Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Robot umpires coming to Major League Baseball.
Speaker 2 (00:03):
Mm hmm.
Speaker 1 (00:04):
I was seeing something about this and Congressman Jim Jordan
is joining us. Congressman, welcome to the show. Hey, doing good,
Thank you. I I know you have a thought on
this before we get to anything the robot umpires. Do
you even have it?
Speaker 3 (00:21):
Have you? I heard? I just heard that Arder today.
Is it is like a robot standing there who's like
gonna call the balls and strikes? Or is it like
just some some video cam that you see framed up
when you watch the game anyway the strike zone or
how is it done?
Speaker 1 (00:36):
Yeah, I'm like, well, no, no, there's not gonna be
a physical, actual like robot like we'd see at the
Jets and the Jetsons or you know. I'm sorry.
Speaker 2 (00:45):
When he said that, my first thought was Adam Schiff
dressed as Joe Garagiola. That was popped into my head.
A robot call in Nicole.
Speaker 1 (00:54):
Well you don't, you know, you don't want anything Adam
Schiff related to anything baseball because he would be trying
to find out if the pitcher was a Republican or
a Democrat for starters, and then that's how they would
be calling the game.
Speaker 3 (01:10):
So is it just the same.
Speaker 1 (01:13):
It's a series. Well, so what it is is a
series of cameras they're gonna they're gonna be used. And
by the way, they're using this in tennis already to
see you know, if if you know, if the balls
are out or what have you. They're using this technology.
I guess it's been you know, it's been used for
a while. So it's a series of cameras and they
(01:35):
will they're gonna be able to know for sure if
it was a ball or a strike. And those cameras
will be set up from a whole bunch of different angles.
There's gonna be multiple But here's the caveat each team
can only challenge twice during any given game. So for instance,
you know it's a walk off that you know, let's
(01:57):
say the bases are loaded, you're down by a run,
and you know, they call it a wall. You know,
a ball and a run is automatically walked in for
the walkoff, and then that team ends up winning something
along those lines I could see. So it's going to
be strategic the way these teams use these two I
guess they're going to you can challenge.
Speaker 3 (02:17):
The challenges two different challenges.
Speaker 1 (02:19):
Yeah, yeah, so it's an interesting concept for sure.
Speaker 3 (02:22):
Yeah it is because, like you know, in tennis, the
lines on the court never changed, but the strike zone
actually every batter is a different slightly different size, so
the strike zones, I guess, slightly different for each batter.
So these cameras have to adjust. And I don't know,
I'm old fashioned. I'm still like, I still don't like
the designated hitter for goodness sake, So I saw old
(02:42):
fashion I am when it comes to baseball. But I mean,
it's just I guess this is where we're going, and
we haven't. Like in the sport of wrestling, you got
like that, you got the replay and you can challenge,
and then you go to replay and the match gets
stopped and it takes forever, and they look at replay
and then they'll change the call sometimes and then if
you lose the call, you lost your challenge for that
(03:03):
match or that round, if you're in a big tournament,
it just it's I don't know, I think it slows
everything down. Just let's let the official call the match,
call the game, and keep playing.
Speaker 1 (03:11):
Kind of to your point, they said this will take
thirteen point four seconds for them to determine whether or
not it was a ball or a strike. They said that,
so they are not looking for this to you know,
really extend. Yeah, slow it down like kind of to
your point. So I feel like that's interesting. And then
the other part is this technology, Congressman, is already being
(03:34):
used in the NFL for you know, how far they
have to go once they spot the ball, so uh,
you know, six inches eight inches until it's a first
down or what have you. They're using this technology, I
guess currently starting this year, but they're going to do
this as well. You bring up an interesting point though,
because the strike zone does change depends it's the height
(03:56):
of you know, where the knees are, they're not the
knees don't hit the same on everybody that walks to
the plate. That's a great point.
Speaker 3 (04:03):
I always thought the strike zone, you know, when I
was the kid playing little little leguast, everything is like
chess to the top of the knees, to the chest
and that like, and then of course across the plate
and that's a strike zone. But you know, big guys,
little guy, that's gonna that's gonna be you know, different
different levels. And also we'll see, we'll see out taking.
Speaker 2 (04:19):
Now when they start using this next year, I guarantee
you within two years, they will incorporate laser accuracy into
it as well, because with each hitter, they're going to
be able to say, okay, boom boom with laser points,
here's the strike zone, and it is going to vary
from one hit or to.
Speaker 1 (04:34):
The That's a great point. That's another yeah, really good point,
really good point, Congressman, your thoughts on you know, once again,
it feels like political rhetoric is involved. From this morning
in Dallas and you know the shots taken, and you
know we played it earlier. Vice President Vance, he's like
(04:55):
he's scorched earth and so accurate, so exact. So I mean,
he is one thousand percent. I feel like just dialed
into this whole situation. But there was somebody who put
the vice president is not a reliable source of information.
This is now the fifth or sixth time he's posted
a political take contradicted by facts from his own law
(05:17):
enforcement agencies. So the Vice president actually replied to this guy,
Jon Favreau, it's not the actor, it's somebody else. He
has a million and a half followers whoever this guy is.
But he said the gunman had anti ice messaging carved
on the bullets. He used, what precisely did I get wrong?
It's what he says there, he replied to this, But
(05:39):
we played part of you know, his you know, him
speaking about that this morning. But your thoughts on this,
I mean, he's saying, Look, it's it's the it's the
the things that the left are constantly saying. They're constantly
spewing this stuff, and that people who are just far
enough left and just crazy enough they're acting on this thing.
(06:00):
It's almost like a dog whistle, if you will, except
you can actually hear it, you know.
Speaker 3 (06:04):
Yeah, No, let's hope it. Let's hope it stops. And uh,
all I know is what I saw earlier this morning,
earlier today when this happened. Uh. And then I did
see the report that the bullets the casings had like
any ice stuff on on on the bullets. I'd seen
someone talk about that. So I don't know anything more.
(06:25):
I don't know how how many victims and you know,
how they're all doing. I just saw that earlier today.
But yeah, I think we all need My attitude is like,
let's let's all just let's have robust debate, let's argue
the let's let's argue with intensity and with and you know,
let's let's get your best hold, make your best argument,
make your best case. But there's a line I think
(06:45):
you just can't cross. And it's like it seems like
we got more and more people who want to just
say things that that that you know, just don't make
any sense to me. So I keep coming back to
I think Charnie Kirk was the best example. I mean,
he he he spoke the truth. He did it with
a smile on his face. He was a happy warrior.
He did it in a compelling, in an articulate way.
He was willing to debate anybody. That should be our
(07:06):
attitude versus saying some of the some of the crazy
things you here said. And then if someone's got just
some some mental concerns or whatever, it seems like they
might be willing to do something terrible like we saw today.
Speaker 1 (07:19):
Speaking of Charlie Kirk, were you there on Sunday by chance?
Speaker 2 (07:23):
Yeah?
Speaker 3 (07:23):
No, I couldn't. We'd already scheduled to. We were helping
colleagues in North Carolina and North Dakota. Of all places,
and so we were not able to be there, but
I saw parts of it. I thought it was, you know, beautiful,
a very fitting service for a memorial to uh to
just just a great guy who I think we talked
this last week, you know, Second Timothy four to seven,
Fight the good fight, finished the course, Keep the Faith
(07:46):
my favorite scripture verse, and it's a verse I think
Charlie Kirk actually lived. He was fighting for the things
in the appropriate way, for the things that mattered, the principles,
account for his faith, sharing his faith, and he did
it right up. He finished strong, right up until the
moment his life was taken from it.
Speaker 1 (08:02):
So yeah, yeah, yeah, you know, you just you just
brought up you know, we need to have a robust
debate and all of that, and you know, being and
doing what you do day in day out, how hard
that can be, especially given it seems like the temperature
not and look, I'm not going to just say the
left are the only ones responsible for you know, any
(08:25):
kind of heat that is happening right now, because you
know I've said to you before over the years, watching you,
you know a different you know, footage of and the
person that comes to mind, I was like, boy, I
don't know how you kept from strangling Jerry Nadler. You know,
Like I was like, and I like watching some of
(08:46):
this stuff Congressman over the years. You know, the robust
debate is fantastic in you know, on paper or in
a discussion and so on. It's just like, it feels like,
I don't know that we ever go back to that,
because it feels like that's been all bypassed and it's
just turned into this. It's just crazy, and I just
(09:06):
it's like, what happened. I don't know, I don't know
what happened to get us to where we are now,
but it just feels like this huge mess and it's
almost like, can we get this toothpaste back in that tube?
You know?
Speaker 3 (09:17):
Well, what we don't want to do is do anything
to diminish person in the liberties. I think that's important,
and I think it's important for us to understand that
we've always had intense political debate in the country. Uh,
you know, way back when you know, there when this
when the founders, when they started this amazing thing we
call America the greatest country ever. There were guys who
(09:38):
would challenged the duels and everything else and you know,
there's been there's cases where there's been the fights on
the house floor of the cane and everything else back
during that that that that the Civil War era. So
we've had intense debates, the intense campaigns. Uh, you know,
the Jefferson Adams race was one of the most intense
(09:58):
back when they ran for president. So but I do
think it's important that the tone should be better, should
be the happy warrior tone, the right energy. Like again,
I think Charlie Kirk's a great example. I think that
that makes sense. Let's let's do that. I try to
do that. I'll get after witnesses in a hearing, but
I try to you know, I try to be friendly
(10:20):
with my with my colleagues. I talked with Jamie Raskin.
I'll say hello to Nancy Pelosi and Maxine Waters and
people who you know Maxine Waters has called mean names
and committee before. But look, I just think that's the
right way to do it, and we try to do
it that way.
Speaker 1 (10:34):
Yeah. Congressman Jim Jordan, thank you so much for joining
us today. Appreciate it.
Speaker 3 (10:38):
Man, you bet guys, take care, Thanks.
Speaker 1 (10:39):
For you all right, thank you?
Speaker 2 (10:41):
All right. I couldn't see sitting in chambers and then
looking directly across at Maxine waters. It seems like you
have to wear like eclipse glasses or something, because I
just all that ugly it was that could burn your retina,
might call some brain damage, toenails fall off. You don't
want that to happen.
Speaker 1 (10:59):
Medusa turned to turn. What is it if you turn
the stone right like the snakes?
Speaker 2 (11:05):
Like if I had to look at her all the time,
I would want to turn to stone. Just I don't
want to look at this anymore.
Speaker 1 (11:11):
You would just have black paint on your glasses like
that way I can't see through them. I'll put these
special glasses on when she comes into the room.
Speaker 2 (11:17):
You ever see somebody so ugly they can't even be homely.
They're like Houselely. It's like Houselely.
Robot umpires coming to Major League Baseball.
Speaker 2 (00:03):
Mm hmm.
Speaker 1 (00:04):
I was seeing something about this and Congressman Jim Jordan
is joining us. Congressman, welcome to the show. Hey, doing good,
Thank you. I I know you have a thought on
this before we get to anything the robot umpires. Do
you even have it?
Speaker 3 (00:21):
Have you? I heard? I just heard that Arder today.
Is it is like a robot standing there who's like
gonna call the balls and strikes? Or is it like
just some some video cam that you see framed up
when you watch the game anyway the strike zone or
how is it done?
Speaker 1 (00:36):
Yeah, I'm like, well, no, no, there's not gonna be
a physical, actual like robot like we'd see at the
Jets and the Jetsons or you know. I'm sorry.
Speaker 2 (00:45):
When he said that, my first thought was Adam Schiff
dressed as Joe Garagiola. That was popped into my head.
A robot call in Nicole.
Speaker 1 (00:54):
Well you don't, you know, you don't want anything Adam
Schiff related to anything baseball because he would be trying
to find out if the pitcher was a Republican or
a Democrat for starters, and then that's how they would
be calling the game.
Speaker 3 (01:10):
So is it just the same.
Speaker 1 (01:13):
It's a series. Well, so what it is is a
series of cameras they're gonna they're gonna be used. And
by the way, they're using this in tennis already to
see you know, if if you know, if the balls
are out or what have you. They're using this technology.
I guess it's been you know, it's been used for
a while. So it's a series of cameras and they
(01:35):
will they're gonna be able to know for sure if
it was a ball or a strike. And those cameras
will be set up from a whole bunch of different angles.
There's gonna be multiple But here's the caveat each team
can only challenge twice during any given game. So for instance,
you know it's a walk off that you know, let's
(01:57):
say the bases are loaded, you're down by a run,
and you know, they call it a wall. You know,
a ball and a run is automatically walked in for
the walkoff, and then that team ends up winning something
along those lines I could see. So it's going to
be strategic the way these teams use these two I
guess they're going to you can challenge.
Speaker 3 (02:17):
The challenges two different challenges.
Speaker 1 (02:19):
Yeah, yeah, so it's an interesting concept for sure.
Speaker 3 (02:22):
Yeah it is because, like you know, in tennis, the
lines on the court never changed, but the strike zone
actually every batter is a different slightly different size, so
the strike zones, I guess, slightly different for each batter.
So these cameras have to adjust. And I don't know,
I'm old fashioned. I'm still like, I still don't like
the designated hitter for goodness sake, So I saw old
(02:42):
fashion I am when it comes to baseball. But I mean,
it's just I guess this is where we're going, and
we haven't. Like in the sport of wrestling, you got
like that, you got the replay and you can challenge,
and then you go to replay and the match gets
stopped and it takes forever, and they look at replay
and then they'll change the call sometimes and then if
you lose the call, you lost your challenge for that
(03:03):
match or that round, if you're in a big tournament,
it just it's I don't know, I think it slows
everything down. Just let's let the official call the match,
call the game, and keep playing.
Speaker 1 (03:11):
Kind of to your point, they said this will take
thirteen point four seconds for them to determine whether or
not it was a ball or a strike. They said that,
so they are not looking for this to you know,
really extend. Yeah, slow it down like kind of to
your point. So I feel like that's interesting. And then
the other part is this technology, Congressman, is already being
(03:34):
used in the NFL for you know, how far they
have to go once they spot the ball, so uh,
you know, six inches eight inches until it's a first
down or what have you. They're using this technology, I
guess currently starting this year, but they're going to do
this as well. You bring up an interesting point though,
because the strike zone does change depends it's the height
(03:56):
of you know, where the knees are, they're not the
knees don't hit the same on everybody that walks to
the plate. That's a great point.
Speaker 3 (04:03):
I always thought the strike zone, you know, when I
was the kid playing little little leguast, everything is like
chess to the top of the knees, to the chest
and that like, and then of course across the plate
and that's a strike zone. But you know, big guys,
little guy, that's gonna that's gonna be you know, different
different levels. And also we'll see, we'll see out taking.
Speaker 2 (04:19):
Now when they start using this next year, I guarantee
you within two years, they will incorporate laser accuracy into
it as well, because with each hitter, they're going to
be able to say, okay, boom boom with laser points,
here's the strike zone, and it is going to vary
from one hit or to.
Speaker 1 (04:34):
The That's a great point. That's another yeah, really good point,
really good point, Congressman, your thoughts on you know, once again,
it feels like political rhetoric is involved. From this morning
in Dallas and you know the shots taken, and you
know we played it earlier. Vice President Vance, he's like
(04:55):
he's scorched earth and so accurate, so exact. So I mean,
he is one thousand percent. I feel like just dialed
into this whole situation. But there was somebody who put
the vice president is not a reliable source of information.
This is now the fifth or sixth time he's posted
a political take contradicted by facts from his own law
(05:17):
enforcement agencies. So the Vice president actually replied to this guy,
Jon Favreau, it's not the actor, it's somebody else. He
has a million and a half followers whoever this guy is.
But he said the gunman had anti ice messaging carved
on the bullets. He used, what precisely did I get wrong?
It's what he says there, he replied to this, But
(05:39):
we played part of you know, his you know, him
speaking about that this morning. But your thoughts on this,
I mean, he's saying, Look, it's it's the it's the
the things that the left are constantly saying. They're constantly
spewing this stuff, and that people who are just far
enough left and just crazy enough they're acting on this thing.
(06:00):
It's almost like a dog whistle, if you will, except
you can actually hear it, you know.
Speaker 3 (06:04):
Yeah, No, let's hope it. Let's hope it stops. And uh,
all I know is what I saw earlier this morning,
earlier today when this happened. Uh. And then I did
see the report that the bullets the casings had like
any ice stuff on on on the bullets. I'd seen
someone talk about that. So I don't know anything more.
(06:25):
I don't know how how many victims and you know,
how they're all doing. I just saw that earlier today.
But yeah, I think we all need My attitude is like,
let's let's all just let's have robust debate, let's argue
the let's let's argue with intensity and with and you know,
let's let's get your best hold, make your best argument,
make your best case. But there's a line I think
(06:45):
you just can't cross. And it's like it seems like
we got more and more people who want to just
say things that that that you know, just don't make
any sense to me. So I keep coming back to
I think Charnie Kirk was the best example. I mean,
he he he spoke the truth. He did it with
a smile on his face. He was a happy warrior.
He did it in a compelling, in an articulate way.
He was willing to debate anybody. That should be our
(07:06):
attitude versus saying some of the some of the crazy
things you here said. And then if someone's got just
some some mental concerns or whatever, it seems like they
might be willing to do something terrible like we saw today.
Speaker 1 (07:19):
Speaking of Charlie Kirk, were you there on Sunday by chance?
Speaker 2 (07:23):
Yeah?
Speaker 3 (07:23):
No, I couldn't. We'd already scheduled to. We were helping
colleagues in North Carolina and North Dakota. Of all places,
and so we were not able to be there, but
I saw parts of it. I thought it was, you know, beautiful,
a very fitting service for a memorial to uh to
just just a great guy who I think we talked
this last week, you know, Second Timothy four to seven,
Fight the good fight, finished the course, Keep the Faith
(07:46):
my favorite scripture verse, and it's a verse I think
Charlie Kirk actually lived. He was fighting for the things
in the appropriate way, for the things that mattered, the principles,
account for his faith, sharing his faith, and he did
it right up. He finished strong, right up until the
moment his life was taken from it.
Speaker 1 (08:02):
So yeah, yeah, yeah, you know, you just you just
brought up you know, we need to have a robust
debate and all of that, and you know, being and
doing what you do day in day out, how hard
that can be, especially given it seems like the temperature
not and look, I'm not going to just say the
left are the only ones responsible for you know, any
(08:25):
kind of heat that is happening right now, because you
know I've said to you before over the years, watching you,
you know a different you know, footage of and the
person that comes to mind, I was like, boy, I
don't know how you kept from strangling Jerry Nadler. You know,
Like I was like, and I like watching some of
(08:46):
this stuff Congressman over the years. You know, the robust
debate is fantastic in you know, on paper or in
a discussion and so on. It's just like, it feels like,
I don't know that we ever go back to that,
because it feels like that's been all bypassed and it's
just turned into this. It's just crazy, and I just
(09:06):
it's like, what happened. I don't know, I don't know
what happened to get us to where we are now,
but it just feels like this huge mess and it's
almost like, can we get this toothpaste back in that tube?
You know?
Speaker 3 (09:17):
Well, what we don't want to do is do anything
to diminish person in the liberties. I think that's important,
and I think it's important for us to understand that
we've always had intense political debate in the country. Uh,
you know, way back when you know, there when this
when the founders, when they started this amazing thing we
call America the greatest country ever. There were guys who
(09:38):
would challenged the duels and everything else and you know,
there's been there's cases where there's been the fights on
the house floor of the cane and everything else back
during that that that that the Civil War era. So
we've had intense debates, the intense campaigns. Uh, you know,
the Jefferson Adams race was one of the most intense
(09:58):
back when they ran for president. So but I do
think it's important that the tone should be better, should
be the happy warrior tone, the right energy. Like again,
I think Charlie Kirk's a great example. I think that
that makes sense. Let's let's do that. I try to
do that. I'll get after witnesses in a hearing, but
I try to you know, I try to be friendly
(10:20):
with my with my colleagues. I talked with Jamie Raskin.
I'll say hello to Nancy Pelosi and Maxine Waters and
people who you know Maxine Waters has called mean names
and committee before. But look, I just think that's the
right way to do it, and we try to do
it that way.
Speaker 1 (10:34):
Yeah. Congressman Jim Jordan, thank you so much for joining
us today. Appreciate it.
Speaker 3 (10:38):
Man, you bet guys, take care, Thanks.
Speaker 1 (10:39):
For you all right, thank you?
Speaker 2 (10:41):
All right. I couldn't see sitting in chambers and then
looking directly across at Maxine waters. It seems like you
have to wear like eclipse glasses or something, because I
just all that ugly it was that could burn your retina,
might call some brain damage, toenails fall off. You don't
want that to happen.
Speaker 1 (10:59):
Medusa turned to turn. What is it if you turn
the stone right like the snakes?
Speaker 2 (11:05):
Like if I had to look at her all the time,
I would want to turn to stone. Just I don't
want to look at this anymore.
Speaker 1 (11:11):
You would just have black paint on your glasses like
that way I can't see through them. I'll put these
special glasses on when she comes into the room.
Speaker 2 (11:17):
You ever see somebody so ugly they can't even be homely.
They're like Houselely. It's like Houselely.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.