Ep. 146 - The 'China Select Subcommittee, Cocaine Bear, and Cali's Failing Film Industry' Edition

The 'China Select Subcommittee, Cocaine Bear, and Cali's Failing Film Industry' Edition

Episode Transcript

(00:01):
This is the FCB Podcast Network.Okay, hey y'all, welcome back to

(00:25):
another episode of Marble Halls and SilverScreens. My name is Sarah Lee.
It is a beautiful Sunday in theSouth. I'm sitting here looking at tulips
in my face in front of mycomputer screen and a beautiful blue sky outside.
It's lovely out. So I believespring has sprung. So if you

(00:45):
were looking for reasons to feel optimistic, I know not everywhere and the country
has this yet, but here inthe South we are definitely. Definitely it
looks like we're moving into spring.Now. That doesn't mean we won't get
another cold snap that usually weapons inMarch, but the time of the year,
Lent is here, the time ofthe year for renewal. It's one

(01:07):
of my favorite times of year.So I hope it is for you too,
and I hope you can you canfind some reasons to be optimistic given
all the craziness that's going on outthere in the political landscape, which we
are about to talk about. Soon today's show, I'm going to talk
a little bit about the China,the Select Committee on China and it's threats

(01:33):
to national security. This happened inthe house. They had it at a
prime time hour, seven o'clock Ibelieve, on a Tuesday. So the
intent was to have the American peoplewatch it. So I watched all three
hours of it. Normally I wouldsay, you know, so you didn't
have to, but it actually wasincredibly revealing, and I cannot recommend that

(01:57):
every American watch all three hours ofit. If you can break it up,
it's on c SPAN. You don'thave to watch it all at once.
But we'll talk a little bit moreabout that in just a second.
I'm also going to give you mythoughts on the Rousing and Raucous Cocaine Bear.
There's been some debate about, youknow, since it's so funny and
it is, is it kid friendlyand it's not. So we'll talk a

(02:19):
little bit about that, and thenI want to talk about how Hollywood and
I'm going to relate this to tothe hearing on China, but maybe not
in the way that you think.I don't want to be too you know,
too stereotypical of the you know,of the conservative right, but it
is kind of interesting. There aresome parallels about something that California is actually

(02:43):
doing to the film industry. Again. That kind of reminds me of what's
going on in China. So sowe'll give all of that or ill first,
we're gonna hear quickly from our sponsors. But sit tight and we will
be back and we will jump rightin. Okay, hey, y'all,

(03:04):
we're back. All right, let'sjust jump in. So on, I
want to say Tuesday, the twentyeighth of February. I believe that's right.
So let me just make sure thatthat is correct, because I do
think that this isn't important enough hearingthat Americans should watch it, even if
it's not your thing. If youwant to know why what's happening around you

(03:29):
is happening, it's really kind ofincumbent upon you to go and watch this
stuff. The legislators. We liketo complain about legislators, but they are
doing the work. They are talkingabout it, and so you can't sit
there and complain about it if you'renot going to pay attention and you know,

(03:51):
find out what they're saying. Sothere was a Select Committee on China
hearing on US National Security on Arytwenty eighth. I believe that was a
Tuesday. I could be wrong,but I think it was Tuesday, And
like I said, they held itat seven o'clock at night. It was
three hours long. So the witnesses. There were two Trump administration officials on

(04:14):
hand. One of them was aformer National Security Advisor hr McMaster and former
Deputy National Security Advisor Matthew Pottinger.Though they were both extraordinarily knowledgeable on this
issue. They could give the historyof how long we have been sort of

(04:38):
trying to normalize relations with China,how they've taken advantage of us for doing
that, what the what they callcross border money flows look like, whether
or not the agencies and the andthe in the federal government need to start
coordinating their lists of companies that weshould out only UM as Americans not invest

(05:02):
with, but do business with.Should they be on sanctions? Should those
should the sanctions lists match the thebusinesses that are that are UM advised?
You know that Americans are advised againstworking with UM. They were incredibly informative.
There was also a woman, aChinese dissident and she's a Chinese human

(05:24):
rights activist activist named Tanyi UM andshe was an assistant to a very well
known UM political dissident from China,Um, and she could speak eloquently on
the protests in China and how Chinaresponded, and also obviously the history of

(05:45):
communism in China. Um. Shewas also imprisoned, I think for a
couple of years, so she canshe spoke personally about what the CCP,
the the communist regime in China islike. Um. There was also the
president of the Alliance for American Manufacturing, Scott Paul, and you can understand
why he was there. I mean, we've essentially outsourced our manufacturing, just

(06:08):
like we've We've got a proxy,sort of a proxy economy in China,
just like we have a proxy warin Ukraine. But that's probably I could
go on and on about that subject, this kind of proxy getting the current
United States as it currently exists,engaging in sort of these proxy things around

(06:34):
the world. Again, whether itbe in the economic space or in the
national security space, we're not doingour own work. We're outsourcing it,
we're offshoring it. So but that'ssomething that's been roiling around in my head
for a little while. I thinkabout writing about it, and then I'm
like, well, I don't thinki've fully developed the idea. So if

(06:57):
anybody out there listens to this andthings they might have a take on that
I would love to hear it.So the things that came out of this
three hour hearing, and again Icannot encourage everyone enough to listen to the
whole thing. Just put it onin the background. If you have a
job that you can do that with, put it on in your car while
you're commuting, if you're at lunchand you just want to sit outside and

(07:19):
enjoy the spring, listen to alittle bit of it. Then it's not
as doomsday maybe as it sounds itis in this hearing. This committee was
incredibly bipartisan. It sounds like bothsides of our political aisle are taking this
issue finally seriously. But the mainthemes that came out of it, I

(07:41):
actually took a few notes. Ialready kind of knew what they were and
what I expected sort of bore out, But then of course there was a
lot that I did not know.And by no means an expert on China.
I've done a little bit of studyingin some of my day job work,
primarily about funding. You know,the nonprofit sector, so you know

(08:03):
some of the financials, but someof the other particulars that came out in
this committee meeting were new to me. So one of the main and primary
themes that came out is that we'vedone this to ourselves. Now. I
don't know that anyone in this committeehearing would have phrased it exactly that way.

(08:24):
Some of them probably would, Acouple of the Republicans probably would have,
but the Democrats are less comfortable withthat kind of phrasing. But it's
the truth. We normalize relations withChina, you heard it in this committee.
We expected them to behave a certainway when we let them enter,
you know, the WTO And theyhave essentially done two things. They have

(08:48):
taken advantage of our sort of liberalismand they have taken advantage of capitalism.
So two of the pillars that arekind of propping up the West and Western
thought in Western ideology, certainly Westernpolitical ideology. And I don't mean liberalism
politically, I mean classic liberalism,A free society and open society, two

(09:15):
of the pillars of the West.They have absolutely used to for years and
years and years engage in a strategyof undermining and ultimately the word that was
used is replacing the United States economicallyand otherwise, so very very interesting hearing.

(09:35):
Those were the themes. Those werethe two main themes. Of course,
the irony or the paradox of usingdemocracy against itself and capitalism against itself
is that it sort of also shinesa very harsh light on what McMaster called
the brittle nature of authoritarianism. Sobecause they have to do everything in secret,

(10:01):
and you know, communism, ithas to rely on propaganda because no
one likes it. It's a terriblesystem. It has to squelch and put
down, you know, protests allthe time. It's it's sort of inherently
toxic in leadership. There's constant infighting. Um, they're not robust regimes.

(10:24):
McMaster's testimony written testimony. And Ican't remember the legislator who read some
of it, but you know thesehearings that the witnesses submit written testimony and
then the legislators basically essentially asked theirquestions based on the written testimony, and
he read some of McMasters. Oneof the legislators did, and McMasters said,

(10:45):
you know, he's optimistic that theycannot replace us, that they're not
able to economically and otherwise. Butas Pottinger said, the question isn't whether
they can do that. The questionis how much damage are they going to
do in seeking it. So,of course COVID came up. Pottinger was

(11:05):
quite diplomatic and saying he was askeddirectly if we if China was the cause
of the COVID pandemic, and hesaid, well, we know that they
were working on coronavirus research and withAmerican technology. Hint, hint, we're
working on chimeric viruses. So heanswered it without answering it really because you

(11:30):
know, the official word is notin about where this nasty little virus came
from. But again, I thinkwe're going to have to reckon with the
fact that we it's not our system. It's not democracy or you know,
our republic, or our capitalism,the embrace of capitalism. That's the problem.

(11:50):
It's that we were foolish and didn'tprotect those things. Okay, those
are my words that didn't come outof the hearing. That's just what was
going on in my head. You'regoing to hear a lot of people saying,
oh, it's you know, certainlyChina has been trying to convince everyone

(12:11):
that capitalism and democracy have been theproblem and that have led to their own
demise, and McMaster kept saying wewere underwriting our own demise. So certainly
greed, which people sometimes link inherentlywith capitalism, I don't think they're the
same thing. I think with anysystem there can be bad actors, so

(12:33):
certainly greed played a part in this. They witnesses spoke a lot about short
term gain versus long term consequences.There was some discussion about Blackrock. Obviously,
who has said, oh, investin China. That's the biggest asset
holder in the world, so thefinancial realities of the moves that China have

(12:56):
made. There was some discussion aboutthese index report which I don't know much
about, but that they had basicallybribed by withholding assets and things like that,
to these index managers to have Chinesecompanies included on the lists of good
businesses, to you know, goodbusinesses to invest in. That's the understanding

(13:18):
I have of it. I'm notsure I got that right, but but
I think I got that right.So again, we've done this to ourselves.
The optimism I think comes well,let me let me back off from
that and just say quickly, theonly part of this hearing that did seem
highly partisan and I was very proudof these legislators on both sides for keeping

(13:41):
that at a minimum. I thinkI think our country has finally accepted that
while we may not have been ina Cold war with China, they have
been in one with us. Sothat is now starting to be understood and
addressed. But there was an interestingand this is going to come into play
at the end of the podcast whenI talk about Hollywood. There was a

(14:03):
very sharp partisan distinction, I think, and how to address some of these
things, certainly as it relates tothe financials in Wall Street and that the
investment world and that kind of thing. The Democrats and their witness who basically
it looked like Scott Paul was theirguy, the Alliance for American Manufacturing,

(14:28):
they seem to think that the onlyway to address some of these problems was
with a free market response that washeavily backed up and partnered with government.
And when I heard that, allI could think was, that's how we

(14:48):
got here, That's why China isthe way it is. Their businesses can't
operate without being heavily partnered with government. And I was glad to hear one
of the Republican legislators later say thereis no we cannot answer what's going on
with the threat to China by becominglike China. So that was interesting.

(15:11):
That was the main partisan split thatI saw, But for the most part
is very collegial, and I thinkeveryone's pretty much on the same page that
we are facing an existential threat insome ways, even though there's reason to
believe that things are not far gone, too far gone. But the question
is how much damage will be doneto the financial markets and certainly to the

(15:37):
long suffering Chinese people, who Iam quite certain are and have been for
the last fifty years or so sickof communism, so as they should be.
You know, one need only lookat Russia to see what communism does
to a country. So Marxism.So so yeah, it's very very very

(16:00):
interesting committee hearing. Again, highlyencourage everyone to watch the entire thing.
A few more notes about the committeehearing that I made that I just sort
of jotted down that because I thoughtthey were interesting. You know, to

(16:21):
Tangye, who was the Chinese dissident, spoke a lot about reciprocity, and
she said, you know, ifChina won't allow journalists Western journalists, then
Western you know, countries need notallow their journalists either, they're propagandists.
If China won't allow um, youknow, technology companies to operate, then

(16:44):
the United States doesn't need to letTikTok work there so or here. So
she spoke a lot about that.I thought that was interesting. Someone asked
if this new sort of final unveilingof what China's ultimate goals are it's just
revealing how China has always been,or if this is a new direction for

(17:07):
them. It was pretty fairly obviousthat this is something that the signs were
always there. China has been hasbeen engaged in a very long, very
smart, long game, strategic plan, strategic effort to do this, and
so this isn't anything new. Thesigns have always been there, through G's

(17:30):
own words and through just their theirmoves, that this was always in the
end game. And it's interesting thatit's taken this long. And I do
think greed has played a role inthat. And I do think this need
to you know, as my boyfriendput it, when I asked him,
is it greed or this need tobe liked? And he said, it's

(17:51):
a need to be liked for greed, For you know to get the money.
And I was like, oh,so it's both and he said yes,
So I think that's an interesting takeas well. But one of the
things that really stuck out with me, and then I'll end it here,
as I mentioned, black Rock wasmentioned because they have recently said China's the

(18:11):
place to do business. I mean, that's the largest asset manager in the
world. If you've got things likethat happening, it's hard to convince,
you know, people down the financialchain that they need to decouple and sort
of divest from China. But theone phrase that will forever stick out with

(18:33):
me or for me on this committeehearing was the trip. I think it
was a Pottinger who said it isthat the Treasury Department has a lot of
explaining to do. And I'm goingto leave that there. I think if
you want to know more about that, you should go to see SPAN and
watch this watch this hearing, andif you don't want to watch the whole
thing, you can actually search inthe body of the transcript. I'm going

(18:57):
to do it right now and justso you can see that particular phrase comes
up within the transcript and it showsand it tells you where in the video
it is. I mean, ifyou don't use c span, you should.
And you can see where he saidthat and what he was referring to

(19:19):
that the Treasury Department has a lotof explaining to do. So to me,
that stuck out because that pretty muchexplains that we have been complicit in
our own struggle here. So pleasedo watch this hearing. As I said,
it's on c SPAN. You canjust type in c SPAN. You
can go to Google type in cSPAN, So let committee on China Hearing

(19:42):
and it will come right up foryou and you should watch it. Everyone
should. Okay, so let's goon to something that's maybe just as weird,
a little more violent, less collegial, but also funnier. Cocaine Bear.
Um. So this movie is,and let me just started off.

(20:07):
Is it's really violent? Okay,it's it's eighties slasher, but this that
the special effects are better, butit's intending to make you laugh. Um.
It's kind of like, what's themovie about the rednecks um who fight
evil? Um? Oh god,what's her name? I was Tucker and
Dale fight Evil or something like that, same kind of concept. It's a

(20:32):
slasher movie, only the bear isJason and he's hopped up on cocaine the
whole time. Now, Um,the plot of this film is that it
is not intended to be a deepthinking plot. It's slash her film.
It's intended to be slasher film.This is Elizabeth Banks, who, Um,

(20:53):
she's been in a ton of stuff, but she clearly has a good
sense of humor because she's great androle models. She's fantastic and what's the
uh what's the glee club? Maybepitch perfect? She's really funny in that.
I mean, she's clearly got anincredible sense of humor. So I

(21:15):
think she directed this. I wantto say it's the same Elizabeth Banks.
I saw her name and I can'timagine that it's not the same person.
But let me just clarify that foryou, so I don't make a fool
of myself. Yes, it's thesame Elizabeth Banks. So this is a
funny movie, like there's no wayaround it. I laughed really hard at

(21:36):
times. I also had to hidemy eyes and shield myself from the crazy
gore. The boyfriend was cracking upat the gore. Um, but I
was like, I cannot watch butit. But also it was really,
really really funny. And just youknow, there are two kids in it,
and so somebody on Twitter was like, I was gonna take my kids.

(21:56):
I was like, I don't advisethat at all, and I really
really really don't. There's no overratuitoussex or anything. This is just supposed
to smack you across the face ina very campy, over the top horror
film. It's based on a truestory. There was a bear in Georgia
that did get into some cocaine,and I believe the bear died, but

(22:19):
this one doesn't die. This one, Jess gets a taste for cocaine.
So I can't decide if I shouldtell you to see this. I think
if you are of a certain constitution, it would be fine for you.
It's I don't really like horror films, so I don't know that I would
ever watch this one again. Butpeople that are into that kind of genre,

(22:42):
you'll love it. It's really reallyfunny. There's a part of me
that thinks everyone should see this adults, just because it's such a weird and
you know, a sort of strangefilm, and the CGI and all of
that is really well done. There'sone part where the bear actually does a
line off of this guy's leg thathe just ripped off. Okay, like

(23:03):
it's that kind of thing. Um, So there's a part of me that's
like, yeah, this is shedid a really good job of coming up
with something new. Um. Andof course you know as a as a
Georgian, the kids accents were actuallybetter than the other guy's accents, although
I did hear one or two actualSouthern accents. Um. So yeah,

(23:29):
I mean if this, I'll saythis, this was a fun date movie.
Um, Dave and I had agreat time. We were laughing the
whole time. We were just likewhat did we just watch? So if
you're like I said, of acertain constitution, it's a really funny date
movie. Um. It's Rayleioda's lastfilm, so you know that's fairly interesting.

(23:56):
The guy that did that does thosehilarious YouTube videos where he's like,
you know, angry retail guy Ithink is what they're called. Um,
he's in it, and he's he'sgot a very small scene, but he
gets very graphically murdered. I don'tthink I'm giving anything away there. So

(24:18):
he's in it. That's kind ofinteresting. You know, Carrie Russell's in
it. My boyfriend David is avery big fan of the Americans, and
so both of them Americans. Thatthe couple, uh, Carrie Russell and
I want to say his name isMatthew Reyes. They're both in it,
even though albeit very briefly. Forthe guy Um. The last time I

(24:42):
saw Alden Aaron Reich Um, Ibelieve he was playing Um Solo in the
standalone Solo movie. I'm pretty surethat's the same actor, but let me
let me double check that too,because I'm I want to make sure,
yes, that was him. Soloa Star Wars story, and he was

(25:03):
great in that, and so itwas really good to see him in this
because I was really impressed with himand Solo. So there's a lot about
this movie to recommend it. MargotMartindale, who you've seen in a ton
of stuff, was also in this. There's a lot going on. There's
a lot to recommend, but you'vegot to know going in that this is
slasher gory. It's also hilarious andit's done really well. So the special

(25:29):
effects are going to make you go, oh my god. So yeah,
I don't know again, if you'reof a certain constitution or you're just looking
for a funny date night movie.You and you know your date very well,
because you do not want to takesomeone you barely know to this film.
It's it's pretty hardcore. This couldbe for you. I would not

(25:52):
take children, not even teenagers.I wouldn't take them. That's just me.
If they find it on their own, okay, but I would not
be responsible for taking kids anyway.Cocaine Bear it is new. It was
very funny. Again, I can'treally recommend the writing because it's not supposed
to be that. It's literally supposedto be just a hilarious horror film,

(26:15):
and it definitely achieved that goal.Okay, So finally, let me see
where we are on time here.Okay, yeah, we're not quite at
the thirty minute mark. So letme just speak briefly about something that popped
up on Twitter the other day,and I just wanted to tell you guys
about it because it does sort ofremind me of the China situation. This

(26:38):
is from an article that I willlink to Bounding into Comics as the name
of the website headline is California proposingproposes with holding new tax credits from Hollywood
productions unless they set ethnic, racial, and gender diversity goals and to develop
a plan to achieve them. Thiswriter says, while it may not be

(27:03):
illegal yet, California is taking itsfirst steps to punish Hollywood projects that aren't
woke enough to meet the ever movingstandards of progressives. So essentially, it
says that they are able to projectsare able to receive a new tax credit

(27:25):
which could only be they could onlyreceive if a given project provided a diversity
work plan that includes goals that arebroadly reflective of California's population. And then
this article points out that, accordingto the twenty twenty census, California's racial
demographics are forty one percent white,six percent Black, forty percent Hispanic,

(27:45):
fifteen percent Asian, one point sixpercent American, Indian, Alaska Native alone,
and then there are some other,some other smaller percentages in there as
well for other ethnicities. The pointis California is very white. So if
they're trying to make sure that they'remaking films reflective, if they're going by
the letter of their own law,making very white films is actually in line

(28:10):
with their law, which I'm fairlycertain is not the goal of what they
were trying to do. So itsort of tells you right there, how
absurd and ridiculous this all is.I mean, it's nothing more than performative.
You know, we care, andI don't think they do. Also,
you know, as somebody pointed outon Twitter, um, you know,
the highest grossing films in the lastten years have been made in Georgia.

(28:33):
So um, I don't think Hollywood, if they're trying to win back,
you know, film production is reallygoing about it the right way.
But more to the point, thiskind of government mandating of you know,
do we're going to come up withthese sort of arbitrary and kind of you
know, and coherent because again,this doesn't you know, diversity and equity

(28:57):
and inclusion doesn't reflect California at all. That it's just a white place,
right And I'm not saying that's goodor bad. I'm saying that's just true.
So but these sort of arbitrary mandatesin order to conduct business or do
business or we'll put you out ofbusiness is basically how China's been operating as

(29:21):
well. And so all I cansay is if you want to succeed in
the next several years and so,how California can sort out why it keeps
voting in people like Governor Newsom andothers. You might want to leave the
state, And I know that thatwhat I'm saying there. I know that
that's not just easy to do,but it seems to me that it's it's

(29:45):
it's getting to that point, andI think you have to physically relocate because
the tax burden is also going tobe so hard on you that even if
you have a remote business that operatesin another state, it's still going to
be hard for you to survive.So, um, I feel for Calify.
I was talking to somebody the otherday who was telling me about LA.

(30:06):
They were just in LA, andI asked how California was doing,
and you know, they just kindof shook their head a little bit but
said, you know, it's it'sa little bit better. And I think
my response to that was, youknow, it's it's the most beautiful place
in the world, and it reallyis just gorgeous. It's just physically the
landscape is unbelievable and it is heartwrenching to see what people have turned that

(30:30):
state into. Um, it's it'salmost uninhabitable. I feel the same way
about DC. It's it's a beautiful, absolutely just esthetically beautiful city and um,
you know this um blue sort ofpolicy. UM push by by progressive

(30:51):
Democrat leadership in the city has ledto congresswomen being attacked in their um apartment
buildings and the elevator. So it'sheartwrenching. I hope we write the ship.
I think there's enough concern that we'restarting to, you know, make
moves to do that collectively as acountry, collectively and yet independently. I

(31:14):
hate to use that word collectively becauseyou can read so much into that,
So I don't mean as a collective. I mean that perhaps we're all sort
of in this federalist system of afederalized system of hours, starting to come
to the same sorts of conclusions aboutthese things and addressing them in the ways
that are appropriate for where we live. So that's those are my thoughts on

(31:36):
all of these things. I'm justover time, so I'm going to let
you guys go, and then I'mgoing back outside and sitting in the sun
for a bit. So take careof yourselves, take care of each other,
be safe, be kind, bestrong, be funny. That's always
good too, And we'll talk againsoon with the night when the nights watch

(32:04):
your body una loose from the psychiatricboard. His face is up on the
bulletin board with this has been apresentation of the FCB podcast Network where real
talk lifts. Visit us online atFCB podcasts dot com.