'You're Wrong' With Mollie Hemingway And David Harsanyi, Ep. 166: A Conversation On Crime

Join Washington Examiner Senior Writer David Harsanyi and Federalist Editor-In-Chief Mollie Hemingway as they discuss reactions to the brutal murder of 23-year-old Ukrainian refugee Iryna Zarutska in Charlotte, North Carolina, analyze the Israeli airstrike on Hamas leaders in Qatar and the U.S. strike on a narco boat from Venezuela, and review an excerpt from Vice President Kamala Harris' new book. Mollie and David also recommend culture picks, including For All Mankind and Highest 2 Lowest.

If you care about combating the corrupt media that continue to inflict devastating damage, please give a gift to help The Federalist do the real journalism America needs.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:15):
Welcome back, everyone to a new episode of You Were
Wrong with Molly Hemingway, editor in chief of The Federalist
and David Harsani, senior writer at the Washington Examiner. Just
as a reminder, if you'd like to email the show,
please do so at radio at the Federalist dot com.
We'd like to hear from you. Let's start with the
tragic story of Irena Zartuska I think is how your

(00:38):
pronounced her last name, who was murdered in cold blood
on a Charlotte tram my man named Di Carlos Brown Junior,
who had been in I believe prison fourteen times beforehand.
The video itself is just horrific to watch. I don't
know if you've watched the unedited video. There's so many

(01:00):
angles to this story, and I think it's brought to
for something that has been an issue that you know,
the crime issue in America and murder and the Soros
DA's and magistrates who release these prisoners, these terrible psychotic
people back into society. And what makes it all gives
it another layer of tragedy, is that this woman was

(01:22):
a refugee from war. You know, when she came to
the United states to build a life, and she was
just just horrifically murdered. Anyway, I don't know. I don't
even know where to start with this topic.

Speaker 2 (01:31):
Yeah, I almost don't know where to start either. It
is so horrible. I can't watch the actual full video,
so I've seen snippets of it. I don't I don't
have the personal ability to watch an actual murder. I
don't want to do that. I don't even want it.

Speaker 1 (01:48):
In my head.

Speaker 2 (01:48):
But just seeing aspects of the video, how she was
just a sitting duck for this violent, you know, evil person.
Also disturbing is how she did not die immediately. She
was kind of left alone to die by the other

(02:09):
people on the tram, although some people did eventually help,
like a minute and a half after the attack, which
seems like a long time if you're bleeding out.

Speaker 1 (02:20):
And can we talk about that for a second. There
was this famous do you remember this famous story I
think your name was genevese Kitty Genevez or something like
that in Q Garden's Queen's or you know, from yeah,
nineteen sixty three. No one helped her, and all that
turned out wasn't exactly.

Speaker 2 (02:37):
Exactly I was gonna say it turns out not to
be a true.

Speaker 1 (02:39):
Story, yeah, but still grabbed the attention of people because
I think a lot of that does happen in big cities. Right. So,
you know, if you were on the subway and you
go to New York and especially years ago, there's crazy
people on the subway, you kind of like avert your
eyes and try to pretend they're not there. I'm not
making an excuse for the people on that tram, but

(03:01):
I can rationalize their thinking in the sense that they
didn't exactly maybe know what was going on right away,
and then finally when man came over, I think a
minute and something into it. It is horrible that we
act that way, but I think we've been sort of
programmed to act that way because there are so many
mentally ill people on public transit, so many scary people.
Especially if you're let's say, a woman by herself or

(03:23):
an elderly person, right, it's you feel a bit helpless anyway.
I just want I'm not rationalizing, not justifying what happened there.

Speaker 2 (03:32):
Okay, So there's so much in play here, and I
think one of the reasons why this story has captivated
so many people and Also why so many people in
the corporate media have rushed to suppress this story is
because it gets into all sorts of things about our
society that people are very conflicted about, things like whether
you know One of the things I saw someone commenting

(03:54):
on was about how Martin O'Malley had to apologize when
he said that all lives matter during the heyday of
the hysterical Black Lives Matter riots. We have an ideology
that all lives don't matter, that certain lives are more
valuable than others, and it's or that you know, that

(04:16):
you're not allowed to care about certain people being killed.
We had a complete nationwide hysteria freak out and massive
transfer of wealth. We redistributed one hundred billion dollars from
corporations to the Black Lives Matter movement and the causes
it supports kind of a straight up extortion based on

(04:39):
the idea that cops are just doing a genocide against
black men, and that's not true to start with. It
also kind of hid some difficult conversations about crime that
we'd all kind of agreed not to talk about or
not to you know, if you want to talk I

(05:00):
don't actually think it's a good or healthy idea to
talk about race and the commission of crimes. But if
you're going to talk about it, it doesn't go in
the way the BLM people want it to go, you know.
And so you had this just insanity during the COVID
days with the BLM, where you weren't even allowed to

(05:20):
talk about what it's actually like to be a law
abiding citizen at the hands of violent criminals of all
races on the subway or whatever. We had the what
was that horrific feminist movement to criminalize normal male behavior?

(05:41):
What was that called me too?

Speaker 1 (05:43):
Me too?

Speaker 2 (05:44):
Okay, so we had the me too thing, and that
follows decades of radical feminist idiocy about saying that men
using their testosterone for good is somehow evil. That we
made it so that we took away the norm that
men on subways stand up for women. You know, these

(06:07):
kinds of like very delicate social things that we've built
up over millennia to deal with the fact that evil
exists and bad men exist, and women are vulnerable to
you know, tiny little Ukrainian refugees are actually completely unable
to defend themselves against violent sociopaths, psychopaths, whatever. I don't

(06:29):
know what those words mean. And now it's all coming
home to roost and it's horrific. So I understand what
you're saying about like justifying it. You're not justifying it,
you're explaining it. But the fact is that any man
worth his salt would in fact, like looks at that
video and says and things like I wish I could

(06:51):
help out this poor woman, right, But we have made
it so that that kind of activity is not only
is it not encouraged, it's actively discouraged. That men think
that they are protectors of women.

Speaker 1 (07:05):
It's totally true. I remember, you know, being on the
subway a lot and standing up, you know, for women
who came in. You know. Now, I'm like, I feel
like I'm old, like I should get to see it
from the young women. But at the time, you know,
I would stand up and I felt kind of weird
doing it, like I maybe I'm doing something wrong here,
or holding a door for women like a too long
at waiting time, you know what I mean. I just

(07:27):
felt like, and that I think grows into should I
get up and protect this woman from someone who's aggressive,
you know, towards her or whatever, And it doesn't have
to be individuals, though there are individual heroes like that
guy in the subway. I'm sorry, I forget his name,
Daniel Perry. Was it Orny Henny who.

Speaker 2 (07:44):
Was prosecuted for trying to protect people from someone like
this individual?

Speaker 1 (07:49):
It has to be a communal thing where it's not
just one man who's strong and can handle someone like that,
but a bunch of people, you know. I mean, it
has to be something that society does, I think. But
I wanted to go back to something you talked about,
to racial elements of this, like George Floyd died. It
is not analogous to what's happening here at all. And

(08:10):
yet in that one everyone in the media, all institutions
basically claimed there was a racial element to it, when
I still don't see that racial element. The only racial
element is that there was a black person being arrested
in a white person arresting them. I've never seen them,
but there.

Speaker 2 (08:28):
Were four cops arresting him, and two weren't two black,
one Asian, one white. And we transferred one hundred billion
dollars of wealth into the pockets of the trans movement,
the Palestinian movement, and radical racist ideologies like BLM because
of this and the media push.

Speaker 1 (08:46):
Yeah, and I'm not saying there's never going to be
a racist cop out there, but the majority of the
big cases that this whole BLM thing revolved around had
no racial component, meaning there were there's no evidence that
the people the cops were acting in a racial way.
But I think it's okay to talk about the racial

(09:09):
element of crime in the sense that black people commit
in you know, as far as their percentage of the population,
a lot of crimes and a lot of homicides. I
think it's like almost fifty percent. They are like twenty
percent of the population. But the thing that we have
to remember is that most of that criminality is actually
directed at black people, that other black people are victims,
and we should be their champions, Like there's no reason

(09:30):
that should be happening in their society either. Like I
don't know if this killer had a race. He seems
like he was an unhinged killer and should have been
in jail. I don't know if there's a racial element
to it. I think it's okay to talk about that.
I just don't want it to become predominantly about that now.

Speaker 2 (09:47):
But the murderer did say after he killed. So there
were people of different races on the tram he kills,
including women who were sitting with empty seats behind them.
He sits behind her, and then afterwards he says, I
got the white girl. So I wouldn't say there's no
racial element. Fine, yeah, he says he got the way.

Speaker 1 (10:09):
Yeah for sure. Then I didn't. I honestly hadn't seen that. Okay, Fine,
that's that's It's not fine, but it is. That's a fact.
That's a fact. My point only is that when Donald
Trump says I need to send troops to help Chicago
deal with the crime problem, he's talking about criminality against
black people in black communities, right, And you know, I

(10:31):
think I see a lot of people say I'm all
over the place because it's a big issue. But I
see people say we don't need more cops. We just
need to keep the people arrested in jail. And I
think that that's true. But more cops also helps. It's
a preventative measure. For I looked it up. So from
this is an amazing stat to me, but from just
because I know New York better than other cities, but
from nineteen ninety to two, thousand RTE down here. The

(10:53):
murder rate in New York City fell from two two
hundred and forty five murders to six hundred and forty
two murders, So thirty one per one hundred thousand people
were killed in New York, which is an amazingly high
number in nineteen ninety eight. In two thousand and you know,
in that same timeframe, the police force uniform police officers
went up from twenty thousand to forty thousand. So I

(11:15):
think you need more cops on the streets, and you know,
and the National Guard is doing the job of local
communities like in Charlotte, like there should. I'm not saying
you would have stopped this murder, but when cops are around,
people act differently. I don't want to live in a
police state, but.

Speaker 2 (11:31):
I don't disagree with you. But in this case, this
violent murderer had been arrested fourteen times, So it wasn't
that cops weren't around to arrest him. It's that the
justice system in North Carolina and Charlotte was organized in
such a fashion as to constantly let him out to
terrorize the population.

Speaker 1 (11:51):
Again, No, I totally agree with that. Now that's not a.

Speaker 2 (11:54):
Cop problem or a like number of cops problem. That
is straight up a don't let people out after they
have shown themselves to be living in a manner incompatible
with civilization.

Speaker 1 (12:07):
Now, the coverage of this story was predictably in the sane.
I'm going to read you a CNN headline. I feel
like I do this every week. Here's how it goes.
Have the lives of a Ukrainian refugee and a Charlotte
man with a criminal history converged in a fatal stabbing.
It's again, I hate to use the word Orwellian, but

(12:27):
this is exactly what that word means. And I find
it weird that the left takes the side of criminality.
I don't even understand what they're doing with this. Why
can't they simply say, of course this is horrible, Like

(12:47):
they keep saying, oh, we only care about this because
it's a white woman, and we only care about this
because it was on video. Yes, sometimes there are incidents
that like, That's why I was talking about Kitty Genevieve
is that like enrage people and bring them together to
try to do something about a problem that's widespread. And
I just I don't understand their positioning at all as
a political matter.

Speaker 2 (13:08):
Obviously, we know for a fact that this story is
such a major global story because of the video, and
the reason we know that is that she was actually
murdered in late August, and the story didn't get going
until the video was released. I do believe the officials
in her city worked very hard to suppress the video

(13:29):
from being out there. You know, you had the mayor
thanking media corporations for participating in censorship of the story.

Speaker 1 (13:36):
What you didn't see happened.

Speaker 2 (13:38):
With the George Floyd killing. By the way, I want
to say, I feel very similar about the George Floyd
death in that I can't watch someone die. I don't
want to watch someone die on video. But I saw
enough about it to kind of understand the cop was
using a hold on him that led to, you know,
potentially led to his death. I should say he has

(13:58):
been convicted of murder, and that cop I mean that
cop is I think there's a very strong argument that
he was a scapegoat for national hysteria Derek Chapin, and
it's very awful. I think the way that people lost
their minds and were unable to think rationally about that situation.

(14:21):
I saw David French. I actually mute the term David
French from my social media mentions, which is a wonderful thing.
But somehow I still saw that he was saying, like,
before he could express any opinion on Arena Zaruska, he
had to say he had to reference Saint George Floyd,

(14:42):
and it was actually kind of a disgusting reference. I think, yes,
they're both people whose death was captured on camera. George
Floyd was kind of a career criminal, career drug addict.
He was not you know what, you want the men
in your society to be.

Speaker 1 (15:03):
Right.

Speaker 2 (15:04):
Even though he received like state honors for his funeral,
there is no argument that Arena Zaruska in any way
led a life that could reasonably lead to this type
of interaction with someone. You know, career criminals do have
a lot of police interactions, and career criminals who are

(15:26):
causing problems in their community for decades are going to
have a lot of police interactions. Arena's roots. And then therefore,
when you're being this way and you're also high on
drugs and you are not taking care of your body
because you're a career addict, you know you're going to
have like a weakened body. Arena's Routsko is just completely
innocent victim of a man. But it's not just the man.

(15:49):
It's like the man and how people who are elected
or appointed to protect citizens completely neglected their responsibilities or
in some cases went out of their way to support
crime and criminal behavior. And so what I mean there
is like the Democrat Party is well funded by George

(16:13):
Soros and his entities that can be both you know, directly,
but also mostly through all these nonprofit organizations that work
as arms of the Democrat Party. George Soros had a plan,
like in two thousand and eight, I think it was
to take over all the secretaries of states of different
states so that he could weaken election rules to help Democrats,

(16:36):
and it was a very effective strategy. He followed that
up with an effort to put in what are called
Soros prosecutors, soft on crime, horrific on victims type, people
who would enact racial justice through being soft on crime.
And he put a lot of money into this project.

(16:56):
He got a lot of left wing Democrat das elected
and other people to support this, and our cities are
being destroyed by these Soros prosecutors. So when I see
this man, you know, killing this innocent woman, it's not
just about that individual. It's also about people in power
who went out of their way to enable this kind

(17:19):
of situation, And it's like, what do you do with
people like that? I don't think the Democrat Party or
their funders can be trusted really to have a role
in in our governing affairs. Like it's really nefarious what
they've done. People are dying, and it's not just the murders.
It's also sorry that I'm going on so long here,

(17:41):
but I think one of the reasons why this resonates
with people. I rode the subway twice today and I'm
pretty alert person. A lot of the bad part about
riding the subway is not about risk of being murdered.
It's about like a million things leading up to that,

(18:02):
do you know what I mean? Like it's bad to
be with people who are urinating on your car, or
who are just acting crazy or who are being aggressive.
You know, they might not murder you, but it's still
a very bad experience. And so I think this resonated
with a lot of people because the reason why you
worry about someone getting in your face in a subway

(18:22):
car is because you're worried that they're going to murder you.
You might not get murdered, but that's that's the whole
breakdown of society.

Speaker 1 (18:29):
And so.

Speaker 2 (18:31):
It kind of legitimizes all this fear that people have
been walking around with because of how horribly our cities
are run.

Speaker 1 (18:39):
Yeah, I mean on the Soros prosecutors, you blame Soros,
you say it's evil. I agree with all that, But
what about the voters. Voters elect these people. They deserve
to be condemned as well. I mean, they've got you
an elect in New York City's going to elect Momdani
probably who is a socialist who's wanted to defund the places,

(19:00):
not in some you know, not in theory, but legitimately
take money away from the police force. He said stuff
like jailing criminals just makes people feel good, it doesn't
help or whatever. He said. They deserve it as well.
There's nothing people think like we say prosecutors are soft
on crime, but it's not exactly right to say that.
What it is is that certain prosecutors do something that's

(19:23):
incredibly authoritarian, which is allow people they've decided to be
soft on out of jail. And others not so like
in New York what's that guy's name? I forget, But
the prosecutor in New York City, for instance, let's rioters
do what they want, but then prosecute, yeah, Alvin Bragg,
but prosecutes bodega owners who defend themselves. I'm saying there's

(19:46):
another It's worse than just being soft on crime. It's
it's authoritarian in a way. I don't know Charlotte that well.
I do know these magistrates that allow these people out
of prison don't even have a law of degrees. Now,
I'm not saying lawyers are great or they do any
better better, but it seems like they're just activist. Now, again,
having a degree doesn't make we know that you could
go to Harvard and be terrible and have a PhD in.

Speaker 2 (20:08):
Maybe I just I think the judge, the judge in question,
who most recently helped this guy get out so that
he could kill Arena Zuritska, she does have a law
degree from a like a diploma mill law school that's
considered widely considered the worst law school in America. But
she she does have, I believe, a law degree. I
had read that she had not passed the bar. Again.

(20:29):
Neither of these things are required to be a magistrate judge,
and I'm not even sure if they should be. My
bigger concern with her is that she has a severe
conflict of interest. She's part of the criminal rehabilitation complex
that doesn't actually rehabilitate criminals, but she like is involved
with an organization that gets money to supposedly rehabilitate criminals,

(20:57):
and so for her to be involved in letting people
out when she personally benefits from it, to me, that's
a major problem.

Speaker 1 (21:05):
I'm not against rehabilitating criminals. I think it's important, but
jails for punishment, not rehabilitation. Rehabilitation is the secondary reason.

Speaker 2 (21:16):
Mark was pointing out that the first job of our
criminal justice system should be to protect the law abiding citizens.
Yes you want to be a humanitarian in how you
are handling criminals, or yes you want to work on
rehabilitation that those are fine things to also be concerned about,
but they cannot come even close to harming the actual goal,

(21:37):
which is to protect the citizenry, and we have gone
like one hundred and eighty degrees in the opposite direction.
I feel like where we are justice industry seems mostly
about protecting criminals and doing very little to protect law
abiding citizens.

Speaker 1 (21:52):
Recidivism is major. I mean, it's a small group of
people that are constantly involved in criminals. So obviously if
you put them in prison and keep them there, crime
will go down. In my view, at least it seems.
And again I pointed that this out many times. It
used to be a lot worse. It used to be

(22:12):
many more murders. But not only does that not matter
to someone living today, they shouldn't have to live with
this kind of thing anyway. But doesn't it feel like
our trajectory is going in a bad direction back to
how it used to be. I mean, that's how I
feel when I go to cities today. I feel like
I'm constantly being surrounded by you know, mentally ill people,
drug addicts, beggars. That is the first sign of something

(22:36):
bad happening in society.

Speaker 2 (22:38):
Yeah, I don't know how big of a deal it
would be to reverse course, though, Like I just mentioned,
I rode the subway twice today, and recently Washington, d C.
Did this revolutionary thing of not encouraging people to break
the law and ride the subway for free, which they
had been doing They were like, I mean, paying for

(22:59):
the Metro is something we expect law abiding people to do.
But if you're not, you just hop the turnstile and
it's no big deal. And they recently changed their system
so that they discourage that, and it made it makes
the subway experience so much better, you know, like it's
just worse.

Speaker 1 (23:17):
I mean, in New York they weren't even enforcing that law.
I'm not even sure if they're enforcing it now. Now.
What happens as a guy jumps the turnstile. Next thing
is like, you know what, there's no cops around to
do what I want. Maybe I'll grab that woman's purse
and then, you know, and it grows and grows, and
others see that there's anarchy on the subway anyway. So
it's horrible, you know, watching that video, it's just the

(23:38):
anger I feel watching it and that poor woman who's defenseless,
no one helping her against this monster. And yeah, like
Chicago mayor says, there's always crime in urban areas. Yeah
that doesn't mean we have to say it's okay in
live with it. And it just feels like Trump's the

(23:58):
only one saying that we should do something that every
urban mayor is like, there's no problem. I just don't
even understand how they can take that position.

Speaker 2 (24:09):
This is Molly Hemingway encouraging you to listen to my
favorite podcast, Issues, etc. Every day you get in depth
interviews with host Todd Wilkin, asking expert guests substantive thought
provoking questions on all of the important news and issues
of our day. The expert guests are in culture, law, ethics, philosophy, theology,

(24:32):
and apologetics. Expert guests expansive topics, always extolling christ issues,
et cetera. Well, I do think that Democrats have a
serious problem here, Like a lot of people are looking
around going crime is such an obvious issue that so
many people care about. I think we talked last week

(24:53):
that there was a poll that showed that eighty percent
of Americans think crime in cities is a major problem.
Nineteen percent think it's just like a problem problem, and
one percent think it's not a problem at all.

Speaker 1 (25:07):
But it's worse than that. Not Americans, people in Washington
and you people in the cities think that you know, I'm saying,
it's not like some suburban person like thinks that the
city still but like when.

Speaker 2 (25:16):
You're in a ninety nine to one issue, you would think,
what in the world is going on with Democrats fighting
an effort to push back on crime. Also, just historically,
I feel like we always have these this pendulum swinging
back and forth between too much favorability toward criminals and
then being too like too much power to the police.

(25:38):
And we are we have swung so far into the
direction in favor of criminality that it's kind of shocking.
And you know, we referenced you just said, like they're
voting for these people. Oh, I do want to say, yes,
they're voting for these people. But cities were the first
place I mentioned how Soros and other Democrat donors had

(25:59):
worked to weaken election laws in areas they controlled, in
states they controlled, in cities they controlled. And that is
important in the sense that one of the metrics for
winning elections used to be how excited you got people
to vote for you, Like you actually had to show
up on election day, and if people didn't really care

(26:21):
that much, they didn't show up. Right, already have the
situation where cities are overwhelming the Democrat and controlled by
the Democrat Party, but with the changes to election laws,
from voter interest into who has the most money to
spend on ballot operations that may have literally nothing to
do with voter interest. You start being able if you

(26:44):
have enough money to push through initiatives or people based
solely on your ability to get a ballot into the
ballot box. I'm not even talking about fraud, although obviously
fraud is a problem when you're having unsupervised voting, but
it's also just about being able to run an operation
that doesn't reflect the actual voter interest. Does that make sense,

(27:11):
Like I mean, if you don't have to show up.
If someone says, hey, I ordered this ballot for you.
I came to your house. By the way, I'm your
church leader or leader of your immigrant group, or your boss.
Please fill it out and then I'll take it back
to the mailbox for you. It's not really It's not
a free and fair elections situation. And so that's why

(27:34):
people who care about election integrity are so important, I think,
because you can have really nefarious consequences to moving from
voter interest into ballot operations.

Speaker 1 (27:46):
I hear everything you're saying, but we shouldn't gloss or
whitewash the fact that that urban people vote for crackpots,
socialists all the time whatever, you know, despite all of that,
and I always want to say, well, they deserve what
you deserve, the democracy that you get. But then I
see someone murdered and I'm like, this is ridiculous. It
should not be happening on the.

Speaker 2 (28:06):
Democrat Party issue though you know, this is happening at
a very bad period of time for them, in that
voters are very frustrated with Democrat governance of cities, even
if they're about to elect Mom, Donnie and other you
know radicals. But the left wing base of the Democrat
Party is so left wing, the donor base of the

(28:27):
Democrat Party is so left wing. It makes it hard
to have a course correction on their support for violent crime.
Does that make sense? Like they their fringe base wants
to be even softer on crime right now. So how
do you get everyone to be kind of like more

(28:47):
reasonable when the people who are your activists are not
reasonable at all?

Speaker 1 (28:52):
You win elections, I mean a success everyone follows. Donald
Trump wins an election, the entire right takes the shift
and moves it in a different direction. You know, the
institutions all that can still I think change that dynamic
with a victory somewhere, but you're going in the opposite
direction with Mom, Donnie or whoever Minneapolis has. I think

(29:14):
some socialist guy running right who's probably going to win.
So I don't know.

Speaker 2 (29:19):
I wonder if the Democrat Party isn't in such a
bad place. And I'm not saying that they're not going
to win a bunch of elections in the next year.
They will, but when you look at the long term,
longer term or like midterm health of the party, they're
having some issues. And I wonder if they're not primed
for a Donald Trump style takeover in their own party. Meaning, yes,

(29:44):
they have some political talent. We've talked about Gavin Newsom
being being a good like for them, a good political talent,
but they need some shaking up, and they have such
central control at party headquarters, like it's insane to remember
that it was just what a year plus ago that

(30:05):
they've prohibited a real primary from taking place against a
president who they probably would have been well served to
allow a primary. I think that would have made them stronger. Sorry,
incumbents who face primary challenges rarely win. I think eighty
percent of the time they they lose but the central

(30:29):
control of the Democrat Party has kept some much needed
freshening from happening. And if it's if they keep on
being that restrictive, I think they might risk having an outsider,
like a celebrity or just someone who is not beholden
to the Democrat Party machine coming in and taking over

(30:49):
the party and forcing some reforms, much like Donald Trump
did the Republican Party.

Speaker 1 (30:55):
I think the establishment Democrat Party Democratic Party is completely empty.
It's like a vast They have no new ideas, they
have no energy. That vacuum needs to be filled. So
say what you will about socialism, it's an ethos, and
I think that that is filling filling that vacuum. There

(31:17):
is no excitement there, there are new ideas. Now, this
happens to every party. I think after a while you
run out ideas, like if even if you go back
to the to the rise of Reagan, which was a
decade or two in the making. Incidentally, I think that
the emptiness of the then dominant liberal Republican Party was
filled and then you had Donald Trump. But the same
thing happens. So the problem is that you can get

(31:38):
something pretty radical right now. I think I've said this before.
But the left wants its own Donald Trump right. The
left wants its own populace movement. But the problem is
they completely misunderstand I think Trump's appeal which is much
more common sense, moderate than radical populist right, and they're

(31:58):
far too ideological. I don't think it's going to work. Yeah,
I think they're gonna win some elections. I just think
that's the way of America. A bunch of people vote Democrats,
and then when Republicans are in power, they're mad about
stuff to go the other way. It happens all the time,
But there is an emptiness there, like what does what
does Gavin Newsom or anyone else stand for other than
just stamp being anti Trump? When I look at ads

(32:19):
on TV against Republican candidates, it's always talking about Trump.
I don't know how. I just don't think that that's
the makings of successful, successful movement for Democrats. So I
also wonder what's going to happen after Trump's gone for
both parties. But we're going to have to see. But yeah,
and doesn't it seem very much like the socialist Party,

(32:41):
like you say, has taken over the donor class too.
Not so the establishment itself is already sort of socialistic,
and now you have the activist class that way, there's
there's not going to be any competing force really other
than some of the elected officials.

Speaker 2 (32:53):
I was just gonna say on that. Tim Carney had
a great tweet pointing out that the donor class of
the Demo Party is that they're far left, and it
makes people who are Democrat think that the donor class
for the Republican Party is at the far right. It's
actually not true. The donor class of the Republican Party
is also like at the left part of their party.

(33:14):
It's just something to keep in mind when evaluating parties
that they're not complete mirror images. Sometimes they're dealing with
exactly the same phenomenon, but it affects each party differently.

Speaker 1 (33:27):
I'm a fan of a two party system. People always
complain about it, but I think it creates coalitions of
right and left typically, and maybe that the dynamics of
that changes sometimes. But I think there's a donor class.
They have certain interests, there's a populist, you know, activist class.
They have certain interests, and usually you find some candidate
that can balance those interests and run. If you all

(33:49):
are on the same side, which is kind of a
socialistic side that's going to pour ten poorly. I mean,
there was a chance, right that Bernie Sanders could have
won an open primary last time or even before that,
right like, it was close and he is would be
the most radical major candidate who ever ran.

Speaker 3 (34:10):
How is September the worst month of the year for
the taxpayer? Who watched Out on Wall Street podcast with
Chris Markowski. Every day Chris helps unpack the connection between
politics and the economy and how it affects your wallet.
Government agencies have to spend every single dime by the
end of September plus take out more debt for another
cr In the last forty eight days, the federal debt
is up by a trillion. We have a severe debt problem.

(34:32):
Whether it's happening in DC or down on Wall Street,
it's affecting you financially.

Speaker 1 (34:36):
Be informed.

Speaker 3 (34:36):
Check out the watch Dot on Wall Street podcast with
Chris Markowski on Apple, Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts.

Speaker 1 (34:44):
All right, that's always a down or to talk about
such a horrible event, but hopefully we can make things
a little better. Let's talk now about the Israeli strike
yesterday on Qatar and Doha catt everyone says, I don't know.
I like to see kuitar. I was surprised that it happened,

(35:06):
but I thought it should have happened seven hundred days ago.
I liken it too, so I should say the Israelis
precision bombed the headquarters of Hamas in the capital, really
the only city in Qatar. And we're not exactly sure
who they got who they didn't. It doesn't really matter

(35:28):
to me that much. I think the key is that
Hamas leaders shouldn't feel safe anywhere. I don't believe Donald
Trump's condemnation of Israel at all. I think he gave
the green light. I think he knew about it. The
people who they hit were not diplomats. They all had
promised forever war against civilians and Jewish people. Israel has

(35:49):
a right to go after those people who were billionaires
sitting in five star hotels in Qatar, not only fighting
this war against pavilions. They had celebrated the murder of
six civilians in Jerusalem the other day, But they are
condemned their own people to destitution and tragedy, you know.
And we went after Bin Laden in Pakistan. There's no

(36:14):
reason this zu should be able to go after these
people in Qatar. I think this does change the dynamic
because the entire point and tactic and strategies of these
people is martyrdom of their own people to bring the
world to their side, which is working, and Israel can't
allow that. They have to finish this thing. I don't know.

(36:35):
Those are my initial thoughts on it. What did you think?

Speaker 4 (36:38):
So?

Speaker 2 (36:38):
I am sorry about this, but I'm a little unclear
on what the status of negotiations were in terms of
brokering an end to the war, Like why were the
Hamas leaders in Qatar?

Speaker 1 (36:57):
Why were they in Qatar? They have been in Qatar
for a long time, even before October seventh. I think
most of these leaders were in Qatar because they're safe there,
or they thought they were safe and that they, you know,
would not be assassinated by Israelis in Gaza, and that
they could pretend to negotiate. By the way, on the

(37:19):
what's today That today is the tenth On the seventh,
Israel agreed to a cease fire deal. They rejected it.
Donald Trump said on Twitter that this was the last
chance for them to make a deal and that this
was his final word on it. The next day they
took responsibility for killing six Israeli civilians. The day after that,

(37:42):
Israel attacked them. This fake, drawn out diplomacy that they're
involved in would mean, you know, it's just meant to
continue this thing and allow them to survive. Do you
know what I'm saying? So there is no diplomat that
sits at a table negotiating and says, as soon as
we can, we're going to do October seventh again to you,

(38:05):
which is what one of the leaders there said. I
don't understand what your question there was, like, what was
their purpose there?

Speaker 2 (38:13):
Well, I like to study original sources here, and I
don't have original sources, so I'm going based on Like
you know, I follow a wide variety of people on
Twitter see different perspectives on this. And one of the
things that someone who had found to be somewhat reasonable
on this topic like definitely not as pro Israel as

(38:34):
I am, but not like cartoonishly on pro Israel and
said something about Hamas was actually in Cutter to work
on negotiations. But maybe that's just completely not true because
I don't worry. Okay, Well, I mean I.

Speaker 1 (38:50):
Now go on, I'm just saying I think that's true.
I mean, they were ostensibly there for that. Oh they were, Yeah,
they were at the negotiating table.

Speaker 2 (39:02):
So that seems like not a great thing, right to
murder people while they're at a negotiating table.

Speaker 1 (39:07):
Let me put it this way. Imagine if you can,
in two thousand and two, Al Qayeda is up and
is down in Kankun in the five star hotels with
the headquarters there, claiming that they want to negotiation. First
of all, the only reason there are negotiations here is

(39:27):
because they took hostages and the Israelis.

Speaker 2 (39:31):
By the way, David, the thing that annoys me so
much is everyone's like, this is a horrific genocide. This
is the worst, like that what Israel's doing is so
beyond the pale that it's the worst thing we've ever
seen in history. Okay, so why are you not releasing
the hostages or the bodies of the hostages? Like it

(39:52):
doesn't even even Japan did an unconditional surrender at some point, right,
and they were pretty resistant to that. It's just hard
for me to take seriously that Hamas is really working
here to make up for what they did. On October seventh,
when they're literally doing nothing right. They're not doing the

(40:12):
one thing they could easily do.

Speaker 1 (40:15):
They are doing the thing that they want to do,
which is this. Sin More said this, the martyrdom of
his people is what he wanted to do. But the thing.

Speaker 2 (40:22):
Is this, do these you said, imagine al Qaedaz in
Mexico City. I think the context would matter, was this,
like Mexico had said, why don't you come here, we
can talk, You'll be protected. You know, we need to
get you out of the place where the US is
bombing you right now so that you can have like

(40:43):
actual get work done. We'll protect you, and then we
bomb Mexico. That would be that would be a problem.

Speaker 1 (40:53):
Right, What if Mexico was funding What if Mexico made
nine to eleven possible by bringing not only funding Hamas
but have bringing in Iranian funding for Hamas and being
the conduct That's.

Speaker 2 (41:08):
What you're saying about Cutter.

Speaker 1 (41:09):
Yeah, that's what I'm saying about Guitar. By the way,
you mentioned the general idding of nine to eleven.

Speaker 2 (41:14):
You got Saudi Arabia, but we still treat them as
a non hostile entity, you know, But then Saudi Arabia.

Speaker 1 (41:23):
I don't under I don't understand the funding mechanisms there.
If individuals funded al Qaeda in Saudi Arabia who were
part of the royal family, whatever it was, I think
Saudi Arabia once nine to eleven happened, helped us in
many ways, right. I don't know what we should have
done was right, where what we did was right or not.
Qatar has this ridiculous position of playing both sides all

(41:46):
the time to it's a country of three hundred thousand
people with a bunch of slaves basically working for them
to lift themselves up as this power, and I don't
think it's the same thing as far as the I
just want to reiterate this. The genocide thing is a hoax.
There is no genocide there, as you've mentioned, and I

(42:10):
think they've been incredibly successful in convincing the world there is.
I was a member for a few days, Molly of
the International Association of Genocide Scholars I joined kicked me out,
but as an expert on this, the BBC said, we
are leading experts on this. I'm telling you there is

(42:31):
no genocide. But anyway, so one last thing on the
al Qaeda thing, We did get bin Laden without permission
from an ally in Pakistan. We did the same thing
that they did. The people in Guitar who were just

(42:53):
killed are all on the United States Justice Department. They're
all sanctioned as terrorist. Everyone who maybe died, maybe didn't.
We're sanctioned by our own government as terrorists. We shouldn't
be mad at Israel for undermining Katari sovereignty. We shouldn't
be mad at Katar for harboring people that we admit

(43:15):
are terrorists who killed forty one American citizens who signed
off on the killing to.

Speaker 2 (43:21):
Say harboring, right, yeah, but they were public about hosting
these people, right yeah, So well, isn't there a difference, David,
between Pakistan lying and or not lying, but like not
really doing a good job of looking for bin Laden
and not being a you know that that was a

(43:42):
bin Laden was in hiding. The Moss people were not
in hiding. They were there for diplomatic reasons. You might
question their good faith, and I think there's good reason too,
but it's it's it's a bit tricky, Like I'm not
saying it's wrong, it's just there are costs associated with

(44:03):
what Israel did, and well, it can sour relations between
so they did notify the United States that they were
planning to take this action. Trump said that he immediately
directed Steve Witkoff to tell the Katari officials, and that
Wickcoff didn't do it immediately, but he did, and by

(44:25):
the time he told them, the attacks were already underway.
It is a you know, it's a sovereign country with
its own rules, and to do this type of strike
inside that country is a hostile action. I mean, I
don't think Cutter is great. I don't actually think any

(44:47):
of the Middle Eastern countries are great, but you do
have to work with them, and so it can cause
people to be less I'm just.

Speaker 1 (44:58):
What if I told you this, What if I told
you this. Here's my theory, And honestly, I don't toot
my own horn, but I think my theories about what's
been going on have been okay. What if Katar knew
about this and knew it was going to happen, because
they want to now disassociate themselves without from Hamas, without
losing face after this last negotiation fell through. What if

(45:22):
the President of the United States says this stuff but
totally gave the green light I don't for a second
believe that Israel sent fighters into Katar a few miles
away from a US military installation without the President of
the United States signing off on it. I just a
Trump signing. I just don't believe that that could possibly
be true. And what if Saudi Arabia or some other

(45:44):
Arab country helped Israel fly the thousand, four hundred miles
with its fighters that would have to get They could
not do it without refueling somewhere. Help them do it,
either in Syria, possibly Syria, or possibly Saudi Arabia. Saira
was contemplating building a few years ago building a moat
around Qatar. They hate them so much. Yes, every Arab country, Yeah,

(46:11):
is the Saudi Arabians had not allowed Katari planes to
go over their airspace until like last year. Like they
there was a huge breakup between those countries. Most of
the Gulf States hate Guitar because it is friendly with Iran,
which is their mortal enemy and that region.

Speaker 2 (46:30):
In their defense, they're trying to be the Switzerland of
the Middle East, right like they're trying to play friendly
with opposing sides.

Speaker 1 (46:38):
Let's talk about Quitar in another way as well. They
drop literally, like everything everyone says about Apak and Jewish
control is literally what Qatar does have. They have dropped
tens of billions of dollars into our schools to to
normalize radical ideas and Islamism. They have dropped tons of
money into our institutions. They drop tons of money into

(47:01):
our think tanks. God knows how many of these influencers
online are paid by Katar. You saw that story about
India paying a couple of those influences, and they all
were like out there being pro India all of a sudden.
I mean, Qatar almost surely does that as well. I
mean we know the Wall Street Journal reporter. We just
don't know who they are. Not our friend, I think

(47:22):
in any any real way, And I don't know for me.

Speaker 2 (47:26):
When I look at this, oppose countries doing that, you
just oppose Cutter.

Speaker 1 (47:33):
Well, yeah, I don't think all countries are the same.
I have no problem with countries trying to make their
case to the American people that we should be friends
with them, that we should do something with them. But
the secretive way in which Qatar does that and the
ideas which they want us to express, yeah, I have
a problem with that I as a journalistic person, you know,

(47:57):
as a writer, I would never take a penny from
any country ever, or actually any industry ever in that way.
I mean unless maybe they put an ad on something
I was doing or whatever.

Speaker 2 (48:09):
What about would you go on a trip sponsored by.

Speaker 1 (48:13):
Only good countries? Probably? But I haven't done that either.

Speaker 2 (48:17):
I mean I think, like, as long as you're being
open about what you've gotten, I think.

Speaker 1 (48:23):
I know a lot of these groups go to trips
to Israel. People go on trips to Israel, which I
think is a good thing because I think Israel is
a free and excellent place. I would never take a
penny from Qatar to go there like people do.

Speaker 2 (48:37):
Really, so like as long I mean, would you change
your mind based on it?

Speaker 1 (48:41):
You know what I mean?

Speaker 2 (48:42):
Like why not?

Speaker 1 (48:44):
Like I think think there are evil people over there.
I think the royal family there is evil, and I
would not take a penny from them. It has nothing
really to do Like if I got to I want
to make sure that I'm that I'm not taking money
from people I think or evil. I love this thing
where they're like, oh well Israel, Yeah, but Israel's not
the same. You can go to Israel there's a guy
Owen Jones I think is his name. It's just this

(49:05):
complete antie as or I think, an anti semi in England,
a huge journalist there. He's an israel now and he's
tweeting all kinds of terrible things about Israel. I mean,
Israel is generally a free country, and as free as
I wish it, it could be not to say that
in Qatar, Christianity's outlaw. You cannot you know, the idea
that these things are the same and that they're both

(49:26):
just our allies. It's not true. In the same way
I think there's a moral listen. I get people turning
against Israel and stuff. That doesn't change my mind about stuff.
I don't care that young people don't like Israel. It
doesn't change the truth, and I can just continue to
make those arguments. But anyway, I just don't understand why

(49:47):
if the Canadians had imperial Japanese generals there while we
were finding an Oka now, that we would allow that.
I just don't think that we would. These are not diplomats.
These people signed off on the murder of a thousand,
two hundred people.

Speaker 2 (49:59):
You have that's to distinguish between them harboring people illicitly
and hosting like a diplomatic meeting. But I really am
enjoying your points and I'm loving your theory that like
the other countries went along with this because they realize
Hamas is a huge problem and they you know, I

(50:20):
think I have no idea the validity of it, but
I find it interesting.

Speaker 1 (50:24):
Validity is excellent. The sterling the Hamas. People don't realize,
or many people don't realize, is Muslim brotherhood. That's where
they come from. That's what they are. That's why they're
outlawed in Egypt. That's why Egypt closed its border, does
not allow them. In Saudi Arabia, is Muslim brotherhood is

(50:46):
the enemy of the royal family. They do. They hate
that guitar hosts those people, and I don't buy that.
They're not super happy about this bombing.

Speaker 2 (50:56):
Okay, is it too far afield to ask you what
you think about the Venezuelan boat bombing. No, Okay, So
when you think about that, because it's kind of to
me it's kind of related, you know, Western interests are
military going down and bombing them.

Speaker 1 (51:16):
I have many thoughts on it. I mean, I have
conflicting thoughts. I guess i'd say I think the United
States has every right. I just preface this whole thing
by saying I don't believe in international law. I don't
think it's a real thing. I did not if you don't,
if it does not adhere to the Constitution, if it
does not adhere to our ability to participate and make

(51:39):
I don't think that Russia and China have any right
to decide what the United States, the people of the
United States do or don't do. Okay, I'm fine with
bombing and Narco ship out in the sea. I just
want us to be careful about how we use that power,
because it can be abused. You know, I was not

(52:02):
crazy when Barack Obama droned an American citizen, even though
that Americans. Do you remember that store?

Speaker 2 (52:10):
You know?

Speaker 1 (52:10):
Yeah, not because the guy probably didn't deserve it, but
because Barack Obama could easily say that about anyone he
wanted to abroad, you know what I mean. So I
think we have to just think about the way we
use power. I have no reason to believe that we
weren't right in bombing that in you know, destroying that ship,

(52:33):
and I'm okay with it. But maybe there needs to
be a process that we go through that doesn't just
rely on the decisions of a single man, the president
doing it. I don't know, does that make any sense?

Speaker 2 (52:47):
Yeah, I don't know. It's kind of interesting to me,
just like as a topic area the open seas, what
laws apply, how to handle it. It's an old issue
for the United States, you know, going back to piracy.
I like a US foreign policy posture that's more focused

(53:08):
on our region than far away regions. So I don't mind.
Like seems like we've been pivoting a little bit back
to caring about what's happening in South America and Central America.
I think that's good. And I am more hawkish on
some of that stuff than I am when we're talking

(53:28):
about far afield areas.

Speaker 1 (53:30):
Surprised to hear you use the word hawkish. I know.

Speaker 2 (53:33):
I hate that word. That word. Why did you?

Speaker 1 (53:36):
We don't have a better word?

Speaker 2 (53:38):
I think right now, I think that what some of
these countries are doing to our people, like it's just
a more direct threat sometimes like the allowance of drugs
through Mexico or you know, other issues like that, and
that we should be more aggressive toward them. But I do.

(53:59):
I thought that I like Rand Paul a lot, but
I thought him referring to to kill a mockingbird in
this case was very you know, he tweeted out that
these people had due process rights that were violated and
that we should read to kill a mockingbird, to kill
a mockingbird. I was talking to a friend who said
that to kill a mockingbird is like the book version

(54:21):
of World War Two. It's the only thing some people
know or reference when they're talking about due process, and
it doesn't really seem to be a fitting descriptive, a
fitting reference for this situation. But I'm glad we're doing
We're being more aggressive about being about the way other
countries are handling what they're what they're sending our way.

Speaker 1 (54:45):
I mean, it felt like a warning to me more
than anything that's going to change. I mean, it's within itself,
the dynamics of what's going on. There's this other area
of this debate where JD. Van's is out there saying
we can't let these people poin on us and so on,
and I agree with that in you know, I agree
with that, But something I never hear anyone say anymore

(55:07):
is like, hey, also, you should stop doing drugs, like
you should take care of yourself. There's no self, there's
no self responsibility in our rhetoric anymore, and it drives
me crazy. I know, it's a weird tangential thing to
care about here, but there's a way to avoid overdosing
on drugs, and that is not to do them in
the first place. And once we you know, then they'll

(55:28):
have no one to sell it to. I now people
think that that's so Jejune, but yeah, just bothers me.

Speaker 2 (55:36):
Ah men, what did happen to that? You know, people
are like, oh, you could you could take this weed
once and it would be laced with fentanyl, which is true.
And also maybe think about your drug consumption.

Speaker 1 (55:47):
Yeah, don't do it. I think it's a problem that
we don't ever make people take responsibility for their choices.
Like if they're not doing well in life, it's some
big corporation's ruining. If you're doing this, it's you know,
it's the Mexican drug warlords, you know. I mean, I'm
not saying those aren't problems. They are, but at some
point you have to take responsibility for yourself.

Speaker 2 (56:06):
This might be a weird transition, but I was thinking
that when I was reading that brief excerpts of Kamala
Harris's new book, Did you see this part where she
said that she couldn't really say anything to Joe Biden
about how he shouldn't run again because it would be
viewed as self serving and what like? At what point

(56:28):
do you take responsibility for yourself and for your leadership role?
If not, then yes, Okay, this thing I need to
say I'm not going to say because it might be
viewed poorly. That's me every day. Every day I have
to go say things publicly while my supposed peers are
mocking me. It's not fun. I don't love doing it.

(56:51):
I just have to do it because I have this
position where I get to go on TV and say
uncomfortable truths. If I were to say, like, oh I
if I say it this way, people will think that I'm,
you know, a reflexive Trump supporter. Yeah, I guess what
they're going to But it doesn't mean that you're weak
and that you don't say it. You still have to
say the true thing, even though you know all these

(57:16):
like weird DC types will make fun of you. And
if Kamala Harris didn't have the courage or leadership ability
to tell Joe Biden, I have to say something that
you're not going to like and that you're going to
think is self serving, but it's not. You know, like
she has no business being in any position of leadership.

Speaker 1 (57:35):
It's like when I say something good about pharmaceutical companies,
everyone's like, oh, you're paid by them, or India, you're paid,
But no, I do it for free. And I know
what people are going to say when I say those things.
But you have to say what you believe is true.
I mean it's literally you're She holds herself up in
this excerpt from her book as a truth teller, and
yet then she's like, I couldn't tell the truth. My

(57:57):
favorite part of that is where she says she's mad
that the Biden administration didn't defend her from Fox News
claims that she was a d EI hire, which Biden
said she was literally and explicitly. But isn't that just
like a tacit admission that you know, sex and race

(58:19):
based hiring degrades like a person's accomplishments a career. I mean,
why is she mad about a DEI tag when DEI
is supposed to be this wonderful thing. I don't understand it.
They never They just don't make any sense. I loved
that excerpt because she writes the way she talks with
like he's sort of swirling gibberish, you know, and it's

(58:43):
it's a fun read. I'm going to write a column
about it.

Speaker 2 (58:45):
I think the ghostwriter ghostwriter just put what he wanted
to say into an AI thing and said say this
like Kamala Harris, because I bet he did. Whoever it was,
or she did just like AI.

Speaker 1 (59:01):
Give me some tautologies, please. I think that I have
ghost written books for some you know, famous people, and
I think you do. You know, I didn't have AI
nor whatever use AI to write, but I definitely you
try to put yourself in their mindset and take their voice.
She thinks if she just says something with really earnest way,

(59:22):
that it will come off that way for others, Like
I'll give you an example from this piece where she
says she talks about Roe v. Wade and auditorium filled
with black women and how she was going to overt
you know, to restore those rights that Ror told me
they could see it clearly for the first time this
could be and it should be. It was not because

(59:43):
of gender, because of rape, but the race. But despite
those things like that, is that that's nothing, that is
just vacuous. It's just a bunch of words that are
like formulated in a way that you think sound like something. Anyway,
Remember we were talking about how the Democratic already has
no energy and it's just emptiness and it will need
to be filled. She is the perfect example of why

(01:00:07):
that is. So she literally she doesn't believe in anything.
She says nothing new, she has no ideas. She sounds
like some you know, relic of the past. And again,
I think this is why you see a rise of
socialism where there's a lot of energy and there's an
earnestness in socialism and a morality to it, even though

(01:00:27):
it's completely misguided that you don't have when people are
just trying to come up with things to say to
placate people. Right, And that's what she is. She's a disaster.
She might be the candidate. I don't know who else.
It's I mean kind of lover.

Speaker 2 (01:00:42):
I kind of love her now that she's less of
a threat, I party with her.

Speaker 1 (01:00:47):
Also.

Speaker 2 (01:00:48):
I said something nice to her, nice about her to
my daughter. This week, I was playing, uh, you know
that song Everybody Loves the Sunshine No Okay by Roy Ayers,
and I have it on vinyl, and so I was
like putting it on the turntable and I was remembering

(01:01:12):
that one time she went into a record store and
she came out with four albums. They were all good,
and that was one of them, and I'm like, I
felt it was genuine. I don't think she had a
vinyl consultant going in there with her to pick them.
I think she should have just become like a HR
leader at a corporation or something, you know, risen to
that level and had a really happy life listening to

(01:01:35):
good music.

Speaker 1 (01:01:36):
I just saw a story about this is so weird,
but anyway, I just saw a story about HR managers
and there was this company, this tech company that got
rid of them and had the actual engineers and stuff
hiring people, and productivity like skyrocketed because those people are
just concerned with whether you can do the job, not
all the extra stuff. So yep, how can you be

(01:01:56):
a real genuine person? And if you spend decades just
constantly having other people write things for you and worrying
all the time that what things that you are going
to say are going to turn people off. I think
you probably forget what you really believe at that at
some point, don't you. I mean, it just seems like

(01:02:17):
a really sad existence that these politicians lead in a way.

Speaker 2 (01:02:21):
I cannot even imagine. I would hate it. But okay,
shall we talk about culture.

Speaker 1 (01:02:31):
I have been sick, so I watched a lot of
TV over the last few days. Okay, I want to
I think I mentioned this show before, but I want
to talk about it again. It's called for All Mankind
on Apple. It is an alternative history in which the
Soviet Union reaches the moon first and sort of how

(01:02:55):
history propels in a different direction. There's a little bit
of like feminist y, annoying kind of preachiness to it,
but it is a tolerable level, as I think, for
the for the for the show, so only on the
first season that has some interesting, you know, thought experiments.

(01:03:19):
I guess i'd call him. So, I don't know, it's
something I would I would recommend. I watched a movie
called Highest to Lowest. It's a Spike Lee movie with
Denzel Washington. It's also on Apple. Now I should say
that I am actually not a Spike Lee hater. I

(01:03:40):
think some of his early movies were much better.

Speaker 2 (01:03:44):
But who is a Spike Lee hater?

Speaker 1 (01:03:47):
Oh? I don't know. I think people think he I
think people think his movies about race, especially the early ones,
are more simplistic than they actually are, at least that's
what I've felt. I think some of his movies fail,
but I think he's I think he's a talented guy.
And obviously I think Denzel Washington's amazing, and he's very

(01:04:09):
good in this very good.

Speaker 2 (01:04:12):
Did you see a twenty fifth hour love.

Speaker 1 (01:04:15):
That movie with Ed Norton? Yeah, excellent movie based on
a book that was pretty good. Heis Lois is based
on a movie called Hihenlow by Kirosawa. And I'm just
going to give you the plot, very simply, is that
someone kidnaps He's a rich guy, Denzel Washington play someone

(01:04:36):
kidnaps his son, but it turns out he accidentally, so
he's willing to give all his money to get his
son back. But then it turns out that they actually
had kidnapped his friend, not the son. And now the
moral question is will he give up everything for this
person who isn't his son? Oh? The son of his
friend who is not rich, who he grew up with.

(01:04:59):
But this movie, this, this is kind of a messier script.
It gets very good reviews, but I just don't It's
fun to watch, but when you really start thinking about
it is it is a bit confused in a way.
But there's a guy. There's a rapper in it who
plays the bad guy. His name is asap Rocky. Never
heard of him. Yes, I think he's fantastic in it.

(01:05:20):
Really good, really good, So anyway, worth watch. It's a talker,
as we say in the business.

Speaker 2 (01:05:27):
I just wanna say, you said ASoP Rocky or something.
It's ASoP rock right.

Speaker 1 (01:05:34):
It said it says acep Rocky here. But I don't know, okay,
acep Rocky.

Speaker 2 (01:05:40):
Maybe someone else. I think it's okayrock.

Speaker 1 (01:05:43):
Okay, Yeah, I know nothing about it. This is out
of my I saw my wife the other day. It's
like I see commercials on like I think these are celebrities,
like when you get older and you don't know you
know you're old and you don't know who the celebrities
are anymore.

Speaker 2 (01:05:56):
Anyway, thought they would like put in any name on
some of the gossip sites, and I would like to
have no idea because that it's not true.

Speaker 1 (01:06:03):
Because person right, right, right, Jeffrey writes in this as well,
and he's just a good actor.

Speaker 2 (01:06:10):
He's a great actor and also like a really dumb person,
which is very It's not shocking that actors can be
really dumb, but it's a little disconcerting how dumb he
is relative to how smart he thinks he is.

Speaker 1 (01:06:23):
How about you don't have much, just.

Speaker 2 (01:06:27):
Been a little busy, but I and then what I
have is really not exciting, but I'll just go ahead.
We watched You've Got Mail. You know You've Got Mail,
I know from the nineteen eighties.

Speaker 1 (01:06:45):
Have you ever seen it before?

Speaker 2 (01:06:47):
We had, but probably not since then. And what was
the original? What was it called the Shop around the Corner.
It's a remake of the Shop around the Corner, right.

Speaker 1 (01:07:01):
I don't know. I know that the other one because.

Speaker 2 (01:07:04):
Around the Corner is a Hungarian film or a Hungarian
story and it's got Jimmy Stewart in it, and it's
a really charming film. And then You've Got Mail as
the remake. So I had seen You've Got mailed back
when I was like a kid, and then i'd seen
Shop around the Corner. Sort of recently like it in
the last couple of years. And then I rewatched You've

(01:07:26):
Got Mail and it was fine. I was again watching
with my kid, who was wondering how it is that
Tom Hanks got these roles where he was the romantic
lead with beautiful women, because he's certainly, you know, a likable,
charming sort of guy, but he is not handsome, and

(01:07:47):
it's just weird that we all pretended he was handsome
enough to get with Meg Ryan for a while.

Speaker 1 (01:07:55):
They say that being funny will get you far with women,
that's what they say. I'm not sure that's true. I
don't find him that charming. I find him sort of annoying,
honest sea, But I don't know. I think it's plausible,
and Meg Rind's plausible enough. They make her a little
bit like Mousey in that movie, right, don't they make
her like the book bookshepper give me a break, It

(01:08:16):
wouldn't happen in real life. But I'm just saying it's
not as bad as like everyone says. I Love You
with Woody Allen and Julia Robert's when she's twenty five
years old. That is not plausible.

Speaker 2 (01:08:28):
Yeah, So the other thing is that I watched a
couple episodes of Northern Exposure.

Speaker 1 (01:08:35):
Oh, we did that too recently, and I.

Speaker 2 (01:08:37):
Think it holds up very nicely, like very very well.
What did you think?

Speaker 1 (01:08:43):
Yeah, I don't know why I stop watching, but yeah,
I thought it was I thought it was rather well done.
So I actually, I have to be honest with you.
I didn't watch it when it was out originally, so
it wasn't Yeah I did. I did.

Speaker 2 (01:08:54):
I definitely watched that, and my husband was telling me
that they filmed it in a small town like Roslin, Washington.
So anyway, that's it. I don't have much I don't
have much excitement.

Speaker 1 (01:09:07):
Why two other ones? One I watched was and I
probably watched other movies that I'll remember, but High High
Planes Drifter, Uh, you know an early seventies movie that
I love, one of my favorites with Clint Eastwood. Have
you ever seen it? Nope? Oh, it's fantastic. You should
see it. It's on Netflix, I think.

Speaker 2 (01:09:24):
And yeah, I watched something else, Dances with Wolves. Oh,
that's awful, which I'd never seen before.

Speaker 1 (01:09:35):
So I at the time I saw it in the
theater and I could not believe how boring that movie was,
and I'm all for Westerns. I just think that that's
one of the I think it one best picture, one
of those best pictures that shouldn't have been the Best
Picture winner. I forgot what movie. I think maybe was
it Goodfellas that was up that year that it beat.
I forget, but.

Speaker 2 (01:09:55):
I thought it was so I'd never seen it before.
It was not something I was interested in. And when
it came out, which was in what year was that,
nineteen ninety so same time as I was watching Northern Exposure,
and it was a little undercooked or it was during

(01:10:15):
this era of great paternalism toward Native Americans. You know,
they have wisdom that the Weisman do not have, you know,
and it was like kind of not dealing with some
of the issues that it brought up itself, like how
violent some of the Native tribes were versus others. But

(01:10:37):
it was also a pretty violent movie. So I don't
know really culture, but I do want to mention that
I have the article in Imprimus, the Hillsdale publication that
goes out to like ten million people. I know, if
you have ever been in contact with any like American
or conservative institution, you're probably on the Hills mailing list.

Speaker 1 (01:11:01):
I uh looked for that once.

Speaker 2 (01:11:03):
Yeah, it's fun right, I mean, I've already been getting
like tons of feedback, and I wrote I wrote sort
of a summary of a bunch of stories I'd written
for The Federalist on the significance of the recently released
Russian hoax documents, kind of explaining why they were so meaningful.
And I've got a lot of great feedback, so great congrasts.

Speaker 1 (01:11:24):
Yeah. The last thing I just wanted to quickly mention,
because you brought it up last time, was I watched
Happy Gilmour too. How was it? It was actually good?
I mean, at le put this way, it's idiotic, obviously,
but it was much better than I thought it would be.
And I had this weird thought watching it. I'm like,
if they it would have been funny if they had

(01:11:46):
made a serious movie of this, meaning like it actually
has some underlying I know this sounds crazy, about some
underlying lessons on the importance of being a parent and
stuff that were weirdly serious that I think the movie,

(01:12:08):
if you would have stripped of all the ridiculousness, would
have been interesting with Adam Sandler in it, his own
daughters are in it an addiction too, there's a whole
part of addiction. I know it sounds crazy, but you
should watch it and tell me if you don't, if
you feel that or don't watching it.

Speaker 2 (01:12:24):
One of my best friends works in film. I think
I mentioned this years ago once and I have never
seen her look so horrified as when I told her
that I sort of secretly loved Adam sandler movies. It
was like a part of her diede. You know, her
life's work is devoted to these really important films. And
I was like, I like a good old rum com
with Adam Sandler.

Speaker 4 (01:12:44):
She was just like, oh, I've never seen there's no
actor whose movies are so diverse in the sense that
he'll be and like what was that movie about the
diamond dealer guy?

Speaker 1 (01:12:56):
And then he'll be in something so goofy. I mean
that's it for me. Okay, great. If you'd like to
reach the show, please do so at radio at the
Federalist dot com. We'd love to hear from you, and
until next week, you lovers of freedom and anxious for
the fray. My life, my.

Speaker 2 (01:13:16):
Life, my life, my life, and the sunshine.

Speaker 1 (01:13:23):
Everybody loves the sunshine.