06-27-25 - *FULL SHOW* Random numbers; Rep Gabe Evans; American meatpackers - The Ross Kaminsky Show

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
I'm really looking forward to a lovely weekend. I'm slightly
slightly upset, No upset isn't.

Speaker 2 (00:07):
The right word. Slightly disappointed that.

Speaker 1 (00:10):
I'm not going to go to the Metallica concert tonight,
but only.

Speaker 2 (00:12):
I'm just not sure.

Speaker 1 (00:13):
I've never been to I've never been to a concert
of any band of that type. The closest I've gotten
is probably a CDC right in terms of you know,
pretty heavy rock and Metallica is They're Metallica.

Speaker 2 (00:27):
So but I'm not going. I'm not going.

Speaker 1 (00:30):
You know, we had tickets.

Speaker 2 (00:31):
This is how it is.

Speaker 1 (00:32):
See you You probably think you probably think that any
tickets that I have to give away, like yesterday I
gave away a pair of tickets to Metallica, I don't
have another pair today. But you probably think any tickets
I have to give away means I can get them myself.

Speaker 2 (00:48):
But it's actually not true. We treat you.

Speaker 1 (00:51):
Better than than we treat me here and uh and
you're you know, listeners are You're You're the priority. You're
the priority, so you're getting tickets and I'm not. So
I hope you have a lot of fun. And if you,
by the way, if you go to the Metallica concert.
Please send me an email at Ross at iHeartMedia dot
com and let me know how it is. Maybe send

(01:11):
me a little video picture or two Ross at iHeartMedia
dot com. I would like to know. So I want
to mention two Supreme Court opinions that have been released
so far this morning, and we are expecting another one
or two that might be of interest.

Speaker 2 (01:25):
Now there have been four so far.

Speaker 1 (01:27):
I think only two of them are fairly interesting or
interesting enough to take time on.

Speaker 2 (01:32):
The radio with. So one you heard Patwood just talk about.

Speaker 1 (01:36):
And the case is called Trump President of the United
States at All versus KASA Inc.

Speaker 2 (01:42):
At All.

Speaker 1 (01:43):
KASA is a pro immigrant organization, and nominally this falls
under the category of the birthright citizenship controversy, but the
case ended up not being about that. The case ended
up being about nationwide injunctions. So the President said he's

(02:07):
going to do this, that, and the other thing and
not recognize birthright citizenship anymore. In other words, what he's
trying to get at is, if you if a pregnant
illegal alien comes to the United States and has a
kid here and obviously illegal alien, and let's say the

(02:29):
father is also not an American citizen and the pregnant
woman comes here and has the kid, or it doesn't
even have to be an illegal alien. There's a whole thing,
especially on the West Coast, especially in La that Ky
of that area, where you'll have Chinese women fly in,
mostly Chinese. They'll fly in on a tourist visa, right,

(02:50):
a legit tourist visa.

Speaker 2 (02:51):
They're not breaking a law.

Speaker 1 (02:53):
And they have bought these motels basically motels and hotels
and turned them in to these boarding houses for a
period of time for these women to come.

Speaker 2 (03:05):
In to have babies.

Speaker 1 (03:06):
Now that they might go to the hospital to have
the baby, I don't know, but they bought these facilities
and be full of like Chinese pregnant Chinese women, and
then they have the baby in the United States and
the baby's a citizen, and then you know, maybe the
baby can get welfare at some point, but usually actually
the mom takes the baby and they go back to China,
but for now, but the baby is a Chinese citizen,

(03:27):
so that baby could come back later get whatever the
benefits are.

Speaker 2 (03:30):
And the other thing to keep in mind is, and.

Speaker 1 (03:33):
I'm not saying this is gonna happen with a lot
of them, but it doesn't need to happen with very
many for it to be a huge problem. And that
is that the Chinese government gets their hands on this kid,
and let's say the kid turns out to be a
great scientist and so, but the kid grows up in China,
loves China, loves the Chinese Communist Party, loyal to China,
not America, even though an American citizen.

Speaker 2 (03:54):
But now the kid can apply as an.

Speaker 1 (03:55):
American citizen to go to MIT and get involved in
some physics produce that has let's say, some weaponry potential,
and then the kid is loyal to China and ends
up being a spy and sends information to China. Very
hard to stop that when the kid's an American citizen.
So anyway, Trump wants to get rid of this.

Speaker 2 (04:16):
Now.

Speaker 1 (04:16):
To be clear, I understand the motivation, and I even
understand the arguments of law, but I do think if
the merits, if we were to reach the merits on
this case, meaning if the Supreme Court were to rule
on whether it is constitutional for the executive branch to
say we're not going to recognize birthright citizenship for illegalaliens

(04:38):
and whatever other you know, birth tourism.

Speaker 2 (04:41):
And stuff like that.

Speaker 1 (04:42):
I think that the Trump administration would lose nine to zero,
probably maybe eight to one. You never know what Alito
is going to do, but something like something like that.
So a few people who would be harmed by this,
let's say, pregnant, non citizen pregnant women, whether.

Speaker 2 (05:01):
Or not illegal aliens.

Speaker 1 (05:02):
Right, just non citizen pregnant women, but illegal aliens make
the best case here.

Speaker 2 (05:10):
Sued over this, and in.

Speaker 1 (05:13):
A couple of different district courts, federal district courts around
the country. The judges the local the district court, the
lowest level of federal courts. The judges said, yeah, not
only are we going to protect you, so if your
child is born here soon whatever, your your child will
be an American citizens, but we're gonna apply it to
the whole country. And the Trump administration sued, saying the

(05:36):
judges don't have that level of authority to apply this
to the whole country. And the short version is the
Supreme Court agreed with the Trump administration, saying that district
court judges are overstepping their authority with these nationwide injunctions.
So I understand what they're saying as a matter of law,

(05:58):
and it's I mean, I guess almost by definition it's right.
I won't quite say by definition, because even the Supreme
Court gets things wrong from time to time and has
to change it. But I will tell you what my
frustration is with this A little bit or concern.

Speaker 2 (06:16):
My concern.

Speaker 1 (06:20):
What, how are we as a population supposed to be
protected when an administration, and take the name Trump out
of this, when an administration does something that is clearly unconstitutional.
And I realize different people will have different opinions about
what's unconstitutional. I fully get that, but let's say that

(06:41):
they're going to do something that is likely unconstitutional, and
that applies to lots of people all at once, not
just a few people. And that's important. I'll tell you
why in a second. It applies to lots of people
all at once. So now with the Supreme Court's ruling,
what they're saying is the judges can issue injunctions that

(07:03):
protect the people who brought the cases, but not everybody
else who might be subject to that.

Speaker 2 (07:09):
Action by the federal government. So that means, in.

Speaker 1 (07:12):
This case, let's say there I don't know how many
plaintiffs the are, but let's say there's a you know,
a half a dozen who cares. But let's say there's
ten thousand times as many people. Let's say there's sixty
thousand people or six hundred thousand people that this action
by the federal government would impact. Now, under this ruling,
it seems like, you know, six people will be protected

(07:37):
and six hundred thousand people or sixty thousand people in
the same situation won't be protected. And it's wildly impractical
to imagine sixty thousand or six hundred thousand people bringing
their own federal cases and getting into federal court in
any timeframe that matters.

Speaker 2 (07:56):
And so you could.

Speaker 1 (07:57):
Potentially have all of these people being harmed by something
that everybody who's looking at it knows is going to
be found to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of
the United States. And I know there are a lot
of Trump supporters who are super happy with this, and
I'm not even saying I'm angry with it. I'm just
telling you here's where I think the risk is. What
if a democratic administration issued an executive order saying you

(08:21):
will no longer be allowed to buy a gun in
the United States of America.

Speaker 2 (08:25):
It's obviously unconstitutional.

Speaker 1 (08:27):
But now let's say Shannon wants to buy a gun,
and I want to buy a gun. Shannon gets into
court and I don't. Shannon gets an injunction. The court says, yes,
we believe that's unconstitutional. You're gonna win, Shannon. You're protected.
You may still buy a gun. Ross.

Speaker 2 (08:45):
Eh, you haven't.

Speaker 1 (08:45):
Gotten your case into court yet. You can't buy a gun.
And now what I'm supposed to wait a year or
two years or three years for this to wind its
way through the federal court system and be decided by.

Speaker 2 (08:55):
The Supreme Court.

Speaker 1 (08:56):
I understand that, you know, a lot of Trump people
are going to be jumping up and down happy with
this because they're only thinking about it in terms of Trump.

Speaker 2 (09:03):
And I also realized that there might be.

Speaker 1 (09:06):
This probably is right just when it comes to the law,
but there is some downside. It's a case out of
Montgomery County, Maryland, where I lived when I was a kid,
just outside of Washington, DC. And this is a very,
very very liberal place because it is full of over
educated government workers, and so that means that they have

(09:29):
some really really terrible policies politicians. School district And when
I say terrible school district, I don't mean I don't
mean the schools are bad, right. The schools are mostly
very good, as you would expect in an area like that,
But the school board members and their policies are just
lunatic leftist nonsense. So they decided to a couple years back,

(09:53):
two three years ago to introduce what they called LGBTQ
plus inclusive texts into the curriculum they teach schools.

Speaker 2 (10:03):
And some of these are.

Speaker 1 (10:07):
For kids through kindergarten through fifth grade, and I'm quoting
from the Supreme Court opinion, books that have storylines focused
on sexuality and gender. And let me keep going just
to give you the context here. So, when parents in
Montgomery County sought to have their children excused from instruction
involving these books, the school board initially compromised with parents

(10:27):
by notifying them when the LGBTQ plus inclusive story books
would be taught and permitting their children to be excused
from instruction. And long story short, the school board then
changed their minds and said, no, you can't opt out.
Your kid has to be here for all this stuff.
And the parents sued, saying to violation of their religious liberties,

(10:50):
and the Supreme Court.

Speaker 2 (10:51):
Today on a sixty three vote.

Speaker 1 (10:53):
There were several sixty three votes today, and you often
you often get cases like this that are difficult cases
with split opinions when you get to the end of
the end of the term. So anyway, this was sixty
three the usual six versus the usual three, and the
Supreme Court ruled that the parents are entitled to a

(11:16):
preliminary injunction because they are likely to win the case
when the case is actually heard on the merits, the
parents are likely to win the argument that imposing this
particular kind of instruction on their kids violates the parents'
First Amendment right to free exercise of religion. Sonya Sotomayor wrote, Oh,

(11:38):
look at that. There's pictures in this. There's pictures like,
here's one Uncle Bobby's Wedding. So this is a kid's book,
Uncle Bobby's Wedding. It shows a little girl standing in
front of two men who apparently just got married. And
then there's another one Uncle Bobby's Wedding, and YadA, YadA, YadA.
So anyway, and there's pictures from these books. And just

(12:00):
be clear, I don't care about you know, LGBT stuff
is there. You know, I'm not Christian, I'm not conservative.
You know, if if a student, if.

Speaker 2 (12:09):
A teacher or a school district was teaching.

Speaker 1 (12:11):
This stuff in my kids class, I'd want to know
what it was so for me, all right, So let
me just back up.

Speaker 2 (12:17):
The parents here have a right to.

Speaker 1 (12:21):
An injunction because they are probably going to win the
case and not and they must be allowed to excuse
their kids. That's basically with the Supreme Court is saying
they must be allowed to excuse their kids from that
kind of stuff. For me personally, there's probably a line
in there somewhere where there may be one or two
of those books I wouldn't object to, and one or

(12:42):
two of those books I would object to, And I
think I probably am where most people are. But that's
not really the point. The point is that the First
Amendment is the first amendment. All amendments are important, and
all amendments are have the force of law, but the
first Amendment is first for a reason. It includes a
bunch of different things free speech, for example, but also
the free exercise of religion. And I think what folks

(13:03):
need to understand in a case like this is that
if you were going to do anything that infringes on
a first Amendment right, or really on any constitution right,
but on a First Amendment right in particular, in this situation,
you better have a darn good reason and you better
have a darn good explanation as to why you are
going to somehow restrain the freedom of parents. And you know,

(13:26):
Sonya sotomai Or argues in her descent that this is
going to cause all kinds of chaos and parents are
going to want to up their kids out of anything
they disagree with, and YadA, YadA, YadA, And I don't
think it's going to go that crazy.

Speaker 2 (13:37):
But the bottom.

Speaker 1 (13:38):
Line is, even if it were to go a little crazy,
there is not a compelling governmental interest to force every
kid to be in school for every lesson. And there
is even not a compelling enough governmental interest to say
that we're going to violate parents freedom of religion because

(14:00):
having some kids out is going to disrupt class. It's
just not a good enough argument. If you're going to
violate somebody's free speech or freedom of religion, there better
be a darn good reason and no other reasonable way
around it.

Speaker 2 (14:15):
And that is just not the case here.

Speaker 1 (14:17):
So this is a significant win for religious parents or
parents who and really this is.

Speaker 2 (14:24):
A religious case.

Speaker 1 (14:25):
It's not saying you can just take your kid out
of school just because you disagree with something. This really
is about free exercise of religion. The question maybe where
you know, if a parent says, well, it's against my
religion for my student to learn about. I don't know pacifism.
I think that may actually have come up in one
of these descents. Anyway, all right, I'll leave it there,
and you know, I may mention Supreme Court stuff later

(14:47):
in the show, but that's probably about it for now.
We've got Congressman Gabe Evans coming up in the middle
of the next segment, but other stuff including.

Speaker 2 (14:55):
Flu vaccines to talk about next.

Speaker 1 (14:57):
I told you I would not say anything more about
Supreme Court decisions until much later in the show, but
I lied, so I'm gonna give you one more. But
it's super fast, so it's only like a small lie.
There was one other case. It was a case about
whether age verification on cornographic sites where you have to
either say or prove or something that you are over

(15:19):
eighteen in order to get access to the sites.

Speaker 2 (15:21):
That there was a lawsuit brought against.

Speaker 1 (15:24):
That by people who said that burdens the free speech
right of adults to to access the content they want
to access, and the Supreme Court said, no, it doesn't.
And there's more to it, but since I told you
I wasn't going to talk about more about the Supreme Court,
I'm going to leave that there so that that kind
of stuff now appears to be fully approved by the

(15:45):
Supreme Court. I'm just going to try to do maybe
a couple of short topics here. I don't really want
to get into something long. Just before I expect Donald
Trump to show up. Hopefully he'll be on time because
we got a member of Congress in about eight minutes,
so we'll see if Trump shows up on time. There
was a story that I'm sure you heard about a
little bit after the last election with these two women

(16:07):
out in a grand Junction who decided to quote unquote
test the election system to see if people could cheat
the election system.

Speaker 2 (16:20):
And one of them was a fill in.

Speaker 1 (16:23):
Worker for the postal service who was covering a particular
postal route that day for some day for whoever. The
usual postal carrier is ito was out that day, and
this woman stole something like sixteen ballots and she and
her co conspirator filled out these ballots, and I guess

(16:47):
signed them and sent them in.

Speaker 2 (16:51):
And most but not all of them.

Speaker 1 (16:55):
Were caught in the signature verification process and not counted.
I think maybe three ish of them were in fact counted.
And if you understand Colorado's election system, bottom line is,
once this ballot is separated from the envelope, once it
gets through the verification process, the ballot is separated from
the envelope, there's no way to put it back together again.

(17:17):
There's no way to go say that ballot went with
that envelope. So what it means is, once a ballot
has been counted, there's no way to uncounted right now.

Speaker 2 (17:27):
Of course, there were some people who said.

Speaker 1 (17:29):
Hey, my ballot was stolen, and then they get an email,
if they're signed up for the emails, an email from
the county saying your ballot has just been counted, Like, wait,
I didn't get my ballot. And so they figured out
as far as the detective work, they figured out that
all of the people whose ballots were stolen were.

Speaker 2 (17:53):
On one mail route.

Speaker 1 (17:55):
And then they you know, they're like, see, and it
was stuff that we stolen from inside mailboxes, including locked
ones that someone couldn't just walk by and grab it.
So they thought maybe a postal employee. And then they
went and looked and found this one lady who filled
in one day, and they on that route and basically

(18:19):
and they got her, and they got her co conspirator.
One of them is an independent, the other one is
a Republican. They said they wanted to just test the system.
In any case, one of them now has been sentenced
to five years in prison for identity theft, basically forging
people's signatures to vote their ballots. Five years for identity theft,

(18:40):
two years for forgery. They're running concurrently, not consecutively, so
it's five years in prison and then another three years
of parole. The other lady has not gone to trial
yet as far as I know. But in any case,
so I think two things about this at the same time.
And I've had this kind of conversation before about people.

Speaker 2 (19:00):
Who did other things wrong.

Speaker 1 (19:02):
And on the one hand, five years in prison sounds
like a lot for you know, sixteen ballots that didn't
change the outcome of an election. But that's not really
my primary verdict on this. That's the secondary thing.

Speaker 2 (19:18):
The main thing is it's almost as.

Speaker 1 (19:23):
Important that Americans trust our elections as it is that
our elections are actually trustworthy. Right, we should be able
to trust our elections, that's the main thing. They should
be trustworthy, and election officials need to make sure they

(19:43):
are to the extent that people do things that not
only are fraud and crimes, but also tend to cause
people to mistrust the election system. The book at him,
and these two women need to be made an example of,

(20:05):
and they are, and so does Tina Peters. By the way,
no hero, Tina Peter is a villain, not a hero.
And these these women are very much in that same vein,
and they happen to be in the same county in
the same state in the United States, Macon County, Colorado.

Speaker 2 (20:20):
Anyway, I just wanted you to be.

Speaker 1 (20:21):
Aware that lady was just subject to five years in prison.
So let's do a little bit on flu vaccines. So
there used to be a preservative in many vaccines called thimerisol,
which includes a little bit of a mercury compound that

(20:42):
metabolizes into ethyl mercury when it gets in your body.
Ethyl mercury, I mean, I guess you wouldn't want a
lot of it, but it's not a kind of poison
like methyl mercury is which sounds the same but isn't
the same.

Speaker 2 (20:55):
And you know, if you think, oh eyl.

Speaker 1 (20:56):
If methyl mercury is bad, ethyl mercury must be bad too.

Speaker 2 (21:00):
I would put it to you this way.

Speaker 1 (21:01):
When you go have a beer or a vodka or
whatever you're drinking ethyl alcohol sometimes called ethanol, if instead you.

Speaker 2 (21:10):
Were to go have a little bit of alcohol.

Speaker 1 (21:13):
Is that would come from sometimes accidental fermentation, fermentation of wood,
for example, you will get methyl alcohol sometimes called methanol.

Speaker 2 (21:24):
All right, ethyl alcohol, methyl alcohol.

Speaker 1 (21:27):
The ethyl alcohol, you go out and party with it,
and you have a good time. The methyl alcohol will
cause you to go blind and then die instead of
very different anyway, This dimerisol is not in lots and
lots and lots of studies associated with any.

Speaker 2 (21:46):
Bad outcomes at all.

Speaker 1 (21:47):
Okay, not with any but a lot of folks, particularly
people led by Robert F.

Speaker 2 (21:54):
Kennedy, who is just.

Speaker 1 (21:55):
An anti science grifter, have decided that they think that
at thymerisol is a problem.

Speaker 2 (22:02):
Now.

Speaker 1 (22:03):
Years ago, this stuff, which is a preservative that keeps
the vaccine good, this stuff was removed from single dose
vials of flu vaccine. So you know, you get those
little bottles, you jam the needle into the bottle, you
pull out the stuff, and then you inject it into somebody.

Speaker 2 (22:20):
So if you get a really little bottle where the
bottle is.

Speaker 1 (22:22):
Just one dose, and that's most common these days, the
bottle is one dose, there's no thymerasol in it.

Speaker 2 (22:27):
There are a smaller number of bottles.

Speaker 1 (22:29):
Out there that are multidose bottles, so you can give,
you know, many different people the vaccine from one bottle
that has a little bit of thymerasol in it.

Speaker 2 (22:38):
So the FDA now is aiming to.

Speaker 1 (22:44):
They've said they're gonna stop recommending flu vaccines containing thymerasol.

Speaker 2 (22:49):
Now, I will say, as a general matter, I.

Speaker 1 (22:51):
Don't feel a need to put chemicals in my body.

Speaker 2 (22:53):
That don't need to be there. But if there's something.

Speaker 1 (22:57):
That's going to keep people from getting sick, and you
got a bunch of grits out there like Robert F.
Kennedy and the people around him, who we're gonna try
to talk people out of getting vaccines that might save
their lives or at least save you an annoying or
dangerous illness. You know, I don't think that's great, but
do keep in mind that the vast majority of flu vaccines.

Speaker 2 (23:18):
That people get in the United.

Speaker 1 (23:19):
States of America already don't contain this, and haven't for
something like ten or twenty years now, twenty twenty.

Speaker 2 (23:27):
Four years, since two thousand and one.

Speaker 1 (23:30):
Also, since two thousand and one, all vaccines that are
given to children, right, specifically childhood vaccines that are recommended
in the US and licensed in the US don't have thymerosol.
So this is a solution in search of a problem,
because it's being led by grifters in search of donations.

Speaker 2 (23:51):
All Right, we're gonna do.

Speaker 1 (23:52):
Something completely different here, and Shannon, let me say, if
the President comes.

Speaker 2 (23:56):
On, we'll figure out what we're gonna do with Gabe,
or maybe we.

Speaker 1 (24:00):
Can just you know, put a pause on it and
come back to it in a few seconds. So I'm
very pleased to welcome back to the show Congressman Gabe Evans.
I had him on pretty recently, actually, Republican representing Colorado's
eighth congressional district.

Speaker 2 (24:15):
And well, first of all, Gabe, good morning, and welcome.

Speaker 3 (24:17):
Back, Good morning.

Speaker 4 (24:19):
Always get to be on with you.

Speaker 2 (24:20):
Thanks.

Speaker 1 (24:21):
So I want to do a little bit on Big
Beautiful Bill But first, I've noticed you've been busy and
you're you're actually getting a decent amount of stuff done
for a freshman congressman, which impresses me. And I saw
a press release about your third bipartisan bill to pass
the House, and it looks like an interesting bill, so I.

Speaker 2 (24:42):
Wanted to ask you about it.

Speaker 4 (24:44):
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (24:45):
Absolutely, Like you said, we've introduced ten bills, three of
them by partisan have passed the House already, and this
one is the Global Investment in American Jobs Act. Basically,
it directs the Secretary of Commerce to look at how
do we attract more responsible foreign investment in the United States.
And when I say responsible, that's basically code for saying
not Chinese or Iranian or Russian, but responsible investment. And

(25:09):
so this speaks directly to a couple of things. Ay,
we've got some of the best workers on planet Earth
in the United States, and we want our responsible foreign
allies to be able to invest in the United States,
take advantage of that, build it, produce it, and make it,
manufacture it in the United States. And that's what my
bill looks at doing by directing again the Secretary of
Commerce to study this issue and identify any barriers that

(25:31):
may be preventing that from happening, and then coming up
with solutions to how do we actually get more jobs
from responsible foreign overseas investment in the United States.

Speaker 1 (25:39):
And it is interesting to see in your bill specific
mention of the Chinese Communist Party, and I mean, I
think you're right to mention it. I don't know that
everybody's got the kahonies to do that, but like one
of the things you talk about here efforts by the
Chinese Communist Party to circumvent existing laws to gain access
to US markets, Can you just elaborate a little more

(26:02):
on specifically in this kind of area that you're talking about,
what the Chinese risk is.

Speaker 3 (26:09):
Yeah, I mean, the fact is the Chinese are just
sucking up every bit of information that they can about
the United States, and then they play dirty on the
international stage. After they've stolen our ideas, stolen our technology,
then they go and they manufacture it in China with
basically no environmental regulations, no social responsibility. We know these
people use slave labor, and then on top of all

(26:31):
of that, then they go and extort their own people
for money, which they then use to subsidize industry in China,
and so it just makes it incredibly difficult for American
industry that's trying to do things the right way, pay
people good wages, be environmentally and socially responsible, to be
able to compete with the Chinese when they steal technologies,
steal ideas, steal patents, go use slave labor, dirty coal

(26:54):
to go manufacture the stuff with no environmental regard, and
then on top of that, they'll subsidize their own industries
just to try to give them a leg up. And
so we've seen this new administration has deployed a whole
host of resources to be able to combat these dirty
tricks that the Chinese are playing on us. And so
this bill just adds to that by making sure that
we have every tool in the toolbox to figure out

(27:16):
how do we counter this threat. And part of that
is by again working with the responsible foreign overseas investors
and being able to build that coalition to really be
able to exert a lot of pressure on China, which
a makes them play by the rules, and then b
also takes care of American workers and American jobs.

Speaker 1 (27:33):
And just to clarify, so you said a lot of
stuff there, but you.

Speaker 2 (27:37):
And I agree with everything you said.

Speaker 1 (27:40):
This particular bill is focused, as you've been describing, on
foreign direct investment in the United States, So a lot
of what you said might apply legislatively, perhaps to a
different bill that might address, you know, what we do
or don't buy from China. And of course you got
Trump's tariffs on China. But what you're kind of doing here,

(28:01):
I think is is taking that mindset about how China.
I'll just broadly say cheats includes a lot of things
in that to say that, given how much China cheats,
we should be very careful about what we allowed them
to invest in here in the United States.

Speaker 3 (28:20):
Yeah, what we allow the Chinese to invest in the
United States versus say, a close alley like Australia.

Speaker 2 (28:26):
That makes a lot of sense.

Speaker 1 (28:27):
I'll tell you what, Gabe, I really want to talk
BBB with you, but the President has just started talking
about the Supreme Court decisions today and I need to
go grab that. So I'm glad we got this conversation
in and we'll get you back on the show soon.

Speaker 3 (28:40):
All right, sounds good, Thanks for being here.

Speaker 1 (28:42):
That's Gabe Evans, Republican congressman from the eighth Congressional District.
All right, President Trump just started talking. Let's have a listen.

Speaker 5 (28:49):
This was a big decision, an amazing decision, one that
we're very happy about.

Speaker 4 (28:56):
This morning.

Speaker 5 (28:56):
The Supreme Court has delivered a monumental victory for or
the Constitution, the separation.

Speaker 2 (29:02):
Of powers, and the rule of law. Is striking down.

Speaker 5 (29:06):
The excessive use of nationwide injunctions to interfere with the
normal functioning of the executive branch. The Supreme Court has
stopped the presidency itself.

Speaker 4 (29:16):
That's what they've done.

Speaker 5 (29:18):
And really it's been it's been an amazing period of time.

Speaker 2 (29:24):
This last hour.

Speaker 5 (29:25):
There are people elated all over the country. I've seen
such happiness and spirit. Sometimes you don't see that, but
this case is very important. I was elected on a
historic mandate. But in recent months we've seen a handful
of radical left judges effectively try to overrule the rightful
powers of the president to stop the American people from

(29:47):
getting the policies that they voted for in record numbers.
It was a grave threat to democracy, frankly, and instead
of merely ruling on the immediate cases before them, these
judges have attempted to dictate the law for the entire nation.
In practice, This meant that if any one of the
nearly seven hundred federal judges disagreed with the policy of

(30:09):
a duly elected president of the United States, he or
she could block that policy from going into effect or
at least delay it for many years tied up in
the court system. This was a colossal abuse of power
which never occurred in American history prior to recent decades,
and we've been hit with more nationwide injunctions than were

(30:31):
issued in the entire twentieth century together. Think of it
more than the entire twentieth century. Me I'm grateful to
the Supreme Court for stepping in and solving this very,
very big and complex problem, and they've made it very simple.

Speaker 4 (30:49):
I want to thank Justice.

Speaker 5 (30:50):
Barrett, who wrote the opinion brilliantly, as well as Chief
Justice Roberts and Justice is Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Thomas.
Thanks for this decision. And thanks to this decision, we
can now promptly file to proceed with numerous policies that
have been wrongly enjoined on a nationwide basis, And some

(31:14):
of the cases we're talking about would be ending birthright citizenship,
which now comes to the fore that was meant for
the babies of slaves. It wasn't meant for people trying
to scam the system and come into the country on
a vacation.

Speaker 2 (31:29):
This was, in fact, it was.

Speaker 5 (31:30):
The same date, the exact same date, the end of
the Civil War was meant for the babies of slaves,
and is so clean and so obvious. But this lets
us go there and finally win that case because hundreds
of thousands of people are pouring into our country under
birthright citizenship, and it wasn't meant for that reason. It
was meant for the babies of slaves. So thanks to

(31:51):
this decision, we can now properly file to proceed with
these numerous policies and those that have been wrongly enjoined
to a nationwide basis, including birthright citizenship, ending sanctuary city funding,
suspending refugee resettlement, freezing unnecessary funding, stopping federal taxpayers from

(32:11):
paying for transgender surgeries, and numerous other priorities of the
American people.

Speaker 4 (32:18):
We have so many of them.

Speaker 2 (32:19):
I have a whole list.

Speaker 5 (32:20):
I'm not going to bore you, and I'm going to
have Pam get up and say a few words, but
there's really as you can talk as long as she
wants because this is a very important decision. This is
a decision that covers a tremendous amount of territory. But
I want to just think again, the Supreme Court for
this ruling, it's a giant.

Speaker 2 (32:38):
It's a giant, and they should be very proud. All right,
let's leave it there. I think that's the main point.

Speaker 1 (32:44):
I'll say a couple of very quick things about what
the President said there. Okay, So first, just to clarify
what the Supreme Court did in this case was they
said the lower court judges cannot issue nichewide injunctions that
prevent the administration enforcing a policy broadly. But they did
not throw out the injunctions as far as the specific plaintiffs.

(33:09):
So what that means is the plaintiffs who brought the
original case are still protected by the injunctions.

Speaker 2 (33:17):
Because it's very likely that when.

Speaker 1 (33:21):
This case gets to court and actually is heard on
the merits which they didn't reach this time, it's very
likely that the Trump administration will lose, and it could
be unanimous.

Speaker 2 (33:33):
Nine nothing. I understand Trump's argument, it's.

Speaker 1 (33:35):
Not an insane argument with the one he just made,
not a crazy argument. But I don't think it's a winner,
and I think the only way you change it is
by amending the constitution. So Trump said the case covered
a lot of territory. It really didn't. It really didn't.
It simply said that these lower federal judges cannot issue

(33:58):
nationwide in functions. But it didn't say because then then
Trump said, well, now we can proceed to implement the policies.
Sort of, he can proceed to try to implement the policies. Yes,
but anybody who gets in front of a federal judge
is going to have an injunction issued in their favor
to stop the policy from applying to that person, because

(34:22):
the policy is almost certainly going to be found illegal.

Speaker 2 (34:26):
So it's a very very tricky thing.

Speaker 1 (34:29):
It is definitely a win for Trump today, but it's
probably not.

Speaker 2 (34:34):
It's certainly not the end of the story.

Speaker 1 (34:37):
And on this particular thing with birthright citizenship, it remains
likely that by the time federal court here's the case
on the merits, it remains likely that the Trump administration
loses and is not allowed to implement the policy.

Speaker 2 (34:53):
We'll be right back.

Speaker 1 (34:54):
After one initial very aggressive sell off in the stock market,
I guess that was April, the stock market has been
incredibly resilient since then, and the S and P five
hundred is now at a new high as of this moment,
and I don't think the Dow is at a new high,
butok close. Long term interest rates have been ticking down

(35:16):
a little bit. The ten year note, which was around
four point four percent not very many days ago, was
around four and a quarter percent now, so you're going
to see that starting to show up in lower mortgage
rates soon. The Fed has not moved yet, and President
Trump is pretty upset with the FED chairman about that.

Speaker 2 (35:35):
I have to say, I'm at.

Speaker 1 (35:38):
This point, I'm with Trump on this. I do think
that tariffs have the potential to be inflationary. But separately
from that, the FED is really tight right now, with
Fed funds rates in the low fours and inflation in
the low two's. Trump is right when he says the
Fed should be should.

Speaker 2 (35:59):
Be cutting rates.

Speaker 1 (36:00):
But the other thing that I wanted to mention, you know,
we talked a few days ago about this, the taco trade.
Taco Trump always chickens out. Now, that was really something
that was brought up in the context of tariffs. It
wasn't brought up in the context of Trump generally, although
I do think it might have been in his mind

(36:21):
a little bit when he decided to attack the nuclear
facilities in Iran. He wanted people to see, Hey, Trump
does not chicken out. I never thought of that. Trump
always chickens out thing as having anything to do with
anything other than tariffs.

Speaker 2 (36:39):
And what's happened.

Speaker 1 (36:40):
I think part of the reason that the market has
done so well since that initial selloff is that the
taco trade has basically been right at every opportunity, or
almost every opportunity so far. President Trump has backed down
from the tariffs, and he's made it sound like he's
done it because he's got some great negotiation. He really

(37:00):
hasn't gotten any great negotiations done.

Speaker 2 (37:03):
But that's okay. He can sell it however he wants
to sell it.

Speaker 1 (37:06):
And the and the tariff rates are coming down, or
the so called reciprocal tariffs, which were some of the
stupidest thing I've ever seen from a government in recent years,
or right up there at least. It really was one
of the dumbest things. I don't just mean dumb as
an idea. It was dumb as an idea, but dumb
in execution. The way they did all that. I won't

(37:28):
get into it anyway. It seems like.

Speaker 2 (37:29):
Those things might be dead.

Speaker 1 (37:31):
They're supposed to come back in about a week and
a half or two weeks, so we'll see what happens.
But Trump sees the market going up. His people see
the market going up. They know, they absolutely positively know
that the market is strong because the market believes that
Trump is backing off on most of the tariffs, not all,

(37:55):
but most. And as I've long said about markets and
the con to me and so on, a president has
only modest.

Speaker 2 (38:06):
Influence on the economy.

Speaker 1 (38:08):
And I've told the story lots of time, so I'll
do a very very short version right now. I was
talking with a very conservative female friend of mine while
Barack Obama was president, and she said she had a
ton of money in cash in cash, and she wasn't
going to buy any She just didn't trust this stuff
because of Obama. But then she said, you know, if

(38:29):
the stock market comes down a little from here, I'll
probably buy some. And I said to her, your your
mistake is that you're confusing the government with the economy,
and you're confusing a bad president with the economy. And
when you're buying stocks. You're not really betting that much
on government. You're primarily betting on how good is the

(38:50):
American entrepreneur right, not so much small business. I mean,
I love small business and they're a huge part of America.
I just mean the stock market is not small businesses, right,
So mid size to large sized businesses, you're betting on
American entrepreneurialism, entrepreneurship, creativity, even ways to get out around

(39:10):
the rules, and and so, you know what, I actually
had a fair bit of money in cash at the time,
and when that gal said to me, when she said
to me, you know what, I'm waiting for the market
to go down a little more because Obama is so bad.
I'm sure the market's going to go down, and then
I'll buy later. You know what I did the very
next day, I called my financial people and just said,

(39:35):
put it all in the stock market. And that was
when the Dow was at fourteen thousand. And you know,
I sold a little bit in April with the Dow
at forty four thousand, but I only sold probably a third.

Speaker 2 (39:47):
Of what I've got. And I think.

Speaker 1 (39:53):
I hope that President Trump and his people realize that
things have been going pretty well for them in terms
of the economy and politics. Once the market determined that
Trump was probably not going to stick with all of

(40:15):
these tariffs, and especially not the very high ones. So
we will see. But Trump was just talking about that,
so I thought I would mention it to you as well,
and I thought I would also mention that the stock
market is at a new high.

Speaker 2 (40:25):
And I will say.

Speaker 1 (40:29):
When I mentioned on the air a couple months ago, gosh,
probably almost three months ago now that I was selling
some stocks, I was very very right for a very
short time, and I did not see. I did not
anticipate Trump caving in on tariffs so quickly as he did,

(40:50):
and so I didn't buy back after the stock market
got crushed, and it did.

Speaker 2 (40:54):
I had a couple of really.

Speaker 1 (40:55):
Good sales, but then I didn't buy when it was
down near the low. I did some other things, but
I didn't buy because I missed it.

Speaker 2 (41:03):
I missed that. I thought that Trump was committed and
was going to stick with.

Speaker 1 (41:07):
These tariffs till the bitter end, and he didn't, and
I'm glad he didn't. I'm not criticizing him. I didn't
like the initial policy. I did criticize that but whether
it's Trump, whether it's the people around Trump, Trump's advisors, whoever,
they figured it out. And there's still more terrorists than
there should be. But tariffs at low levels are They're bad,

(41:28):
but they're not disastrously bad. They're things that the the
energy and the creativity of the American entrepreneur can overcome.
And I think that's what the market is telling us.

Speaker 6 (41:43):
Now.

Speaker 1 (41:44):
President Trump is still speaking, and it looks like he's
about to get into a conversation about this so called big,
beautiful bill, and I want to hear what he has
to say, and maybe you want to hear some too,
So let's have a little listen more.

Speaker 6 (41:55):
Tactful if I could for a moment. Senators are racing
to read write parts of it right now now after
the Senate Parliamentarian ruled that sections of it were outside
of the process that they're using to get this through.
Do you think that senators should respect the decisions of
the parliamentarian And what have you personally done in the
last forty eight hours to try and get Republican senators

(42:17):
who are against the bill to a yes?

Speaker 5 (42:19):
Well, look, it's a great bill. It's a massive tax cut.
If it's not approved, your taxes will go by sixty
eight percent. Think of that, sixty eight a record, the
highest in the history. The Democrats won't approve it only
because politically it's so good for the Republicans. The Democrats
aren't improving it. But think of what they're not approving.
They're not approving border security. We've done a great job

(42:40):
at the border, but we have to add some war.
We have to do various things. We have no money
for that. We have no money for the border. We
have no money for so many things. But if the Democrats,
it'd be interesting to see if we get any Democrat
us we should. If I were a Democrat, I would
absolually maybe Fetterman, because he seems to be the most
sensible one late. If I were a Democrat, I would

(43:02):
vote for this bill all day long because it's tax
cuts and so many other things that are common sense.
They're basic things. I think they're doing fine. The Parliamentarian's
been a little difficult, and I would say that I
disagree with the parliamentarian on some things and on other
ways he's been fine. But we'll have to say it's

(43:23):
a big issue. I will tell you this, If that
bill doesn't pass, the country will get a sixty eight
sixty eight percent tax increase.

Speaker 4 (43:31):
So think of this.

Speaker 5 (43:32):
You're a Democrat and you vote against it, that means
you're voting in favor because essentially you're voting in favor
the largest tax hike in the history of our country, and.

Speaker 4 (43:43):
You can't do that.

Speaker 5 (43:44):
In addition, we're cutting costs by one point seven trillion
dollars and it won't affect anybody. It's just fraud, waste,
and abuse.

Speaker 1 (43:52):
All right, let's lead that there, But I want to
just address that for a second. He's right that if
this bill doesn't pass, the vast majority of Americans are
going to get a tax hike. The only people who
will end up better off if this bill fails are
upper middle class and rich people in high tax states

(44:16):
who will get to deduct a lot more of their
state and local income taxes and thereby dump their very
high state taxes on the rest of US federal taxpayer.
So Trump is absolutely right about that. He was pretty
mellow there when he was talking about the parliamentary and
let me just give you a few seconds on what happened.
So the parliamentarian ruled that a particular thing I won't

(44:38):
I won't go into the nuts and bolts, but a
particular thing the Republicans wanted to do to save some
money in medicare, she ruled that it is not permissible
under the rules of a reconciliation bill. Reconciliation is very
particular kind of bill. Generally has to relate to the budget.
There are narrow rules about what can be in it.
And what's special about a reconciliation bill is the that

(45:00):
can pass the Senate with fifty one votes and.

Speaker 2 (45:02):
Cannot be filibustered.

Speaker 1 (45:03):
So you're only allowed to do three of them a year,
and I think if you do more than one, they
have to be on different in different areas, so they're
very limited. You try to get what you can in
this bill. So why is this important. It's important because
the Medicaid related thing that the parliamentarian said Republicans can't

(45:24):
do was an enormous source of calculated cost savings in
the bill that was used to offset the increase costs
from other parts of the bill, like the stupid idea
to not tax tips and overtime in Social Security.

Speaker 2 (45:42):
That's all really bad policy.

Speaker 1 (45:44):
But you know, Trump is populist, so sometimes you get
great policy and sometimes you get bad policy. That's how
populous are. And I am a fair referee of this stuff,
and I call them as I see them. I call
balls and strikes. So Trump, I explain when Trump something
really right, as he does about the existing tax rates.
I don't like the policy about taxes and tips. But

(46:06):
again on this thing, the thing that the parliamentarian said
you can't put in there was going to be used
to fund the costs of saying we're not going to
collect tax on tips anymore, and tax on overtime and
all that. So now that that's out, Republicans either have
to go find a whole bunch of cost savings somewhere else,
or they have to find ways to well not give

(46:30):
these tax giveaways or some others, or not make certain
tax cuts permanent, or whatever it might be. So this
is we really was like throwing a hand grenade into
the whole thing. And I don't think the parliamentarian's partisan.
I don't think she's trying to hurt Republicans. I think
she does her job to the best of her ability
in a non partisan way, and she interprets the rules

(46:51):
and that's it. But this was about as bad a
ruling for Republicans as you could get. And so now
the question is there a technical fix that will allow
the parliamentarian to say, Okay, you can do it that
way that allows most of the savings to remain.

Speaker 2 (47:05):
One other quick thing I wanted to mention.

Speaker 1 (47:07):
When we're talking about quote unquote cutting Medicaid, we've got
to remember that we're talking about cutting the growth of Medicaid.
Medicaid is going to keep getting bigger every year even
under this bill, just not as much bigger as it
otherwise would have.

Speaker 2 (47:21):
Please keep that in mind.

Speaker 1 (47:23):
Just a quick follow up on one of the stories
you heard from Chad Bauer there on our k WAIT
newscast about Elbert County. There was a piece in the
Colorado Sun, and Chad just gave you all the highlights really,
but the headline Elbert County says no to Excel Energy's
power Pathway permit request, and basically, Excel wants to run

(47:45):
a five hundred and fifty mile transmission line that is
supposed to bring energy from this sort of green nonsense
wind and solar and so on in the eastern plain
like southeastern Colorado or southern like east of Pueblo kind of.

(48:05):
And there's a substation down there called Sandstone in the
east northeast corner of Pueblo County es centrally, And so
they want to run this five hundred and fifty mile
transmission line that goes north from there, jogs a little
bit east and runs more or almost straight north, not quite.
There's some jogs in it along the eastern edge of

(48:26):
el Paso County and then it hits the southern central.

Speaker 2 (48:31):
Part of Elbert County.

Speaker 1 (48:33):
And they want to run this up up kind of
diagonally northwest through Elbert County to the town of Kiowa,
and then north from Kiowa.

Speaker 2 (48:43):
I know, it's a lot of map.

Speaker 1 (48:44):
Just stick with me north up into Arapo County and
west over into Denver, all right. And the Elbert County
people are saying, basically, what they're saying is what's in
this for us? Like, we're not even going to get
any power from this, so why should we have you
guys come through and disrupt all our farm land basically
with these massive, ugly polls, And.

Speaker 2 (49:06):
They need I think seventy five feet. I think they
get an easement of seventy five.

Speaker 1 (49:10):
Feet, which is not small on each side, a total
of one hundred and fifty feet on each side of
these giant things, and Elbert County is saying no, and
Excel Energy is saying, well, if you don't work this
out with us, we'll either find a way to use
eminent domain, you know, we'll go to the we'll go
to the regulators something.

Speaker 2 (49:27):
So it's a big fight.

Speaker 1 (49:28):
And I'm going to try to get an Elbert County
commissioner on the show to talk about it in about
a week, maybe a week and a half. And the
reason not today is that the Elbert County attorney, the
county attorney has has suggested, let's say to the Elbert
County commissioners that they don't talk any more to the

(49:50):
media about it right now for a couple of reasons,
but they should be able to soon. So basically, Elbert
County denied permits that the utility needed to yet going.
I don't know that they and they said there's this
in that technical problem with the permit. If if Excel
cleans up the permit, I don't know whether they'll be
able to keep turning it down. But clearly they think

(50:12):
it's not well they've said, we think it's not in
the best interest to Elbert County. And it's a very
interesting story, so we'll we'll see, all right, moving on.
Let you know what, this is a story I want
to get to. It doesn't have anything to do with politics.
I saw this over at the Washington Times, and I
think it ties into some surveys that were done recently

(50:33):
of employers and it has to do with gen z
and a thing called ghosting, but not ghosting. You know
someone that you went on a date with, and ghosting
means you just drop off the face of the earth
as far as the other the other side is concerned.
You don't communicate, You don't communicate in a situation where
somebody might have expected you to communicate, you've ghosted them.

(50:57):
And sometimes it's common in you know, online, you want
to date with someone and you don't really dig them
or they don't really dig you, and.

Speaker 2 (51:05):
One side or the other.

Speaker 1 (51:06):
You know you've got their number, but you maybe you
not only don't you text, but maybe you block them
from texting.

Speaker 2 (51:12):
You ghost them.

Speaker 1 (51:13):
But what I'm talking about in this thing, and what
this article is talking about, is is ghosting in the
process of applying for a job.

Speaker 2 (51:21):
And let me just share a little with You. From
Washington Times, a growing number.

Speaker 1 (51:26):
Of employers say that gen Z job applicants are ghosting
them during the hiring process. They quote a guy who's
president of a commercial and industrial construction company, and he says,
applicants are simply uninterested in the job offer, same as
they would be uninterested in a profile on Tinder or
any other dating site. The communication of disinterest is no

(51:49):
communication at all now. But they're not saying this is
just at the very beginning, right, They're not saying, you know,
a company sees somebody with a resume online and they
email them and say, you know, would you like to
come have an interview and come talk about it, and
then they get ghosted at that point and they never
really have any contact.

Speaker 2 (52:07):
That's not what they mean.

Speaker 1 (52:09):
What they mean is the process actually gets going and
the person seems to be interested, and at some point
they just stop. They just stop a little more from
the article. Over the past year, three gen Z applicants
have ghosted. Zero Bounce, a California based email verification company,

(52:30):
quote there were no red flags during the interview process,
says the COO of the company. One was just steps
away from signing the contract. All three had accepted the
salary we negotiated, so it wasn't about compensation. Susan Snipes,
a Texas based human resource manager and kan said a

(52:52):
candidate ghosted her after receiving a job offer three weeks
into an interview process. She says, ghost is another way
of saying, it's not you, it's me. Hiring is still
quoting here. Hiring is a relationship you're trying to build
with someone. So if the communication isn't clear and effective
on both sides, it doesn't work out. Now, let's get

(53:14):
to the bigger picture. So a group called resume dot
org and you can imagine what they do, did a
survey of eleven hundred and fifteen hiring managers just this
month as a new survey. They found that fifty four
percent of them reported having been ghosted by a gen
Z candidate after they gave that gen Z candidate a

(53:37):
job offer.

Speaker 2 (53:38):
So again, not at the very beginning of the process.

Speaker 1 (53:40):
You know, they spent time talking to each other and
negotiating maybe a little bit, and they give a job
offer and then nothing.

Speaker 2 (53:48):
Now, listen to this, and I realize.

Speaker 1 (53:50):
A small percentage, but still as a result, one in
ten of the manager's surveyed have stopped considering job candidates
from the generation born between nineteen ninety seven and twenty twelve, which,
by the way, is both of my kids, although my

(54:12):
kids are on the older No, I take it back
on the younger end, on the younger end of gen
Z right. I mean, I still got a kid in
high school and the other one just out.

Speaker 2 (54:24):
Of high school.

Speaker 1 (54:25):
So they've got another person here who is CEO of
a company called staff DNA, a Texas based.

Speaker 2 (54:33):
Healthcare employment agency.

Speaker 1 (54:35):
She says, we believe job seekers are interviewing, potentially receiving
multiple offers and not understanding or recognizing the need to
be courteous by informing a company they're declining the job
that a job they've been offered for various reasons. It's
a new era of job seeking and hiring, and we're
all learning as we go. So there's a lot more

(54:58):
in the article, a lot more, but I think I'm
gonna skip most of it. There's one guy who says
employers may be at least partly to blame here, but
at the same time, young people's growing pickiness about job
offerings has reinforced negative perceptions of their work ethic, and another,
a guy who's CEO of a company called Red Balloon,

(55:19):
says gen Z has been bitten by the entitlement bug
for years. Their growing trend of young applicants ghosting job
offers only confirms these concerns.

Speaker 2 (55:30):
I think this is a real thing, right. Gen Z
is a.

Speaker 1 (55:34):
Moderately large generation, not as large as the millennial generation,
because the Baby Boomer generation was enormous and the millennials
are their children, so that's a big generation too. Gen
Z is somewhat smaller. But gen Z is a weird generation.
It really strange. They're probably I mean, I'm gen X, right,

(55:55):
so millennials are younger than I am, and I my
first exposure to the Internet was probably the Internet in
the way we know it now. I'm not talking about
the early days of dial up modems into user groups, right,
I did all that, you know when I was a kid,

(56:16):
but the Internet as we know it now. Like I
think back, for example, to my first exposure to eBay,
signing up on eBay, and I would have been in
my early twenties at that point, I believe, so I
didn't grow up with the Internet. Some millennials kind of

(56:37):
you'd say probably grew up with the Internet, But really,
I think Gen Z is the group the first generation
to grow up with the internet, fully integrated into their
lives and exposure to the Internet from the time they
were zero years old. And I think that the Internet,

(56:59):
and I think this is probably true of especially one
of my children. I think the internet has done a lot,
and social media in particular, more than they just broadly,
the Internet has done an immense amount of damage to
young people's ability to communicate. They they talk in LOL
and BRB and things like that. They're not they don't

(57:22):
know how to have a phone call very well. They
don't know how to speak to strangers very well. They
don't they don't speak with confidence because they're not practiced
at it.

Speaker 4 (57:41):
Right.

Speaker 2 (57:41):
They It's just so.

Speaker 1 (57:43):
Much snapchat and what and discord and whatever the kids.

Speaker 2 (57:47):
Are using these days.

Speaker 1 (57:50):
And look, I'm not saying kids need to behave the
way I behaved, and I'm not saying kids shouldn't have advance,
you know, the technology of the day, but I think
there has been a certain failure of parenting, including probably
with me, and a broader failure in society.

Speaker 2 (58:06):
I think to make sure.

Speaker 1 (58:08):
That our young people know how to communicate, you know,
by the way business deals, like what we're talking about
here with hiring people, business deals are about communication. There
are very few important business deals that just happen over
the internet and buy email and buy text with BRB
and lol and whatever. Serious business happens face to face,

(58:32):
serious deals, serious contracts, serious purchases, business mergers, hiring people
for important jobs. And you've got a generation of people
where a significant percentage are just incapable of it. And
it is terrible for those people who are incapable of it,
and is going to lessen their employment prospects and their

(58:52):
prospects of having a successful professional life. Their professional life
will be I'm not saying they're all going to be
bumsing on welfare. I'm just saying they're not going to
get to the level that their intellect might have otherwise
allowed them to get to if they had been better communicators.
And like I said, it's not just bad for them,

(59:14):
it's bad.

Speaker 2 (59:14):
For all of us.

Speaker 1 (59:15):
We are in a global competitive economy, we are in
a society that is massively, massively in debt, and the
government is going to need all the tax revenue they
can steal from us to pay off the insane, immoral,
disgusting national debt that they've saddled us with. And to
the extent that we have a generation of people where

(59:37):
a significant number of them will not be able to
be as productive and successful as they otherwise would be.
And therefore somebody who could speak a little better might
have one hundred and fifty thousand dollars a year job,
but this person's only gonna have an eighty thousand dollars
a year job. Like they're smart, but not as good
as they should be. That means it's bad for them.
It's bad for their eventual family and kids. It's bad

(59:59):
for the government because there'll be less tax to collect.
It's bad for the nation because these folks won't be
as productive and as creative and as anything. And it's
going to let other countries catch up with.

Speaker 2 (01:00:09):
The United States.

Speaker 1 (01:00:10):
And there's just so many issues here, and I just
thought i'd share it with you.

Speaker 2 (01:00:14):
And if I'm.

Speaker 1 (01:00:17):
Speaking to any gen Z people now, or any parents
of gen Z people or Generation Alpha people as well,
they're a lot younger. But what I would encourage you to,
either if you're gen Z yourself, or to say to
your kids if you've got gen Z kids is make
an effort to do two things. First, make an effort

(01:00:41):
to get out there and speak to people, whether it's
just friends, whether you join some kind of group, some organization,
a society, a club where you're meeting face to face.
Even teams in zoom is not enough. Do something where
you're meeting people face to face. It is such a

(01:01:02):
valuable skill, and it's a skill that's being lost. And
you know what, it's all the more reason to do
it because when other people of your generation don't do it,
they're gonna end up where they don't really know how
to talk, and they don't really know how to communicate
with people, and they are not going to get that

(01:01:23):
promotion to management because they won't know how to manage.
Do yourself a huge favor and give yourself a leg
up over the other people in your generation by learning
how to speak with other people in any context that
a conversation might become useful or necessary, hanging out with friends,

(01:01:45):
hanging out with a group who might become friends.

Speaker 2 (01:01:47):
But it starts more as a mission. Right you join
you become a.

Speaker 1 (01:01:50):
Volunteer at a nonprofit where you and these other people
share a particular desire to whatever it is, you know,
an animal shelter or whatever. I don't care any group.
Learn how to talk to people. And then the other
thing is in any business conversation. And I don't I

(01:02:11):
mean conversation in the broadest sense here, not just I'm
sitting in a room with you or sitting over a
hot chocolate with you and talking with you face to face.
I mean this much broader. A business conversation could be
a back and forth buy email that then also includes
a phone call or an in person meeting on the
process toward you're hiring, getting hired for a job, or
any other business kind of thing. Over communicate now, I

(01:02:35):
don't mean to the point that you become annoying, but
to the point that the other side knows that you
are paying attention, that you care. And even if you
end up saying no, explain yourself that way you don't
burn any bridges. What if you might end up wanting
to go back to that person later, explain yourself so

(01:02:59):
they know you took them, You took the business, the company,
the process seriously, and you didn't waste their time. It'll
be good for you, which is the main reason you
should do it. But it'll also be good for the country.
It'll be good potentially for the company that you're saying

(01:03:19):
no to. Maybe you said no to them for a
legitimate reason, and maybe that company's got, you know, some
things they need to improve. Do them a favor and
tell them why you said no. All right, I've spent
enough time on that.

Speaker 2 (01:03:31):
I'm gonna move on to a couple other things.

Speaker 1 (01:03:33):
A couple other business stories, one of which might involve Colorado,
we don't know yet, and one of which definitely involves Colorado.

Speaker 2 (01:03:41):
These are kind of small stories, but just fun. You know.
We're KOA.

Speaker 1 (01:03:45):
We like to bring you the business stuff, the state
and local stuff, not just the national and international stuff.
But this is from the Associated Press from yesterday. Actually
I think it first came out the day before yesterday
and was updated yesterday. Kroger, which is the parent company
of King Supers and City Market, is going to close
around sixty grocery stores in the United States over the

(01:04:08):
next year and a half to improve efficiency, and they
have said that some of their stores just aren't cutting it,
and the interim CEO and chairman said, we see this
as an opportunity to move these closed store sales to
other stores, and we think that should improve profitability. Now

(01:04:29):
they have twenty seven hundred and thirty one stores in
thirty five states and DC. So they include stores that
operate under the name Kroger, Smith's, Ralph's, which you would
probably know from California King Soupers around here.

Speaker 2 (01:04:44):
Fred Meyer is also one of their brands.

Speaker 1 (01:04:46):
Anyway, they're going to close down a bunch of stores,
but they have not yet said which stores they're going
to close, so we'll see.

Speaker 2 (01:04:56):
I just wanted to be aware of that.

Speaker 1 (01:04:57):
It would I mean, given that there's say these stores,
it wouldn't surprise me if one of them, or two
of them, or three of them I don't know, are
in are in Colorado.

Speaker 2 (01:05:06):
So we'll see.

Speaker 1 (01:05:06):
The other business story that I wanted to share with
you is kind of going in the other direction. You
may have noticed if there is a Del Taco anywhere
near where you live, that it's probably been closed for
a while. The Del Taco that I know about that is,
you know, near where I used to live is on
Bowles Avenue in Little ten Let me get this right,

(01:05:29):
just west of Broadway on the south side of No, No,
No Bellevue, not Bulls Bellevue, south side of Bellevue, just
west of Broadway, and it's been closed for quite some
time now, and it didn't really seem to close with
an obvious reason, nor did it say it was closed forever,
which is a little bit unusual. And so here's the

(01:05:51):
story I want to share with you. Del Taco. This
is from the Gazette dot com, the southern California based
fast food chain has begun phased reopenings of seventeen Del
Taco restaurants in Denver and Colorado Springs. The company said
in an email two days ago. The locations will reopen
one by one over the summer months, after all but

(01:06:15):
one location in the state abruptly and indefinitely. But that's
not the same as permanently closed in late February. Now,
this is the Gazette, which is a Colorado Springs newspaper
at excellent newspaper, So most of their focus has been
on the Springs stuff. But there were a couple of
Deltaco locations not in the Springs Firestone Loan Tree that

(01:06:38):
apparently opened this week. And yeah, so I guess these
things are going to open as being they're going to
be owned and operated by Deltaco Corporate. They're not going
to be franchises, and I think they're bringing back a
lot of the employees who were in the stores that
were I think franchised before.

Speaker 2 (01:06:57):
But any case, if you're.

Speaker 1 (01:06:58):
A Deltaco fan and you've wondered if that del Taco
that was closed near you was ever going to open
again here in Colorado, it looks like it is.

Speaker 2 (01:07:06):
The clarification I.

Speaker 1 (01:07:07):
Mentioned Excel Energy is five hundred and fifty mile in
a distribution project, and talked about Elbert County's objection, and
I was discussing the I was discussing the path from
the segment of the project from northeastern Pueblo County to
Denver running through Elbert County, among other places, and the

(01:07:28):
listeners said, did you mean five hundred and fifty megawatts,
since that's obviously not five hundred and fifty miles. So,
just as a as a clarification, that is one segment
of a much much larger Excel Energy project, which in
its entirety is five hundred and fifty miles, and the
segment that's that's being it's controversial right now, that goes

(01:07:52):
through Elbert County is much smaller than five hundred and
fifty miles. The entire the entire project, which they call
all the Power Pathway Transmission Loop is it's five different segments,
and Segment five runs between this harvest mile substation north
of Foxfield in sort of a Rapo County to down

(01:08:18):
to Pueblo.

Speaker 2 (01:08:19):
So there you go. There's that. Let's uh, let's see
what do I want to do here?

Speaker 1 (01:08:23):
So all right, you got to be a little careful
obviously talking about race these days, and I'm going to obliquely,
but I want to share this story with you because
I think it's interesting in a way that is maybe
not obvious from the from the headline. So this is

(01:08:43):
about the NBA Draft from a couple of days ago
and the Dallas Mavericks, which, by the way, they got
the Dallas Mavericks got the first pick in the NBA Draft.

Speaker 2 (01:08:53):
Even it's the team that gets.

Speaker 1 (01:08:56):
The first pick is chosen by lottery, and your odds
are determined essentially based on how good your record was.
So imagine you've got like one hundred balls in one
of these lottery ball things and you spin it and
you take out a ball. We'll leave the odds of
you are winning you're having that ball is a direct

(01:09:17):
function of how many of the balls in that spinny
thing are yours, Right, So if somebody has one ball
in there and there's one hundred, then they have a
one percent chance, And if you've got ten, then you've
got a ten percent chance.

Speaker 2 (01:09:31):
Anyway, that's basically how it works.

Speaker 1 (01:09:32):
The Dallas Mavericks ended up getting the first pick in
this year's NBA Draft lottery with a one point eight
percent chance of getting it, but they got it, so
that you know that happens.

Speaker 2 (01:09:43):
That happens, and and so there are.

Speaker 1 (01:09:45):
So they picked this kid named Cooper Flag and a
Rod probably pays more attention to the NBA than than
I do. But have you been following this at all
and this kid Cooper Flag?

Speaker 7 (01:09:56):
Yes, I have, And it's fantastic and even more so
conspiracy theory with the Mavericks.

Speaker 2 (01:10:00):
Yeah, so they famously one of.

Speaker 7 (01:10:03):
The craziest, craziest trades with Luka Doncic gave.

Speaker 2 (01:10:07):
To the Lakers. People couldn't understand it.

Speaker 7 (01:10:09):
People believe it to be part of a conspiracy theory. Hey,
give Luca to the Lakers, we will reward you with
that one percent chance turning into having the number one
pick and getting Cooper Flagg the next big Caucasian star
for the Mavericks. First Dirk, then Luca and now Cooper.

Speaker 2 (01:10:26):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (01:10:27):
So so let's just talk about Cooper Flagg and then
we'll come back to the race thing. And a Rod
mentioned it there a little bit. But so this kid,
Cooper Flagg, this is a very impressive kid. He's he's
the number one pick in the NBA Draft after his
freshman year in college. And this kid actually got I

(01:10:51):
was looking at Wikipedia, which of course is the source
of all truth, and by the way, it's not and
Wikipedia is like worse than it's ever been. Anyway, this
kid got his first NCAA Division One scholarship offer when
he was in eighth grade.

Speaker 2 (01:11:10):
And he's just a just absolute monster.

Speaker 1 (01:11:13):
He's won every high school you know, best high school player,
State champion and this and that and the other and
just unbelievable player. And so now the Dallas Mavericks, Dallas
Mavericks have him.

Speaker 2 (01:11:25):
So and you you can go read.

Speaker 1 (01:11:28):
More about about Cooper Flag but imagine his kid, number one,
number one pick at the age of eighteen, after one
year of college. Incredible anyway, So the Mavericks picked him,
and there's a Fox News story about it, and the

(01:11:50):
headline is Mavericks select Cooper Flag with top pick.

Speaker 2 (01:11:53):
In twenty twenty five NBA.

Speaker 1 (01:11:55):
Draft after controversial lottery, and then the sub head and
listen to this, the former Duke standout becomes you ready
for this? A Rod the first white American to be
the number one pick in the NBA draft since Guess

(01:12:19):
the year? A Rod and listeners too, text me at
five six six nine zero. But do it quick, because
I'm not going to wait long before sharing the answer
with you. Cooper Flag is the first white American to
be the number one draft pick in the NBA draft
since what year?

Speaker 2 (01:12:37):
It's seventies. It's an interesting guess what makes you think?
Is that that long ago?

Speaker 7 (01:12:43):
Because I can't think far back enough to think of somebody?
So can I go all the way back? Interesting? A
Rod says, mid seventies? All right, what do you say,
dear listener?

Speaker 1 (01:12:52):
Text me at five six six nine zero within the
next ten seconds or so, because then I'm going to
tell you the answer. A Rod thinks it's all the
way back to the mid seventies that you get a
white American as the as the number one draft pick
in in the NBA.

Speaker 2 (01:13:11):
And it's an interesting guess.

Speaker 1 (01:13:14):
So the last American before Cooper Flag to be the
first overall pick, the last white Americans a guy named
Kent Benson in nineteen seventy seven, nineteen seventy seven, and

(01:13:35):
you know, a Rod you were talking about. I don't
remember if Dirk Novitsky was the number one draft pick.
I don't think so.

Speaker 7 (01:13:41):
Luca might have been. He was not the number one
overall pick. He was the first rounder. He was not
the Luca or Novitsky Luka both Dirk was.

Speaker 2 (01:13:54):
In any case, we can probably I'll probably go look
that up. But so yeah, that's the last one.

Speaker 1 (01:14:00):
And what's interesting for me about this is because among
the number one draft picks that we've had, you know,
in the years that I can kind of remember.

Speaker 2 (01:14:10):
We've had.

Speaker 1 (01:14:13):
At least a few white guys who are not American,
and a whole lot of black guys. And what's interesting
and black guys who were not American, plenty of them.
And what's interesting to me about this story and what
I like so much about this story because I know
there's gonna be some people, some really kind of brain
dead people out there who just think, oh, there should
be more white Americans. No, that's not my point at all.

(01:14:35):
My point is what an incredible thing. How basketball at
this point is probably the single most international game, the
only thing that's close to soccer, right, the only thing
that's and maybe soccer's maybe soccer is even bigger, but
it's it's medium here. But I mean basketball, You've got

(01:14:57):
great players from North America, Europe, you know, Western Europe,
Central Europe, Asia, Africa.

Speaker 2 (01:15:07):
Remember to Kem Bamtumbo as an example.

Speaker 1 (01:15:09):
I mean, what an incredible international game. And the fact
that you've got a game that was invented in America,
and yet it's been since nineteen seventy seven that the top.

Speaker 2 (01:15:20):
Draft pick was a white American.

Speaker 1 (01:15:22):
Actually says a lot I think good about the sport
of basketball, about professional basketball, how how international it is,
and I actually really I really like that data point.

Speaker 2 (01:15:35):
All right, we're going to take quick break. We'll be
right back on Kiwa.

Speaker 1 (01:15:37):
A few people said, you know, for these these old
kids and young adults who don't know how to communicate
very well, get them involved in toast Masters. And a
listener said, Mandy had an official from Toastmasters on a
few days ago, I guess, and I think that's a
I think that's.

Speaker 2 (01:15:54):
A great idea as well.

Speaker 1 (01:15:56):
A lot of people who texted in guests trying to
guess when the last white American was the number one
pick in the NBA draft.

Speaker 2 (01:16:04):
A lot of people got that very close.

Speaker 1 (01:16:06):
A whole bunch of people kind of guess, you know,
mid seventies. And I didn't realize was that long ago
until I until I read that story.

Speaker 2 (01:16:13):
But anyway, an interesting, interesting story for sure.

Speaker 1 (01:16:16):
I want to actually just I'm gonna do this one quickly,
and I gotta be a little careful with it because
the F word is involved in the name of this project,
and I want to just be careful. So there's a
there's a website now that has the F word and
then l a p du dot com. That's the that's

(01:16:37):
the site. And what this website does, and I'm quoting
from four oh four Media, is the website lets anyone
use facial recognition to instantly identify police officers.

Speaker 2 (01:16:55):
And you can.

Speaker 1 (01:16:56):
Imagine a positive potential use and a very negative potential
use for this. And what's interesting, what's interesting about it,
what they've done is use only only publicly available data.
They're not illegally scraping some hidden part of a police

(01:17:18):
department's website. It's all publicly available data. So let me
just share this with you. A new site, f word
lapd dot com is using public records and facial recognition
to allow anyone to identify police offers police officers in
Los Angeles if they have a picture of the police officer.

Speaker 2 (01:17:37):
This tool is.

Speaker 1 (01:17:38):
Made by a guy named an artist named Kyle McDonald,
and it's designed to help people identify comps who may
otherwise try to conceal their identity like covering their bags
or serial number.

Speaker 2 (01:17:51):
Now this person.

Speaker 1 (01:17:53):
Is probably a leftist and you know, anti Trump and
all that, and he says, we deserve to know who's
shooting us in the face, even when they have their
badge covered up. And this is what the guy who
made the site told the reporter when the reporter asked
if the site was made in response to violence during
the LA protests.

Speaker 2 (01:18:13):
So in any case, in any case.

Speaker 1 (01:18:16):
There's more of the article, but I'm not going to
read more of it. I just want to, you know,
acknowledge the potential positives and potential negatives and also the
interesting use of technology.

Speaker 2 (01:18:27):
So, first potential positive.

Speaker 1 (01:18:29):
If there's a police officer who's going to break the
law and he knows he's going to break the law
or violate department policy and decides to try to protect
himself by covering his badge or covering his name or both,
it's kind of cool that you would be able to
identify that person from a picture and then have that
person face the consequences.

Speaker 2 (01:18:50):
Of his or her actions.

Speaker 1 (01:18:52):
The other side, though, is what if a police officer
is doing something completely legal, completely with in policy, and
something they're ordered to do by the department, for example,
something in crowd control. And let's say it's a police
officer that has a wife and kids, and they know.
This officer knows that the people in this crowd, some

(01:19:15):
of them at least are are paid agitators with a
potential tendency toward violence, and so you cover up your
identifying information because you don't want these people to show
up at your house and to you know, slash your
tire or try to burn your house down or attack you,
and so you cover that up and you're not doing

(01:19:37):
anything wrong, but you just don't want to be targeted
because you know there are a lot of bad people
out there right now.

Speaker 2 (01:19:42):
So with this tool, if.

Speaker 1 (01:19:44):
They took a picture of your face, if you're an
LA cop, there's a very good chance they'd be able
to identify you anyway. So that's the downside. The other thing,
and this is sort of a neutral thing, but just
I want to mention it is what an.

Speaker 2 (01:19:58):
Amazing thing to be able to do.

Speaker 1 (01:20:02):
You know, this is artificial intelligence, I'm sure. And you
take a picture of somebody and then you also went
and grabbed public data from wherever the data is. But
it's all data freely available on the internet with pictures
of cops and information that identifies them wherever it might be,
but again all public. And then the system uses AI

(01:20:24):
to compare the picture you took to all this data
that it's got from wherever it's got it, and then
it pops out a result. Here it is and you
can imagine. And actually I know of another use.

Speaker 2 (01:20:35):
Of that data. My kid told me about it.

Speaker 1 (01:20:36):
You find a picture of something and I don't remember the.

Speaker 2 (01:20:38):
Name of the website.

Speaker 1 (01:20:39):
You find a picture of something available for sale on
the internet, and you want to see if it's available
for cheaper. You can put that picture into this other
AI and it'll scrape the It'll scour the internet looking
for the same picture, like, for example, a chandelier they'll
find look for the chandelier available on another website and
try to find you that.

Speaker 2 (01:20:58):
Same thing cheaper.

Speaker 1 (01:20:59):
It is remarkable what this technology can do and how
fast it's developing. When we come back science, my good
friend and our favorite and most frequent show guest back
at his CEU physics professor Paul Beale, a guy who
makes me wish I had stayed in college for a
while or studied physics with him, And I know, I

(01:21:20):
know it's I don't deny it.

Speaker 2 (01:21:22):
I don't deny my nerdiness.

Speaker 1 (01:21:23):
And some of my best friends are nerds, because nerds
of a feather flock together.

Speaker 2 (01:21:28):
So a thing that's come.

Speaker 1 (01:21:30):
Up quite a few times in our conversations with Paul
have been random numbers. And it just keeps coming up
because random numbers have some uses that most people never
think of. But random numbers are shockingly difficult to generate.

(01:21:51):
And so Paul has been working with a team at
NIST and you know folks affiliated with with CU as
well to try to do something about this.

Speaker 2 (01:22:00):
And it looks like you may.

Speaker 1 (01:22:02):
I shouldn't say stumbled, because that's not fair, because you've
been working on this real hard, but come up with
some solutions here. So first of all, Paul, good morning,
and thanks for being here.

Speaker 4 (01:22:12):
Good morning.

Speaker 1 (01:22:13):
Before we get into what you and your team have done,
please explain two things, just briefly. Why are random numbers important?
And why are they so hard to generate?

Speaker 8 (01:22:30):
Okay, So, truly, random numbers are really useful in the
sense of, for example, in technology for cryptography, having random
numbers that are available on each computer allow different computers
to talk to each other in a secure way.

Speaker 4 (01:22:47):
So that's one use of random numbers.

Speaker 8 (01:22:50):
And randomness appears everywhere in nature, and being able to
create them and use that to study.

Speaker 4 (01:22:57):
The properties of nature is very important.

Speaker 2 (01:23:00):
Okay, But or I should say, and.

Speaker 1 (01:23:06):
There's a function I remember when I was programming in
basic in the nineteen eighties on an Apple two plus
or a Trash eighty computer, if you remember those, there'd
be that. Yeah, So there'd be a function like rnd
open parentheses, number of close parentheses, and that generates a
random number.

Speaker 4 (01:23:25):
Right.

Speaker 8 (01:23:26):
Well, those are called pseudorandom numbers, and that's something I
use all the time in my own work. There you
can create them at an extraordinary rate, but they're come
from an algorithm, so they are unpredictable, but they are
not random in the sense sooner or later, the series
of numbers you get out of one of those will
repeat again and again and again, and they're very useful,

(01:23:50):
but they are not truly random. They are generated by
an algorithm.

Speaker 1 (01:23:54):
And if they are not truly random, and if it
is something that would eventually repeat, does that imply that
to the extent you're going to use random numbers as
you said, for cryptography, which which means essentially encrypting messages
so that people or computers can communicate in a way

(01:24:14):
where if somebody intercepts the message that they can't understand
what it says, you can't read the message if they're
using one of these pseudorandom things. Does that mean somebody
with a powerful enough computer may be able to guess
what the key is and decrypt a message that they
shouldn't be able to decrypt.

Speaker 4 (01:24:32):
That's exactly right.

Speaker 8 (01:24:33):
You would not want to use any sort of method
that generates the key using pseudorandom numbers, because a sleuth
an adversary could much more easily guess what your key is.

Speaker 1 (01:24:46):
So I see a piece over at Nature, which is
one of the one of the top science publications quantum
physicists reveal unveil most trustworthy random number gener yet.

Speaker 2 (01:25:01):
And you're part of this group.

Speaker 1 (01:25:03):
So tell us about the group and tell us what
you've done and how you've done it.

Speaker 8 (01:25:07):
Okay, So the lead author is an this scientist, his
name is Christer Scham and also on the paper or
a bunch of both NIST and CU employees. Jasper Palfrey
and Galtham Kaburi were the other sort of lead authors
of the paper. I played a very small role that
I can describe later.

Speaker 4 (01:25:27):
And what they were.

Speaker 8 (01:25:28):
Doing is creating random numbers using entangled photons what the
technologists might call quantum two point zero. It's using quantum
mechanics to generate, which is quantum mechanics generates things and
measurements are always random and unpredictable in quantum mechanics. And
this is a means of generating the numbers using the

(01:25:50):
fundamental properties of the universe.

Speaker 2 (01:25:53):
How do you how do I want to put this?

Speaker 1 (01:25:55):
How do you harness some fundamental property of the universe
in a way that you then turn into a random number.

Speaker 8 (01:26:02):
Okay, So what their technique is They use entangled photons.
So they take a laser and they shine it into
a crystal, and what comes out or two photons, each
having half of the frequency of the input photon, and
they go in opposite directions, and they have properties that

(01:26:22):
photons have, and one of the properties is polarization. So
when you put on polarizing sunglasses in your car, what
you're doing is you're filtering out light that's horizontally polarized.
So you're removing the photons that are horizontally polarized and
leaving in the ones that are vertically and the horizontally

(01:26:42):
polarized ones are the ones mostly that come from glare
from the road and the brightness of the sky, so
the sky darkens without interfering with the light, just bouncing
off of trees and everything else that you're looking at.
And so these polarized photons can be measure and so
they send one photon to a detector they call Alice and.

Speaker 4 (01:27:06):
One to the one they call Bob.

Speaker 8 (01:27:08):
And Alice and Bob are two characters that appear in
cryptography papers since nearly the beginning of cryptography. And so
they measure the polarization states of these two photons, and
since there came from the same source, they're entangled. So
if you measure one of them is vertically polarized, the
other one is guaranteed to be vertically polarized, and vice versa.

(01:27:30):
And so that connection, this coupling between the polarization states
of the photons is inherently quantum and excuse me. So
the detectors actually measure the polarization states and randomly bury
the direction in which they're measuring the polarizations, and the
sequence of whether you see the photons or not comes

(01:27:53):
out in a way that cannot be produced by any
adversary who's trying to create that sequence of events that
you measure in your detector.

Speaker 2 (01:28:04):
Okay, I understood a little bit of that.

Speaker 1 (01:28:07):
So is the is the polarization of the photon infinitely variable?
Is the polarization of the photon the random number or
what exactly is the random number that comes out of this.

Speaker 8 (01:28:23):
So when you measure a photon, let's call that a one,
and you don't and you don't see a photon in
the other detector, you would call that a zero, and
so the the these numbers that come out of the
two detectors are correlated because of the fact they came
from the same entangled source and this correlation. The weird

(01:28:45):
thing is, when you are about to measure a photon,
it doesn't know which way you have your detector set up,
so there is no way to figure out a priori
what the measurement will give. But once one measurement happens,
the other one is going to be correlated with that.
That's this spooky action at a distance that really bugged

(01:29:06):
Einstein in the nineteen thirties about the properties of quantum mechanics.

Speaker 1 (01:29:11):
All right, I think I'll just dig myself into a
deeper hole if I keep going too much on this,
because I'm not really getting it, even though I'm still
I'm incredibly impressed that they've been able to do it.
I do have one one more follow up, though. So
you said that they randomized the position of the detectors.

Speaker 2 (01:29:29):
That right, right, How do they.

Speaker 4 (01:29:31):
Randomize theization state of the detector?

Speaker 1 (01:29:33):
How do they randomize that in a way that's truly
random To make sure that the random number that comes
out of this thing is actually random.

Speaker 8 (01:29:41):
So they use a physical random number generator, for example.

Speaker 4 (01:29:46):
Radio noise. If you tune your radio.

Speaker 8 (01:29:49):
To some sort of random frequency, you hear a bunch
of hiss. Yeah, and that is as random as you
can get from you know, physical detectors, and so are
random numbers, but they don't come from an inherently quantum
source like the ones that Christa and his team have created.

Speaker 2 (01:30:07):
Okay, all right, so now those kind.

Speaker 4 (01:30:09):
Of random numbers to set the detective.

Speaker 2 (01:30:11):
Okay, So.

Speaker 1 (01:30:13):
Would it be possible to create a true random number
generator from something that just listens to the noise when
you turn the radio in between frequencies and there's nothing there.

Speaker 4 (01:30:24):
Yeah.

Speaker 8 (01:30:24):
In fact, there are many. There are what are called
randomness beacons, and we'll come to that. There's one that
based on this experiment, is that random dot Colorado dot edu,
and it generates and publishes the random numbers that it
is creating. And so there are a bunch of these
all over the world using all sorts of different random sources.

(01:30:47):
I've seen random number generators that are based on the
patterns created by lava lamps, all sorts of crazy. Anything
that is inherently long term random, you can use as
a source for physical randomness.

Speaker 1 (01:31:03):
Wow, I'm looking at this random dot Colorado dot.

Speaker 2 (01:31:07):
Edu, and it creates this incredibly.

Speaker 1 (01:31:09):
I don't know how long this is, one hundred and
twenty eight maybe I don't know. It's some very very
long string of hexodesimal whatever.

Speaker 8 (01:31:16):
Right, those are five hundred and twelve bits each time
it puts out a number.

Speaker 1 (01:31:20):
Wow. Okay, all right, let's do something else quickly. I'm
going to need to read and drink more to understand
this a little better, but it is.

Speaker 2 (01:31:28):
It is really incredible. Actually, what this team accomplished.

Speaker 1 (01:31:31):
Figuring out a way to use to use quantum mechanics
to generate real random numbers pretty amazing stuff. So all right,
let's just do two minutes on something else, even though
it's worth more than two minutes.

Speaker 2 (01:31:43):
Tell us about the Via Sea Reuben Observatory.

Speaker 8 (01:31:48):
Okay, So, as the new observatories come online, it's in
the mountains in Chile, about nine thousand feet above above
sea level.

Speaker 4 (01:31:58):
And so they've generated.

Speaker 8 (01:32:00):
A very huge pixel detector that has three point two
billion pixels in the detector. And so that's the quote
one hundreds and hundreds of top end iPhone type pixel measurements,
and so what they are able to do is scan

(01:32:21):
an enormous piece of sky every night, and in their
first few hours of observations they observed ten million galaxies
just by pointing this telescope and following the spot across
the sky with this very high precision detector.

Speaker 4 (01:32:37):
And their goal is to measure the.

Speaker 8 (01:32:39):
Locations of twenty billion galaxies over the course of the
next few years.

Speaker 6 (01:32:43):
Wow.

Speaker 1 (01:32:44):
Wow, And I have seen some of these initial pictures.
They're really quite incredible. One more question on that. Who's
Vera Rubin Oh?

Speaker 4 (01:32:54):
Vera Ruben's very interesting story. She was George Gamov's graduate
student in the nineteen fifties. In the nineteen sixties, she.

Speaker 8 (01:33:02):
And Kent Ford were the first people to measure the
existence of dark matter, and they were studying the rotation
rates of stars in nearby galaxies, and they noticed that
the stars on the far reaches of the galaxy were
moving much faster than they should have been, just based
on the amount of mass that the galaxy appeared to

(01:33:23):
have from all the stars and everything in the visible
portion of the galaxy. And so dark matter makes up
something eighty five percent of all the matter in the universe.
Is this very mysterious dark matter. We don't know what
it is, but it is measurable, and every galaxy in
the universe appears to have a large collection of dark

(01:33:45):
matter that composes.

Speaker 4 (01:33:47):
Most of the mass of the galaxy.

Speaker 1 (01:33:49):
All right, last question, This comes from a listener, and
just give me a quick answer. Paul Ross. Please ask
Paul about the lava lamp wall.

Speaker 4 (01:33:57):
Oh, that's what I was referring to.

Speaker 8 (01:33:59):
Its people have a video cameras pointed at a whole
bunch of lava lamps and they're all doing they're weird
things that lava lamps do that make them so mesmerizing.
And so then they would take the video camera and
take that information from the dozens of lava lamps and
generate random bits and publish them. And so this is

(01:34:21):
called a randomness beacon, and random dot Colorado dot edu
is one of many many randomness beacons around the world.
And the fact that they're all generating random numbers in
very different ways by very different processes and are it
makes it very very difficult for someone to hack the
various random numbers are coming out because each random beacon

(01:34:47):
is used by other random beacons to sort of tie
the numbers together and give them a traceable output so
that you know if you're choosing you look. For example,
you want to sign a document, you sign it using
the number that's most recently posted on some the random beacon,
and that time stamps the creation of that document within

(01:35:10):
the one minute that appear between the various random numbers.

Speaker 1 (01:35:14):
Absolutely amazing, see you, physics Professor Paul Beal. I definitely
need Bourbon for that one for the random number thing,
and as always, I'm very grateful for your time. It's
fascinating conversation today. Thanks Paul.

Speaker 4 (01:35:28):
Hey you have a nice weekend.

Speaker 2 (01:35:29):
Okay, you too, You too,

All Episodes

06-27-25 - FULL SHOW Random numbers; Rep Gabe Evans; American meatpackers

Episode Transcript

The Ross Kaminsky Show News

Popular Podcasts

Bookmarked by Reese's Book Club

Dateline NBC

Stuff You Should Know

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

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}06-27-25 - *FULL SHOW* Random numbers; Rep Gabe Evans; American meatpackers

Episode Transcript

The Ross Kaminsky Show News .css-1q01m3q{margin:0 0 -2px 0;}

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}Bookmarked by Reese's Book Club

Dateline NBC

Stuff You Should Know

All Episodes