09-29-25 - *FULL SHOW* Rockies Woes; Young Adults & Religion; Ike vs AI

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
It is wonderful to be spending some time with you
this morning. I hope you had a great weekend. I'm
looking out the studio window here. Separate from the fact
that the windows are really, really dirty, it is quite lovely.
Even though I see lots of apartment buildings and office
buildings from here in the Denver Tex Center. There's also
plenty of trees in the distance, and just seeing all

(00:20):
the fall colors is fantastic.

Speaker 2 (00:22):
And I understand.

Speaker 1 (00:24):
All those people who want to go see all the
fall colors in the mountains, but I guess there's a
few too many of them. That Pat wordered story just
there about ghost tapping is.

Speaker 2 (00:33):
Really something, isn't it. Ghost tapping?

Speaker 1 (00:36):
I mean the fact that you can get just close
to a person and with the right technology you can
steal from them somehow. I mean, that's just unbelievable, the
things we have to the things we have to worry.

Speaker 2 (00:49):
About these days.

Speaker 1 (00:51):
I'm actually looking I wasn't thinking about that. I just
heard Pat talking about it. Here's this USA tod A piece.
What is ghost tapping? The latest on in a new
scam and how you can be impacted?

Speaker 2 (01:01):
Oh my gosh, ghost.

Speaker 1 (01:03):
Tapping eliminates the need for physical contact with a debit
or credit card, which is unlike previous scams. Scammers equipped
with handheld pat said this already, I know, I'm repeating him.
Scammers equipped with handheld wireless payment devices the same kind
used by legitimate businesses, need.

Speaker 2 (01:21):
Only to be within a few feet of the target.

Speaker 1 (01:24):
This is because tap to pay terminals use near field
communication waves to radiation waves to obtain card information for payment.
So a stranger may get unusually close to you or
even bump into you. They are able to charge your
card or digital wallet without authorization. They may post as
legitimate vendors and then ask people to tap to pay

(01:47):
for fake products, services, or donations.

Speaker 2 (01:50):
They may exploit.

Speaker 1 (01:51):
Inattentive consumers who tap their phones or cards without verifying
the business name, payment amount, or legitimacy of the transaction.

Speaker 2 (01:58):
Oh my gosh.

Speaker 1 (02:00):
The theft can often go on for days before a
bank's fraud detection system identifies it, as.

Speaker 2 (02:05):
Criminals make small.

Speaker 1 (02:06):
Withdrawals to avoid suspicion, So if you get unexpected alerts
from your bank or card about small charges, it could
be test charges that could be one or request to
just tap without showing a total or receipt suspicious activity
on your account after being in a crowded space, festival,
or transit area.

Speaker 2 (02:24):
So what occurs to me here? And these things have.

Speaker 1 (02:28):
Been available for a little while now, but maybe they're
becoming more of a necessity rather than just you know,
a thing that people with tinfoil hats would get. But
maybe now they're really needed. And you can get these
RFID blocking wallets, right, And these these wallets have material
sewn into the fabric of them that's usually some kind

(02:49):
of metal mesh, some kind of very very thin metal
mesh that blocks electromagnetism from going you know, from transmitting
between whatever's in the wall and whatever's outside the while
in either direction it doesn't matter. It blocks the well,
for lack of a better word, we'll call them radio
waves from going through. So maybe that's something we should

(03:10):
all look for, is RFID Wallet's all right? I wasn't
planning on talking about that now.

Speaker 2 (03:17):
I want to take a moment.

Speaker 1 (03:18):
I don't usually like to start a Monday with difficult,
heavy stuff. But we talked a bit after the Charlie
Kirk murder and the Evergreen High School shooting, both of
which were on the same day, September tenth, and we've
talked just a couple of times on the show about

(03:39):
the possibility of contagion or copycats or that sort of thing,
and the data out there about it is kind of mixed.

Speaker 2 (03:45):
By the way, I wrote a piece.

Speaker 1 (03:46):
On my substack today that I hope you will find
interesting and thoughtful and make you know, make you think
a little bit. And if you would go read it
and subscribe to my substack, appreciate it. If you go
to Rosskominski dot substack dot com and you can read
my note today, and it's along these lines. I'm not

(04:08):
going to read all of it to you, though. There's
going to be a lot in that note that I'm
not going to say on the air right now. But
I was concerned about that.

Speaker 2 (04:18):
And the data. I have to say, the data is
not conclusive.

Speaker 1 (04:25):
There are studies that seem to show a small increase
in the likelihood of another mass shooting or another school
shooting within a couple of weeks of there having been one.
It is not overwhelmingly conclusive data and it could be wrong.

(04:47):
So I'm not going to put a lot of stock
in that, but it wouldn't surprise me if it's right.

Speaker 2 (04:55):
For a lot of reasons.

Speaker 1 (04:56):
You could have somebody who's just on the edge for
whatever reason. Maybe they're a nihilist like so many you know,
teenagers and twenty something young men these days, or maybe
they've got a psychological issue, or maybe they've got some
grievance and the intensity of the grievance overwhelms your normal

(05:19):
sense of what's right and wrong, which kind of seems
to be what happened with the Charlie Kirk guy, because
I don't think the Charlie.

Speaker 2 (05:25):
Kirk guy was crazy.

Speaker 1 (05:31):
And maybe some of these folks will see somebody do
something terrible and then they see that story is all
over the news, and maybe the shooter's name is all
over the news, and it's kind of like fifteen minutes
of fame, or at least fifteen minutes of infamy, and
maybe somebody looks at this and they see, you know,
the guy who tried to attack the ice facility in

(05:53):
Dallas seemed to mimic and again, I don't know if
it's a coincidence, but seemed to mimic the Charlie Kirk
shooter a little bit in the fact that apparently he
used an older rifle, not one of these so called
assault weapons that.

Speaker 2 (06:06):
Certain people love to hate, but apparently an older.

Speaker 1 (06:08):
Rifle, and also wrote political messages on the cartridges on
the bullet casings. And I don't know, was that copycat?
Was that guy sort of like on the fence, do
something bad, not do something bad?

Speaker 2 (06:27):
And then this stuff in the news made it happen.
I don't know. I don't know.

Speaker 1 (06:32):
I just feel like this is a time for us
all to be a little more vigilant around.

Speaker 2 (06:36):
Ourselves, keeping an eye also.

Speaker 1 (06:39):
On loved ones or friends or even acquaintances who we
know who we think might be a little off kilter.
And I don't want to go too far down this road.
I'm not saying call the cops on anybody you have
a suspicion about, but if you have a really strong
reason to believe, like somebody says to you or online

(07:03):
like I, you know, I've shows a picture of themselves
with a gun and say that they admire what such
and such person just did to murder somebody, it might
be worth mentioning to someone. I don't want to be
paranoid about it, but it does feel like we are
living in a time of heightened violence. That also would

(07:26):
lend itself to heightened vigilance. And I say all of
that with the clear understanding that humans have what's called
a recency bias, which means that we tend to think
of things as more likely than they actually are. If
an example of that thing happened recently, right, If something
happens every ten years, but it happened last week, then

(07:51):
people will think it happens more often than every ten years.
And that could be some of what's going on here too,
But that doesn't make me want to be less careful.

Speaker 2 (07:58):
Perhaps not an enormous rise.

Speaker 1 (08:01):
There was chaos as usual these days at the Colorado
Republican Party. They voted on whether to cancel the twenty
twenty six primary. And this has been going on for
a while. So let's take you way back to amendments.
What is it Y and Z I think is what

(08:22):
Y and Z X and Y I don't know. It
doesn't matter. Kent Theory funded this stuff, and what it
did was it opened the primaries in Colorado to unaffiliated voters.
So if you are not registered with either political party,
you can participate in one of the party.

Speaker 2 (08:37):
Primaries, but not both. So the concept there was to.

Speaker 1 (08:46):
The concept from Kent theory and the people funding this
is that if you had more unaffiliated people who are
presumably on average a little bit more moderate than the
people who are the party faithful, maybe we will get
candidates who are a little bit more moderate, which is
what cant want it. I know not everybody wants that.

(09:06):
There are people on the further part of the left
and the further part of the right who want the
candidates to succeed, who are kind of.

Speaker 2 (09:14):
To the fringes.

Speaker 1 (09:15):
I don't think most people want that, but doesn't mean
nobody does.

Speaker 2 (09:19):
And also it kind of depends on the district.

Speaker 1 (09:21):
There are some districts that are a little bit more moderate,
a little more swing districts, and then there are districts
like Boulder or Aspen or parts of Colorado Springs, let's say,
or maybe rural Colorado that might be more off.

Speaker 2 (09:35):
To one side or the other. So anyway, it passed.

Speaker 1 (09:38):
These things passed, and the powers that be in the
Colorado Republican Party at the time were very very much
against it. And I will prop one oh yeah, prop
one to eight, says says a friend of mine. Passed
in in twenty sixteen, and the concept again from the

(10:00):
perspective of the party, and I sided with the party
at the time while the vote was going on, and
my argument was, look, if you want to tell a
particular group how to run whatever it is they do,
then you should be part of that group. And right,
it's like trying to tell any or I don't care,
it doesn't matter.

Speaker 2 (10:18):
You don't need an example, you know what I mean.

Speaker 1 (10:20):
So if you're going to tell some club to operate
a certain way, you should at least be a member
of the club. And so I sided with the party
in that in opposing these amendments, even though I do
share the goal of having more moderate candidates or more
electable candidates. But in any case, it passed. And so
the folks who were in power in the Republican Party

(10:42):
in particular are very very displeased that it passed and
have been trying since then to stop it. They've been
trying since then to overturn it and to say no,
we're going to go back to only party people being involved,
which means we're opt out of the primary and do
everything through Assembly caucus, that sort of stuff. And they

(11:05):
had to vote again on this on Saturday. Now, let's
be very very clear. The law that passed, the amendment,
the constitutional amendment that passed. I think it's an amendment.
You can tell me if it's an amendment or not.
I don't have it in front of me, but I
think it is. That passed says that in order to

(11:25):
opt out, a party needs three quarters of the members
of their central committee.

Speaker 2 (11:30):
To vote to opt out.

Speaker 1 (11:31):
And by the way, not just three quarters of people
who vote in a particular vote, but.

Speaker 2 (11:34):
Three quarters of all the members to vote.

Speaker 1 (11:37):
Right, So if only three quarters of the members of
the central committee voted, one hundred percent of them wouldn't
need to vote to opt out anyway. They did this
vote on the weekend, and about forty five percent of
the central committee voted to get out, and a little
bit less voted to stay in, because not all of

(11:57):
them voted, but they didn't even get close to much,
less to three quarters. But they also got more than
the other guys did. So even though the Colorado Republican
Party is okay, it's a statute to not an amendment.
Thank you for that clarification, my friend who is listening
and knows all these things. So people who got I

(12:22):
will call it the plurality in that vote, are arguing
that that.

Speaker 2 (12:27):
Should carry the day.

Speaker 1 (12:28):
And I'm not going to get into all the legal
shenanigans here. They're gonna lose. There's gonna be a Republican
Party primary, and that's all there is to it as
far as that goes the final outcome. But in the meantime,
these lunatics who are associated with Dave Williams and the
i'mers and and all these other Randy Corporate all these

(12:49):
other people like the ultra Maga, not just MAGA, but
like the lunatic fringe of the Republican Party here. They
actually sued the Republican Party before the vote yesterday saying, well,
even if we lose the vote, which they did, we
think that you're not gonna abide by something that they
claim that the party has to abide by from a

(13:09):
vote at the Assembly the previous year.

Speaker 2 (13:11):
I know, it's all vary in the weeds.

Speaker 1 (13:14):
So far, the party is winning these lawsuits and the
instigators are losing them, but it's causing the party to
spend money and actually run up debt defending the lawsuits.
And what I wonder is what donor what significant donor
or donors will want to throw their money into a

(13:37):
Republican party that is incinerating money by having to defend
lawsuits brought against them by other Republicans, And it might
just be that that's what these people want.

Speaker 2 (13:49):
They just want to burn it all down. They are real.

Speaker 1 (13:52):
They're not good faith political actors, many of them, at
least some might be, but mostly, as I said about
Dave Williams, they would rather be kings of ashes than
you know, a prince in a prospering society.

Speaker 2 (14:06):
They are very bad news.

Speaker 1 (14:08):
And I hope that the state Republican Party will go
after these people for bringing frivolous lawsuits and using that
mechanism or any other mechanism available to them under the law.
Go after them and say all right, now you owe
the party's legal fees, because I think that's the only
way to stop the madness. A couple of listener texts

(14:33):
that I want to respond to quickly. I was talking
earlier in the show about how I feel like this
is a time to be vigilant, to do right with
the violence that we've seen around us, and now we
had these two attacks over the weekend, one in North
Carolina by a guy who was shooting into a restaurant
from a boat. And then this shooting at the Mormon
large Mormon church in Michigan, and the guy apparently set

(14:55):
the church on fire and then was shooting at some
people when they came out. I last I read four
people were reported dead in that, but that was last
night and I don't know if the number has changed overnight. Actually,
that's a surprisingly low number given the scale of that attack.
Both of those attackers served in the Marines. I know

(15:16):
that doesn't have anything to do They don't have anything
to do.

Speaker 2 (15:17):
With each other.

Speaker 1 (15:19):
It's just a time where I said, I, you know,
I feel like we should be extra vigilant. And I
mentioned in the copycat sense, the guy who attacked the
ice facility seemed to at mimic at least a little bit,
the man who murdered Charlie Kirk in that he used
an older rifle and wrote political messages on the casings.

Speaker 2 (15:42):
One listener noted, didn't Luigi.

Speaker 1 (15:45):
The guy who killed the United Healthcare CEO write political
messages on the bullet casings on? Yes, in fact, he did.

Speaker 2 (15:54):
And I'm sure this must have been done lots.

Speaker 1 (15:56):
And lots of times in the past, over and over
and over forever forever, probably yeah, right, going back to
World War two and or before that, right, And actually
they'd write stuff on on like howitz r shells too,
not just bullets or on every yeah, right, on cannonballs.
So anyway, Luigi didn't invent the stuff, but maybe that

(16:19):
was in somebody's mind when we're thinking about people reacting
to recent events and doing something similar recently. So yes,
And then we talked about this ghost tapping thing that
the BBB just warned about that I heard Pat Woodard
cover on the Morning News and a listener points out,
you know, if somebody has the ability to get close
to you and essentially scan the tap two pay function

(16:42):
on your credit card just by getting close to you,
there's a chance they could do that also by getting
close to your phone if your phone has one of
those digital wallets like the Apple wallet. Right, So I've
got an Apple wallet. It has one of my credit
cards in it. It's not a physical wallet, it's a
digital thing, and you could use it like at King
Supers and you can scan in your phone over the
payment thing and you don't even take your wallet.

Speaker 2 (17:03):
Out of your pocket.

Speaker 1 (17:04):
And because everybody's already got their phones.

Speaker 2 (17:06):
In their hands anyway.

Speaker 1 (17:07):
And a listener pointed out, like, you could be a
phone too, and not just a wallet, and so an
RFID I was talking about an RFID wallet, right, So
you can put a credit card inside an RFID wallet
and then you wouldn't be able to scan it from outside.
You can also get They're not very common, but they
do exist RFID phone cases. The thing is, if you

(17:31):
get an RFID phone case, then you will not be
able to use the tap to pay kind of function.
You will also not be able to use things like
the function where you hold up your phone to get
scanned into a Colorado Avalanche game, that kind of thing,
unless you were to take the phone out of the
case for that function and put it back in, which

(17:52):
you might not want to do. So, if you're worried
about that and you still want to be able to
use all these various digital features, you know, like getting
into an event, you might just decide to take your
credit card, remove your credit card from the digital wallet,
and just deal with it and deal with payments some
other way, some other way.

Speaker 2 (18:12):
So there's a couple things.

Speaker 1 (18:14):
Going on today in Washington, DC that I want to
that I want to mention, and then we're gonna come
back to each of them in more detail later. But
Donald Trump has two big meetings today. The first one,
which I believe is going on now, is President Trump
meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. And Trump is

(18:38):
supportive of this twenty one point piece plan that was
put together by Steve Whitcoff and by Jared Kushner, his
son in law, who was very much involved with developing
the Abraham Accords. So whatever you might have thought about
Jared Kushner, or whatever you might think about Jared Kushner,
he has demonstrated success in this area. And Trump, as

(19:00):
we've talked about in the past, very much would like
to win a Nobel Peace Prize, and I hope he does.
And in order to get that, and he has it,
it's very reasonable to say Trump has stopped a lot
of conflicts already. But most of the ones that you've
stopped are ones that people didn't even know about, hadn't
even heard of.

Speaker 2 (19:20):
Right.

Speaker 1 (19:20):
The one that maybe people heard about a little bit
was the India and Pakistan building up to a fairly
bad position. But when you're talking about stuff in Africa
or Armenia. Most Americans haven't heard of it. And I
don't mean Trump doesn't deserve credit for that stuff he does.
But you know, if you're gonna win a Nobel Peace Prize,
you got to get the Big East, and the big
eas are the Gaza Israel situation and the Ukraine Russia situation.

Speaker 2 (19:44):
And Trump wants to make.

Speaker 1 (19:47):
Make up progress on both of those, and and net
Nyaho of course wants to destroy Hamas, and so do
I and net NYAHUO is in a tough situation right
now because when Hamas had one hundred hostages, two hundred
hostages right it very very much constrained what Israel could
do militarily, although they did what they could, because you

(20:10):
don't want to kill the hostages who Hamas is putting
in positions.

Speaker 2 (20:13):
To be human shields.

Speaker 1 (20:15):
Now there's probably only twenty living hostages left. So is
net and Yahoo going to hold off from destroying Hamas
because of the last twenty. If we're the United States
of America, we probably wouldn't hold off. We probably just
do what needs to be done militarily and do what

(20:35):
we can to try to not hit the hostages and
not turn the hostages into collateral damage. But I don't
think we would stop because of them. Israel is a
very different place. Israel places a lot more value on
any one life than the United States does. It's not
a jab at the United States. That is just the
Israeli the Jewish culture. Every single life is important. And oh,

(21:00):
it's going to be interesting today to see whether and
how much President Trump pressures net Nyahu to agree to
a peace deal. And it might be that they work
out something where net Yahoo appears to agree to a
peace deal, but with the caveat that if Hamas doesn't
abide by their side of the peace deal on a

(21:23):
particular time frame, then net Yahoo reserves the right to no.

Speaker 2 (21:30):
Longer participate in the peace deal. That might be how
this plays out. I don't know.

Speaker 1 (21:33):
This very very complex stuff, and I don't know. I
don't know what the final answer is going to be.
So that's one of Trump's meetings today. And the other
one is with the top four members of Congress. Is
with the top four members of Congress, so that would
be the Democratic leader and the Republican leader in the

(21:56):
House and the Senate. And this is to talk about
the potential federal government shutdown that might be coming in
the middle of this week. We don't really know what
a shutdown means, because the president has a lot of
authority over what shuts down and what doesn't. You will
remember famously that in order to try to punish Republicans
as much as possible, for the federal government shutdown. Gosh,

(22:18):
what year was this, two thousand and thirteen? Maybe Barack
Obama shut down National parks right and shut down like
the World War iiO Memorial in Washington, d C. Even
though it's open and you don't need anything to get
in there. He fenced it off just to harm Republicans

(22:38):
as much as possible. So President Trump is scheduled to
meet with these leaders. They were supposed to meet last week,
I think, and Trump canceled.

Speaker 2 (22:46):
He said there's no point.

Speaker 1 (22:47):
Now they're meeting today with all four of them, not
just with the Democrats. And I think, and we're gonna
get to this more a little bit later in the show,
but I think that Trump wants to shut down. I
think that Trump believes that a shutdown will be blamed
on Democrats, and I think it will be I think
that the Trump administration is salivating it. The idea of

(23:10):
using a shutdown to fire more federal government workers to
put more pressure on the Democrats that way, and all
in all, I think this is very difficult and perhaps
perhaps a no win situation.

Speaker 2 (23:26):
For the Democrats, but we'll see.

Speaker 1 (23:28):
The other thing you need to understand about this is
that many in the Democratic base are absolutely furious with
Chuck Schumer for going along with the budget resolution back
in March, and many folks in the Democratic base want
Chuck Schumer and other Democrats to fight harder against Trump

(23:49):
now than they feel like they did back in March.
And then on a more individual level, Chuck Schumer probably
wants to fight more than he did back in March
because he knows that if nothing changes, if AOC decides
to run for Senate, he'll lose a primary to AOC.
So the dynamics of all of this very interesting on

(24:11):
both sides of the political aisle, and we will talk
about it more a.

Speaker 2 (24:14):
Little bit later.

Speaker 1 (24:15):
All right, I want to get to a very interesting
local story now. I am pleased to be joined on
the show for the first time, the first time joining
me on Kawa Wendy Strom. Wendy is the mayor of
Lakewood and I reached out to Wendy to ask if
she would be willing to join us to help us understand.

(24:37):
I'll just go with this one headline from the denver
Isette Lakewood City Council approves reconfiguring of single family zoning
and part of the reason I wanted the two main
reasons I wanted to mention this. One, this kind of
thing is always exceptionally controversial within a community. And two
there you may see more of this because there is

(24:58):
a big push in Colorado to do things that allow
the creation of more housing, to bring down the price
of housing, at least in some areas, so that there
is more quote unquote affordable housing for people who want
to move to the state of Colorado. So, with that
long introduction, Mayor Wendy Strom, welcome to Kaawa.

Speaker 2 (25:17):
Thanks for being.

Speaker 3 (25:18):
Here, Good Marning, thanks for having me.

Speaker 1 (25:22):
I'm very glad to I think I touched on this
already and it's probably obvious, but anything you want to
elaborate on in the problem that you are aiming to
solve with this change in zoning.

Speaker 3 (25:36):
Yes, thank you.

Speaker 4 (25:37):
I would say there's actually two primary challenges that we're
trying to address through this zoning one of them was
to add guard rails that will protect our neighbors neighborhoods
from a new state law that actually bans a limit
on unrelated adults living in one home. The way that
our zoning is currently set up, it would be possible

(25:58):
for someone to in and build in some of our
own districts up to an eighteen thousand square foot home, which,
as you can imagine, you know, with average the home
sizes in like would being significantly smaller than that. There's
not a market, much of a market for an eighteen
thousand square foot home to be built in a normal circumstance.

(26:20):
But when you introduce the inability to limit the number
of adults that live in the home, you start to
see the possibility of some of these mega homes or
mc mansions, whatever we want to call them, that could
theoretically house you know, a dozen, two dozen and three
dozen who knows people in one large structure. So that

(26:42):
was one of the things that we had addressed in
the zoning courage, reducing that maximum size to five thousand
or five thousand, depending on a couple of different factors. Then, separately,
it was to really address the lack of diversity of
housing stock across our city that's contributed to this affordability
crisis that we're seeing, and you know, young people and

(27:04):
or older adults not being able to have a lot
of options that are on the smaller side of things,
like condos, townhouses smaller than a two thousand square foot
home footprint.

Speaker 3 (27:17):
Is when I'm at that one, okay too, I'd say
the two.

Speaker 2 (27:22):
Yeah, so I hadn't heard that first one before. That's
very interesting.

Speaker 1 (27:26):
So just tell me just a little bit more and
then we'll get back to the main topic on that
five thousand.

Speaker 2 (27:30):
Square foot limit. What's the story with that?

Speaker 1 (27:32):
And can and can one appeal to go over five
thousand if.

Speaker 2 (27:36):
One wants to.

Speaker 4 (27:38):
Oh, that is a really good question and not one
that I'm prepared to answer on the fly this morning,
but it is if I recall correctly this I believe
we addressed on our.

Speaker 3 (27:51):
September eighth council meeting.

Speaker 4 (27:54):
It would be four thousand square feet or less if
it was a triplex. Are smaller five thousand square feet
I believe if it were four units, but that.

Speaker 3 (28:09):
I don't know that I remember all of those numbers
specially Okay, well correctly, So we'll just leave. That is
here's where we think we landed.

Speaker 1 (28:16):
Okay, So the controversial part of this, clearly would be
that in neighborhoods that are currently zoned for single family
that now there could be.

Speaker 2 (28:27):
A duplex, triplex, quad plex in.

Speaker 1 (28:29):
There, and a lot of folks have concerns about over
that changing the character the neighborhood, adding to traffic issues,
parking issues. I mean, I assume this was the biggest
part of the controversy surrounding this, right.

Speaker 4 (28:42):
It isn't definitely to your point of not hearing about
the story of the guardrails and the eighteen thousand square
foothouse that has been lost in a lot of these conversations.
It's more than just what we what we're calling a
single family home. But the reality of it is is
we already have across our city accessory dwelling units where

(29:04):
you've got two families living on a property, group homes,
day care facilities, you know, whether it be for children
or adults. You know in a number of different ways
that you actually have multiple families potentially already residing at
least for part of the day together. This is something
that we we don't currently have quote unquote single family

(29:28):
home only zone district and single family home zoning is
being eliminated. Opportunities or choices, I should say, are being increased.
But there are also guard rails on that that are
not necessarily talked about as much either, and that is
part of the fact that we actually there's a fifty

(29:50):
percent open space requirement on a lot. So I actually
sat down when I did the math with my own home, like, theoretically,
if my neighbors were to sell their house tomorrow, someone else,
a developer, per se bought it, what could that look like,
what could.

Speaker 3 (30:06):
Be living next to me?

Speaker 4 (30:07):
And what I actually found, based on the size of
my lot, which was an average size, there isn't a
lot more that someone could build on my particular lot.
We could potentially add an ADU and accessory throwing in
it if we had, you know, a young person or
maybe a parent that we wanted to help take care
as it's close to us, but it really didn't shame.

Speaker 3 (30:29):
It doesn't change much what could.

Speaker 1 (30:31):
Be in my.

Speaker 3 (30:33):
Area.

Speaker 4 (30:34):
So I think that's really important to notice that there's
actually there are curbs in place, and we're not. There
are a lot of soundbites that go with us that
are actually easier. You know, this is how those in
governments that are easier to say and understand than really
the complexity of the actual issues.

Speaker 1 (30:53):
And that's part of the reason I've got you on
the show and we've got just three or four minutes left.
So did you just say, just as an exact sample,
that if you had a half an acre lot that
you're only allowed to build on a quarner acre of it?

Speaker 2 (31:05):
Is that what you said, Like, did you see, well,
what it is?

Speaker 4 (31:08):
Yeah, what it is is there is a fifty percent
open space requirement. And that open space so that would
be you know, the size of the structure we have
to add in like those driveways included with that, the
garage would be included with that. And then when you
add these things together and other structures that may be

(31:28):
on the property as well, when you add these things together,
it still needs to have fifty percent open space. And
so that is one other thing. It's not like someone
could buy a lot and just build from one side
to another on the entire lot. There is still a
limit required for maintaining open space on that lot.

Speaker 1 (31:49):
So it sounds like, especially if you're talking about a
typical lakewood size lot.

Speaker 2 (31:56):
And these are not mostly massive parcels of land.

Speaker 1 (31:59):
Right, if you're talking about a quarter acre, a third
of an acre, maybe half an acre is probably not
tons of lots that are bigger than that. Maybe in
the little, the more rural corners, but it would be
hard to build a multi family thing that's bigger than
two or three units probably on something that big, maybe
four if they were really small.

Speaker 3 (32:20):
Correct in most cases.

Speaker 4 (32:22):
In fact, Houston put this into place back and I
believe it was twenty two thousand and seven, and what
they found was that the areas it is a trickle,
you know. Zoning is not like an overnight change. In fact,
it doesn't even change the way I live in my home.
If I can sell my home, pass it on that
kind of thing, it doesn't change the way I live

(32:45):
in my home. What they did was they went it
back and did a study in Houston, and I think
this was ut Austin that did the study, and they
looked at the change that it happened throughout the community
since two thousand and seven. And what they found is
that where the multi unit homes ended up being built
were on the larger lots with the smaller homes larger.

Speaker 2 (33:08):
Right, that makes sense. Okay, just about out of time here.

Speaker 1 (33:11):
So what I'd like to ask you to do is
to give me your your best prediction as to how
you think these new changes will actually play out in Lakewood.
I'm asking you to guess how you think this stuff
will play out in Lakewood. And I assume since I
don't know if you even voted on this, I don't

(33:31):
know if the mayor votes, but.

Speaker 2 (33:34):
It passed by a pretty wide margin.

Speaker 1 (33:35):
I was actually a little bit surprised by that, which
makes me think that the people who have all the
information think that this isn't.

Speaker 2 (33:42):
Nearly as bad as some of the hype out there
has been.

Speaker 1 (33:45):
So just give me, you know, forty one seconds because
I like prime numbers on how you think this will
play out.

Speaker 3 (33:53):
Yes, thank you, Ed.

Speaker 4 (33:55):
I believe the way that it would play out is
that we would see a sloacle of some potential changes
here here, not all congested in one particular area.

Speaker 3 (34:07):
And in fact, I call it gentle density.

Speaker 4 (34:10):
We're adding gentle density and places that families want to
see that in doing so, creating smaller structures that actually
will increase the ability for people to either be able
to downsize and stay here in Lakewood, where their churches,
where their family is.

Speaker 3 (34:27):
Or for young people to grow roots here. Right now,
we don't have.

Speaker 4 (34:31):
A lot of that diversity of housing stock and smaller
spaces that young people can get in or that our
older adults can age into, and that is my hope
that we will start to see that trickle through over
the next few years.

Speaker 2 (34:44):
Wendy Strom is Mayor of Lakewood.

Speaker 1 (34:47):
Thank you so much for spending time with us and
helping us, helping us understand this story. I think Listener's
got a lot out of that. I appreciate it.

Speaker 2 (34:53):
All right, thanks sav all right, we'll take a quick break.
We'll be right back on Kowa.

Speaker 1 (34:57):
If you are not driving, you might take a drink
every time you see me or chuck on the TV
at Monday night's football game.

Speaker 2 (35:05):
Tonight.

Speaker 1 (35:05):
What I'm gonna try to do is to post on
my Twitter feed at ross putin r O S sp
U t I n or x dot com slash frosspute,
and I'll try to also post this if I can,
especially i can get some help from a rod or
at least you hear. What I'll do is I'll tag KOA.
So if you're if you're following KOA, you'll you'll see

(35:27):
it as well. KOA Colorado is that social media feed.
But I'll try to post a picture of me and
Chuck once we have the stuff on that we're gonna
be wearing, holding our gear, and then.

Speaker 2 (35:38):
You can look for us.

Speaker 1 (35:39):
I will be on the Bengals sideline in the first half.
I'll be on the Broncos sideline in the second half.
And each of us is holding what's called a parabolic microphone,
and it looks like a small, clear plastic satellite dish,
right and I think one of them is yellow but
still clear, and the other one is uncolored and clear.

Speaker 2 (36:01):
And a listener asked, well, what is that?

Speaker 1 (36:04):
And because of the shit, this is a thing that
you point out toward the game, and because of the
shape of it, it can collect sound at a reasonably
high volume because it's picking up from such a bigger area,
and then it focuses.

Speaker 2 (36:19):
The sound because of the shape of the dish.

Speaker 1 (36:22):
On a little microphone that protrudes out from the center
of the dish, it concentrates the audio right there. And
that's how when you're listening to the KOA broadcast of
the game you will hear the sounds of the game.
You will hear the referee whistle, maybe you will hear
the quarterback yelling.

Speaker 2 (36:38):
Maybe you will hear a big hit, whatever is going on.

Speaker 1 (36:41):
Sometimes when I'm standing on the sideline, sometimes if there
is a coach talking to a player near me, I
will point at that. Although normally that only hap that
typically happens during a break and often that stuff doesn't
go out over the air, but I will try from
time to time. So anyway, that's what the parabolic mic is.

(37:03):
So when you hear that kind of thing, yeah, oh
we should just you should drop that in randomly throughout
the entire rest of the show, Dragon. That would be
really funny. I'll try not to laugh if you do
that throughout the show. So anyway, that's what I'll be doing. Oh,

(37:24):
check this out for Broncos fans. They've got a new
uniform combination tonight and this is from the Denver Broncos
own website at Denver Broncos dot com. So they're their
Midnight Navy alternate jerseys with Navy pants, Navy socks, and
their Navy metallic satin helmets. Now in last year's Monday

(37:49):
Night Football where they won against the Cleveland Browns. They
wore that same jersey and pants and socks, but they
wore the white helmet. So tonight they're gonna where the
Midnight Navy their Navy.

Speaker 2 (38:03):
Metallic satin helmets.

Speaker 1 (38:04):
According to Denver Broncos, Denver can wear their alternate or
throwback uniforms four times in this football season, and Monday's
match up against the Bengals tonight will represent the first
game in an alternate uniform this season.

Speaker 2 (38:19):
So kickoff is six fifteen tonight.

Speaker 1 (38:22):
The game is on ABC. I believe that's right. And
you know, Chuck and I'll be on the sideline. So
when you see me or Chuck on the sidelines, have
a drink. Not if you're driving, though, only if you're
only if you're still home.

Speaker 5 (38:34):
Now.

Speaker 1 (38:39):
That was the sound of the Colorado Rockies dugout just
after their last game as they were talking about how
this season went from the Denver Post, although I'm sure
had lots of places have this. So the Rockies lost
for nothing to the Giants yesterday out in San Francisco
at Oracle Park, and they lost one hundred nineteen games

(39:02):
this year, so that ties for the third most losses
in Major League Baseball history with the two thousand and
three Tigers, so the only two teams that were worse
were the nineteen sixty two Mets, who lost one hundred
and twenty and that in last year's White Sox, who
lost one hundred and twenty one. The Rockies lost one

(39:22):
hundred and nineteen. The interim manager, Warren Schaeffer, apparently has
not been told whether he's coming back next season and
doesn't know about any any changes. He said, it's painfully
obvious to the whole world. It was not a good season.
It was a horrible season. But throughout that we've learned
we never want to be here again, he said. I'm

(39:42):
just extremely grateful to the players. They worked tart all year.
They made the manager's job, especially a first year manager's job,
a lot easier, especially when you know that the boys
will give their whole effort for the game. It is
clear that now who wrote this, Patrick Saunders wrote this
for the Post, It's clear that the Rocket he's lacked
the talent and experience to compete on a daily basis.

(40:03):
They finished their season with six consecutive losses.

Speaker 2 (40:06):
Now listen to this.

Speaker 1 (40:07):
They were swept in the series or the twenty first
time this season. Oh my gosh, that's unbelievable, unbelievable. So
let me just get a couple more details here on
the season. Overall, the Rockies were outscored by four hundred

(40:32):
and twenty four runs this season, the largest run differential
in baseball's modern era by a wide margin. The second
worst total run differential between a team and all of
its components come opponents combined, or the Red Sox at
minus three forty nine, we were minus four twenty four,

(40:56):
and that, by the way with the Red Sox in
nineteen thirty two. Nineteen thirty two Rocky starters finished the
season with a six point six five er, not only
the highest in Rockies team history, but the highest for
a starting staff since the ERA became an official Major

(41:18):
League Baseball wide statistic in nineteen thirteen. They beat, if
you want to call it that, the nineteen ninety six
Detroit Tigers record for the worst ERA by point zero one. Right.
This year's Rockies had six point sixty five. The nineteen
ninety six Tigers had six point sixty four. By the way,

(41:39):
for those of you who are not baseball fans, a
high number is bad in this number. You want the
lowest possible number, Like an amazing number would be a two.
You know you'd be happy with a three, and maybe
you'd even accept a four. But six point six five Wow, impressive.
So last thing I want to say on this then,

(42:00):
the number of people who attended Colorado Rockies games. The
number of tickets sold was down about one hundred and
fifty thousand from last year, but still Colorado is in
the middle of the pack of Major League Baseball teams
in terms of attendance. And I just don't know whether
the ownership cares enough to spend a lot more money

(42:21):
to get better players if Rockies fans keep going to
the games. And a lot of the places that have
much higher attendance are much bigger markets like La both
LA teams, right, both New York teams, Philly, San Diego, Chicago, Right,
these are very very big markets. When you get into
the markets that are more mid size, more normal size, Colorado,

(42:45):
the Rockies are actually kind of in the top part
of that list. People keep going even though the Rockies
are losing. And I'm not encourage you to encourage you
not to go. I'm just saying, as a business thing.
One wonders if Rockies fans will say, you know what
until the owner's care I don't, and maybe put some
more pressure on the owners that way. I have no idea,

(43:07):
but it certainly hasn't gone that way enough so far
to cause the owners to do anything different.

Speaker 2 (43:13):
Hi, there, do you do anything interesting this weekend?

Speaker 6 (43:15):
I hit a couple of hundred houses with oh yeah,
good nice right, Mare Compound and then Terror in the Corn.
Did anything scare you? Uh me, not so much, missus Redbeard? Yeah,
Peede multiple times. Yeah, that happened in my wife.

Speaker 1 (43:27):
One time we came out of one haunted house and
at the very end there was a guy in a
bunny suit with a chainsaw, and the chainsaw there was
no chain on it, but it was on. So the
motor was hunting and and she paid herself a little
bit even it was maybe a third way into Terror
in the Corn.

Speaker 6 (43:44):
Yeah, somebody jumped out scared her and she goes, oh
my paid, and the person that scared her goes, yes,
first one of the night.

Speaker 2 (43:51):
That's odd. It was great.

Speaker 1 (43:52):
Yeah, I'm glad that that guy has his has his
goals right right, Yeah, you know he knows exactly what
he's there for.

Speaker 2 (43:59):
Somewhere in the back in the break room or something.

Speaker 6 (44:01):
There's a little tally board with you know, I bedd,
you know, you know something.

Speaker 2 (44:06):
So I hope they get a little bonus for that.

Speaker 1 (44:08):
I hope.

Speaker 2 (44:08):
So that is fantastic, all right, that sounds like a
good weekend.

Speaker 1 (44:13):
Much of my weekend was at the house, the new house,
working in the yard with Kristin, planting things and just
doing whatever she wants done in the in the future garden.
Uh So, I saw this cool story at the Denver
Post and we did some sports in the previous segment,
but this is pretty neat.

Speaker 2 (44:31):
So there's a young lady named Anna Hall.

Speaker 1 (44:35):
I don't know whether you ever heard of Anna Hall,
but she is a heptathlete and she just became the
second American woman to win a world title in the
heptathla on the other being Jackie Joyner Cursey.

Speaker 2 (44:51):
And I'm not going to spend a long time on this.

Speaker 1 (44:53):
You can go read it on the blog if you
had a Rosskaminsky dot com click on the Monday blogcast.
I have this and lots of other stuff in there well.
But there are two reasons that I wanted to share
the story with you one. It's it's quite an excellent
story of grit and determination. Right, This young lady a
great athlete, but dealt with a couple injuries that put

(45:14):
her out of competition for a while, and then out
of competition for a longer while, and she was, you know,
wondering whether she would be able to get back in.
Here's a quote in my head in the past few years,
I kept thinking maybe my body was cooked forever and
I was gonna be one of those they could have
been good athletes, but people kept speaking life.

Speaker 2 (45:35):
Into me all the time.

Speaker 1 (45:38):
And then talks about well, she talks to Jackie.

Speaker 2 (45:41):
Joiner Kersey, who was the other woman to win this.

Speaker 1 (45:43):
She talks about her boyfriend who's actually a wide receiver
for the New York Giants, and her family and her coaches,
and she said they couldn't tell me it would be
better tomorrow, but they kept telling me it would be better,
and I just had to keep going. I didn't have
people constantly speaking life into me like that, I don't
know if whatever would have turned around. And there was

(46:07):
also a pretty cool quote from her coach who basically said,
so she was like crying, she was pressured and frustrated,
she said, my coaches were finally like, you really need
to work on your attitude. They said, we know you're
not happy right now, but you have to fake it.

(46:27):
Something's got to change. So she says, it was like
a fake it till you make it situation. Stop speaking
negatively at practice, stop complaining. And then she came back
and long story short, she just won another world championship
at the heptathlon, the second American ever to do it.
And the reason, the other reason that I wanted to

(46:48):
bring this story to you is that this young woman
actually went to Valor Christian High School and so she's
a local product, if you will, and I just thought
I would say congratulations to her and share that with you.

Speaker 5 (47:04):
Now.

Speaker 1 (47:04):
We do have a bunch of stuff still to do
on today's show, including a guest coming up in about
forty minutes on the meeting going on right now between
President Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu with the Prime Minister of
Israel about how that war is going to proceed, how
a peace process might proceed, and there might be later

(47:25):
in the eleven o'clock hour an opportunity for us to
drop in on a press conference between net and Yahoo
and Trump.

Speaker 2 (47:32):
We will see if that's on time. If it is,
if it's during my show, we'll go to it.

Speaker 1 (47:36):
If it's not, you won't hear it today because we're
starting KOA coverage for the Bengals Broncos Monday night game
at noon, so Mandy won't be on today. The Trump
probably wants to stay on time because he's got a
meeting coming up with leaders of Congress that should be
early afternoon our time as well, So we'll see.

Speaker 2 (47:54):
We're going to keep an eye on all of that
when we come back.

Speaker 1 (47:57):
I've got a few things for you, including but my
doctor said I wasn't getting enough fiber. You are instructed
to take a drink every time you see me or
chuck on the sidelines of the game. I didn't say
an alcoholic drink, but that would be best. That's part
of the game, but not if you're driving, okay, and
not if you are my producer. If you are my producer,

(48:22):
I need you not hungover tomorrow morning, so dragging.

Speaker 6 (48:25):
You can drink iced tea or something. What what you
don't drink alcohol anyway, I'm confused by your statements here, right.
You don't know me well enough to know I don't drink,
and then I know you don't drink. Then you suggest tea.
I know, I know you did that on purpose. I
did Okay, I did all of that on purpose because

(48:46):
I do know you that. Well, just take some orange soda,
you know that, won't you know what I should get
you as a bottle of tea flavored liqueur.

Speaker 2 (48:56):
That sounds terrible. That sounds worse than terrible. I think
I might have some and it's pretty good. All right,
let's move on. Anyway.

Speaker 1 (49:06):
I mentioned this earlier, but I'll try to post at
x dot com slash Rossputon, and I will tag x
dot com slash Koa Colorado a picture of me and
Chuck so you can see what we look like. Chuck
is twice my size, and at least you'll see what
I'm wearing and what he's wearing, so that you can
look for us on the sidelines of the game on
the television broadcast. I note, just for just an interesting

(49:30):
little side thing, we're not allowed to wear Broncos stuff.
We're not allowed to wear NFL stuff. I'm not allowed
to wear KOA stuff.

Speaker 2 (49:38):
In general.

Speaker 1 (49:38):
I'm supposed to avoid branded stuff. I probably will wear
some kind of baseball hat because it might rain, and
then I'll probably bring a very very lightweight rain coat.
It's gonna be warm, so I don't need thermal protection.
I don't even really want to bring on it. But
if it's gonna rain, I probably rather not get soaked.
So I'll bring a lightweight raincoat. I'll tie it around
my waist when it's not raining, and I'll keep some

(49:59):
peanut m and in the pocket of my vest to keep.

Speaker 2 (50:01):
Me going during the game. And that'll be That'll be
about that.

Speaker 1 (50:05):
So President Trump is meeting with Prime Minister net Yaho
of Israel right now later on today.

Speaker 2 (50:12):
It's scheduled for noon our time.

Speaker 1 (50:14):
I'm guessing it'll be pushed a little bit later because
of the net and Yahoo meeting, but we will see.
He is.

Speaker 2 (50:19):
Trump is to meet with Chuck Schumer and John Thune,
the to.

Speaker 1 (50:23):
The Democrat and Republican leader respectively in the Senate, and
Hakim Jeffries and the Democrat leader in the House, and
Mike Johnson, the Republican Speaker of the House, and meeting
with those four to talk about the ongoing debate argument
uh impasse over the federal budget. And I have not
spent any time talking about this on the show before today, cause.

Speaker 2 (50:46):
I don't know.

Speaker 1 (50:46):
We see this movie a lot and it gets a
little bit boring. But this one's gonna be kind of different.
And the reason that I think this one is going
to be different is that in in most years, in
recent presidencies where we've seen a government shutdown, most of

(51:07):
the time it's been Republicans quote unquote causing it during
a Democratic presidency and the Democrat, particularly Barack Obama, doing
everything they can to make it as politically painful for
Republicans as possible. Now the foot's on the other hand,
and do you guys get that reference. You're gonna text
me at five six six nine zero if you did.

(51:30):
And so now you've got Trump, who probably wants the shutdown.
The guy who is running the budget for a Trump
is a guy named Russ Vought. Vought and he is
a hardcore budget cutting guy from the Heritage Foundation, and

(51:51):
he issued a memo maybe a week ago or something
where he basically said, if government shuts down, we're going
to use that to shrink the federal bureaucracy. We're going
to use that to lay people off, to fire people,
and He's got two intentions there. One is he really

(52:12):
does want the government smaller, and two is many or
I'll say most government.

Speaker 2 (52:19):
Workers are Democrats. Look at Washington, d C.

Speaker 1 (52:22):
Right, which is largely inhabited by people who work for
the federal government.

Speaker 2 (52:28):
Washington, d C.

Speaker 1 (52:29):
Voted for Kamala Harris like ninety three percent or something.
Suburban Maryland is not much better. Fairfax Virginia and the
Louden County, Virginia as well not much better, which is
why they have such terrible, terrible school boards over there
who are still doing all the DEI stuff.

Speaker 2 (52:46):
But anyway, that whole area surrounded.

Speaker 1 (52:49):
By Democrats, and Trump wants to pressure them, and Trump
doesn't mind hurting them. And if there is a shutdown
and a bunch of those Democrats get fired, Trump's thinking
is they hate me anyway, so there's no way I'm.

Speaker 2 (53:07):
Going to convince them to vote for me.

Speaker 1 (53:08):
But maybe I could convince them to not vote for
Democrats or to not give money to Democrats or something.
So there's much more incentive than there has been in
the past for the Republicans to aggressively want a shutdown.
And I feel like this is a very dangerous place

(53:31):
for Democrats, because if they don't fight hard and they
avoid the shutdown by essentially caving in, and I'll tell
you a second, a second, one of their primary demands
is then the left wing base is going to be
furious because they are still mad about Chuck Schumer going
along with the budget proposal back in I think it

(53:54):
was in March. The House voted. Democrats in the House
voted against it, but it passed anyway because there's a
Republican thing, and they got enough votes to pass it.

Speaker 2 (54:02):
In the Senate, Democrats actually went.

Speaker 1 (54:05):
A few some Democrats went along with it, and the
Democratic base is really mad. Remember that the most important
thing to the Democratic base is fighting against Trump, no
matter what the underlying issue is. Okay, so if Donald
Trump says the sun sets in the east, then the
Democrat base wants Chuck Schumer to get up and say, no,

(54:27):
it sets in the west, right.

Speaker 2 (54:30):
Or there was a line.

Speaker 1 (54:31):
It's a funny line, and this is an old line,
and I don't remember where it was used first. But
if so and so walked on water, his critics would say, look,
he can't swim.

Speaker 2 (54:46):
It's that kind of thing.

Speaker 1 (54:47):
Oh, speaking of correcting myself, I meant to do this.
The other day a listener sent me the right thing. Remember,
like maybe a week ago, I was talking about Republicans
by sneakers too. Were you here with me for that Dragon?
I missed that one, Oka, and I don't even remember
the context. But I was to Jordan's republic right, and
I was thinking it was Rush Limbaugh, but it was
Michael Jordan, and that makes more sense, and so I

(55:09):
just did I did want to correct myself that was
Michael Jordan, and part oh, I know what it was.
It was in the context of how I had thought
for a long time that that businesses were making a
mistake by getting involved in politics, even though younger audiences
don't mind it, I thought it was a mistake, and
I thought.

Speaker 2 (55:25):
On average, for the average company, it would be.

Speaker 1 (55:27):
A loser to get involved with politics, because after all,
Republicans buy sneakers too. And I misattributed that to Limba,
although I did say at the time, I'm not sure
it's him. I think I could be wrong. I just
don't remember. And it was Michael Jordan.

Speaker 2 (55:40):
Okay.

Speaker 1 (55:40):
So there's that back to the government shutdown thing. So
a government shutdown could potentially start this Wednesday. Now, what
does the shutdown mean. It kind of depends, right, It
kind of depends. There's no more federal money for a
bunch of for a lot of stuff, but for things
that the president calls essential, they can keep them open.

(56:04):
So we'll see how it all plays out. Remember what
Obama did. Obama shut national parks. Obama cordoned off Washington, DC.
Memorials that are wide open to the public. You can
just walk in, there's no gates, right, the World War
Two Memorial, the Vietnam memori the Korean War Memorial.

Speaker 2 (56:25):
You don't need a federal employee there, right.

Speaker 1 (56:28):
But instead to punish Republicans, he actually put up barriers
around them to punish Republicans for shutting down the government.

Speaker 2 (56:33):
If you remember that. What else did he do?

Speaker 1 (56:36):
He intentionally delayed the mailing of checks. And I don't
remember if it was Social Security or veterans or both.
But Obama did everything he could to make it as
painful as possible for Republicans. And I think Trump is
up a mind to do that to Democrats. Now, let
me tell you about one thing that Democrats want. So

(57:00):
Obamacare is already very expensive and gives much too large
subsidies to way too many people.

Speaker 2 (57:06):
During COVID, they enlarged the subsidies.

Speaker 1 (57:09):
They said that you can get a subsidy even if
you make even more money than the usual limit, and
they eliminated the need for any cost payment for some
lower income people. And then that was supposed to expire
in two years, but the so called Inflation Reduction Act
extended it for another year.

Speaker 2 (57:29):
I think it was.

Speaker 1 (57:31):
So those extended subsidies are going to expire, and Democrats
want to extend them, and we absolutely positively must not
extend them. Here let me quote from the Daily Signal,
which is part of the Heritage Foundation, and I just
said some of this already, but just to be clear,

(57:53):
Obamacare limited subsidies by income, offering premium subsidies to people
whose income fall between one hundred percent sent in four
hundred percent of the federal poverty level, and cost sharing
subsidies to those with incomes between one hundred and two
hundred and fifty percent.

Speaker 2 (58:07):
In twenty twenty one.

Speaker 1 (58:09):
The American Rescue Plan, I said, the Inflation Reduction Act
that was wrong. The American Rescue Plan lifted that four
hundred percent income sealing and reduced premium payments for some
enrollees while while eliminating premium payments for enrollees below one
hundred and fifty percent of the poverty level. Okay, no,
I had it right. So they first did that in
the American Rescue Plan, and then the Inflation Reduction Act

(58:31):
extended them. Okay, I did have it right. So according
to the Daily Signal, folks, even if those extra subsidies expire,
taxpayers would still be on the bill for somewhere between
eighty and ninety percent of the premiums for low income
Obamacare enrollees.

Speaker 2 (58:50):
But Democrats warned that allowing these.

Speaker 1 (58:53):
Temporary extra subsidies to expire will leave millions unable to
afford coverage.

Speaker 2 (59:01):
We cannot extend these things. We can't afford it.

Speaker 1 (59:04):
And we also just simply don't want all these people
constantly being pushed closer and closer and closer to government healthcare.
Remember the express purpose of Obamacare, although it hasn't worked
out that way for them yet, was to be the
camel's nose under the tent to eliminate private health insurance entirely.
And the more people we get on the you know,

(59:27):
the quote unquote free government healthcare, the worse, it's going
to be for all of us. In any case, that's
one of the things that Democrats want, and I don't
think there is any way Republicans are going to give
that to them. And as if Democrats stick with that,
as we must have this or we will not go along,

(59:50):
Trump will just say, Trump will just let them keep,
you know, beating themselves. And as Trump will assume that
Democrats will be the victims, the political victims of a shutdown.
So we will see. I don't have much more to
say on it right now. We will see how this
conversation goes today. We will see how the conversation goes tomorrow.

(01:00:13):
If I were betting on it, even though usually they
find a last minute way to not have a shutdown,
if you were to make me bet on it this time,
I would bet. I wouldn't bet a lot, but I
would bet that there will be a shutdown because there
is so much political pressure from the left wing of
the Democratic base to fight against Trump.

Speaker 2 (01:00:34):
No matter what.

Speaker 1 (01:00:35):
And as I said earlier, there was a poll down
a few months ago Chuck Schumer versus AOC and a
Senate primary in New York. AOC hasn't said she's running
for the Senate. But if she does run for the Senate,
she was up double digits on Chuck Schumer.

Speaker 2 (01:00:49):
In that poll.

Speaker 1 (01:00:51):
And part of the reason is that Democrats think Chuck
Schumer didn't fight hard enough against Trump six or seven
months ago. Also, of course people think, and they're right,
the Chuck Schumer doesn't do a very good job, and
he's too old, and the Democrats need some new energy
there and in general, the Democrats in Congress. This didn't
used to be true, but now the Democrats on average

(01:01:11):
in Congress, especially their leadership is much older than the
Republican leadership, and the Democratic base, which tends to be
younger than the Republican base, doesn't like it. And I
don't blame them all right, this comes from the but
my doctor told me I needed more fiber files. This
is an Associated Press story that was released yesterday or

(01:01:34):
the day before about fifty eight million pounds of corn
dogs and other sausage on a stick product esn'tually like that.

Speaker 2 (01:01:42):
Sausage on a stick products are being.

Speaker 1 (01:01:45):
Recalled across the United States because pieces of wood may
be embedded in the batter, with several consumers reporting injuries
to date. According to a Saturday notice published by the
Agriculture Department, the recall covers select State Fair corn Dogs
on a stick. State Fair is the brand. It doesn't
mean go to the State Fair and get one. It's
on the box that you buy in the supermarket. It

(01:02:06):
says State Fair corn Dogs on a stick and Jimmy
Dean pancakes and sausage on a stick.

Speaker 2 (01:02:13):
So let me just say, I've never seen that. I'm not.
I don't hate sausage. I don't love sausage.

Speaker 1 (01:02:19):
I'm much more into bacon, and I even prefer ham
to sausage. But I'll tolerate a sausage. I do want
to say, because I haven't had this before, and I
don't know if I've seen it, that Jimmy Dean pancakes
and sausage on a stick sounds to me like a
Nobel Prize winning thing, like engineering.

Speaker 2 (01:02:41):
I mean, I mean like dragon. If you.

Speaker 1 (01:02:46):
Didn't eat as healthfully as you do, doesn't that sound
like God's gift of food?

Speaker 6 (01:02:52):
That's a breakfast, lunch, and dinner all a day, every day,
all day, every day, all day, every day.

Speaker 1 (01:02:57):
Those are all by the way from Hillshire Brands, which
is in Texas and Hillshire Brands, in turn is owned
by Tyson Foods. The contamination problem was discovered after Hillshire
received multiple consumer complaints, five of which involved injuries. The
company later determined that a limited number don't know what
that means, actually of these products contained extraneous pieces of

(01:03:18):
wooden stick within the batter, Tyson said, adding that it
opted to initiate a recall out of an abundance of caution.
The recalled corn dogs and Sausage on the stick goods
were produced between March seventeenth and as recently as last Friday.

Speaker 2 (01:03:33):
For the recall notices h what else.

Speaker 1 (01:03:36):
They're worried that some of these products may be in
consumers refrigerators and freezers in households across the United States,
as well as in some schools and institutions. Consumers in
possession of the now recalled State Fair corn dogs on
a stick? Are there are there corn dogs that are
not on a stick?

Speaker 5 (01:03:51):
Yeah?

Speaker 6 (01:03:51):
I think they're like corn dog bites. So it's got
the entire rett mini corn dogs.

Speaker 1 (01:03:55):
But if you go back to the you know, in
the day when you and I were kids, was there
ever such a thing as corn dog that was not.

Speaker 2 (01:04:00):
On a stick. No, because it's deep fried, you couldn't
pick it up. Yeah, yeah, yeah, So I think corn.

Speaker 1 (01:04:06):
Dog's on a stick is a bit redundant from the
Department of redundancy departments and Jimmy Dean pancakes and sausage
on a stick is God's gift of food, although would
be better with bacon. Anyway, you are urged to throw
these away or return them to your place of purchase.

Speaker 2 (01:04:21):
All right, that's enough. That's enough of that.

Speaker 1 (01:04:23):
I'm still just sort of overwhelmed by how wonderful that idea,
that idea is. I haven't seen the news story yet
that Chad Bauer just mentioned. I'm gonna go look for
it right now. About Trump tariffs on movies. Now, this
has been something that has been rumored for a while,

(01:04:44):
and I get it, by the way, I get it.
You know, I'm very skeptical of tariffs and YadA, YadA, YadA,
but I'm not gonna get in an all that right now. Okay,
I I understand what Trump is getting at here in
that we have Trump would say, Trump would say lost
much of the movie industry in the United States of America,

(01:05:05):
and there's some real truth to it.

Speaker 2 (01:05:06):
I mean, Hollywood is doing okay, but you see a
few movies.

Speaker 1 (01:05:13):
You see plenty of movies made in a few states
in the United States. Georgia is famous for how much
money they spend on subsidizing movies, tax breaks and all
kinds of stuff.

Speaker 2 (01:05:24):
New Mexico does it pretty big as well.

Speaker 1 (01:05:27):
Colorado does a little, but not really enough to compete
with these guys, apparently. And so Trump is talking about
one hundred percent tariff on foreign made movies. Now he
first started talking about this four or five months ago.
And let me just go to Axios for this. I

(01:05:48):
think this is super interesting because it's not obvious when
or how you would impose such a tariff. Right, Let's
say you make the movie somewhere and maybe you and
it's digital. Let's say, I mean a lot of them
are Some are on film, but a lot are digital
these days. All right, If it's on film and you

(01:06:10):
have to physically transport film to the United States of America,
I guess you could try to teariff that.

Speaker 2 (01:06:16):
What if it's digital.

Speaker 1 (01:06:17):
What if a movie production is uploading a digital feed
to a cloud and someone's downloading it in the Hollywood
or wherever to process the effects or whatever it might be.
How do you tearify that? And how much is the tariff?
What's it based on? Is it based on how much

(01:06:38):
it's costing to make the movie? Is it based on
some later number? I don't think they could do this,
but like how much movie? How much money the movie makes?

Speaker 2 (01:06:47):
Is it?

Speaker 5 (01:06:47):
What?

Speaker 2 (01:06:48):
Is it based on just some flat number per movie? What?
I have no idea? I have no idea.

Speaker 1 (01:06:52):
Trump said the tariff would apply to any and all
movies that are made outside of the United States. But
what about movies that are made partly in the United
States and partly elsewhere. There's plenty of things where you've
got some scene that is done, you know, in the
desert in Arizona, and then you've got another thing where
it'll be done in a middle Eastern city, for you know,
like some spy movie and they go to Morocco to
film the scene or something like that.

Speaker 2 (01:07:14):
How are you gonna know? How are you gonna know?
What if?

Speaker 1 (01:07:17):
What if a film is shot mostly in the United
States but then edited overseas, which also happens, How does
this work? How does this work? Now again with axios
two possibilities, they say, to calculate the tariffs based on
box office sales or production budget see box office sales.

(01:07:40):
You can get that number, but it's after the fact,
so at that point it's not really a tariff. At
that point, it's an additional income tax basically, right. And
if a tariff is based off of box office sales, then,
according to one analyst, it would mean that many soon
to be released films would have virtually no chance of
turning a proper right because if you're taxing the sale.

Speaker 2 (01:08:03):
Rather than the profit, then and if.

Speaker 1 (01:08:06):
These things are on a fairly tight margin, you make
one hundred million dollar movie and it takes in one
hundred and fifty million dollars at the box office, and
they want a thirty percent tariff on the box office.
That's forty five million dollars. So you're left with a
five million dollar profit off one hundred and fifty million
dollar endeavor.

Speaker 2 (01:08:24):
Who's gonna make that movie? Even if we're based.

Speaker 1 (01:08:26):
On profits, it's likely that this would lead to higher
ticket costs.

Speaker 2 (01:08:31):
That's another thing to look at.

Speaker 1 (01:08:33):
Would the tariffs, and this applies to everything that Trump
is looking to tariff. Would it actually drive production of
these things back into the United States, or would it.
Not do that, but just raise the cost. They're gonna say,
it's still so much cheaper to make it over there.
We're gonna keep making it over there. We'll just pay
the tariff, and we're going to raise everybody's movie prices
by a dollar or two dollars.

Speaker 2 (01:08:52):
We will see. I have no idea where this is
going to go.

Speaker 1 (01:08:55):
I have no idea how you would actually impose it,
but it is quite an interesting thing.

Speaker 2 (01:08:59):
I want to get to our guest.

Speaker 1 (01:09:00):
President Trump is meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Nett
and Yahoo right now. They're going to have a joint
press conference. If they're even close to on time, it'll
be a little bit later this hour. And obviously the
topic at hand is how to deal with the current
situation in Gaza and perhaps the West Bank as well.
Is there a peace process and so on? Joining us

(01:09:21):
to talk about it asaf Romerowski asof is Executive director
of the Association for the Study of the Middle East
and Africa and also executive director of Scholars for Peace
in the Middle East ASOF. Happy New Year, and welcome
to Kowa.

Speaker 5 (01:09:37):
Thank you for having me.

Speaker 1 (01:09:38):
A pleasure to be here, very very glad too. All right,
so let's jump in. We're told that there's a twenty
one point piece plan put together by by Steve witkoffin
Jared Kushner that Trump seems to be in favor of.
Let's just kind of use that as the framework for
what you expect to happen today and what you expect
to hear in this press conference.

Speaker 5 (01:10:00):
I think there's a lot of pressure to kind of
move along a process, and there's a lot of frustration
with as far as on both ends, as far as
the release of the hostages and everything that's been going
on for the past few months now. My guess is
that there will be some kind of compromise. I think
that there's some of the some of the points of

(01:10:20):
the twenty one the sticking points as far as the
Israeli idea we're moving forces. Uh, you know again after
Hamas agrees to disarm and and to move and to
and to change its uh narrative so to speak. Uh,
those are things that are going to be harder for
the Israelis to swallow. One of the bigger issues is

(01:10:43):
what happens in the day after tomorrow's scenario. The part
of the points that are listed. Is that a European
entity of sorts uh rumor to be led by Tony Blair,
will be going on to kind of govern Gaza in
the interim period. These are all the things that have
been discussed. I think the biggest, the biggest UH win

(01:11:06):
would be if indeed and again so this is the
number one demand that all dead and alive hostages would
be released within the first forty eight hours. If that happens,
which goes back to the original Witchloss proposal, then Israel
would release over one thousand active active terrorists of Hamas

(01:11:29):
UH and is part of that deal. And then the
the other following twenty one uh the other the other
points will come together. But this is all contingent on
the number one demand, which of course is not none
of these phase acrobatic deals that we've been seeing all along,
but really a full uh you know, one deal, and

(01:11:51):
that will begin the process to move both parties along hopefully. Okay,
so we got about we got about a little over
four minutes here. So I've never understood and I still
don't understand, what's in it for Hamas to go along
with any deal, because they don't care if they die
or at least in theory, they don't care if they die.

Speaker 1 (01:12:11):
The ones hiding out and Cutter probably do. But many
of their foot soldiers, they think they're going to be martyrs.
They don't mind being martyrs. And so what's in it
for them to give up the leverage of having hostages,
because once they don't have the hostages anymore, net Nyaho's
gonna you know, they're all gonna wake up dead one day.

Speaker 5 (01:12:31):
I'm with you on your skepticism. I mean, I think
that again Hamas has had no incentive whatsoever to follow
through on any of this because it's their only insurance card.
I think that the the pressure that's coming down is
mostly pressure coming down on the Israelis and the changes
that have been basically surrounding all of this. I mean,
on the heels of nis Honiau's speech, as you saw

(01:12:54):
on Friday, you had, you know, a bunch of states
who decide to declare Palestinian state. I think that people,
you know, there's a lot of fatigue, you know, on
both ends, visably what's going on in Gaza, and there's
a question about what Gazza the day after tomorrow looks
like the biggest hurdle is going to be and I
think it says, you know, to your point exactly, is

(01:13:15):
how to disentangle whatever is left of Palestinian society from Hamas.
Tamas cannot be part of the day after tomorrow. Hamas
cannot be trusted h And so some of the pressure
that you're seeing coming down from the Trump administration is
obviously on the Qataris and the other Arab states to
try to marginalize Hamas as far as possible, if not

(01:13:38):
to your point again, they have no incentive whatsoever. They
thrive on this reality, on the so called starvation, on
the salmon right, and the more death there is there is,
the more pressure is on outside actors rather than Hamas himself.

Speaker 1 (01:13:53):
We're talking with us off Romowski, executive director of the
Association for the Study of the Middle East and Africa.
I got about a couple minutes left here as off.
So one of the things that I wonder, all of
these plans seem to contemplate somebody ruling Gaza, somebody other
than Israel, and I think Israel doesn't want to be
in there. I think they're tired. Politically, they're tired, the

(01:14:16):
people are tired, the soldiers are tired. But what I
wonder is who wants to be in there as a
peacekeeping force knowing that there are going to be no
matter what, there will be some members of Hamas, maybe
PIJ maybe some whatever other terrorist groups around that are
gonna just take shots at the peacekeepers just to try

(01:14:38):
to cause trouble. Are the Kataris, the Saudis, the Europeans.
Who's gonna want to put soldiers in there?

Speaker 5 (01:14:47):
And that's a very good question. I mean, look for
the Israelis, you know, to your earlier point, they don't
want to be there, but they have no choice. The
problem is is that if they can guarantee safety uh
Post ten and here we are about to mark a
two year anniversary for the entire community of the southern
part of Israel, they cannot leave. That was part of

(01:15:08):
the commitment, and that the concern, you know, the concern
is as far and this was a part of the
back and forth with the original Trump proposal, that there
would be rehabilitation of Gaza and in the meantime remove
the population out there to Egypt or Jordan or anywhere else.
While Gaza is being cleansed and rehabilitated of course the Egyptians.
Andre Dainians bulked with that. Let's not forget that Gazins

(01:15:31):
are indeed Egyptians, and what does that tell you about Egypt.
But I'm not willing to take their own brethren. That
being said, I think that there is, uh, there is
a desire or an attempt at leave facade to try
to move along create calm in the area, given the
amount of suffering that's been happening. But any group that
goes in, whether be Arab or especially European, is going

(01:15:55):
to be a target. I mean, there is no way
that you know Hamas you know the the Raally's hope.
I mean that you know the fact that they've been
able to take out, you know, key members of Hanasis
leadership and create this array, but there's always somebody else
around the corner. How much come and lull does that
create the process that entire exercise has proven to, you know,

(01:16:17):
come back and invite them as we saw with ten seven,
because that has been happening since two thousand and eight
and onward.

Speaker 2 (01:16:24):
So that's the challenge, Okay.

Speaker 5 (01:16:25):
That being said, somebody has to give it the good
old college try, which is what you're seeing happening now, okay,
I got just a few seconds here.

Speaker 1 (01:16:32):
If you were a betting man, do you think that
on the last calendar day of this year there will
be something like a piece process going on between Israel
and Gaza.

Speaker 5 (01:16:47):
If I'm a betting man, I think there'll be some
kind of architecture that would be you know, that would
be attempted to be implemented, whether or I'm seriously doubtful
there'll be something in place that will be trustworthy on
the Israeli side. And I think that that's the other
part in the In the second that I have left,
is going to be a question about is Israel going

(01:17:07):
to go to elections. That's going to be a domestic
issue at large. But if there but you know, the
bottom line is if the hostages are not back home,
debt and alive, this is going to be a non starter.
That's the only thing that's going to start any kind
of conversation whatsoever. Otherwise, all twenty points are moot.

Speaker 2 (01:17:25):
If there is no hostages back home, I could agree
with you more.

Speaker 1 (01:17:28):
And I would also say, just as a parting note,
I am, I guess not that surprised, but very disappointed
that these Europeans and Australia as well, would would reward
hamas reward mass murder by declaring that they recognize a

(01:17:48):
Palestinian state two years after the Palestinians proved to any
people who still weren't sure about this, that they don't
deserve a state.

Speaker 2 (01:17:56):
Do you want to just offer one last thought on
that one hundred.

Speaker 5 (01:18:00):
It's rewarding terrorism and there's no reason for that whatsoever.
It's a fantasy, it's not a reality. And the Palestinians
haven't done anything whatsoever to show any kind of movement
for actual actionable terms as far as taking responsibility for
their own people. And all they do is they live
on the propaganda which allows them to be the victims

(01:18:21):
of the world with no responsibility and no accountability. And
then the Israelis left in this lull, in this limbo situation.

Speaker 1 (01:18:28):
Asa fro Morowski is executive director of the Association for
the Study of Middle East and Africa as well as
of Scholars for Peace in the Middle East. Thanks for
your time, great guest. Asa will definitely have you back,
Thank you, thank you. We'll take quick break. We'll be
right back on koa iced tea flavored whiskey and so on.

Speaker 2 (01:18:45):
F stuff. Appreciate that, thank you. Uh huh.

Speaker 6 (01:18:47):
This is what you feel like when you're getting the
blue cheese and bell pepper stuff.

Speaker 1 (01:18:50):
Huh. My drinking game is to take a shot every
time Ross wastes my time. I'm usually hammered by about
nine am.

Speaker 2 (01:18:58):
True, true, true, Yeah, all right, what do we got
to do today?

Speaker 1 (01:19:05):
Well, so we are expected to hear from President Trump
and Benjamin Ett Yaho. If they show up, we will
take that conversation. In the meantime, I would actually like
to take a moment. God, I just have a few
minutes on this. I want to make sure I kind
of do this, get this right, this particular one. I
want to spend a little bit of time talking about AI.

(01:19:27):
It's a thing, you know, that I like talking about,
and there's a lot of fear out there, especially by
people who aren't in the AI business, about what it
might mean for jobs, what it might mean for lots
and lots of things. Bruce Melman put out a really
excellent thing. Bruce puts out this thing called a six
Charts Sunday. He does it every Sunday. It's up on

(01:19:47):
my blog right now.

Speaker 2 (01:19:49):
You can click on that. You can and should subscribe.

Speaker 1 (01:19:52):
It's free, it's really good, and it's as it says,
six charts, six info graphics every Sunday, and there's a
lot of good stuff and a lot of this one
today is about AI and says it's the end of
the world as we know it, and I feel scared.
He says, you can't spell panic without an A and
an I. Also Mania billionaire in Migraine. AI doom predictions

(01:20:16):
make great copy and headlines, and the media is a
business fighting for share in the attention economy, So keep
that in mind when you read these headlines. And I
want to skip ahead to a particular historical thing that
Bruce talks about. So he talks about how folks like
Karl Marx, Mahatma Gandhi, John Maynard Kines.

Speaker 2 (01:20:36):
So these are all liberals, all people on the left.

Speaker 1 (01:20:39):
And Albert Einstein also were very concerned, more than concerned
about what they call technological unemployment does a term that.

Speaker 2 (01:20:47):
Actually came from Canes in nineteen thirty.

Speaker 1 (01:20:49):
But the idea was that machines that mechanizing different tasks
will put people out of work, and those people will
be The concept was an ever increasing number of unemployed
people with no skills to get back into the workplace.

Speaker 2 (01:21:06):
But of course that doesn't happen.

Speaker 5 (01:21:08):
Now.

Speaker 2 (01:21:08):
One of the things that Bruce has in this.

Speaker 1 (01:21:12):
Great six chart Sunday is a newspaper clipping from nineteen
fifty seven when Dwight Eisenhower was president.

Speaker 2 (01:21:23):
And I'm just going to read this to you. It's
not long again. This is from March of nineteen fifty seven.
An expanding economy.

Speaker 1 (01:21:32):
Will provide jobs for workers displaced by automatic machines, President
Eisenhower said today, expressing the view that fear is concerning automation,
meaning the replacement of workers by industrial devices.

Speaker 2 (01:21:44):
How about that.

Speaker 1 (01:21:45):
I mean, you're at a time where you actually had
to define the word automation in a newspaper article. Now
everyone just sort of takes that kind of thing for granted,
and you know what it is. It's interesting, you know,
the early days. But these fears are exaggerated. The president
said that similar fears of played workers for one hundred
and fifty years and have always proved groundless. One of
the great things that seems to have happened over the generations,

(01:22:07):
Ike said, has been that as the nation finds ways
to do more work with fewer man hours, there always springs.

Speaker 2 (01:22:15):
Up more work to do. Gosh, I really really like that.

Speaker 1 (01:22:20):
And there's more from another post that maybe I'll get
to in the next segment. I'll just share one sentence
from it, and then if I have time, and if
Trump and NETTNYA, who aren't already talking when I get back,
we'll get to it. One way to think about AI's
effect on workers is asking this question, is AI more

(01:22:40):
like a tractor or more like a spreadsheet?

Speaker 2 (01:22:44):
A listener pointed out to me something that I had missed.

Speaker 1 (01:22:47):
I wish I had stayed up and watched all of
last night's football game. I turned it off, probably midway
through the third quarter or something, and it ended up
being a forty to forty high. If you can imagine
that the two teams had a combined nine hundred and
twenty five yards of offense, ten touchdowns, and a score

(01:23:14):
of GAMI last night was a score of GAMI last
night was an NFL score that has never been an
NFL score before the first time there has ever been
a forty to forty game From CBS Sports Packers kicker
Brandon McManus. Does that name sound familiar? For many years
of Broncos kicker drilled a thirty four yard field goal

(01:23:36):
on the final play of overtime to earn Green Bay
a forty to forty tie with the Cowboys.

Speaker 2 (01:23:43):
This was all right, check this out, dragon? You ready,
I'm gonna ask you a question.

Speaker 1 (01:23:49):
So, the definition of a score of gami a score
that has never occurred before? Right?

Speaker 2 (01:23:56):
How many?

Speaker 1 (01:23:59):
I'm gonna word this in a simpler way, how many
different final scores have there been in the history of
the NFL?

Speaker 2 (01:24:06):
Doesn't that to be I don't mean one that only
occurred one time?

Speaker 1 (01:24:08):
Like, there's lots of twenty seven to twenty four games
and that counts as one.

Speaker 2 (01:24:12):
Twenty seven to twenty four counts is one?

Speaker 1 (01:24:14):
Right, So ten ten counts has won, eleven ten counts
has won, twelve ten counts is won. How many different
final scores have there been in the history of the NFL?

Speaker 2 (01:24:27):
Eighty seven? A little higher? Ninety seven higher than that?
One thousand? You're close, really more than that? Okay? One
thousand and ninety three.

Speaker 1 (01:24:43):
Wow?

Speaker 2 (01:24:43):
That amazing ae thousand and ninety three. Wow.

Speaker 1 (01:24:47):
It was also the let's see, the first NFL tie
game since December of twenty twenty two, and the highest
scoring tie game in the Super Bowl era, which dates
back to nineteen sixty six.

Speaker 2 (01:25:02):
So there you go, score Agami, I did not bet
on the score. A goumi. Let's talk a little bit
more about.

Speaker 1 (01:25:09):
This AI thing, and I've posted some stuff in my
blog that for those of you like thinking about these
sorts of issues, I think you'll find worth reading. I
got actually a ton of stuff in my blog today,
including a very funny video at the end. So if
you go to Roscommensky dot com you can find all that.
So a guy, let's see, what's his name? May make
sure I get this guy's name right. Derek Thompson is

(01:25:30):
his name, and he's got his own substack called Derek
Thompson right. And he posted something about ten days ago
entitled the twenty five most interesting ideas I've found in
twenty twenty five so far. And there's some interesting stuff
in here. I'll mention one in passing, and then I'm
gonna get to the AI.

Speaker 2 (01:25:50):
Number two.

Speaker 1 (01:25:51):
He says, the Young American religious Revival is overrated. There
have been quite a few stories about gen Z, especially
gen Z men going back to church, attending church more.

Speaker 2 (01:26:03):
And what he says in this piece is that they
are still.

Speaker 1 (01:26:08):
The least likely to attend weekly religious services and the
most likely to be so called never attenders. And even
with this perceived increase of gen Zers going to church,
they are still by a long way the most likely

(01:26:29):
of any current generation to go to church or to
have gone to church between the ages of eighteen and
twenty nine, like, comparing to those other generations when they
were eighteen to twenty nine. So, for example, I'm Gen
X nineteen. Let's see, nineteen percent of Gen X says

(01:26:52):
they never went to church between the ages of eighteen
and twenty nine, or not just church, any religious whatever,
synagogue as well, right, all that for it's double that
at thirty eight percent.

Speaker 2 (01:27:01):
So that's kind of an interesting thing. There's this perception.

Speaker 1 (01:27:05):
I'm sure it's real that there's more young adults and
especially young men going to church than maybe there were
a year or two ago, But it doesn't mean we're
suddenly a religious nation. We've been getting less and less
religious very consistently, decade after decade after decade, and now
it seems like it's sort of leveling out at some
low level. All right, now, let me go to the

(01:27:26):
other thing. The AI thing that I wanted to talk
to you about, and I mentioned and it came from
this thing, from this from Derek Thompson. One way to
think about AI's effect on workers is asking is AI
a tractor or a spreadsheet?

Speaker 2 (01:27:40):
And I really like this.

Speaker 1 (01:27:41):
Apparently there's something called Javon's paradox capital j Evo n
apostrophe s. When we invented tractors, the population of horses
on farms plummeted, because the tractor essentially automated everything that
farmers needed from a horse. If you carry forth the
frame of all that technology, if you carried forth the
frame that all technology is a tractor, you would have

(01:28:04):
predicted that the invention of the spreadsheet would decimate the
employment of accountants and other occupations that dealt with spreadsheets. Instead,
the increased efficiency of spreadsheet work turned basically the entire
white collar economy into a bunch of spreadsheet jobs, and
the number of accounting, tax prep, and bookkeeping jobs has
increased steadily in the age of excel. Javon's paradox is

(01:28:26):
an economic theory that refers to the idea that increased
efficiency leads to more consumption rather than less. Now I personally,
I think this is nerdy but fascinating and important. In
the eighteen hundreds, the UK increased the efficiency of.

Speaker 2 (01:28:43):
Coal burning factories.

Speaker 1 (01:28:45):
Did they burn the same amount of coal more cheaply
after that? Right? If you were burning a million tons
at fifty dollars a ton, and.

Speaker 2 (01:28:56):
Now you were able to do this, you're able to be.

Speaker 1 (01:29:02):
More efficient so that you could burn this effectively at
a cost of forty dollars a ton because you're more
effective how you use the coal? Are you now going
to burn a million tons and spend and spend forty
million dollars on your fuel and spend it instead of
fifty million dollars on the fuel?

Speaker 2 (01:29:16):
But no, they actually burned more coal.

Speaker 1 (01:29:19):
In the two thousands, the cost of producing and publishing
video entertainment plummeted.

Speaker 2 (01:29:24):
Did we make the same number of videos but more cheaply?

Speaker 5 (01:29:27):
Know?

Speaker 1 (01:29:27):
We made a trillion videos? So one plausible prediction about
AI is that it won't replace workers, but rather that
the collapsing cost of using AI to generate ideas will
turn everybody into insufferable influencers.

Speaker 2 (01:29:43):
Sorry, I mean knowledge workers.

Speaker 1 (01:29:46):
Right? I like it, And let me just continue a
little bit more here, same guy. Derek Thompson dot org
is the website to easily find his his blog. Historically,
automation doesn't destroy work so much as it moves the
value of human labor to other parts of the product
lifestyle life cycle. One way to be smarter about anticipating

(01:30:06):
the economic effects of technological change is to read how
previous generations anticipated technological change and got things right or wrong.
In the middle of the twentieth century, the automation of
manufacturing was so compelling and frightening that to Americans that
books like Kurt Vonnegut's Player Piano anticipated the possibility that

(01:30:27):
superintelligent machines would usher in a post wark dystopia. In
nineteen fifty six, fifty six Congress published a long paper
anticipating the economic effects of robots in manufacturing firms, entitled
Automation and Technological Change, Report of the Joint Committee on
the Economic Report to the Congress. In one section on

(01:30:48):
the direct effect of automation, the authors wrote again now
nineteen fifty six, following the principles and definition of automation
already derived, the direct consequences of applying automation to a
productive system can be classified as follows many direct production
jobs are abolished, a smaller number of newer jobs requiring
different and mostly higher skills are created.

Speaker 2 (01:31:10):
These new jobs.

Speaker 1 (01:31:10):
Include equipment maintenance and design, systems analysis, programming, and engineering.
The requirements of some of the remaining jobs are raised,
for example, the integration of several formerly separate processes and
the enhanced value of capital investment.

Speaker 2 (01:31:24):
I'm going to skip ahead. It's a little bit dry there.

Speaker 1 (01:31:27):
A production of new and better goods of more standardized
quality becomes possible, but there may be a loss of variety.
There's an increase in the quantity and accuracy of information
and the speed with which it is obtained. In most cases,
a more efficient use is made of all the components
of production, labor, capital, natural resources, and management. So this

(01:31:48):
guy says, I'd love to report the nineteen fifties economists
where a bunch of technocratic buffoons who had no idea
what was coming.

Speaker 2 (01:31:55):
But that whole thing is actually insightful.

Speaker 1 (01:31:58):
The idea that the US manufacturing automation would directly replace
some production jobs but also create more complex managerial jobs
that required a facility with design and engineering. While the
speed of business will require a different stamina that is
intellectual rather than physical, and the automation of factories might
lead to a loss of variety due to managers seeking efficiency.

(01:32:21):
Seems quite spot on to me, So I think I'm
mostly gonna stop there. I'm gonna end this part with
just this guy's last sentence, in which he introduces a
new topic.

Speaker 2 (01:32:32):
But I'm not going to share the whole new topic,
just the first sentence of it.

Speaker 1 (01:32:35):
He says, I'm worried that AI is getting smarter at
the same time that we are getting dumber. And I
think that's right too, And I don't mean that a sarcasm.
He doesn't mean any sarcasm. I do think there's a
significant challenge there, I really do.

Speaker 2 (01:32:49):
So oh, I want to let you know.

Speaker 1 (01:32:52):
And I hadn't teased this before, so it wasn't like
you were expecting it.

Speaker 2 (01:32:56):
Today. I was supposed to have.

Speaker 1 (01:32:58):
Katie McFarland to she's traveling today, so I moved her
or you know, they said they couldn't do today, so
she will be on with me tomorrow.

Speaker 2 (01:33:07):
So I'm letting you know right now.

Speaker 1 (01:33:08):
Kt McFarland at ten thirty three our time tomorrow. She
is one of the most requested guests on the show,
so I thought I would share that with you.

Speaker 2 (01:33:17):
That'll be for tomorrow. Remember drinking game.

Speaker 1 (01:33:20):
If you see me or Chuck on the sidelines in
the television broadcast of tonight's Monday night football game.

Speaker 2 (01:33:26):
Have a drink.

Speaker 1 (01:33:28):
Could be an alcoholic drink, but not if you're dragging,
and definitely don't have alcoholic drinks if you're gonna drive afterwards.

Speaker 2 (01:33:34):
Okay, but in.

Speaker 1 (01:33:35):
Any case, In any case, I will try to post
a picture tagging KOA on x formerly Twitter at Koacolorado
dot com. I will post it directly on my Twitter
feed at ross Putin. If you're not following me already
ourssput i n please do, and of course follow KOA
Colorado as well. I'll post a picture there if we
can get all this organized of me and Chuck and

(01:33:56):
you will see what we look like and then you
can take a drink anytime you see both us.

Speaker 2 (01:34:00):
All right, I've heard the story real quick.

Speaker 6 (01:34:02):
Sorry, I just want to add that you said if
you're drink, if you're driving, don't play the drinking game.
If you're driving, don't play the drinking game with with alcohol.
And if you're driving, please don't watch the game. Focus
on the right. I meant, and so a listener said
the same thing too. I meant, if you're going to
be driving after the game? Oh, if you are driving?

(01:34:24):
If What I should have said is if you will
I should have said, if you will be driving, you
can listen to it. If yes, you can listen to
the game. Probably probably won't see if you're listening to
the game. All right, A listener wants to know, and
I would like, Hey, a Rod, a Rod, can you
hear me?

Speaker 2 (01:34:41):
All right?

Speaker 5 (01:34:43):
Uh?

Speaker 1 (01:34:43):
No, I was, I was off the air the question
to a Rod, and I need a Rod to answer
this question A Rod or anybody else who knows is
from from another listener? Is it possible to sync up
the audio from KOA to the video from the television?
And it seems to me that if you can't pause KOA,
but you could pause the television, then theoretically you could,

(01:35:06):
but only if the television is ahead of KOA. And
I don't know if it is a Rod. Do you,
since you're very tech sav you do do you do
you have an answer or a suspicion about this.

Speaker 7 (01:35:17):
If you're listening on the iheartstream, you can pause the
iheartstream and pause the TV and get them and sync Okay,
But if you're listening on a fifty KOA ninety four
one FM, right, it is possible with the TV because
typically the TV will be a little ahead of us.

Speaker 1 (01:35:34):
So you think, so you think maybe you can pause
the TV and then line it up with the regular broadcast.
I think?

Speaker 2 (01:35:43):
And are you sure you can pause the stream on
the app?

Speaker 4 (01:35:48):
Is there?

Speaker 2 (01:35:48):
What can you definitely pause the stream on the app?
I haven't thought in a while. I don't know. All right,
you can sync up? Yeah? Okay, all right? And if any.

Speaker 1 (01:35:56):
Listeners have done that, actually done that to sync up
the KAWA radio audio with the TV broadcast, which would
be pretty awesome to hear Dave Logan calling the game
while watching it on TV exactly synced up in time.
If you've done that, text us at five six, six
nine zero and let me know how all right. I've
had this next story for about three weeks and I

(01:36:17):
just keep wanting to get to it. I keep not
having time to get to it, and.

Speaker 2 (01:36:20):
I want to do this now.

Speaker 1 (01:36:22):
And part of what's interesting about the story is the
story itself. And part of what's interesting about the story
is the fact that it's out there in the news
because not the kind of thing that you would normally
see in the news. And this is a headline from
the New York Times. Is it the New York Times? Yeah,
it's the New York Times. How a top secret Seal
Team six mission into North Korea fell apart. Now, this
is from a twenty nineteen mission that took place during

(01:36:44):
the first Trump administration. A group of Navy seals emerged
from the ink black Ocean on a winter night in
early twenty nineteen and crept to a rocky shore in
North Korea. They were on a top secret mission so
complex and consequential that everything had to go exist exactly right.
The objective was to plant an electronic device that would

(01:37:05):
let the US intercept the communications of North Korea's reclusive leader,
Kim Jong un, amid high level nuclear talks with President Trump.
The mission had the potential to provide the US with
a stream of valuable intelligence, but it meant putting American
commandos on North Korean soil, a move that, if detected,
not only could stint negotiations, but could lead to a

(01:37:27):
hostage crisis or an escalating conflict with a nuclear armed foe.
It was so risky that it required the president's direct approval,
which he gave.

Speaker 2 (01:37:36):
So the seals practiced for months. When they got what
they thought was going to be to what they thought
was going to be a.

Speaker 1 (01:37:42):
Deserted shoreline, they were wearing black wetsuits, they were wearing
night vision goggles. But the thing fell apart. A North
Korean boat showed up and flashlights from the front of
the boat sweeping over the water, and fearing that they
had been spotted, the Navy seals opened fire and killed

(01:38:03):
everybody on the North Korean boat.

Speaker 2 (01:38:06):
Wow.

Speaker 1 (01:38:07):
The seals went back into the sea without planning the
listening device. And they say later in this that they
think the North Korean boat was just fishermen. Don't know
for sure, they think it was just fishermen. Now again,
keep in mind not just this story, which reads like
something out of a Jack Car novel, but the fact

(01:38:27):
that this story is in the newspaper is kind of
a crazy thing. The twenty nineteen operation has never been
publicly acknowledged or even hinted at, by the US or
by North Korea. The details remain classified and are being
reported here for the first time. The Trump administration did

(01:38:50):
not notify key members of Congress who oversee intelligence operations
before or after the mission, which may have violated the law.
The White House declined to This account is based on
interviews with two dozen people, including civilian government officials, members
of the first Trump administration, and current and former military
personnel with knowledge of the mission, all of whom spoke

(01:39:12):
on the condition of anonymity.

Speaker 2 (01:39:14):
Now here's the key. This is what I think is fascinating.

Speaker 1 (01:39:19):
Several of the people the New York Times spoke to
said that they were talking about the details of the
mission because they were concerned that special operations failures are.

Speaker 2 (01:39:30):
Often hidden by government secrecy.

Speaker 1 (01:39:33):
If the public and policymakers become aware only of high
profile successes like the bin Laden rate, they may underestimate
the extreme risks that American forces undertake. Now I would
just say, in response to that, so what, And I
don't mean that as sarcasm at all.

Speaker 2 (01:39:52):
I'm going to put this very very plainly.

Speaker 1 (01:39:54):
Why does it matter if the American people overestimate or underestimate,
or misunderestimate or anything else the precise level of risk
that members of the American military are taking. They don't
need to know that. I do think that it's important
that members of the specific intelligence committees on House and Senate,

(01:40:20):
who will.

Speaker 2 (01:40:20):
Oversee this stuff, if they're.

Speaker 1 (01:40:22):
Supposed to get this information, they should.

Speaker 2 (01:40:24):
Have gotten it.

Speaker 1 (01:40:26):
They're the ones who need to know, and our military commanders,
of course do know and need to know exactly how
much risk is being taken. Why is it that some
bureaucrad or former bureaucrad or military person or former whatever
thinks that they should be telling the American public about
a secret mission that failed because they think the American

(01:40:50):
public needs to know more.

Speaker 2 (01:40:54):
About when missions fail. I don't like it. I don't
like it.

Speaker 1 (01:40:57):
The New York Times says we perceived cast when reporting
on classified military operations. The Times has withheld some sensitive
information on the mission. It's unclear how much North Korea
was able to discover about the mission, but the Seal
operation is one chapter in a decades long effort by
US administrations to engage North Korea and constrain its nuclear

(01:41:18):
weapons program. Anyway, this article is very long. I shared
with you probably five percent of it, and there are
a lot of details about what happened.

Speaker 2 (01:41:27):
In the operation.

Speaker 1 (01:41:28):
But I will say I don't like that this is
in the news, even though it's an unbelievable story. Ay Rod,
you are wearing a sport coat and a button down shirt, yes, sir,
and you are sitting in a chair that makes it
look like you're about to work on the radio.

Speaker 7 (01:41:42):
You are correct, jor Keller, Ruey and Ben Allbry. I
gonna kick off our pregame coverage here in seven minutes.

Speaker 2 (01:41:47):
Good cert, fabulous, excited. I am very excited.

Speaker 7 (01:41:50):
And also clarification, all of our texts are saying you
can in fact sync up the stream with TV, so
we haven't gotten confirmation whether people have been able to
do it recently with over the air signal. Right on
the stream you can, So what you can do? Hit
play on that stream and start our pregame coverage in
six minutes with Ben and I.

Speaker 2 (01:42:08):
Awesome.

Speaker 1 (01:42:08):
All right, I do see a whole bunch of people
saying that they've done that synced up Dave and Rick?

Speaker 2 (01:42:13):
Are you digging sports reporting?

Speaker 3 (01:42:15):
Oh?

Speaker 2 (01:42:15):
I love it. It's it's fantastic.

Speaker 7 (01:42:17):
I mean, I've been doing it for a long long time,
so I do a little bit of everything, so it's
is one of the million things I do and I
am Yeah, I love it.

Speaker 2 (01:42:23):
So why are you wearing a sport coat since this
is radio because I'm going down to the game tonight,
But you could take it off for now. I could,
but I have I make you feel more professional in
a way.

Speaker 7 (01:42:32):
It does, and I want to be ready to rock
and roll so I can jam out of here right
at four o'clock and go start our our awesome social
coverage out the game tonight. Okay, but Dragon, the second
I walked in today, Dragon goes no tie, and I
go no no tie because most sports guys down at
the stadium have taken away the tie.

Speaker 2 (01:42:50):
Even my wife was like, yeah, you probably should get
rid of the tie. Every time I stick.

Speaker 1 (01:42:53):
Around for a Rod and Ben and six hours of
coverage of the Broncos Bengals Monday night game. Take a
drink if you see me and Chuck on the sidelines,
but not an alcoholic drink if you have to drive afterwards.

Speaker 2 (01:43:05):
I'll talk to you tomorrow.