12-27-24 - Jimmy Sengenberger Filling In For Ross

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Glad to be with you here on Koa.

Speaker 2 (00:03):
With so much going on and so much to do,
and gosh, something that I don't know. Would you be
surprised if I told you that some Democrats people on
the left are doing what people on the right.

Speaker 1 (00:18):
Were doing this time four years ago, saying.

Speaker 2 (00:24):
Don't accept the electoral college victory of the guy who
actually won the election. In the case of four years ago,
it was Joe Biden and Kamala Harris who won the
presidency and vice presidency, and Donald Trump and Mike Pence
lost the presidency and vice presidency. This go around a

(00:48):
little different story where Trump won against the Democrat this
time Kamala Harris, and it wasn't just the electoral college
victory like Trump had in twenty sixteen, where he did
not secure the popular vote. In fact, this century, the

(01:12):
Republicans only captured the popular vote once, which was in
two thousand and four when George W. Bush ran for reelection.
This time, Trump won well over three hundred elector or
three hundred electoral college votes because of that popular vote win,

(01:32):
lending him even more legitimacy in his victory. It was
not the tight race that were many expected honestly myself
included or the tight race that we saw in twenty twenty.
So it's pretty clear that Trump won the election. But
there is a peace from over the weekend in the

(01:56):
Hill entitled Congress does not have to accept Trump's electoral votes.
We are back at this, just the shoe is on
the other foot. It's written by Evan Davis, a past
editor in chief of the Columbia Law Review, and David Shultzi,

(02:18):
past editor in chief of the Yale Law Journal, and
they say that, look, the Constitution provides that an oath
breaking insurrectionist is ineligible to be president. This is the
plain wording of the of Section three of the fourteenth

(02:40):
Amendment to the Constitution. No person shall hold any office
civil or military under the United States or under any State, who,
having previously taken an oath to support the Constitution of
the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion
against the same, or given aid or comfort to the

(03:01):
enemies thereof this disability, Davis and Schulte Wright can be
removed by a two thirds vote in each House.

Speaker 1 (03:12):
Disqualification is based.

Speaker 2 (03:13):
On insurrection against the Constitution and not the government. The
evidence of Donald Trump's engaging it in such insurrection is overwhelming.
The matter has been decided in three separate forums, two
of which were fully contested with the active participation of
Trump's counsel.

Speaker 1 (03:32):
Let's just stop right there.

Speaker 2 (03:34):
The American people knew all about January sixth, twenty twenty one.
They knew all about Trump's denials of his loss in
twenty and twenty, and yet they still went out and
gave him the votes he needed.

Speaker 1 (03:55):
With new groups.

Speaker 2 (03:58):
From various Democrats, epics that Republicans traditionally don't do well on.

Speaker 1 (04:03):
He improved dramatically with black and Hispanic.

Speaker 2 (04:06):
Voters, Jewish voters. The list goes on in other categories.
Oh regardless, he won a very clear cut victory from
the American people who decided, anyway, knowing all of that,
to vote him into the office of president as number
forty seven, making Donald Trump the first president since Grover

(04:33):
Cleveland in eighteen ninety two to win a second non consecutive.

Speaker 1 (04:38):
Term, not back to back.

Speaker 2 (04:43):
They had all this information, and yet they still voted
him in. And yet there are people like Davis and
Schulti and others. As the chatter grows on the left
who are saying ah, I forget that. Who cares that
the American people had that opportunity. Let's just remove him
because we deem him unlike the majority of Americans who

(05:05):
got out voted under our system of the Constitution with
the electoral college. We deem him an insurrectionist, and therefore
he must go. They talk about Trump's second impeachment trial
after January sixth. They talk about the second contested proceeding

(05:27):
being the Colorado five day judicial due process hearing our
own state, where the court found by clear and convincing
evidence that President Trump engaged in insurrection as those terms
are used in Section three of the Constitution, which was
affirmed by the Colorado Supreme Court. Of course, the US

(05:50):
Supreme Court rejected that. But they say that the Supreme
Court US Supreme Court did not they be and the
authors did not address the finding that Trump had engaged
in insurrection. And then they talk about the bipartisan inquiry
of the House to Select Committee to investigate the January
sixth attack on the US capital. Look, you could come

(06:14):
up with any number of reasons why you say this
person is illegitimate, disqualified, or this is a reason why
this person should not become president. Of the United States,
and Congress somehow has the authority to deny the electoral
votes in their account, let's reject it. Well, you know what,
this is playing politics in a way that has beneath

(06:35):
the dignity of Congress and beneath what's appropriate of our country.
I know I'm certain fired up out of the gate,
but I saw this story and as somebody who for
four years then I voted for Trump all three times,
and yet for four years I have maintained, Look, you lost,

(06:56):
mister president. That's what the evidence clearly shows. That's the case,
is the fact of the matter, and what happened on
January sixth was wrong. All these other things, and you
were wrong to say that Congress should not have counted
the votes as they were meant to be for Joe Biden.

(07:18):
Now the shoes on the other foot, and consistency.

Speaker 1 (07:21):
Needs to be the name of the game.

Speaker 2 (07:25):
You can't just go ahead and say, well, now we're
going to use insurrection is the basis to deny the
American people what they voted for in a democratic election
and to reject.

Speaker 1 (07:37):
The electoral college votes.

Speaker 2 (07:40):
In this piece, they call on Democrats to take a
stand against electoral college votes for a person disqualified by
the Constitution from holding office unlesson until this disability is removed. Please,
just because those two entities of a Colorado Supreme Court
that was overturned by the US of Court and the

(08:03):
impeachment that did not result in removal from office, that's
not sufficient, especially after this was adjudicated by the American people.
The shoes on the other foot, and now what do
we see some folks on the left doing exactly what
folks on the right had been doing it this time
four years ago. And it is wrong no matter how
you slice it left or right.

Speaker 1 (08:26):
I'm to be saying in Burger filling.

Speaker 2 (08:28):
In for Roskaminsky on a Friday morning, keep it right here.
We are just getting started on KOA one thing when
it comes to your right to vote. I didn't get
a chance to mention. I want to make this historical note.
So I was just talking about this argument that Congress
shouldn't accept the electoral votes that have gone to President

(08:52):
elected Donald Trump. Reject Trump, just like Republicans were saying
four years ago, reject Biden. And in this case it
was he's disqualified as an insurrectionist. Well back in the
election of nineteen sixty, Richard Nixon was vice president.

Speaker 1 (09:11):
He lost to John F.

Speaker 2 (09:15):
Kennedy, and he was the vice president, so he was
the president of the Senate, so he presided over the
count for the Senate. And yeah, he presided over that count,
which was a big deal because there were some questions
about a couple of states, Hawaii being one of them,

(09:38):
and the electoral count, and there were some questions as
to whether he would accept a particular slate of electors.
What would happen And guess what he did. The next
time we would see a vice president count their own
loss was al Gore in two thousand. Now we will

(10:00):
see the same for Kamala Harrison. She should follow Richard
Nixon's lead and al Gore's lead and just proceed accordingly
as she is responsible for, as difficult as that may be. Now,
if you're a small business owner, you should be aware

(10:20):
of something that got This is frustrating. And I saw
something about this, and I'm glad a friend painted me
about it because I have not done this yet. This,
according to CBS News, and anti money laundering law called
the Corporate Transparency Act or CTA, is now back in

(10:42):
action after a December twenty third court ruling that will
require millions of small business owners to register with the
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network or finn then by mid January
or potentially pay five of up to ten thousand dollars

(11:04):
five hundred and ninety one dollars a day. This rule
has been on hold since December third. A federal court
in Texas had put in a preliminary injunction, but this Monday,
the Fifth US Circuit Court of Appeals lifted the order,
ruling that the decision is in the public's urgent interest
in combating financial crime and protecting our country's national security.

(11:29):
So now small business owners must file this form in
compliance with the CTA's Beneficial Ownership Information Reporting requirement.

Speaker 1 (11:46):
For BOI.

Speaker 2 (11:49):
Registering with FINNSEN, the following information your company's full legal name,
it's business address, and there are specifics on that state
where the company was formed or first registered taxpayer identification number,
with an identity document like a filed Articles of incorporation,

(12:10):
beneficial owners full legal names and birth dates, beneficial owners'
home addresses, and a photocopy of their US driver's license
or passport, and this must be filed by January thirteenth,
rather than the original January first, twenty twenty five deadline

(12:31):
five hundred and ninety one dollars a day fine.

Speaker 1 (12:35):
Now there is.

Speaker 2 (12:35):
An effort by some business organizations to say, please push
this off by another year. Small businesses, especially in rural areas,
really need a chance to be informed about this and
to comply.

Speaker 1 (12:47):
But as of now it is moving forward.

Speaker 2 (12:50):
I despise these kinds of impediments for small businesses. I
get the motivation here, but it is an additional hassle
to have this kind of a requirement to make sure
that you are abiding it. But nevertheless, it's the law
of the land thanks to this two thousand and one
or twenty twenty one passage and now going into effect.

(13:12):
Avoid those fines you do not want them. Finnsen is
where to go fin CE and the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network.

Speaker 1 (13:24):
This is required to happen.

Speaker 2 (13:31):
And oh hey, reminder from a listener text by the way,
and please get some text in at the koa Common
Spirit health text line five sixty six nine zero. I
forgot about this one. Vice President Hubert Humphrey was the
next loser in nineteen sixty eight after Nixon in nineteen
sixty great point.

Speaker 1 (13:52):
Thanks for keeping us straight with the facts.

Speaker 2 (13:55):
Here on KOA, I'm Jimmy Sangenberger Fillion for Roskaminski. On
the other side, national columnist Matthew Houseman will recollect on
Israel's battles overseas over the course of the last year,
and more great conversation coming up on the other side
as we continue on news Radio Kawa. It's a little

(14:16):
Buddy Guy by the way, from his album Bring Him
In doing the tune.

Speaker 1 (14:21):
Ninety nine and one half.

Speaker 2 (14:23):
I'm very pleased to be joined by someone who enjoys
very good music like this, what I call the best
bumper music known to man. Matthew Houseman has more than
thirty years experience as a trial attorney in nearly forty
as a journalist, writer and editor.

Speaker 1 (14:42):
His columns and articles have appeared in The.

Speaker 2 (14:44):
American Thinker, Roots, Seva, Israel, National News, Connecticut Lawyer, and more.
And he joins us now from the East Coast. Happy
Hanikah and welcome Matt.

Speaker 3 (14:58):
Thanks so much. Jimmy, good to be And I saw
a Buddy Guy perform that at jazz Fest.

Speaker 1 (15:05):
Isn't it just such a great tune?

Speaker 2 (15:07):
And the man himself he's still alive and well, and
although he's you know, in the process of retiring, he's
doing his final shows and so forth. But he was
one of those showmen who he could just smile and
you feel good when you watch him smile on Stager.
He's the one guy who can go and the audience

(15:27):
will just shut up.

Speaker 3 (15:29):
He was inspiring, you know, in his eighties. He jumped
off the stage just a couple of years ago. He
had his remote hookup. He was walking through the audience
playing and you can see the sweat flying off him
and it was genuine. This guy was really having a
good time. Just inspiring to watch.

Speaker 1 (15:46):
He always is.

Speaker 2 (15:48):
So that let's look back at twenty twenty four, a
little bit a little ahead at twenty twenty five, and
particularly in one of the big stories of the year,
which is in regard to Israel and the Jewish States
fight for its very survival against Hamas as well as
Hezbollah Iran of course behind it all. But before we

(16:11):
get into that, this has been a monumental year for
American politics, let alone, as we'll talk about Israeli politics.

Speaker 1 (16:19):
How do you.

Speaker 2 (16:20):
Look at twenty twenty four and what we saw last
month with the November election.

Speaker 3 (16:26):
With a seismic shift I think compared to obviously the
previous four years, which really was an extension of the
eight years previous to Trump's first term. This has been
something that's going on, i e. The encroachments of you know,

(16:48):
they call it the intellectual elite, but that is such
a Soviet term. That's when they referred to their enemies
as Cosmopoland. But what we did see, I mean, it's
been you know, called woke, call for this down and
the other. I'm not sure what the best term is,
but clearly there was an intellectual cultification that.

Speaker 4 (17:08):
Was going on.

Speaker 3 (17:08):
It was coming from the top. We reached a point
where people's preconceived notions as to what was right and
what was left sort of flip flops.

Speaker 2 (17:21):
You know.

Speaker 3 (17:22):
Fifty years ago, the Democrats postured themselves as the champions
of civil liberties and the Constitution, and it was not inaccurate,
but it was also in the sense that what separated
a moderate or mainstream Democrat from a moderate mainstream Republican
really not that much when it came down to things

(17:43):
like civil liberties. Everything has become so toxic and I
think if you were to trace twenty twenty four in
this shift that happened, and you were to trace it back.
I mean, one of the seminal events that I could
think of is a lawyer and a writer only goes
back to and you were in daycare, if you were

(18:04):
around at all, Jimmy at the time. But the confirmation
hearings around Judge Bork for the Supreme Court, that I
think is the point where the Democrats began. By the way,
let me preface this. I'm not a Republican or a Democrat.
I'm a registered un affiliated, which is Connecticut's link for independent.

(18:25):
But that's when the gloves came off and Supreme Court
confirmations became very it was all about politics, not about
judicial acumen. It's spilled over into all aspects of politics.
And listen, the right was not blameless either, But the
fact of the matter is you had a couple of

(18:45):
things going on that was a perfect storm for progressive
on the left, and that is that I think the press,
the media was in the pocket of a particular ideological agenda.
And you know, when you got the effectively the press
becoming your mouthpiece, you know there's there's probably no limit

(19:05):
to what you can do. And if I might get
a little bit historical. This goes back to before CNN,
which used to be a credible organization. It goes back
way before that. I mean, it goes back earlier in
the twentieth century when you had out looks like The
New York Times and you know, star reporters like Walter Duranty, uh,

(19:26):
basically being apologists for you know, the Stalinist dictatorship of
the Soviet Union. So this is what we had. And
you know, in Barackama, you had somebody who really, you know,
he communicated well, he really I think was the apotheosis
of the progressive agenda. And the media is uh partisan

(19:52):
is it had been becoming when you had that. I mean,
it was almost like he was the rock star and
it all took off, I think at that point. But
it had been happening for a long time. But that
was again that perfect storm. You had the media which
was predisposed towards that agenda. But they really you know,
came out on a rocket, if you will, during the
Obama years and it was just from there on in.

Speaker 1 (20:14):
I mean, let me jump in for a second and
just make this note. I was in college at the time.

Speaker 2 (20:19):
In fact, a freshman in college to specifically date myself
when Obama was elected and then took office, and that
was just quite a time where being in college and
especially for myself being on the right and a conservative person,
it was like you were out of out of place

(20:42):
because it was Bernie Sanders has nothing on Barack Obama.

Speaker 1 (20:46):
At that time, he was, like you said, a rock star.

Speaker 2 (20:49):
There was something very unique and energizing about Obama for
young people, for the media so much there and you
really did see a kind of pardon partisanship developed that
we hadn't quite seen before at least in decades that
now has only gotten worse in the intervening years.

Speaker 3 (21:09):
Sure, And I think one of the Reasonsie Bernie Sanders
is a good counter bouts there, because here's the difference.
Bernie Singers, you know what he is, He's always been up.
He calls himself really a socialist, the democratic socialist, if
you will, you know what Bernie Sanders is. The difference
with Barack Obama is a packaging was different. He was
made to what moderate when attack he never really was.

Speaker 2 (21:30):
You know, the.

Speaker 3 (21:31):
Press during in two thousand and eight, you know they
were on his side. I mean when a list served
was exposed of mainstream if you will journalists discussing how
they were going to bury the story about Obama's participation
in Jeremiah Wright's church and how to vary information concerning

(21:57):
his relationship from his community organized days with the Nation
of Islam. I think that told you all you needed
to know. And yet he was still again put out.
There is this relatively moderate Democrats who was gonna unite
and of course I mean a divide and conqueror was
really the philosophy there, and you know it became increasingly

(22:22):
and incredibly toxic at that point. Look, the press tried
the torpedo both bushes. First one, I didn't like very much,
speeds of me his attitudes on Israel's apparted attitudes on Israel.
Second one, again he had, I think a real feeling
for Israel, but he didn't understand it. He was the

(22:44):
first president, frankly who said the United States has committed
to the establishment of palsity and said, well, big mistake,
because historically nobody should say that, because it's not historically warranted.
But he was the one who did it. And you know,
Bill Quinton obviously played a role, but you know that
aspect of it. I think Republicans and Democrats were at

(23:04):
full for not understanding what happened in the middle half.
But the difference with Obama's he was doctor naire about
it and he had a side.

Speaker 1 (23:11):
Matthew Houseman, our guest.

Speaker 2 (23:13):
I think you're raising some very good points that bring
us to this moment. I want to get to a
very specific question with you, and that is, as we
look back at last month and some of the results,
and then over the course of the last year plus,
since October seventh, twenty twenty three, when Hamas perpetrated the

(23:34):
most brutal attack on the Jewish people since the Holocaust,
how have we noticed a shift politically in the Republican
and Democrat parties and how the two of them have
approached the question of supporting Israel.

Speaker 3 (23:54):
Sure, first of all, I'll full disclosure, I've got skin
in the game. We have a kind of relatives over there,
including a couple of my kids, and I can tell
you that there are a lot of dual citizens there,
and my son told me that the day after the election,
the consensus there was whether you were Haaraiti, which is

(24:19):
extremely not right wing in the political sense, but right
wing religious in terms of understanding of Jewish law and
observing some stuff down to the secular. He said, you
couldn't you couldn't find anybody who was upset about the
election results in the United States. Now, what happened with

(24:40):
the parties. The Republican Party was very sympathetic, was very
moralistic about it, and I think understood what was going on.
Now a preface is to Jimmy, is their anti semit
on the right. Of course there is, there always has been.

(25:03):
Well people don't understand is there always has been anti
semitism on the left as well. And if you go
back to the fathers of modern progressivism, and I'm talking
about you know, Voltaire and Bearing to hold back, the
French Utopians, they were all very anti Semitic. And the
problem is what people don't understand is they developed this

(25:25):
complex where progressive thinking was you know, naturally philo semitic,
and and and right we thinking was not. There was
and again I don't mean to get historical, but it
all sort of ties in. There was one of the
original communists, if you will, you probably don't know his name.

(25:45):
His name was Moses Hess. He was the one who
was credited with teaching Marx and Angel's dialectical materialism, materialism
and Hegelian philosophy. He got involved in radical politics in
the nineteenth century. Why because the status of the Jew
in Europe was not good. We lived in ghetto's second
class citizens, if we were citizens at all, it was

(26:08):
not a good situation. So when you had movements who
were trying to overthrow the hierarchy, he was all in
until he found out that the left was just as
anti Semitic as the right, so he left the movements.
He was pretty much purged from the movements. He wrote
a book called Roman Jerusalem, which he wrote twenty five
to thirty years before Hertzel wrote The Jewish State, and

(26:30):
he became a Jewish nationalist. But what's lingered from there
is this idea that the left has always been philo semitic.
But that's just not the case. And I think what
happened after the Wars, people especially in the Jewish community,
finally started to realize there is no political philosophy that

(26:55):
in and of itself is philo semitic, and that people,
regardless of their politics or products of their culture, European
culture is very anti Semitic. Arab Islamic culture is very
anti Semitic, So it should surprise nobody that no matter
what end of the political spectrum you're on, you're going

(27:16):
to carry that cultural baggage. Well, the difference here is
and again if I digress, but it's all pertinent. You're familiar.
I'm sure with the late William F. Bucklers And well,
there was an issue with some of his writers on
the editorial board. They were writing these exforiating pieces about Israel.

(27:40):
I think you know where I'm going with this, and
they were using really anti Semitic stereotypes to discuss the
state of Israel. So Buckley decided he did his own research.
He decided that these two writers in particular were indeed
anti Semitic. He kicked them off the editorial board and
he a feature length piece called in Search of Anti Semitism.

(28:03):
That's with a National Review that he expanded into a book.

Speaker 4 (28:06):
And what it was it.

Speaker 3 (28:07):
Was the rights come to God moments about anti Semitism exists.
It's part of the political landscape, the religious landscape, the
Christian landscape, the everything, and we have to confront it,
we have to admit it, we have to do something
about it.

Speaker 2 (28:23):
Matthew, I'm sorry to interrupt, but I just want to
I think this is actually a pertinent point to just
interject that the first couple of years of Ronald Reagan's administration,
we're not a pro Israel. Two years it was something
very different for that Republican president. And then after a

(28:43):
little bit when he realized, Okay, this isn't the way
I should be going, then that started a shift among
Republicans starting with Reagan that became much more strongly pro
Israel exactly.

Speaker 3 (28:56):
And so that was going on, Buckley had which I
think was a seminal moment in conservative intellectual history, and
the conservative movements, if you will, became more attuned to
the history and to you know, complicity, the need to

(29:17):
to change their way of thinking. And the difference is
is the left has had multiple times to have that
same moment moment, and they punted every single time. Uh,
you know, down to this past year where we've seen
the Squad of course is not known for its philo Semitism.
We've seen gross anti Semitic rhetoric emanating from the halls

(29:42):
of Congress. And what has the Democratic Party hierarchy done.
They've embraced the anti Israel and anti Semitic progressive base.
Why because they needed their votes. Can you imagine, Jimmy,
if the Republicans were embracing the Klan or something like
that because they needed their votes, they would be excoriated,
and rightly so. And yet the press, of course, was silent.

(30:05):
And what did they do. They started to pile on Israel.
And the interesting thing is is that at a time
when people should have been siding with Israel, because what
Hamas did really reflects their charter, which calls for not
just the destruction of Israel, but the extermination of Jews
wherever they may be found. So what happens We found
the progressive gravitating towards that, demonizing Israel even further, and

(30:29):
people on not just the Republicans but the conservative side
of the divider saying, well, wait a minute, this is
very intellectually dishonest. And you find where those traditional images
and I'm not saying everybody to his image, but not
all Republicans were bad, not all Democrats were good back
in the day, and again I'm neither, but the fact
of the matter is people started to say, hunh, it's

(30:51):
Republicans who we've been trained to demonize by the press
and conservatives. They get it. They're sympathetic the empathy. Progressives
are not only not empathetic, they're very very tatalitarian and
their thinking and very dictatorial. So I think, and now
you know, it's funny you see people on the writer scene,

(31:13):
is the civil libertarians of people on the left not
And you see somebody like Alan Berschowitz, who I happened
to think. I don't agree with him on everything, but
he has always been consistent in his view. Yeah, when
he finally left that side, he said, it's not because
I've ever changed my thinking, he said, they left me.
And you know, some people are now starting to get that,

(31:34):
but I don't. Obviously, the Democrats didn't get it together
to be able.

Speaker 1 (31:37):
To affensten each other. Matthew Houseman this election cycle.

Speaker 2 (31:40):
And Matthew Ausman is our guest. We've only got a
couple of minutes left. So I want to ask you
one final thing, briefly, sir, and that is there's a
piece analysis from CNN accusations of genocide, charges of corruption,
but improbably bb net Yahoo had a good year. Of course,
he's Prime Minister of is for very briefly, how do

(32:01):
you assess the year of twenty twenty four for BB.

Speaker 3 (32:06):
It was incredible. He was on the ropes politically and
he was able to be in the right place at
the right time. But take advantage in the sense that
he knew what to do. If you had lapede in
there during this time, I showed her to think that
would have happened or gons anybody like that. And to
the point, he's become very effective at communicating when people

(32:32):
you're saying, what about the genocide? And God, he'll quoat
the chapter in versus genocide, of course, not if we're genocide.
You know, how could the population there have increased three
times since nineteen sixty seven? As Douglas Murray said, he said,
if the Jews are committing genocide, they're incredibly bad at.

Speaker 4 (32:50):
It because they're getting the opposite result.

Speaker 3 (32:53):
But BB did what Phoebe had to do, and I
think the most significant thing he did, and I can
leave you with this, is understood that this administration was
not Israel, spread was not even the neutral arbor. They
were really on the other side. And when they said no,
we have to go in Taraffa because if we don't
do this, we're not going to be able to rescue

(33:14):
any hostages and the mos is going to regroup. He
did it despite what the repercussions would be, and going
in Taraffa. Of course, it wasn't the humanitarian crisis. It
was in the slaughter, and he proved that Israel knows
what it's doing, and with all due respect, the United

(33:35):
States perhaps support Israel rather than be hypercritical from the
wrong perspective.

Speaker 2 (33:44):
Yeah, well, we will see what changes now come into
place with the Trump administration with a very different, more
supportive view of Israel, one that we saw quite a
bit during the first administration. Matthew Houseman really appreciate your time, sir,
and as well my best to your brother, Rabbi Jonathan Houseman,
who happened to join us on Monday.

Speaker 3 (34:06):
Thanks so much, Jenny with a pleasure.

Speaker 2 (34:09):
Thank you, sir, and once again, Matthew Houseman is a columnist,
particularly most recently some great pieces at Israel National News
and a trial attorney. I'm Jimmy Sangenberger filling in for Roskaminsky.

Speaker 1 (34:23):
Two more hours up ahead as.

Speaker 2 (34:24):
We continue on koa text into the show if you
feel so inclined on the Common Spirit health text line
at five six six nine zero, and we have so
much to dive into this hour. I mean, look, there
has been so much discussion in the news world about

(34:48):
this remark by President elect Donald Trump that just took
everybody by surprise.

Speaker 5 (34:55):
The United States has a big invested interest in the secure,
your efficient, and reliable operation of the Panama Canal, and
that was always understood when they gave it to Panama.
It was not given for the benefit of others by

(35:16):
a token of cooperation, but it was given to Panama
and to the people of Panama.

Speaker 1 (35:22):
But it has provisions.

Speaker 4 (35:25):
You got to treat us.

Speaker 1 (35:26):
Fairly, and they haven't treated us fairly. If the principles,
both moral and legal, of.

Speaker 5 (35:31):
This magnanimous gesture of giving are not followed, then we
will demand that the Panama Canal be returned to the
United States of America.

Speaker 1 (35:42):
In full, quickly and without questions.

Speaker 2 (35:46):
Okay, so what does that mean, demand the return of Panama.
There is a piece from the New York Times Reagan
backed off his Panama threats. Will Trump We hadn't heard
any of this, and the Wall Street Journal editorialized about
it from Trump during the campaign, any sort of discussion

(36:08):
about territorial expansion. I mean, I guess when he was president,
he talked a little bit about Greenland, which is another
area that's come up.

Speaker 1 (36:15):
There's almost a meme, in fact.

Speaker 2 (36:17):
There was a literal meme about how Trump wants to
It's like an Amazon cart and it shows how he
wants Panama and Panama Canal, how he wants Greenland.

Speaker 1 (36:29):
And he wants Canada. In fact, I had a.

Speaker 2 (36:32):
Friend of mine who's Canadian who texted me last night.
Never thought I'd see the day where it was a
real possibility I may have to take up arms against
our greatest Ally. He's not a Trump fan by any
stretch of the imagination, and you could draw that conclusion,

(36:55):
but he seemed to think it's actually a possibility, like
genuinely think it's a possibility that Trump could invade Canada. Now,
I have no idea how a president who was elected
on a platform of let's pull out of wars and
not get into new wars is going to start a

(37:16):
war with our northern neighbor, a war with Greenland, a
war with Panama, or any one of those three, all three,
whatever it would be. I don't see how that would happen.
There's no logic too thinking it's actually practical. It isn't

(37:39):
even there's no way that it's politically or legally something
that could remotely happen. Back in his first administration, he
talked about buying Greenland, which Denmark rejected quickly, and it
was as New York Times puts, a laughable real estate bid.

Speaker 1 (38:03):
I'm not big on the New.

Speaker 2 (38:06):
York Times, but I think that's true. I mean, I
left it off. I was like, what, this doesn't make
any sense. Talking about Canada similarly, and using hockey legend
from the New York Rangers Wayne Gretzky as sort of
a means to go after Justin Trudeau, Canada's Prime minister,

(38:30):
so on and so forth. But in nineteen seventy six,
Reagan almost won the Republican nomination against Gerald Ford, and
he had the line, we bought it, we paid for it,
it's ours regarding the Panama Canal, which had been given
away given the toxicity, and actually two years later, under

(38:56):
Jimmy Carter, who won in seventy six, of course came
it was turned over to Panama. But Reagan was very
strong on this and eventually he was talking a lot
about it.

Speaker 1 (39:15):
And dropped the bluster over it. Well, what about Trump?
What would he do? The Wall Street Journal.

Speaker 2 (39:22):
Will Trump invade Panama? Where did that come from? Did
some shipping magnet whisper.

Speaker 1 (39:29):
In mister Trump's ear?

Speaker 2 (39:32):
Panama's president Jose Raoul Malino quickly rebutted mister Trump and
said Panama will defend its interests. Mister Trump replied on
truth social We'll see about that.

Speaker 1 (39:43):
So what is mister Trump proposing to do? Invade?

Speaker 2 (39:47):
Make the Americas in the image of William McKinley and
Teddy Roosevelt again. Then they go on to actually say
that Panama isn't gouging Americans and to break down in
detail how this happened over time, the history of the
Panama Canal and it's handing over to Panama by Jimmy Carter,

(40:08):
and the relationship economically that the United States has with
Panama and how it works with the canal. But at
the same time, you have to wonder what the strategy
or thinking is behind him just saying this. Is there
an intent to actually rest control of the Panama Canal

(40:29):
for Pama or is there something else going on here?
On Fox News, Hugh Hewitt said the following.

Speaker 6 (40:36):
He's serving noticed that he's back bratt and he does
do a lot of this sort of machine gutting out
of different issues. But the problem with the Canal, of course,
is that Chinese Communist Party owns a company that is
running some ends of the canal.

Speaker 4 (40:48):
I think the.

Speaker 6 (40:49):
President is negotiating the post again, which he is known
to have done in term one.

Speaker 2 (40:53):
Yeah, is this just to try and get Chinese influence
over the Panama Canal and control over part of it
away from China and the Chinese Communist Party?

Speaker 1 (41:05):
If so, is this the way to go about it?
I don't think so.

Speaker 2 (41:09):
It throws people for a loop and it gets the
world going, what.

Speaker 1 (41:13):
The heck, man, what are we in store for?

Speaker 2 (41:17):
And there's a lot of great things that Trump did
in his first administration on the foreign policy side, not
the least of which was the Abraham Accords, for which
I have said for years he deserved the Nobel Peace
Prize bringing several golf Arab countries together when peace with
Israel was a massive feat and he deserved credit for

(41:41):
that and recognition for that. And there are other foreign
policy successes of the Trump years, So that's a given.
But this just throws I think a monkey wrench into
a lot of things.

Speaker 1 (41:54):
I don't get it.

Speaker 2 (41:55):
Maybe you have some idea what's going on there. The
KOA Commic Spirit Health text line is five.

Speaker 1 (42:01):
Nine zero.

Speaker 2 (42:02):
I'm Jimmy Sangenberger filling in for Roskominski. We'll pick up
the conversation on the other side here on KOA. Coming
in on the KOA Common Spirit Health text line at
five six six nine zero. That Chinese are becoming more
and more entrenched in Panama. I believe China built and
paid for Panama's national stadium.

Speaker 1 (42:24):
See, this is what China does.

Speaker 2 (42:26):
The Chinese Communist Party's objective is to exert influence, not
as much through military force, but through economic force. That
is to say, sending out its economic tentacles all across
the country or all across the globe rother into Africa,

(42:46):
quite a bit, into the Middle East, into other parts
of Asia, obviously they've been doing that for decades, and
into Latin America, South and Central America. So yeah, that
makes sense. And that's why Trump has been concerned about
this because he has.

Speaker 1 (43:07):
And we see this with a terrorists discussion and more.

Speaker 2 (43:10):
He has an objective to beat China economically, and if
he views Panama as economically advantaged, advantaging China over the
United States, that's going to get it in.

Speaker 1 (43:26):
And he's going to try.

Speaker 2 (43:27):
And use heavy handed language or whatever else to get
what he wants.

Speaker 1 (43:35):
Now.

Speaker 2 (43:36):
I can't see any sort of military action on the
Panama Canal, but there are other levers at his disposal.
We'll see what he does in his actual administration. It
came out of nowhere when he talked about it, and
there is another texture sent in, well, it gets him attention,
which is what he needs and craves Now is that

(43:58):
really all it is? Does he just throw that out
there in a speech a month before becoming president again
just to get attention?

Speaker 1 (44:08):
I don't think so.

Speaker 2 (44:09):
Yes, he does crave it without a doubt. This is
a guy who is all about the television cameras and
getting attention. But is that sufficient to explain why he's
doing this though?

Speaker 1 (44:25):
I don't think so.

Speaker 2 (44:27):
A little later we'll talk about some of the hair
on fire reactions of some of these things. But nevertheless,
it is weird, just so random and out of place. Meanwhile,
this from the Denver Post, Colorado's employment counts have become
so unreliable that the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, in

(44:52):
an unprecedented move, has stopped issuing.

Speaker 1 (44:55):
Reports based on them.

Speaker 2 (44:57):
The Bureau said in this statement issued to said eighteenth quote.
BLS has observed data quality problems because of ongoing issues
with the modernization of Colorado's unemployment insurance system. As a result,
BLS is temporarily suspending publication of Colorado's employment, unemployment, and

(45:20):
wage data. The suspension, according to the post, was made
in a program called State and Metro Area Employment Hours
and Earnings. It follows an earlier decision by the Quarterly
Census of Employment in Wages to suspend metro and county
level reports as well as industry level reports for Colorado.

(45:44):
And they say, and this is very striking. We don't
make these decisions lightly. This is a very rare occurrence.
There is a reason why we had to do it,
said Rick Wise, an economist with the Quarterly Census of
Employment and Wages program. Why said he's unaware of any
suspension going back to two thousand, although South Carolina did

(46:05):
have its reports footnoted in twenty eighteen because of data
quality concerns, Way to Go Colorado a new record for
the century. Oh my gosh, I don't know what's the
record we want Jimmy Sangenberger in for Ross Kaminsky. Got
lots more up ahead, Star Wars, unprecedented spending by Disney.
What is going on there? We'll pick it up on

(46:28):
the other side here on KOA, Welcome back, Jimmy Sangenberger
here with you in for Ross Kaminski on KOA the
KOA Common Spirit Health text line at five six six
nine zero. A good note from Gabe in wash Park.

Speaker 1 (46:47):
In de Kay.

Speaker 2 (46:48):
I do appreciate the name in town, name in town
as you text in, so thank you for that. Gabe.

Speaker 1 (46:57):
Hey, Jimbo, Hey Gabe.

Speaker 2 (47:01):
That is China's Belt and Road program and what happened
to our Monroe doctrine? The China Belton Road program is
a reference to what I described before as China inserting
its economic tentacles around the globe in order to have influence.

(47:21):
That they are doing so economically as opposed to militarily.

Speaker 1 (47:25):
What happened to our Monroe doctrine?

Speaker 2 (47:27):
The Monroe doctrine, of course, referring to James Monroe's admonition
and policy that as President of the United States, he
started it that the you need to stay out of
the Western hemisphere, that's ours. That's a valid point, but
how do you exert that in the modern day and age.
It's different than when Monroe was president in the eighteen hundreds,

(47:52):
so it's more complicated and requires a lot more on
the economic side of the thing. Speaking of international business,
there's a very fascinating story last week from Forbes, and
it is about one of my great.

Speaker 1 (48:13):
Loves, which is Star Wars.

Speaker 2 (48:17):
Which of course was purchased by Disney twelve years ago
in twenty twelve, and three years later they came out
with Star Wars The Force Awakens, the first Disney Star Wars.

Speaker 1 (48:30):
Movie, and.

Speaker 2 (48:33):
Two other Saga films and two other movies after that,
the best of all the Disney Star Wars films being
Rogue one without question, and many TV shows starting with
The Mandalorian seasons one and two of which were fantastic.

(48:53):
Season three not so much, and has been a mixed
bag for Disney on the TV front. I would say
right now, the show's skeleton crew is great if you
have kids, especially if you love eighties films and shows
like The Goonies and The Explorers, or.

Speaker 1 (49:14):
Even Indiana Jones.

Speaker 2 (49:16):
It's a great one to watch, especially for your family,
and it is a great recovery after the complete and
utter disaster that was Star Wars The Acolyte. If you
have not watched The Acolyte, don't watch it.

Speaker 1 (49:28):
Don't bother. There's a reason.

Speaker 2 (49:30):
There are multiple reasons, but particularly one we're going to
get to in terms of spending and return on investment,
that it's not been renewed for a second season by Disney,
which again purchased.

Speaker 1 (49:43):
Lucasfilm, which creates Star Wars.

Speaker 2 (49:47):
So this piece and Forbes by Caroline Reid is entitled
Disney Reveal six hundred and forty five million dollars spent
on Star Wars Show and Or.

Speaker 1 (50:01):
After.

Speaker 2 (50:01):
It spent a record two hundred and ninety point nine
million dollars last year on filming its second season, which
will debut in April twenty twenty five. As Reid reports,
it is the highest ever annual spending on a Star
Wars production disclosed in Disney's public filings. The staggering sum

(50:23):
eclipses the two hundred and eighty point seven million dollars
spent on Star Wars The Last Jedi over the almost
eleven month period to March sixteenth, twenty nineteen. Likewise, it
is higher than the two hundred and forty three million
dollars cost of The Force Awakens, Disney's debut entry in

(50:44):
the sci Fi Saga during the year ending November fifteenth,
twenty sixteen. So I said twenty fifteen. It's twenty sixteen
that it first came out. What the article curiously doesn't
mention is that that failed tarror, do not watch it,
toss it away. Star Wars Acolyte spent like they spent

(51:07):
like some six hundred million dollars, if I recall correctly,
just on one season of The Acolyte. Now and Or
season one turned out to not just be one of
the best, if not the best Star Wars shows to
be created, but among the best television we have had
in a long time. It's a really really good show

(51:30):
Star Wars or Otherwise. But this is a staggering sum
Hollywood spending six hundred and forty five million.

Speaker 1 (51:38):
Dollars on Star Wars and Or Now.

Speaker 2 (51:42):
While The Acolyte reached so much criticism, it was very
divisive for Star Wars fans. It tanked on the website
Rotten Tomatoes. Basically, they got a really low return on
investment for spending a substantial amount of money. Well, Disney's

(52:06):
and Or received an audience score of eighty seven percent
on the review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes, higher than any other
Star Wars show on the Disney Plus streaming platform, which
explains why a second season was given the green light.
And I'm excited for that one. It will be worth watching.

(52:28):
It is not a kids show. Indeed, its scorer, writes
Reid in the Forbes magazine, is even higher than any
of Disney's Star Wars movies, with the exception of twenty
sixteen spinoff film Rogue One, a Star Wars story, which
also starred Diego Luna, the title character of and Or,

(52:51):
Cassie and Andor. Now, this was very expensive, but there's
a reason for the expense. That is more, I think
than just the production. It is the incentives provided by
the United Kingdom across the pond. They give some very

(53:11):
special perks.

Speaker 1 (53:13):
If you make movies in the UK.

Speaker 2 (53:18):
As Caroline Reid writes in Forbes, the leading Hollywood studios
shoot in the UK because its government reimburses up to
twenty five and a half percent of the money they
spend on filming there. To qualify for the reimbursement, shows
must pass a points test based on factors such as

(53:38):
how many members of the production team are from the
UK and how much of the post production work is
done there. Furthermore, at least ten percent of the core
costs of the production needs to relate to activities in
the UK, and I think that includes things like catering
and what have you. And in order to demonstrate this

(53:59):
to the government, studios set up a separate high end
Television production Company TPC for each picture they make there.
So to follow along, the UK has a system that
they have set up where you get reimbursed up to
a quarter just above.

Speaker 1 (54:18):
A quarter of your production costs.

Speaker 2 (54:22):
If you meet a select batch of requirements in a
points test.

Speaker 1 (54:29):
The terms of the reimbursement state.

Speaker 2 (54:31):
That each TPC must be quote responsible for pre production,
principal photography and post production of the television production and
for delivery of the complete program. Studios aren't allowed to
hide the costs in other companies, as the terms also
state that quote there can only be one TPC in

(54:53):
relation to a program. Now, this is something we don't
have the United States States. Individual states here do have
some benefits that you can get tax benefits and so
forth for doing productions here because they want you to come.

(55:13):
I think Colorado has some programs like that to encourage
some levels of production.

Speaker 1 (55:20):
But this is a lot.

Speaker 2 (55:21):
This is government saying we're gonna give big Hollywood producers,
big Hollywood companies a lot of benefit for making stuff here.
In the UK, a Hollywood studio buys a script from
a screenwriter and green lights a show about it writes read.
If the studio decides to make the show in the UK,

(55:44):
it then sets up a subsidiary company there which acquires
the script from its US parent. Acquiring the script gives
the UK company the rights to make a show about it,
and the Hollywood studio usually pays it a small production
services fee. As per the rules, the UK company must

(56:04):
be responsible for everything from pre production and principal photography
to pose production, delivery of the finished show, and payment
of goods and services in relation to it. Then comes
some financial sorcery. So again, because there's a lot here,
it's very layered and complex.

Speaker 1 (56:23):
If you are Hollywood Studio, you have.

Speaker 2 (56:25):
To create a company to benefit from this, a specific
company in the UK that.

Speaker 1 (56:34):
Is an offshoot of your business.

Speaker 2 (56:35):
Okay, but it's specifically a UK company. You hire so
many people, such a percentage whatever it is of people
to be on your production team.

Speaker 1 (56:48):
You have other costs that.

Speaker 2 (56:49):
Are spent in the UK, and then you get just
over a quarter twenty five point five percent of your
production costs covered for.

Speaker 1 (56:59):
No wonder.

Speaker 2 (57:00):
You have a massive budget, a massive amount of spending
on these movies or TV shows in the UK, like
six hundred and forty five million dollars for.

Speaker 1 (57:12):
Two seasons just so far of Star Wars, and or.

Speaker 2 (57:18):
In it's two seasons, it's going to be done after
second season that debused in April and next year. Because
the incentives are there to spend so much. It's outrageous,
it's extraordinary. But why not do it when you have
hundreds of millions of dollars.

Speaker 1 (57:36):
That you will get reimbursed.

Speaker 2 (57:40):
But the bigger thing for Star Wars fans is the
Obi Wan Kenoby Show, which was supposed to be a
trilogy of movies originally about Obi Wan Kenoby starring you
and McGregor, was turned into a TV series instead a
one season TV series because of Disney's misunderstanding.

Speaker 1 (58:04):
If I'm being kind.

Speaker 2 (58:06):
Of the failure of the Solo of Star Wars movie
film that came out in what twenty seventeen, I think
twenty eighteen, and it was a flop, And they say
it was because you had another actor and you were
recasting a central character like Han solo, And no, it

(58:29):
had to do with sort of movie fatigue. Being too
close for the Star Wars movies. People are used to
them being spaced out, so they didn't go and see it.
And Disney took it as well. They don't want this
kind of stuff, so let's do a TV show about
Obi Wan Kenobi instead. And they only spent, by my understanding,
ninety million dollars on a show that was about two

(58:52):
of the most significant characters in Star Wars period, Obi
Wan Kenobi and Anakin Skywalker Darth Vader. And the company
that was founded to create and or in the UK,
it's called E and E Industries, and it was founded

(59:17):
originally to produce Obi Wan Kenoby. Strange that the incentive
didn't work out for a higher budget for the Kenoby show.
I think that's because Disney underestimated how much Star Wars
fans actually love the prequel trilogy. Now I know, and
may be anathema for a lot of folks listening. If
you do like Star Wars, you're like the prequel trilogy. Yeah,

(59:40):
that was cheesy crap. I don't like I love it.
That's a staple of my childhood. But the point, though,
is much more that Disney has made some interesting decisions
based on a.

Speaker 1 (59:52):
Misunderstanding of their fans.

Speaker 2 (59:54):
But also the financial incentives that a country.

Speaker 1 (59:58):
Like the UK is giving to Hollywood. That's a big deal.

Speaker 2 (01:00:03):
It's not a small thing in any way, shape or
form for the UK to do something like this and say, hey,
we are going to give you all kinds of incentives.

Speaker 1 (01:00:15):
And what it shows us, folks is the big picture.

Speaker 2 (01:00:21):
Issue of government incentives and how if they provide tax
benefits or write off opportunities or whatever, it influences the
private market in a way that can have a significant impact.
And that is exactly the case here. Is it a

(01:00:41):
good idea Is it a bad idea to provide these
kind of benefits for Hollywood?

Speaker 1 (01:00:45):
I don't like it.

Speaker 2 (01:00:46):
I don't think governments should be in the business of
picking winners and losers. Even if you want to incentivize
some kind of an industry to do stuff in your
community or your city.

Speaker 1 (01:00:56):
Your state, your country. Why should government be.

Speaker 2 (01:01:00):
In the business of doing that and picking winners and
losers and all of that. I don't think that's a
smart move in the bigger picture, and it sets a
big problem up for a lot of different things in
society and the role of government.

Speaker 1 (01:01:16):
More, what do you think about all this about Hollywood.

Speaker 2 (01:01:20):
Getting that kind of incentive to spend so much money
on just a single show with two seasons, more than
any Star Wars movie dramatically more created, just as one
example of Star Wars. Then again, keep in mind a
lot of shows are costing a heck of a lot
of money. I think Rings of Power every season is

(01:01:41):
like that's the Lord of the Ring spin off on
Amazon Amazon Prime, which I really enjoy. By the way,
I think that is like a billion dollars a season
or something. It's extraordinary. By the way, listener texts coming
in on the KOA comments weird health line, let me
know your thoughts. I agree, Rogue one is the best

(01:02:05):
of all of them. Jk F texting in, well, I
appreciate that, and uh yeah, that's exactly right. What just
a fascinating, fascinating story now right, now, Joe Biden has
been as President of the United States kind of hiding away.

(01:02:25):
We have not seen Biden around much at all at all.
It's like he's decided to intentionally step back and just
lay low and sort of see the limelight to incoming
President elect Donald Trump. And now over on PBS, Amy

(01:02:46):
Walters had something interesting to say about the interpretations of
Biden's legacy and the generational.

Speaker 1 (01:02:55):
Aspects of this.

Speaker 2 (01:02:58):
That you have presidents who were much younger than him
who preceded him, with the exception of Trump, and what
experience they have had, and how that will differ in
terms of how people look at their legacy to.

Speaker 7 (01:03:09):
Bite, We've had pretty young presidents in these last era
who were able to watch their legacy change over the
period of time while they were still alive. Are interpretations
of their legacy. This is not a man who will
be alive to see that. And so what he seems
to be doing is putting in place things that he

(01:03:32):
wants that others will be able to make that determination
about what his presidency was or wasn't, and he's just
going to go out doing the things that he had
said he wanted to do when he was running for
president one of those lifting the death penalty, and as
again complicated legacy, but as a Catholic, I think this

(01:03:55):
was one of those tenants that he had stood by.

Speaker 2 (01:04:00):
Oh goodness, just first of all, and I'm a Catholic myself,
but it doesn't have a bearing on this. The idea
of Biden being motivated by his Catholic faith for his
commutations of all but three death row inmates, it's absurd.

(01:04:21):
I mean, you have your position on the issue of abortion,
and I don't want to get off into that tangent.
It's a very complex and nuanced topic. But Biden has
been extraordinarily supportive of the far left position of basically
abortion on demand, without any limits, without any inhibitions, and

(01:04:46):
that is completely anathema to the teachings of the Catholic Church,
the teachings of most segments of.

Speaker 1 (01:04:57):
The Christian faith.

Speaker 2 (01:05:00):
And to highlight that as his motivation on the death
penalty because the Catholic Church teaches against the death penalty.

Speaker 1 (01:05:09):
With that in mind is absurd.

Speaker 2 (01:05:11):
I saw a multiple pieces written last week about how
Biden is, you know, willing to give a pass to
murderers but not to unborn babies. Mass murderers and people
who've committed other heinous crimes, but not to babies.

Speaker 1 (01:05:33):
And I think that's.

Speaker 2 (01:05:35):
A fair point to raise, and it underscores the well,
just the ridiculousness of Amy Walter's statement there that all
of this was about his Catholic.

Speaker 1 (01:05:50):
Faith, nothing of the sort. But I agree with her
first point.

Speaker 2 (01:05:54):
That Biden is doing some things that will cement in
his mind what he wants his legacy to be because
he's not going to be around like so many other
people who've been president before him. Heck, Jimmy Carter's still
around and he's one hundred. He's managed to live a
really long life. Good for him, it's amazing, kudos.

Speaker 1 (01:06:20):
It's a Carter for making such history for the name Jimmy.

Speaker 2 (01:06:23):
By the way, you got Bill Clinton, he got Barack Obama,
George W.

Speaker 1 (01:06:28):
Bush. H. W. Bush lived long.

Speaker 2 (01:06:31):
So there's a lot to be said for that point.
It's very fair in that regard in terms of interpretation
from Amy Walters.

Speaker 1 (01:06:40):
I'm Jimmy Sangenberger.

Speaker 2 (01:06:41):
Filling in for Ross Kaminski today here on KOA. We've
got another hour up ahead, including a conversation with comedian
Chance Langton that you do not want to miss at
the bottom of the next hour, don't go anywhere once again,
you're on koa Friday already and the twenty December already.

Speaker 1 (01:07:02):
Absolutely mind boggling.

Speaker 8 (01:07:06):
It just.

Speaker 1 (01:07:08):
I don't know how time flies like it does.

Speaker 2 (01:07:13):
By the way, I should have mentioned this earlier if
you want to keep up with what I'm doing when
I'm filling.

Speaker 1 (01:07:19):
In here for Ross or for Mandy, what have you?

Speaker 2 (01:07:23):
And my columns usually Tuesdays and Fridays in the Denver Gazette.
Skip to Tuesday this week, doing Sunday instead, both because
of the holidays.

Speaker 1 (01:07:35):
But alas.

Speaker 2 (01:07:36):
You can follow all of my writings and more at
my website Jimmy Sangenburger dot com and also email me
via my website Jimmy Sangenburger dot com. Keep in mind
there's no AI or you in Sangenburger. It's all ease
all the time. Once you know that Sangenburger is easy.

(01:08:01):
So how is the American culture today?

Speaker 1 (01:08:06):
Do we foster intellect? Do we foster hard work? Do
we foster.

Speaker 2 (01:08:20):
A culture that thrives on the idea that you should
get a strong education, focus on that education be dedicated
to your work and focused on providing a strong future,

(01:08:43):
powerful prosperous future. That's the word I was looking for,
A prosperous future for you and your family.

Speaker 1 (01:08:49):
Is that the American culture today? Or have we lost that?

Speaker 2 (01:08:54):
There's been a feud going on since the Republican primary
between former UN Ambassador Nikki Hayley, former governor of South Carolina,
and Vivike Ramaswami, who is supposed to co lead DOGE,
the Department of Government Efficiency alongside Elon Musk in the

(01:09:16):
new Trump administration. And vivike Ramaswami posted a a rant
decrying American culture. He wrote the reason top tech companies
often hire foreign born and first generation engineers over native
in quotes Native Americans, is it because of an innate

(01:09:39):
American IQ deficit?

Speaker 1 (01:09:42):
A lazy and wrong explanation.

Speaker 2 (01:09:44):
A key part of it comes down to the sea
word culture, he posted on x Thursday. Our American culture
has venerated mediocrity over excellence for way too long, at
least since the nineties and likely longer. That doesn't start
in college, It starts all caps young. A culture that

(01:10:08):
venerates Corey from Boy Meets World or Zach and Slater
over Screech and Saved by the Bell or Stefan over
Steve Erkel in family matters will not produce the best engineers.

Speaker 1 (01:10:20):
Fact. Ramaswami continues, I know.

Speaker 2 (01:10:24):
Multiple sets of immigrant parents in the nineties who actively
limited how much their kids could watch those TV shows
precisely because they promoted mediocrity, and their kids went on
to become wildly successful STEM graduates. Okay, come on, there's
some good shows that you were blasting there that did
not turn a heck of a lot of people in

(01:10:47):
the direction of mediocrity. Just saying more movies like Whiplast,
fewer reruns of Friends, more math tutoring, fewer sleepovers, more
weekend science competitions, fewer Saturday morning cartoons.

Speaker 1 (01:11:02):
Saturday morning cartoons.

Speaker 2 (01:11:03):
Really, that's bad part of culture now more books, less TV,
more creating, less chilling, more extracurriculars, less hanging out at
the mall, which I don't know how much kids do
that these days, really hanging out at the mall, This
is all Ramaswami. By the way, most normal American parents

(01:11:26):
look skeptically at.

Speaker 1 (01:11:27):
Those kinds of parents.

Speaker 2 (01:11:30):
More normal American kids view such those kinds of kids
with scorn if you grow up aspiring to normalcy, normalcy
is what you will achieve. Now, close your eyes and
visualize which families you knew in the nineties or even now,
who raise their kids according to one model versus the other.

Speaker 1 (01:11:51):
Be brutally honest.

Speaker 2 (01:11:53):
Normalcy doesn't cut it in a hyper competitive global market
for our technical talent, and if we pretend like it does,
we'll have our assets handed to us by China.

Speaker 1 (01:12:07):
And he closes.

Speaker 2 (01:12:08):
This is Ramaswami still going in his rant on X.
This can be our spotnik moment. We've awakened from slumber before,
and we can do it again. Trump's election hopefully marks
the beginning of a new golden era in America, but
only if our culture fully wakes up, a culture that

(01:12:29):
once again prioritizes achievement over normacy, excellence over mediocrity, nerdy
this over conformity, hard work over laziness. That's the work
we have cut out for us, rather than wallowing in
victimhood and just wishing or legislating alternative hiring practices into existence.

Speaker 1 (01:12:52):
I'm confident we can do it now.

Speaker 2 (01:12:54):
Look, vivig Ramaswami has a few valid points here.

Speaker 1 (01:12:58):
We have lost a lot of the drive. Our education
system is crumbled.

Speaker 2 (01:13:02):
A lot of that has to do with culture, with
a devaluation of some of the things he was talking
about as far as academics, and there's some cases intellected
so forth. But look, when we even remember the nineties
or the two thousands, and I'm a nineties kid myself,

(01:13:23):
the nineties and the two thousands, you had those kinds
of things, sure, but you did in the eighties and
the seventies too, in terms of, you know, different things
that showed programs and whatnot that showed the value of
being a jock or what have you. Maybe it wasn't
as accentuated, but it was absolutely there.

Speaker 1 (01:13:47):
So many films and TV shows.

Speaker 2 (01:13:51):
There have been a struggle in American culture in a
lot of ways, but it's not because of the kinds
of emphasis that he's talking about. I think there's a
lot more in culture that has to do with some
of the violence and the music and some of the
obsession with video games and so forth, that yes, did begin.

Speaker 1 (01:14:10):
From the nineties and the two thousands, But.

Speaker 2 (01:14:13):
There are a lot of things there that are cultural
where people are distracted, where they're pulled away.

Speaker 1 (01:14:17):
Not because of these kinds of TV shows. I was
absolutely a nerd. I love Star Wars. I got into
politics when I was twelve.

Speaker 2 (01:14:26):
I started getting involved in politics when I was thirteen
fourteen years old. So I've always been that way and
valued academics and felt like there was some ad times.

Speaker 1 (01:14:37):
And all felt like an outcast.

Speaker 2 (01:14:39):
That's where you have a lot of people who are
that way, who feel outcast when they're younger.

Speaker 1 (01:14:46):
This seems to me.

Speaker 2 (01:14:47):
To be a little bit of a Akramaswami channeling some
of that.

Speaker 1 (01:14:51):
I was an outcast because I.

Speaker 2 (01:14:52):
Was nerdy, and I really think we need to make
sure that other people believe the approach things the way
that I did, so that other kids don't feel the
same way I did. And I think he's taking that
and extrapolating it and putting it onto the American.

Speaker 1 (01:15:08):
Culture writ large.

Speaker 2 (01:15:10):
But real. Briefly, we got to go to a break,
Nikki Haley responding, there is nothing wrong with American workers
or American culture. All you have to do is look
at the border and see how many want what we have.
We should be investing in prioritizing in Americans, not foreign workers.
Simplistic to some extent, but also a lot of truth there.

(01:15:33):
But there are things that are wrong with American culture.
There are also wonderful things that are so right about
American culture. And I don't think that we should look
at nineties TV shows and say, well, those in the
rotten American society really.

Speaker 1 (01:15:51):
Get out there and watch a little bit more and
take a look at some other aspects of the culture.

Speaker 2 (01:15:56):
There are things we emphasize that we shouldn't or too much,
but there are other things that we do emphasize that
are good and valuable. Boiling it down to that, I
don't think that fits. But what do you think the
KOA Commons Spirit Health text line.

Speaker 1 (01:16:09):
Five six six nine zero.

Speaker 2 (01:16:12):
Is there a rot like Ramaswami says in American culture?

Speaker 1 (01:16:16):
Overdue for a break?

Speaker 2 (01:16:17):
Jimmy Sangenberger in for Roskaminski keep it here on KOA.
Phil Wegman over on at Real Clear Politics was on
Fox the other day talking about something I found really
interesting because I remember covering the Obama years quite extensively
on the radio, and it began when I was in college,

(01:16:38):
and it was really interesting to see the discussion.

Speaker 1 (01:16:40):
Of the pen and the phone. I have my pen
and I have my phone.

Speaker 2 (01:16:46):
And here, he said, Phil Wegman, this about Trump and
the executive orders and so forth that are on their way.

Speaker 8 (01:16:58):
Well, President Trump is going to have the same pen
and phone that Barack Obama did. And I was waiting
for that list of executive actions to stop stirling and
just kept going.

Speaker 1 (01:17:07):
The big difference here is that Donald Trump is.

Speaker 8 (01:17:10):
Returning to the White House knowing what he wants to
do and surrounded by people who know how to do it.
I think Megan makes a good point that a lot
of this is going to be challenged in course, but
the intention here is to move fast from day one.
And if you look at the people that he has
named to his cabinet, and some of these cabinet level
positions like Tom Homan, he knows his mission on border security,

(01:17:31):
Greer knows his mission on tariffs and trade. So the
expectation that I have in covering this next administration is.

Speaker 1 (01:17:38):
They're going to move quickly and then they're going to
deal with illegal challenges as they come.

Speaker 2 (01:17:42):
Move quickly, deal with the legal challenges as they come. Look,
this is a guy in Trump who's been president before.

Speaker 1 (01:17:48):
He's had four years to contemplate.

Speaker 2 (01:17:51):
His administration and what he'd like to do differently in
the next four years.

Speaker 1 (01:17:55):
That is very true.

Speaker 2 (01:17:57):
And Trump is some buddy who wants to hit the
ground running, who wants to get some things done and
be remembered for it. And they're going to approach this
in a way that is indeed hit the ground running,
like waste no time, get it going right away, build
up from the start. And that means a lot of

(01:18:20):
executive orders that are already being cute. But I have
to say I'm concerned about that to an extent in
that relying on the pen and the phone and not
going to Congress as a problem in part because what
you do doesn't last. Trump was undoing a lot of
what Obama did, Biden undoing a lot of what Trump did.

(01:18:41):
Trump going to undo a lot of what Biden did,
and probably succeed.

Speaker 1 (01:18:45):
A lot more because he knows what he's.

Speaker 2 (01:18:47):
Doing, he has the plan Ford, and he's got people
who are going to be by his side who understand
what he's going for.

Speaker 1 (01:18:56):
As Wegman was talking about there.

Speaker 2 (01:18:59):
But the key thing to keep in mind as well
is that you need caution with that, because you want
to have more of a lasting impact, You need Congress
to do more stuff, and relying on the pen and
the phone too much, as Obama often did, is not
a good thing. Then again, if you can roll back

(01:19:20):
a heck of a lot of government government intrusion, then
that'll be the ticket. And it's much harder to put
stuff back into place after it's been rolled back. And
supposedly we're going to see a lot more red tape
being cut, and it'll be a lot harder to put
the red tape back in place. So it's sort of
a mixed bag, but a little bit of a word

(01:19:42):
of caution there.

Speaker 1 (01:19:43):
I'm Jimmy Sangenberger filling in for Ros Kaminski.

Speaker 2 (01:19:46):
On the other side, comedian Chance Langton will join us.
He's got some fun stories and he is hilarious. Looking
forward to this conversation on the other side once again,
Jimmy and for Ross here on KOA. I wanted to
start with Roy Buchanon, not just because he was great,
but because my next guest knew him, was friends with him,

(01:20:09):
opened for him with his comedy act before Roy Buchanan performed,
and uh, he's also a very funny guy, a comedian
for decades. My guests by the name of Chance Langton
joins me. Now, good morning, Chance, how are you jeer me?

Speaker 4 (01:20:27):
Everything is going great? You two?

Speaker 2 (01:20:30):
Yes, absolutely, brother And uh yeah, now you told me
yesterday we were talking and you told me about your
friendship with with Roy Buchanan.

Speaker 1 (01:20:38):
I was like, you know what, we got to start
with that bumper?

Speaker 4 (01:20:41):
Oh oh yeah, yeah, yeah, he was uh some way
was a change to tell you the truth, you know
what I mean. He was coming up with stuff for
some reason. You know, when I was writing songs back
in the day, he thought I had like a Leonard
Cohen vide Okay, okay, you know, singer songwriter, you know.

(01:21:03):
But that was just one the mention I suppose, you know,
the serious poetical type of thing about even back then,
I had a lot of off the wall stuff. Yeah,
funny stuff.

Speaker 1 (01:21:14):
Well we're gonna tease out some of that.

Speaker 2 (01:21:16):
But before we get going, Chance, I think folks should know, uh,
you know, you're a credible guy. You you have an
extensive background, and there's something recent that that highlights this
from a discussion about Luis c K listening to WBCN
radio in Boston on a conversation with Joe Rogan, as

(01:21:38):
they talked about you take a listen.

Speaker 9 (01:21:39):
To this, and then they had up on Chance LinkedIn
Oh yes, I love Chance, Yes, and he had an album.

Speaker 1 (01:21:44):
He was very smart.

Speaker 9 (01:21:45):
He made an album before those guys like those guys
didn't do that, but he made an album. So they
played it on BCN and they played it and I
was like, this guy's really funny's killing in the album
and he doesn't see a chance, doesn't sound like anybody else.

Speaker 1 (01:21:57):
He's just very uniques. So I was into it.

Speaker 9 (01:22:00):
And then afterwards the host said, there's tonight, this is
open on Sunday Night's Open Mike Stitches comedy.

Speaker 1 (01:22:08):
I didn't know what a comedy club was. It was
like a comedy club. So that kind of influence on
Luis c.

Speaker 2 (01:22:13):
K Joe Rogan talking me up, Chance langdon tell us
about your background in comedy.

Speaker 4 (01:22:19):
Well, sim me, first of all, you played that clip.
I'm getting chills, but I got a bit of a chill.
It's really cool.

Speaker 2 (01:22:28):
Yeah, your your background experience just kind of you know,
the the quick headline of who is Chance Langton and
what is your experience I mean with a guy.

Speaker 1 (01:22:38):
Guys by the likes of.

Speaker 2 (01:22:39):
Jay Leno and David Letterman and Rodney Dangerfield tell us
a little bit about yourself.

Speaker 4 (01:22:45):
Yeah, yeah, Well Rodney, I played at his club in
New York and headlining there and it's a beautiful club.
Then Rodney's partner was into what I was doing, so
I ended up opening for Rodney in concert will very exciting.
As I may have said before, me in the concert
hall is easy, the lights are great, the sound is perfect,

(01:23:08):
and I think he's the greatest comedian of all times
my opinion. Jane and Dave I worked with way way
back in the seventies seventy five. I somehow was I
got at the Comedy Store and I auditioned, even.

Speaker 1 (01:23:24):
Though it was an open mic in Los Angeles.

Speaker 2 (01:23:26):
The Comedy Store one of the two big clubs in
the country, right, yeah.

Speaker 4 (01:23:31):
In those days, they were the only one besides the
Improv of New York. So you have the Comedy Store
in LA. But I was a stone cold hit me.
I'm standing up the gigantic beard, wearing tire an unusual
hat and absolutely having no idea that it was going
to be a stand up comedian. I mean, I had

(01:23:51):
comical bits and playing a good time and that sort
of thing, and I had no goal and that was
I mean I think a lot of people going to
the comedy oh no, do I get it? Oh, you know,
freaking out, And with me it was like I couldn't
cared less, you know, which is the best attitude to have,
you know. So I go on, I forget, that's that's it,
and I go to leave, and right from jump makes

(01:24:14):
you sure. The owner made me a regular at the
comedy store. Now that was a surprise to me. The
first gig, Jay Lennon was the host, kind of a
wise guy, you know, podcasting sort of then going in
David Letterman was on the show who was rarely trying
to get his act together. He didn't quite have it then,

(01:24:35):
but as you know, he uh he climbed the mountain
and made it to the top. I think he's a
great host period. And you know, he's got that I
call it broadcast quality voice like Johnny Kasman, but Jay
Leno does not. I have that type of voice. It's
more of like a whiny, real you know, a type

(01:24:56):
of voice. You know. But uh, it was fun. It
was a blast, you know. And so every once in
a while, because I became more established in Boston, I
came back home, had a baby family and still married,
believe it or not. But basically, comedy seeing just exploded

(01:25:17):
in Boston, as it did Sydneys all around America. They
called it the comedy explosion, but Boston had something special.
Every single comedia try to be different from everybody else.
That was the weird thing. But in New York not
the weird thing. Interesting, but in New York everybody thought
that maybe Jerry Sein felt that that was a way

(01:25:39):
to do it, that sort of style, you know. So
there were a lot of people were similar to each other,
whereas in Boston everybody was like often their own paths
and this, you know, it was just whatever. I mean,
I think that was like an energy thing. I don't
know why it happened, you know, but it did happen
that way. In that way. I think maybe had more

(01:26:00):
of a variety going on, but yeah, it was. It
was a plas.

Speaker 2 (01:26:10):
Chance langdon joining us here on the program. We will
get him back as.

Speaker 1 (01:26:15):
We continue once again.

Speaker 2 (01:26:16):
He is a stand up comedian going back decades, and
I want to give you a taste while we're getting
him back of one of his stand up routines. This
is one that is from from his live performances called
Because that's.

Speaker 1 (01:26:35):
The kind of guy I am.

Speaker 10 (01:26:38):
I went to the University of New Hampshire. You and
ah people called us. I played baseball there. We went
for the championship against Arizona.

Speaker 1 (01:27:00):
They were afraid we were.

Speaker 10 (01:27:09):
I was a pitcher of the coach brought me in Arizona.

Speaker 1 (01:27:11):
This big guy came up. It was a moment of truth,
the power.

Speaker 4 (01:27:15):
And the glory.

Speaker 1 (01:27:16):
This ferret of America. I hit him in the head.

Speaker 10 (01:27:23):
That's the kind of guy I am.

Speaker 11 (01:27:32):
It's a beautiful thing to be an athlete. You play
a game, you forget about all your problems. Now I'm older,
I can't compete at a high level. Now I've had
my own games.

Speaker 1 (01:27:44):
While I'm driving, I'll drive around.

Speaker 4 (01:27:50):
I'll ask someone for directions.

Speaker 12 (01:27:52):
Just as he's thinking, I drive away.

Speaker 1 (01:28:07):
When I see a student driver, I pass him.

Speaker 12 (01:28:13):
On the right.

Speaker 1 (01:28:17):
And then I spin out and crash. He'll have confidence.

Speaker 10 (01:28:29):
Whenever I go to McDonald's, I go to the drive.

Speaker 12 (01:28:32):
Through and then I tell him I don't want it
to go.

Speaker 1 (01:28:40):
I just sit there and need it.

Speaker 10 (01:28:45):
Just that's the kind of guy I am.

Speaker 2 (01:28:50):
Jam Flankton, He's got some of these bits album bits
on his SoundCloud.

Speaker 1 (01:28:57):
He's our guest here on Koa I chant.

Speaker 2 (01:29:00):
I always love watching the stand up shows at Netflix
does a lot of these and others where you see
the audience and they're having fun and there's something that
you just as if you're watching on TV, you can
feel a little bit more of what the audience is
going through when they are laughing and you see them
on video and what have you. In this case, you're

(01:29:22):
hearing it. Talk to us about performing in clubs like.

Speaker 4 (01:29:25):
That, well, the clubs in general. When you're doing a
TV show or live I guess you just say there's
a I guess you would call it a magical connection,
whatever that is, meaning you're in the flow and when
you're in there and then the crise is laughing. From
a technical point of view, you kind of wait just

(01:29:47):
for the moment when they're laughter dies out and then
bang you're coming again and bring it back up again.
So the club is it's a real blast, to tell
you the truth, you know. So I enjoyed both that.
In performing in concert clubs or concert halls a completely
different animal, but similar in a certain way. You know,

(01:30:10):
taking a concert hall, uh you know, almost like removed
from the audience in a way but in a comedy club,
it's more, uh, you're right there with you know, and
you didn't talk to the audience and things like that.
I want to not overdo it, but I would talk
to the audience a little bit like one one time

(01:30:30):
true story. I came up with this, and I hope
this is okay on your station, But I said, I
didn't come here to perform tonight, folks. I came here
to sell some acid. If somebody yelled out how much
you got, and I said, I've got enough to make
you don't.

Speaker 1 (01:30:46):
Look handsome, that's just playing off of the crowd, right.

Speaker 4 (01:30:51):
Yeah, yeah, playing off the crowd.

Speaker 1 (01:30:53):
Yeah.

Speaker 4 (01:30:55):
This guy blow said where's your mother? And I said, she's.

Speaker 2 (01:31:02):
So let me ask you this question about the audience
interaction and that that I could see why Rodney Dagerfield,
by the way, would love your act because that was that's,
you know, channeling that that sort of old school attitude.

Speaker 1 (01:31:16):
So I'm a musician.

Speaker 2 (01:31:17):
I play harmonica, like all right, So when you were
in front of an audience playing music as you did before, go.

Speaker 1 (01:31:34):
Ahead, go ahead.

Speaker 4 (01:31:35):
Yeah, I was gonna say that was fantastic.

Speaker 2 (01:31:39):
Yes, Yes, I'm a blues man through and through. And
I get a song called the blues Man through and
Through by the.

Speaker 4 (01:31:44):
Way, But I like that.

Speaker 2 (01:31:46):
One of the things, thank you, my friend. One of
the things that I love is the exchange. And you're
talking about this there with the audience, you're there's a
feedback loop, whether you are doing comedy as you've done
or performing you started off as a musician, beginning in
your teens. When you are on stage, you are feeling

(01:32:08):
the music.

Speaker 1 (01:32:09):
You're having a blast.

Speaker 2 (01:32:10):
The audience feeds off of that, and then you feed
off of the enthusiasm of the audience. You know, in
between songs, you may talk with engage with the audience
in a very literal way. Well, talk to me about
that sort of feedback loop and how that energizes you
on stage, including in a comedy routine.

Speaker 4 (01:32:30):
Well, meanwhile, you're in the flow comedy wise, you're doing
your thing now. It doesn't happen all at the time,
but every once in a while somebody will say something.
I might say, you know, someone where you're from doing
on here and things like that, you know, like, for instance,
we kind of like, you know, off the wall stuff
in a way, you know, I mean, someone will say

(01:32:50):
that from an obscure time, like what would be an
obscure town in Denver?

Speaker 2 (01:32:55):
How about let's go with Holyoak. Now that it gets
go from Holyoak.

Speaker 4 (01:32:59):
But sure, yeah, so I would say something like Holy yo,
wow my vacation there. Uh how many times have spent
a bad day and said, honey of the bags, will
going to Holy yok? Something like that is holy it's
on a vacation it no, So.

Speaker 2 (01:33:16):
Yeah, yeah, So it works out when you have that
kind of because you hear that with comedians, you will
do that.

Speaker 4 (01:33:23):
You will.

Speaker 2 (01:33:24):
So you ask a question, the audience gives you the answer,
and you play off of it.

Speaker 1 (01:33:27):
Right, it's improvment off of it.

Speaker 4 (01:33:30):
Oh yeah all the way you're just you're kind of
you're thinking on your seat. Yeah, and there's some guys
that do it. I mean that's irrect, you know, and
I'm sorry. It is a dimension and maybe a smaller
dimension and the rest of everything else. But it was
there and able to think quickly and come back. That
sort of thing, you know, is uh is what it is. Yeah.

(01:33:53):
It's like it's ammunition in the back and you don't
know it's going to come. And the beauty of it
is when you come up with something and there that connects.
It's really a bleass. Yeah.

Speaker 2 (01:34:05):
Oh absolutely, there's nothing like it for any kind of performance.
Chance LinkedIn our guest comedian Extraordinary. I want to give
folks one more little taste. This is fun. Superfly versus Steroid.
Evan is the big name, and it is a musical
in nature, bringing out your skills as a guitarist.

Speaker 1 (01:34:24):
I just was like, I gotta share this a listen.

Speaker 13 (01:34:27):
Curtis Mayfield was recently inducted into the Rock and Roll
Hall of Fame. Is one of his great songs, Superfly,
super Fly, super Fly.

Speaker 1 (01:34:55):
It's one of my favorites. He made a lot of hits.
Here's another one, pretty stead Pretty Dead.

Speaker 14 (01:35:23):
If there's any request, I know all the songs, go ahead,
challenge me. Name any song and I'll play it anything
you want. Thank thanks for helping me out.

Speaker 4 (01:35:39):
I appreciate.

Speaker 12 (01:35:42):
Something popular that everybody would know.

Speaker 1 (01:35:44):
Stay Away to Heaven, the classic by led Zeppelin, still waiting.

Speaker 2 (01:36:04):
We're all just laughing here, Chance LinkedIn absolutely hysterical. Talk
to us about that and sort of the anatomy of
a bit. We've only got a couple of minutes last,
But yeah, there's something special about that and how the
audience was exchanging with you as we were just talking
about too.

Speaker 4 (01:36:23):
Yeah, yeah, you know, the big came out. Remember I
mentioned my best friend in Oose Days are still a
great friend, Russ. He came up with the superflied dip,
but he never did it on stage. I said, us,
I'd like to work with that.

Speaker 2 (01:36:36):
You know.

Speaker 4 (01:36:37):
And then but then coming into stay Away to Heaven,
my chomps are there and I knew the song, so
I went. But later in the big somebody heckled me
or they said, you know, play I can't remember there
was now, uh but yeah, to play a different like
three Birds, Yeah yeah, free bird, except the way you

(01:37:01):
would do Freebird is actually shot to play it like
it's freebird. You know. Liked two c the g you know,
in that you know what of a folky thing maybe
you know, and but then bang you go back into
the super fly thing and that's you know, it's like
I don't know quite what you call it, but it's

(01:37:23):
I would call it musical sat tire or off the
wall or whatever. But uh, yeah, it was a blast.
Now that gig was in Portland made Portland. It's a
very nice place. Crowds that were always dynamite, you know,
the one with Rodney, not Rodney myself in Continent New

(01:37:44):
Hampshion and this fantastic concert called the Capital Center, and
I played there a couple of times previously, and I
said this is the place to do an album, and
the next time I went in, that's that's where I
recorded a second album. So it was a second It

(01:38:05):
was a set total right out about forty minutes. And
then I also had musical on.

Speaker 3 (01:38:11):
The album, Solf Musical, shore Houns.

Speaker 4 (01:38:14):
They were basically some of them were off the wall,
you know, Oh well are they all were? For that matter?

Speaker 2 (01:38:20):
Unfortunately, Chance LinkedIn, we are out of time, but it's
been an absolute blast talking with you. Let's do it
again sometime, and I encourage folks to google you Chance
langdon or google search you on YouTube. You've got some
great stuff there, brother, I really appreciate it. Thanks for
joining us, and a happy new year, my friend sending Jimmy.

Speaker 4 (01:38:40):
I had a blast this time.

Speaker 2 (01:38:42):
Okay, absolutely, well to have a blast again next time,
Chance LinkedIn, everybody joining us on the program.

Speaker 1 (01:38:47):
I will be back in the saddle Monday and Tuesday
to round out the year for Russ cominski.

Speaker 2 (01:38:53):
My name's Jimmy Sangenberger Jimmy Singenberger dot com.

Speaker 1 (01:38:56):
All ease, all the time, have.

Speaker 2 (01:38:59):
A great and we'll see you next week. And as
I always say, may God bless America.