Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
I would like to do something just completely different for
(00:02):
one second, just based on that little promo. We heard
a moment ago here on KOA where they played some
of the old sounders and you heard them singing like
eighty five KOA or what and I can't sing. I
won't sing for you. But uh, here's the thing I wonder, Shannon,
I have a question for you. Shannon's been in radio
a lot longer than I have, but I don't know
that he's been in radio long enough to answer yes
(00:24):
to this question, primarily because I.
Speaker 2 (00:25):
Don't know when it happened.
Speaker 1 (00:27):
Shannon, Were you working in radio when they went from
two numbers to three numbers, from eighty five to eight fifty?
Were you working in radio when they did that? I? No,
you know what, I might have just started when they switched.
Speaker 2 (00:45):
When they switched. I do you know why they switched?
Have you ever?
Speaker 1 (00:50):
I don't know why they switched, and I probably should
being in this business, But I don't know why they
went from eighty five to eight fifty. I think the
eighty five sounds so cool, maybe, but maybe that's just
because it's vintage that I think it sounds cool. Maybe
eight p fifty actually sounds better. I don't know, but
I do wonder why they switched you. One of the
remote bands that I used to drive said on the
side Unit eighty five. Oh that's cool. So you talk
(01:12):
about like in the nineties or something. Yeah, yeah, that's
pretty neat.
Speaker 2 (01:17):
So I don't know. I don't know the answer to that.
Speaker 1 (01:18):
Anyway, I hope you had a wonderful weekend. I had
a very busy weekend. Maybe I'll tell you more about
that later. The Broncos have too many penalties, unforced errors
and they should have won that game. Again, another another
game that they lose because of their own their own
mistakes and so close, and you know what, excellent teams find.
Speaker 2 (01:40):
Ways to win those games.
Speaker 1 (01:42):
I think the Broncos are a very good team, but
they're clearly not an excellent team, and they they're a
little bit disappointing so far, not massively, but a little bit.
And the record being one and two, whereas Pat just said,
could easily have been three and oho, a little disappointing.
But anyway, I am looking forward to the Monday night game.
I will be who is that the Bengals?
Speaker 2 (02:03):
Is that right?
Speaker 1 (02:04):
I think it's the Bengals and I will be on
the sidelines holding the microphone on the Monday night game.
I didn't realize when I volunteered for the game that
it was Monday night. I thought it was a Sunday game.
Now I realize it's a Monday night game, and that
means I'll be tired on Tuesday, but I'll be working.
I'm not taking the day off. You'll see me here
or hear me here next Tuesday. Let's talk a little
(02:24):
bit about the Charliekirk memorial. And I'm going to cover
this on and off throughout the show. And I do
want because I have many different takes, many different angles
I want to talk about, and I hope that you
will do me the favor of going to my substack
at Rosskominski dot substack dot com, Rosskominsky dot substack dot com,
or if you forget that, if you just go to
(02:46):
Rosskominsky dot com and click on today's blodcast. I've got
a link there near the top, and I hope you
will read the note that I wrote early this morning
about some of my thoughts about the Kirk Charliekirk memorial,
and I hope you will subscribe to my substack. It's
absolutely free. It's probably worth more than that. And I
try to write one or two times a week just
to give you some i'll call the medium form thoughts
(03:09):
on some things.
Speaker 2 (03:10):
Now, I think that.
Speaker 1 (03:15):
Almost everybody who watched or heard the Charlie Kirk Memorial,
and just so you understand, I listened to most of it,
and I watched some but heard the vast majority. There
were probably a few speakers that I missed near the beginning,
but I heard most of it, and I think most
people would say that it's not really a close call.
(03:40):
Which was the most powerful moment for me, and I
think for most people watching, this was the most powerful moment.
The next to last speaker of the event, Erica Kirk.
The last speaker of the event was the President Donald Trump,
but Erica Kirk was his widow. Next to last speaker.
She spoke for close to half an hour, I think,
(04:01):
much much longer than than anybody else. I'm not sure
how long Donald Trump spoke for, but certainly everybody before
spoke for just a few minutes, and she spoke for
close to half an hour.
Speaker 2 (04:11):
And this was a remarkable moment. That young man, that young.
Speaker 3 (04:19):
Man on the cross our Savior said, Father, forgive them
for they not know what they do.
Speaker 4 (04:35):
That man, that young man, I forgive him.
Speaker 1 (04:56):
And I'm gonna just stop it there because the applause
keeps going, going and going, and I'm not going to
get into the philosophical stuff right now. I will just
say that forgiveness is a topic that has come up
quite a.
Speaker 2 (05:11):
Few times on my show over the years, and.
Speaker 1 (05:14):
I've talked with listeners quite a lot about it over
the years. And if you want to text me anything
about it at five six six nine zero, please go
ahead and do so. That was I thought that was
an incredibly powerful moment. As I'm listening to it just
then for the you know, the twelfth time or something,
it's almost bringing me to tears. I cannot imagine this
(05:34):
young woman with two beautiful young kids having to well,
not having to deciding to choosing to forgive the man
who murdered her husband for no reason other than that
that man did not like what the husband was saying?
How do you forgive that? And just just so we're
(05:56):
all clear, like I'm not a Charlie Kirk acolyte. I
only met him once. I doubt he knew my name.
I neither loved nor hated him. I do not forgive
that guy. I absolutely do not forgive him. Whatever happens
to him. I hope it's whatever is the worst possible
(06:17):
thing that can happen to him. And maybe it's because
I'm not Christian. I don't know. I don't know, but
that was an incredible moment. And I'm gonna just add
one thing here and then IM gonna come back to
more of this a little bit later. There were a
lot of moments over the course of the memorial yesterday
(06:39):
that was I would say more religious than political, probably
a lot more religious than political, very very devoutly Christian. That's,
after all, what Charlie Kirk was, what his wife is,
what most of the folks in that audience are. And
while the religious aspect of it doesn't speak to me personally,
(07:01):
as I'm Jewish and not particularly religious, I do think
that that put that showed a message that I think
was very appealing to many people who found something remarkable
in that willingness to forgive and in other things that
were said yesterday. And this is part of the reason
(07:21):
that I think that Charlie Kirk will be a much,
much bigger factor in American politics and culture in death
than he was in life. I want to I was
gonna do something else in this segment, but I got
a text from a friend who I won't name, and
I'm gonna just mention this, read this to you briefly.
(07:44):
Then maybe I'll do one or two other things. Then
in the next segment of the show, we've got Michael Doherty,
who's the Boulder County District Attorney, which is going to
be an interesting conversation. So this is from a friend
of mine who I won't name. He's responding to what
I was talking about in the previous segment about forgiveness,
and I mentioned that Erica Kirk's moment during the Charlie
(08:06):
Kirk memorial yesterday where she says she forgives the man
who assassinated her husband. That's an incredibly moving moment, incredibly
moving moment. It is very, very difficult to not burst
into tears listening to that, and there wouldn't being wrong
with being in tears. I just it's sort of bad
for being on the radio, so I tried not to.
(08:28):
Here's what my friend said. I cried. Forgiveness is so
hard it took me years before I forgave the person
who murdered my father and ten year old brother. Forgiveness
is for you and your soul. It is giving love
to your soul. It doesn't change my intellectual mind that
(08:48):
this eighteen year old kid at the time has been
in prison for thirty four years and earned it, should
suffer and lived decades longer with no possibility of parole.
Speaker 2 (08:59):
Suffering.
Speaker 1 (09:01):
And to restore your faith in humanity, otherwise we lose humanity,
seek revenge and live and hate.
Speaker 2 (09:06):
That's what we sing.
Speaker 1 (09:07):
Another reason to forgive, To restore your faith in humanity.
And then he says, I will protect my wife, kids,
myself with force if needed, but only if needed. Can
you imagine. I can't imagine. I don't want to imagine.
You know, my friend having his dad and brother murdered
(09:28):
when my friend was young, and gosh, it's just a
shocking thing. Really, I'm not even gonna add more to
it because I don't even want to think about it, frankly.
Speaker 2 (09:40):
So all right, I'm gonna lighten this up.
Speaker 1 (09:41):
I'm gonna switch gears just in a massive, massive way
here for a second. So you know that I used
to live in Chicago, and that I used to have
a nightclub in Chicago. It was called the Bridge, and
the bridge was next to a bridge on Division Street,
but not near the part of Division Street where all
(10:03):
the bars are, but over near the highway. If you know,
Chicago would also it was a bridge over the Chicago
River well on the west side of town. And I'll
come back to that in a second. Here's a piece
from the hill dot com and this is from yesterday.
Speaker 2 (10:21):
Hundreds.
Speaker 1 (10:22):
That means hundreds of people took part in a historic
swim in the Chicago River yesterday. The UK Guardian reported
that the organized swim was the first of its kind
and close to one hundred years. The number of participants
came close to three hundred. According to the Chicago Sun Times,
the mayor said reclaiming our river not only creates a
(10:44):
recreational space for residents and visitors, but also puts us
on the map along with other global destinations where open
water swims have become part of city culture. And the
reason that I want to mention this to you is
this is truly an incredible thing.
Speaker 2 (10:59):
And I'm tying it to my nightclub for a second.
Speaker 1 (11:02):
My nightclub was on the banks of the Chicago river,
and I remember this didn't happen a lot more than once.
Maybe two or three times were something upriver from us,
and I think it was a tannery like a place
that would take pigskins and cowskins and tan them with
lye and all kinds of chemicals and turn them into
(11:23):
leather and footballs and whatever else people would want. But
they would either accidentally or on purpose, I don't know,
release stuff into the river and we would be at
our nightclub and fish would be jumping out of the
river onto the docks to get out of the water.
That's how bad the Chicago River was. And now you've
got hundreds of people swimming in it. So good for Chicago.
(11:45):
Good for Chicago. When we come back, Boulder DA Michael
Doherty has to decide whether to retry a man who
was convicted of murder but whose sentence was overturned after
it became clear that the former CBI scientist Missy Woods
mishandled evidence in the case. Will he retry or will
(12:07):
he let it go? We'll talk to the DA next.
I am very pleased to be joined once again on
the show by Boulder County District Attorney Michael Doherty. Who
is also a candidate for Colorado Attorney General. And I
would just like to note that before we went on
the air, Michael told me that he is I think
twice run the Leadville one hundred, which I cannot imagine.
(12:30):
How do you do that? How exactly do you run
one hundred miles? It seems impossible and insane.
Speaker 5 (12:37):
Well, good morning, Ross, It's great to be back on
with you. And I will say it just speaks to
my stamina and the great team and family I have
around me, and I love running in Colorad's outdoors and
I'll just keep doing it.
Speaker 2 (12:47):
Unbelievable.
Speaker 1 (12:48):
Do you what altitude do you go to to train
for that? Or do you just run around Boulder at
Boulder's altitude which is like half of Leadville's altitude.
Speaker 5 (12:58):
Well, thankfully Boulder fortunate the opportunity to run all through
the hills. But I'll run wherever I am. So in
the last week I've run in Breckenridge, Alamosa and Denver.
So wherever I'm going to be, I'm going to keep running.
And that's how I build up the stem and to
do what I need to do.
Speaker 1 (13:12):
Did you ever run on Magnolia Road up towards Nederland.
Speaker 2 (13:16):
Did you ever run there?
Speaker 6 (13:17):
Yes?
Speaker 5 (13:18):
Yeah, it's an amazing place to run in. Just a
beautiful place.
Speaker 2 (13:21):
That was.
Speaker 1 (13:22):
That was the first place I bought a house in Colorado,
was on Magnolia Road up there.
Speaker 2 (13:26):
Pretty pretty amazing.
Speaker 1 (13:27):
Although I'm kind of glad that I don't have to
deal with, you know, seven months of winter now, all right.
Speaker 2 (13:32):
I saw an interesting story the other day.
Speaker 1 (13:36):
So the context was was fascinating because I was having
a conversation with a guy named Charles Lane, longtime political
pundit and former Supreme Court reporter for I think ABC News,
and we were talking about the death penalty, and I
realized we don't have that here in Colorado anymore. But
(13:57):
I my longtime view on the death penalty, a relatively
long time view, was that I have.
Speaker 2 (14:03):
Come to oppose the death penalty.
Speaker 1 (14:05):
If you made me say have it or don't have it,
and those are your only choices, i'd say don't have it.
And you're not gonna like this part, Michael, but I'm
gonna say it anyway. Actually you probably agree with me
a little bit. I don't fully trust the criminal justice
system to not convict an innocent man, and I've seen
too many stories of people cheating, whether it's prosecutors, cops, corners,
anybody to try to get a conviction, and I'm not
(14:27):
willing to have even one innocent person executed. Actually, I'm
guessing you might agree with me on that. You can
answer that in a second. Anyway, I had that conversation
with this guy on the air, and then literally two
or three hours later, I saw this story about a
convicted criminal named Michael Clark and Boulder and the decision
that you have to make that story came out the
(14:49):
same day I had this conversation. So I would like,
first of all, you can say anything you want to,
just briefly about the death penalty, and then I want
to talk about the Michael Clark case.
Speaker 5 (15:01):
Sure well, I actually agree with you one hundred percent. Ross.
In fact, after serving as a prosecutor in the Manhattan
DIA's Office in New York City, I moved to Colorado
the work for the Attorney General's office because the Attorney
General at the time, John Southers, had started a project
to identify wonthful convictions in the state of Colorado. The
system doesn't always get it right. To your point, even
when there's no misconduct. So, for example, I led a
(15:22):
team that worked on and then ultimately brought about the
exoneration of Robert Dewey. Mister Dewey had served eighteen years
in state prison before I and the other members of
the team started working on his case for a murder
that he did not commit in grand junction, and our
work helped bring about the successful identification, arrest, and conviction
of the actual killer, as well as the exoneration of
(15:42):
mister Dewey as he had been, for example, subjected to
the death penalty. He goes right to your point. So
in a system that doesn't always get it right, even
when there's no misconduct by police or prosecutors or jurors,
we need to make sure that we have everything in
place to allow people to still appeal any conviction. That's
why I or to the first conviction Integrity Unit in
the state of Colorado when it became District attorney for
(16:04):
Boulder County in twenty eighteen, because I think being a
prosecutor means doing justice even on cases that seem to
have been closed.
Speaker 1 (16:11):
So when Michael Clark was originally convicted, we still did
have the death penalty in this state, but he was
not given a capital sentence.
Speaker 2 (16:20):
Correct.
Speaker 1 (16:21):
So tell us now, what is the decision that you
need to make or you have just made about Michael Clark,
And why did that decision need to be made?
Speaker 2 (16:31):
What's happened here?
Speaker 5 (16:34):
Well, Having served on the cold case review team for
Colorado and having handled cold case homicides throughout my career,
I can tell you that anytime there's a murder, particularly
a cold case homicide, the victim obviously goes without justice,
the family goes without answers, and the community goes without
any kind of closure. So I've always been very passionate
about working hard to solve cold case homicides and prosecuting
(16:57):
the killer when we can. That requires a lot of experience.
Experience matters when you go into court on serious cases,
so cold case homicides we treat as a priority to
my office. The analysis has to include do we have
enough evidence to have a reasonable likelihood of conviction after trial?
That's the ethical standard, So can we prove the case
beyond reasonable doubt? And in the Michael Clark case, we
(17:19):
conducted an exhaustive review to examine all the evidence, and
I would highlight for you and your listener's ross that
the victim in this case, Marty Grisham, he had done
nothing wrong. He was completely innocent. This murder was, as
many are, wholly unjustified. Marty Grisham answered the door of
his house and he was shot four times, point blank
and killed that day in nineteen ninety four, Michael Clark
(17:43):
was identified as a suspect almost immediately by law enforcement.
Ultimately he was convicted, then appealed this conviction. I made
the decision of vacate the conviction because that was the
right thing to do. I also made the decision to
send the DNA evidence to a private lab because of
the significant issue is that the car of your investigation,
the state's lab has had and you and I have
(18:03):
talked about those.
Speaker 1 (18:04):
In the past. Yeah, so please elaborate that on that
though for people who missed it. So, why was there
a question? What happened that made you want to vacate
the conviction and the interest of justice? And then we'll
get to and you just touched on it more than
touching on right. You kind of answered already why you
want to go ahead and try them again? But what
happened that required in the interest of justice vacating the
(18:27):
original sentence.
Speaker 5 (18:29):
There were three significant issues. The first was alleged GERM
misconduct during the course of the trial. After the trial
came out that one of the jurors may have or
actually did visit the crime scene, which of course violates
the rules of the court. Second, the defendant had put
forward an ineffective assistance accouncil alleging that his defense journeys
did a shoddy job the first time around. And then
(18:50):
the third one that developed was with regards to the
misconduct of Missy Woods the DNA and now analysts excuse me,
who now stands indicted for her misconduct the state's lab
and her work has impacted hundreds of cases throughout the
state of Colorado, and Michael Clark's team brought a claim
that her work on this case was questionable, if not corrupted.
(19:12):
So for that reason and based on the other two
reasons of alleged GERM misconduct and ineffective assistance council, I
moved to vacate the conviction. And then I asked that
the DNA evidence be tested at a private lab to
ensure the integrity of the evidence.
Speaker 1 (19:25):
How old are those first two claimed problems with the trial,
the effective the ineffective council, and the other thing you mentioned.
Speaker 2 (19:32):
How old are those objections?
Speaker 5 (19:35):
Michael Clark was convicted of first degree murder based on
all the evidence against him in twenty twelve, and then
those claims were brought in the years.
Speaker 1 (19:42):
That followed, like the year it immediately followed, Like what
I'm trying to get at is like, did these things
all sort of show up recently or were the first
two there for quite some time, not enough to make
you think this needs to be vacated, and then the
Missy Woods thing kind of pushed it over, pushed it off.
Speaker 5 (19:59):
The No, all three were brought out more recently than that,
and we're being litigated at the time the DNA evidence
became an issue with Missy Woods.
Speaker 1 (20:09):
We're talking with Michael Dougherty, the Boulder County District Attorney
and candidate for Attorney General of the State of Colorado.
How in your so you're going you've decided to retry
him rather than just say you believe that you can
convict him again.
Speaker 5 (20:27):
That's the analysis and the conclusion we reached.
Speaker 1 (20:29):
Yes, will there be any admissible DNA evidence this time around?
Speaker 5 (20:36):
That will certainly be litigated before the trial, and we
asked for a trial date of October of this year.
The defense asked for a trial date late in twenty
twenty six. Ultimately the court said it for May of
twenty six for trial.
Speaker 1 (20:50):
Is Michael Clark free in the community right now?
Speaker 2 (20:55):
Yes.
Speaker 5 (20:56):
I had made the decision to restore him to his
bond status that he had during the first trial, and
I did that because he had given every indication that
he was going to appear for court through that process
and then in the process, since.
Speaker 1 (21:08):
Should I infer from that that you do not believe
Michael Clark poses a current danger to the community.
Speaker 5 (21:16):
That is correct, and I would highlight for you that
the murder was committed in nineteen ninety four. He was
not prosecuted the first time around until twenty twelve, and
during that time, to my knowledge, did not have any
criminal offenses. And since then that is true as well.
Speaker 1 (21:29):
Is there a claimed or suspected motive.
Speaker 2 (21:33):
In the murder?
Speaker 5 (21:36):
Yes, and I, as you know, under the ethical rules,
I can't get into too much of the evidence because
it's but there are reasons why the police identified him
as a suspect. Literally in the first day or two
after the murder of Martin Grisham.
Speaker 2 (21:47):
All right, let me try to ask this in a
way that you can answer.
Speaker 1 (21:50):
I realized it's an ongoing case, in a murder case,
so you are going to be kind of limited. Can
you recount for me any evidence or testimony given in
the first trial in public that went to motive.
Speaker 5 (22:07):
So what I would say is, of course, the defendant's innocent,
un lesson until proven guilty, and the charges and merely
allegations until proven in court. At the first trial where
he was found guilty by the jury of murder in
the first degree, there was evidence presented of Marty Grisham's
checks being stolen from his home and an individual writing
those checks out to his own name, and that check fraud,
(22:29):
those stolen checks being discovered the same day as the
murder being committed. That was all evidence the jury heard.
Speaker 1 (22:36):
Last question for you on this when it came to
the decision whether to retry, after you got all the
information that you requested from your team and from your
own research, did you find the decision to go ahead
and retry to be a fairly easy decision once once
you had the information in front of you of what
(22:58):
you would bring to the trial or was it a
close call.
Speaker 5 (23:02):
What I would say is Marty Grisham was gunned down
in cold blood, so obviously we want to make sure
that we reach the right result for him and his
family in the community. But also I recognize the responsibility
I owed to the accused in any case to make
these decisions really thoughtfully and after a careful analysis of
all the evidence against the defendant. And that analysis took
(23:24):
quite some time because I wanted to make sure that
we were on the right track. In any case impacted
by missy Wood's misconduct, it requires us to look at
all the other evidence in a case. So, for example,
in a case like this, at the time this murder
was first when the murder was committed in ninety four,
DNA was just beginning to be used in criminal cases
in Colorado and across the United States. So murder cases
(23:46):
before then had been solved without DNA, and of course
murder cases since then sometimes don't involve DNA, so it
involves a careful analysis of all the evidence. Motive means
any statements that defendant makes after murder's been committed indicate
he's in fact responsible for the murder. So going generally speaking,
going through all that evidence in each one of the
cases where missy Wood's conduct may have impacted the integrity
(24:09):
of the conviction, something we've approached really thoughtfully and put
a ton of work into making sure we're on the
right track in each one of those cases.
Speaker 1 (24:17):
Michael Dolreaty is Boulder County District Attorney. He is candidate
for Attorney General of the State of Colorado.
Speaker 2 (24:25):
You know, for he hasn't.
Speaker 1 (24:27):
Michael doesn't hasn't asked me to talk about any politics
at all, but for for my own perspective, he's the
most credible candidate in this in this race at this time.
Speaker 2 (24:37):
And even though Michael Michael.
Speaker 1 (24:39):
Is a Democrat and I don't normally lean that way,
I have tremendous respect for the way he does his
job and and I think he's probably the right guy
for AG. The website if you want to learn more
about that. That campaign is Michael for AG dot Com,
which is separate from what he's doing right now in
his day to day job is DA for Older County,
(25:00):
and he's doing it very well. Thank you so much
for your for your time. Michael, always appreciate having you here.
Speaker 5 (25:06):
Ross, Thanks for having me on and I hope you
and your listeners have a great day.
Speaker 1 (25:09):
You YouTube, go run one hundred miles at eleven thousand
feet altitude and talk to you later. See you, all right,
all right, very good, very good. Uh let me uh,
let me switch gears.
Speaker 2 (25:22):
I don't have much to add to that conversation.
Speaker 1 (25:24):
I think that was kind of I think that was uh,
that was good. And I hope I answered a lot
of my questions and hopefully you found it interesting as well.
So I've been thinking, obviously, I've been thinking a lot
about this whole Charlie Kirk thing and what it means
for American politics, American culture.
Speaker 2 (25:42):
Religion, all of this stuff.
Speaker 1 (25:44):
And and you know, a lot of times things happen
in our society that that many people see well rightly
see as very intense at the moment, but wrongly anticipate
will be very long lasting and durable.
Speaker 2 (26:07):
Right, And you gotta be a little careful with this stuff.
Speaker 1 (26:09):
I don't want to I don't want to downplay something
that's important for any given listener. But just as just
as an example, I will I will what was that, Shannon?
Speaker 2 (26:24):
What happened.
Speaker 1 (26:26):
Me?
Speaker 2 (26:26):
Editing your interview for the News m.
Speaker 1 (26:31):
Funny.
Speaker 2 (26:31):
Okay, So.
Speaker 1 (26:35):
The Me Too movement incredibly intense for a while, took
down Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby kind of sort of, I
guess Bill Cosby's a little before that took down a
lot of people, and a lot of folks thought that
this is going to be a really important, durable thing,
And in a way, maybe in the background, it kind
of is in the sense of giving women who have
(26:56):
been sexually abused sexually assaulted agency more courage isn't exactly
the right word, but more of a sense of support
to get out there and say something and not let
guys who abuse women get away with it.
Speaker 2 (27:12):
But I don't think it's an ongoing major political force.
Speaker 1 (27:15):
I do think, as I said maybe twenty minutes ago
or thirty minutes ago.
Speaker 5 (27:19):
That the.
Speaker 2 (27:22):
Charlie, the death of Charlie Kirk, I think.
Speaker 1 (27:27):
Is a is a massive thing that is going to
have ongoing political impact. Now, of course, I watched the
memorial yesterday. I've talked a little bit about that. I
will talk more about it over the course of the show.
But before that, a day or two before that, I
saw this video that actually came out I think the
day after Charlie Kirk was killed, but I hadn't seen it.
(27:50):
It's got eight point seven million views on YouTube, and
it's by a guy named Tom McDonald who's basically a
white wrapper right with law with with dreadlocks and face
tattoos and you know, the whole thing and the real
(28:11):
I want to share some of this with you. I
might even share the whole thing. And by the way,
if you're listening on the podcast, this part is gonna
get cut out of the podcast because lawyers.
Speaker 2 (28:21):
But what you can do is you can go.
Speaker 1 (28:24):
To my blog at Roskaminsky dot com and I've got
it there, or you can go on YouTube and type
in Tom MacDonald m ac donald and the video was
called Charlie and you can watch it there and it's
only two and a half minutes long. And this really
struck me, not just because of the power of the lyrics,
but this really struck me as the kind of thing
(28:47):
that can cause a change, an inflection in culture that
is durable. Right like cutting a path that slightly changed
or more than slightly changes the direction of a river,
and the river just from that point on, or at
(29:08):
least for a long time, runs in the news path
instead of the old path and this made me think
that even more than the memorial did, or at least
as much. You don't have to agree with every word,
Tom McDonald says. My point is not that he's right
about everything, although I do think he's right about a lot.
My point is that that's incredibly powerful. It's got eight
(29:29):
point seven million views just on that one.
Speaker 2 (29:31):
Version of it.
Speaker 1 (29:32):
I don't know how many other versions have been reposted
on x or TikTok or Instagram or anywhere else, so
probably this thing has more like twenty million views. And again,
whether you agree or not is not the point. The
point is the power of the message. A year, yeah,
last year. Last school year, my younger kid took a
(29:54):
financial literacy class I don't remember exactly what the title of.
Speaker 2 (29:57):
The class was in high school and we talked.
Speaker 1 (30:01):
About it a fair bit because you probably know my
background is finance, and it occurred to me at the
time when we were talking about things like balancing a checkbook,
investing in the stock market, insurance, all these things, it
occurred to me, they should all have to take this class.
Why is this class even? Why is it optional? Why
isn't in mandatory? And my next guest I'm sure agrees.
(30:22):
Elena Zarnowski is founder of kid Laboratories. That website is
kid laboratories dot com, and she's got a lot of
thoughts on this, including the idea of financial literacy potentially
to be thought of as a STEM skill. So I
think i'll shut up and invite Elena into the conversation. Now,
welcome to Kowa, Thanks for being here, and why don't
(30:43):
you just pick up where I left off?
Speaker 7 (30:46):
Okay, great, Yeah, So STEM education is wonderful and it
offers us two main things.
Speaker 8 (30:52):
That's growth and innovation. But that's just one part of.
Speaker 7 (30:55):
The equation, and we've seen some fruitfulness over the last
couple decade rather focusing on STEM education, However, the other
part of that equation is good financial management and fiscal responsibility.
Speaker 8 (31:09):
And I just listened to your show last.
Speaker 7 (31:10):
Week and I think there was some complications with some
financial management in the state of Colorado, so it's very
apparent there as well. But what we do here at
kid Laboratories is if we really want something like sustainable prosperity,
we need to start teaching kids about being physically responsible
and we offer course content for parents to start being
(31:32):
the first educator for.
Speaker 8 (31:34):
Students from six years old all the way up to sixteen.
Speaker 1 (31:38):
Do you think that this very digital world that we
live in now adds to or modifies what the proper
content is of a financial literacy course for kids? There
is there stuff that you would only need to know
now or is it really all kind of the same
as it has been for a while.
Speaker 7 (32:00):
Yes, So there's two parts of that answer that question.
So first and foremost, there's the legacy content, and I
read about this in my book. I have a book
coming out and December, future Proof Kids, all about the
skills needed for the future.
Speaker 8 (32:11):
So yes, there's legacy.
Speaker 7 (32:12):
There's central tenants of finance that will never change savings, earning,
you know, investing, X, y Z. However, because there's new
platforms and we are in the you know, next gen
of finance, there's new complications that we need to be
very aware and I read about these in my book.
There's you know, a click to buy FOMO. There's ecological economics.
(32:36):
I was the economics and math major in college, and
not once did we talk about natural resources as part
of the bottom line.
Speaker 5 (32:43):
There's conscious spending.
Speaker 7 (32:44):
I don't know about you, but in all of my
friends we get boxes from Amazon, delibat you, or a
house daily, and my kids just think they magically appear.
So it's something that we need to start bridging that conversation.
You know, the buy now, the click to buy phone.
Speaker 8 (33:00):
It's just something that we need to do control the
narrative on.
Speaker 7 (33:04):
And this is something I am very passionate about because
I teach other courses on AI, an AI workshop for
AI literacy as well as character development and goal setting.
So as a parent, I always say I am a parent
first and everything else second. I want to control the narrative.
I want to start these conversations with them, because, whether
we like it or not, they are learning through osmosis.
(33:25):
They're picking up conversations that they hear at school, they're
picking up conversations what they see on social media rather,
and they're picking up content through osmosis by things that
they over here. So what I did and I found
myself it's really a new situation.
Speaker 8 (33:42):
I spent fifteen years in tech as a tech executive.
I'm sorry, I'm getting feedback.
Speaker 2 (33:52):
Okay, I got you. Still just keep.
Speaker 8 (33:54):
Going, Okay, I just can hear myself speaking.
Speaker 1 (34:00):
Okay, Shannon had done something on the board earlier, so
you might check that, Dragon, I don't know if there
is anything there, but just keep going if you can.
Speaker 7 (34:13):
I okay, it's tricky because I hear myself talking about
fiscal responsibility.
Speaker 8 (34:18):
Is there a reason?
Speaker 1 (34:19):
I'm sorry, I'm not sure what what's up with that?
But if if it's too difficult to focus, we.
Speaker 2 (34:24):
Can, we can. We can leave it there. Dragon.
Speaker 1 (34:26):
Maybe you need to ask Shannon if he did anything there,
because there was something he was working on. But I
think I'm I'm also, I don't know if you're still
getting it.
Speaker 2 (34:34):
We can, we can.
Speaker 8 (34:35):
It's gone now, Okay, all right, it's gone now.
Speaker 5 (34:38):
It's gone now, all.
Speaker 1 (34:39):
Right, so we yeah, we are about two minutes left,
so finish your thought.
Speaker 8 (34:45):
Okay, I'm sorry, I forgot where he was.
Speaker 7 (34:47):
But right now, as a parent, I really want to
control the narrative on every new technology that's coming out,
and and especially financial literacy as well. So what I
have done is created this curriculum for my kids, so
I can, you know, basically control the narrative and frontload
them with information on finance, AI and character development and
goal setting so when they're out there already we are
(35:09):
already have these discussions. We're not gonna, you know, read
the repercussions of the social influence.
Speaker 2 (35:15):
I just want to mention something to you.
Speaker 1 (35:16):
It's kind of relevant and maybe for your use. So
my kid is online a lot. A lot of his
friends are people he's talking to on the headphones while
playing Fortnite, and they have all these platforms that they
use to talk to each other, Twitch, discord this stuff
that I barely understand. One of the things my son
told me is that an immense number of people on
(35:39):
these platforms are sponsored by online gambling websites and they
are pitching to kids, and kids are finding a way
to get money somehow electronically turn it into cryptocurrency, depositing
the cryptocurrency and offshore gambling websites, and.
Speaker 2 (35:59):
Essentially playing slot machines.
Speaker 1 (36:02):
My son had a friend lose forty dollars in front
of him in class a couple of weeks ago, and
another friend lost like had done really well, made a
bunch of money and lost.
Speaker 2 (36:16):
All of it.
Speaker 1 (36:16):
And I'm talking about a seven figure number now lost
all of it in online gambling that's being targeted to kids.
So I think that might be an interesting thing to
keep an eye out for you want to add anything.
Speaker 8 (36:30):
Well, the all prelude to my courses.
Speaker 7 (36:33):
So my book that's coming out with Future Proof Kids,
it gives the three lessons that I teach online virtually
over the summer, money Wise, AI Workshop and character Development
goal set of course I called goal Getter.
Speaker 8 (36:42):
So the first chapter of the book is my called appearance.
Speaker 7 (36:46):
If you're a parent of Alpha generation zero to fourteen
years old today, we need to start a less tech
revolution and this is os controlling the narrative around tech,
exposure to tech. This scenario could be very much controlled
if we just had parameters around tech, around social acception
and cultural acceptance, about how much tech is available to
(37:06):
our children, and create some values and ethics. This is
something that's completely absent in the development of AI right now,
is ethics and parameters.
Speaker 8 (37:14):
So as parents, it's our responsibility, I think our duty.
Speaker 7 (37:16):
I also talk about something called the ten year test
in my book is basically, before you do anything with
your child, give it the ten year test. What could
possibly happen or quote unquote go wrong over the next
ten years if we implement this in our lifestyle.
Speaker 8 (37:30):
So it's a pause.
Speaker 7 (37:31):
It's time for us all as parents to take a
pause and to reflect and then take back control and
start to work together. I have a number of free
workshops I'm putting on the rest of this year, in
December and October and November, even for grandparents to want
to bridge these gaps, the legacy conversations.
Speaker 8 (37:50):
They want to have money.
Speaker 7 (37:51):
It's my calling and what I just think, what if
over the next ten years we work together as parents
have out the generation and create this categorical ship.
Speaker 8 (38:02):
It's totally possible. They do all over the world in
different countries, and we can see.
Speaker 7 (38:07):
Their model and then adopt and adapt.
Speaker 2 (38:11):
Elena.
Speaker 1 (38:12):
Elena Sarnowski's website is kid Laboratories dot com. She's the
founder of kid Laboratories, sometimes called America's STEM teacher. Elena,
thanks for the for the interesting conversation. I love the
idea of a less tech movement. I'll get back to
that at some point on the show. I think that's
a great idea. Thanks for your time. Thanks, bye bye.
Speaker 2 (38:31):
We'll take a quick break. We'll be right back on Kawa.
Speaker 1 (38:33):
So let me switch gears now before either of us
gets in a lot of trouble. This is kind of
a wacky story, actually, so you know who Tom Homan is, right,
Tom Holman is Donald Trump's Borders Are, they call him,
and he's really the guy who is in charge of
(38:54):
the overall operation to deport illegal aliens. And this is
pretty crazy story. I think MSNBC had it first and
then The New York Times. And I'm sure the source
from inside the government is probably somebody who either doesn't
like the Trump administration or doesn't like Tom Holman, or
to put a kinder spin on it, maybe just believes
(39:16):
in the system doing things the right way and is
concerned that this isn't being done the right way. Listen
to how crazy this story is about Tom Homan. Tom Homan,
who was later this is New York Times was later
named President Trump's Borders Are, was recorded a year ago,
September of last year, accepting a bag with fifty thousand
(39:39):
dollars in cash in it in an undercover FBI investigation,
According to people familiar with the case, The investigation was
later shut down by the Trump administration. The cash payment,
which was made inside a bag of that would be used.
I won't even name the food chain because irrelevance dragged
their name, but it's made that it was cash inside
(40:00):
of a bag that had the name of a takeaway
food restaurant on it. Grew out of a long runing
counterintelligence and investigation that had not been targeting mister Holman.
According to people who spoke on condition of anonymity, Holman's
encounter with the undercover agents recorded on audio tape led
him to be investigated for potential bribery and other crimes
(40:22):
after he apparently took the money and agreed to help
the agents who were posing his businessman secure future government
contracts related to border security. To people said after Trump
took office this year, Justice Department officials shut down the
case because of doubts about whether prosecutors could prove to
a jury that mister Holman had agreed to do any
specific acts in exchange for money, and because he had
(40:44):
not held an official government position at the time of
the meeting with undercover agents. So now let's just talk
about this a little bit more. Let me make something
very very clear. At the time of this apparent payment,
and so far I don't hear Tom Holman saying that
he did take it, he did not work for the government. Okay,
he did not work for the government. And it is
(41:06):
a very very common thing for people who have close
ties to government or did serve in government, to pedal
influence and to say I know who to talk to
who may be still in government, to recommend that they
give you a contract for whatever your services might be, private,
prison or whatever. Right, I'm just making stuff up and
(41:26):
I'm not saying it was one of those companies.
Speaker 2 (41:28):
I don't know.
Speaker 1 (41:29):
And it's very common a lot of these people who
were in government or or look at Hunter Biden, right,
pedaling influence. Oh, I've got influence. My dad's name is Biden.
Guess who he is. And this is what's done. These
people make lots and lots of money by steering government
contracts to people, and it's usually not illegal. It's only
(41:52):
really illegal if the person who works for government takes
an act that they wouldn't otherwise have taken, either for
money for themselves or their friend getting some money, or
some other corrupt thing like that. Now here's the problem
with the Homan thing. Tom Homan took this money bag.
(42:12):
And by the way, it's not normally cash, right. Normally
these are businesses effectively making payments that are that are
categorized as consulting payments.
Speaker 2 (42:21):
It's it's not normally as cash.
Speaker 1 (42:23):
And there might also be a question as to whether
Tom Holman declared the income on his income taxes, because
if not, that would be a problem as well.
Speaker 2 (42:31):
Here's the issue.
Speaker 1 (42:33):
All else being equal, the fact that he was sort
of peddling influence when he wasn't in government is not criminal,
you know, it's it's it's unseemly, but it's how things
are done. The bag of cash makes it a little
bit weirder. But here's the thing. It was always very
likely that if Donald Trump became president again that Tom
(42:55):
Holman would get a big job in government. And this
is why this really does need to be investigated. I
don't dislike Tom Holman. I don't like Tom Holman. I
don't care about Tom Holman. He's a guy hired by
Trump to do a job and he seems to be
doing it. I got no ax to grind for or
against Tom Holman. But if this guy took fifty thousand
(43:15):
dollars in cash, as Andy McCarthy says, that would be
very very suspicious, and I personally would like to know more.
Speaker 2 (43:21):
Did not put my trash out? Why the hell not?
You cannot fool me on Mondays.
Speaker 1 (43:27):
You might be able to fool me other days, but
not Mondays, because I would never even move to a
place where Monday is the trash day, all right.
Speaker 2 (43:33):
I'm just that against it.
Speaker 1 (43:35):
So no, so no, I do want to talk quite
a bit more about the Charlie Kirk Memorial.
Speaker 2 (43:40):
I have a lot of thoughts on that, and I'm
gonna do it in a moment.
Speaker 1 (43:42):
I just want to just take one or two minutes
on a kind of interesting local story.
Speaker 2 (43:50):
So are you Are you aware of.
Speaker 1 (43:53):
A place called the American Motel off of I seventy,
near Kipling and Wheat Ridge. I think you can see
it from from I seventy, and it's famous for having
for many many years an enormous American flag and a
and a B, a big red awning. And it is
also famous for having really low prices, like the sign
(44:16):
on tops is thirty two to ninety five and up.
And you know, it's kind of one of those places.
And I saw this piece in the Denver p I've
never been in it. I obviously never stayed there, But anyway,
the American Motel, This is from the Denver Post.
Speaker 2 (44:30):
The American Motel.
Speaker 1 (44:31):
Will soon meet its end, but memories of notorious wheat
Ridge establishment live on and then the subtitle for the
article CD Motel off I seventy was known for gigantic flag,
low nightly rate sign and a past stay by Elvis.
Speaker 2 (44:48):
So there's some there's some.
Speaker 1 (44:49):
Very interesting stuff in this story, and I've got it
up on.
Speaker 2 (44:51):
The blog as well.
Speaker 1 (44:53):
And they quote a gentleman named Jim Laurentz who was
a police officer or maybe still is a pl police officer.
Speaker 2 (45:00):
I'm not sure.
Speaker 1 (45:02):
No, he's retired now, but he was a police officer
in Wheatridge for oh my gosh, forty three years.
Speaker 2 (45:07):
He says. When I started, it was.
Speaker 1 (45:09):
A nice place, talking about the early nineteen eighties when
what is now the American Motel was originally a ramada
in And maybe there's plenty of folks listening to me
right now who remember it that way back at the time.
Speaker 2 (45:23):
If you remember it.
Speaker 1 (45:23):
That way, text me anything you want to tell me
about the American Motel. If you were ever at the
American Motel, text me at five six six nine zero
and tell me anyway, he says. He says, it had
a ballroom that was always rented. It was very popular,
but that was a long time ago. More recently, the
American Motel was known for its rock bottom rate and
reputation as.
Speaker 2 (45:43):
A magnet for criminal activity.
Speaker 1 (45:46):
It also gave down on their luck folks a place
they could afford to stay for a while. This story passed,
has given way to boards on the ground floor windows
and as bestis removal trucks around the building. The motel
closed a couple of months ago, and it's date with
the wrecking ball approaches probably next month, with plans to
replace it with an apartment complex. And just some of
(46:09):
this history is fascinating, so I just thought I would share.
Speaker 2 (46:12):
This with you, just just for fun, just for fun.
Speaker 1 (46:14):
In its better days, it had an Elvis suite to
commemorate the King's overnight stop there during the nineteen seventy.
Speaker 2 (46:20):
Six visit to Colorado.
Speaker 1 (46:22):
On the ground floor there was a ballroom and the
Red Balloon Lounge also known as the Red Balloon Saloon,
where some of the millions of people who drove past
the five story building over the decades might have stopped in.
Speaker 2 (46:33):
For a drink or two. In a nineteen.
Speaker 1 (46:36):
Seventy five restaurant review in the now defunct Suburban Journal Sentinel, newspaper.
The critic gushed about the crapes, crab omelets, filet mignon,
and veal cordon blue that could be had at the
newly opened Ramada Inn, not to mention the Colorado trout,
shrimp tempora and shrimp scampy dishes after a drink and
(46:57):
music from Alex and the band, a five member that
includes and this is quote includes two cute kicks at
the Red Balloon Lounge. The new venue was deemed top
notch and to think it's all there in Wheatridge, Wheatridge, Colorado.
According that was the end of the review in the newspaper.
In the late eighties, it became the American Motel and
(47:19):
gradually an appreciably rougher establishment.
Speaker 2 (47:23):
Now check this out. There have been thousands of.
Speaker 1 (47:25):
Police calls, thousands of police calls first service to the motel,
raging from drug deals to human trafficking, to shootings and
beatings to a twenty eleven cold case murder, and mister Lorenz,
the retired police officer, says, it kind.
Speaker 2 (47:39):
Of became the opposite of what it had been.
Speaker 1 (47:42):
He said, oh this is someone else actually says it
was aged.
Speaker 2 (47:46):
And wasn't that well taken care of. Let me just
skip ahead a little bit.
Speaker 1 (47:49):
A longtime Wheatridge resident named Bonnie bottom Botham still was
a DJ on a Denver radio station, doesn't say what
station in the late seventies and early eighties, using the
on air named Jennifer Page. Anybody you ever hear of
a radio person named Jennifer Page. If you ever heard
of her, text me and tell me what radio station
she was on. She said on New Year's Eve, you
dance and get a room for the night. It was
(48:10):
an elegant time. I just want to just get a
little bit more here. I just want to find these
these crime numbers.
Speaker 2 (48:17):
Check this out.
Speaker 1 (48:18):
Police Chief Chris Murtha said, nine hotels in the city,
many of them clustered around Kipling and I seventy for years,
accounted for ten percent of all the police calls in
the city, and the American Motel was at the top
of that list.
Speaker 2 (48:33):
Now check this out, dragon, you listening.
Speaker 1 (48:36):
According to data provided by the city, the American Motel
had anywhere from thirty to thirty five percent of all
calls for service among hotels in the whole city of
Wheatridge during the high crime years of twenty twenty to
twenty twenty two. Calls at the motel peaked at about
twenty five hundred in the year twenty twenty, out of
seven thousand calls to all Wheatridge hotels that year.
Speaker 2 (49:00):
Oh my gosh. Anyway, it's coming down.
Speaker 1 (49:04):
It's coming down, and you know whatever history I guess
is going with it. I just thought i'd share that
with you for fun. I love stories about about local history.
Thought I would share that.
Speaker 2 (49:14):
One quick thing.
Speaker 1 (49:15):
I got a listener text, let me just find this.
So I was talking the previous segment about Tom Holman
having apparently taken a bag of cash, being caught taking
a bag of cash in an undercover FBI investigation that
wasn't initially looking at him, it was looking at something else.
But apparently they got him taking a bag of cash.
But he wasn't a government employee at the time, so
(49:37):
it's not clear that he.
Speaker 2 (49:38):
Did anything criminal.
Speaker 1 (49:39):
But as I said, it was very likely that if
Trump became president, then he would have a job in
government again, and apparently he took this cash with a
promise to try to get people government contracts. And again
he wasn't a government official at the time. It's not
clear that it's illegal. It definitely looks kind of smarty.
But one does wonder whether Holman ever took in a
(49:59):
few act and one probably also wonders whether he declared
the fifty thousand dollars on an on his income tax.
And a listener, a listener said to me, here, let
me try to find this Ross. When did you turn
into a tabloid reporter. He did something not illegal, but
I need to know more smh, shaking my head. Yes,
he did something that was probably not illegal. But I
(50:21):
think it's perfectly reasonable to want to know more when
a guy is hired by the President of the United
States for a very important law enforcement job in the
federal government, to know whether the guy is himself anywhere
from unethical to criminal. I think that is perfectly perfectly
(50:41):
reasonable to say I want to know more.
Speaker 2 (50:44):
And I would also.
Speaker 1 (50:45):
Say I would also say that I bet that person
would be seeing an entirely different tune if the person
we were talking about had been in the Biden administration
instead of in the Trump administration. Listener tax the Porstcha
Club held their meetings there.
Speaker 2 (51:03):
Let's see Ross.
Speaker 1 (51:04):
In the early eighties, we used to go party at
the Red Balloon saloon all the time. I attended a
very nice wedding reception there. Later on as a distributor,
I would deliver there, and even as a CD hotel,
they actually kept it pretty nice.
Speaker 2 (51:18):
Ah the memories.
Speaker 1 (51:20):
I spent a hooker and blow fueled weekend at the
American thirty two dollars and ninety five cents. I don't
know if that person is joking, but it wouldn't surprise me.
It wouldn't surprise me. Ross. I did a bunch of
acid there a long time ago. I believe you. I
believe that you did. Okay, let's do something different now.
(51:42):
Let's have a listen to something that Donald Trump said
at the Charlie Cookkirk Memorial yesterday.
Speaker 5 (51:49):
And so on that terrible day September tenth, twenty twenty five,
our greatest evangelist for American liberty became immortal.
Speaker 1 (52:01):
He's a model now for a freedom.
Speaker 2 (52:06):
I'm just gonna leave it there. That was the main
part I wanted to hear.
Speaker 1 (52:08):
And I'll say overall, Donald Trump's speech was was unremarkable.
Speaker 2 (52:11):
You know what's interesting about Trump?
Speaker 1 (52:12):
Just a little tangent here. Trump is really fun and interesting,
whether or not you agree with him. He's a he's
quite a good speaker when he's off a script, when
he's just talking whatever is in his head.
Speaker 2 (52:29):
And I don't mean you have to agree with him.
I don't mean anything like that.
Speaker 1 (52:32):
I just means he's pretty dynamic. He's pretty entertaining. He
changes the tempo of his voice, he changes the pitch
of his voice. He's dynamic, and he captures your attention
when when he's working from a script. He's terrible when
he's on a teleprompter. And I'm not just saying that,
you know, I'm not looking to insult Donald Trump. Just
say there's the difference between how good a speaker he
(52:53):
is when he is off script and how bad a
speaker he is when he is on a teleprompter. Is
release something. But anyway, what I wanted to get at
there was he said, Charlie Kirk is a martyr for
American freedom right now.
Speaker 2 (53:07):
And I think that's about right. I think that's about right.
Speaker 1 (53:12):
I don't know, and we will probably be we will
probably find out at some point. But Charlie Kirk was
extremely well known among the people.
Speaker 2 (53:21):
He was well known by.
Speaker 1 (53:22):
I know that sounds like a tautology, an enormous percentage.
The vast majority of America either never heard of Charlie
Kirk or only heard of him a little bit and
knew he was a guy who runs that ransom kind
of conservative organization or a group that liked to go
to try to talk to college kids and try to,
you know, get them to be more conservative or more religious,
(53:45):
or just a little something like that, but not much
more while he was alive. Now, million, would you surprise me? Okay,
I promise you. I'm not exaggerating here. It wouldn't surprise
me if the murder of Charlie Kirk caused one hundred
(54:08):
million more people to know who Charlie Kirk is. It
would not surprise me one bit. Right, It really pretty remarkable,
And I think it's right. I think Trump is right
that Charlie Kirk is now a martyr.
Speaker 2 (54:26):
And my point with saying that he's a.
Speaker 1 (54:29):
Martyr is not just that he died for a cause,
which essentially he did, but rather that he is now
a symbol, an avatar for that cause and probably going
to be, as I said earlier, an order of magnitude
(54:50):
or two orders of magnitude more effective in death than
in life at achieving what he was trying to achieve, which,
by the way, is not to put down anything he
did in life. This kid was a kid decided not
to go to college and to start this group that
was going to go to college campuses. I think it
(55:11):
was Marco Rubio yesterday in his speech because I listened
to or watched almost all of yesterday's memorial.
Speaker 2 (55:18):
I think it was Rubio.
Speaker 1 (55:21):
Who, when he was told that Charlie Kirk was going
to go to college campuses and try to get people
to consider becoming conservative, becoming Republican, becoming Christian, Rubio said,
college campuses, Why don't you try someplace easier.
Speaker 2 (55:40):
Like communist Cuba like that?
Speaker 1 (55:43):
And I get it, like if someone had told you
fifteen years ago, thirteen years ago that that somebody was,
you know, their mission is to start an organization to
go convince college kids to become conservatives, and were asking
you to invest in it, you might reasonably have said, Gosh,
(56:04):
I love the idea, but I'm so skeptical that it
will work that I'm not going to put money in that.
Speaker 2 (56:09):
I just think it can't work. And that might have
been my reaction. I don't know. Hard to look back
like that. But he did. But he did, and he
was utterly committed to it.
Speaker 1 (56:20):
And one of the I learned so much about Charlie
Kirk in recent days, stuff I didn't know.
Speaker 2 (56:24):
Like I've told you, I only met him once.
Speaker 1 (56:26):
I moderated a panel that he was on at a
leadership program of the Rockies annual retreat.
Speaker 2 (56:32):
So I met him one time.
Speaker 1 (56:34):
I think it's extremely unlikely that he would have remembered
my name. We're not friends, we never had any other communication,
so just I'm not claiming to have known it. The
intensity of this guy's commitment to his mission is really remarkable.
The dude worked sixteen hours a day, almost every day
(56:56):
for years and years and years, even when they were
raising a lot of money, took a big salary. It
wasn't about that for him. He was just remarkably committed.
Speaker 2 (57:05):
To his mission. The other thing that I found interesting,
and I don't remember who.
Speaker 1 (57:08):
Said this yesterday, and I don't actually I don't recall
for sure if it was in the memorial. I think
it was, but it might have been in an interview
because I saw a bunch of those two. But somebody
was talking about how Charlie Kirk was focused on excellence,
and whatever anybody was doing as part of their project,
you wanted them to do it excellently. And if you
(57:29):
weren't going to be excellent at whatever your task was,
then you shouldn't work there.
Speaker 2 (57:33):
And I love that too.
Speaker 1 (57:35):
None of this is to say that I agree with
Charlie Kirk about everything.
Speaker 2 (57:38):
I probably agreed with Charlie Kirk.
Speaker 1 (57:40):
About almost nothing on cultural and religious matters, and probably
I probably agreed with him on about eighty percent or
something of political matters. And it's fine, it doesn't matter,
it's not my point. My point is that he's a martyr.
He really is. And you've got all these people now,
(58:04):
probably one hundred million people who now see this grieving
widow saying to the world, I forgive my husband's killer.
I don't know how you do that, but she did.
(58:24):
And in general, throughout this, with a couple of rare
exceptions like Stephen Miller, who's just a complete jackass, but
throughout this, I think people notice, even if they're not
trying to think about it so overtly, the difference between
the reaction of the left when George Floyd, who was
not a consequential person, I know his family loved him,
(58:46):
and YadA, YadA, YadA. But George Floyd is not a
con consequential person. I'm not saying it's good that he died,
but he was a low level criminal, and you know whatever,
Charlie Kirk is an extremely consequential person.
Speaker 2 (58:59):
When George Floyd died, what did we have?
Speaker 1 (59:03):
We had a CNN reporter telling us that they were
mostly peaceful protests, with the scene behind him of a
burning city. We had violence everywhere. Think about Portland, think
about Seattle, think about downtown Denver, think about all kinds
of places. The left went crazy violence over the unjustified killing.
(59:24):
And it was an unjustified killing of a guy. Have
you heard any conservative call for violence in the aftermath
of Charlie Kirk's assassination. I haven't. I've heard people very angry,
(59:48):
but I have not heard anybody call for violence. And
beyond that, because words are cheap, I haven't seen violence.
Have you Have you seen anything like a riot by
conservatives going after liberals or going after anything, or burning
down statues or whatever the liberals do. And my point
(01:00:13):
is this, whether or not you're intending to think about it,
I think a large percentage of Americans, especially young adults
maybe eighteen to thirty five, right, so people old enough
to remember the George Floyd thing, for.
Speaker 2 (01:00:30):
Example, you can't help but notice.
Speaker 1 (01:00:37):
The massive difference between the way the left behaves and
the way the right behaves. The left, and I'm sorry
to be this categorical about it. I'm not normally you know,
this sort of black and white about this kind of thing.
But what you saw out of the left is that
they are destroyers, and what you've seen out of the
right is that they are builders. They are I don't
(01:01:00):
mean every conservative, but there are wing nuts on both sides.
I'm not talking about the.
Speaker 2 (01:01:03):
True lunatic extremists on either side.
Speaker 1 (01:01:06):
I'm talking about people who are pretty far to their sides,
but not as far as you can possibly get. Like
if you imagine how about this, Imagine a continuum from
negative ten to positive ten, with conservative being on one
side and liberal being on the other side. And I
don't care which one you put at which end, but
(01:01:26):
ten is the most on either plus ten minus ten.
If you think about the people who are like five
to eight or five to nine, with ten being as
extreme as you can possibly be, and I do think
turning point, USA, people are kind of in that five
to nine range on the conservative side and on the left.
There's all kinds of people who are five to nine
on their side right and Taifa might be a ten.
But you know, you look at how they reacted and
(01:01:50):
how many people who are fairly far left but not
all the way justified violence after George Floyd, and you
don't see it on the right. And the bottom line is,
I think what young adults are seeing, young adults who
have not been very politically active, not been engaged, not
been religious either. I think they see these two things.
They saw that, they see this one now and they
(01:02:11):
think to themselves, you know what, the Conservatives are better people,
and so I want to be with them. And that's
why I think this thing is going to be so
big and so durable, because once you're with them.
Speaker 2 (01:02:25):
And this doesn't.
Speaker 1 (01:02:25):
Necessarily mean being a Republican, the Republicans will benefit. But
you've got all these young people, not very politically active
so far, and they see this behavior. I forgive my
husband's killer, we welcome you, no violence, and they will
inevitably think to themselves, I've been told all these bad
things about conservatives, but based on how they're behaving right now.
Speaker 2 (01:02:48):
I think they're just better people.
Speaker 1 (01:02:51):
From one of my favorite news sources, and I put
news in air quotes there.
Speaker 2 (01:02:55):
The Babylon B. Quote surveying the.
Speaker 1 (01:02:59):
Hundreds of thousands gathered for Charlie Kirk's memorial service, along
with the millions watching across the globe, A despondent Satan
declared that he had quote made a huge mistake. Quote
Well this isn't going like I planned at all. Side Satan,
as churches once again were filled to overflowing around the nation.
Speaker 2 (01:03:18):
Listen to all that worship.
Speaker 1 (01:03:20):
How are even more people praising God in the face
of death?
Speaker 2 (01:03:24):
Ugh, I really screwed the poach this time.
Speaker 1 (01:03:27):
At publishing time and enraged, Satan had learned that thousands
more souls had slipped out of his grasp.
Speaker 2 (01:03:32):
All right, that's from the Babylon B. You get the idea.
Speaker 1 (01:03:36):
All right, I'm gonna do something completely different for a minute.
So this TikTok thing has been going on for a
long time. During the Biden administration, a law was passed
by Congress, signed by President Biden, upheld by the Supreme
Court as constitutional when it was challenged that says that
(01:03:56):
TikTok either has to be removed from Chinese control and
essentially sold to an American owner, or it has to
be banned in the United States of America. President Trump
has repeatedly refused to enforce it. He has broken the
law in doing so, in my opinion. In any case,
he has felt like he could get a deal done.
Now it does seem like there is a deal almost done.
(01:04:18):
But this is very much worth talking about. So here's
how I understand. We don't have all the deals, all
the details yet, but here's how I understand it. A
bunch of American investors are going to buy the American
(01:04:38):
operations of TikTok, and then this is the key part here.
They're going to lease or license the algorithm from Byteedance,
the Chinese parent company, and then Oracle, the giant American
database company whose founder Larry Ellison is battling day by
day with Elon Musk to be the richest man in
(01:04:59):
the world. World Oracle, their job is going to be
to take this copy of the algorithm that the parent
company will give Oracle and modify it to make sure
that it's not, for example, accepting Chinese propaganda into the system.
Or otherwise biasing the system against the United States, or
(01:05:23):
this or that, whatever else it might be.
Speaker 2 (01:05:26):
So the concept is Oracle is supposed to take.
Speaker 1 (01:05:28):
This algorithm and then modify it to make it US
friendly and then have this US controlled copy, but it'll
come originally at least still from China.
Speaker 2 (01:05:42):
From the National review. They say Oracle will be required to.
Speaker 1 (01:05:45):
Retrain a least duplicate algorithm, and user data will be
stored in the US and a cloud controlled and monitored
by the company. The lease is different from a sale
of the algorithm, which would prohibit Byteedance from operation the
video sharing app in other countries. And part of what's
going on here is the American deal. What they're looking
(01:06:07):
at is getting the American operations into the hands of
an American company. But byte Dance would want to keep
running TikTok or something similar to TikTok under a different
name everywhere else in the world, and so the deal
will not include fully buying the algorithm from byte Dance,
(01:06:27):
which makes sense in a way because if you can
leave that stuff with the Chinese company and let them
run whatever they want to run in China or France
or Nigeria or whatever, they're running this other stuff, then
that makes the deal much cheaper. Still going to be expensive,
still going to be very expensive. But if you're only
buying essentially the American rights instead of the worldwide rights,
(01:06:48):
then then you know that's something that's a little bit
more more possible, let's say. But there is an issue here,
and that is that I'm gonna go to the New
York Times now. Who controls the algorithm has been a
central issue in the debate over TikTok's ties to China.
Chinese law says the algorithm must remain under Beijing's control,
(01:07:11):
but US law requires TikTok to be cut off from
any quote, operational relationship with byte Dance and continuing to
quote now, including any cooperation with respect to the operation
of a content recommendation algorithm. So the American law seems
(01:07:32):
specifically to have been drafted to prevent a United States
owner from working with, cooperating with the Chinese parent company
Byte Dance, or from licensing or anything that would have
an ongoing business relationship between the United States company and
the Chinese company. And so it's unclear to me that
(01:07:58):
the proposed deal will even comport with US law. Now
I don't know who will have standing to sue. As
an example, let's say that X formerly Twitter or Facebook
or somebody like that sees TikTok.
Speaker 2 (01:08:18):
As competition.
Speaker 1 (01:08:21):
And they believe that TikTok being allowed to continue to
operate in the United States of America.
Speaker 2 (01:08:29):
Is a harm to them.
Speaker 1 (01:08:31):
That might be enough to give them standing to sue,
to say, if the law were actually followed, they wouldn't
be able to operate, and the law must be followed
because it is the law.
Speaker 2 (01:08:46):
So I don't know.
Speaker 1 (01:08:47):
In the United States, they say TikTok will be operated
by a board of directors with national security and cybersecurity
credentials byte Dance. The Chinese company will also have a
representative on the TikTok board of directors, although that person
will be excluded from the security committee. Also, the Chinese
(01:09:08):
company and other Chinese investors will own nineteen point nine percent,
so there will still be Chinese ownership. There will still
be some kind of payments to China, at least for
ongoing use of the license.
Speaker 2 (01:09:23):
And this is a very very tricky situation.
Speaker 1 (01:09:26):
It is not clear to me that this deal is
definitely gonna happen.
Speaker 2 (01:09:31):
I know Trump wants it to happen. Oh, by the way, it.
Speaker 1 (01:09:34):
Originally seemed like there was a chance that the US
government would take a huge fee or take some ownership
in the company.
Speaker 2 (01:09:40):
It looks like that won't happen. It looks like that.
Speaker 1 (01:09:43):
I think at this point it looks more like the
US government, Trump whatever is the facilitator, but not a participant.
In any case, we got to keep an eye on this.
It is a very big deal. Trump has gone from
hating TikTok to loving it because he thinks it helped
him in the election. But to the extent that the
d requires an ongoing connection to China, I think it
(01:10:03):
puts the whole thing at risk. Like the warren Zevon
got a couple of listeners who, you know, somewhat misinterpreted
what I said before, And when that happens, I think.
Speaker 2 (01:10:13):
It's my fault, not their fault.
Speaker 1 (01:10:14):
Most of the time, then that I should be a
little bit more precise. Sometimes folks just don't listen very clearly,
and then they text and say something that I didn't
actually syncriticize me for something I didn't actually say.
Speaker 2 (01:10:27):
But if I get.
Speaker 1 (01:10:28):
Two or three people saying ross, I don't quite get that,
or I don't quite agree with you, then.
Speaker 2 (01:10:31):
I think maybe I should have said it better.
Speaker 1 (01:10:33):
So, just going back to what I was saying earlier
regarding the perception of I think many Americans when they
look at the aftermath of the Charlie Kirk assassination and
compare it, even if they're not intending to, with what
happened after the death of George Floyd, I think the
(01:10:53):
perception will be that conservatives and I'm okay, I want
to be very clear, I am not talking about the extremes. Right,
if you were to rank a person's political intensity from
one to ten, I'm not talking about the tens. Okay,
the tens are crazy no matter which side they're on. Okay,
(01:11:15):
whether they're Antifa, whether they are the Proud Boys, what
I'm not talking about them. I'm talking about people who
are more or less normal people. But what I really
want to focus on is people who are more or
less normal but have very strong political convictions and are
quite active and that sort of thing. So people who
might be between five and nine on that intensity scale,
(01:11:39):
and I think that a lot of people who are
between five and nine on the intensity scale on the
left made justifications for the violence that we saw around
George Floyd.
Speaker 2 (01:11:53):
They just came up with one excuse after another.
Speaker 1 (01:11:56):
We all heard it. I'm not going to re litigate
all that. Obviously, the most obvious, the most visual and
memorable example was that TV reporter who I mentioned earlier,
who was talking about mostly peaceful protests with literally a
city on fire behind him, right behind him.
Speaker 2 (01:12:16):
It wasn't even a different cut. He was standing in.
Speaker 1 (01:12:18):
Front of burning buildings saying, they are mostly peaceful protests,
and people see the difference, and they see that in
the aftermath of the Charlie Kirk thing, you didn't see
the right calling for violence.
Speaker 2 (01:12:29):
You saw.
Speaker 1 (01:12:30):
You saw Erica Kirk saying something. You saw Erica Kirk
doing this.
Speaker 3 (01:12:42):
Young man, that young man on the cross, Our Savior said, Father,
forgive them for they not know what they do.
Speaker 4 (01:13:02):
That man, young man, I forgive him.
Speaker 2 (01:13:22):
All right.
Speaker 1 (01:13:23):
That's about the tenth or fifteenth time I've heard that,
and it's the second time I played it on the
show today, and it's still it still brings me to
the verge of tears. So the point that I was
trying to make before is that I think that many
youngish adults who have not been very politically active. Well,
look at the comparison between what I will call the
(01:13:45):
relatively far right and the relatively far left. I'm not
talking about centrist and moderates. I'm not talking about people
who are you know, zeroed to four on their political intensity.
I'm talking about people who are really into it, Like
Turning Point USA, people are really into it, way more
conservative than I am. But I think many people who
(01:14:08):
see that are going to see this group talks about
forgiveness and talks about welcoming people into the movement and
talks about all this stuff and didn't call for violence
and didn't commit violence. And on the other side, you
had so much violence in so many cities, and politicians
and pundits and whatever making excuses for it. Well, you know,
(01:14:30):
they probably shouldn't act as badly, but you know they.
Speaker 2 (01:14:33):
They're upset about this, so we get it.
Speaker 1 (01:14:37):
And my point isn't that you know, every conservative of
you know, every far Ish right person is good and
every far Ish left person is bad.
Speaker 2 (01:14:46):
That is not what I'm saying.
Speaker 1 (01:14:47):
I am talking about the big picture perception of people
who aren't very politically active, and see these two very
different movies being played each after somebody gets murdered, George
Floyd gets murdered, after Charlie Kirk gets murdered, and as
I said before, Charlie Kirk is a much more consequential
person than George Floyd was. And yet those people haven't
(01:15:09):
called for any violence. And that's why I think that
many people, not everybody. I'm not making a universal thing.
I'm saying many people will look at that and say,
I want to be with these guys because they seem
like better people. Again, I'm not saying every conservative is
good and every liberal is bad.
Speaker 2 (01:15:25):
I'm not saying anything like that.
Speaker 1 (01:15:27):
And clearly there will also be people who are turned
off by some of the turning Point USA stuff, the
degree of religiosity there that you know, it's not a
fit for me. Let's say how religious that is. It
doesn't suit my life at all. And some people will
will think that Erica.
Speaker 2 (01:15:45):
Kirk is acting.
Speaker 1 (01:15:46):
I don't, but I've had some people say that in text.
Speaker 2 (01:15:51):
But in the aggregate, I.
Speaker 1 (01:15:54):
Think what we've seen in the past week and a
half since the murder of Charlie Kirk reflect quite well
on American conservatives in ways that are going to be very,
very difficult for the American political left to compete with
because their instincts are not toward peace and calmness and forgiveness.
Speaker 2 (01:16:19):
You're welcome.
Speaker 1 (01:16:21):
I actually have a whole bunch of things I want
to talk about in our last eighteen minutes together today.
A couple of quick sound bites I want to share
with you.
Speaker 2 (01:16:31):
First.
Speaker 1 (01:16:32):
Yesterday's memorial, Charlie Kirk memorial I thought was very successful.
I mean, I wish it didn't have to happen, okay,
but it was very successful for the people they were
trying to appeal to and maybe for well, yeah, for
the people who they were trying to appeal to, I
think they did a very good job. They're trying to
appeal to people who either are or might be convinced
(01:16:52):
to be quite Christian and politically conservative. I would say
the event was more religious than political. It was some
of both, and there was I thought only one and
I'm going to share it with you just because, but
I really thought there was only one moment where I
thought it was kind of a discordant note where somebody
(01:17:14):
said something that I really thought was.
Speaker 2 (01:17:15):
A mistake versus other people are.
Speaker 1 (01:17:19):
Saying things that I don't necessarily agree with or don't
really necessarily appeal to me. Right, as a not very
religious Jew, conversations about accepting Jesus as.
Speaker 2 (01:17:30):
Your Lord and savior, it doesn't offend me.
Speaker 1 (01:17:34):
You know. If that's what works for people, and that's
what you believe, and that's what fulfills you and makes
you happy, and that's great.
Speaker 2 (01:17:40):
It's just not my thing, but it's okay.
Speaker 1 (01:17:43):
That doesn't I don't think that that's wrong though, It's
just not something I'm exactly on the same page with.
So I only heard one thing that I really thought
was wrong, and it was Donald Trump Junior when he
said this.
Speaker 9 (01:17:56):
But Charlie embodied something at the very core of our movement.
When people disagree with us, we don't silence them.
Speaker 1 (01:18:06):
Yeah, you do. That's exactly what your dad's FCC commissioner
tried to get done and probably did get done to
Jimmy Kimmel. And then your dad was calling for other
comedians on NBC in particular to get fired. So you are,
in fact trying to silence them. That's you. I don't
think conservatives are generally like that, like you don Junior.
(01:18:30):
The one person who should least be saying that because
your dad is trying to do that.
Speaker 2 (01:18:34):
Now. I will also say that Don Jr.
Speaker 1 (01:18:39):
Had another part, and I'm not going to play the
audio for you, but I'm just gonna describe it to
you that I thought was really good, really really good.
And he went through and said, if you believe whatever
the thing was right, if you believe in freedom, if
you believe in it, doesn't matter one thing after another.
If you believe this, if you believe that, and there
are all things that lots of.
Speaker 2 (01:18:59):
People believe, you're welcome.
Speaker 1 (01:19:00):
What do you mean is welcome to join the conservative movement?
Speaker 2 (01:19:04):
And his message, which was.
Speaker 1 (01:19:06):
Actually not the kind of thing you normally expect from
Don Junior, who said in his own speech that he's
not a sentimental guy. You know that he's prone to posting,
you know, aggressive memes and things like that. In fact,
I might have this, I might have this audio here.
Let me see if I can see if I can
make this week start right. Let me just this is
a commercial, so let me just get through the commercial
(01:19:27):
and then I'll play this next.
Speaker 2 (01:19:27):
Little thing for you here. All right, let's try this.
Speaker 9 (01:19:29):
Widely known for being a sentimental guy, he says, I'm
not anyone who's seen me on social media knows I'm
far more likely to crack a joke or get myself
in trouble for posting some grossly inappropriate memes than I am.
Speaker 2 (01:19:44):
To shed a tear.
Speaker 9 (01:19:45):
I know this because I've even gotten the call from
that guy a couple of times. You know, done, done,
you're getting a little aggressive and social media done.
Speaker 2 (01:19:58):
Relax, all right, that was a pretty good moment.
Speaker 1 (01:20:08):
And again he had this other fairly long thing where
he's saying, if if you believe that parents should be
in charge of their children or whatever the stuff was. Again,
I don't remember, but it was all welcome, You're welcome,
and very very much about that event was about welcoming people,
and I thought that was a very positive thing. Very
(01:20:30):
much of it was about welcoming people into their version
of Christianity, to their religion, and a very specific kind
of thing I think. I think Charlie Kirk was some
kind of evangelical Protestant. His wife is Catholic, but all
of it is very very Christian religious or innumerable mentions
of Jesus and Lord and Savior and all this, and
(01:20:50):
it's fine. Again, not my thing, but it's fine. That's
that's what they're going for. So in any case, I
did think that part of Don Junior's speech was very good,
and actually to the extent that I would say that
the only obvious mistake was Don Junior saying we don't
try to silence our critics. Like if you can go
six hours with a dozen politicians or whatever and then
(01:21:11):
a whole bunch of other people giving speeches and only
have one mistake, then that's actually a pretty good day.
Speaker 2 (01:21:17):
So I'm not going to dwell on the mistake.
Speaker 1 (01:21:19):
I just thought I had mentioned it briefly in passing
and mention that other stuff as well.
Speaker 2 (01:21:23):
Let me do something a little bit different.
Speaker 1 (01:21:25):
So late on Friday, the Trump administration announced that they
are going to add a one hundred thousand dollars fee
for applications for the H one B visa. The H
one B visa is for high skill workers. It is
very often used for tech workers, and my initial reaction
(01:21:49):
was negative, but I'm I see the argument here. Let
me just talk about it a little bit. There has
long been a v you a valid view.
Speaker 2 (01:22:02):
I believe.
Speaker 1 (01:22:04):
In the United States of America that technology companies, in
particular like computer programming companies and a lot of these
jobs are going to be going to be disappeared, if
I can use disappear as a verb by AI anyway,
But companies would use the H one B visa to
hire a computer programmer from India, and I pick India
(01:22:28):
specifically because a massive percentage maybe seventy percent of H
one B visas and technology go to Indians, Okay, a
huge percentage. So what they would do is they would
hire a programmer from India. And by the way, many
of those programmers from India are incredibly good and they
will work.
Speaker 2 (01:22:47):
For half the price.
Speaker 1 (01:22:49):
So they hire someone from India, bring them over here,
pay seventy thousand dollars, and fire an American who was
getting one hundred and forty thousand dollars. And for sure,
that happens, and has been happening for twenty years, maybe
thirty years. And the Trump administration decided they had enough
of it, and I'm so they put out this executive order,
(01:23:13):
and part of the executive order says there's going to
be a new hundred thousand dollars fee to go along
with a petition to be an H one B visa holder.
The executive order is not very well written, so it's
a little bit unclear, although the administration is trying to
clarify now. It was a little bit unclear initially whether
it would apply to people who already have the H
(01:23:36):
one V visa and are traveling out of the country.
So you had lawyers telling all these people with H
one B visas, maybe they're Indians, and then maybe they're
visiting their family in India right now, so you better
hurry up and get home and get back in the
country before Friday, but before Sunday, or you may be
stuck outside of the country if you don't pay one
hundred thousand dollars or the company doesn't paye hundred thousand dollars.
The administration is now saying, no, we didn't mean it
(01:23:57):
that way. We just mean new petitions. There are other
things that say that the Secretary of Homeland Security can
wave the fee if they believe that it is in
the interest of American national security to let me.
Speaker 2 (01:24:15):
Actually it might not be. It might not be the
holand Security guy, but.
Speaker 1 (01:24:18):
Anyway, the one of these secretaries can wave it and
say we need these people here, and it's okay for
our national security to get these people here. So we
got to have them, so we'll wave one hundred thousand
for them anyway.
Speaker 2 (01:24:30):
Look, I get it, I really do.
Speaker 1 (01:24:35):
And this is a difficult one for a libertarian like me, because,
on the one hand, I do see these companies.
Speaker 2 (01:24:44):
Hiring foreigners and firing Americans.
Speaker 1 (01:24:46):
And I'm gonna say some couple of things now that
will probably be unpopular with a few people, But I'm
just gonna.
Speaker 2 (01:24:51):
Let you know how I think about these issues.
Speaker 1 (01:24:54):
And one legitimate way to think about this issue is
why should the federal government be able to tell any
private company who they can.
Speaker 2 (01:25:03):
Hire and who they can't hire.
Speaker 1 (01:25:06):
Why should a company have to hire a worker for
twice the cost just because that worker is American. I
know you're yelling at the radio saying we got to
protect Americans. I'm just telling you there are a lot
of ways to look at this. The protect Americans thing
is an obvious way to look at it, and I
explained it already and I don't need to explain it
(01:25:26):
again just yet. But why should the government be able
to tell XYZ company that they have to hire an
American worker for two x instead of hiring a foreign
worker for X. And keep in mind, if you have
to hire the American worker for two x, then that
means you're going to have less money to spend on
other things, or your product will be more expensive.
Speaker 2 (01:25:49):
And so you're American customer.
Speaker 1 (01:25:51):
And other customers around the world will have to pay
more for that thing.
Speaker 2 (01:25:55):
So are you, and I do mean you willing to
pay more?
Speaker 1 (01:26:00):
And I'm just going to make up a hypothetical example.
Speaker 2 (01:26:02):
Here, are you willing to pay more for.
Speaker 1 (01:26:07):
Microsoft Office, for any Adobe product for I don't know,
or for any computer software that you use? Are you
how much more are you willing to pay for that?
If by agreeing to pay more, it would require or
(01:26:29):
force the company that produces the software to only use
American workers. What's that worth to you? Seriously? What's it
worth to you?
Speaker 2 (01:26:36):
It talk is cheap?
Speaker 7 (01:26:37):
Right?
Speaker 2 (01:26:38):
Oh, yeah, we got to hire the American workers.
Speaker 7 (01:26:40):
All right.
Speaker 1 (01:26:40):
Let's say right now you're paying I don't know what
the numbers are. Let's say you're paying one hundred and
fifty dollars for Office three sixty five for the year.
And by the way, I don't even know that Microsoft
is involved in this. I guess they are, but I
don't know. I'm just using a very very generic kind
of example. So let's say you use Office three sixty
five and you pay one hundred and fifty bucks a year,
and and I have no idea if that's the right price.
(01:27:02):
And now you want to say, all right, Microsoft should
not be allowed to have any more h onevvisa people
only American workers, or at least only American workers, until
the federal government truly is convinced that there are not
enough American workers left to hire.
Speaker 2 (01:27:17):
And then we have to go to the to the foreigners.
Speaker 1 (01:27:21):
And now that goes from one hundred and fifty dollars
to two hundred dollars. Is that worth it to you?
You might say, yes, What about if you're running a
company and you're paying fifteen thousand dollars in licenses and
now it's twenty thousand dollars in licenses.
Speaker 2 (01:27:40):
Is that worth it to you?
Speaker 1 (01:27:42):
You got to decide. I'm not telling you what the
right answer is. I'm just telling you got to think
about the trade offs. Everything is trade offs everything, So
I wonder about that. It's a similar kind of conversation
to why should the government be able to tell me
that in order to buy a product that comes from overseas,
I should have to pay a special Trump sales tax
on it because he wants me to buy the American one,
(01:28:05):
where I want to buy the foreign one because.
Speaker 2 (01:28:06):
It's cheaper and maybe it's better too.
Speaker 1 (01:28:09):
Should the government be able to tell me that where
do you draw the line?
Speaker 2 (01:28:13):
Should a state be able to tell.
Speaker 1 (01:28:14):
Me that I can only buy something from that state,
I can't buy something from.
Speaker 2 (01:28:17):
A different state.
Speaker 1 (01:28:18):
Well that's actually that kind of behavior is already barred
by the federal Constitution. But I'm just throwing that out
there as a concept. So anyway, we'll see how this
plays out. A lot of companies are pretty concerned about this.
There was also some question about whether the one hundred
thousand dollars would be an annual thing, which the Secretary
of Commerce, who's kind of a anyway, the Secretary of
(01:28:39):
Commerce suggested it would be one hundred thousand dollars a year.
But that's actually not what the executive order says as
far as I can tell, And the administration is clarifying
this already to say it's one hundred thousand dollars one time. Now,
if it's one hundred thousand dollars one time for an employee,
that you expect to have for five years. So that
costs you an extra twenty thousand dollars a year. Eh,
(01:29:00):
you're saving seventy five thousand dollars by not firing.
Speaker 2 (01:29:03):
The American You're gonna pay it.
Speaker 1 (01:29:05):
And the increase in employment among American tech workers might
not go up as much as you think, depending on
how all this plays out.
Speaker 2 (01:29:17):
So there's that I wanted to share that with you.
Speaker 1 (01:29:19):
A lot of companies that use these high tech visas,
these H one B visas, are kind of on edge
right now trying to figure it out. And it is
not a surprise now that China, which wants to be
the dominant economy in the world, and with Trump's trade wars,
he's helping China become the dominant economy. These trade wars
(01:29:39):
are mind bogglingly stupid. It's not a surprise that and
this is from an Indian website.
Speaker 2 (01:29:48):
China has announced the introduction of a.
Speaker 1 (01:29:50):
New visa called the K Visa, and I'm quoting from
India today dot I. The new K visa category aimed
at a acting young and talented professionals, particularly in the
fields of science, technology, engineering and maths, stem from all
over the world. The decision, which was approved last month,
amends the regulations on the Administration of Foreigners, Entries and exits,
(01:30:13):
and will take effect.
Speaker 2 (01:30:15):
In a week or a week and a half.
Speaker 1 (01:30:17):
The Cave visa, which observers are calling China's version of
the H one B, is designed to draw highly skilled
talents at a time when countries around the world are
tightening or recalibrating work visa rules. So how about that
the Trump administration is going to make it more difficult
to bring in the most talented foreign high tech workers.
Speaker 2 (01:30:41):
And I already stipulate.
Speaker 1 (01:30:43):
That some of these tech companies are using these as
a way to be able to fire more expensive American workers.
Speaker 2 (01:30:48):
I stipulate that already.
Speaker 1 (01:30:50):
But at the same time that the Trump administration is
making it more difficult to bring these people in, China
is making it easier to bring those people into their country.
Speaker 2 (01:30:58):
Who do you think is doing that? Right?
Speaker 1 (01:31:00):
I understand the politics, and you know what, Let me
just mention one another thing and then we'll bring in
the fabulous Mandy Connell. Let me mention one other thing.
We live in a represented in a republican lowercase are
democracy lowercase D where the people vote, and so politics
move politicians a lot, and so it's a it's politically popular,
(01:31:24):
I think to do what Trump is doing because many
Americans feel very sympathetic to the idea that, hey, if
a company is going to bring in foreigners and use
those cheaper workers to fire Americans, that's bad, and I
get it. I have a lot of sympathy with that.
China doesn't face that right. Chijinping is a dictator. He
couldn't care less what the people think. It's utterly irrelevant.
(01:31:46):
It never crosses his mind what the people think about
this kind of thing. All he cares about is growing
the economy. And in caring about growing the economy and
making themselves the dominant economy, they've decided to do the
exact opposite of what the Trump administration is doing, which
I think itself is interesting.
Speaker 2 (01:32:05):
Hi Mandy, can he do?
Speaker 4 (01:32:07):
Ah?
Speaker 2 (01:32:08):
Did you have a lovely weekend? I did it?
Speaker 6 (01:32:10):
Thanks for asking.
Speaker 2 (01:32:11):
Did you do anything interesting or you just veg or what.
Speaker 5 (01:32:13):
Would you do? No?
Speaker 6 (01:32:14):
I did a lot of stuff around the house, like
a lot of house stuff, like annoying things that you know,
you just put off for too long until they finally
you're just like, I have to move that pile of crap,
that kind of weekend.
Speaker 2 (01:32:24):
Did you bake anything?
Speaker 6 (01:32:26):
Ummm No, I didn't. Oh I made homemade pizza dough.
I'm working on homemade pizza. Do that has that same
kind of pull that you get, you know with pizza
doing the dough not just when it's but when it's
when it's cooked already, Like I wanted to have that
like Crunch and the Shoe, a really good pizza. I'm
(01:32:46):
not there yet. I'll let you know when I reached
that level. Okay, So on the the trying stuff out phase, right, Well,
that's a fun phase.
Speaker 2 (01:32:54):
Yeah, Yeah, got a lot going on. What you got
coming up?
Speaker 6 (01:32:58):
I have Representative Jarvis Card He is the new House
Minority leader here in Colorado. We're gonna talk to him.
We're also going to talk to the founder of something
called death Clock where you go and you put in
regular like your health information, just general questions and it
tells you roughly when you're probably going to.
Speaker 2 (01:33:15):
Die oh my gosh.
Speaker 6 (01:33:15):
And they do'll kick in selling you a bunch of
information about how not to die. So but I'm interested
in how they came up with this steap clock.
Speaker 2 (01:33:22):
Are you gonna push.
Speaker 6 (01:33:24):
Did it it says I'm gonna live to be eighty
nine if I don't change anything. Right now, that's eighty
I figured that's a good run.
Speaker 1 (01:33:30):
That's a pretty good run. I mean, these days you
could go.
Speaker 6 (01:33:33):
Longer and start smoking again when I'm eighty eight.
Speaker 1 (01:33:35):
Do you do you have long, long living people in
your family.
Speaker 6 (01:33:41):
Trade on the women's side, yes, on the men's side
not so much.
Speaker 2 (01:33:46):
So you know what it is.
Speaker 1 (01:33:47):
That's the same as as as my lovely bride who
you know well her her grandma lived to one hundred
and one or great grandma lived one hundred and two.
Speaker 6 (01:33:54):
Write that long but into their nineties. And my mom
is eighty one and still like an incredible condition. I mean,
she's no physical ailments whatsoever.
Speaker 1 (01:34:03):
Yeah. Well, hopefully I'll still know you at eighty nine
and you'll still be alive and kicking everybody. Stick around
for Mandy's Fabulous show. I'll talk to you tomorrow.