105 Just Two Good Old Boys

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Howdy Ben.
How are you today Doing well,Gene, Coming to you from the new
podcasting rig.

Speaker 2 (00:08):
Nice, so we're going to have perfect sound.
Today it sounds like.

Speaker 1 (00:12):
Well, you and I spent an hour on the phone yesterday
making sure of it, so hopefully,yeah, and the conclusion was
it's magic was it's magic, itwas the.
So somehow the sample rate gotchanged and when that sample
rate got changed it stopped afew things from working

(00:35):
apparently on the Motu, I don'tknow.
Anyway, changing the samplerate back fixed it, Got it.

Speaker 2 (00:42):
It's funny, as we're recording this, we just got a
message that came in from fanmail, or a fan mail came in, you
know.
I mean a message for thepodcast came in and uh, it said
so glad y'all are watchingcommunity, one of my all-time
favorites okay, and a minutelater it says this is will dude

(01:06):
from houston.
Good, so people are rememberingto add their damn names,
because otherwise we don't knowwho it's from yeah, and you had
a solution for that I do, and Imight as well talk about it
right now.
So the solution is I created agroup on x, so fan mail still
gonna be there.
You know, it's built into our,our podcast provider and you can

(01:31):
send notes that way.
But I think it truly is meantto be like fan mail, like the
little people sending a big,huge podcast notes.
But we're not that big guys.
So we're happy to interactbi-directionally with you and we
can do that through x.
So just look for a group.
Very easy, it's uh, just gob,good old boys.

(01:56):
So all you got to do is just goand search for it and then sign
up.
Alternatively, if you'realready following me actually
both of us, this should work forit, not just me just click on
our profiles and you will seethat group listed as one of the

(02:17):
groups that we're following.
I've actually pinned thatmessage to my profile, so I'll
recommend you do the same thing,ben as well.
So it's right up top and easyto spot and then just click on
it.
It'll take you to the group and, uh, there's.
There shouldn't be any kind ofa sign up or anything.
I mean you have to want to bein it and click on subscribe or

(02:40):
whatever, whatever the term xuses if it's not subscribed, um,
but uh, I don't have it set upto approve people.

Speaker 1 (02:50):
People just come into it automatically with no
approval yeah, and you know,hopefully we'll get better about
posting stuff there, but theidea is it's a place for you to
send us messages or send thegroup messages and interact yeah
, it's.

Speaker 2 (03:07):
If you have suggestions, questions, etc.
Um, or if you're lazy and youdon't want to like specifically
post to either one of us, postit to the group and then we'll
both see it anyway, yeah um, youknow, it's one of those things
as we go, one of the things I'dlike to see us do is start doing

(03:27):
some spaces as we record.
Yeah, yeah, and we've attemptedto stream on X's recording.
I think, right, we have.

Speaker 3 (03:39):
I'm pretty sure I don't think, so I think for this
show.

Speaker 2 (03:42):
I thought I did.

Speaker 3 (03:43):
Well, maybe maybe not , Maybe I don't think so, not
for this show, I thought.

Speaker 2 (03:50):
I did.
Well, maybe maybe not.
Maybe I just didn't tell you.
That's possible too.
I was live.
No one listened.
We had one person that showedup.

(04:12):
So it because I feel likeeverybody's on X, but also I
don't know that everybody thatlistens to us is on X, because
I've not received many messagesfrom people.
Um, I I certainly see a lotmore of these fan mail things
coming in than I see justsomebody doing an at Sir Gene on
X.
So I don't know, do people notuse?
So that's a question I'd liketo pose and maybe you guys can

(04:34):
answer that question in thegroup on X.
Are you on X?

Speaker 1 (04:41):
There you go.

Speaker 2 (04:41):
To all our thousand listeners, let us know.

Speaker 1 (04:45):
I think you're being a little generous there with the
number, but that's fine.

Speaker 2 (04:48):
Over the course of a month about a thousand downloads
.
So there you go yeah, yeah yeahsure, so I I think it is going
to be interesting to see, um,how many people do that and and
again it this.
This is really like I'veposting on X, I will continue to
post on X, but this is morespecifically for people talking

(05:09):
about something that we broughtup or Ben wrote and posted, or
something like that.
That, you know, isn't justgeneral news Nothing wrong with
general news, but that kind ofalready exists.
Like, plenty of people areposting about general politics
and other news related stuff,but, um, I just wanted to have

(05:31):
an area where, uh, y'all couldspecifically relate things to
something from the podcast, like, for example, the message that
came in today talking aboutcommunity and how are you
enjoying community, ben?

Speaker 1 (05:45):
uh, pretty good.
I I don't know why you thoughtI would like the last episode.
I watched the what was the?
Last episode you watched it wasthe doctor who.

Speaker 2 (05:54):
Convention knockoff one oh, um, what was it about
that one?
I can't remember anymore.
I'm too many ahead of that.
But yeah, there's occasionalepisodes that I've mentioned to
Ben.
It's like oh yeah, yeah, Ithink you're going to like it

(06:14):
when we get to this one.

Speaker 1 (06:19):
Yeah, the last one.

Speaker 2 (06:19):
You said that about was the oh no, I knew why you
were going to like it, becauseyou noticed who the actress was
that was flirting with what'shis face I.

Speaker 1 (06:26):
I didn't pay attention to who it was.
No, you gotta be shitting me.

Speaker 2 (06:30):
Who was it?
It was the, the uh, the womanin the red dress from battlestar
galactica cylon oh okay, yeah,uh, whatever, oh my god like.
Of all the people that havebeen popping up on that show,
probably the most beautiful one,uh wow okay, I'd take annie

(06:54):
over her really yeah wow, that'swell.
Yeah, I guess annie's young.

Speaker 3 (06:59):
I shouldn't be sexualizing her.

Speaker 2 (07:06):
I have a type okay yeah, you have a type that that
is called don't look at the face.

Speaker 1 (07:12):
Yes, no no, I look at the face, I look at the face.

Speaker 2 (07:17):
Face is important.
No, I think the, uh, the silentchick's pretty damn hot.
Okay, god, what is her name?
Was she six?
No, what number was she?

Speaker 3 (07:32):
I don't remember.

Speaker 1 (07:34):
God damn, it's been a long time since I watched that
show.
Maybe that's a show I need tore-watch.
In fact, I have not re-watchedthat show since it probably
originally aired.

Speaker 2 (07:43):
I think I'm in the same boat.
I think that I don't think I'veseen it, since it was actually
on the first time.
Yeah, and that's over a decade,right.

Speaker 1 (07:55):
Yes, we should that should be our next one, Although
you're talking about Miami Vice.
So yeah.

Speaker 2 (08:07):
Have you seen Miami Vice vice?
I have not and I have nointention of watching it it's a,
it's a classic man.

Speaker 1 (08:12):
I just don't like cop shows like that.

Speaker 2 (08:14):
It's just like the thing about it is it was shot as
a, you know, a very realistic,dramatic show.
If you watch it, I guaranteeyou, to you it's going to look
like a parody of a cop show,because it has a lot of that
can't be serious type momentsyou know okay like the main

(08:37):
character, uh don johnson'scharacter.
Uh has a pet alligator, ofcourse, and it's totally normal,
like it's not a comedy.
So that's what I mean.
It's like uh has a petalligator, of course.
And it's totally normal, likeit's not a comedy.
So that's what I mean.
It's like watching Miami vicetoday.
People are going to say, no,this, no, this was a parody,
right, they were just making funof cop shows right, yeah, I

(08:59):
think that would be theimpression.
Well, let's, when we get donewith community, let's do a vote
and see if we're gonna watch uhmiami vice or uh balestar
galactica next.

Speaker 1 (09:15):
okay, and people are welcome to join us on these.

Speaker 2 (09:17):
Uh, binge watchers, yeah, adventures, yeah, my
vote's definitely going to befor balestar galactica, but you
know, hey what can I say?
We'll do a poll in the Xcommunity and see what people
tell us.

Speaker 1 (09:26):
I don't know if I'm willing to be bound by such
things?

Speaker 2 (09:29):
Oh, of course you are .

Speaker 1 (09:31):
Hey, I fell for the peer pressure to do the grok
roasting.
Enough, okay, uh-huh.

Speaker 2 (09:40):
All right, so should we jump into politics?
Sure, where do you jump intopolitics?

Speaker 1 (09:45):
Sure, where do you want to start?

Speaker 2 (09:48):
I'm laughing my ass off, which is good.
It's a good feeling with allthe fears that are being
displayed by the governmentservants of the united states.
The fbi is threatening to quitas a whole agency if cash patel

(10:12):
is approved.
Um, cool, right, that's.
My reaction is like wow, thisis don't threaten me, there's
not gonna be anything left to dofor doge.
If that happens, I mean that jobwell done.
They get to hire brand newpeople for the fbi.
That would be amazing.
Uh, yeah, the.

(10:32):
The attitude that these peoplehave is very similar to an
attitude that tenured professorshave both groups, frankly, are
shouldn't be because, uh,they're like, well, it's a
government job, well, Ishouldn't get fired.
It doesn't matter what I do ordon't do, it's not up to anybody

(10:53):
to fire me.
It's my job.
I own this job.
That's the attitude.

Speaker 1 (11:00):
I think we've seen a lot of stuff extended to various
agencies that neither one of ussaw coming.
I know the CIA being offered abuyout, for instance.

Speaker 2 (11:26):
Now you sent a guy that says, well, it's only
really about 40% of the CIA thatwould be associated with this,
but I sent okay, who is in theCIA?

Speaker 1 (11:32):
yes, that's the video that I sent you.
Yeah, um, my experience withpeople in the CIA is once you're
in the CIA, you're always inthe CIA yeah and so I don't
think he's ex-cia as long as Iknow, I didn't say he was ex-cia
, since he's cia so I think hedefinitely has his agenda.

Speaker 2 (11:52):
I'll put it that way uh, yeah, absolutely, absolutely
, um, and we're talking aboutthe uh everyday spy guy, so
that's, that's, that's, hiscompany is everyday spy, which,
uh, interestingly, he put a plugin to hire people that are
going to be leaving this year.
Yeah, if you're looking foryour next thing, just come talk

(12:14):
to me and he kind of went fromdescribing the everyday spy
company as just something.
My wife and I started to youknow, do something after we're
retired, to like we're hiringhundreds of agents it's like
whoa, which money.

Speaker 1 (12:30):
How did?
How is he funded that?
He has that yes I meanapparently not through usa id,
but you know no no, no, theyfigured out that.

Speaker 2 (12:43):
You know, maybe the cia is smarter than you think.
And they actually figured outbefore the trump election that
usaid is going to go away.
So they need to diversify.

Speaker 1 (12:56):
Let's start up new little companies like everyday
spy you know it's possible, butI think, you know, I think the
reality is we're just scratchingthe surface so far yeah, and
that that's fine, it's a goodscratch, but we've got to go way

(13:16):
deeper.
Did you see that trumpannounced that elon and doge
will be going and auditing thePentagon?

Speaker 3 (13:25):
Mm-hmm.

Speaker 2 (13:29):
Yep, yep, yeah, it's great Well it's kind of scary,
because last time that happenedwe got 9-11, so, yeah, yeah,
fair enough, but I think, welland the last president that
wanted to do that drove throughDallas but I think that there's

(13:53):
a wave that is building and it'sgoing to be harder and harder
to stop that wave as more ofthese people are like go.
I think there's going to be morefear or more of a feeling of
like we're fucked by the peoplethat are left in the agencies

(14:15):
that are left and haven't beenreviewed yet and I think there
will be way more voluntary um,you know, people leaving it's.
Initially I think it was morelike well, let's see if we can
just resist what these guys aredoing.
Then it was sort of like well,let's, let's see who voluntarily

(14:38):
wants to leave, maybe that'llalleviate the issues.

Speaker 1 (14:41):
And now it's like whole agencies are planning on
quitting well, with usa id, youknow um, there was a call for
like 600 employees to stay yeah,and marco rubio, as the
temporary administrator, cutthat down to like 200 64, the
last number whatever, it was aridiculously low number and the

(15:04):
reaction was well, the agencymight as well not exist correct.

Speaker 2 (15:09):
Okay, no argument.
Yeah, yes, yes, and yeah, andlike I'm just I'm I'm reminded
of that spider-man meme.

Speaker 1 (15:18):
I'm already sold on it.
You don't have to keep sellingme right right, exactly.

Speaker 2 (15:23):
Um, there's a there.
Term limits is something that Iknow we've discussed previously
, that I've always been a bigfan of, because term limits
prevent long termization.
That's a word I just came upwith.
Long-termization of thegovernment.

(15:43):
When you know that you're onlythere for some fixed duration of
time, then you're not going tobe planning to build structures
that will exist for the rest ofyour life.
So that's a good thing.
But combined with that, I thinkthat there should be a default

(16:08):
condition and this isunfortunate that this is not the
case, but a default conditionto all congressional bills that
say they expire within X periodof time, and that period can't
be excessively long.
Maybe 10 years should be thelimit for everything, and it
would have to be anextraordinary type of law that

(16:31):
doesn't expire within 10 years.
Because, thankfully, we saw thiswith the Clinton gun ban, which
you know, I lived through thewhole thing.

Speaker 1 (16:42):
What the assault weapons ban?

Speaker 2 (16:43):
yeah, Sure, the whole thing.
What the assault weapons ban,yeah, sure, um, it's a.
You know, we pushed really hardback against it, but not hard
enough.
There was not nearly as much ofa, uh, a gun culture by the
general public back then asthere is today.

(17:04):
Uh, today I don't know thatnecessarily a whole lot more
people own guns, but a whole lotmore people who own guns are
willing to participate inletting their interests be known
.
I, I feel like in the 90s,certainly the early 90s, the,

(17:24):
the group of people that weregun enthusiasts, uh, was the
only one like it was.
It was just the guys that yousee at the range that even knew
about the clinton assaultweapons ban, gun ban, whatever
you want to call it.
Because the average persondidn't know and didn't care and

(17:46):
I, I think, including peoplethat should have cared simply
because they're republicans orthey're conservatives or
libertarians, like all thosegroups, independently of being a
part of the nra or whatever gungroup you were in back then, um
, like they should have caredenough to let their voices be

(18:06):
heard.
But that was definitely not thecase.
It was a, it was a small groupand, again, maybe more people
are into gun state.
That could very well be thecase, but I just feel like it's
that people are more vocal inwhat they support and don't
support today than was the case25, 30 years ago.

Speaker 1 (18:28):
Yeah, I think it's more of a cultural difference
from generation to generation.
So I think, as the millennialsAlso, the internet helps.
Yeah, yeah, but as the Internethas come on and the millennials
have picked it up, you've gotmillennials being far more vocal
as we tend to be than boomersever were.

(18:51):
So I think that's a fairlycommon thing yeah.

Speaker 2 (18:57):
And we had C-SPAN so we could watch debates and see
how awful the politicians wereback then.
Watch debates and see how awfulthe politicians were back then.
But again, I think thepercentage of people watching
c-span back then was tinycompared to watching clips on x
today okay you know what I meanlike there's clips of
politicians being awful all thetime on x or you even just

(19:21):
youtube, and it's easy to catchthose.
C-span was one channel, so theyhad to choose what they're
broadcasting and they didn'tfocus only on the negative shit,
and so it was just like oh, forthe next hour you can watch a
debate about funding a squirrelpreserve in Tennessee, a

(19:42):
squirrel preserve in Tennessee,and then next hour we'll have 15
minutes from the wrap-up or theend of the session of the
Senate.
It was much more limited Now.
I think our access is waybetter.
By the way, if you pressed muteI heard you that didn't work,
yeah.

Speaker 1 (20:05):
I've got to work on this because if I'm clicked off
the window it's not working onzoom, so sorry about that.
Oh really, yeah, so if the zoomwindow is highlighted.
It works, but if I'mhighlighted in the browser, for
instance.

Speaker 2 (20:19):
Like I was, it didn't so well, yeah, you, you should
be able to.
Well, we'll talk about itoffline, but, um, I know that
you, you should be able to mapthe mic itself, not zoom, so
you're just muting the miccompletely regardless of app as
well.
So, anyway, um, back to back tothis stuff.

(20:44):
So who is and I'm I'm askingbecause I haven't actually
checked either last night orthis morning um, who got
approved and who hasn't yet beenapproved?
What are we waiting on?

Speaker 1 (20:59):
uh well, pam bondi got in.
I saw that, yeah.
And then Kash Patel and Kennedygot out of committee, so now
it's the floor vote.

Speaker 2 (21:18):
Okay, so it's just Tulsi that we're waiting on then
.
Yes, okay, from the big sort ofwell-known people.
Yeah, I mean there's been a tonof others and a lot of minor
functionaries, if you will, butyeah, yeah, I know that they
have their official little graphthat shows, of the 26, or
whatever, who's in who is not in.

(21:40):
Yeah, but I haven't seen thelatest updates on it, I guess,
by the way, did you realize.
Well, maybe you didn't, but wehit 80 degrees yesterday we've
been above 80 a couple timeshere yeah, that's uh, yeah, so

(22:02):
if you've been watching the guntube um pam bondy everyone's
getting very nervous aboutbecause she's historically been
red flag laws, all sorts ofstuff, yep, red flag laws.
her first actions with the atfis to say that we need to hire
more people, so we need a strongATF director in there that will

(22:30):
be able to convince Trump toput a muzzle on her, because
otherwise we're going to have aRepublican administration that
is good for saving money and abunch of other things and it's
going to be horrible for guns.

Speaker 1 (22:53):
We will hold her feet to the fire is all I will say.
Well, I mean, I don't know whatthat means.
Not let her be horrible on guns.
She's just the attorney general, it's not like she's the atf
director or anybody else.

Speaker 2 (23:01):
So um, yeah, well, she's directing the atf right
now sure and we'll see.

Speaker 1 (23:09):
And now the executive orders that trump has signed
recently on you know the atfspecifically, I think, are
positive.
Uh, one, one of the things thatsomeone put out there on
twitter that I thought wasactually a really good idea and
I I just sent you the Trumpnomination.

Speaker 2 (23:26):
Okay cool.

Speaker 1 (23:27):
Um, so one of the things that, uh, the person on
Twitter was encouraging MikeJohnson to do and I think this
is a brilliant idea is justbring every executive order as a
one page bill to the housefloor and have them vote on it
so that it would be codified inlaw and not be able to be just

(23:49):
overwritten.
So even if we got, let's say,30% of these executive orders
that he's citing in codified inlaw, that would be huge.

Speaker 2 (24:01):
That would.
Yeah, I mean, I guess itdepends on which one, because
some of them doesn't matter ifit's a law, because it's so
completely 100 within purview ofthe president anyway well,
except that then the nextpresident couldn't just change
that directive uh, okay, I seewhat you're saying.
Yeah, yeah, the entire pointhere is by.

Speaker 1 (24:24):
If the House passes it, Senate passes it, President
signs it, it becomes law.
Then to change it, you have todo that again, which is a much
harder task than just the strokeof a pen and you know the pen
on the cell phone, as Obama had.

Speaker 2 (24:41):
The problem with that is that the assuming history
repeats itself, which usuallydoes, and the second half of
trump's term there is nomajority in either the house or
the senate, because the otherparty always gains seats in

(25:01):
midterms.

Speaker 1 (25:03):
In that scenario, I guess they still wouldn't have
enough to overrule him Well,they would have to have a
veto-proof majority and that'sjust not going to happen.
Yeah, they'd have to have aveto-proof majority.

Speaker 3 (25:18):
Yeah it gets to be worth doing?

Speaker 2 (25:21):
I don't know.
I think the days of massiveamounts of executive orders
flip-flopping is like the jeansbeing let out of the bottle.
The next democrat presidentwill absolutely cancel with a
single executive order, allprevious executive orders of the
previous president.
Like this is going to be anormal thing now that as soon as

(25:43):
four years are up or eightyears depending that all
previous executive orders,regardless of what they were for
, get canceled.

Speaker 1 (26:00):
And I don't think that too broad in in their scope
because I mean you could havesomething pretty impactful
getting shifted back and forthevery four years, theoretically
under that, and that's thelessons got to be learned by the
voters man well, you know I, Ihope it is yeah, because that's

(26:21):
the thing is.

Speaker 2 (26:24):
the tax code is about 28 times bigger now than it was
in 1988.
It's grown tremendously sincethe 80s and it wasn't that small
in the 80s, mind you.
But if you look at all of USC,all the laws that have been

(26:44):
added on, it's growing at anexponential, at a logarithmic
rate.
It's a craziness man.
People can't comply with allthe laws that currently exist.
No, I mean the statistics havebeen out there for a while and
I'm sure it's not even up todate that the average person

(27:06):
commits multiple felonies a daywithout even knowing it Right
this is something that wouldhave to be passed by the house
and Senate into law is to put aan expiration law for federal

(27:33):
laws Like they have to have moreaccountability than somebody
passed something in 1967.
That's now going to affect thelives of people for the next
hundred years, even though therationale for passing it doesn't
exist.
Like that is just retarded.
There's no better word for it.

(27:54):
That is a retarded way ofthinking that a politician who
may have only been in office fora few years, maybe longer,
managed to get something passedbased on events and criteria
that happened that year, whichhas been around for 80 years now
and affecting people negatively.

(28:15):
It's ridiculous and I'm notsaying that about one particular
law.
There are thousands andthousands of laws that have been
created like that as a resultof some singular event that
captured the imagination of thecountry Enough for politicians
to say, oh, we got to dosomething about that.
Oh, we can't have a tractorcompany be able to compete with

(28:43):
John Deere, we have to havethese tariffs in.
And now we've had tariffs for70 years on tractors.
It's like it's retarded.
Nothing should last anexcessive amount of time and I
think 10 years is a goodbeginning.
For how long a maximum amountof time something could last
Doesn't mean those laws can'tget re-upped, right it's still

(29:05):
up to the politicians For anadditional 10 years immediately,
yeah, but they could do itindefinitely, but they would
have to have a vote on it.
They couldn't just leave italone and not touch it.
If everything had an expirationperiod and I'm just using a
decade as a simple example atthe very least that means a

(29:25):
slightly different set ofcongressmen would have to vote
on it.
You know and mostly the samesenators probably, but still
it's it would.
It would force them to makethose evaluations, and something
that was passed in the 80s,looked through the lens of 2020s

(29:48):
, may be seen as well.
No, this is actually not whatwe want.
This is not what ourconstituents would be for.
But if you never have thatexpiration, then you're kind of
hoping that the politicians aregoing to take this on themselves

(30:12):
and then actually make a newlaw from scratch that reverses
some old law, and that happensvery rarely.

Speaker 1 (30:20):
Yeah, I am fine.
I completely agree with youthat we should have expiration
dates on our laws and that theyshould be re-upped.
But the reality is is reallyjury nullification.
So anytime a law is being triedand it's a crap law that

(30:52):
shouldn't exist, the jury hasthe ability to override it, and
they should know what theconstitutionality of a blanket
bill saying.
All bills previous to this arehereby amended to have that
expiration.

Speaker 2 (31:10):
Well, they can do that well, I don't see a problem
constitutionally with that well, except the.

Speaker 1 (31:16):
The issue would then be then you would have all the
laws that are over 10 years old,let's say have to come up for
immediate re-ratification wellthe way you would do it,
obviously to avoid that and youhave to put something in the
your original law sayingcongress has to vote on each
bill individually, otherwisewhat they're going to do is just

(31:36):
like an omnibus reauthorization, totally I, I.

Speaker 2 (31:40):
But again, even an omnibus authorization every
decade is better than what wehave today, which is laws on the
books that nobody wants.
But they don't rise high enoughin interest level to be voted on
, to be canceled individually,because it's so simple for them.

(32:04):
If they, if we had expirationson laws, if the there's a
general realization of like, oh,our constituents ridden me,
didn't like that, all they haveto do is literally do nothing,
do not have a vote on it and itgoes away and it gives you a
pressure point every 10 years toapply to a Congress critter by

(32:26):
saying hey, you're voting forthis.

Speaker 1 (32:30):
Why are you voting for this?

Speaker 3 (32:31):
This is a dumb law.

Speaker 1 (32:32):
Yeah, I don't, I don't dislike it.

Speaker 2 (32:36):
I think it's a good idea.
Yes, there's some challenges,since we have so many previous
laws, but I think there would bea way to do it and you could do
it by decades.
You don't have to say that youknow everything becomes null and
void tomorrow until and then webetter hurry up and vote on it
the next 24 hours.
You could spread it out overthe course of the first decade,

(32:57):
literally, where you say alllaws, uh, that were enacted in
years, starting with a one, theybecome null and void in the
next decade's first year.
So effectively you could granteverything a 10-year lifespan

(33:18):
retroactively, and that 10 yearsstarts at the passage of the
bill and now it's going to be inforce for the next decade, but
then it'll expire after a decade.
That gives them plenty of timeto figure out what they want to
keep and what they don't want tokeep.
But right now there's zeroincentive for any politician to
go back and start looking at oldlaw and start to figure out

(33:43):
what to cancel.

Speaker 1 (33:44):
I don't know if I agree that it's zero, but it's a
pretty small number.
I will agree with you there.

Speaker 2 (33:51):
you know what?
Remember?
The politician's goal for allof them is to just get
re-elected.
So they're going to do whateverthey need to do to get
re-elected, and generally thatmeans sticking your finger in
the air, catching to see whichway the wind's going and then,
um you know, coming up with uh,uh, with votes that coincide

(34:17):
with the way the wind's blowing.
So, yeah you.
This is why we have so manylike the Lake and Riley Act.
I think it was probably a goodthing, right, it's appropriate.
However, how many laws have wehad that have occurred as a
result of some person gettingkilled?

(34:39):
Probably over a thousand, right?

Speaker 1 (34:44):
I don't know the number, but it would be a high
number.

Speaker 2 (34:46):
It's the it's the reactionary exact reactionary
view yeah, it's it, that isexactly it, instead of going
through and saying, well, whatlaws could have prevented this?
That are already in the booksand weren't followed, which I
guarantee you, they exist.
It's just no one cares or knowsabout them, so let's pass a new

(35:07):
one, okay?
So I, I don't know.

Speaker 1 (35:12):
I, I always felt like you're not, you're not, uh,
you're not shocking me heresaying something that I think is
absurd.

Speaker 2 (35:19):
So there you go.
I think it's a good idea.
I, I've, you know, I've.
I've been frustrated a lotabout politics because to me
there are solutions, and I'mvery happy in the current
administration because of ElonMusk, because I'm finally
starting to see some of thesolutions enacted.
But for too damn long theinertia has been winning.

(35:43):
This monolithic government hasgrown.
I remember this Literally.
When I ran for Minnesota House,I had as one of my campaign
items this idea that when wewere young the top employers in

(36:06):
Minnesota were 3M blah, blah,blah.
I don't remember what they areanymore Blah, blah, blah and
blah, blah blah.
Today, the top employers inMinnesota are the state
government, the federalgovernment and the University of
Minnesota.
Those were the top threeemployers when did I run 1994.

(36:27):
Of minnesota, those were thetop three employers.
When did I run 1994?
well, 30 years ago that was thecase.

Speaker 1 (36:33):
It's only gotten worse so, when we look at the
overall numbers of employees thefederal government you and I
were doing this the other daythe federal government, when you
count the military, issomething like six, a little
over six million people betweensomewhere in there.
Um, the largest employer in theunited states other than the

(36:57):
federal government is walmart at1.2 million, like the the.
Anyone who sees this assustainable is just I don't.
I don't know what to saybecause this is how rome?
absolutely not uh, yes, and youknow, right now everybody's like
, well, you know the the amountof money being cut by doge and

(37:21):
these efforts is, uh, prettyminuscule right now, and so on.
And to that I say, to an extent, yes, you're right, but let's
look at this in aggregate andthis is just getting started,
and scratching this itch now isa good start.
We'll see where it goes.

(37:42):
If this is where it ends, I willbe very disappointed If this is
where it ends, I will be verydisappointed, but the fact that
we are already seeing steps toresolve this and move the needle
in any way, shape or form ishuge.

Speaker 3 (38:04):
Doge.

Speaker 2 (38:06):
I agree, I don't care who does it A Doge is doing it,
which is great but ultimatelythe key here is to remove jobs,
not to just find wastefulspending.
Wasteful spending is good tofind, but any job that they can
remove is a savings for the nexthundred years.

(38:29):
Because you know for a fact, ifthose wasn't here, if this
wasn't happening today, therewould be some person in that job
for the next hundred years.
Like no federal jobs have everdisappeared, they've.
Some of them have certainlybeen temporarily, temporarily,
uh, gone and then came back.

(38:50):
But when, when the federalgovernment, historically, has
created a position, thatposition will now be a position
forever.
And the government only grows,it never shrinks.
And um, did you read, by chance, uh, john c dwork's article on

(39:10):
taxes?
I reposted it.
No, I didn't.
Yeah, you never read x um, Iread x.
It's just you and other peoplepost a ton and there's only so
much time in a day I limitmyself to no more than 125 posts
a day, uh-huh, so it's not thathard to skim through, anyway.

(39:30):
So John wrote a great article.
John really is a great writerand this is not a surprise to
anyone.
I've literally been readingJohn since I was a little kid.
He has always had a very goodflair with words, had a very

(39:52):
good flair with words.
Um, he was like back literallywhen I was a you know, a
teenager.
I was getting mac user magazineand the back page of the mac
user magazine was john.
So he had basically it's thepage opposite the back cover.
I don't know what that page iscalled, but it's basically the
last thing in the magazine.
And then you have an ad on theinside of the back cover and

(40:14):
then you have the, the actualback of the magazine and so I
always flipped to read thatfirst because he was the, he was
the contrarian, he.
He was the guy in the Macmagazine that always bitched
about the Macs and talks abouthow PCs are better.
It was hilarious, it was verywell written and you'd have to

(40:38):
nod your head and you know, givehim a, you'd have to agree to
some extent with them, right?
You have to say, well, yes, hehas a point, but you shouldn't
necessarily get rid of your Macfor that.
But you know so he he was, uh,well-versed back then when he

(40:59):
was younger, and he's certainlystill is today.
And so the article he waswriting about the um, the IRS
and taxes, income taxes andspecifically, and making the
argument that income taxes havealways been driven by war and

(41:22):
because it's really a war tax,this is what, why you're taxing
income.

Speaker 1 (41:25):
I don't know that I agree with that, Philippe.

Speaker 2 (41:27):
You need to read the article, and so he starts back
in the 1700s and that this hascreated a cycle for the US to
where the US has to be alwaysinvolved in some kind of
military actions abroad, andthat is always a justification

(41:49):
for the income tax.
So, uh yeah, read the article,see what you think I agree with
him.

Speaker 1 (41:55):
I'll open it up and read it.

Speaker 2 (41:57):
Yeah Well, don't do it during the recording.

Speaker 1 (42:00):
Well, just send it to me on signal and I'll get to it
.
I it or not, I actually look atyour signal pretty often I read
most of the stuff you send me.

Speaker 2 (42:22):
What do you mean most ?

Speaker 1 (42:25):
No, most.
There's only so much time in aday and you send me like five
videos a day and I listen at 1x,not whatever you listen to oh,
you poor boy.

Speaker 3 (42:38):
1x.

Speaker 2 (42:38):
As a result, I have the podcast I want to listen to
and, yeah, yeah well, YouTubenow lets you listen or watch
videos at 2x, which is great umwhy would you want to do that?
Because you, you, because yourbrain is capable of it, and why
would you slow yourself down?

Speaker 1 (43:03):
because pacing and how someone is communicating
matters.
So as I say this sentence, I ampacing it in certain ways to
show you my frustration Likemolasses.
Yeah, and when you've okay.

Speaker 2 (43:17):
Pacing stays dude, it's just everything's twice as
fast.
That's all Uh-huh, uh-huh, it'sall good, it's all good.
Anyway, uh, read his article,see what you think.
I'm curious.
If you do end up disagreeingwith him, definitely let's chat
about it, because I'd be curious, uh, to see what your thoughts
on there were.
But anyway, there's two, twothings I I like reading john's

(43:42):
articles and I always make surethat I post, because I don't
know if he posts him on X.

Speaker 1 (43:47):
Frankly, but I always he has been, so he's been
posting a few things on X.

Speaker 2 (43:52):
I saw he retweeted the last one, that that I last,
when I potted, he posted, heretweeted, so I don't know if he
is posting himself well, someof it is.

Speaker 1 (44:02):
he is like he put his treatise on land man up there,
which is a show I still haven'twatched, so I have have very
little opinion on it, but youknow.

Speaker 2 (44:11):
And then, of course, if I have pictures of puppies
and kittens, I send those to himtoo.

Speaker 1 (44:16):
For use in the newsletter.
Indeed, All right, man.
So we've got this massivetakedown of USAID, which people
are flipping out.
Takedown of USAID, which peopleare flipping out.
And now really the news mediabeing exposed for selling these
premium subscriptions to youknow Us Right To the American

(44:37):
public.

Speaker 3 (44:38):
To the.

Speaker 1 (44:38):
American public.
Yeah, was it secret, I meansome of this is just not.

Speaker 2 (44:47):
Did you know that the New York Times had a $36,000
subscription?
I did not.

Speaker 1 (44:53):
I totally didn't.
I did not, but what I would sayis okay, you know, seems to me
that this is rather well knownand has been there for a while
Now Politico.
The interesting thing was whenthat got canceled, apparently

(45:14):
they couldn't make their payroll.
That's a significant thing Nowwas it that they couldn't make
their payroll, or was it just aglitch that happened very
serendipitously?
I don't know what to believethere.

Speaker 2 (45:29):
Well for Politico it's interesting.
But what's more interesting tome is that the BBC receives 8%
of its overall funding fromUSAID.

Speaker 1 (45:41):
It's their charity arm.
It's not the actual BBC.

Speaker 2 (45:45):
Well, the BBC, it's a different organization.
Are you sure about that?

Speaker 1 (45:52):
yes, it is a subsidiary, charitably funded uh
thing for work outside ofbritain and so on, is not the
official bbc okay so but yes,they were still receiving a
retarded amount of income fromthat.

Speaker 2 (46:05):
Yeah, 8% of their annual budget.
It's insane and, incidentally,the Brits are not happy about
this.

Speaker 3 (46:17):
Okay, good, good.

Speaker 1 (46:21):
Let them be.
Yeah, they shouldn't be.
This is all building to acrescendo a the the us federal
aid.

Speaker 2 (46:32):
So we basically stopped all foreign aid, right
and now marco rubio and team aregoing back through and granting
waivers for certain programs atleast temporarily and can I go
on record and just say that Ithink the uh funding should have
been stopped for every countrywith zero exceptions good I

(46:58):
there's no reason for egypt tobe getting money or israel oh
yeah, but egypt, israel?
Well, of course you'd say thatwe know, we know all about how
you look at the jews oh god,yeah, yeah you have a video of
of what you have nothing of thatguy that started a podcast that

(47:21):
I sent to you.

Speaker 1 (47:22):
Yes, that has nothing to do with me.

Speaker 2 (47:26):
Well, that is the name of the last episode of
Unrelenting.
By the way, in case you didn'tsee, yeah, I listened to it last
night Fishing with Hitler.

Speaker 1 (47:35):
I made sure and listened to that episode because
I knew shit would come up today.
So here we are, yeah, and Ithink y'all are overblowing the
fight with CSB just a little toomuch.

Speaker 2 (47:49):
I have no fight with CSB.
I'm just a bystander sittingthere laughing cordially.
Okay, look, both of those guyshave hot tempers.

Speaker 3 (48:03):
You think?

Speaker 2 (48:04):
I don't you know, when I, when I uh blocked csb, I
did it because he was justannoying the crap out of me with
insults about the russian war,allegedly uh, there's no war
there, it's just specialmilitary operation.
And uh, I'm like I just don'tneed to listen to this.
It's not that I hated csb, Ijust I just didn't need to

(48:25):
listen to him, that's all that.
I hated csv, I just didn't needto listen to him, that's all
well, I, I think, uh, you knowthe feud.

Speaker 1 (48:33):
Here's what it comes down to.
Csv appreciate your support,everything you do for us, thank
you.
But you know we don't readnotes on this show for donations
.
What we do is if someone sendsus a note and we want to say
something about it we will saysomething about it.

Speaker 2 (48:50):
Yeah, even if that note has no money attached.

Speaker 1 (48:53):
Right, that's not going to change.
So it doesn't matter if yousend us a ton of money, it
doesn't matter if you send us nomoney, if we find it
interesting, we'll say somethingabout it.
Otherwise we're just not goingto yeah.

Speaker 2 (49:11):
And I it, otherwise we're just not going to.
Yeah and but and I think that'sfair.
Yeah, yeah, but but also I kindof explained the whole thing is
csb.
I guess he is technically mad,even though he, you know like he
talks to me.
He's sending messages on aregular basis, but he is mad at
me for calling him a racist or,as he says, the r word.
So apparently racist is a word,kind of like the other words,

(49:32):
that you can't pronounce becauseyou'll get banned in wherever
he lives.
But here we can say racistwithout any uh issues.
But it's like I explained onthat show, it's like dude ben's
a racist you know, I have noproblem saying I am not a racist
, totally a racist.
There's no two ways about it.
Everybody that listens to ourshow knows ben's a racist, so I

(49:54):
don't see a problem.
I don't see a problem with whyyou would be offended with being
a racist.
You know, I don't care.
Just because ben's a racistdoesn't mean that I'm not gonna
do a show with him.
I like him, he's a good guy forbeing a racist go ahead yeah,
uh-huh, yeah.

Speaker 1 (50:14):
What can I say here?
I I I disagree that I'm aracist.
Yes, I disagree with.
Well, you'd be wrong.

Speaker 2 (50:24):
But okay.

Speaker 1 (50:44):
Okay, well, anyway, I am not a racist, but I
definitely think that we havechosen several things poorly as
far as how we have progressed asa society.
But that has nothing to do withrace.
Like I judge anyone's race, Ijudge their individual character
and one of the things I wouldsay is that we have long let
individual characters slip, andthat is a problem yeah, yeah,
and the the distinction there issimply in making decisions

(51:09):
based on race instead of otherfactors.

Speaker 2 (51:12):
That, to me, is what makes somebody a racist Right.

Speaker 1 (51:16):
Or makes actions racist.
It's like oh, what decisionshave I ever made that are based
on someone's race?

Speaker 2 (51:23):
Well, look, I don't want to insinuate anything here.
You don't want to back up'twant to insinuate anything here.
You don't want to back up whatyou're claiming at all I'm just
saying that if anyone wants tolisten to our podcast, they can
make their own decisions.
See, I'm all for freedom ofchoice for people like that, um
our whole catalog is available.
Our whole back uh, two years ofepisodes is up there available

(51:47):
for the public.
Make your own decisions, but Ijust don't think it's a bad
thing.
It's my point, like it's not acondemnation, to say that ben's
a racist.
It's just different than havingyou know like if you have a, an

(52:12):
opinion of something, forgetabout people of a technology
based on the country of originof that technology.
Are you a racist?

Speaker 3 (52:27):
Like, do you think?

Speaker 2 (52:28):
Chinese stuff is as good as some other countries'
products.

Speaker 1 (52:33):
I think you can't be, and I'll tell you why.
With very few exceptions, Chinabeing one of them, there are no
mono-ethnic countries anymore.
So how can you be a racist whena country no longer represents
a race?

Speaker 2 (52:55):
Yeah, and that goes to another point, You're
absolutely right, because theterm racist isn't necessarily
applicable, in its moderncontext, to a race.
Literally, it's a joke anyway,because the human race is the
race Like whether you're Asianor white or black.

(53:20):
Those three are not racesscientifically speaking.
The only one that's an actualrace is is homo sapien, and all
three of them are homo sapien,so racism doesn't actually mean
something about race it has todo with.

Speaker 1 (53:41):
I mean, this is being very pedantic, it is absolutely
colloquial.
Meaning is very well, that'swhat I'm getting to.

Speaker 2 (53:47):
So the colloquial meaning is really more
countryist or regionalist, ifyou want to be accurate about it
.
So racist is a uh, anassumption that you're making
based on location of something,right, okay, well, I, I think

(54:10):
that kind of generally falls.
So there's a rationale fordoing that, and that is you tend
to, as a human, generalizeabout things you're less
familiar with.
If you're more familiar withthe country you live in, you can
generalize in a smaller groupand you can say that Oklahoma

(54:33):
sucks.
Texas is great Right, it'sstill regional, but it's like
you're more aware ofsurroundings that are closer to
you and the choices that peoplemake in each locale.
But the further out you go,like halfway around the world,

(54:56):
and you know you don't say that,um, I don't know that hong kong
is great, but shenzhen ishorrible, because most people
couldn't find them on the mapand they just look at them as
china okay, well

Speaker 3 (55:16):
you know, what I.

Speaker 2 (55:17):
Hong kong is not part of china, but anyway oh, I'm
sure next thing you're going totell us is that taiwan is not
part of china either.

Speaker 1 (55:25):
Correct and based off a treaty.
I would say that the UK needsto nut up and take Hong Kong
back.

Speaker 2 (55:31):
Oh yeah, Good luck on that one.

Speaker 1 (55:35):
Hey, I can be very pragmatic at times and say, hey,
this is what I think.

Speaker 3 (55:44):
We'll see.

Speaker 1 (55:47):
Anyway, what it comes down to is I don't think that
people would say what you'resaying and look well, no,
because it does racism in thecolloquial term uh, exist, yes,
is it?
Um, is it what the democrats,the left and a lot of people

(56:10):
would have us believe?
Uh, right now no, and thereason why I would say that is
because we're going a littleextreme here by saying um well,
what's your definition of racism?

Speaker 2 (56:26):
Cause it's obviously not mine, cause I just explained
mine and you're disagreeingwith it.

Speaker 1 (56:32):
Racism is the uh, the judgment of a person based off
of immutable characteristicsthat are associated with
specific genotypes.

Speaker 2 (56:45):
Okay.
So, now, there you go.
That's equally pedantic.
But what do you mean by that?

Speaker 1 (56:56):
So, for instance, you don't like people with X color
skin or X color hair or X coloreyes or from a certain region of
the world which is part of thedefinition you said.
But what I would say is youknow you have people who share
genetic characteristics spreadout all over across the world.

(57:17):
So I would say my definition isa little less specific than
yours.
I think that people often havereactions to people's immutable
physical characteristics overwhere they're actually from.

Speaker 2 (57:41):
Right.
Right that, for example, peoplewith red hair, regardless of
their country of origin, wouldbe perceived as negative because
they lack souls or they'reincredibly attractive, depending
on which way you fall.
Yes, yes, some people prefer asoulless person yes, that's true

(58:03):
but,

Speaker 1 (58:05):
in either way.
It's an irrational judgment notbased off of the individual,
and that's the problem with it.

Speaker 2 (58:11):
That's why I would judgment.

Speaker 1 (58:13):
It's a group judgment and that's my point and that's
why I don't like it or fall intothat or believe in it, because
I I believe the right level ofanalysis is always the
individual, not the group.

Speaker 3 (58:25):
Okay, all right so you would never this is not new
you would never say a country isa certain way.

Speaker 1 (58:32):
You would just say that there's certain people in
the country that are certain waywell, I would say that the
country may have policies oractions that the country is
taking, but that has nothing todo with the individuals in the
country it is what the countryis doing as a whole, as itself.
This is what they're doing and Ican judge that and I can say

(58:53):
you know, the US is doing this,russia is doing that, the
Americans are doing this, theRussians are doing that, and
that is the level of analysis isat the country level, but that
has very little bearing to myfeelings towards any individual
in that country, right?
If I can dislike what a countryis doing.

(59:15):
Go find a citizen that doesn'tlike it either and agree with
them and be okay.
Yeah yeah, hence why I'm not aracist.

Speaker 2 (59:24):
Yeah, yeah, well, people can decide on their own
looking in their back catalog.
But yeah, it's um.
I think that maybe there's adifference here is I think that
racism is absolutely normal andnatural, like every other method
of sorting that human brains dosure it's normal and natural to

(59:44):
be ignorant and not to applythe proper level of analysis.

Speaker 1 (59:48):
I agree that is incredibly normal proper level
of analysis.

Speaker 2 (59:53):
Uh, depending on the information available and racism
is part of that spectrum peoplewho are unlike you, that you
know less about, you're going tohave to generalize more on.
And the difference here is thatpeople on the other side

(01:00:13):
politically from you and I theyare more racist than you and I,
but their generalization is thatif that person has different
skin than them, they are betterthan them.

Speaker 1 (01:00:28):
Okay.

Speaker 2 (01:00:29):
Right, you see who I'm talking about here, like the
white women in California.
Sure Is that to them the bigdifferentiating factors can only
swing in one direction, whichis better than me, because
that's the story that they'vebeen sold and they've, they've
bought it hook, line and sinkerand uh, and so they're acting in

(01:00:53):
that way.
So I don't think like peoplethat would call themselves the
least racist.
I think are actually the mostracist because they they just
reverse the uh, the benefitanalysis, but they still view

(01:01:13):
through the lens of race okayright.
So I just I think that it's timeto uh make racism great equally
.
Yeah, exactly, make racismgreat.
That's a show title, isn'tthere?

Speaker 3 (01:01:30):
make racism great again.
No, it's time to do the samething with it no, it's time.

Speaker 2 (01:01:36):
Well, you didn't like fishing with hitler?
Now, that was a great show.
Title uh but I I think it's oneof those things where, uh, you
have to do the same thing thathas been done with the word nazi
, which is, take all the powerout of it, just make it
meaningless.
It means literally meansnothing anymore, and and I think

(01:01:59):
racism needs to be going inthat exact same direction.
It's, it's literally one ofthose things that I think you
and I can agree shouldn't beused as a sole criteria for for
anything.
But it is stupid to think thata a level of analysis where

(01:02:24):
other information is unavailableshould, how, somehow exclude
race.
Okay, like we should be able togeneralize.
This is how how human brainswork.
This is how probably otheranimal brains work too.

Speaker 1 (01:02:40):
And again, I'm not against generalizing, I'm
against generalizing at thewrong level of yes, I totally
agree.
You know the wrong level ofthought here if you will.
Yeah yeah, even lobsters havehierarchies in in theory, sure,

(01:03:04):
yeah, I guess in analysis.

Speaker 2 (01:03:09):
Um speaking of, have you?
Uh, you said you've beenreading jordan's new book.
I?

Speaker 1 (01:03:15):
have, I'm about halfway through it.
Um, I'm about halfway throughit.
I I would uh like to be movinga little faster, but you know,
you've got me watching this showand doing other things layman
on me, of course yeah, so it's.
It's definitely slowed me down alittle bit, but it's dense dude

(01:03:36):
, it really is and he's goingthrough and really enumerating a
lot of really good thoughts andhow biblical stories can relate
to modern society and theunderlying, the underlying um,

(01:03:57):
how do I put this?
The underlying psychology thatexists in our society, whether
we're cognizant of it or not.

Speaker 3 (01:04:08):
Mm-hmm.

Speaker 2 (01:04:13):
So yeah.

Speaker 1 (01:04:17):
Any earth-shattering ideas?
So far in there, nothing earthshattering, but definitely, uh,
some interesting stuff.

Speaker 2 (01:04:23):
I think it's reading and nodding your head and going,
yep, Makes sense, Uh no.

Speaker 1 (01:04:27):
I you know I don't necessarily do that, um, but
what I would say is it's I'm,I'm listening to it and then I'm
going back on the Kindle appand rereading the passage and
thinking about it.

Speaker 2 (01:04:39):
And so it's a slow process.
That's so much more work than Iwould be willing to do.
Okay, okay.

Speaker 1 (01:04:46):
Well, that's why we have you to do it.
This is.
I'm doing that because I thinkit's valuable.

Speaker 2 (01:04:53):
It is I'm not disparaging it, I'm just
basically trashing myself andsaying I'm too lazy and you're
taking it as somehow an insultto you.
What the fuck man?

Speaker 1 (01:05:04):
I'm not taking it yeah, no it's.
It's just, it's a lot of work,but it's a lot of dense material
.
So I would put this book upthere with maps of meaning on
the ideas, the structure and thedensity I mean, you said it was
pretty big too right yeah, it'sa fairly large book.
It's not Maps of Meaning big,but it's right up there.

Speaker 2 (01:05:24):
Okay, have you added it to your list of books Ben's
reading or recommends peopleread?
I haven't yet.

Speaker 1 (01:05:29):
I need to update the website.
I haven't done that in a while.

Speaker 3 (01:05:32):
Okay.

Speaker 1 (01:05:32):
But thank you for reminding me.

Speaker 2 (01:05:34):
Yeah, and then you can post on the X group with a
link to the website so peoplecan go check it out.

Speaker 1 (01:05:42):
I've got a lot of books to add to that actually,
but it's dense enough materialthat I think it's worth reading.
I think everybody's going toget something out of it the way
you would actually reading theBible.
I think everyone will getsomething out of reading the
Bible if they take their time todo it.

Speaker 2 (01:06:00):
Yep, yeah, especially numbers.
Will get something out ofreading the bible if they take
their time to do it.

Speaker 1 (01:06:06):
Yeah, especially numbers the most interesting
part of the bible, oh god, andfor those who don't know, for
those who haven't read the bibleyeah, it so, and so begat so
and so livedand-so many years.
And numbers is rough.

Speaker 2 (01:06:24):
Yeah, obviously I'm saying that sarcastically.
It's probably the most boringbook of the Bible.

Speaker 1 (01:06:31):
Yeah, but it's also not a bad thing.

Speaker 3 (01:06:35):
Mm-hmm.

Speaker 1 (01:06:38):
At least I don't think so.

Speaker 2 (01:06:42):
Boring doesn't mean bad.

Speaker 1 (01:06:45):
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Anyway.
I think there's a lot to besaid for going through and
actually reading the Bible, andthe level of analysis if you've
read the Bible that Jordan isbringing in this book is pretty
interesting.

Speaker 2 (01:06:58):
He's also going through multiple translations so
he's going through and sayingokay, translation here,
translation there, this isdifferent meanings, this is this
, this is that you know and thathas become more I will say uh,
from my observation has becomemore popular as a more
acceptable well, but morepopular, like it happens a lot

(01:07:20):
more, where people that haveconversations about biblical
meanings tend to referencemultiple translations.
Now, where uh, 20, 30, 40 yearsago it was all uh, the new
james, what's the?
What's the?
What's the cult NIV.

Speaker 1 (01:07:38):
New King James the.

Speaker 2 (01:07:39):
Living Bible, all that is where people have gone.

Speaker 1 (01:07:42):
I am personally much more.
I'm a King Jameser, and I knowthere's lots of people who will
sit there and say, oh well, canyou really understand that
language?

Speaker 2 (01:07:52):
Yes.

Speaker 1 (01:07:53):
I grew up reading that I liked it, that I you know
.
I I liked it.
Uh, you know, I think thatthere's some very specific
things that are right in the uhking james that aren't in, like
the niv like everybody quotesthe scripture about love is
patient, love is kind.
well, in the king james it'scharity is patient and charity

(01:08:15):
is kind.
And if you go back and look atthe actual greek word, the word
that's being used for love therebecause there are four types of
love in the Greek language isagape, which is unconditional
love, and I think charity is abetter fit than the colloquial
love that people think.
I mean if you were thinkingabout unconditional love, you
wouldn't be reading that at yourwedding.
So I grew up with, when we weredoing Bible studies, we had

(01:08:40):
King James and then a Strong'sConcordance right there and we
would read a passage.
We'd think about what wethought it said and then we'd go
to the Strong's Concordance andactually look at the underlying
languages and really go throughand say, okay, what was
actually meant by this how wouldwe translate it today?

Speaker 2 (01:08:57):
When you were taking your Latin classes did you ever
use the Bible in Latin as one ofthe books?
Nope.

Speaker 1 (01:09:09):
Why no?
Because it just wasn't one.
None of the classes I took hada Latin Bible as part of it
Interesting.
Well, the Bible was neverwritten in latin, so it's a
translation.
So why would I be reading atrend like if I, if I were
reading greek or aramaic or youknow, hebrew you know going to

(01:09:29):
those original source languagesmakes more sense.

Speaker 2 (01:09:33):
But going to a translation in latin, why you
know I'm not cath, fair enough,but it was one of the earliest
translations.
It certainly predated Englishby millennia.
Okay, so it's an earlier sourcetranslation and for somebody

(01:09:56):
that's actually learning, Latin.
I would think that that wouldbe something that practically
could be used.

Speaker 1 (01:10:05):
What were?

Speaker 2 (01:10:05):
you reading, Because I've never taken Latin.
What were you reading?
Did they assign actual books toread?

Speaker 1 (01:10:12):
Yeah, in fact I've got some of them on my bookshelf
.
I'd have to go back and look atwhat all was on there on my
bookshelf.
I'd have to go back and look atwhat all was on there.
But shit, what was the Romanemperor who wrote his treatise,
marcus Aurelius?
Yeah, stuff like that.
Poems poetry is prettyinteresting in Latin, because

(01:10:33):
Latin doesn't have a enforcedorder.
So Latin is a more purelyconjugative language, so there's
a preferred order, but you cansay the words in any form you
want, which makes it very goodfor poetry yeah and this is why
russian's the same way, which iswhy there's a.

Speaker 2 (01:10:53):
There's a uh, commonly repeated phrase that
I've heard lots of times bypeople, but I think they're
saying it because it's cute tosay that, uh, if you really want
to feel shakespeare, you haveto read it in the original
russian, because, uh, it justsounds so much better than it

(01:11:14):
does in english.
Um and I think klingons kind ofstole that from russians as
well but, the.
The idea that a poem written inone language could actually be
better in a different languageseems counterintuitive.
But when you're going from alanguage where you do have order

(01:11:37):
of words to a language whereyou don't, it is actually
possible.
Or a different order yeah, well,different, you'd have to get
lucky right.
It could be worse or better.
But if you have a languagethat's more freeform, then it is
possible to actually improve onsomething that just wouldn't
linguistically work in theoriginal.

(01:11:58):
Like, original doesn't have tobe the best, it's always going
to be the original, but itdoesn't have to be the best.

Speaker 1 (01:12:14):
Eh well, anyway, what I'll say is language is an
interesting subject and it's funto play around with, but you
know, I I don't know that I'veever gotten to the point where I
could think in another languageuh at the right level to really
appreciate stuff the way I canin english.

Speaker 2 (01:12:38):
Yeah, and it's hard to do that without speaking
every day?

Speaker 1 (01:12:42):
Well, yes, and I'm someone who you know I've done
quite a bit of, you know,linguistic stuff, like I'm at
200 and some odd days ofpracticing Spanish in a row.

Speaker 2 (01:12:58):
And I'm, you know, I can.

Speaker 1 (01:12:59):
I've've been to Spain .
I can get by in conversation.
Does that make me fluent?
No, no.
And can I think in Spanish?
No, no, am I pretty quicklytranslating and swapping back
and forth?

Speaker 2 (01:13:13):
yes, but you know.

Speaker 1 (01:13:14):
Let's be honest about you.
Know where you're at.

Speaker 2 (01:13:19):
Yeah yeah.
And I think that there'sdefinitely a biological
component to languages wheresome people just have way less
effort involved in being able tolearn a brand new language and
converse very freely with it,regardless of how bad their
accent is, where other peoplewould take way longer and feel

(01:13:45):
way less fluent.
And again, the level of accentboth of these groups of people
have may be identical.
It's just some people seem tokind of connect with a new
language much quicker in theirheads and be able to transition

(01:14:06):
into using it, even if it's notperfect from other people that
are just translating words fromEnglish to the other language.

Speaker 1 (01:14:17):
So, now that we've bored everyone with our
linguistic talk, Mm-hmm.
What's next?
Well, so the push for Brandonas ATF director is not over.
Like Pam Bondi has said, shewants to see a cop in that
position and she got roasted forit.

(01:14:38):
Mm-hmm as she should yeah, and II think if, if pam and the
trump team want to really kindof think through and talk
through what they're doing andmaking sure that it's in line
with what the people want, thenthen you know, as a result, I

(01:15:01):
think that it would be great tosee someone like Brandon put in
there.

Speaker 2 (01:15:07):
Absolutely.
I would love him to be in there.
I just I don't know.
I really have never heard hisname come up even once by
anybody associated with Trumpcome up even once by anybody
associated with trump.
Not by musk, not by uh.
Well, really, anybody on x like.
The only people that areposting brandon are guys like

(01:15:30):
you and me that are not part ofthe millions of followers club.

Speaker 1 (01:15:37):
Uh no, I think I we've seen some pretty like who
oh god, you're gonna make me goback to twitter um do you not
have it open all the time?
Why would I do that to myself?

Speaker 2 (01:15:54):
how else are you gonna know?
I don't know, man for me itlike.
Obviously I'm a big fan of his.
I I gave him money when he wasrunning for office.
You did as well.
Um, he's semi-local here, he'sthe next city south of me.
Uh, I love his attitude.

(01:16:17):
I love the gum meme stuff likethere's so much good stuff about
him and I think he would figureout how to do that job and well
, but I just feel like you know,he is perceived as one of those
youtuber twitch type people, bypeople that are actually people

(01:16:44):
, by people that are actuallymaking the decisions on.
Yeah, so gun owners of americahave thrown his name out there.
Okay, um, I'm looking for whatwe need is yeah, so for gun
owners of america went out andsaid repeal the atf.

Speaker 1 (01:16:55):
We can do this abolish the ATF, and reposting
one of Brandon's videos on nothaving the video or killing it.
It was not as late as one.

Speaker 2 (01:17:06):
But what we?
What we need is to have Baronwatch some of his stuff and tell
his dad this is the guy we need.

Speaker 1 (01:17:14):
Exactly.
But anyway, I'm just sayingthere have been some fairly high
profile people out therepushing stuff.
The Libertarian Party haspushed in lots of things.

Speaker 2 (01:17:25):
The Libertarian Party .

Speaker 1 (01:17:27):
You know what We'll see?

Speaker 2 (01:17:33):
It's full of socialists now.

Speaker 3 (01:17:36):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (01:17:37):
I don't trust those guys now, yeah, I don't trust
those guys.
Yeah, you know, I, I don't know.
Man, I think chase, uh, oliverbeing nominated was a gift to
trump.
So you know, I don't know how?

Speaker 2 (01:17:49):
how is it better for him that the libertarians had a
different candidate than him?
How is that actually better forTrump?

Speaker 1 (01:17:56):
Because if they are not going to get through what
they need to get through to sayTrump is not only the Republican
nominee but the libertariannominee, which wasn't going to
happen because there are somevery deep anti-Trump voices in
the libertarian party.
Nominating someone like ChaseOliver is just

(01:18:19):
self-dest-destructive.

Speaker 2 (01:18:20):
I mean, it's just not going to fly.
It's not gonna work, so hey,cool I yeah I thought ron paul
wasn't libertarian enough whenhe was nominee back then.
You know, just think becauseremember I was pretty active in
the libertarian party, I waspretty active with objectivism

(01:18:40):
in general back in the early 90sand there was there was
definitely a rift between theintellectual Libertarian Party
that more closely alignedthemselves with Ayn Rand and the

(01:19:01):
other half of the libertarianparty, which tended to align
itself more with smoking pot.

Speaker 1 (01:19:10):
I mean I'm okay with both, whatever you want to do.

Speaker 2 (01:19:13):
Well, yeah, but the point is that the intellectual
side was okay with smoking pot,but they wouldn't smoke pot
because it made them dumb.
And the other side likedsmoking pot but hadn't read all
of Ayn Rand's work.
And so there was definitelythat rift happening.

Speaker 1 (01:19:34):
And then there's some of us that have done both.
So there you go.

Speaker 2 (01:19:39):
Well, and then there's some of us that just got
invited to go smoke a doobiejust the other day.
By who?
By my black friend.

Speaker 3 (01:19:52):
Oh okay.

Speaker 2 (01:19:54):
I mean not that I care about you know what color
friends I have, because I'm notracist, unlike some people Jesus
Christ.

Speaker 1 (01:20:04):
Oh my God, Gene.
All right, we got to have somemore topics here to cover.
Otherwise we're flopping aroundhere, Are we?

Speaker 2 (01:20:11):
flailing.

Speaker 3 (01:20:12):
Is that the phrase?
Yeah, yeah.

Speaker 2 (01:20:16):
Well, we haven't talked about video games for a
while.
I can chime in on that.
Um, well, we haven't talkedabout video games for a while.
I can chime in on that.
Uh, there's a new game thateverybody seems to be playing
that I wasn't originally goingto be all that interested in,
called kingdom come deliverance,which sounds very christian for
some reason.
Um, but, uh sorry, kingdom comedeliverance 2, not the first

(01:20:37):
one, this is the second one.
Okay, uh, but here's how Iwould describe it to somebody
that's at least somewhat awareof other video games is, if you
played red dead redemption,think of red redemption in the
1300s in europe.
If you haven't played red deadredemption, think of grand theft

(01:20:57):
auto 5 in the 1300s in europe.
And what if you haven't playedRed Dead Redemption?
Think of Grand Theft Auto 5 inthe 1300s in Europe.

Speaker 1 (01:21:02):
And what if you haven't played Grand Theft Auto
5?

Speaker 2 (01:21:05):
Then you probably are not an American and you're
pretending that you actually are, because everyone's played
Grand Theft Auto.

Speaker 1 (01:21:14):
I've played Grand Theft Auto, just not Grand Theft
Auto 5.

Speaker 2 (01:21:17):
Which one did you play?
4?
.

Speaker 1 (01:21:21):
Oh my god, I three like I.
I remember three was a horribleone.

Speaker 2 (01:21:26):
That was the new york one with the european dude.
Oh, I I'm trying to rememberthe best one, I think, was vice
city, which was two I playedvice city.
I'm trying to think of whatelse I played.
Gta V was oh actually, was it?
No, gta V was in California.
That was in LA.
And 6 is coming out this year.

(01:21:49):
They've been working on it fora decade.
Okay, yeah and.

Speaker 3 (01:21:57):
I'm not a big fan of Grand.

Speaker 1 (01:21:58):
Theft Auto.
I hate third person.

Speaker 3 (01:22:00):
I'm not a big fan of grand theft auto.

Speaker 1 (01:22:02):
I hate third person.
I did.
I'm not a quest guy, I'm.
I want to go in and shoot shit.

Speaker 2 (01:22:05):
That's it right, so grand theft auto.
You can shoot shit you don'thave to do be you have to be in
third person I think you canswitch to second person yeah,
yeah.

Speaker 1 (01:22:17):
And then there's you know, gary's Mod and all that
stuff that people did.
I remember that I don't know.
It's just not my game.
It's not my game.

Speaker 2 (01:22:27):
I get it.
I get it.
The thing, the difference andwhy I'm comparing it to Grand
Theft Auto and it's really thesame thing with Red Dead
Redemption 2, is it's really thesame thing with red dead
redemption too is it's aginormous map of an open world
where there are a lot of placesand areas where you're going to

(01:22:47):
interact with somebody.
They may sell shit, they maygive you a mission to go do.
They may fight you, they, theymight be wild animals, they
might be bandits.
They might be wild animals,they might be bandits, they
might be whatever.
But the point is I don't wantto say it's a totally nonlinear
game, but it's a less lineargame, and so the Kingdom Come

(01:23:10):
Deliverance 2 falls in that samecategory of a large map.
Do stuff however you want, butthere's still a storyline,
you're still progressing, butit's kind of up to you on how
quickly or slowly you do thatprogression of the storyline
while you're doing all thegeneral uh, you know, exploring

(01:23:33):
the map and doing side quests Ifyou want to do those, whatever
you want, want so anyway.
So I had a good friend of minewho actually used to listen to
this show.
I don't know if he still does,probably not right now because
he's playing the game, but, um,certainly somebody of a similar
like mind to you and I and um,in fact, I was going to have you

(01:23:54):
meet up with him, uh, last timeyou were out in dc.
But he is totally sucked intothis game now, and so he got me
to buy it and I'm, I have to say, a little frustrated with it
because I keep getting killed.
Um, so I'm not as into it as heis, um, but it's still.

(01:24:16):
It's still entertaining that.
This is one of the things thatthey have in this game that I
don't like is you can't justsave anytime you want to save.
The way that they did the savegame mechanic is you have to use
a potion and when you drinkthis potion, it saves your
progress.
But it also means either youhave to be buying these potions

(01:24:38):
or you have to be crafting thesepotions, or you have to be
crafting these potions if youwant to do saves, otherwise
that's actually kind of aninteresting dynamic, because
it's not even like I've gottento a certain stage or something
and you know we're good there.
That's I like it and it stilldoes the auto-saves.

(01:25:00):
At certain stages, like as thestoryline progresses and you do
things for the main story, it'lldo a save.
Also, if you lay down on yourown bed, it'll do a save, but
not just like rest somewhereelse while you're traveling, but
that's kind of an interestingaddition to the game dynamic I

(01:25:23):
agree that it's interesting.
I'm not enjoying it, that's allI'm saying.
Is it's frustrating because Iliterally lost like two hours of
crafting potions because Ineglected to do a manual save by
drinking one of those potionsafter crafting them and then
ended up stealing a piece ofcheese, which got me killed.

(01:25:47):
Well, don't steal a piece ofcheese apparently don't steal
cheese, because that's the worstpossible thing you can do in
this game.
And, uh, and I was, so I waslike god damn it, that's two
hours I just lost of craftingpotions man.
So, yeah, there is that, butit's a.
It's a neat game.
It looks pretty, it's goodgraphics, it is, uh, you know,

(01:26:10):
it's probably written in that,uh, king james language that you
like, so that all thecharacters speak with an accent
okay oh yeah, it's not that,it's even such a like thing.

Speaker 1 (01:26:25):
It's just what I grew up with.

Speaker 2 (01:26:27):
Yeah, that's fine, uh , and it it takes place in an
actual location so that, like,like, you can look at videos of
that city on YouTube or whateverand see the locations that are
in the game.
So it's historically recreatingin the old city in um, uh, it's

(01:26:51):
, it's not Romania, but it's oneof those countries East
European countries Okay, coolOne of them.
Things.
Trees, okay, cool one of themthings.
So, and of course, you knowyour character is a good guy,
which is also maybe why the gameis so harsh about stealing
cheese.

(01:27:11):
My characters tend to be moreambiguous the game has you as a
good guy, so therefore you'rebad but no, I no, I just I don't
see good and bad, I just see,uh, you know people and most
games I can walk that line, um,and I shouldn't say most games,

(01:27:35):
but games that have that type offreedom, you can, you can make
those decisions.
But some games kind of like,really punish you if you do bad
things, like stealing cheese,okay, and I am highlighting the
fact that it's cheese, because,god forbid, you do something
worse than steel cheese.
But you know, in my case I justfelt like I wanted some cheese

(01:27:59):
and so I there's you you feltlike you wanted some cheese in
real life, so in the video, game.
You did something stupid, okay Ihave no empathy for you here,
you know yes, I was too lazy towalk to the fridge I waste a lot
of time in my life too, but,yeah, on very different things I
get it, I get it and I I reallyI've had periods of my life

(01:28:23):
where I wasted more time, andthen I've had periods where I
wasted less time in video games,like um, between 2010 and 2017.
For about seven years I didn'tplay any video games at all and
then so that was basically fromthe point I got divorced until I

(01:28:46):
ended up dating a uh, a 20 yearold chick who was a uh streamer
on uh uh on Twitch, and she gotme back into video games, and
so from 17, not so like it'slast five years I've been
playing video games again.

Speaker 3 (01:29:08):
So I don't know, it's a hobby.

Speaker 2 (01:29:14):
I've had lots of different hobbies over the years
.

Speaker 1 (01:29:16):
I've had you know that's, that's for sure.

Speaker 2 (01:29:19):
I had.
Well, I technically still dohave lots of guns, but I've
spent a lot of money on gunsover the years.
Spent a lot of money onphotography over the years, used
to have a boat and a jet ski atthe same time.
Spent a lot of money on watertoys.
You know there's a lot ofthings that I've had as hobbies.
Video games, honestly honestlyare one of the cheapest hobbies

(01:29:47):
that you can have.

Speaker 1 (01:29:48):
Okay, just saying I mean there's a lot of cost in
video games, not to mention theamount of time and everything
else.
There's a time cost.

Speaker 2 (01:29:58):
But in terms of, uh yeah, cost, cost, money cost is
very slim, and I will say thatduring covid and also hardware
that you're purchasing.

Speaker 1 (01:30:07):
Yeah, but comparatively speaking.

Speaker 2 (01:30:10):
You know, like during covid, when interaction with
other humans became very limited, uh, the interaction with other
people playing video gamesonline increased a lot.
Sure, like everybody startedgetting on to Discord and like,
because it used to be just,you'd have to, like you know,
twist your friends arms to toget on Discord or team speak.

(01:30:34):
And during covid, like,everybody joined Discord all of
a sudden, and now it was.
You never had to even ask ifsomeone's on there.
They're obviously on there.
Uh, it's just a matter of, youknow, connecting yeah, covid
changed a lot of stuff there'sno

Speaker 1 (01:30:50):
doubt.
But you know, for the better,for the worse.
So we can argue that um.
So, while we're somewhattalking about technology, you
know you, you mentioned my nasstuff to darren on the other
show and like the reason why Iwas even looking at that qnap
was because I can literally takemy drives out of the current

(01:31:11):
nas pop them in there and itrebuild the raid and work but
what?

Speaker 2 (01:31:16):
so I wouldn't have to migrate the data?
What's the downside of keepingyour current NAS?

Speaker 1 (01:31:19):
Speed limitations.
It's old.

Speaker 2 (01:31:21):
Network speed or actual drive speed?

Speaker 1 (01:31:25):
The drive speed is sufficient that it can.
The two 1 gigabit connections.
They're not sufficient anymore.

Speaker 2 (01:31:34):
And yours doesn't have the port that Darren's has
to plug in the no, it does.

Speaker 1 (01:31:39):
I bought a 2.5 gig NIC and plugged it in Okay.
And tried to do a kernel mod toload the driver.
It sees it as a real tech card.
It sees everything.
It will not load the NIC driver.

Speaker 3 (01:31:52):
Oh, that sucks.

Speaker 1 (01:31:53):
So, since it won't load the NIC driver either, I
recompile the driver for thiskernel that this QNAP is using,
which I'm not effing doingbecause it's just a pain in the
ass, I'd have to extract thekernel.
Do VMs?
The version of Linux that isrunning on this QNAP is so
limited there is no way to dothe recompiling of the kernel on

(01:32:17):
the NAS itself, which makes itjust a pain in the ass to do.
Well, not the kernel, the driver, but regardless so I can't get
the 2.5 gig card working, whichis fine because the way I'm
about to wire my house and setit up, my docking station now
will have a 2.5 gig card and sowill my mini PC and they'll be

(01:32:38):
wired back in so and I've gotsome parts coming today actually
to hopefully work on that.
So we'll see.
Um, but the, the qnap one Isent you is kind of the cheapest
six bay option I found on that.

Speaker 2 (01:32:53):
Yeah, it's an arm processor.

Speaker 3 (01:32:56):
It's, I mean it's not a super mass to run a lot of
stuff.

Speaker 1 (01:33:00):
And you are making fun of the AI stuff.
I don't give a shit.
I will turn that off, not useit, right?
But, anyway, I get it the otheroption that is really
attractive to me is the UbiquitiUnify NAS.
Have you looked at that one?

Speaker 2 (01:33:16):
I think you sent it to me, I can't remember.
It's a seven bay rack mount.

Speaker 1 (01:33:21):
oh yeah, that's right for five hundred dollars yeah,
yeah and it can use whateverkind of drives you want to put
in there yeah um, it's got 10gig, it's got everything.
It would work with my unifieroh, I didn't notice that yeah,
that's actually probably one ofthe cheapest 10 gigs then.
Yes, exactly.
But, I would have to buy atleast enough hard drive to copy

(01:33:44):
all the data off the NAS movethe hard drives to that NAS and
then recopy the data to itwithout losing anything.
And that's just Sure.

Speaker 2 (01:33:52):
Well, it's not that much If you wanted to save money
.
Now, ideally you don't careabout the money, you just buy
all the drives, chuck them inthere.
If you want to save money, allyou need to do is buy two drives
.
Put two drives.
Copy two drives worth of shitfrom your old nas.
Take out one of those drivesfrom your nas, it'll go into
limp mode.

(01:34:12):
So now you have three drives inthat nas.

Speaker 1 (01:34:15):
Copy the rest of that shit over and then move the the
rest of the two drives over Idon't know why I wouldn't just
copy all the data to where Ineed to be, but the point is,
I'm going to use a slightly moreexpensive way to do it.

Speaker 2 (01:34:28):
But yeah, you can totally do that well, no, I can
get one.

Speaker 1 (01:34:30):
Let's see what.
What's my?

Speaker 2 (01:34:32):
well, how much?
How much data do you have?

Speaker 1 (01:34:34):
because that's what I was going to say.

Speaker 2 (01:34:36):
So, darren has way more than either you or me yeah,
yeah.

Speaker 1 (01:34:38):
Well, he's a hoarder by his own admission.

Speaker 2 (01:34:41):
He said that.

Speaker 1 (01:34:42):
So I I've got about eight, eight terabytes used on
my nas so you could literallyput in a single hard drive.
Yeah and exactly and well, andI, I would do it via usb though
an external drive copy over andthen be able to copy it back um,
which is fine.
You know, um, and I don'treally and I've got six

(01:35:02):
terabytes free on my nas rightnow, so I don't need to expand
this drive size or anything else.
The drives are currently notthe bottleneck.

Speaker 2 (01:35:12):
I've never looked their stuff.
Which one the uh, which one?

Speaker 1 (01:35:17):
The Unas, the Unify.
I haven't used their NAS at all, but I'm using their access
points in the Switch right nowand I run a Unify controller
locally on a Linux box.
In fact, when we're done withthis, if you want me to show you

(01:35:41):
the unified interface.

Speaker 2 (01:35:42):
I can no that's right .
The my only concern would be isit's got a single power input?

Speaker 1 (01:35:49):
yes, but what I would say is I have literally had the
nas that I have.
I'd have to go back and look atwhen it came out, but it's a
69659 Pro 2.
So it came out in like 2013,2014, something like that
Ridiculous right, like it's thatold of an ass.
And I have had to replace thepower supply on it once.

(01:36:12):
Yeah, and that's the only thing, knock on wood.
So far that's failed on thisNAS.

Speaker 3 (01:36:17):
Mm-hmm.

Speaker 1 (01:36:18):
So anyway, thing knock on wood.
So far that's failed on thisnas.

Speaker 2 (01:36:23):
So anyway, when I was primarily using it over wi-fi.
You know the speed perfectlyfine, yeah, yeah because the
wi-fi is the limitation, as I'vegone to 2.5 gig and I'm not a
bad device to get which one theunis, yeah, or the unify the
unify yeah, the unify nas isnice I.
I like the 10 gig uplink for500 bucks.
So what I was gonna say is Iwould totally get the m2 uh nas

(01:36:51):
device that we've both looked atlike six months ago.
The problem is the six-driveversion.

Speaker 1 (01:36:56):
Expensive or 7-drive.

Speaker 2 (01:36:58):
It's not expensive.
It's $499,.
Same price, but it's 7.

Speaker 1 (01:37:03):
M.2 drives.

Speaker 2 (01:37:05):
Yeah, the drives are expensive.
However, the 7-drive versionhas 2.5 gig.
If you want 10 gig, you have togo with the 12-drive version,
which is $1,000.

Speaker 1 (01:37:21):
Yeah, the.
Unifi NAS is a really goodoption for a lot of people.

Speaker 2 (01:37:22):
Yeah, in a lot of ways, and the fact that it's ray
or that it's uh uh shelfmountable is uh plus, not like I
don't have a shelf anymore, buta rack, but for a lot of people
you know, I have a plus.
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (01:37:37):
Yeah, no, it's a nice NAS and it even has direct
optical connection capabilitiesto your PC so you can run a
10-gig link from your PC to itand use it directly One of the

(01:37:57):
couple of things that weremissing.
That was interesting to me,because even my, like I said,
decade old nas that I'm usinghas ice guzzy.
The q-nap doesn't currently.

Speaker 2 (01:38:06):
Have you used ice guzzy?
Mine hasn't.

Speaker 1 (01:38:08):
I've never used it um , yes, actually I have you.
I have two q-nap nases in thehouse and the one that I have is
my main.
Six bay is older, but I haveanother four bay, that was rack
mountable and dual powersupplies and everything else,
and that one is um, that one hasum, uh, ice guzzy on it and

(01:38:33):
I've used it as a storage arrayfor VMs and stuff.
So, yes, yes, I've used so what?

Speaker 2 (01:38:41):
what are you using ice cozy for?

Speaker 1 (01:38:44):
um, so in esxi setting it up as an ice cozy
target so it can show up asnative storage, so that then I
can put a virtual hard drive onit for like backups to go to and
stuff like that but how's thatgoing to be any different than
just having be connected as anetwork?
Significantly because the ossees it as a hard drive versus
as an ass right.

Speaker 2 (01:39:05):
So where's that difference?
What was it come in?
What's it do?

Speaker 1 (01:39:10):
so if you have a proper sand built out, there's
speed improvements there'sthere's lots of things.
You can have multiple differentvirtual disks set up there
because the esxi is seeing as astorage pool and then you can
just do it that way, versus afile share you cannot use as a
storage pool.
So it's, it's a technicalunderlying thing with how vmware

(01:39:32):
has worked historically wellyou can't.
I've never used a virtual harddrive over samba, so um, so I
guess.

Speaker 2 (01:39:45):
So you're saying you could boot off the nas.

Speaker 1 (01:39:48):
Essentially you could just have the nas be your drive
yeah, if you were dumb enoughto put your vm booting off of
that, then yes, but it would bewhat you do.
Is you have it as a storagedrive for, like a backup server
or something like that, or youremail server, your database
server, where you don't need alot of fast IO but you just need
bulk storage?

(01:40:08):
And then you have your reallyfast drives in the actual server
itself.

Speaker 2 (01:40:21):
Yeah, I don't know.
I guess there is a usage for it.
I just have never needed it.

Speaker 1 (01:40:30):
To each their own.
I've used it, so yeah, thereyou go.
Alright, man, anything else weneed to cover?

Speaker 2 (01:40:39):
Well, I'm Let me think, is there any other?
I mean, it's just been non-stopannouncements after
announcements, non-stop winningnon-stop of uh on x, like just
you know um.
Oh, you got the message I sentyou about Demolition Ranch

(01:41:06):
shutting down.

Speaker 1 (01:41:07):
Yeah, we talked about that.
We went back and forth about it.

Speaker 2 (01:41:10):
But not on the show.

Speaker 3 (01:41:12):
Okay yeah, this literally happened this week.
It makes me sad.

Speaker 2 (01:41:16):
Yeah, yeah, it's the end of an era, that's for sure.
I bet he comes back you, yeah,I do, yeah, yeah, uh, well,
they're selling the ranch.
No, they're selling the um theresort yeah that's not the ranch
I thought it was the sameproperty.

Speaker 1 (01:41:37):
No, it's an adjacent property.

Speaker 2 (01:41:40):
Oh, okay.

Speaker 1 (01:41:41):
But you know, the gun range down there has not posted
new classes, which is because Iwas like, oh man, I need to go
take a class down there beforethey do this, and they're not
posting new classes.

Speaker 2 (01:41:54):
Yeah, and I get it.
I mean he kind of went throughabout his whole history of
getting on YouTube and yada,yada, yada and I've watched them
from pretty early.
I watched them when he I thinkwhen well for sure, when he was
still doing his veterinarychannel channel, but uh, I think

(01:42:24):
it was probably within sixmonths of him starting the gun
channel and it's been funwatching the evolution and he
was always kind of like to methe replacement for fps russia,
because he'd be doing wackythings, not your traditional
kind of gun reviews.
Much like FPS Russia would dowacky things like having dual

(01:42:53):
spaz 12s or a sawed off.
Sawed off 50 cal, or the latestone was the multiple thumpers
yep, now he had a lot, well, ora lot of military uh gear that
he was able to have access toand russia, or demo oh, fps

(01:43:16):
russia.
I'm talking, yeah, yeah, yeah,but yeah, I think and I don't
know, I I think it's obviouslyit's sad because we're losing a
major gun tuber regularlyputting up videos.
On the other hand, I completelyget it because for the last
probably probably two or threeyears, his income's probably

(01:43:39):
been cut by 75 percent.
Previous to that, he was makingmultiple millions per year off
youtube.
I don't know if it was twomillion or ten million, but he
was definitely making way morethan one million.
And, um, you know, at thispoint I think he wants to spend

(01:44:01):
more time with the family.
The kids are growing up, blah,blah, blah blah.
So it totally makes sense.

Speaker 1 (01:44:06):
Yeah well, well, you know, as someone who has kids,
it's, it's scary how fast theygrow up and if something, if I
had made that much money and Icould be financially independent
, uh, just stay It'd be hard notto right, I would yeah.

Speaker 3 (01:44:22):
Yeah, I would.

Speaker 1 (01:44:23):
Now I also think that there's a bit of a misnomer
here, because he's not actuallyretiring.
He's got to do something.
So you know he talked aboutmaybe building up the vet
practice again and stuff likethat.
I think he's going to dosomething.
I don't think he's just goingto quit.

Speaker 2 (01:44:45):
Now whether or not he puts that on youtube.

Speaker 1 (01:44:46):
That's a whole different story, but oh yeah, I
think that's just goes layaround on the couch in front of
you, yeah yeah, I don't.

Speaker 2 (01:44:49):
When I say retire, I don't mean retire from life, I
mean retire from youtube.
Yeah, I, I'm sure he'll.
He'll be doing other things.
He may get into new hobbies.
He may end up doing more shitwith brandon.
Frankly, we may see him as aguest on more brandon herrera
stuff as well, because they'rebuddies, uh, and they don't live
that far apart.
But, um, yeah, I think he'sjust the amount of effort that

(01:45:18):
it takes to do videos, andespecially more than once a week
.
It's substantial and it meansthat he does get less time with
his wife, he gets less time withhis kids, he gets less time
with other projects that may notbe interesting to YouTube.
So, I get it.

(01:45:39):
Yeah, we, we wish him well, andI would have loved to have been
out there.
I've missed two different timeswhere I've had an opportunity
to uh buy a ticket to get outthere, and I found out about
both of them after the events.

Speaker 1 (01:45:55):
So that sucks, but oh well well, you know, I I've
looked at uh doing classes outthere and things like that and I
would really like to see us.
You know, uh, I hope hecontinues that run that as a
side business.
He doesn't have to do it, hecan have someone else do it.
That's a neat range.

(01:46:16):
It's a neat thing.
I there, there's okay thingsthere, I agree.

Speaker 2 (01:46:21):
Well, let's wrap her up.
Ben Yep, gene, we'll see youall on the next one, boys.

Speaker 3 (01:46:28):
Later.

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Crime Junkie

24/7 News: The Latest

Stuff You Should Know

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

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}105 Just Two Good Old Boys

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}Crime Junkie

24/7 News: The Latest

Stuff You Should Know

All Episodes

105 Just Two Good Old Boys

Crime Junkie