. I
(10:29):
can't wait for the Secretary of Homeland Security, who this
one seems to be on television a lot. I can't
track her down and say, hey, by the way, as
soon as you get off air, could I ask you
to I need to deploy a team. I don't have
time for your questions. I'm the under Secretary. I make
those calls. I'm responsible for him. I'll be held accountable
for them, and if you don't like them, then you
(10:50):
can chew my ass out. We've just created this huge
monstrosity with the DHS. Let me you know, this is
not what I intend to talk about this hour let's
talk per minute about TSA and the whole idea that
you're gonna take. You don't no longer have to take
your shoes off. Well, I'm happy about that. I really
am happy about that, because I thought it was KABOOKI
(11:12):
security to begin with. Richard Reid was never going to
blow up that plane that was flying like what was
it Paris of Miami or something he was He was
never gonna be able to blow up that plane. And
even if he was able to get his his it
wasn't C four, I forget it. It was PTN I
(11:34):
think he had in his shoe. Even if he's able
to get it to explode, it wasn't going to cause
enough damage to bring the plane down. But oh my god,
we gotta take our shoes off, right, Well, guess what's
going to happen now? And I bet some of you
are going to experience this. You're not gonna take your
shoes off, but the metal detector is going to go
(11:56):
off anyway. And you know what, I think that's true
because TSA probably hasn't thought through far enough that they're
going to have to change the level of the the
X rays that go through that magnetometer, not really X rays,
but the whatever waves it is that that detect metal.
(12:18):
Because for example, I got sneakers that have zero metal
in what's there's no metal whatsoever. But nonetheless they may
set off a metal detector because of the thickness of
the souls. It'll bounce back, the waves will the millimeter
(12:39):
wave will back bounce back just enough to set off
that magnetometer. So people are now going to think to themselves, Hell,
I don't know, to take my shoes off so I
can see a bunch of I can see some cowboys
coming up from you know, they've they've gotten off the ranch.
They got to fly to Chicago for some reason, and
they just got their boots on and they go through
(13:00):
and those maybe they don't even have steel toes on
their boots, but they got heavy, thick, really thick heels.
That's off the magnetometer. It's gonna cause a cluster because
TSA is not gonna take the time, and nobody's ever
thought to tell them, Hey, just the sensitivity on the magnetometer,
(13:21):
so that anything you know, that's you know, let's just say,
what would it be maybe six inches off the floor. Uh,
you're gonna ratchet down the sensitivity of the magnetometer that
level to virtually zero, right, But then they're gonna worry about, oh,
it was somebody hides a gun there, when we'll be
able to detect the gun. So the sensitivity is never
(13:43):
gonna change, and people still end up having to go
back through again and take their shoes off. Because if
you ever look at those magnetometers, sometimes you can't see it,
but if you, if you turn around and watch other people,
you'll see that the magnetometer indicates to the tsa person
where the metal was detected. So it might be a pie,
(14:05):
it might be around your waist. That's oftentimes why they'll say, hey,
give a belt on, because the red lights go off
about where your waist level is. Now they're going to
see it going off where your shoes are. We were
just we're just stupid, you know what. We're just stupid,
and some of are stupid. Is driven by this idea
(14:29):
that government can protect us from everything, or the government
has the answer to everything, or the idea that we're
all terrorists. And out of three hundred and fifty nine
million Americans and whatever percentage of that number actually flies
on any given day, one of them might be a terrorist. Well,
(14:52):
somebody pulls out let's just say they get a gun
on a terrorist, not somebody accidentally, because I've read of
people who accidentally ca I eat a gun on board
haven't been caught because they missed it. Even TSA's own
spector general failed all the time. Somebody pulls a gun
out on a plane, You think that now passengers. Passengers
(15:17):
will just sit back and go, oh, he forgot his gun. No,
we're gonna tackle the guy.
Speaker 4 (15:22):
Yeah, they'll pull out their phone and video it.
Speaker 3 (15:28):
You know.
Speaker 1 (15:28):
The sad part is is I is I punder that comment?
Speaker 5 (15:31):
Yes, yes, seventy five, twenty five, seventy five video twenty
five will yeah, yeah, And I.
Speaker 1 (15:37):
Think that's being generous because it's generally like ten percent
to get everything done and saying get you know.
Speaker 4 (15:44):
Don't get me wrong. The guy will be tackled.
Speaker 5 (15:47):
Yes, there's probably not the number of passengers that you
think it might be.
Speaker 1 (15:51):
Right, It might just be me sitting next to him. Well,
everybody else grabs her phone. That's America twenty twenty five.
But back to the whole point about operational difference with
Secret Service. Absolutely there's an operational difference because we keep
trying to well, not we, but Congress wants to be
(16:12):
seen doing stuff. Have you have you have you thought
about this tax on tips? Somebody asked me on the
text line about have I heard the story. I've heard
the story that Colorado is thinking about. There's I don't
have enough info to comment on about it. But have
you thought about the fact that people think that no
tax on tips means no Colorado state income tax? Well
(16:37):
that's not true. And how many people who think that
no tax on tips is now at infinitum it's going
to go on forever. It goes on to infinity. No
just goes on for a year or two. Yeah, the
dumbing down of America everywhere you turn.
Speaker 6 (17:19):
Be nice to your sales reps. Nothing happens without a sale.
Speaker 4 (17:25):
They are the first.
Speaker 6 (17:25):
Line in everything except for government. But look at it
like this, Without a sale, nothing gets done, Nobody gets paid.
Speaker 1 (17:37):
You don't have a show.
Speaker 6 (17:39):
So be nice to your sales reps and respect their culture.
Speaker 1 (17:46):
Who said I don't respect their culture? I just said
it's a different culture.
Speaker 4 (17:49):
We don't understand it, we don't respect it.
Speaker 1 (17:52):
Well, it's not that we don't understand their culture. Sometimes
we don't understand their managers' strategies. Can I put it
that way? Or am I in trouble for saying that.
Speaker 5 (18:03):
You're close there? You're tap dancing on the line for sure.
Speaker 1 (18:08):
Oh. I look the the aes that worked with me.
They're wonderful. I love them. They're they're funny.
Speaker 4 (18:17):
Because the only ones willing to work with you are
like you.
Speaker 1 (18:21):
Which means they're wonderful human beings. Right, God die Coche.
I think about this. When a Supreme Court justice tells
you that the decisions that her colleagues pose an existential
(18:42):
threat to the rule of law, I think that's more
than a legal disagreement. That's performing, that's performative art. Well,
Justice Katanji Brown Jackson Brown. These recent descents that she's written,
particularly in Trump Versus, show that one I truly do
(19:03):
believe that she's unqualified to be a US Supreme Court justice.
She's no more qualified to be a Justice of the
Supreme Court than I am. Instead of offering careful counterpoints
that are really rooted in constitutional reasoning, reasoning, she's posing
her descents that are really monologues that sound more like
(19:28):
she's a talking head on MSNBC or at the essence fest.
You know what the essence fest is. I'll thing just
a minute now. I'm not going to critique the descent
itself because I think descents. Uh. There have been many
times in briefs that I have cited the descent in
(19:49):
such and such case, trying to get the judge that
I'm in front of to agree with the descent, because
the descent is an essence, another person's, another judge's justice's
interpretation of what the Constitution says or means. You think
(20:09):
about Justice Scalia, his almost his entire legacy, are descents
scorching in tone? Of course they were, absolutely they were
scorched earth descents, but always grounded in the law. Even
(20:30):
Justice so tom Or, whom I vociphrasy disagree with and
leans progressive, stays within the framework of doing actual legal analysis.
But there's something different about Justice Jackson. They're emotional, which
has no place, I don't think in a Supreme Court decision.
(20:53):
It sounds like a political stump speech, not a deliberative
tone of a judicial opinion. And I'm not talking about style,
and I'm talking about purpose. In Trump versus Casa, about
whether the they could block the Trump era executive order
regarding birthright citizenship. She went way beyond the descent. She
(21:14):
warned that the Court had opened the door to uncontainable
executive power and executive lawlessness, claiming that this decision placed
the very structure of American government at risk. Now that
sounds like something I would say, not some sort of
legal analysis. And that's the case where Justice Barrett, writing separately,
(21:37):
took issue with both the tone and the lack of
jurisprudence in Justice Jackson's descent, and rightly so. In my opinion,
legal descents, no matter how passionate they are, and if
you want to see passion again, go back and reach
some of Justice Scillia's descents, they should nonetheless be rooted
in precedent logic and a serious engage with the constitutional
(22:02):
questions that you that you're I don't want to say opponents,
but your other justices disagree with you about She sounds
like cable news, is what she sounds like. But what's
telling And I'd read about her talking about her approach
(22:23):
to dissents, but I didn't know where it was. She
did it at the Essence Festival in Knowledge. That's a
culturally rich but a highly political venue. So there she
was in front of a very progressive Marxist kind of audience,
(22:45):
and she doubled down. She said the public needed to
know the stakes, that transparency strengthens democracy. But I think
there's a difference between transparency and theatrics, because when the
Supreme Court justice positions herself as a political narrator warning
of institutional collapse, she's not interpreting the Constitution. She's presenting
(23:10):
you with a narrative. And that's grand standing, and obviously
that's going to get applause from the progressive left, but
it comes at a steep cost to the institution of
the Court itself. Judicial authority. We often forget that judicial
authority is built on the perception of impartiality and in
(23:32):
the idea that we simply agree that we will we
will give those decisions the kind of respect that they deserve,
and we will follow those decisions. I think she is
absolutely aware of the effect that she's having, because at
(23:55):
the Stupid Essence Festival, she noted that she had authored
twenty fourinions this term, second only to Clarence Thomas, and
that she had spoke nearly seventy nine thousand words during
oral arguments. Well, you know, Justice Thomas for years went
without asking a single question during oral arguments. So am
(24:19):
I to assume by that that he's not qualified? Or
am I instead to assume that he's simply listening to
the arguments presented by the litigants in front of the
Supreme Court. He's listening to their rationale and he's going
to go back and he's either going to agree with it.
Who's going to eviscerate it? When you're telling an audience
(24:42):
of progressive leftists that you know, I've authored twenty four opinions,
I've spoken seventy nine thousand words during oral arguments. That's
the profile of somebody that is more concerned about visibility
and using her platform, as opposed to like Justice Thomas
using his legal mind. She wants to become a political symbol.
(25:07):
Go back to her confirmation hearing, Can you define force
what a woman is?
Speaker 3 (25:11):
No?
Speaker 1 (25:12):
I can't do that. I'm not going to do that.
I think that Justice Jackson represents something bigger than the Court,
that her voice is necessary to challenge what I think
a lot on the left see as a hard right turn,
but they're in is exactly the problem when a justice
(25:32):
views the bench, their position as a justice as a
place to challenge the court, rather than to serve on
the court. We're no longer in the realm of the
rule of law. We're now in the realm of political ideology.
And the robes are just their costumes. And I think
(25:53):
there's a double standard going on too. Imagine Clarence Thomas,
who again rarely speaks publicly, suddenly started going to conservative
rallies to call liberal rulings in existential threats to the Constitution.
The cabal would go backcrab crazy. They'd started to question
his impartiality. They'd start questioning the very legitimacy of the court. Yeah,
(26:19):
when Justice Jackson does it, it's celebrated, as was she
speaking truth to power? Wait a minute, think about that,
speaking truth to power. You're one of only three branches
of government, three separate but equal branches of government. How
do you need to speak truth to power? You're telling
(26:42):
a coequal branch, separate but equal, that you're wrong. Okay, well,
guess what that coequal branch could do if it's let's say,
you do you declare a statute to Congress pasted on constitution?
Was that speaking truth to power? Because Congress can go, go, okay,
we'll just rewrite the statue, or you've told the president
(27:06):
he can't do something, and Congress says, here, hold my beer,
and they give the power to the president to do
that which the Court said it can't do by simply
passing a statue that says we hereby authorize the president
to do X, y Z. See what I mean there,
she's being performative, she's being political, and on top of that,
(27:32):
she's not being very judicial in the sense that you
know in the most recent case where they turned down
a request for the case to be reviewed, they turned
down cert to put it in legal ees. She was
the only one that issued a descent, just as Soda
(27:54):
mayor came out. And because she wrote the descent, she wrote,
in concurring with the other eight justices that this is
not the place and this is not the manner in
which we write descents. She in essence chewed out her colleague.
(28:15):
So she's now. Justice Jackson has now been challenged not
just by Amy Comy Barrett, but by one of her
so called cohorts in the left wing of the United
States Supreme Court. The greatest threat to the rule of
law is not a conservative majority. It's transforming an associate
(28:38):
justice of the Supreme Court into a political pundit that
actually ought to be just be on MSNBC.
Speaker 7 (28:44):
Mica based on the last Stotus decision, they said they
can't go around Trump's decisions with its class action lawsuit
actually covered that base before. Some of these guys wouldn't
try that, and here we are. Are they're going to
try it, or they are trying. I should say, no,
how do you think about that?
Speaker 1 (29:04):
No, I actually I disagree with you. They said that
if you do try to use class action lawsuits, then
you're going to have to make certain that you follow
to a t the rules governing the assertation and the
defining of a class It has to meet all of
the prerequisites of I think it's civil rules Civil Procedure
(29:27):
fifty six that defines a class action. So they didn't
say you couldn't do it. They just said that if
you do try to go that route, we're going to
be watching to make sure that you follow it the
right way. So there's a little bit of difference in
than what you said, Greg.
Speaker 4 (29:45):
You've been to an emergency room lately, not in a
few years.
Speaker 1 (29:49):
Well, you might want to just check the Oh, I
don't know the political leanings of any nurses that might
want to treat you.
Speaker 3 (30:01):
I just thought of a way to combine my Maggie
heating and my work in the er. MAGA supporters are
like people who hold onto fireworks too long. You love
it until it hurts you, kind of like, uh, you
know how, you love it until you can't retire until
the age of seventies. So see it in the er, folks,
(30:22):
When your fingers get blown off, I have a good day.
Speaker 4 (30:27):
Wow, that was a bit tough to hear.
Speaker 5 (30:30):
She was saying that she would most likely the people
that got their fingers blown off from fireworks were MAGA supporters.
Speaker 1 (30:37):
Yeah, so she would take hold on to the fireworks
too long until it hurts, and she'll just, I guess,
just let you hurt in the arf because you.
Speaker 5 (30:46):
Like her, she'll she'll take her sweet time get into Yeah,
got three.
Speaker 1 (30:50):
Burns, Hang on, it's my coffee break. Yeah. Oh, your
skin just melted off because of a burn. I'll be
right back. I gotta see if I can't line.
Speaker 5 (31:02):
Color me skeptical, but I don't think only MAGA supporters
are shooting off fireworks.
Speaker 1 (31:09):
Why do I hear bagpipes? Do you hear bagpipes?
Speaker 4 (31:12):
That's just you.
Speaker 1 (31:17):
No, it's not either. Don't you're not lying to me.
They're bagpipes somewhere. Oh my god, I'm going out of
my mind. Don't you do you know you hear them?
Why are the bagpipes in the building? I hear the
outro bad You're lying, sack of the bagpipes playing right now?
(31:38):
You say so.
Popular Podcasts
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
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.