05-9-25 - *FULL SHOW* Welcome Home; Rose Pugliese; Construction Defects

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Producer Shannon and I were talking about and Shannon, you
need to make sure that you're properly introduced. And Shannon
and I were just talking a little bit before the
show about the new pope and all, and he had
an idea that I thought was just a fabulous idea,
not least because there's a lot of conversation lately about
the struggles with the budget, the Vatican's budget, and actually

(00:23):
I heard yesterday I haven't researched this myself, but I
heard yesterday in a news broadcast somewhere that an enormous
percentage of the Vatican's operating budget actually comes from entrance
fees to the Sistine Chapel in various museums that they
have there in the Vatican. And there has been a
lot of news I mean, unless you're closely following this stuff,

(00:43):
and for the record, I'm not, but unless you're closely
following this stuff, you probably wouldn't have really heard a
lot of this stuff about the Vatican's budget being in
real trouble. And so producer Shannon had an idea that
I thought might help.

Speaker 2 (00:56):
With all of this.

Speaker 3 (00:57):
Producer Shannon, not.

Speaker 4 (01:01):
That that's the best, it's welcoming Pope Leo the fourteenth
to the that's a balcony, but there's a specific word
for it.

Speaker 3 (01:12):
Logia.

Speaker 1 (01:13):
Is that it that's the speech he gives. Right, Oh,
I don't know. Okay, maybe it's logia.

Speaker 3 (01:19):
Losi is what he was standing at. I thought so, but.

Speaker 1 (01:22):
I could be yeah, lojia a gallery or room with
one or more open sides, especially one that forms part
of a house and has one side open to the garden,
or an open sided extension.

Speaker 3 (01:35):
To a house, or a fantastic actor. There you go,
Robert Robert Losa.

Speaker 1 (01:41):
Uh So this came up, Shannon, your your idea came.

Speaker 3 (01:46):
Up in the as a as a follow on.

Speaker 1 (01:49):
To one of us mentioning that the new Pope, when
he was still called Bob, is a Chicago White Sox fan.

Speaker 4 (01:59):
Right, And I had had this idea with Pope Benedict
because I thought the name would certainly work if you
could imagine Benedict curved around the shoulders of a jersey,
a sports jersey, the back of a jersey, and then
his number at the time, sixteen, as the jersey number.

Speaker 3 (02:16):
So we started talking about is the Pope's Chicago White
Sox jersey?

Speaker 4 (02:21):
Gonna say LEO and then have the Roman numerals fourteen
as the jersey number.

Speaker 3 (02:26):
And I think that would be great.

Speaker 1 (02:28):
And by the way, you know, it's I lived in
Chicago for a long time and it's difficult for me
to be okay with White Sox fans. That's a whole
different world down there. It's almost like a different state.
And I'm a Cubs fan, as you know. If I
have to be a you know, a Chicago baseball fan,
it's definitely I've been to a White Sox game, but

(02:49):
I've been to a lot of Cubs games, and I'm
more of a North Side guy.

Speaker 3 (02:52):
But what are you gonna do?

Speaker 1 (02:53):
So now, was there actually a rumor or a story
or something that the White Sox are sending him a
jersey or was actually absolutely are they are? They are
sending him a jerseys and we don't know right now
whether the number on it will be in Roman numerals
or say or say fourteen. They should do it in
Roman numerals, and I bet that would look great. Now

(03:15):
you had an idea, though you were taking it a
step further to what the new pope might be able
to do, you know, going further with this concept, and
then I said, like, this could really help the Vatican's
budget if they took up your idea.

Speaker 4 (03:29):
Well, I thought about it during Benedict because the long
name and the Roman numerals I thought would look fantastic
on a soccer jersey or any other number of sports,
but particularly for South American Catholics. A soccer jersey in
the colors of the Swiss Guard, that is his official guard,

(03:53):
that mustard yellow and royal purple. And then in the
case of Leo the fourteenth, I pulled up his family
crest or his papal crest, pardon me, and that could
be on the front of the jersey and his name
and the Roman numerals fourteen on the back.

Speaker 3 (04:09):
I think we could fix the Vatican budget. There you go.

Speaker 1 (04:13):
The iconic ceremonial uniform of the Swiss Guard features the
colors red blue, so it's a very dark blue that
almost looks like purple and yellow, and like you said,
it's a mustardy kind of yellow.

Speaker 3 (04:25):
And those are cool colors.

Speaker 1 (04:26):
And they are very I mean, I don't know if
it's because of the Swiss Guard or just because of
the way our brains work, but they do feel like
colors you would associate with royalty, even though you know
on the Swiss guards they also look a little bit
like something you might see at the circus, but it
would be the royal circus, right, it would be anyway.

Speaker 3 (04:47):
I think that's a fabulous idea.

Speaker 1 (04:50):
I think the Vatican should license jerseys in either in
those colors, two different jerseys, those ones and white sox. Right,
and you could sell these soccer jerseys all over Europe,
but especially South America and Africa, especially South America.

Speaker 3 (05:11):
Ago.

Speaker 1 (05:11):
This guy is a dual citizen with US and Peru,
and and imagine how much money. And I'm this is
I'm really not joking, right, I'm really not joking. And
I don't I don't know if this would be somehow
considered inappropriate, but I don't. I don't know why it
would be. It's not it's not making fun of anybody.

(05:32):
It's not it's not blasphemous, it's not. And it's it's
a it's a celebration.

Speaker 3 (05:38):
It's pretty cool.

Speaker 1 (05:39):
It's spreading his name, is getting people to think about
the pope. I think it's I think it's a great idea,
very very well done, Shannon, And there are.

Speaker 4 (05:47):
Too many jerseys with crosses on it, so I think
that could help.

Speaker 1 (05:51):
You know, what, do I have time for this. I'm
gonna do one real quick, nerdy thing here. So this
new pope, he took the name Leo. He's Leo the fourteenth,
and he probably took that from Leo because he wanted
to emulate Leo the thirteenth, was a very interesting guy
and arguably one of the most interesting popes of the
last century or so. And I want to and uh,

(06:12):
you know, I'm not gonna have time to give this justice,
so let me just set it up and then and
then I'll share this next thing with you in the
in the next segment of the show, and it'll it'll
be brief. But I was reading yesterday a little bit
of history about the first Pope Leo and he was
trying to remember what year, but like in the in
the four hundreds, I think. And he's one of only

(06:36):
three popes who since then has had the title of
the Great added to his name. So Pope Leo the
First is sometimes called Pope Leo the Great. And there's
an incredible story about the original Pope Leo that I
was reading about, just because the.

Speaker 3 (06:52):
New guy is Pope Leo.

Speaker 1 (06:55):
And then it turns out I'm reading a book and
I'll have the author on the show at some point
about some of the most important battles that shaped that
shaped history. And it turns out that Pope Leo is
mentioned in one of these stories, and I ended up
getting to that. I didn't know he was going to

(07:16):
be mentioned. I ended up getting to that part of
the book last night when I picked up the book
to start reading it pure coincidence. I ended up reading
about Pope Leo in a book. I was the first
pop Leo in a book I was already reading. And
this is a fabulous story and I'm going to share
it with you after this Ross if he's considered a
good pope though White Sox might retire the number XIV.

(07:39):
Actually yeah, and who knows, they might, they might. I
like it there there is just it's a great idea.
I want to share with you this little bit of history.
So as I, as I mentioned before that last break,
I've been reading a book. I'm halfway through the book
about famous battles and it's you know, starts with Alexander
the Great and goes up to modern battles, and one

(08:02):
of them relates to Attila the Hun and the very
first Pope, Leo. Leo the First, sometimes called Leo the Great,
figures in this story.

Speaker 3 (08:11):
And it was a crazy.

Speaker 1 (08:12):
Coincidence that I just picked up the book yesterday and
stumbled across Leo the First, who I was reading about anyway,
because the new Pope is Pope Leo, and I just
wanted to share this with you.

Speaker 3 (08:21):
And this is.

Speaker 1 (08:22):
From Okay, so I don't remember what year we're talking
about here. I'll try to look it up, but I
think it's I think it was in the four hundreds.
Here Pope Leo meets Attila the Hun. Let me see
if four fifty two, okay, four fifty two. So Attila

(08:43):
the Hun was rampaging through Europe and had gotten to
Italy and was starting on Italy. And I'm just going
to share this little story with you. This is from
a book called Readings in European History, Volume one. This
is not the book I'm reading. This is a longer
quote from another book by a guy named James Robinson,
who translates what is described as witness testimony to the

(09:08):
meeting between Leo and Attila the Hun in what in
history has become known as the meeting of Wills, right
like two people with very strong wills. Attila, the leader
of the Huns, who was called the scourge of God,
came into Italy inflamed with fury, after he had laid

(09:29):
waste with most savage frenzy Thrace and Illyricum, Macedonia and Moesia,
Akeia and Greece, Pannonia and Germany. He was utterly cruel
in inflicting torture, greedy and plundering, insolent in abuse. Then
Leo had compassion on the calamity of Italy and Rome,

(09:50):
and with one of the count consuls.

Speaker 3 (09:53):
So a consul is a high political position in Rome.

Speaker 1 (09:56):
One of the consuls and a large part of the
Roman Senate went to meet Attila, the old man of
harmless simplicity, venerable in his gray hair and his majestic
garb ready of his own will to give himself entirely
for the defense of his flock, went forth to meet
the tyrant who was destroying all things. He met Attila,

(10:17):
it is said, in the neighborhood of the river Mincio,
and he spoke to the grim monarch, saying quote the
Senate and the people of Rome, once conquerors of the world,
now indeed vanquished, come before thee as supplicants. We pray
for mercy and deliverance, Oh Attila, Thou king of kings,
Thou couldst have no greater glory than to see suppliant

(10:39):
at thy feet, this people, before whom wants all peoples
and kings lay suppliant. Thou hast subdued, Oh Attila, the
whole circle of the lands, which it was granted to
the Romans, victors over all peoples to conquer. Now we
pray that thou, who hast conquered others, shouldst conquer thyself.

(10:59):
The people have felt thy scourge. Now as suppliants, they
would feel thy mercy. As Leo said these things, Attila stood,
looking upon his venerable garb and aspect, silent, as if
thinking deeply and lo Suddenly there were seen the apostles
Peter and Paul, clad like bishops, standing.

Speaker 3 (11:19):
By Leo, the one on the right, the other on
the left.

Speaker 1 (11:21):
They held swords stretched out over his head and threatened
Attila with death if he did not obey the pope's command.
Wherefore Attila was appeased, he who had raged as one
mad he by Leo's intercession straightway promised a lasting peace
and withdrew beyond the Danube. That's a fabulous story. How

(11:44):
would you like to be able to pick a name
and name yourself partly after that?

Speaker 3 (11:48):
Dude?

Speaker 1 (11:49):
And I so there's I'm gonna do just thirty seconds
on this. There's been some chatter about the Pope in politics.
The Pope before he was Pope, had sent out a
tweet saying that JD. Vance had said something wrong about
the Catholic faith. And you've got some hardcore Maga people

(12:10):
who don't like the Pope because they think he's too
soft on immigration, and it's all it's all very stupid.

Speaker 3 (12:15):
Really, it's very very stupid. But one does wonder.

Speaker 1 (12:19):
To the to the extent that the first Pope, Leo
had to use logic persuasion to talk down this most
aggressive person in the world at the time, one wonders
if Donald Trump is this Pope Leo's Attila. The Hunt

(12:41):
very pleased to welcome back to the show. Doctor Matthew Wielecki,
who is Matthew is a earth science professor in exile
PhD in Earth Science from UCLA and used to teach
this stuff and then realized that it wasn't a yet
too far if he was insistent on actually looking at

(13:02):
data and telling the truth and which which is a
hell of a comment about the academic environment right now.
So he's got a fabulous substack called Irrational Fear. So
Irrationalfear dot substack dot com. You should go, you should subscribe.
I'm a subscriber and do that. So Matt's got a

(13:23):
couple of recent posts that I think are much worth
talking about. And so, first of all, good morning, thanks
for thanks for being back on the show. It's good
to see you.

Speaker 5 (13:33):
Marie Ross, thanks for having me.

Speaker 1 (13:35):
So let's start with the one you did several days ago,
you know, a little less than a week ago, the
CEA level lie exposed. And this has always been a
thing that bothered me, the claims that all these low
lying islands we're going to disappear and all this stuff,
especially when okay, this.

Speaker 3 (13:54):
Here, here's what it reminds me of. Here's what it
reminds me of, Matt.

Speaker 1 (13:57):
There's a famous phrase attribute it did to Yogi Bera,
and everything is attributed to either Yogi Berra or Winston
Churchill or Thomas Jefferson right, those three guys said everything
that's ever worth hearing. But in theory, there's no difference
between theory and practice, But in practice there.

Speaker 5 (14:17):
Is that that's very true. That is very true. That
is that sums up climate science in a nutshell.

Speaker 3 (14:24):
So let's talk about the sea level thing.

Speaker 1 (14:26):
And you can either start start wherever you want, but
I do want to get to this idea that like,
why haven't these islands disappeared already given what we've been told?

Speaker 6 (14:35):
Yeah, So I mean that the way the IPC s
cells it, it's very simple. Right, the surface of the
planet is warming, and thus the poles are going to
be melting because we have what's called polar amplification, so
they warm even faster than the other.

Speaker 5 (14:47):
Areas, and so they're going to rapidly lose ice.

Speaker 6 (14:51):
That's where a large majority of the freshwater and ice
is stored. And so they're going to raise sea levels dramatically.
And the you know, the New York Post has as
an article that says New York will experience thirteen inches
of sea level rise. And it's a very nice little story.
It's very simple. It makes sense.

Speaker 5 (15:09):
You know.

Speaker 6 (15:10):
I take ice out and put it out in the
sun and it melts, and that makes sense. But when
we start to look at the observable data, we get
out of the theory, like we said, and we start
to look at the actual practice the data. What we
can see. There's a new paper that came out from
in China this just last month. It takes a little
time to get translated and everything, but they looked at

(15:30):
satellite data from Antarctica and they've seen abrupt mass gain
over the last four years or so, since about twenty
twenty one, in the time period we've been being told
it's the hottest years in the last one hundred and
twenty thousand, the Arctic is gaining mass and pulling ice
and actually lowering sea levels, and so you know, it
flips the whole narrative on its head. It's this little

(15:52):
simplistic story is clearly not how the planet is operating, all.

Speaker 1 (15:56):
Right, And since I'm a nerd and I've been studying
this stuff a lot as well as you, but more
than the average person, tell listeners how significant as a
percentage of a global total of sea ice or ice mass,
Antarctica is.

Speaker 6 (16:14):
It holds by far the vast majority of the fresh
water and the possibility of sea level rise. Greenland is
a much smaller player in this. It's Antarctica that's really
the big player.

Speaker 3 (16:26):
For a couple of different reasons.

Speaker 1 (16:30):
So I think there has been, and I want to
word this very carefully, what looks like a sea level
rise in Manhattan and a couple other places, but it's
not actually a sea level rise.

Speaker 3 (16:42):
So I want to talk about that.

Speaker 1 (16:43):
And then I want to talk about you know, Tuvalu
and some of these islands that have decided to take
the climate grift on themselves and they go to the
UN and say, all you rich countries, you're going to
swamp us with water, so please give us a billion
dollars or you're going to go to hell.

Speaker 3 (16:57):
So talk about both of those things.

Speaker 6 (17:00):
Yeah, So to your first point, So, especially when we're
building along like the east coast of the US, we
call that a passive margin where we're going off the
continental shelf and we're going into the oceanic crust. But
we're doing that without crossing a plate boundary. So we
have soft sediments and we have relatively soft ground, and
the ocean doesn't just stop right where the coastline is.

(17:21):
It actually infiltrates underneath the ground, and so that ground
is relatively soft, and in places like Manhattan, what we're
seeing now is that anywhere from about a third to
two thirds, so well over half.

Speaker 5 (17:35):
Of what we see in the tidal gauges. I trust
the title.

Speaker 6 (17:38):
Gauges the most, and so these are little gauges we
have right along the coastline that are measuring the seas
as they go up and down. One third or two
thirds of that is going to be due to land subsidence,
and that means that we've built these giant structures, skyscrapers,
huge foundations on this relatively soft soil, and so over
time that soil is gently settling down, and that is

(17:58):
what's actually driving what appears to be that's an apparent
sea level rise. The seas aren't nearly changing as much
as we thought. It's actually the ground is changing. Miami
has a big problem with this, Houston has a big
problem with this. Nearly all of our coastal cities have
a big problem with this. And that has nothing to
do with the amount of water in the oceans. That

(18:19):
regardless of the amount of water in the ocean, whether
there's any being contributed from the poles that's the land
actually changing because of the mass. And when we talk
about these islands disappearing, that used to be the Mantra.
I remember seeing one of these island nation presidents standing
in the ankles with a podium that you know, his
land was going to disappear. I think this was the Maldives.

(18:40):
And they just built like a couple of billion dollar airport.

Speaker 5 (18:44):
They're tourism is skyrocketed. The land area in the.

Speaker 6 (18:48):
Of the maldis has increased because they're realizing that the
sedimentation rates change as the sea levels change a little bit.
And they've been also doing some engineering to build these
extra areas where they can build an airport that's just
you know, basically like a brand new island. And so
human intervention can clearly solve a lot of these problems,
and it just seems like the simplistic narrative is falling

(19:10):
apart everywhere.

Speaker 1 (19:11):
And just to one other, just to elaborate on something,
you went by kind of quickly there on the on
these islands.

Speaker 3 (19:17):
In the Pacific.

Speaker 1 (19:18):
Uh, and tell me if I have this wrong, But
my understanding is that what's happening is that the waves
keep bringing what's the word I'm looking for like decomposed coral,
little bits of coral up onto shore and keep making
the shoreline bigger and go further out to sea.

Speaker 3 (19:37):
Right, So you're you're gaining land mass.

Speaker 1 (19:40):
Just with the deposit of of Well, some of those
islands are like a volcanic but some aren't. And even
if they are, they can be built this way. So
sea levels, even if they even if they are rising,
it appears that the new sedimentation, as you put it,
is more than keeping up with it, and actually the
land man is increasing in those places.

Speaker 5 (20:03):
Yeah, that's exactly right.

Speaker 6 (20:04):
The dynamics are much more complicated than we ever thought.
That are simplistic narrative at the beginning, and it seems
to be working in the favor of keeping those land
masses around. And we already had that notion because we
know sea levels have changed dramatically in the past, but
we have very old, relatively small islands. So everybody had
alreadys been kind of scratching their heads, going like, wait,
why didn't these disappear? If the narrative is correct and

(20:27):
a tiny little fraction of sea level rise is going
to wipe these things off the map, why do we
have these older islands when we know sea levels have
fluctuated dramatically in the past, and now we're starting to
get these answers right.

Speaker 1 (20:38):
And it's a grift, right that these islands. They want
our money. They want American politicians to feel guilty about
America becoming what America has become. And it is true
that America is responsible for a lot.

Speaker 3 (20:54):
Of the so called emissions.

Speaker 1 (20:56):
That's because we make a lot of stuff, and by
the way, per unit of output, produce a lot less
emissions than other people because we're a very clean country
and we got nothing to feel guilty for. It's more
of a political rant than a scientific rant. But do
you want to add anything, Yeah.

Speaker 6 (21:10):
I think the incentive for these nations is very clear.
If you say, hey, you know, we're freaked out and
this is going to be a catastrophe, the funds start
pouring in. If you say, hey, I think we can
deal with this, the spigots turn off. And so there's
an incentive clearly on one side, and that's why the
rhetoric keeps getting ramped up.

Speaker 1 (21:28):
Right, And that same incentive exists throughout throughout climate science.
I won't say one hundred percent of climate science, but
I think much more than half of climate science, this
is my personal opinion, is driven by people chasing grants,
chasing income, staying relevant and all that. And like you said, no,
there's no money to be made in saying we're gonna
be okay except for you because you're such an outlier.

(21:51):
But seriously, because I mean, you've quit being a professor
and you're doing the irrational Fear sub stack, and if
you're just joining us folks. Matthew Wilicky is is a
PhD or scientist, and his substack is called Irrational Fear
right Irrational Fear dot.

Speaker 3 (22:08):
Substack dot com.

Speaker 1 (22:11):
I wish you wouldn't be able to make a living
at this in the sense that I wish there weren't
so much information out there that is wrong and a
grift and a lie that people have to seek out
a rare person like you who's offering the actual data.

Speaker 3 (22:28):
Yeah, yeah, I mean, I.

Speaker 5 (22:30):
Agree with you one hundred percent.

Speaker 6 (22:31):
One of my biggest irks in all of this is
the lack of more scientists speaking out, even when it's
their own work that's being essentially bastardized to push propaganda,
and they keep their mouth shut because it's so toxic
right now out there, and if you say one thing right,
they kick you out of the club. And it's just
it's unfortunate that there are more people that because they

(22:54):
do say this stuff behind their backs, and you know
they they'll call me secretly and let me know, but
they won't dare speak out.

Speaker 1 (23:00):
Well, you were smart enough to resign your membership in
the club before they kick you out. Now, there are
a lot of people in climate science who I think are.

Speaker 3 (23:11):
Self serving.

Speaker 1 (23:12):
I don't necessarily think they're bad people, but there is
a guy who is definitely a bad person, and his
name is Michael Mann. And I say that even knowing
that Michael Mann has a habit of people who who
of suing people who say bad things about him.

Speaker 3 (23:27):
But he is a very.

Speaker 1 (23:28):
Bad person who should have been kicked out of the
academy many many years ago for his many, many lies,
and he is a big part of promulgating what Well.
You've got a new substack article entitled exposing Climate Science's
Biggest Lie, and you don't mention Michael mannon here, but
it's really part of the same thing that I'm referring to,

(23:50):
the lie that he promulgates.

Speaker 6 (23:53):
Yeah, this is essentially reconstructing past climate. So Michael Mann's
very famous for creating what was known as the hockey
S graph that essentially showed a stable climate for a
few thousand years. That's the handle and then the blade
right shoots straight up very quickly over a very short
time period.

Speaker 3 (24:10):
Argue that backwards the blade.

Speaker 1 (24:12):
The blade is the flat part, and yeah, and the
handle is the straight up part.

Speaker 5 (24:16):
Oh yeah, there you go, right, yeah, and then uh.

Speaker 6 (24:19):
And then and and that's what I PCC essentially took, right,
and that's what they ran with, And that's the whole argument,
the basis for the argument that what we're experiencing now
is unprecedented and it's unnatural and we have to do
some drastic actions. And the I was, I keep seeing
a graphic that keeps popping up when I when I
have these discussions, and it's about this little tiny what

(24:40):
they call a safe climate zone. And this is all
coming and comes back to this Microman graph that there's
this just one flat line where because human civilization is
so young, we're only you know, we've only had agriculture
for a few thousand years. Climate changes on much larger
time skills that somehow the climate must remain in that
exact little one degree they claim a one degree celsius

(25:02):
a band.

Speaker 5 (25:03):
And that's just absurd.

Speaker 6 (25:04):
I mean, humans live in Siberia, they live along the equator.
We're so adaptable as a species. The daily change that
we experience in the morning when the sun rises is
ten times that one's degree safe zone. It's it's such
an absurd metric to claim that we have to somehow
keep the planet that that varies by tens of degrees

(25:25):
on the order of hundreds of thousands of years in
one degree zone in order to survive. And it's just
I mean, it's a completely absurd argument.

Speaker 3 (25:35):
Why Why is an argument?

Speaker 1 (25:38):
Why is an argument that is so transparently absurd so
accepted by let's say, the UN and other and other folks.

Speaker 3 (25:48):
I mean, does it go beyond the grift?

Speaker 6 (25:51):
No, it's money. It's simple, it's very simple to measure.
It's a it's it's a well, it's very difficult to measure,
but it's a simple metric to kind of compute. They've
essentially calculated there's no real global temperature than anybody measures.

Speaker 5 (26:04):
They measure a few little areas.

Speaker 6 (26:05):
They have satellites now as well, but there's a lot
of extrapolation in between.

Speaker 5 (26:09):
So it's essentially a calculated metric. But it's simple.

Speaker 6 (26:11):
It's simple for people to understand, and it's simple for
them to put thresholds on to say that when we
cross this threshold, we need more money. When we cross
this next threshold, we need more money. When we cross
this next threshold, you've got to give us all the
money because it's an existential threat now and just pour
it into our coffers, because we're going to be the solution.

Speaker 1 (26:32):
And that ties in perfectly to the title of doctor
Matthew Willicky's blog, Irrational Fear. And those people who are
saying the stuff that Matthew just described, they're not actually afraid.
They know, or at least they guess that they're lying,

(26:52):
but they're trying to instill an irrational fear in all of.

Speaker 3 (26:56):
Us so that we give them our money.

Speaker 1 (27:00):
Everybody, go to a rational fear dot substack dot com
and subscribe. Matt Thanks for being here always great, Thanks Ross,
all right, we'll see you okay. Fabulous. And it's a
huge topic. It's a topic that's not going to go away,
but I do like reminding listeners from time to time
that you are being lied to by all of the

(27:20):
climate alarmists and it's all about money.

Speaker 3 (27:22):
Okay, it is that simple. It really is that simple.

Speaker 1 (27:26):
All right, let me do a couple of other quick
stories with you. Here's a story that makes me reasonably happy. Actually, So,
there was a guy who was named Ed Martin who
was named by Donald Trump as the US Attorney for
the District of Columbia. And he is a very maga
Trump supporting kind of guy. You know, President can name
whom he wants, but this is a law enforcement job

(27:48):
for Washington, DC, and this guy was kind of repeatedly
publicly siding with the January sixth rioters. And a moderate
Republican senator who was on the Judiciary Committee said, I'm
not going to vote for this guy, Like maybe I
would if you weren't in DC, but I cannot have
a guy who is, you know, inciding with the January

(28:12):
sixth people as the as the US attorney in DC.

Speaker 3 (28:17):
And there were there.

Speaker 1 (28:17):
Other aspects of Ed Martin that were kind of objectionable,
but again, generally a president should get we once, but
he wasn't going to get at this time. And so
they withdrew him, and the new nominee is is Judge
Janine Piro from Fox News.

Speaker 3 (28:33):
And I'm happy.

Speaker 1 (28:35):
About that because she's one of my least favorite people
on Fox News. And I'll be glad to not see
her there anymore, at least for a while. I'm sorry
if that doesn't sound very nice. I just don't enjoy watching.

Speaker 3 (28:44):
Her at all.

Speaker 1 (28:45):
And I don't know what it is exactly. Maybe it's
her style, maybe it's what she says. But I actually
do think she'd be pretty good at that job. I
and you know what, I think she'd be way better
at that job than Ed Martin, right, and Ed Martin had.

Speaker 3 (28:59):
Never prosecuted a case. Janeine Pierro.

Speaker 1 (29:02):
I don't know if she was ever a prosecutor, but
she was a judge in criminal cases, maybe civil cases
as well.

Speaker 3 (29:06):
I don't know her whole history.

Speaker 1 (29:08):
But I actually, you know, separate from the non sarcasm,
I mean it when I say I'll be glad not
to see her there anymore. But I actually think she's
a fine pick for the job. I think she's a
So we'll see, you know. Donald Trump says Janine is
incredibly well qualified for this position and is considered one
of the top district attorneys in the history of the
state of New York.

Speaker 3 (29:28):
She's in a class by herself.

Speaker 1 (29:30):
So that's a very trumpy statement that the latter part
might not be true, But the first part I think
is true.

Speaker 3 (29:35):
She probably is well qualified.

Speaker 1 (29:37):
So what we'll have to see is whether she can
get Senate approval because Ed Martin had to be pulled
because he couldn't get Senate approval because the Senate Judiciary
Committee there's only a one vote Republican majority. And if
you assume that all the Democrats will vote against a
nominee at least in some situations, not every time, but
some of the times, then if they lose even one

(29:59):
Republican and then that nominee will not get reported out
of committee and will not become the permanent job, and
we'll not get the permanent job. All right, So there's that.
Here's the other story I wanted to share with you briefly.
This is kind of interesting. From the Denver Gazette. Denver
is considering an amendment to the city Code to regulate
scrap metal sales, mirroring its current rules for sales of

(30:21):
use catalytic converters again Denver.

Speaker 3 (30:23):
Gazette dot com.

Speaker 1 (30:24):
The proposed amendment would require junk dealers to meet additional
requirements before accepting or purchasing scrap metal.

Speaker 3 (30:32):
And the reason for this is, of course, that there is.

Speaker 1 (30:36):
An immense amount of theft of scrap metal, not just
catalytic converters.

Speaker 3 (30:41):
People, you know, the these thieves are.

Speaker 1 (30:43):
Going into businesses, going into construction sites in particular, going
into houses where they can, going into government buildings, going
into schools, and stealing metal, especially copper.

Speaker 3 (30:54):
All right, Copper is a main thing that they're stealing.

Speaker 1 (30:59):
Some folks stole a bunch of copper from from RTD
October of last year, coused more than one hundred thousand
dollars in damage for probably one thousand dollars in copper. Now,
under current state law, a transaction of three hundred dollars
or less can be done in cash. The city council

(31:19):
is now looking to say that you cannot have small
scrap metal purchases for cash. So we will see how
that how that goes. This doesn't include coins, it doesn't
include precious metals, It doesn't include recyclable like soda cans
and anything like that. But what they define scrap metal
a metal obtained by demolishing, disassembling, or cutting from its

(31:43):
intended use, and includes copper, copper alloys, bronze, brass, and aluminum.
So in any case, you won't be surprised that there
are a couple of you know, scrap metal places that
don't like this very much. They quote a guy named
Ben Rosen who says that a ban on cash transactions
for scrap metal what hurt some of his customers who
rely heavily on the ability to sell scrap You know,

(32:05):
you can infer what you want from that. They quote
a lady from the Cellular Telephone Industry Association. Well, I
don't quote her, but they say that the association supports
the amended ordinance, noting that they have had about four
thousand incidents of the theft of copper nationwide. So we'll see
how it plays out. It's not done yet, but I

(32:26):
just wanted to be aware of it. Not that most
of you are out there selling scrap metal, but I
thought you'd find it interesting.

Speaker 3 (32:32):
Mike Berg, when we come back, I'm Ross and I'll.

Speaker 1 (32:35):
Say one quick comment and I'm going to jump in
with my guest, one of the things that I have
long enjoyed when I get into conversations or debates with lawyers,
and I mean with with real lawyers, with good lawyers,
is that they never take it personally. And I love
that you can you can have a debate with a

(32:56):
lawyer about something and just be completely on opposite sides
of something and then just go get a beer and
talk about, you know, how the Avalanche shouldn't.

Speaker 3 (33:05):
Have lost that game.

Speaker 1 (33:06):
And I've always appreciated that And one guy who surely
embodies that is Mike Berg, founding partner shareholder in the
Burg Simpson Law Firm, of course. And it's interesting because
you know, I love that Burg Simpson is a partner
for this show, and many of you don't know that

(33:27):
when Mike and I talk privately, we probably disagree about
a third of the time, and I'm never worried about it,
cause it's just it's about ideas. So with that long introduction,
we're going to talk about some legislation.

Speaker 3 (33:40):
So first, Mike, good morning, and thanks for being here.

Speaker 7 (33:44):
Hed, Good morning, Russ. We can agree the EB shouldn't have.

Speaker 8 (33:46):
Lost that game for sure, exactly right.

Speaker 3 (33:50):
So I've got a headline here.

Speaker 1 (33:51):
I'll just share the headline, and I want to open
it up to you to explain to my listeners what
we need to know. Here's the headline, Colorado Construction Defects
Reform Bill reaches Governor's desk, aims to boost affordable housing.

Speaker 3 (34:05):
So I realize you have an opinion.

Speaker 1 (34:07):
You can describe this however you want to, and if
I find any bias in your description, I will challenge that.

Speaker 3 (34:15):
Great.

Speaker 8 (34:16):
So, first of all, I think this bill.

Speaker 7 (34:19):
Is pretty draconian and really does not take the affordable
housing issue. The affordable housing issue is very complicated and
it's not a result of construction defect the builders they've
come with that theory. And the problem is is I represent,

(34:40):
as you know and had for years, Richmond American and
other developers and builders, and if you build it right,
then there's not an issue. Unfortunately, there are builders out
there that don't build it right. And when someone pays,
you know, for their probably their biggest purchase ever for

(35:01):
a home, and it's not built right and it's got defects,
they should be.

Speaker 8 (35:05):
Able to have a remedy.

Speaker 7 (35:08):
More specifically, in terms of the bill, it really doesn't
stop construction defect litigation, but it does slow it down,
and it makes it more expensive, which I don't think
is in the best interest of the.

Speaker 8 (35:25):
Consumers and the homeowners. And so this bill itself. For example,
now in a homer association or a condo association, you
now have to.

Speaker 7 (35:36):
Have sixty five percent that approved rather than fifty percent. Well,
that is going to take more time to get that
kind of approval. And one of the issues and I
don't want to keep going on and on because I
want you to be able to counter it or whatever,
but one of the problems you have is that when
you have a significant construction defect in a condo project,

(35:59):
that's consider listen through all the condos or through the
homeowners' association, all the homeowners have a problem with her.
If it's a soil problem and now you've you've got
heaving and.

Speaker 8 (36:10):
All kinds of other problems. Is that the reality is
that it's.

Speaker 7 (36:17):
Going to take more time to get that kind.

Speaker 8 (36:20):
Of sixty five percent. And the builders.

Speaker 7 (36:23):
Say, oh my god, if you sue, then you're going
to have to reveal if you want to sell your
home that it has this defect.

Speaker 8 (36:32):
Well, of course you would, that's what's required.

Speaker 7 (36:35):
But if you don't fix the defect.

Speaker 8 (36:37):
Then you're stuck with a defective home. And so I
could go through more details, right, so build it.

Speaker 9 (36:43):
I think, yeah, the problem but all right, so part
of my focus on this has long been actually the
the condominium market, right and and sort of.

Speaker 1 (36:57):
Denver famously has had a shortage of condominiums and for
real estate that looks like that they've been apartments rather
than condominiums. And a lot of people have said here
on the show and elsewhere that a primary reason that
condominium builders will not build what we might call affordable

(37:19):
condominiums is because of construction defect risk and because of
the cost of the insurance to deal with the possibility
that there might be a lawsuit. Let's say, from you now,
I mean you represent on the other side, you represent large,
high quality firms that are many of which are building

(37:41):
single family homes. I want to focus on the condo
thing for a minute, because I think that's a legit argument,
a legit problem with the construction defects, and the bill
seems to limit in a way that I approve of
what you can sue for the summary of the bill
says you can sue for damage that's substantially affects the
functionality of a system or the safety of real or

(38:04):
general property, and uh, and it goes on, it goes
on from there. But I think those kinds of limitations
are are legit, and there are not every lawyer has
your scruples either.

Speaker 3 (38:16):
There are lawyers who will just sue for anything.

Speaker 7 (38:21):
Right And let me let me first deal with the
first part, which is, I agree with you there is
a problem. But to me, what we ought to do
is pass the law for the insurance industry to come
clean with their argument that it becomes too expensive to
ensure these projects, these pandel projects. Because right now, uh,

(38:41):
you know, insurance companies they're they're able to and and
people who.

Speaker 8 (38:45):
Have had claims understand this is that they're going to.

Speaker 7 (38:48):
Go ahead and increase the premiums that are going to
be charged back to the consumer. They they're not going
to take that lawsos. But I'd like to know what
what the what the profit margin is? You know, if
we have that as a law, that they had to
actually come clean with it. So that's the first issue.
The second issue is that language you just read, what

(39:11):
does that really mean? How is that going to be interpreted?
What if you have a landscape that is done improperly
and the water is now coming into your basement and
you've got flooding in your development. Or what we see
in Florida, where we do a lot of construction defect
is that they haven't waterproof the curtain. So when you

(39:32):
get a big rain, it comes through the windows, it
goes through the curtain, and now everyone's got you know,
water into.

Speaker 8 (39:41):
Their condos open. It's not it's not steals right, the
curtain's not right.

Speaker 7 (39:50):
So I'm just telling you that those are the things
we see. And now the question is forget to about
that example. But what is from a legal standpoint, going
to to meet the the that law that passed, which

(40:11):
they haven't defined what that really means. What kind of
defects are the ones that impact there are an.

Speaker 1 (40:21):
Ability to live or I guess folks like you will
be the ones to test that in in court cases
that end up perhaps setting the precedents that set some
of these definitions. Right, I've only got I've only got
a few seconds left. I suppose Mike that well, at
this point, I don't know if the governor has signed it,
but he's definitely going to sign it. And and and

(40:46):
I guess we'll just see how it how it plays out,
and maybe I'm a little too optimistic and maybe you're
a little too pessimistic.

Speaker 7 (40:54):
Could be, but I also will see whether they actually
build more condos as yeah, this I think. I have
my doubts, but I appreciate getting on and being able
to at least give us some of my opinions and
we'll see what happens in the future.

Speaker 1 (41:11):
You're always welcome on the show when you have opinions
about things that are in the news, Mike, that relate
to your business rather and things you know about better
than almost anybody else. So, Mike Berg is a shareholder
at Burg Simpson Burgsimpson dot com. You hear me talk
about them frequently on the show. But that's not actually
why Mike's here. He's here as a as a true

(41:32):
expert on this subject. Thanks for your time, Mike, always
appreciate it.

Speaker 3 (41:37):
Thank you.

Speaker 7 (41:37):
Ross.

Speaker 1 (41:38):
We'll take a quick break. We'll be right back on Kowa.
You ready, Dragon Sure, am one two three? Happy birthday
justin there you go. Got a text from a listener saying, Ross,
Happy Friday. Can I get a happy birthday? Justin Of
course you can well, is he justin or is he wishing? Yeah,

(41:58):
I don't know. Are you justin or are you shilling
for justin? We would like to know. Text us back
and let us know. And by the way, if you've
got a birthday anytime, let us know. We're happy to
say happy birthday or a happy birthday to your wife
or your husband, or your boyfriend or your kid or whoever.

Speaker 10 (42:18):
You just don't ask either of us to sing yeah,
that's right, you don't want that.

Speaker 1 (42:21):
That's a whole bunch of listeners texted in about construction
defect stuff. And I think Mike Berg is. Look, that's
part of the reason I wanted to have him on
because he and I always disagree on this issue always,
and I think that the lawyers who sue over construction
defects sometimes they're right. But I think there are a

(42:44):
lot of lawyers, and I am not saying that Mike
Berg is one of them, because he and I often
talk about cases that he doesn't take because he doesn't
think they're legit. But there are lawyers out there who
will use whatever the law is, crappy lawyers who have
a hard time making a living on anything else, and
they'll go try to do this stuff, like think about
the lawyers.

Speaker 3 (43:03):
How about this.

Speaker 1 (43:03):
There's another example of stuff that Mike Burg does not do,
but a lot of lawyers do. They'll go around and
they'll send customers in wheelchairs into restaurants to look for
even the smallest violation of the Americans with Disabilities act,
like a ramp.

Speaker 3 (43:19):
That has something that's just a little bit wrong.

Speaker 1 (43:22):
And then they go to the restaurant and they threaten
to sue the restaurant unless the restaurant pays a settlement,
you know, and I'll you know, pay us ten thousand
dollars and.

Speaker 3 (43:31):
Will go away.

Speaker 1 (43:32):
And then they send the person in the wheelchair to
the next place, and there are oh, happy.

Speaker 3 (43:38):
Birthday, Kathy. It's Kathy's birthday too. Oh Dragon, check this out.
You know whose birthday it is today?

Speaker 1 (43:45):
Justin's Justin's Kathy's.

Speaker 3 (43:48):
Oh that was Justin.

Speaker 1 (43:50):
And check this out my sister, So happy birthdays. She's
not listening right now, Happy birthday, sister. And day a Parina.
Should we say happy birthday to Daana?

Speaker 8 (44:02):
Sure?

Speaker 3 (44:03):
All right on three and let's do this all together.

Speaker 1 (44:05):
All thousands of folks listening to us right now on
the count of three.

Speaker 3 (44:11):
Let's all wish Dana Perino a happy birthday.

Speaker 1 (44:13):
We all say happy birthday, Data on the count on
the count of three, are you ready? One, two, three,
Happy birthday Dana.

Speaker 3 (44:22):
There you go, all right, Dragon send me that, We'll
send it to Data. Sure. Okay. So there's there's there's
all that.

Speaker 1 (44:29):
So the listeners who are texting in about construction defects ROSS,
even the low volume custom builders I work with, cannot
build smaller homes because their insurance companies will not cover them.
This is also the reason there are no small starter homes,
just large custom homes ROSS. I used to work in
construction defect litigation and repair.

Speaker 3 (44:49):
I'm not going to name a firm, but.

Speaker 1 (44:52):
A particular company was across the table from us. A
lot all the volume builders put out lousy products.

Speaker 3 (45:00):
I look, I don't.

Speaker 1 (45:00):
I don't know if that's true because I'm not in
that industry, but I can imagine that if you're building
thousands and thousands of something as fast as you can,
you may not pay quite as much attention to all
the small details as the as you as you might. Otherwise,
listener text, I feel like I just tuned into romper room.

Speaker 3 (45:22):
Wow.

Speaker 1 (45:22):
I haven't heard that. I haven't heard romper room in
a heck of a long time. That's a good call.
That's do you remember romper room?

Speaker 2 (45:30):
Where you've been the texture?

Speaker 1 (45:32):
This is?

Speaker 10 (45:32):
This is part of the course. Yeah, semi professional radio
on the Roskaminski Show.

Speaker 1 (45:36):
Absolutely, I mean, just to be clear, whoever said it
sounds like romper room, Dragon and I both take that
as one of the biggest compliments we've gotten in a
long time. Correct, all right, One very quick thing I
want to share with you. May remember two weeks ago
there was a lot of chaos at Newark Airport, which
is actually called Newark Liberty Airport because the air traffic

(45:56):
control facilities that control that airport, which are actually in Philadelphia,
stopped working for a while. And I guess actually they
were just talking I think with Secretary of Transportation Sean
Duffy on Fox News and he was saying, the technology
that is controlling this stuff is fifty years old. Can
you imagine fifty years old, like floppy disks in stuff. Anyway,

(46:18):
what I wanted you to know is it happened again
this morning.

Speaker 3 (46:21):
It didn't cause as much trouble.

Speaker 1 (46:23):
Because it happened a little bit before four am, and
there's not as much stuff in the air at that time.
But it was a little before four am and only
lasted about ninety seconds.

Speaker 3 (46:32):
But it happened again, and the Secretary of Transportation.

Speaker 1 (46:35):
You know, he's got this is almost crisis. When we
come back, Rose Puglisi is the House Minority leader, she
is the leader of Republicans in the Colorado State House
of Representatives. She's going to join us to give us
a summary of the good, the bad, and the ugly
in this year's the legislative session. There was a lot
more of the last two than the first one being

(46:57):
hyperbolic or zadray or whatever.

Speaker 3 (47:01):
When I tell you.

Speaker 1 (47:03):
That, when I think about what goes on at the
state legislature, and this has been true for quite a
few years now, my mindset is not what are they
doing for us? My mindset is what are they doing
to us? And this is what happens when you have
one party control of a state, and especially a party

(47:23):
that is much less interested in freedom, or at least
certain kinds of freedom than the other party.

Speaker 3 (47:30):
And so as we watched that legislative.

Speaker 1 (47:33):
Session go through, it was just one moment after another
where I wanted to bang my head into a brick wall.
And I actually have quite a few friends in the
state legislature, including my next guest, and I actually, you know, Republicans.
I have a couple Democrat friends too, but I just
for my Republican friends, I feel a little bad.

Speaker 3 (47:52):
And I'm not being sarcastic.

Speaker 1 (47:54):
I mean, go in there every day doing the best
they can to try to stop all this terrible stuff.
And every once in a while there's a good bipartisan thing,
but not that much of that lately, and thank thank goodness,
or with the new pope.

Speaker 3 (48:06):
Now maybe I'll say thank god that there's that.

Speaker 1 (48:10):
The legislative session for this year ended a couple of
days ago, so joining us to talk about the good,
the bad, and the ugly, and I think there's not
too much of the first category. Is my friend Rose Puglasi,
who is State rep from is it Northern color Northern
Colorado Springs. I always forget Rose, I.

Speaker 3 (48:28):
Get all the days, yes, all right, all right? And
your district number, How's district fourteen? How's District fourteen?

Speaker 1 (48:35):
And Rose is the House Minority leader, which means she
is herding all those cats of the Republican members in
the state House are representative.

Speaker 3 (48:45):
So did I mean, do you feel kind of like
I do?

Speaker 1 (48:49):
Or is that just because I'm in the cheap seats
and people who are really doing this have a much
different view.

Speaker 11 (48:57):
Well, thanks for having me on Ross. Always good to
talk to you and your listeners. You know, I think
there's some good, a lot of bad, and definitely some ugly.
You know, if we could start with the good, I
would say I think the super majority was good. Despite
the bills that have passed through the legislature. Having more
Republican voices at the table is incredibly important, and we

(49:19):
still have our work.

Speaker 3 (49:19):
Ahead of us.

Speaker 11 (49:21):
But I think that was a really good step forward.
And you know, we were able, with all of our
debate against the Taper Resolution and bills that affected the
tax Payer Bill of Rights, that resolution to challenge the
constitutionality of TABER did not come forward, and I credit
that to your Republican voices who were engaging with grassroots activists.

(49:45):
And then thirteen twelve, which was that bill that attacked
parental rights and how we raise our children in accordance
with our values. Because of people like you and our
grassroots network and the people who made their voices heard
and national attention. That bill is very different, still not
a good bill.

Speaker 3 (50:04):
Let's stick with that for a second. Let's stick with
that one for a second.

Speaker 1 (50:07):
So the original version of that bill had a provision
where if there were a kid who and this is
just an example of how it could have played out,
if there were a kid who claimed to be transgender
and wanted to identify as the other gender from the
gender of his or her birth.

Speaker 3 (50:24):
And let's say the parents were maybe.

Speaker 1 (50:27):
Getting divorced, and there's a potential custody issue if there
was a parent who insisted. So let's say it's a
kid named Joe who wants to be called Jill and
the dad insists on calling his kid Joe. A court
would have had to hold that against the dad in
a custody hearing.

Speaker 11 (50:45):
So yes, for the most part, So basically it could
be considered when determining child custody. But we all know
that we want to be able to raise our children
without government and interference, in accordance with our values and
not with a certain ideology that's pushed on us. And
so I think, you know, I am. I work with

(51:06):
some domestic violence survivors and they were incredibly afraid of
the system being used against them and you know in
child custody cases when they're actually trying to protect their children.

Speaker 5 (51:16):
So I think this was a huge issue.

Speaker 3 (51:19):
Was that provision stripped yep.

Speaker 11 (51:22):
So that provision is no longer in the bill. The
family law pieces were taken out, So.

Speaker 3 (51:27):
What does this bill do now?

Speaker 11 (51:31):
So a lot of the pieces that we were concerned about,
and again, thank goodness, thank god, as you would say
to all of the people who engaged. I mean, over
seven hundred people were going to testify in the Senate.
But I think that so the part that's challenging, I
think for us is there's a portion of the bill

(51:53):
that says you can change government documents without a court
order for your gender, so not your name, your gender,
So you can go back and forth to being a
male and female a few times without a court order.
And the concern is from obviously a public safety perspective
that if you can be changing these suppernment documents, you know,
do we actually know who these people are? I think

(52:16):
I think that that's a real concern from a law
enforcement perspective. And the other part is, you know, the
bill changed so dramatically so fast that there was not
a lot of stakeholdering with I don't know our county
clerk who also have government ideas that are issued. So
I think that we really should have just you know,

(52:37):
not been able to push that bill forward and had
more conversations. But at the end of session, that's how
things happen.

Speaker 3 (52:43):
All right, we'll we'll keep going.

Speaker 1 (52:46):
This one is a little bit in the weeds, but
I think it's important and interesting how spilled thirteen fifteen
the modifications to the vacancy committee stuff. Just do it quickly,
but I just want to make sure we get it in.

Speaker 11 (52:59):
Absolutely, and I think there's a lot of misunderstanding about
this bill.

Speaker 3 (53:03):
And this was one of my.

Speaker 11 (53:04):
Bills priority for me based on the conversations I had
had from across the state. Basically, people in certain districts
wanted to be able to vote on vacancies, and so
what this bill did is preserve the current vacancy process,
and to be clear, unaffiliated do not get to vote
in the vacancy process, but basically allow a November off

(53:27):
your election so that you don't have a legislator who's
in there for a year and a half without ever
having been voted in, over eighty eight thousand people had
the opportunity to vote for me. I think it's really
important that they have that opportunity, and especially our military.
I have a big military contingent in my district. You know,
they're not able to participate in a vacancy committee, but

(53:48):
they still want their voice heard on their representation. And
so I know there's a lot of confusion about this
bill that I think it's really important, right.

Speaker 1 (53:56):
So the participation piece is interesting, and I think the
other the part that has gotten the most attention just
sort of by the general public is how is it
that we have so many people in the state legislature
who were not elected and the aims to address that.

Speaker 11 (54:12):
Yeah, I mean, there's one person who was filled by
a nine person vacancy committee, and I'm appreciative of the
vacancy committee. I want to protect that process, in the
grassroots process. But at the same time, the people of
that district should have the opportunity to vote on their representation,
and before this bill they didn't have that opportunity. It
doesn't take effect until twenty twenty seven, so just so

(54:34):
that everybody's aware of that. But I think it's really important.

Speaker 1 (54:38):
All Right, let's see pick another bill that you think
is good, and then maybe we'll talk about the bad
and the ugly a little more.

Speaker 11 (54:48):
You know.

Speaker 3 (54:49):
Uh, that's a hard question, isn't it.

Speaker 11 (54:52):
Well, yeah, we had, you know, a lot of good
bipartisan bills. I'm really proud of the work that my
caucus was able to do. You know, I think focusing
on we've spent a lot of time focusing on affordability
and public safety. I think that there are definitely from
public safety bills that were good, but I think really

(55:15):
just focusing on how the grassroots can continue and to
engage and understand the bills that were past are really important.
You know, the immigration bill that passed, which basically allows
I thought this conversation was really interesting, let's protect the
privacy of those who are not here in our country
legally and from a public safety perspective, I think it

(55:39):
puts us all in a in a very bad place
when it comes to protecting people. And you know, the
governor is really interesting in this respect, and I think
we're going to see this because there could be a
potential special session. But what I think is really important
is to know that the you know, the Department of
Justice has sued the State of Colorado overpassed immigration policies

(56:03):
that have tied the hands of law enforcement being able
to work with federal agencies, especially around you know, illegal immigration.
But what I think is really interesting is that we
are talking about the consistent talks about federal funding being
pulled at the same time we have we're passing legislation

(56:27):
that impedes the federal government from collaborating with Colorado. And
while the governor has said in his state of the
state he wants to work more collaboratively with the federal
government to support those who are in our country not legally,
in our biolent criminals, the policies he's potentially is going
to sign into place as the antithesis of that, right.
And then we saw that four million dollars slush funds

(56:49):
to the governors to facilitate litigation instead of cooperation. And
so I really think that's a huge disservice to the
people of Colorado, And if a special session is called
because of it, I think we're going to have to
continue to engage the grassroots to get our voices heard
on those issues.

Speaker 1 (57:05):
Right, because the governor there's a bill and maybe we'll
talk about it. But there was a there was a
bill that was looking to reform last year's bill that
became law about AI regulations, and that bill, the reforms
didn't make it. And a lot of people are thinking
this is a big enough deal that it might be
worth a special session, and the governor seems to be

(57:26):
hinting like eh, and maybe not enough for a special session.
But if the federal government does some stuff, either with
funding related to immigration or with medicaid funding changes, maybe
I'll have a special session for that.

Speaker 3 (57:39):
So we'll we'll see.

Speaker 11 (57:42):
Yep, I see all of that potentially coming on the
AI front. Not my strongest area of expertise, I'll be
perfectly honest. Rep. Weinberg does all of that for us.
But I think we need to continue to collaborate on
how to protect our kids, but also, you know, make
this a business friendly environment, and I think there is
a middle to be found. It's just it's going to

(58:02):
take a little more time.

Speaker 1 (58:04):
I realized it's a Senate bill, but you guys had
to vote on it. I want your thoughts on Senate
Bill five that would you know, basically let unions take
over a lot more workplaces in this state.

Speaker 11 (58:17):
So you know, we did engage on Center Bill five,
and I'll be honest with you, we met with labor
unions leadership did to really understand their position. We met
with the business community. The governor stud he's going to
veto this bill, and so I guess we, you know,
still need to wait and see what happens there. But

(58:39):
you know, President Trump was able to engage with the unions,
and I think that that's an important step even for
Colorado Republicans to at least have those conversations, even if
we're not there on the policy yet. So I think,
you know, still more to come there.

Speaker 1 (58:53):
I forgot there was something I wanted to mention to you,
just as a little follow up. You were talking about
the the Democrats claiming they want to protect the privacy
of illegal aliens in Colorado, which is just And by
the way, I'm not I'm not an immigration hawk. I
love immigration, immigrants, I want more immigration, I want legal immigration,
I want but I'm not an immigration hawk and I'm
not anti immigrant. That's that's freaking insane. But Rose, I

(59:16):
know you're you know, you're from the Springs and you're
paying attention to state level stuff. So you might not
have heard this thing from the Denver City Council, but
they have a program that takes automatic pictures in certain
places of car license plates as they're driving by, so
they can, you know, find stolen cars and things like that.

Speaker 3 (59:34):
And they there was a measure in front.

Speaker 1 (59:36):
Of the city council to maybe expand that a little bit,
and they decided not to because they were afraid that
the data might be somehow captured by the federal government
and be used to deport illegal aliens.

Speaker 11 (59:53):
I did not hear about that, but I'm not surprised.
I'll be really curious to see the outcome on this
lawsuit the Department of Justice, because Denver is part of
that lawsuits too. They were sued as well for their
immigration policies. So I think there's a lot more to come.
And I'm with you. I'm a first generation American. My
father came over when he was eighteen with.

Speaker 5 (01:00:13):
Fifty cents in his pocket.

Speaker 11 (01:00:14):
To say that Republicans don't support immigration or legal paths
to immigration, I think is an unfair assessment, and we
talked a lot about that on the floor. I think
there has to be a call to Congress to figure
out legal paths to be here in this country. But
in the meantime, we need to protect our communities from
violent criminals who are here both legally and illegally.

Speaker 3 (01:00:36):
We're talking with State Rep.

Speaker 1 (01:00:37):
Rose Puglici, who is the minority leader, meaning she heads
the Republicans in the Colorado State House of Representatives. I've
got just a couple of minutes left, and I'm going to.

Speaker 3 (01:00:48):
Switch gears a little bit.

Speaker 1 (01:00:49):
I would like to ask you to tell us one
or two bills that you think are very important, that
are going to become law, that you think are very important,
but that the public has not heard much about. Right,
we know about the gun bill, we know about the
illegal immigrants stuff, we know about the parenting and transgender stuff.

(01:01:11):
What are some big important things that you think we
might not have heard of?

Speaker 11 (01:01:16):
You know, I don't know if you all. You know
we're tracking the Voting Rights Act. It was gonna bill one.
I believe I have hard time keeping all the numbers
in my head. But this would actually allow the Attorney
General to interfere, in my perspective, with municipal elections, and

(01:01:38):
I think it takes us down a very bad path.
And so We spent a lot of time talking about
that bill. It did pass, and I think we'll go
into law, but I think that that was a bill
that was really concerning to us. Another one, it basically
allows the Attorney general to interfere with municipal elections when

(01:02:01):
there is a claim of some sort of discrimination or
like voter intimidation, which of course nobody wants intimidations in
our elections. And to say that municipal governments are not
already prepared to deal with those issues is I think
really a bad argument. But giving the attorney general and

(01:02:24):
expanding his power, I think is incredibly harmful to our state,
especially when it comes to municipal elections and local control.
So on the other one for county commissioner, that's a
hard one. One I got killed, but I think is
really important is eleven seventy four. That was a reinsurance
bill that also had a component for free healthcare for

(01:02:46):
those who are not here lawfully in our country. And
that one got killed, and I think that was a
huge win for us. The insurance industry was really nervous
about that bill, so that while we're becoming law that
I do think something know that the House Republicans were
able to push back upon and did not make it
through the process, so I think that was a big win. Obviously,

(01:03:08):
the tax per Bill of Rights constitutionality challenge did not
happen as well. I'm really proud of our fights against that.

Speaker 3 (01:03:16):
So there were some wins.

Speaker 11 (01:03:18):
Definitely some wins for the House Republicans, but definitely a
lot of bad bills coming through well.

Speaker 10 (01:03:24):
Rose.

Speaker 1 (01:03:24):
As always, I'm appreciative for you folks who were in
the minority for fighting back as best you can getting
the public on your side, which is the only real
way to, you know, to make politicians change their votes
as people have to show up and testify and all that.
We do our small part here on the radio show,
but you know, you're there having to deal with these

(01:03:46):
people every day, and I don't I'm very grateful for
you know, being you're being willing to suffer the slings
and arrows of having to stand around these you know,
they're not all left wing nuts in the Democratic Party,
but some are, and and I just I can't imagine
doing it every day.

Speaker 11 (01:04:04):
It definitely has its challenges, that's for sure, But I
think the work is important and I think we're all
fighting together. Caucus was really unified, fighting for the cause
and for our conservative values at a state level, and
we just need more of us, so we'll keep working
on that state.

Speaker 3 (01:04:19):
Rep.

Speaker 1 (01:04:19):
Rose Puglici, minority leader in the Colorado State House of Representatives,
fellow graduate of the Leadership program of the Rockies. Thanks
for your time, Rose, Thank you. Ross all right, and
I'm going to be doing more of that kind of thing.
So that was a Republican on the House side. I'm
definitely going to have a Republican on the Senate side
next week.

Speaker 3 (01:04:38):
I'm pretty sure.

Speaker 1 (01:04:39):
I'll see if I can get a Democrat from the
Legislature on the show, and then I'll have the governor
on the show, and we're going to get these different
perspectives from all these all these different folks. I already
did contact the governor's office and asked if he would
come on, and they said sure, we just have to
fit it into the schedule because he's doing this like
bill signing tour, right, so they pass all these bill

(01:05:00):
and sometimes the governor will actually go to different places
in the state and sit down and sign a bill there,
and everybody gets to say hi to the governor. All that,
so you know, we got to work him into the schedule.
But he has agreed to come on to the show
in general, and I and I understand this. Jared is
is reticent to come on my show during the legislative session.

(01:05:20):
He doesn't want to mess up potentially sensitive negotiations on
bills because he knows I'm going to ask him about
the bills that are controversial. So typically I don't get
him on during the session, but I get him on
right after. And we're going to do that again at
some point in the next couple of weeks. All right,
we have an hour left together. But by the way, Dragon,

(01:05:40):
I did get to do a name that tune. Did
you do one as well or not?

Speaker 7 (01:05:44):
Not?

Speaker 3 (01:05:44):
But I can't if you want me to. No, I mean,
if you want to, you're welcome to.

Speaker 1 (01:05:47):
But I've got one se if I got time, all right,
we'll be right back on KOA.

Speaker 3 (01:05:50):
I've got a story for you, Dragon.

Speaker 10 (01:05:52):
Oh no, what go ahead? I saw the blog. I
went to Roskaminsky dot com. Nice, send you a damn story.
I've got a story for you.

Speaker 1 (01:06:03):
We need to share this and this is this is
not so much to make dragons teeth Itch as it
is a form of intervention exposure therapy.

Speaker 3 (01:06:14):
If you will, nah, I've still got my flamethrower.

Speaker 1 (01:06:17):
This is from denverite dot com. I'll just share a
little of the article with you. An untold number got
that dragon? Untold numbers too. Many of miller moths who
have been hatching in the Great Plains will fly into
Denver in the days ahead. As they flutter their way
to the rocky mountains. Oh, I'm all a twitter. Some

(01:06:39):
Denverites will fear them, maybe even kill them.

Speaker 3 (01:06:43):
Others will celebrate their role.

Speaker 1 (01:06:44):
In the ecosystem as nighttime pollinators and delicious snacks for birds, reptiles, bears,
and dragons.

Speaker 2 (01:06:53):
I will celebrate when I kill them.

Speaker 1 (01:06:55):
After hatching from cocoons on crops, Miller moths travel more
than one hundred miles in their few month lifespan.

Speaker 3 (01:07:02):
They follow the light.

Speaker 2 (01:07:03):
Of the moon a few months too long.

Speaker 3 (01:07:05):
In Denver.

Speaker 1 (01:07:06):
They often find themselves smacking in the light bulbs and
dragon's forehead, until they realize their destination is elsewhere, namely
in dragon's trash.

Speaker 3 (01:07:16):
Can not a chance others die here lost in the
big city. Good.

Speaker 1 (01:07:20):
The migration through Denver is likely to start any day
now Dragons, and continue for several weeks. Nope, I said weeks, nope,
not days, weeks Nope.

Speaker 3 (01:07:31):
It's a it's.

Speaker 1 (01:07:32):
Unclear yet how this wave will compare to some in
the past, but some predict it may be the biggest
wave of Miller moths in recent history.

Speaker 2 (01:07:42):
Better not be.

Speaker 1 (01:07:43):
I actually made that last part up about the biggest
wave in recent history. It just said, we don't know
how it will compare. How many will fly into Denver?
What is their survival rate? That depends if they're in
Dragon's house. How is climate change impacting their migration patterns?
That's a stupid question. We don't know. That is a
really stupid question. But these days you got to put

(01:08:04):
climate change into everything. Currently, there's not enough information out
there Dragon to predict how large a migration will be
in any given year.

Speaker 2 (01:08:13):
So I need to buy a bigger flamethrower, is what
you're saying.

Speaker 1 (01:08:15):
Though weather patterns can likely influence it said some dude
at the butterfly pavilions. At the butterfly pavilion. Now, this
is this is important, Dragon, This is you should see
the look on Dragon's face.

Speaker 10 (01:08:28):
Right, quite pure angers, but it's close invertebrates represent ninety
seven percent of all the species on the planet.

Speaker 2 (01:08:36):
We can stand to lose a few. That's a good one.

Speaker 1 (01:08:40):
And they are this is the thing dragon, And again
I'm quoting. It's not my opinion here, this opinion of
an expert. Okay, an expert. And you should always defer
to experts like.

Speaker 3 (01:08:48):
I'm an expert.

Speaker 1 (01:08:49):
Like on the origin of COVID, you're right, and climate change.
You should always defer to experts. And they are often misunderstood,
even feared. There are many challenges in studying them. Garcia,
again from the Butterfly Pavilion, said, they have very short
life cycles. Good, they're very small, and they also fly
all over the place terrifyingly. So another obstacle the Trump

(01:09:12):
administration is slashing federal funding for the sciences, which Garcia
worries will slow down moth research.

Speaker 3 (01:09:19):
So you better don't even bother to find more ways
to kill them.

Speaker 1 (01:09:22):
Don't even bother applying for that job, Dragon, No more
moth research jobs available for you now.

Speaker 3 (01:09:27):
Okay, And here's the thing.

Speaker 1 (01:09:29):
Here's the thing, Dragon, still quoting from Denverright dot com. Moths,
unlike butterflies, are often underappreciated as they should be, in
part because nighttime is stigmatized and they're far less colorful.

Speaker 3 (01:09:47):
That's true.

Speaker 1 (01:09:47):
People people think miller moths will bite, eat their clothes,
and attack pets and.

Speaker 2 (01:09:55):
Children, and they'll pick you up and carry you away.

Speaker 1 (01:09:57):
But mister Garcia says they're com completely harmless. They're just
passing through for a while.

Speaker 2 (01:10:04):
They will kill you.

Speaker 3 (01:10:06):
He likens Denver to.

Speaker 1 (01:10:07):
An airbnb for miller moths, and especially the home of
one dragon, Redbeard.

Speaker 2 (01:10:11):
This BnB is closed.

Speaker 3 (01:10:13):
They settle here for a few days and move on. Quote.

Speaker 1 (01:10:16):
The best we can do is not harming them, turning
off our lights during the night, and then allowing these
migrations to go through and finish. We need these pollinators.
We need them pollinating all these different plants in the
ecosystem and also feeding reptiles, birds, dragons and all these
different animals.

Speaker 2 (01:10:33):
I'm okay with feeding them to some, that's fine.

Speaker 1 (01:10:36):
Miller moths also fuel the agricultural economy by pollinating crops
worth millions of dollars, and ultimately they help propagate the
wildflowers and other native plants of the Rockies.

Speaker 2 (01:10:48):
That's what rosses bees are for.

Speaker 1 (01:10:50):
They may be small, but their role in the ecosystem
is huge. Garcia describes them as tiny little guests, our heroes, guess.

Speaker 3 (01:11:00):
That you don't want, not even anti hero?

Speaker 1 (01:11:05):
That isn't that a relatively recent Taylor Swift song, anti Hero?
I think I think that was. I think that was
on our last album, which I don't own. I mean,
I don't own any of them, but anti Hero. Uh
so that was your bit of exposure therapy for the day.
It is up on the blog at Rosskiminsky dot com.
I didn't know that Dragon would look at the blog

(01:11:26):
because he looks at it every day, and so I
put it in its own section entitled a note for
Dragon Red.

Speaker 10 (01:11:32):
You had to put a freaking picture with it. There
was no picture in the story on the headline, but
you and posted to the blog at Roskiminsky.

Speaker 3 (01:11:40):
Dot com because I knew you'd be looking at it.

Speaker 2 (01:11:42):
Thanks for that.

Speaker 1 (01:11:43):
That's that's that's how much I love you, Dragon. I
want you to I want you to get through it.
Dragon is doing hand gestures like he's throttling my neck
and I and I understand it. But but Dragon, these
are our little friends. And Denver is just a giant
miller moth Airbnb on their way to the next place,

(01:12:05):
or at least to Moth Heaven.

Speaker 3 (01:12:09):
Dragon would want me to do this.

Speaker 1 (01:12:10):
And I don't even remember the names of the songs,
but it's pretty good.

Speaker 3 (01:12:14):
I don't mind it.

Speaker 10 (01:12:14):
Probably something for the Black album. That's one of the
most popular ones.

Speaker 1 (01:12:17):
I just you know, I go on title and then
just have play random, random songs.

Speaker 3 (01:12:21):
It's not bad. You don't have any actual album albums.

Speaker 1 (01:12:24):
Of Metallica on vinyl. I think I have one, and
it's a fairly recent one came out like just a
couple of years ago. I think it's got a yellow
cover maybe, but I haven't opened two seasons. Yeah, but
I haven't opened it yet. It's still sealed and it's
and it's it's plastic.

Speaker 2 (01:12:40):
You're waiting for that.

Speaker 5 (01:12:41):
I might.

Speaker 1 (01:12:41):
I might never open it, not because of a Metallica thing.
I might never open it, just as it's sort of
a collector's I don't think now you played that song
partly because you love moths, but also.

Speaker 10 (01:12:52):
Partly Moth into the Flame. I'll use my flamethrow at
home to kill as many more.

Speaker 1 (01:12:56):
And we'll get to that in a second, because we
have an immense number of listener text about this whole
moth conversation.

Speaker 2 (01:13:01):
I have to read over half of those because those aren't.

Speaker 1 (01:13:04):
But what was the other Metallica thing that you said
listener Andy told us about it?

Speaker 10 (01:13:09):
Yeah, I thought you didn't think you had them on
the blog, but Andy sent it over to both of
us that apparently at the Metallica concert not long ago,
yesterday actually Virginia Tech, there were so many people in
the stands bouncing up and down to Metallica it actually
registered as an earthquake.

Speaker 3 (01:13:26):
That's fabulous. I love that story.

Speaker 1 (01:13:28):
There are a ton of listener text and I'm not
going to read all of them, but just a couple
dogs love to snack on moths. Apparently they taste like
peanut butter to dogs. How do they taste to dragons?
Do they taste like peanut butter? Let's see what else?
And then another person says, a cat, dragon, get a cat.

Speaker 3 (01:13:46):
No moth survives in my house.

Speaker 10 (01:13:47):
I do have three cats, and they do chase all
the moths, so I do love them for that. They
do eat them, then I stay away from the cats
for quite a while.

Speaker 1 (01:13:54):
Miller moths will fly into your ears, an absolutely terrifying experience.
Another person talks about who had a friend who had
to have a moth removed from his ear in the
emergency room, and then this person, I think you will
appreciate this, and then we'll move on from the moss.
But I actually, I actually do think Dragon will like
this one. I'm not being sarcastic about that. Back in

(01:14:16):
ninety or ninety one, we had a plague of Miller moss.
My brother and I had beaty guns and we shot
the Miller moss inside our apartment. If you get a
good hit, their little wings fluttered down like victims of
Baron von Richtoffen. When I moved out, there were one
thousand tiny gold dots in the walls.

Speaker 2 (01:14:34):
I approve.

Speaker 3 (01:14:34):
I knew you would. I knew you would.

Speaker 1 (01:14:37):
All Right, we're moving on, moving on from moss. I'm
going to do this in just two minutes. I'm doing
it this way on purpose because it is potentially a
very big story.

Speaker 3 (01:14:45):
But I don't like spending too.

Speaker 1 (01:14:46):
Much time on national stuff, national politics and econ and
all that, especially on a Friday. But I do want
to mention this because it's very important. Actually, so President Trump, yesterday,
the news kind of came out yesterday that President Trump
was pushing Republicans to raise the top tax rate from
thirty seven percent to thirty nine point six percent. I

(01:15:07):
think that's right and so, and that's on people who
earn over six.

Speaker 3 (01:15:12):
Hundred and something thousand dollars a year.

Speaker 1 (01:15:13):
But basically, what he wants to do is raise taxes
on the higher earners in order to fund having no
income tax on tips or overtime or social Security. And
this is terrible for a variety of reasons. First, it's
obviously purely political, the thing about no tax on tips.

(01:15:35):
And it isn't only Trump who said it, but he
said it in Kamala Harris copy to him, and some
other people have said it. But it always comes up
on the campaign trail. It always comes up on I'm
sorry in Nevada because Nevada.

Speaker 3 (01:15:51):
Has all of these workers.

Speaker 1 (01:15:53):
At casinos and restaurants and clubs and all this stuff
who make a big percentage of their mind and tips, right, even.

Speaker 3 (01:16:00):
The blackjack dealers and so one. They get a lot
of money and tips.

Speaker 1 (01:16:03):
And so Nevada is a swing state and when we
have these close elections, both sides want to pander to
voters in Nevada which was which is why Trump did
what he did. And then, in an even more ridiculously
pathetic way, a couple of weeks later, Kamala Harris went
to Nevada and said the same thing. Oh yeah, no
tax on tips, just taking Trump's idea, but it's.

Speaker 3 (01:16:26):
A bad idea.

Speaker 1 (01:16:27):
And no tips on no tax on overtime also a
bad idea, and for similar reasons. First, it will it
will cause employers to do what they can to recategorize
a worker's earnings as either tips or overtime. And thereby,
when the when the worker doesn't have to pay tax

(01:16:50):
on that stuff, it'll let the employer out of having
to give a raise.

Speaker 3 (01:16:55):
Right.

Speaker 1 (01:16:56):
So, in short, what it'll do is if that work
needs more money to stay in the job, otherwise the
worker would quit, for example, then normally that would be
the responsibility of the employer to give that person a raise.
And instead, what no tax on tips or no tax
on overtime would do it was allowed, it would allow
the employers to manipulate the system in a way where

(01:17:17):
effectively the.

Speaker 3 (01:17:18):
Federal taxpayer is paying the raise. And that's that's ridiculous.

Speaker 1 (01:17:23):
The other thing is most people not all, okay, not all,
but most people who earn any significant percentage of their
income in tips or in overtime are not in a
high tax bracket. Okay, probably most of them are in
the twenty two percent tax bracket, or even in the
twelve percent tax bracket. I think the cutoff there is

(01:17:45):
something like forty seven thousand dollars, and of course you've
got all the standard deduction and stuff. So folks who
are in those tax brackets, and in the lower part,
especially of the twenty two percent tax bracket, are paying
a single digit actual percentage of their income effective tax rate. Right,
Why should these people who pay so little in tax already?

(01:18:09):
But there's a lot of them, so in the aggregate,
there's a lot of money there, but they pay so
little in tax already. As an individual, Why should some successful,
productive person who's making eight hundred thousand dollars a year
and god willing all do that one day? Why should
that person who is successful and presumably working hard and
productive and probably creating jobs and all kinds of other

(01:18:33):
benefits for society and already paying much more in tax?
Why should that person be penalized so that politicians can
buy the votes of people who barely pay any tax anyway.
I think it's ridiculous. And then on the political side,
this is not the brand of the Republicans.

Speaker 3 (01:18:52):
The brand of the Republicans is.

Speaker 1 (01:18:53):
Not soaked the rich to redistribute their money to the
less rich or the poor. It is an absolutely corrosive
to the Republican brand. Trump and Republicans will not do it,
and it's going to cause a public fight between Trump
and Republicans, which is also dumb. Everything about Trump's having
brought that up, saying raise the tax on rich people

(01:19:16):
is dumb if you're a Republican and if you're a conservative.
But Trump is barely a Republican and not a conservative,
and I sure wish he would not try to push
his party into doing things that are normally what you
would expect.

Speaker 3 (01:19:34):
From the other party.

Speaker 1 (01:19:35):
We do have a new pope, pretty good American, first
American pope. No dragon, no, no, not exactly.

Speaker 10 (01:19:45):
You know you get all these from if you're from
South America?

Speaker 1 (01:19:47):
Are you still you get all these pedantic people on
my Twitter feed?

Speaker 3 (01:19:50):
And now I got one behind.

Speaker 1 (01:19:51):
The glass over here who says that Pope Francis is
the first American pope.

Speaker 3 (01:19:54):
As if.

Speaker 10 (01:19:57):
He was elected the news offices this media. Yea, they
labeled him as the first American, No.

Speaker 1 (01:20:05):
As l American, as if most people understand the word
American to be related to the continent.

Speaker 3 (01:20:11):
I mean, do you think these people.

Speaker 1 (01:20:12):
Would have called if there were a Canadian pope before?
Would they have called him an American pope?

Speaker 5 (01:20:18):
No?

Speaker 1 (01:20:20):
Why why should a South American dude be more American
than a Canadian dude?

Speaker 3 (01:20:24):
No, it's and I'm not being chauvinistic.

Speaker 1 (01:20:26):
Here, I'm just saying that when people hear the word
America or American, they're not thinking about the continent.

Speaker 10 (01:20:31):
Why do we hear in America seem to think that
we are the only Americans at all. We must take
over two continent's worth of titles. We're the only Americans.
We're the United States of America. Sure, that's fine, yes,
but this is how.

Speaker 1 (01:20:47):
The adjective American has come to be defined. It means
somebody from the United States of America. You can put nerds,
candy and BB guns and shoot them at moths. Do
moths like blue cheese? I saw online During Miller moths season,

(01:21:08):
the average human will eat two Miller moths at night.

Speaker 12 (01:21:12):
While they're sleeping. They la la, Nope, not gonna happen.
They fly into people's mouths. If it was on the internet,
it must be true.

Speaker 1 (01:21:24):
There was a bad year of Miller moths when my
daughter was two to this day, and she's now thirty three.
She's terrified of them and can't handle butterflies either.

Speaker 3 (01:21:32):
Dragon.

Speaker 1 (01:21:33):
I have a bug assault gun. It kills moths in
a very fun way. Bug assault guns are cool. You
know about them.

Speaker 3 (01:21:39):
I've heard of that.

Speaker 10 (01:21:39):
I've actually heard about them from this show. There were
a couple of other listens the same thing.

Speaker 1 (01:21:43):
Yeah, And I mean I would think of Miller moth
is a little bit on the large side to be
taken down by one of those guns.

Speaker 3 (01:21:48):
But maybe might be worth the.

Speaker 1 (01:21:50):
Try to try, because I think, I mean, look, I
fully understand your inclination toward the flame thrower, but it
might not be the best solution inside the house like
backyard fine, you know, even even maybe against that. I

(01:22:10):
don't know what the outside of your house is made of, dragon,
but it's if it's got stucco or brick or something
that would be slightly flame resistant. You had a bunch
of malls around a glass, what do you call that
like a skance, like a wall mounted fixture. If you
if you hit it with the flamethrower just briefly, the
house might be okay, and you could, but I.

Speaker 10 (01:22:32):
Just I'm a little exciting, but still worth it. Though
I'm a little worth it.

Speaker 1 (01:22:37):
I'm just concerned about your doing that inside the house,
That's all I'm saying. And because if you did, Dragon,
if you did, I bet, I bet your homewer's insurance
rates would go up.

Speaker 13 (01:22:48):
Probably just a bit. So I won't tell anybody about it. Yeah,
all right, what else? Let's do other stuff, just random stuff?

Speaker 3 (01:22:59):
Uh? I could. I don't know why.

Speaker 1 (01:23:02):
This story actually reminds me of Dragon, and I think
Dragon sent me the story, but I don't know why.
I can just imagine little baby Mustopheles Redbeard doing this, Mephistopheles,
did I miss brunch?

Speaker 3 (01:23:15):
Your name?

Speaker 1 (01:23:17):
Associated Press story from lex Lexington, Kentucky. A Kentucky woman
was in a sticky mess when she found stacks of
boxes containing lollipops on her front doorstep. The surprise delivery
was ordered by her young son while he played on
her phone.

Speaker 3 (01:23:34):
She says she tried stopping eight.

Speaker 1 (01:23:36):
Year old Liam's Amazon order for about seventy thousand, seventy
thousand dumb dumbsuckers before the treats arrived, but it was
too late, by the way, folks, for context, seventy thousand
is a lot, but it is not nearly as many
as the number of Miller Mouse or going to Dragon's
house in the next Right now, Amazon had already delivered

(01:24:02):
twenty two cases to her home.

Speaker 3 (01:24:04):
Quote.

Speaker 1 (01:24:05):
He told me that he wanted to have a carnival,
and he was ordering the dumb dumbs as prizes for
his carnival. Again, he was being friendly. He was being
kind to his friends. You could be kind to the
Miller Moss. You could have a Miller Moth carnival.

Speaker 3 (01:24:18):
Dragon. The surprise got worse.

Speaker 1 (01:24:20):
After a quick check for a bank account, she owed
about four thousand dollars for the order. When I saw
what the number was, I just about faintaged Ms.

Speaker 3 (01:24:27):
Lefavors said.

Speaker 1 (01:24:29):
Then she found out that eight more cases from the
order were unaccounted for. After a trip to the post office,
those cases were returned to sender. Her efforts to get
a refund took a bit more time, but she did
get her money back.

Speaker 3 (01:24:42):
I will interject here that.

Speaker 1 (01:24:43):
It can be difficult to impossible to get refunds for
food items for safety reasons anyway.

Speaker 3 (01:24:51):
And this is again the lady says this.

Speaker 1 (01:24:54):
After a long day of working with the bank and
talking to a few news stations, Amazon called and they
are refunding my money. La Favor said she was changing
some settings on her phone to make sure there's never
another surprise delivery at home. And I don't know, Dragon,
I I can't imagine you, little Mephistopheles Redbeard being a

(01:25:17):
rambunctious little guy like that if there had been such
a thing as cell phones and Amazon.

Speaker 3 (01:25:22):
When you were a.

Speaker 1 (01:25:23):
Kid, were you like a little bit naughty like that?

Speaker 3 (01:25:29):
Or or were No? Yeah, no, Well that doesn't mean
I'm not saying kid nobody knew I was even there.

Speaker 1 (01:25:34):
I'm not saying this isn't a great kid. He's trying
to help his friends and have a carnival. You were
a middle kid.

Speaker 3 (01:25:40):
Yeah.

Speaker 10 (01:25:41):
Yeah, I'd wish my mother happy Mother's Day. But she
doesn't even know I exist.

Speaker 3 (01:25:46):
Is she listening right now? No? No, is your dad
listening right now? Maybe?

Speaker 2 (01:25:51):
Maybe maybe on the app?

Speaker 3 (01:25:53):
Yeah? All right, all right, let's do something else.

Speaker 1 (01:25:56):
And this is a sort of political story that I
don't really do much of on on Fridays, and especially
near the end of the show. But this story is
so wacky that I just wanted to share it with you.
And this is some This is some investigative reporting from
the Daily Wire, which is a conservative news outlet. DOZE,
the Department of Government Efficiency, showed up at a small

(01:26:18):
federal agency that's linked to USAID, and this particular federal
agency is called the African Development Foundation, and DOZE went
there a couple months ago, and when DOSEE got their,
management of the African Development Foundation locked their doors and
refused to let them in. A fired board member sued

(01:26:40):
to stop DOZE, and the group was lauded for resisting
doze's demands for access to their systems, including financial records,
payment and human resources systems. But the objection, several former
employees told The Daily Wire, might not have been on
principal grounds, but rather because those records amounted to a crimes.

Speaker 3 (01:27:00):
Listen to this story, right, Listen to this story.

Speaker 1 (01:27:02):
This is the US government, by the way, all right,
this what you're gonna hear here. This is the US government.
This is not the government of Liberia or Ghana or Mali.
Or Botswana or Botswana's governments relatively good for Africa anyway.
The African Development Foundation has an annual budget of just
forty five million dollars. I like how they have just
in there, and yes it's true. On the scale of

(01:27:23):
a government, forty five million dollars is a small budget,
but it is somewhat larger than my household budget.

Speaker 3 (01:27:29):
But operating out.

Speaker 1 (01:27:30):
Of sight and mind, it might have been the most
corrupt agency in Washington, according to an investigation from The
Daily Wire, its employees have been sounding the alarm for
years about a culture of self dealing, abuse and anti
white discrimination, while those who now object to Doz's shuddering
of the agency did nothing to fix it now listen

(01:27:53):
to this. By law, the agency is only allowed to
give grants to Africa based groups, but it moved money
through African entities and then back to the United States
to pad the salaries of DC bureaucrats and pay their
friends and former employers, according to employees, until the DOGE takeover,

(01:28:16):
which culminated in US Marshalls ordering Building security to let
Trump administration officials in, the agency was led by a
guy named Travis Adkins who arrived in twenty twenty one,
after a short stint as a Biden employee at USAID,
an assistant to Adkins said after she asked why her
paycheck was lower than agreed upon, that Adkins informed her

(01:28:38):
that the remainder would be coming from an overseas account.
He quote sent me an email connecting me with this
guy in Africa who asked for my banking information. Within
a few days, this guy wired me seventeen thousand dollars,
she told The Daily Wire on the condition of anonymity.

(01:28:59):
The Daily Wire reviewed bank paperwork showing the transfer from
an account in Kenya. Another longtime employee, she said, was
eventually quoting now put on the payroll of an African
partner and was informed that she was being paid through
an entity in Mauritania. No payroll, state or federal taxes

(01:29:21):
were withheld from her paychecks. Continuing a quote from this
former employee, the contracts don't make sense, and they know
that DOGE will find lots of wrongdoing and illegal activity.

Speaker 3 (01:29:32):
She said.

Speaker 1 (01:29:33):
I'm not a fan of DOGE, but some of the
things they're doing, and when she says they, she means Dojio.
Some of the things they're doing need to be done,
and then she uses they again now talking about this agency.
They have been operating like this for years and no
one did anything about it.

Speaker 3 (01:29:51):
Isn't this amazing?

Speaker 1 (01:29:53):
As the Trump administration dismantled USAID and its contractors in
DC and the affluent suburbs of DC, they complained about
the job losses it were caused, but some speculated whether
international charity funding was being laundered to politically connected Washing Washingtonians.
This is not dissimilar to what this African Development Foundation

(01:30:16):
did regularly, according to The Daily Wires interviews with employees
and videotaped internal interviews that became part of a lawsuit.

Speaker 3 (01:30:24):
Here's an example.

Speaker 1 (01:30:25):
It awarded a grant to a Kenyan journalism group called
Africa twenty four, and it directed that group to in
turn pay the salaries of Americans at the federal agency's
DC headquarters. That meant Congress thought it was a charitable
grant to Africa and that the agency had a low
overhead rate. In reality, the money was being spent on

(01:30:46):
DC bureaucrats.

Speaker 3 (01:30:47):
The chief financial officer.

Speaker 1 (01:30:49):
Named Matthew Zahui acknowledged and defended the arrangement. He said,
and I quote the grant was provided to an African organization.
A grant can pay for people, Yeah, granted they were
in d C. Oh my gosh. Part one of this
Daily Wire series revealed that last year, the USAID Inspector

(01:31:11):
General sees that guy's phone and found that he had
received payments to his personal bank account from the owner
of a company to which he steered contracts. But he
has not yet been charged with a crime. Unbelievable. Well,
maybe it's not unbelievable. I need to be I need
to be careful.

Speaker 3 (01:31:29):
I am.

Speaker 1 (01:31:30):
I do try to be careful when I say unbelievable,
because there are some things that are believable. This one
is kind of borderline. Like imagine the Hutzpah. Imagine the
Cajones to be an employee of the US federal government. Right,
so not just a nonprofit, but a federal government agency sending.

Speaker 3 (01:31:49):
Money to Africa.

Speaker 1 (01:31:52):
And that's what your mission is is, you know, nonprofit
work in Africa on the condition that the African nonprofit
send money back to you for your own pocket or
for you to pay salaries for your friends, stuff like that.

Speaker 3 (01:32:08):
Crazy. The agency offered a.

Speaker 1 (01:32:11):
Grant to something called the Heva Fund, an African group
on the condition that it sent a portion to another
group called the Artisan Alliance. The grant was ostensibly to
produce personal protective equipment like face masks, even though Heva
told the agency there's no demand for face masks, for
making more face masks because there's lots and lots and

(01:32:33):
lots of it already available in the region, and this
fund HEIVA was so uncomfortable with this proposition that they
asked to cancel the grant, and you know, that's fabulous,
and they canceled the grant. So then this American agency
pushed the plan on another group, a Kenyan group, which

(01:32:54):
also balked at it, saying, we don't need to pay
Artisan Alliance an American company to help Keny learn how
to sell masks. And it goes on from there. But
I gave you most of that. I'm gonna stop. But
it's just a what a what a crazy thing? I
mean that is that is like half a notch between

(01:33:16):
straight up embezzlement.

Speaker 3 (01:33:18):
And I sure hope.

Speaker 1 (01:33:19):
That, especially since the Daily Wire is on that case. Now,
I hope some people who were doing that stuff get
charged and go to prison. And I'll tell you what
now with Team Trump involved, maybe maybe they will. All right,
I'm gonna do one more quick thing here and then
we're gonna and then we're gonna play Name that tune.
So this is a story I had for a couple

(01:33:39):
of days but I didn't get to And this is
gonna be very much a life changing thing for a
lot of people. The headline from the New York Times.
Netflix overhauls its home screen for the first time in
twelve years.

Speaker 3 (01:33:52):
Mandy, are you a Netflix subscriber?

Speaker 14 (01:33:55):
I am, and one of the seven eight hundred and
twenty two streaming services that we paid for.

Speaker 3 (01:34:01):
Yeah, oh my gosh. Yeah.

Speaker 1 (01:34:03):
Who knew that five dollars would like make you poor
five dollars a hundred times?

Speaker 3 (01:34:07):
Because it's one hundred times.

Speaker 1 (01:34:08):
Yeah, so I have to I'm a Netflix subscriber to
and I have more often than not found their homescreen
to be less than helpful in terms of helping me
find things that.

Speaker 3 (01:34:18):
I want to find or, you.

Speaker 1 (01:34:19):
Know, based on a movie that I like, to show
me another movie there just is not very good. And
Netflix is going to change this whole thing to make
it better. And they're gonna use AI and they're gonna
and they're gonna know everything about you, which is a
little creepy probably, but.

Speaker 14 (01:34:31):
I already know everything about I mean, for real, you guys,
if you're on the internet, you think they don't know
everything about you, you're just not paying attention.

Speaker 3 (01:34:37):
Yeah, that's true. Just you know whatever, Netflix is like
one of the better ones in what way?

Speaker 1 (01:34:42):
The for you page essentially top ten series of movies
kind of what you're feeling.

Speaker 3 (01:34:47):
I feel like it's one of the better ones.

Speaker 14 (01:34:48):
Really, Yeah, I often on the page. I'm just kind
of lost. But I just started watching your new show today.
I'm the treadmill called Younger, which is very funny.

Speaker 3 (01:34:57):
Are you really watching Netflix if you don't search for
like hour first? Well, that's the thing. I don't want
to do that.

Speaker 14 (01:35:02):
You're talking to a person that'll be going through the
guide on the TV, and I will just give up
and put it on a channel.

Speaker 5 (01:35:08):
Shuffle, come in and go. Do you want to watch this?
I'm like, no, I just got tired of looking.

Speaker 3 (01:35:11):
I don't care what's on the top.

Speaker 1 (01:35:12):
Yeah, Kristin, and I will go look for a movie
to watch, and I'll look for you know, two minutes,
which is a long time yep, And and I just
give up, give her the remote like I'm gonna do
something else.

Speaker 3 (01:35:22):
You try, now, ye all, we've all been there.

Speaker 1 (01:35:25):
Hey, folks, if you're listening on the podcast right now,
that's the end of today's show.

Speaker 3 (01:35:30):
Thank you so much for listening. Don't forget.

Speaker 1 (01:35:32):
You can catch us every day on the podcast as
you are right now, on your smart speaker, on your
iHeartRadio app, even on the computer at Koa, Colorado, and
the good old fashioned way on your radio.

Speaker 3 (01:35:44):
Thanks so much for listening to the show.