Tyranny in America: How Close Are We? Timothy Snyder talks Trump, 5/23/25

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
It is all here for you today. Thank you for
being with us. I will tell you that today is
one of those days where the planets have lined up
and we get a chance to share with you some
of the conversations that we've had over the last month
that you've actually asked to hear again. And the reason
we get a chance to do that is because Kim

(00:22):
is traveling. I am traveling, and rather than saddle a
fill in the host with things today, we're going to
use the opportunity to share two huge conversations with you.
One of them was a conversation I had with the
great Professor Timothy Snyder, who is an expert on all
things related to authoritarianism. He's also got tremendous expertise in

(00:43):
the area of Ukraine and Russia, and we had a
really interesting conversation about the rise of despotism in America,
the signs of it. Of course, he's written his book
on tyranny. And the second conversation that you'll hear today
is one with the great David Sarota of the Lever
and I've been a fan of David's work for so long,

(01:05):
and it was a great opportunity to exchange a conversation
filled with a look not so dissimilar to the conversation
with Timothy Snyder about the rise of authoritarianism in America.
And so David really helps break that stuff down very effectively,

(01:25):
and his work on the lever is terrific. As I say,
I've been not a fan, but a financial supporter of
all of his efforts for a long long time. And
then we even have some Friday fab that as farted
with you to honor the tradition of the show, and
fresh content from Michael Snyder who has some fresh takes
on the latest films and the latest things to stream.

(01:47):
So all of that is coming at you, as the
kids say, coming at you, coming at you in the
in the minutes ahead, this is Casey Casement, Hollywood. Everyone,
it looks like the next few hours are going to
be pretty Yes, show you do this to me all
the time. I don't know what the hell they do it.
So kick back and relax as we share both best
of and some fresh content here on the show, The

(02:14):
Mark Thompson Show.

Speaker 2 (02:17):
It was great. I loved it.

Speaker 1 (02:21):
How would you have this?

Speaker 3 (02:22):
We could try ignore us.

Speaker 4 (02:23):
Sir my name, You cannot say you love your country
where are my.

Speaker 5 (02:29):
Weed smokers at Stay at home and get baked.

Speaker 1 (02:32):
Yes, indeed, it is a great, great pleasure to have
this guy join us. I am super excited about Timothy Snyder.
He's been called the leading interpreter of our dark times.
Excuse me, he's been called the leading interpreter of our
dark times. And he's brilliant when talking about changes in

(02:54):
society and changes that have led to historically authoritarian regimes
taking power. And he specializes in Central and Eastern Europe,
the Soviet Union as a historian, and the Holocaust. He's
the leven Professor of History at Yale and a permanent
fellow at the Institute for Human Sciences in Vienna. The

(03:15):
author of several acclaimed books, I mean, he is a
prolific author Blood Lands, on Tyranny and the Road to Unfreedom.
He is also serving on the Committee on Conscience of
the US Holocaust Memorial Museum as a member of the
Council on Foreign Relations. I am, so, you can tell,
excited to be able to speak with him. So now

(03:37):
a warm welcome for the great Timothy Snyder place professor, Welcome,
glad of you're with you. You know I was rereading
on Tyranny and man, it is scary. And then after
reading On Tyranny, I went back and watched some of

(03:59):
your utie tube annotations. These are oral annotations that you've
done after having read I think parts of On Tyranny yourself.
You go to the chapters and then you sort of
orally annotate them. And it's chilling because you did that
three years ago. I think during the Biden administration, you

(04:20):
were talking about J six with a historian's view and perspective,
and you put it in a context of a broader history.
And now we see a J six in an even
more perverted way. The way it's been an attempt to
lionize it, to make these people who are associated with

(04:42):
J six heroes victims of the state. I wonder, just
because I've started there, if you can give me a
sense of things now, because as I read your materials
and heard your oral annotations, I just thought it's happened.
The coup is complete.

Speaker 6 (05:03):
I wrote on Tyranny way back in twenty sixteen, and
you're kind to remember the things I was saying around
January twenty twenty one. I agree with you, they're thinking
of a different kind of regime in January. The thing
which concern me the most about January sixth, they're really
the run up to January sixth, November December twenty twenty

(05:24):
was the big lie that saying that Trump one in
twenty twenty is not just a falsehood, it's not just
a misrepresentation. It opens up a portal, basically into an
alternative reality. And what I was concerned about back then
was that once people enter that portal, they're not going
to come back out, and it's going to change the
way that.

Speaker 3 (05:43):
Our politics works. And I think it has.

Speaker 6 (05:47):
I think we're now in a world or in a
country where you can enforce the lie on people. You
can demand that FBI agencies passive loyalty tests in which
they accept that Trump actually won that election. And you
do this knowing that it's not true, like you do
it knowing that you're bending not just reality but people's minds,

(06:09):
and that you're getting them used to a different kind
of politics in which what is true is going to
be what you say. And that, of course is also
connected to violence, because if you carry out acts of
violence on the basis of a lie, as people did
on January sixth, then that lie becomes true for you,
And if you're living in a world of lies, you're

(06:30):
going to be more apt to carry out acts of
violence yourself because you're going to be annoyed by the
way the reality resists you. You're going to be annoyed
by the way that other people aren't living inside your story.
So we're in a very different place where that lie
of January sixth is one of the one of the
tools to take apart the normal kind of rule of
law state that we've got now.

Speaker 1 (06:50):
So this propaganda that was then, that masquerade is truth,
is now as you have is the litmus test for
FBI agents, for others who are going to take key
positions in this administration, the Trump administration. The perniciousness of

(07:12):
that disinformation, of that propaganda that is now then repeated
through the and amplified through the Fox News channels of
the world, through right wing media, and now through independent media,
independent right wing media. Does this you've seen this and
put it in a historical perspective? Does this sound like
what we've seen when we look back at history.

Speaker 6 (07:37):
I think there's a look, there's a basic difference between
democracies and other kinds of systems when it comes to
the truth. It's not like everybody always tells the truth
in a democracy, but you have to accept that there
is truth out there, that there are facts out there,
and that the facts are the things that bring us together.
So we have different interests, different values, but we have

(07:58):
the same facts, and so then we can sometimes cooperate.
We don't have to, but sometimes we can. But when
there is no truth, then you're going to be in
a different kind of system. If there's no truth, then
that means that we're you and I citizens are not
going to be able to cooperate because on the basis
of what and if there's no truth, then we can't

(08:18):
really resist tyranny because on the basis of what, what
are you going to say to the strong man if
there's no truth, if nobody believes in facts. And historically
in the twenties century, this can go broadly two ways.
There's the fascist way, where what the strong man says
is the truth and it doesn't matter if it contradicts
the world or if it contradicts himself, because the fact

(08:39):
that he can push through the lie and make you
deal with it is the sign that he is in control,
right And I think that's where we're closer the other
The other way is that so is the Soviet way,
the Communist way, where you say there's one truth and
that one truth is the party line, and you've got
to follow the party line. But either way, whether it's
zero truths or one truth, it's it's you can't have

(08:59):
demandocracy on that basis. Democracy means democracy requires there are
millions of little truths, and we kind of find our
way to each other, on to one another on the
basis of those little truths.

Speaker 1 (09:09):
And so when it comes to the truth and democracy
and those things that are critical, I wonder about how
the press plays in all of this, and some of
your writings you've alluded to the ways in which the
press is an important part of local media. You've even,
i think lamented the fact that local media has vanished
in large areas of America. There's just a news desert.

(09:32):
And so I wonder if you can speak to where
we are now as you look at the media environment
in America.

Speaker 3 (09:39):
Yeah, thank you for that.

Speaker 1 (09:40):
Mark.

Speaker 6 (09:40):
That's such an important point. I think that maybe the
most important point is that if it's true that you
need facts for democracy, then you have to generate them.
You've got to create them. There have to be people
who get paid to go out there and report. It
has to be an honorable and a decent but also
a actically sustainable profession the journalist. And we've basically chosen

(10:04):
the last fifteen years to make that not so. So
now we live in a country where most counties in
the United States of America don't have a reporter covering anything.
And there are major beats which are not covered for
most of the country, like the environment for example, most
parts of the United States do not have somebody actually
doing environmental reporting. And so, just to make that really simple,

(10:26):
like in most parts of the country, you just don't
really have any way of knowing whether the water is
polluted or not by or by what or by whom.
And the same goes for politics, right like if there's
no local reporting, you don't know what's going on with
the school board or the city council, you know, and
that's really more important than what's going on in Congress
nine times out of ten. But when you don't have

(10:46):
local reporting, then all we care about is DC and
we get polarized, you know, and the next step is
get we go online and we fall for conspiracy theories.
So the local reporting is really the foundation of our
republic and honey fathers actually understood this, and it's it's
so for that reason, it's sad to watch it go,
and it's dangerous to watch it go. Like it's a

(11:08):
pattern that we've that that that we've seen before, Like
in Russia, this happened first. You know, in Russia, they
lost local reporting and then you have a few oligarchs
and then you have centralized media. And basically we're going
the same way. You know, we've we're losing local media.
We've got a few oligarchs, their social media channels. It's
getting more and more concentrated. So you have to have
the belief in truth, but you also have to have
the people who are out there creating the truth by

(11:29):
doing by doing their reporting.

Speaker 3 (11:31):
So you ask how we're doing. We're not doing very well.

Speaker 6 (11:34):
We don't have enough local newspapers the ones that we
do have, you know, you see how like you see
how the little ones who still exist are making a
disproportionate difference. Like for example, if you take the example
of of of of Musk and Trump and the cuts
to federal agencies, they have a big federal they have
a big propaganda story about that. It's about efficiency, they say.
But if you have local reporters in the fifty states,

(11:56):
they can tell you what these cuts actually mean to
actual human beings. But if you don't have those local reporters,
the propaganda story floats out there for much longer.

Speaker 1 (12:04):
That's just such a great point. I've talked for well
since these guys came to power about how this waste
fraud inefficiency thing. Of course, we're all against waste fraud
and inefficiency, and the idea somehow that you know, you
can fly that flag and then just do whatever you
want is I think the idea that's being played out.
I mean, more and more we're seeing a national reporting

(12:26):
that there isn't fraud and inefficiency being prioritized. There's just
cuts being prioritized. I don't even think you need any
particular heavy lift and investigative reporting to realize that. I mean,
it was just so done so chaotically and haphaszardly. But
what you just said is critical because I think most
of us, you know, all politics is local, and really

(12:47):
it's like, how does it affect my life? And what
you're saying is without the local reporting without those papers
to tell you how it's affecting your life, You're not
going to feel the effects on your life until it's
too late. Yeah, yeah, go ahead, please.

Speaker 6 (13:02):
No, no, And you're going to be trained to blame
them on other people. I mean it. I think you
can kind of track the change of the Republican Party
in this way, because it used to be that the
Republican Party was a lot more responsive. I mean they
had on the state level, the local level mayor's, city councils, whatever.
But now that we don't have the local reporting, everything

(13:22):
becomes about what the center tells you. And so there's
not really local politics or state politics. It's all about
winning and holding power and about the issues that are
defined by the president. And that's a very different kind
of politics. And so then if something doesn't work, that
your water is polluted, the school board's corrupt, you know,
you stop getting the support used to gets a farm
or whatever. You've now been trained to blame the other

(13:44):
side for it, right, Like you're now in a different
kind of politics, which is the politics of us and
them rather than the politics of local responsiveness.

Speaker 1 (13:52):
You know, you wrote about one party rule and one
of the things you note in one party rule, in
other words, the evolution of a democratic system toward a
singular party. You wrote again an on tyranny about this,
and I was struck by all of the aspects to

(14:13):
this that I hadn't considered. You know, one party rule
just by definition. You go, well, that's awful. I mean,
you don't have a plurality of opinion, you don't have
a plurality of concerns, of issues, et cetera that are
all being expressed. You only have one party. But you
described and I wonder if you could just give us
a few seconds on it, because I think, and in
fear that we're sort of headed toward this incredible power

(14:37):
that this one party will have over our country and
its likely effects. Can you do two things for me?
Can you comment on the one party of rule aspects
of perhaps tyrannical evolution, and then where we are today
and how that fits in if we're there or how
close we are.

Speaker 6 (14:58):
Yeah, well, thanks for that. I mean that is it
is a feature of the kind of tyrannical politics that
we had in the twentieth century that there was a
single party. So even if the ideology was very different,
So fascism versus communism, for example, and both of those.
In both of those systems, you have a single party.
And what a single party allows you to do is

(15:18):
to mediate between the leader and the people without the
people really being represented. So you can be a member
of the party, and being a member of the party
can allow you to take part in the various patron
client relationships, it can allow you to have your little
bit of corruption inside the overall pop party structure. It
can allow you to feel like you're in and everybody

(15:38):
else is out. But in a single party, what you
can't really do is be represented because you can't move
out of the single party and vote for the other party,
because there is no other party the single party is it.
It's like a tent, you know, in which you can stay,
but the era is very stifling, you know, and there
isn't that much that you can get for yourself in
that tent, and you can't really advance in the tent,

(15:59):
and you can't leave the tent. That's what a one
party state is like. So it maybe better to be
inside the tent than outside the tent. But the end
of the day, all you've got is a tent, you know,
and you've got the circus strong man, You've got a
few clowns, but that's basically what you got, and there's
no way out of it. And it is really worrying
in the US because the problem with this kind of
US and them politics that Trump and Mosque and Vance
propagate is that you're not treating the other side as

(16:21):
a party which has a chance to win. You're treating
them as the enemy, as the outsiders, as the people
who have been destroying the country. And if you talk
about them that way, then it's pretty easy to convince
yourself and others that they don't really have the right
to rule, that when they win the election, even when
they win the elections, we shouldn't let them back into power.
And if we go, you know, one more election cycle
like that, you know, if we have an election where

(16:43):
the Democrats win and are not allowed to take power
or whatever it might be, then we are you know,
then we're close to one party rule. But enter the
question we're technically jerrymandering is really problematic here because you've
got a bunch of states like my home state of Ohio,
which are pretty closely balanced in fact, where the local
gerrymandering is so extreme that people are used to the

(17:04):
idea that their state is a red state. I just
hate that notion, right, like the state is painted a
certain color and it never changes, you know, like that
circus tent, like it's just red on the outside. I
really hate that idea that is a red state, or
a blue state for that matter, because that suggests that
it can never change, you know, it's just a thing
that it is. And what I worry about is that
people get used to one party rule at the level

(17:25):
of the state, and then they get used to it
at the level of the federal government. And I think
that's a process which has been going on for the
last couple decades.

Speaker 1 (17:32):
So the jerrymanderin that you talk about, of course, is
something that both parties engineer aggressively. The installation of party
loyalists and of personal loyalists that it's just say, people
who are now personally loyal to Donald Trump seems to
be the coin of the realm in Washington at the moment.
And I'm wondering if there isn't a procession in a

(17:56):
sense that is led by that tool or this one
party rule, because the party and power in this instance
has become so very loyal and resistant to any sort
of outsider.

Speaker 6 (18:10):
Yeah, that's a wonderful point. I mean, each all these
histories are different. And what's happened in the Republican Party
in the US is specific. It has become less locally
responsive because of media, it's become used to one party
rule because of controlling the majority of the state houses.
And then it has a specific charismatic leader who of

(18:32):
course is very talented whatever else I want to say
about him, but he is also frightening, at least to them.
So the Republicans are more afraid of Trump than other
people are. You know, Republicans are most afraid, and then
other Americans are less, and then foreigners least of all.
And it's a funny kind of sequence because people who
are afraid of him at home think that others are
more afraid of him, but actually others are less afraid

(18:54):
of him, and of course, you know, Russia and China
not afraid of him in the least. There's a funny
kind of you know, there's a funny kind of spiritual
exchange which goes on here, which is that when you
decide you're going to submit to Trump, you think everybody's
going to decide to submit to Trump. But that's actually
not true at all. It's just you. But coming back
from that little from that little sidetrack, what Trump has

(19:14):
done to Republicans is that he's purged the ones who
were who might have had their own thoughts. So people
have been primaried or they've just chosen not to run
because they're afraid of this sarcastic violence which comes from
his tweets. And so over time, you know, over almost
a decade now, he has he's shaped the Republican Republican
Party so that it's not so much so that it's

(19:34):
a one person party to a large extent. I mean,
there are exceptions, they are honorable exceptions, but for the
most part, it's a one person party where the party
is the person and the person is is the party.
And that has its own dangers because you then you
then have a party which doesn't know how to move on.
You have a party which doesn't have a political imagination.
You have a party which doesn't know what to do

(19:55):
after Donald Trump, and therefore a party which might be
tempted to think, well, maybe you know, after Donald Trump
more Donald Trump.

Speaker 1 (20:03):
Well, I mean that's exactly it, and that ripple effect
of this single party rule and this loyalist foundation that
government now is based upon. Is just that I did
want to double back with you, and I really because
I feel I want to exploit your expertise a bit
in the world of Eastern Europe and Russia and everything

(20:26):
that's happening in Ukraine. And I wonder if you can,
for us in America give us a historical perspective on
Ukraine and then explain perhaps and I know this may
be a challenge in a limited time we have, but
just give us a moment then on how that historical
context of Ukraine is served or undercut by what's happened

(20:51):
now with this likely deal that's being broken between Putin
and Trump. It's astounding to me. But I wonder if
you could put it in I'm kind of historical perspective
and just explain again Ukraine's role in all of this
in the modern era.

Speaker 6 (21:07):
Well, historically, Ukraine is an extremely important bit of territory
which has been contested by powerful actors for a couple
thousand years, narrowly historically, and this is the important part.
For the last thirty years thirty five now or so,
Ukraine has been independent state, which has been a kind
of gift to the idea of.

Speaker 3 (21:27):
A world of rule of law or a world.

Speaker 6 (21:29):
Of if you like, Western democracies, because it has meant
that if Ukraine can be kept as a rule of
law state, then the whole order of rule of law
states is more likely to survive. So this is an
essential piece of the geography of the world.

Speaker 2 (21:44):
The way it.

Speaker 6 (21:44):
Goes tends to tends to determine the way other things go.
There's a reason why the Soviets were so keen to
control there's a reason why the Nazis were so keen
to control it. And I think those of us who
like the rule of law and democracy have tended to
under estimate how important it was that Ukraine actually became
a rule of law state and became a democracy. And

(22:07):
now that's that's threatened, and as it's threatened, not just
the European order, but the world order, and also the
American place in that order is threatened, the Ukrainians have
done something very special, which is that they've held off
an attack by what was supposed to be the second
largest army in the world, essentially by themselves with modest
We have to be honest about this modest contributions from

(22:30):
other countries, including the US. Our contribution, even at the
inflated numbers we like to use, is something like zero
point one five percent, zero point one five percent of GDP.
It's really it's it's a it's a it's a nickel
on the Defense Department doll or even if we wreck again,
if we if we reckon it using our own inflated numbers,
it's actually less than that. It's a penny on the

(22:51):
overall budget. It's not really very significant. And for that price.
The Ukrainians have managed to do something in the last
three years which I think is a fact quite historical,
which is they've fulfilled the entire NATO mission. They've held
off the army which the entire NATO alliance, including the
United States, was meant to hold off. They've showed China
how hard it is to carry out offensive operations. They've

(23:12):
made it much less likely that other countries will get
nuclear weapons, because if Russia's nuclear bluff succeeds, everybody's going
to build nuclear weapons. Right now, thanks to Ukraine, it's
not succeeding. And they've held up this world order, which
is based on the premise that countries are sovereign and
borders are real. And as we enter twenty fiftwenty five,
in the fourth year of this war, it's been horrible
for the Ukrainians. They've born costs that most of the

(23:34):
rest of US can't possibly understand. Americans have not been
in a war like this since the Second World War.
Casualties on a scale are something that we have not
experienced since the Civil War. It's extraordinary costs that they've
had to pay, and we have reaped the benefits from it.
What we are risking doing now is tossing that all

(23:56):
away on the basis of essentially self as far as
I can tell, just like sell fishness, miscalculation, and a
lack of a lack of awareness of all of this,
I think what the Trump people are doing is making
the US much weaker by fighting with our allies and then,
in the case of Ukraine, by an effect, creating an
exploitive relationship with a particular ally which had done the

(24:18):
most for us in the last three years. And they
rationalize this in various ways, but I think it's pretty
impossible to rationalize.

Speaker 2 (24:25):
I mean, the.

Speaker 6 (24:26):
Only coherent explanation is that the Trump people actually want
a world order in which Russia and China are more significant,
and which the United States is less significant, and in
which the rules matter a lot less.

Speaker 1 (24:41):
Is that terms that based on some perverse understanding of
the world and through kind of a Trumpean prism, or
is that is that a simple business exploitation. I feel
that there's a lot of motivation just in terms of
dollars and cents for these guys.

Speaker 6 (24:55):
Yeah, I think those two things are the same thing,
because if you see the world in terms of transactions
for Musk, that's not the same thing as seeing the
world in terms of the interests of the American people.
Those are two very different things. And so if you
see the world in terms of transactions that are going
to benefit Musk or somebody else, then you're entering into

(25:15):
a world which is like the Russian world, where everything
is about transactions for Putin right or somebody else. And
so sure you can get into that world which is
business transactions, but business transactions on behalf of oligarchs who
already have hundreds of billions of dollars is not the
same thing as the interests of Americans or the interests
of Russians. And if you're Russia, that's a comfortable world

(25:36):
because you're putin and you're already in charge, and that's
the way you like things. But if you're America, you're
tossing away not just your interests, but you're tossing away
your power because your power is built on the fact
that people trust you, that you have alliances, that you're
generally on the side of the law, and so on.
So when you choose a Russian way of doing things,
you may be benefiting one American, two Americans, three Americans

(25:57):
who are already extraordinarily wealthy and built need to be benefited,
but you're in exchange for that, you're letting, you're letting
slip away an entire world order which was very beneficial
for all Americans. So that's a very very particular kind
of kind of trade.

Speaker 1 (26:13):
In our last minute or two here, I am drawn to,
even during your explanation, an America first kind of a
sloganism that has taken over beyond the slogan now it
sort of becomes the default position as we talk about
these things. So even as I hear you speak about

(26:34):
the importance of America in sort of the balance, the
fragile balance, internationally. I think of how it's sold, how
this policy is sold, Hey, America First, this isn't an
American a situation that benefits of America, etc. However they it's packaged,
the America First message seems to be carrying the day.
And so I think back to some of your writings

(26:57):
where I learned really and I'm embarrassed to say I
I didn't know this, that this was really a sloganism
that Nazi Germany had, you know, a Germany First. I mean,
certainly I was aware of the propaganda machine around Nazi
Germany and so much of what they did. But specifically
you can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think
I recall from some of your writings that they did
have that very notion that it's Germany first.

Speaker 6 (27:19):
Well, yeah, I mean Deutsche Landubals. But also more specifically,
in the late nineteen thirties early nineteen forties, the United States,
important important Americans spoke of America First, and what they
meant was actually what Trump means by it. What they
meant was not that we care about Americans per se.
What they meant by America First was isolation for the
rest of the world, admiration of dictators. So the people

(27:42):
talked about America First in the late thirties early forties
generally admired extreme right wing dictators, and that's now repeating
the twenty twenties, where the people talk about America first,
what they really mean generally is we'd kind of like
our country to be more like Russia. That's essentially what
they mean. It's not it's The essential analytical point about
America first is that when you're alone, you're not first.

(28:06):
I mean think that's the confusion, right, when you're alone,
you're not actually first, Like you're not, you don't win
the race just because there's nobody else there. And this
way of thinking about freedom, where you know we're free.
If we beat up on the Canadians, we beat up
on the Mexicans, we beat up on the Danes. Beating
up on the Canadians and the Danes is just about
the craziest thing you can do. Those have been our

(28:27):
most reliable allies. Being up on the Ukrainians is just
about the craziest thing you can do. They've delivered more
for our national security in the last three years than
any other partner. And what we're doing is not putting
ourselves first. We're putting ourselves in a kind of isolated seller.
We're putting ourselves in isolation. And you know, when there's

(28:47):
only one of you that you're not first in any
meaningful sense. You're just alone. And when you're alone, you
lose a whole lot of the benefits, not just the pleasure,
you know, but also the interest, the strength, everything that
you had when you worked alone. I think the instinct
that you know Trump and Musker appealing to is this
American idea that you could do it on your own.

(29:09):
But you can't do the world on your own. If
you choose to do the world on your own, you
just end up without friends, You end up without relationships.
You're not first anymore. Like if you're running the race
all by yourself, you don't finish first, you know, you
just look like an idiot. And that's kind of where
we are. We're running the race all by ourselves, except
for not even really running a race. We're just talking
about running a race and how great we are.

Speaker 1 (29:30):
So the great con that Donald Trump, in my judgment,
has perpetrated continues, and I think he's able to somehow
and we'll see sell that con of this serving American
interests in some way or not being important. Maybe people
feel as though it doesn't really affect me Ukraine. I'm

(29:51):
tired of sending money. Whatever the however, it's again packaged.
It seems as though for the moment, they have seized
the propaganda day, you know, and and they make their
points the right does, or the Trump administration more specifically,
because I don't even know if they are really representing
the right, maybe the extreme right. They make their their

(30:12):
their message most digestible. Still, I feel they'll become a
point when that won't be the case. Isn't that right?

Speaker 6 (30:20):
I mean, I think it's I you know, people watch
this conversation later on and I'll see if we were
right or wrong. But I think it is starting to
fray around the edges a little bit.

Speaker 2 (30:28):
You know.

Speaker 6 (30:28):
I think a lot of Americans, including a lot of
folks who are conservative, you know, generally regard Putin as
as a problem. I mean, the polling is actually overwhelming
on this that Americans don't believe that Putin can be trusted.
And the polling is also pretty strong on supporting Ukraine.
And the polling is also pretty strong on a lot
of the domestic programs which are now being taken apart.

(30:49):
So I do think the propaganda I mean, as you say,
I think it has a kind of coherence, and the
coherence is Trump strong. Therefore you're strong with Trump. But
that does start to bump up against the real world,
right every or the other way it works is whatever
Trump says is the truth. So just listen to whatever

(31:10):
Trump says, and that's pleasant and it's easy, but it
does start to bump up against the real world, you know,
as people see. Well, actually Trump can't face down Canada,
he can't face down Mexico. He can't actually face people down.
He's certainly not making the Russians do what he want.
Like if anything, everything he says looks like it was,
you know, it'd be more elegant in the original Russian.

(31:31):
He's not facing down the rest of the world. That's
not happening. And what he's doing domestically isn't strength either.
It's only strong in the sense of taking things apart,
which you know is isn't what people actually are thinking
about it in terms of strength. So I think you're
right that. I mean, I think his strong point, which
people really underestimate their peril, is that he's an excellent communicator,

(31:53):
and that he's very good at making people feel like
they're taking part in some project that has to do strength.
But the reality, nevertheless is that both internationally and domestically,
the way he behaves allows the strength, that is to say,
the functionality to leave the system and leave everything a
more cluttery mess than it had been before. And I

(32:15):
don't think they're actually able to completely control the messaging
on this and I think that's the fact that what
they're doing is making us weaker in every sense.

Speaker 3 (32:23):
I do think that's eventually going to slip through.

Speaker 1 (32:27):
You know, I support your substack. I'm a subscriber and
I love your substack musings you can I don't know
if it's years just that have addled my mind. I
wish I could remember all of the juicy stuff in
your substack. So I'm going to have a link to
your substack under this video because I think it is

(32:47):
such a great offering and I will continue to support it. Look,
Timothy Snyder, your treasure, and I really I loved this conversation.
I hope we have more. Thank you for being here today.

Speaker 3 (32:59):
Thanks for the good work.

Speaker 1 (33:00):
Mark great, all right, yeah, right on.

Speaker 2 (33:05):
The Mark Thompson Show, The Mark Thompson Show. He was great.

Speaker 1 (33:14):
I loved it. How would you have this?

Speaker 3 (33:17):
We could try ignoring this, sir.

Speaker 4 (33:22):
You cannot say you love your country?

Speaker 2 (33:24):
Where am I weed?

Speaker 1 (33:25):
Smokers at?

Speaker 5 (33:26):
Stay at home and get baked right on?

Speaker 1 (33:30):
It is such a pleasure to welcome this next guy.
I am such a fan. I've followed him for years.
I'm a paying supporter of all of his endeavors, and
I encourage you to do similarly his His independent journalism
is done now at the Lever and if you subscribe
and you support, it hits your inbox and it gives
you such great takes on the world, on the economy,

(33:53):
on American government, and perspectives that you just won't see
anywhere else. How about it? For David sar Rhoda everybody, Yeah,
you know this post liberation day. I'm really happy to
be talking to you because I think you may be
of all people able to offer a perspective that I

(34:17):
don't yet see. Meaning I think I do fall into
the Oh my god, Trump is the mad King, and
now his madness is going to be spilled all over
this trade deal. I don't see any redeeming qualities, but
there are some cross currents in it, and I feel
like you, David Sarota, might be able to point me
toward them.

Speaker 2 (34:36):
Yeah.

Speaker 4 (34:37):
I mean, look, I think a lot of things can
be true. At the same time, I think the Trump
tariff policy is at some level, it seems pretty haphazard,
seems pretty terrifying if you're worried about higher costs, which
I think most of us are. I think it's also
true that Donald Trump is at the tariff policy is

(35:00):
the culmination of a backlash to the free trade orthodoxy
that originally really de industrialized the American heartland and caused
mass pain, suffering and economic devastation across this country.

Speaker 1 (35:18):
You mean like NAFTA type for example. Yeah, I mean.

Speaker 4 (35:22):
Look, I'm old enough to have worked on Capitol Hill
during the passage of the China PNTR deal, which is
the original China trade deal that lowered tariffs with China,
brought China into the WTO, and at the time, back then,
this is nineteen ninety nine two two thousand and one,
at the time, there were a lot of questions and

(35:46):
fears that in doing this it would lowering those tariff barriers,
it would incentivize corporations to pick up shop and leave
the United States to go to places like China to
exploit cheaper labor, no environmental standards, no human rights standards, etc.

Speaker 1 (36:09):
Etc.

Speaker 4 (36:10):
In other words, for companies to lower their costs and
increase their profits by exploiting the authoritarian conditions of China.
And there were a lot of concerns about that, by
the way, on the left and the right, and in effect,
that's essentially what happened. That's what happened over the last
twenty five years or so, and same thing of companies

(36:34):
moving to Mexico, essentially moving out of the United States
to exploit exploitable conditions. And I think that if we're
being honest about things, we have to understand that that
caused a ton of pain, it caused a ton of agony,
and it reshaped our politics. There was a study recently

(36:55):
that found that a core segment of America's work class
between the passage of NAFTA and eight years later, that
over those eight years, a corps segment of the working
class bailed on the Democratic Party. That some of the
strongest Democratic congressional districts became some of the strongest Republican

(37:16):
congressional districts because NAFTA was perceived, it was very elevated
in the media, perceived to be a Clinton administration democratic initiative.
Now that's not exactly fair because it was pushed by
a Republican congress, etc.

Speaker 1 (37:28):
Etc.

Speaker 3 (37:28):
But the point is is that.

Speaker 4 (37:30):
There was a lot of justifiable anger out there, and
Donald Trump, who at one point flirted with running under
Ross Perot's party line back in the two thousands. Ross
Perrault was the guy trying to sound the alarm about this.
And so my point is only that, yes, it's true
that Donald Trump's tariffs don't seem to be all that

(37:52):
well thought out. They're not targeted, they're not gradual, they
seem to be a power grab by him. They're probably
going to destructively exacerbate inflation. But we also have to
understand that they're not coming out of nowhere, and that
the push for a different trade policy comes out of
genuine pain and suffering that the free trade elites in

(38:19):
politics foisted on this country with really devastating effects.

Speaker 1 (38:25):
That's fascinating, and it's more speaking to the origin story
of the tariffs as opposed to kind of the situation now.
But it also connects so beautifully, David, with what you're
talking about, which is working class America feeling jobbed if
you're part in the expression by the trade policies of
the past. Yet I look at Trump and I don't

(38:47):
see a guy who really cares about working class America.
Although I understand that he may see them as his
constituency that propelled him to power. Beyond that, I don't
think he really cares.

Speaker 4 (38:59):
Yeah, I'm sure he really cares either, But I would
say this, I do think he Look, I don't know.
Put it this way, I don't know what is genuine
with Donald Trump, right, I mean, it's hard to psychoanalyze
the person Donald Trump. I can say that when he
talks about how our existing trade policies have incentivized companies

(39:22):
to leave the United States, it is financially rewarded companies
that essentially do labor triage, environmental ascuming, labor arbitrage, environmental arbitrage, etc.
In other words, exploiting bad conditions in other countries. I
do think that rings true, and I do think we

(39:44):
should be asking how do we bring companies and production
of things that we really do need to make in
this country. How do we bring that back to the
United States. Now, I'm not sure across the board tariffs
are really the way to do that, and they're going
to cause a lot of pain in the short term.

(40:04):
I think that there's an argument that a stronger industrial
policy is necessary, where the government says, in a coordinated fashion,
this is our prime we need to be making be
able to make certain things in this country that are
vital to national security, things like microchips.

Speaker 3 (40:24):
Et etc.

Speaker 4 (40:26):
There are ways to incentivize that. There are ways to
create the conditions for that that don't necessarily involve blunt,
across the board tariffs. I would also say this, if
people are worried about how trade displaces certain jobs or
certain manufacturing that moves to other countries, we have not

(40:49):
done a good job. As opposed to many other countries.
We have not done a good job of supporting workers
in transitioning to newer industries and other countries that are
exposed to more global trade than even we are. Countries
in Scandinavia and the like provide a real safety net
and support system for workers whose jobs are exposed to

(41:12):
those trade transitions, right. I mean put it this way,
if you're a worker in Sweden and you're working in
a factory that faces global trade competition and your job
gets outsourced or eliminated. You have a healthcare system that
provides good healthcare to you. You have a good retirement

(41:33):
system that provides retirement to you have a good job
retraining program that provides retraining. You have good unemployment benefits,
and the like. I'm not saying that's a solution. But
part of the reason why trade, I think has exacerbated
this political divide in this country is because when workers
are sold out by the existing corporate written trade policy,

(41:58):
they are left essentially wither away. There's almost no support
system at all. I don't sense any commitment by Donald
Trump to create that kind of support system at all.
To your point, that's why I'm not sure Donald Trump
really does care about the working class. We're watching Donald Trump,
and through the supposed Department of Government Efficiency, essentially got

(42:21):
the very frail and already tattered social safety net that
exists for workers who were exposed to global trade.

Speaker 1 (42:29):
Right now, Yeah, thank you. That was about to say,
you know, the safety net has left the building. I mean,
you've got this guy going in and just taking a
wrecking crew to everything so even the minuscule support system
to which you've referred is really pretty much gone. So
you know, let me, just because you mentioned that, segue
to that for a second and talk about what is

(42:52):
happening in government, and you know whether or not Trump's
vision of a government less America dovetails a bit maybe
with this trade stuff. And here's what I mean, it
does fall into an authoritarian, growing dictatorial muscle. He seems

(43:15):
to want a flex and I just wonder if and
again I don't even know that anything with him is
so well thought out, maybe instinct with him, but if
these things don't just all work toward that goal on.

Speaker 4 (43:28):
Something, I agree, And I think we have the first
Trump administration to look to when it comes to tariffs
as well. In the first administration they put in place
something like five hundred and fifty billion dollars worth of
tariffs on certain Chinese.

Speaker 2 (43:45):
Goods and the like.

Speaker 4 (43:47):
And there was a process of getting exemptions. Corporations, lobbyists
could come to the Trump administration and ask for exemptions,
special favors essentially, And there was a study that came
out recently showed a link between companies and lobbyists that
represented companies that donated political money to the Republican apparatus

(44:12):
and them being preferenced for those exemptions. It was a
kind of a smaller version of what we could see
happen now, which is the King Trump, if you will,
is now in a position vis a v tariffs to
offer tariff exemptions to those suitors, companies, lobbyists who come

(44:36):
and kiss the ring.

Speaker 2 (44:37):
Right.

Speaker 4 (44:37):
It is in that sense a tool of power consolidation
that you've created another situation where to get if you're
a company and you want to you want to make
a case that you're you're going to be put out
of business because of the tariffs, you can pony up
to the King in hopes of trying to get a

(45:00):
special exemption. That's what I'm going to be looking at
really closely in the next coming months here. Now, I
will say this, Trump has said that these tariffs right
now are across the board, right, I mean so, at
least for now superficially, they're not talking about exemptions. But

(45:20):
if you really want to watch how this could end
up being an authoritarian power grab, it's important to watch
what happens coming up. Who's going to get the special favors,
Who who is going to go kiss the ring. And
one more point on this is how Trump gets to
use that leverage with different economic and political players to

(45:47):
get what he wants.

Speaker 1 (45:49):
Oh, that's interesting. Expand on that last part, because that's
sort of intriguing. You're saying that he could have agenda
items that these various suitors as you describe them, could
take care of.

Speaker 2 (45:58):
I mean, for sure.

Speaker 4 (45:59):
I mean, if you're your company, I mean think about
the media space or something like that. If Trump doesn't
want you doing something, if Trump wants a better coverage,
if Trump wants for his own family a specific business transaction,
and that potential business partner, that entity on the other end,

(46:22):
is dealing with Trump's tariffs, then Trump's tariffs become a
negotiating tool for Trump to get all sorts of things
that he wants. And I should mention part of this
is exacerbated, of course, by the fact that Trump is
essentially exercising this power unrestrained by Congress.

Speaker 1 (46:43):
Right.

Speaker 4 (46:44):
I mean, we're in a situation where in the past,
there have been situations where Congress had to approve different tariffs.
Congress had to say yes or no. Now we're in
a situation where the president just gets to wake up
one morning declare Liberation Day, say that there's an across
the board tariff affecting every American in the entire country.

(47:04):
But he also has the power to issue special exemptions
to get whatever he wants.

Speaker 1 (47:09):
Yeah, it's funny. We were talking today about this because
people are championing the Corey Booker record on the on
the Center Floor, which I thought really did punch through
and you know, was a way to in the minority
seize at least the news cycle on some level. And
also the Wisconsin Supreme Court win, which you know was

(47:30):
in the face of all that Musk money. So there's
sort of this germination of optimism in the in the
Democrats and also in the left. But it's funny, David,
I don't see the seizing of control that you just described.
The idea that the executive ken as you said, sort

(47:50):
of wake up and impose tariffs, roll back tariffs, scribble
out some exemptions. However he wants to do it. That
really isn't his area of power. And yet the power
has been seated to him so completely that I find
us kind of just rolling over for what are the

(48:11):
authoritarian instincts and impulses of this guy. And I ask you,
as someone who does know Washington, so, well, what's happening?
Why the complete surrender like this?

Speaker 4 (48:22):
Well, look, it's actually a longer story than Donald Trump.
I mean, there's the whole idea of the unitary executive theory,
which is that this theory that was sort of sort
of built in the late nineteen seventies early nineteen eighties
out of the same We did a whole podcast series
called Masterplan, which is about the rise of this new

(48:42):
conservative movement, and they sort of they sort of evoked,
really conjured this idea that the president is the singularly
the executive branch, that there is no real civil service,
that you really can't distinguish between the president and the
executive branch, really the president and the government as a whole.

(49:07):
And what's happened is is that that there have been
moments in which that doctrine has been enshrined in law. So,
I mean, you remember the Bush Cheney administration citing the
essentially the unitary executive to do all the sorts of
stuff it did in the so called War on Terror.
There have been presidents who use emergency powers. My point

(49:29):
is we're living through an era where the power of
what we once understood is legislative supremacy. The Congress really
drives the policy. The president merely executes the policy. That
core fundamental separation of powers situation that has been significantly
eroded to the point where presidents have been more and

(49:51):
more operating as elected kings. And I think there's not
a good It's really well understood. Well, what is the
difference between an elected king and what is supposed to
be a president in the United States? And there is
a fundamental difference. An elected king an elected autocrat may
get elected, so there may be some small de democracy

(50:13):
at work there. There's actually an election we choose, but
an elected king an elected monarch then has total and
complete power. Now, that is not how the country was
set up or envisioned. The president is supposed to be
a co equal the executive branch, a coequal branch with
the Congress. But we look at the Congress today and

(50:36):
it's both by the way, the Congress's fault and past
Congress is ceding power. So it's both the people who
are in Congress now, but it's also the power that
has been ceded to the executive branch. By law now
which is colluded to create this problem where yes, the
president can wake up and do all of these things.
And I would say this, it's a really important point here.

(50:58):
We lived through an era. I just I can't get
it out of my head. We lived through an era,
the Obama era, where Obama won a giant mandate, had
fifty nine and sixty Senate votes, huge congressional majorities, and
there was this argument that the Democrats and the president

(51:19):
just couldn't do anything, they didn't have the power to
do anything. And this idea resurfaced at times in the
Biden administration. I think the Biden administration did a lot
better job in a lot of ways on some of
these issues than the Obama administration. But you still heard, oh,
we can't do anything because of the Senate parliamentarian. Oh
we can't do anything because that would be sort of

(51:39):
outside of the norms. Donald Trump ising should be reminding
everybody that those arguments that were made against progressives, the left,
rank and file Democrats who wanted their party to do things,
that those arguments were nonsense. Donald Trump. I'm disagree with

(52:00):
almost everything Donald Trump has been doing in terms of
a power grab et cetera, et cetera. But it's a
reminder that when Democrats are in power, they have had
the power to deliver and they have refused to use
that power. We are seeing an exercise of power that exists,

(52:21):
and I hope the next time, if there is a
next time that the Democrats have power, everybody will remember
that the president has a ton of power, and everybody
will not just be satisfied with nonsense like, oh, the
president really can't do anything, even if he supposedly wants to.
Donald Trump is reminding us of how much power the

(52:41):
executive currently has.

Speaker 1 (52:44):
Wow, that's such a great point. And I suppose there's
this normalcy bias maybe that the Democrats have that they
sort of just want to they want to get back
to the parliamentary rules. In this case, certainly you have
someone in Trump and those around him that have an
utter disregard of the rules, disdained for the rules and

(53:08):
even for the law. But their view is, hey, we're
going to break it now, We're going to do what
we want to do, and then take us to court.
We'll see you there and maybe we'll work it out
in three or four or five years. Whatever I mean.

Speaker 4 (53:18):
I mean look, that's exactly what they're doing. And I
think it's important to remember Donald Trump's party controls Congress,
So when Donald Trump is doing things by executive fiat
outside of the separation of powers system, it's important to
understand that's a deliberate choice. Let me let me make

(53:42):
it more plain. If Donald Trump wants to do something,
he can go to his party in Congress and get
Congress to pass a law to do that, whether it's
you know, eliminating the Department of Education, whether it's whatever
he wants to do. In choosing not to do that,
I think there's two admissions going on. One the much

(54:04):
more democratic entity of government right where there's four hundred
and thirty five different elections, where there's sort of the
people's branch of the government, the Congress, that his agenda,
perhaps he fears, cannot gain enough support inside of the
small D the most small d democratic entity in the government,

(54:26):
which is a reminder that his agenda then is really
out of step with what the public actually wants because
these Congress people have to go back and talk to
their constituents and get reelected every two years. That's one
thing to remember, But the second thing to remember is
that when he goes outside of that system. I think
they are deliberately trying to create new norms that say

(54:50):
that the president can do this. The president doesn't even
have to go to Congress. The president is an elected king,
and for the long term, I think that's the thing
that's among the things that's most scary, normalizing the idea
that the president is not the executive branch, is not
a coequal branch of government, that the courts and the

(55:14):
Congress are essentially vestiges of an old system, they are
ceremonial at best, and that the president just gets to
do whatever they want. And that is I mean, that
really is terrifying.

Speaker 1 (55:27):
And that really is it seems the way it's being
played out. You're right, I mean, and it's interesting, you know, David,
I see no this is skipping way ahead in the movie. Maybe,
but I see no way in which this guy is
going to step down. I mean, or these people are
going to step down. They're really reluctant to give up power.
And so I see. I'm refreshed that we even had

(55:51):
an election in Wisconsin that seemed to be somewhat legitimate.
I believe that I shouldn't say somewhat, but I mean
there's big money in it, which is kind of to
me always the somewhat. I mean, it's just so sad
that you know, we've become beholden to this. But I
guess what I'm worried about is that this power grab
could be complete. And you even in one of your
responses in our conversation so far, have said, you know,

(56:13):
if there is you know, if he is, if he
does step down, or he said something about that, you
know it should another election happen, David, I worry that,
you know, again it's skipping way ahead, But I don't
know that these guys aren't going to find a way
to retain power one way or the other.

Speaker 4 (56:27):
Well, I think the most compelling thing that I've seen
written is about this idea of competitive autocracy, competitive authoritarianism,
where I think our minds are sort of programmed to think,
you know, there's a binary there's like a pure democracy,
and then there's like the Third Reich or like the

(56:49):
you know, some dictatorial hell escape from a sci fi movie.
I think we're I think the world is a little
bit more nuanced than that. I think what we're seeing
is what we've seen in other countries like Hungary, like
El Salvador, et cetera, et cetera, where there are elections,

(57:11):
the elections are competitive, but the incumbents who are in power,
the regime, if you will, is able to put its
thumb on the scale, use its its control of the
state to put its thumb on the scale, to kind
of tilt the playing field in that competitive in those

(57:33):
competitive scenarios. So again, it's not a total you know,
dictatorship authority or you know, dystopian dictatorship from a sci
fi movie. But it certainly is a much more authoritarian
system than I think we've gotten used to. And we've
seen this in countries in Latin America and the like,

(57:54):
where there are parts of the of the systems that
are democratic, but where there is real authoritarianism. And I
think what that reminds us of is that in order
to regain power, or really regain at least a balance
of power, it is going to require a constant and

(58:16):
mass mobilization and a better awareness that the opposition to
this has to be a lot stronger. I always use
when I think about the democrats, I always I tend
to think of it in the in terms of the
Washington Generals and the Harlem globe trotters. If your goal

(58:37):
is to defeat, to actually defeat the Harlem globe trotters,
you're not doing anyone any favors by blindly cheering on
the Washington Generals who in many, in many cases are
in on the act of losing to the Harlem globetrotters.

(58:58):
If you want to defeat the Harlem globe trotters, you're
probably gonna have to demand a much better team than
the Washington Generals to challenge the Harlem globe shrotters. The
metaphor only goes so far. But I think you get
my point.

Speaker 1 (59:12):
No, I think it's a really great parallel actually that.

Speaker 4 (59:15):
The Democrats, and to be honest and people, oh well,
maybe it should be a third party, et cetera. The
point is, whatever the opposition is has to be held
to a much higher set of standards and demands to
actually fight in this in this kind of situation than

(59:35):
what that opposition has been asked of in the past.

Speaker 1 (59:39):
So in our last minute or so on that do
you look at what's happened so far with the minority Party,
the minority opposition, the paid opposition. However, you see them
in the Washington Generals parallel. Do you see them with
any real opportunities or is this crew just gonna roll

(01:00:01):
over and play dead like they have in the past.
Do you think, in other words, they can be animated
by the short of rising up in pressure popular pressure
that you're describing.

Speaker 4 (01:00:11):
Well, I'm I can be pessimistic and optimistic all at
the same time. I mean, let's use the Corey Booker example.
Corey Booker does this filibuster. It's not really a filibuster,
but it's something it gets a lot of media attention,
kind of focuses in some nebulous way that there needs
to be a much more vigorous opposition. But if you

(01:00:32):
watch what actually so that's I guess that's good. But
if you watch what actually happened, literally, he says, he's
ending his speech, and moments later, the Republicans ask if
there is unanimous consent to allow the Senate to move
forward with considering the confirmation of another Donald Trump nominee,

(01:00:56):
this case the appointee to NATO, And there was animous consent. Booker,
all the Democrats, none of them, none of them objected.
It's literally in the Congress record without objection. It is
so ordered and it moves forward. My point in bringing
up this little anecdote is performative opposition is not adequate.

(01:01:20):
To the moment. Performance is important at some level. It's
not nothing. It focuses attention, but that is not adequate.
What needs to be demanded is a real opposition that
if what Donald Trump is doing is as bad as
Corey Booker articulated. And I'm not picking on him only,

(01:01:41):
but if it is as bad as what Corey Booker articulated,
then the opposition needs to treat it as if it
is as bad and act accordingly. Shut down the Senate,
slow it down in a way that you actually have
the power to do in the way that we've seen
Republicans in the last few decades, right like, really actually

(01:02:04):
play hardball. Is it enough to stop everything bad that
Donald Trump is gonna do? Almost certainly not. Is it
necessary to do to try to stop some of the
of the bad stuff?

Speaker 5 (01:02:18):
Absolutely?

Speaker 4 (01:02:19):
And my hope is is that as more rank and
file liberals, democrats, progressives see what's going on, they will
become much more demanding of their democratic lawmakers, their democratic representatives,
to actually do things. In other words, that the old
excuses from the Democrats, which have essentially sedated and anesthetized

(01:02:45):
lots and lots of liberals into saying, hey, they're just
doing the best they can, that those old excuses should
no longer work anymore, and that more and more kind
of normy liberals, normy progressives, people who aren't necessarily paying
attention to politics all the time, but who were nonetheless
somewhat engaged, that they don't accept those excuses anymore, and

(01:03:06):
they demand far more of their lawmakers in mounting a
real opposition and using what power they have to put
up that opposition.

Speaker 1 (01:03:16):
Well, this has been a shock to the system this
first two months. You'd think that this could motivate a
kind of activism that we haven't seen. And there's certainly
been an activism, David, wouldn't you say, I mean even
GOP activism. Many more people, for example, in the last election,
showed up in the general than had before on the
GOP side, and they were first time voters.

Speaker 4 (01:03:36):
Look, that's why I'm somewhat optimistic here in terms of
not because of lots of people coming out to vote
for Donald Trump, but because I do think we are
now finally in that moment where it's possible for the
rank and file of the Democratic Party to really move

(01:03:56):
the party into a real opposition mode. I mean, I
will admit to you I wrote a book back in
the late two thousands called The Uprising where I basically said, listen,
this is going to go one way or the other.
There's a lot of populist anger out there. It's going
to go one way or the other. And it felt
like this could be the moment. It was in the
end of the Bush administration Barack Obama was running for president.
Is this the moment where the Democratic Party's rank and

(01:04:17):
file gets angry enough at it's party to demand real results.
The financial crisis happens, so it's perfectly teed up for
a kind of new deal paradigm shift, and without going
all the way into it, you know, hope and change
becomes more of the same, becomes bank or bailouts, it
becomes you know, weak financial regulation, and the Republican seese
on that discontent with that to create the situation that

(01:04:41):
we're now in. But I guess what I'm saying is
that I felt like this there's a chance for enough
anger amongst Democrats at the Democratic Party to motivate the
party into a real opposition stance would create a paradigm shift.
It didn't happen. The hope is it will now happen.
And I want to mention one last thing. We have

(01:05:03):
seen this happen in the past. I mean the nineteen
the New Deal era of the nineteen thirties, nineteen forties,
the nineteen sixties, where there was enough foment inside of
the Democratic Party to force the party to deliver and
to put up a real opposition to conservative authoritarianism and fascism.

(01:05:26):
So we've been here before. I think we're in this
year in my lifetime where you know, it should have
happened in two thousand and eight, didn't really happen. Hopefully
there's another chance. It's probably a more difficult situation because
of what we've talked about Donald Trump's thumb on the
scale when it comes to democracy. But hopefully this is
the wake up call.

Speaker 1 (01:05:45):
Yeah boy, I'd love to see it. That'd be great,
great reporting. Always at the lever We'll continue to show
you the love here and we hope you'll join us
again soon.

Speaker 4 (01:05:55):
Thank thank you anytime, Thank you so much, really much.

Speaker 1 (01:05:57):
As David Charier, good stuff. Thompson Show, Albert has curated
a strong offering for Florida. We like to turn to
the Sunshine State on Fridays to see what's going on,
See what has happened, the unusual, the troubling. This is

(01:06:20):
Friday Fabulous Florida. It's time for Friday Fabulous Florida.

Speaker 4 (01:06:26):
There is a gigantic alligator in my kitchen. Oh look
at the weirdest stories from our weirdest state.

Speaker 1 (01:06:40):
A Florida man claims he broke into a house. When apprehended,
he said he did it to get away from a
ghost that was chasing him, which is a very strong excuse.
It happened to Daytona Beach just might woke Andrew. George

(01:07:04):
is his name George's book. Last week two counts of burglary.
According to the rest report, cops were called to this
Daytona Beach historic home and there was a burglary. They
found a guy identified later as George, laying on his
back on the front steps of the home, covered in

(01:07:25):
blood and crying out in pain. He was alledged to accomplice.
Natasha Kochuroy was standing over him. After speaking with George,
Conchceleroy and several witnesses. Police say George and kochiroy I
pictured there you see, had purchased a room at a

(01:07:47):
nearby travel in. They were in the room for about
thirty minutes when they claimed they heard a window opening
thought someone was trying to break into their room. They
ran out of the room demanded a refund from the
hotel manager, arguing for several minutes. They were refunded, but
moments later, George and Conturoy observed a shadow behind them.

(01:08:10):
According to their recounting events, the ghost want them, thinking
it was a person was breaking into their motel room.
The two ran across the street in an attempt to
hide from the shadow. They ran into this seven to
eleven asked for help there. Then they kept running toward
the parking lot because the ghost was chasing them. They

(01:08:32):
said they were scared of the ghost.

Speaker 5 (01:08:35):
As ghosts do.

Speaker 1 (01:08:36):
Yeah, catchiroy thought some ghosts chase, some ghosts don't. This
was a chaser. Cattiroi thought George fell into the water,
so she supposedly helped him out. The two ran into
a neighborhood across the street, still thinking they were being
chased by the ghost. After all of this, they approached
a few homes, banged on the front doors.

Speaker 2 (01:08:55):
Kim.

Speaker 1 (01:08:55):
They were panicked. They wanted to help the people living inside,
called nine one one and threatened to stab George with
a kitchen knife if he didn't leave.

Speaker 5 (01:09:08):
Is this what they call a bad trip?

Speaker 1 (01:09:11):
There's a lot going on. George did admit to taking
the anybody want to, I'd be willing to bet my life. No,
no alcohol, it's not alcohol. He did admit to taking.
If you guessed a molly there, it is also known

(01:09:32):
as ecstasy. Yeah, yeah, And that's why he believes God
was not protecting him from making bad choices. God doesn't
like the molly takers. This is a word from the Lord,
and he's not happy. He is scheduled for arraignment July eighteenth.
If you want to go down and see him, that's
the day you want to put on your calendar, July eighteenth.

(01:09:55):
Congratulations to the two of them, though for getting away
from the ghosts. Sometimes you do have to go the
extra distance to.

Speaker 5 (01:10:01):
They got a free room with the state of Florida.

Speaker 1 (01:10:04):
That's a very good point, uh. Florida. Woman behind the
wheel of a car involved in an airborne crash. Wow,
she was a distracted driver on a Georgia highway. She
lost control and Albert has the video for you now,

(01:10:25):
pretty crazy. The Georgia State deputy's body cam. Actually it's
what you're seeing now and you'll look at goodness. Yeah.

Speaker 2 (01:10:38):
Uh.

Speaker 1 (01:10:40):
They were at a traffic stop, the Georgia deputy. That's
why you're able to see this, and you can see
all that.

Speaker 5 (01:10:45):
She went up the ramp of the tow truck.

Speaker 1 (01:10:48):
Yeah she was, you know again she was. She survived.
She was rushed to a hospital. Deputy was also injured
because of flying debris. But she was distracted. I mean,
that's what happens when you ain't watching.

Speaker 5 (01:11:02):
You're looking at your phone. All of a sudden you're
going up the ramp and flying through the air.

Speaker 1 (01:11:07):
Yeah, that's on the phone. Is the least of the problems.
A Florida man poured gas on another man and lit
him on fire. Everybody, that is a very strong Florida move.
He was arrested. You'll be happy to know. Hillsborough County

(01:11:30):
sheriff said the whole thing happened as a result of
if you guessed an argument, really an argument. I thought
it sounded like a family reunion mobile gas station is
where the whole thing happened on twenty second Street in Tampa.
You know where that is, just down the street from
the Whole Foods and the publics. Earl Hargrove Junior, thirty four,

(01:11:52):
one of the men in the argument. After the confrontation,
he purchased some gasoline from the pump, then allegedly poured
the gas on the victim before lighting him on fire.
I mean he was the victim was taking the hospital.
He's got life threatening injuries. Though. Hargrove charged with first

(01:12:16):
degree attempted murder and aggravated battery causing great bodily harm.
Uh no bueno. Meantime, on the other side of Florida,
there is this two women beating up a boyfriend that

(01:12:38):
they shared. I guess when they found out that he
had been playing around on them?

Speaker 5 (01:12:46):
Oh what, they didn't. This is the moment they're they're
made aware of each other.

Speaker 1 (01:12:51):
Yeah, it seems as though that's right. Yeah, yeah, I
don't think you should apologize for having right. Well, they
were making it clear how they felt.

Speaker 5 (01:13:07):
I don't I feel bad for this guy.

Speaker 1 (01:13:09):
I mean, you know, oh, I see you think he
had it a coming to him. I think it's possible.
Two women in Miami. They battered their boyfriend for being unfaithful.
One of the women is pregnant. Oh yeah, they got

(01:13:29):
into a verbal dispute hit their boyfriend, whom they unknowingly shared.

Speaker 5 (01:13:35):
Yeah, one of them was pregnant and the other one
they look together.

Speaker 1 (01:13:38):
So oh, I see one of them is a cop though, right, yeah,
I think Perez, right, Anna Perez, she's thirty four, she's
a cop. And the pregnant woman, Mila Zuluaga thirty five. There,
that's the whole threesome. The report I'm talking about, the
arrest report said that Perez again, that's the hop was

(01:14:00):
in a relationship with the man, and z Loga lives
with him, as Albert says, and it's seven months pregnant
with his child. Well, she's pregnant at home, and what's
he supposed to do? Hang out with her. He's out there,
you know, trying to make something happy happen, I guess,
so get it, yeah, get his happy. On of course,
they go to the cops. You know, if somebody's a

(01:14:22):
cop and they're involved in this, they go to the police,
the chief police, you know, the cops have to come
up with the statement like, how can you be involved
in this lawlessness? You know, and this is the statement quote,
I'm disappointed by this officer's actions. We were held to
a high standard of conduct on and off duty. Although
this officer was off duty, her behavior was unacceptable and
it goes against the core values of our department. So

(01:14:45):
the man, I guess we'll charge, will press charges.

Speaker 2 (01:14:49):
So, oh, is that her?

Speaker 1 (01:14:50):
That's the cop. Yeah, she's kind of attractive from that's
one of them.

Speaker 5 (01:14:59):
I have the picture sure of the other one too,
and I'm not sure which which one is the pregnant one,
which I don't know, but I think the pregnant one
gets to keep them. Isn't that the rule? I don't
know they have other rules for these things.

Speaker 1 (01:15:11):
Well, I don't know, but I do if you could
work it out, I'd like to send a card when
the newborn and said.

Speaker 5 (01:15:17):
Somebody's stuck with it the world. Here's the other lady.
So that's one. I think that's the officer. Here's the
other lady.

Speaker 1 (01:15:24):
They're both quite attractive, if I can say that. Yes, So,
I know I may not politically correct to say it,
but I found them both attractive. So congratulations, good on
him once the bruises heel. I think he can be
very happy with one or the other, or maybe both.
You know, who am I to say? I'm not a
judge of that sort of thing. Florida man has caught

(01:15:47):
and hospitalized that for running from deputies and he escapes
a second time. Timothy Talmadge, thirty three, facing charges. Here's
what happened. He first evaded, but was eventually caught by
law enforcement, put into a hospital, and then escaped the

(01:16:10):
hospital just hours later. Everyone, you know, the heart wants
what it wants, and he wanted to escape. Yeah, there
he is. Deputies reported the thirty three year old Timothy
Talmage ran from them, got away. He was a wanted
person of interest in a robbery investigation, had active warrants

(01:16:30):
at the time. What a surprise that is. He's kind
of a petty thief. Most of his warrants relate to
petty theft. And they tried to well, they tried to
detain him, and he kept getting away. He ran from Yeah,

(01:16:52):
ran from deputies, captured, arrested on two warrants, and then
they had to apparently this is procedure. During what was
described as procedure, it required that he be unrestrained and
that's when he escaped from custody. Again. Processes and protocols

(01:17:16):
and style, well, the protocols in this case allowed him
to escape. So they got him back and he faces
pending charges from multiple agencies, Lakeland Police like Alfred Police,
so he's got a good deal of legal time time
in the courtroom still ahead of him. The MMA fighter

(01:17:38):
Mike Dragich wrestles a ten foot alligator. Right, Albert, this
really happened outside of a Florida school. It was a
moment that was caught on video and Albert, I believe,
has it for you. He initially tried to grab the

(01:17:59):
ounder a bit alligator, out of the tail, but when
it was unsuccessfully, he hooked it with a catch poll
and got it contain with the help of fire and
rescue workers. So he didn't. I mean, the stupidity of
wrestling an alligator is clear, and once that was made
clear to him, it took real wranglers too. I mean,
this is just I don't know what this is a
publicity stunt there.

Speaker 4 (01:18:21):
He is.

Speaker 1 (01:18:23):
The blue collar brawler, he calls himself.

Speaker 5 (01:18:29):
So he wasn't trying to save anyone. He was just
messing with this animal.

Speaker 1 (01:18:33):
Yeah. Yeah, he has a two and two record and
four amateur MMA fights. He I don't know, Albert, was
this an a arranged thing or was there an alligator
at the school and he.

Speaker 5 (01:18:52):
Tried to pitch it happened to be an alligated at
the school.

Speaker 1 (01:18:54):
Okay, So it wasn't It wasn't an arranged thing. It
wasn't a publicity stunt. No, okay. So he did try
to help Kim. Okay.

Speaker 5 (01:19:05):
It makes me feel a little better.

Speaker 1 (01:19:07):
Yeah, me too, he said. I felt like Batman trying
to help get this alligator away from the school.

Speaker 5 (01:19:12):
Wow.

Speaker 1 (01:19:14):
And finally, Albert, you like the underwater? What do you like? Uh?
Probably yeah, probably, yeah yeah uh. A Florida man living
underwater won't resurface even after he breaks the underwater record.

Speaker 5 (01:19:35):
Going for it, man, He's in it to win it.

Speaker 1 (01:19:40):
This is Key Largo, Florida, a university professor breaking a
record for the longest time living underwater without deep pressurization.
It just happened this weekend, Joseph Detouri's seventy fourth day
residing in Jules Undersea Lodge, situated at the bottom of
a thirty foot deep lagoon and Key Largo wasn't much
different than previous days there since he submerged March first.

(01:20:04):
Doctor Deep Sea, as he's called, ate a protein heavy
meal of eggs and salmon prepared using a microwave, exercise
with resistance bands, did his daily pushups, and took an
hour long nap. The lodge does not use technology to
adjust for the increased underwater pressure Kim. The previous record

(01:20:27):
of seventy three days, two hours, and thirty four minutes
was set by two Tennessee professors, same location back in
twenty fourteen. But now Deturi, having set the new record,
says he's going to stay at the lodge until June ninth,
when he gets to one hundred days. Wow, that's true,

(01:20:48):
but that doesn't mean that it's a good thing. You
can see him there if you want to take a
look at him. The record is a small bump, and
I really appreciate it, said to Turi, University of Southern
Florida educator. He holds a doctorate in biomedical engineering and
is a retired US Naval officer. I'm honored to have

(01:21:09):
the record, but we still have more science to do. Wow.
Pretty impressive, and that is Friday fabulous. Oh we have
to pick a favorite, right, Albert, Oh you do, Yeah,
I'll remind you of what you just heard. Florida man
breaking into the house with his friend, claiming they were

(01:21:30):
running from a ghost. A Florida woman behind the wheel
of a car distracted and ended up going airborne. It
was all caught on sheriff's badgecam. A Florida man pouring

(01:21:50):
gas on another man and lighting him on fire after
an argument. A Florida pregnant woman beats up the boyfriend
that she shared with a Florida cop another woman. She's
beating him up, as was the other. The two were
beating him up for allegedly cheating. The Florida man who

(01:22:13):
ran from deputies was hospitalized and then escaped again. It's
the double escape. The MMA fighter Mike Dragich, who wrestled
a ten foot alligator outside of Florida school, and then
the Florida man, the man with a doctorate who set
the new record for living underwater. It's a tough tough

(01:22:40):
it's a tough field, but I can see a couple
of standouts. I need a favorite, please, kim m.

Speaker 5 (01:22:47):
I really like the airborne accident. I do, but I
feel it's not as Florida as the Gator Wrestle, and
so I have to deal with it.

Speaker 1 (01:22:58):
Yeah, the Gator Wrestle is so unbrand. How about you, Albert, what.

Speaker 5 (01:23:01):
Do you like the ghost Story? They really committed to it,
and they almost said.

Speaker 1 (01:23:09):
Albert, respecting the commitment of the ghost Story, and I
will round out the field. The airborne distracted Driver for
me is yeah. You can leave your favorite in the
comments now, and if you're watching in replay, you can
leave your favorite there in replay, and we do review
the comments, and we have.

Speaker 5 (01:23:29):
A poll right now and the ghost Stories.

Speaker 1 (01:23:33):
Wow, ghost Story. Congratulations ghost Story voters. That's the poll
right now in YouTube. And that is Friday Fabulous Florida
for the day. This has been Friday Fabulous Florida.

Speaker 6 (01:23:46):
Alligator in my kitchen, y'all come back now here.

Speaker 1 (01:23:53):
They really committed to it.

Speaker 5 (01:23:56):
It is time for a fresh take on movies. This
may be a best of show, but it is a
fresh take on movies with Michael Snyder. He comes and
goes on a rainbow. There it is, it's miner. Everybody
welcome Michael Snyder.

Speaker 2 (01:24:14):
How are you well? Hi Kim, and hello to everybody.
Out there in MTS Lands. It's just always a pleasure.
And you know, we want to stay oh Coron up
to date with the new movies and TV offerings and nightlife.
So even though you know we are the only live

(01:24:35):
and fresh bit of content today, I feel about it.
So let's dive in. What say you?

Speaker 5 (01:24:44):
Let's do it because I love Tom Cruise and I'm
super excited about this movies that you're gonna review. I
don't know if you're going to do it first, but
I'm excited to hear what you have to say.

Speaker 2 (01:24:54):
How could I not lead off with Mission Impossible The
Final Reckoning? And I gotta say, Tom Cruise as usual
runs like Forrest Gump on Crack once More and Super
Secretation ethan Hunt of the Impossible Mission sports in what
is being touted as the last installment of the multi

(01:25:16):
billion dollar Mission Impossible movie franchise. Again, this is entitled
The Final Reckoning. Four tens an end anyway.

Speaker 5 (01:25:26):
This is the big.

Speaker 2 (01:25:29):
What do you got to say?

Speaker 5 (01:25:30):
I was just gonna say it seems like they're never
going to end. There's never going to be enough. But
he's kind of getting old, so maybe this is the
final movie, the Final Reckoning who knows.

Speaker 2 (01:25:39):
I don't know, but for anyone that doesn't know, and
I don't know who the hell you are. This is
the big big screen adaptation of the classic mid nineteen
sixties action TV series That to be precise, debuted on
CBS in nineteen sixty six and ran for seven seasons.
So this eighth, purportedly final chapter in the film series

(01:26:03):
picks up where Dead Reckoning the seventh left off, which
was with Hunt and his IMF crew failing to quash
the Entity, a self aware globe spanning, potentially omnipotent, and
humanity destroying AI lurking in digital space. So Hunt's band
of world savers is back, including Thief and newly joined

(01:26:25):
comrade and potential love interest Grace played by Haley Atwell.
We love her as Peggy Carter in the Marvel movies
You Get Computer with Luther Stickle played by Ving Raimes,
an all purpose sidekick and field agent Benji Dunn played
by Simon Pegg. They are again in competition with megalomaniacal

(01:26:48):
villain Gabriel Martinelli played once more by sa Morales, and
that means trying to stop Martinelli from controlling the Entity
and ruling the world. The American President played by Angela
Bassett and her cabinet freak out. Although you know, any
clear reasons or motivations for Martinelli's fiendish doings are vague,

(01:27:11):
other than his hatred for and rivalry with Hunt, and
you know, just that general power craziness. You know, you
want to rule the world, you've got to be a
little unhinged.

Speaker 5 (01:27:21):
I love that he did Angela Bassett as the President,
that's really cool.

Speaker 2 (01:27:25):
Well, you know, she's also the Queen of Wakanda, speaking
of Marvel movies. She's always in charge, Angela Bassatt. She's
a gigant. Anyway, Mission impossible. The Final Reckoning, co written
and directed by Christopher mcquarie, as was the case in
the previous three installments, is epic in length, at a
whopping two hours and forty nine minutes, and it's a

(01:27:48):
little confusing at first if you haven't seen the previous
installment in a while. I mean, there's no previously on,
so you're kind of flying blind. Anyway. It's also a
lot of gratuitous set pieces broken up by short bursts
of lather, but damn it delivers two of the most
jaw dropping action sequences in movie history with the flesh

(01:28:11):
and blood. Cruise doing the stunts as usual, one underwater
and one in the sky, and these are somehow even
more amazing than the actors postpounding hang glider to the
top of a running train fight scene in the last
mi I movie. You know, it's a lot of sound
and fury signifying what the hell but seene on the

(01:28:32):
Imax screen it delivers an amusement park ride sort of yeeha,
a good time, minus much character development or a plot
that has anywhere near the middling depth of earlier m
I films, one of which was directed by an acknowledged
master of action, John wu. If you've been watching these
things for the past decade plus, you're going to want

(01:28:55):
to watch Mission Impossible, the Final Reckoning. It's in theaters,
and I recommend if you go go to an Imax.
And again, I have caveats, but I was carried along.

Speaker 5 (01:29:09):
Can I zoom in on this picture because I'm assuming
doesn't Tom Cruise do his own stunts on these? And
let me as I try to figure it out. Look
at him dangling off that plane in the sky.

Speaker 2 (01:29:22):
Yes, And he dangles off that plane in the sky
it's really jaw dropping.

Speaker 5 (01:29:28):
Oh oh.

Speaker 2 (01:29:28):
By the way, speaking of Marvel, U Tom Clementy is
also back in this. She was in previous films as
sort of a shady character, and she's in the Marvel
movies as mantis. I mean, I guess these people don't
want for work, do you know what I'm saying? Nick
Nick Ofreman and Hannah Wattingham, you know you love her.

(01:29:49):
On ted Lasso, she's here as an admiral in the
American Navy Trammel Tillman from US. I guess is he
in He's in Severance, he's here. I mean, it's a
it's a cast. What can I tell you? So?

Speaker 5 (01:30:07):
I wonder if the lacking of plow character development that
you mentioned is because by now they expect you to
know who all these people are.

Speaker 2 (01:30:16):
I don't know that that's possible, but again again previously
on so, I mean, you've got to be on board
with these things. And I guess to that extent, as
a franchise, it's a kin to the Marvel films and
the Star Wars movies and the Star Trek films. You know,
they assume a certain degree of knowledge.

Speaker 5 (01:30:38):
Okay, all right, see it on Imax. That's a Michael
Snyder recommend.

Speaker 2 (01:30:43):
Yes with again with caveats. It's not a great movie,
but it is a great experience. Let's put it that way.

Speaker 1 (01:30:50):
Awesome, Okay.

Speaker 2 (01:30:51):
One of my favorite Disney Animated features since the company's
post Little Mermaid cartoon renaissance was the two thousand and
two hit Lilo and Stitch. This this is an absolute charmer.
The original all about a bulky alienated Hawaiian kid who
mistakes an impish, pint sized loose can an alien for

(01:31:13):
a stray dog, decides to make him her pet and
names him Stitch, unaware that he's a potentially dangerous fugitive
from an intergalactic empire and is being pursued by bounty hunters.
So that's the premise of the original cartoon. And in
that cartoon, the little girl Lilo lives with her older
sister in the aftermath of their parents dying, and social

(01:31:36):
services is concerned about Lilo's well being. And meanwhile, government
agents led by a burly fellow named the Cobra Bubbles,
are investigating the extraterrestrial incursion. So Lilo and Stitch are
being pursued on three fronts, and it's really a blast.
It's fun, it's funny, and it's warm hearted. I loved

(01:31:57):
the original. Now we've got this, these live action CGI
combo remake of that wonderful conventional two D original, which
and this is like most of the studios other recent
exercises in brand exploitation and intellectual property repurposing, For instance,
the remade Snow White and Dumbo and the Lion King

(01:32:20):
prequel adds nothing special to the superior original. You know,
this new Lilo and Stitch sticks very close to the
beats of the first version, making a few changes, additions
and subtractions that befit the live action component and the
changing times. But as good as the current tech is
at blending live actors and CGI characters, particularly Stitch, who

(01:32:43):
is very well done, and I got to tell you
it's pretty seamless. The initial all animated outer space sequence
that sets up Stitch's backstory is so cartoony that it
you know, the sequences in Hawaii that follow, where you
have the live action actors, seems like a totally different movie.
It's a little jarring. Now the human casting is damn good,

(01:33:07):
with Maya Kahloa's Lilo coming in very cute and plausible,
although I got to say occasionally screachy, you know, like
when you're on a plane and a kid starts crying
and wailing and you want to like strangle the kid.
That's occasionally how I felt about this Lilo. Anyway. Sydney
agu Dong does fine work as Lilo's scattered but caring

(01:33:30):
sister Nanni, And as for the rest of the cast,
Zach Galifanakis and Billy maguson as the slapstick aliens and
to recover Stitch are hit and miss. You know, they
keep changing back and forth between human guys and their
alien personas. Courtney b Vance is sort of barely there
as Agent Cobra Bubbles, who was much more of a

(01:33:51):
presence in cartoon form when he was voiced by get
Ready for a Mission Impossible callback Ving Raims. Hey, it's
sort of sweet. The Tea Carrera, the voice of Nanny
in the two thousand and two version, is on board
as the live action social worker assigned to assess w
Lilo's well being. I expect that kids who have never

(01:34:12):
seen the full cartoon Lilo and Stitch will enjoy this.
It's decent in the Disney Channel way. And it's kind
of hard to deride its message about the importance of
family and community. But as with so many of the
other Disney remakes, to me, this is more about economics
than it is about art. So my advice, if you're
going to watch it, watch it. But you know what,

(01:34:33):
watch the original people. It still holds up beautifully. This
version of Lilo and Stitch is in theaters this weekend.

Speaker 5 (01:34:41):
Okay, we probably have to watch it at my house,
but yeah, you're right. I like the original.

Speaker 2 (01:34:47):
God, the original is so good.

Speaker 5 (01:34:49):
All right means Ohana means no family gets left behind?

Speaker 2 (01:34:54):
Right And as a woman with Hawaiian roots, this must
really sing to you in both cases, right, I love it?

Speaker 1 (01:35:01):
Yes?

Speaker 2 (01:35:02):
Anyway. In theory, Fountain of Youth, which is available for
streaming as of today, seemed like a short bet for
the theaters, and yet it's streaming anyway. It's an adventure
film with mystical elements, and you know it's directed by
Guy Ritchie, and this guy has been doing some damn

(01:35:23):
fine work lately, including The Gentleman and The Covenant. Not
a couple of clunkers like The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare,
but this movie Fountain of Youth also stars the bankable
John Krasinski and Natalie Portman as part of a team
in pursuit of the legendary Fountain of Youth. Now that
sounds exciting, am I Right?

Speaker 5 (01:35:42):
Yeah?

Speaker 2 (01:35:43):
I mean I think Richie was hoping for something droll
and a bit over the top, like his Sherlock Holmes
movies with Robert Downey Junior or his underrated period spy
movie The Man from Uncle based on the TV series,
but this direct to Apple TV Plus feature does not
live up to the talent involved or what appears to
be a considerable budget due to location shoots and VFX.

(01:36:07):
So Krazinski plays art thief Luke Perdue, who is in
the process of snatching a group of paintings that will
help him and his crew, financed by a billionaire with
a terminal illness, find the titular fountain and I guess
you know the sick billionaire can use its waters to
restore himself, right anyway, that's the theory. Portman is Luke's sister, Charlotte,

(01:36:31):
a curator at London's National Gallery, until Luke pulls her
into his schemes with Ty Gangster's inner pol cops and
some kind of mystical protector on their tail. The rest
of the case features the esteemed likes of Donald Gleason
as the wealthy Owen Carver that's the billionaire, Isaac Gongalez
as the mysterious esme whose motives for stopping the produced

(01:36:55):
pursuits are questionable, carbon and Djogo as Purdue crew member
did and Stanley Tucci as an enigmatic elder fellow whose
screen time amounts to a couple blinks of the eye.
I mean, I'm watching this and I'm thinking of the
Tucci sequences had to be shot in the Vatican, so
either Richie caught him for a few minutes between takes

(01:37:16):
on the Conclave set or doing a break from his
Tucci FOODI Tour of Italy team.

Speaker 5 (01:37:22):
What a cast. That cast sounds amazing, I know.

Speaker 2 (01:37:27):
And Stanley is barely there, and I'm like, I need
more Tucci anyway. I never bought Krasinski and Portman as
brother and sister. He's in full smirk mode and she
looks like she's cashing a check. As far as the
script and execution, the whole shebang comes off like Raiders
of the Lost Da Vinci Code it's derivative and not

(01:37:48):
particularly staring. But to be honest, I watched it dutifully
and was not particularly bored. So the assessment is that
culture blasts standby not Terror of You is streaming on
Apple TV. Plus I wished I had, you know, I
wish I was more on board with.

Speaker 5 (01:38:07):
It, you know, also known as meth.

Speaker 2 (01:38:10):
You know, it's my version of Meth. I watched the
damn thing. Come on, okay, nothing like a good natured
rom com drum, you know, a romantic comedy with dramatic
elements to cleanse the palette. And that's what's on tap
with Jane Austin Wrecked My Life Filmmaker or a pianist

(01:38:32):
love letter to Austin, to the author's devoted fans, and
to the struggles faced by all writers trying to put
pen to paper or fingers to keyboard. So Agatha is
a good natured, appealing, and somewhat awkward single woman who
works at Shakespeare in Company, the long running British bookstore
in Paris. She senses that the clock is ticking and

(01:38:55):
life is passing her by, and she wants to find
love like an Austin heroine, and fired by Austin she
once become a novelist, so when samples of her writing
reached the Jane Austen Writer's Residency, Agatha is invited to
be a part of the program where she can finally
make headway on a novel that would hopefully be published
and gain her acclaim. Of course, a handsome rogue connected

(01:39:18):
to the residency proves to be a distraction. I thought
Jane Austin Wrecked My Life was charming and sweet in
a low key way that reflected the romantic propriety of
Austin's work and the movie's French providence. It's in large
part in French, but there are sequences in English, of course,
at the residency, and it was rather amusing too. Camille

(01:39:41):
Rufford is a lovely mix of down the earth, scattered
and aspirational as Agatha, your root for her to find
herself and succeed, even as she frustrated you with her
haphazard decision making. So this is well cast, well written,
well directed, and graced by lovely Sylvan settings. And not
to mention one of my favorite Parisian locales Shakespeare and Company,

(01:40:05):
Jane Austin Wrecked my Life is in select theaters and
I recommend it. It was very enjoyable to watch.

Speaker 5 (01:40:14):
Cool. I like a good rom com, you know me, Yeah,
I do. Okay, let's just.

Speaker 2 (01:40:19):
Wrap up the new movie segment with the New Boy
working on her home turf for a change. Kate Blanchett
brings her skills to the New Boy, a modest but
engaging period drama written and directed by Aussie filmmaker Warwick Thornton.
A decidedly anglamorous Blanchet plays Sister Eileen, a nun in

(01:40:41):
the Australian outback during the nineteen forties. She's in charge
of a monastery that provides a home for Aboriginal and
mixed children who are separated from their families by the
government to thin the population, which is horrible and it's
historical fact. Unfortunately, oh no, when a somewhat feral Indigenous

(01:41:02):
boy is well. This is the drama is not based
on a specific circumstance, as you will glean from what
I tell you. So this federal Indigenous boy is brought
to the mission and Sister Eileen tries to bring him
into the flock with some startling results. The whole place
is thrown when the New Boy displays some strange mystical

(01:41:22):
abilities that are not quite in line with Christian beliefs.
I mean, Blanchet is as usual wonderful in a bit
of a starchy change of pace for her, and Aswan Reid,
the kid who plays the New Boy, is a bit
of a revelation. The whole enterprise is dappled by magical realism.

(01:41:45):
You know.

Speaker 5 (01:41:45):
I liked it.

Speaker 2 (01:41:46):
The New Boys in select theaters this weekend and will
be available for streaming on May thirtieth, again rather low key,
and I would have to say that these last two films,
The New Boy and Jane Austin Wrecked My Life are
the you know, are the quality of this select five
movies that are opening this weekend.

Speaker 5 (01:42:04):
I'm sorry I had muted myself. This one sounds interesting
but maybe hard to watch.

Speaker 2 (01:42:10):
No, it it didn't go down too difficultly. It was good.
You know, it had its moments. Let's do a quick
run through some TV programs that I think might be
worth checking out. Do you mind?

Speaker 5 (01:42:24):
Yeah, and let's do it.

Speaker 2 (01:42:25):
Okay, So I know it's lost a lot of its
charm for a lot of people, and a lot of
the thrills seem a little rode by now, but I've
been watching the Walking Dead spin off shows that are
generally mini series things for like six episodes or such
that bring characters from the original Walking Dead cast into
other circumstances. So The Walking Dead Dead City is on

(01:42:48):
AMC and AMC Plus and it reunites the antagonistic Maggie
played by Lauren Cohen and the once purely evil Nagan
played by Jeffrey Dean Morgan, and they are locking horns
as ever in a zombieized New York City. And they've

(01:43:12):
been split up by the events of the first season,
and in this second season they're on opposite sides yet again.
They were in a forced partnership in the first set
of episodes as Maggie is trying to keep her son
Herschel alive played by the young actor Logan Kim. Herschel
is learning the ropes in you know this zombie zombie

(01:43:34):
world of America as it stands in the Walking Dead continuity.
And if you're into this, I recommend it. I think
something more your speed, Kim would be. Kami is on.

Speaker 5 (01:43:48):
Let me ask you before you move on to the
next one. Let me ask you, with this Walking Dead
Dead City, do you have to have watched the First
Walking Dead to have to appreciate this or is it
a standalone kind of deal.

Speaker 2 (01:43:59):
Are you into zombies getting cleaved by axes and splatter
and such. I think you've got to kind of be
invested in the characters, you know, and also comfortable with
the gore because it doesn't go away. But you know,
I enjoy genre stuff. This next thing is something much

(01:44:20):
more your speed again. It's called Karm It's on Apple TV,
and it's an historical based drama about what they're calling
the world's first celebrity chef, Antonin Karrem, who becomes a
chef in the palaces of the wealthy and aristocratic during

(01:44:42):
the Napoleonic era and he is used by various political
movers and shakers as a spy and as a messenger.
And it's an interesting look at France under Napoleon, and
Napoleon and Joseph Beans show up here and there, and

(01:45:03):
the character of Karim is played by the French actor
Benjamin Voisen and he's very compelling.

Speaker 5 (01:45:10):
He's a pretty good looking in that post.

Speaker 2 (01:45:14):
And the French character lead Jeremy Rennier plays his kind
of boss, tally Rand Charles Maurice the Tallyran Kellygirld who
is like manipulating people at court to try to, you know,
get ahead. And Lena Koadri plays sort of a she's

(01:45:35):
sort of a double agent who is working for tally
Rand and also spying for the local villain of sorts
who is running the local police and is trying to
catch anyone who would oppose Napoleon. So it's actually pretty exciting.
It's got spy elements, it's got foody elements. All of

(01:45:55):
that appealed to me, and so I give Karem him.
And I just started watching on Apple TV again murder Bot,
which is a new sci fi comedy of sorts done
by the Whites brothers who created American Pie by the way,
but they were also responsible for the drama about a boy,

(01:46:17):
and they've done various and sons. We have a variety
of things, and Murderbot is pretty cool. And it stars
Alexander Scarsgard as a as a kind of synthetic human
who is a sort of muscle and brains and used

(01:46:39):
by humans to advance whatever gigs they're doing. And he
breaks his programming, so he's got free will and he
names himself murder Bot because he's not really too impressed
with humanity. So I've watched the first couple episodes and
I basically enjoyed what I've seen, and they're shortened to
the point. And if sci fi and this dystopian you know,

(01:47:03):
tongue in cheek humor strike you as fun, check out
murder Bot.

Speaker 5 (01:47:08):
Okay, that sounds great. Can I tell you about what
I'm watching right now? By all, I just thought to
mention it because I think it's interesting. It's this it's
my guy from Outlander, Sam Ewan, and he's in this
new show on Stars. And the only reason I have
Stars is for when the new season of Outlander comes out.
But this one is called The Couple next Door, and

(01:47:31):
it's it seems interesting. I think it's a mystery thriller.
I'm two episodes in so and I'm liking it so far.
It's called The Couple next Door on Stars, so.

Speaker 2 (01:47:41):
That sounds kind of cool. Again, I'm only two episodes
in on murder Bot, and I'm kind of committing myself
to it, you know, yeah.

Speaker 5 (01:47:48):
Absolutely, all right, Well that sounds good. Anything else going on?

Speaker 2 (01:47:52):
Well, I will be back in Los Angeles this coming weekend.
And I'm really excited because this Saturday Night is the
third anniverse celebration of the Space Age themed dance party,
the Constellation Club, And this goes down the last Saturday,
well the fourth Saturday of every month at the historic
Hollywood nightspot, the Formosa, with hosts and DJ's Curtis Lindersmith

(01:48:18):
and Olivia Camille Goodwin, and they spin records and largely
from Curtis's amazing collection of rare forty fives, and Olivia
plays the theremin as a bridging music between sets of
these wonderful singles. And the Formosa is a traditional Chinese

(01:48:39):
American restaurant, well traditional you know, and bar, and it's
long been a destination for movie TV and recording stars
and the beautiful people. And it was a hangout for
Frank Sinatra and the rat Pack, you know, back in
the day. And now it's a favorite for modern musicians, actors, dancers,
fashionistas and there's many of whom show up for the

(01:49:02):
Constellation Club. So I'm excited about that. That sounds good,
and win us that that's Saturday Night starting at about
ten pm at the Formosa on Santa Monica Boulevard near
Librea and it's free, free to get in, you know,
come in, have some of their custom cocktails and dance.
I always, you know, like to put in about forty
five minutes straight of dancing, so I got to get

(01:49:26):
my dance on cam.

Speaker 5 (01:49:28):
Get down. Michael Zaneider, thank you for being here. Any
sports this weekend that we're should keep our rye on.

Speaker 2 (01:49:34):
Well, you know, it's amazing that the Giants are flirting
with first place in the National League West. People don't
take them seriously, but they've been doing really well and
I'm excited about my Giants, and I mourn again, I
must say, I mourn the Golden State Warriors having lost
in the playoffs, but I'm hopeful for next season. And

(01:49:56):
soon it's going to be forty nine ers training camp.
So yeah, I'm ready to roll. But right now it's
all about the Orange and Black, my mighty Giants, and
I wish them well this weekend.

Speaker 5 (01:50:08):
Thank you, Michael Schneider. Everybody and he comes and goes.
I honor right, Michael Snyder. Always lovely to have you.
We'll see you next time.

Speaker 2 (01:50:19):
Absolutely, farewell.

Speaker 1 (01:50:20):
Bye. What can I say? It was all there? Everybody
comes back from their respective travel on Monday, and we
look forward to a live show then actually a great
week ahead and I'll tell you the end of the
month rallies with some great guests as well, so I

(01:50:42):
hope you'll you'll join us for that. Thank you everyone
who has supported the show, everyone who's stayed with the show,
everyone who's helped this show rise to the level it has.
Couldn't do it without you. In the world of podcast,
which is a crowded world, in the world of YouTube,
which is an evil and more crowded world than when
we started two years ago, it's really great to still

(01:51:05):
be surviving, so thanks for that. There is no after
party live unless Kim has recorded something, and she hasn't
told me that she has, so they won't do it live.
They'll do it all Monday shadow you see us. It's
for the Mark Johnson Show. Bye bye, Thank you everyone.

Speaker 2 (01:51:22):
We are out of time.

Speaker 1 (01:51:24):
Out of time until Monday. Thank you and bye bye.

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang

Crime Junkie

The Brothers Ortiz

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}Tyranny in America: How Close Are We? Timothy Snyder talks Trump, 5/23/25

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang

Crime Junkie

The Brothers Ortiz

All Episodes

Tyranny in America: How Close Are We? Timothy Snyder talks Trump, 5/23/25

Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang