Loading summary
Transcript88 lines
- [00:00]
Host 1
This is not a drill. You can get the new iPhone 16e with Apple Intelligence for just $49.99 when.
- [00:05]
Host 2
You switch to Boost Mobile.
- [00:06]
Host 3
Wait, that's the actual fire alarm. We need to go visit your nearest Boost Mobile store for full offer details.
- [00:12]
Host 4
Apple Intelligence requires iOS 18.1 or later.
- [00:14]
Host 3
Restrictions apply.
- [00:15]
Darina
Hi, I'm Darina, co founder of OpenPhone. My dad is a business owner and growing up, I'll never forget his old ringtone. He made it as loud as it could go because he could not afford to miss a single single customer call. That stuck with me. When we started OpenPhone. Our mission was to help businesses not just stay in touch, but make every customer feel valued, no matter when they might call. OpenPhone gives your team business phone numbers to call and text customers, all through an app on your phone or computer. Your calls, messages and contacts live in one workspace so your team can stay fully aligned and reply faster. And with our AI agent answering 24.7you, you'll really never miss a customer. Over 60,000 businesses use OpenPhone. Try it now and get 20% off your first six months@openphone.com tech and we can port your existing numbers over for free. OpenPhone. No missed calls, no missed customers.
- [01:17]
Andy Levy
Hey, what's going on with my boys and in some case gals, this is a new episode of as the World Churns. I'm Andy Levy here as always with my lovely and talented and brilliant co host Danielle Moody. And what's going on with my boys and in some case gals is something Donald Trump is wondering right now. He's very upset that a bunch of a lot of MAGA people are going after, as he says, Attorney General Pam Bondi, who, who he also says is doing a fantastic job in all caps. He is very, very unhappy that a large segment of the MAGA cult seems to be taking issues with Daddy and it's not something he's used to, that's for sure. And Danielle, what do we make of all this? We were talking before we started recording about how it is absolutely wild that he wants everyone to shut up about Epstein, but they keep doing things that make people talk more and more about Epstein and talk more and more about the fact that this feels like a cover up.
- [02:28]
Host 1
I mean, I. Look, here's the thing is that Donald Trump is doing what he's done for the past 10 years, which is pivot into blaming Democrats. This is all a hoax. Everybody is out to get him. Look at me. I don't understand why you all are so stupid. Now, meanwhile, he's the one back in 2015 that brought this to the forefront of people's mind. No one was talking about Jeffrey Epstein. I would largely say that most of America didn't know who the fuck he was until Donald Trump started talking about him and saying as he was getting ready to run against Hillary Clinton, say that her husband was about to be, quote, in a lot of trouble because of a little island that, that you all will, that you all will soon know about. And every time that he was, had a microphone in front of his face in 2015, he was using Epstein as a way to embarrass Hillary Clinton. Right. By continuing to associate Bill Clinton without any evidence. Right. Associate him with Jeffrey Epstein. So now fast forward, I guess that he thinks that everyone's memory is sunsetting in the way that his is because he wants us to believe that he's had nothing to do with this, that this hasn't. Wasn't a Central tenet of 2024 in terms of we'll get rid of the deep state and when we do, we're going to release the files. And now he's calling his base stupid and weak and saying, guess what, I don't need you guys anymore. I mean, I don't think he does because I don't think that there are going to be midterm elections or presidential elections moving forward. But the fact that he's throwing this temper tantrum to me out in the public, in front of cameras all week long on top of his meltdowns on Truth Social, I don't know, Andy. It signals to me that something is awry and that Donald Trump is doing his best, look over here, look over here, look over here. Because when even Joe Rogan is saying, well, I guess if you're not going to release the files, you'll bomb Iran, I guess, which is what he did. Like, even if Joe Rogan can figure out the Wagta Dog strategy. Yeah. There's a cover up.
- [04:51]
Andy Levy
Yeah. And then the thing is, like, you know, like you said, he's trying to do the, in some cases, the don't look here, look over here. But A, he keeps talking about the Epstein thing and B, then his Justice Department does things like, I don't know, firing Maureen Comey, who was a prosecutor in the Epstein and Maxwell case places. And look, he may well have fired Maureen Comey. When I say he, I guess I mean Pam Bondi, but what's the difference? Because she's James Comey's daughter and God knows he, you know, hates James Comey. And he loves using his power to settle his own personal little grudges. But how did nobody around him say, hey, wait a minute, you know what? She prosecuted Epstein. Maybe now is not the time to fire her. Like, while this whole thing is going on, like, I mean, they are making the Warren Commission look amazing. It's been a really long time since I've seen whether it's a cover up or not, whether I've seen an administration act in a way that just makes you think there's a cover up and that there's a lot of really, really fishy stuff going on, even if maybe you didn't think that before. So he sits there and he says, you know, stop talking about Epstein, stop talking about Epstein. It's a hoax. And as you said, ignoring the fact that he ran on this quote, unquote hoax. But you're right, he may not even remember that he ran on this hoax.
- [06:27]
Host 1
Those are true facts.
- [06:29]
Andy Levy
Yeah, yeah, he may have no idea. And then just to just keep doing things that push this story forward and keep it in the news while at the same time appearing to want desperately for people to not talk about it is, is just, it's absolutely wild, man.
- [06:47]
Host 1
And look, here's the thing. If you wanted to settle your personal vendettas, you've had six months to do so. So if you wanted to come in on day one and fire Maureen Comey, you could have done that and no one would have thought once or twice about it because they would have been like, ah, Comey last name. Of course, Donald Trump is petty and small and that's what he's going to do, is fire somebody with without cause. But to wait for until now for that to happen is ridiculous. And then also again, his whole base is primed and radicalized on conspiracies because that's what he's been feeding them for the last 10 years. So all you've done, like you said, is add more suspicion to this pot that you keep trying to put a lid on. But like also keep turning up the heat. The other thing to me is this MAGA seems to be trying to make Pam Bondi the scapegoat of the Epstein like saga, right? It's, she said she had the list. Donald Trump didn't say that. She said she gave the MAGA influencers binders. Donald Trump didn't have anything to do with that. They at once wanted to want to make it seem that, that Donald Trump is all powerful, right? Knows everything, does everything, commands everything. And then at the Same time so feeble minded that Pam Bondi's ambition like is able to elbow Donald Trump's desires out of the way. Both things can't be true. Right. And so when I, when I look at it and I listen to Megyn Kelly doing her best to throw another white woman under the bus, which is what Megan Kelly is good at as, as well as listen to these other folks that are again trying to push her out the door while also trying not to offend Donald Trump. It's a wild tightrope that these folks are, are, are walking right now.
- [08:47]
Andy Levy
Yeah, it's sort of the flip side of the Joe Biden is a completely feeble minded, he can't do anything, but also he's the head of this nefarious crime family, you know.
- [08:57]
Host 1
Right.
- [08:58]
Andy Levy
It's, it's very much the flip side of that. And then you've got, you know, the incredible profiles and courage of the, of Congressional Republicans who on the House side, I think it was, have, have stopped procedural votes that would lead to a vote on releasing the Epstein files or, or a vote calling for the administration to release the Epstein files. And now there's reporting in Politico that House Republican leaders are under pressure to send their members home for the summer and basically get them out of town before a possible vote on publicizing Epstein related records. You know, again, the same people that ran on the shit that ran as, you know, we're going to take down the deep state, we're going to expose all the, all the crimes. Now they actually have a chance to do something along those lines. And, and they are, they're running in fear. They are absolutely running in fear. So, so shout out to them.
- [10:04]
Host 1
They ran on it and are now running from it. So that is the theme of Republicans.
- [10:11]
Andy Levy
Amazing.
- [10:12]
Host 1
So Andy, speaking of profiles in courage, nothing says that you are proud of the legislation that you are voting on then to do so at 2am when everyone is asleep and no one will be the wiser that you have voted to gut foreign aid, essentially kill people. You have voted to defund NPR NPBS, so leave people undereducated and you're doing so at 2 in the morning. These Republicans are so weak and spineless that they don't even with a full throat and a full chest, stand behind the absolute despicable legislation that they're putting forward. So, so this is according to common dreams. In the early hours of Thursday morning, Senate Republicans passed legislation that would claw back 9 billion in previously approved congressional funding for public broadcasting and foreign aid programs targeted by Trump's White House in a final vote, which was 51 to 48, with my two least favorite pearl clutching, spineless women, Collins and Murkowski joining with Democrats in opposing the package which now heads to the House for final passage. And this is what Senator Murray said at 2am Republicans just passed a bill to defund public broadcasting and life saving aid because Trump told them to. They wouldn't even protect rural radio or emergency alerts. And isn't that some shit coming off of the heels of the tragedy right in Kerr county in Texas that has now killed over 130 people. Why? Because of one, their climate denial, two, their gutting of national, of the National Weather Service and NOAA staff. And then three, the fact that there's been no investment made into that area to get them the kind of emergency alerts that they need. And now they do this make it make sense for us, Andy.
- [12:14]
Andy Levy
Oh no, I will not. I will not.
- [12:16]
Host 1
I need you to.
- [12:17]
Andy Levy
And I resent that you're even asking me to try because I can't accept that this is what they want. They want a world without foreign aid because they want a world with fewer brown and black people. So you know, that that's fairly obvious. They want a world without Big Bird, apparently, because in their mind, you know, I think Sesame street is woke or DEI or whatever, you know, whatever phrase they're using now to cover up the fact that again, they don't like brown and black people. The only one that's a little weird and I am guessing that they will probably end up restoring it at some point is the part about the alerts and the rural radio and stuff like that. The only reason I say that is because that is supposedly their people. That is supposedly, you know, stuff that is going to quote, unquote, real Americans, unless they just view it now as a shot at rural black and brown people. But I don't know, because you're right. When you called Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski spineless, you're generally correct. And I was a little shocked that they actually crossed over and voted with the Dems instead of. You know, Susan Collins famously talks about how she always has concerns and then she ends up voting for the Republican shit, you know, all the time. And for her to not do that this time was kind of a little bit of a surprise. What they do is they show you what their priorities are with everything they do. Their priorities are, again, tax cuts for the wealthy and not educational television for children. I mean, look, I can't speak to Gen Z or whatever, but for Gen X and I think for millennials as well, and you can maybe speak to that. Sesame street was kind of foundational. I mean, it was something like it was as close to a monoculture as we maybe still had, or at least that we at that point where it just felt like regardless of gender, regardless of race, regardless of religion, you know, kids were watching Sesame street and they were learning things. And this, you know, I think this terrifies Mag. Look, MAGA wants all these kids working in factories. They don't want them learning, you know, because the more, you know, the more you realize who these people are. And so they don't want kids learning. They, they, you know, they want kids learning a trade is what they want. So all, all of this, again, it just, it just shows what their priorities.
- [15:12]
Host 1
Are, you know, and it's just like I, I, it's so interesting that you just said they want them learning a trade because most recently. What is his name? Doug Burgum. Right, Doug Burgum. Who is Donald, one of Donald Trump's economic advisors. Right. Is that his role? And he was just on a tarmac with Donald Trump talking about the fact that AI is going to replace all of these jobs and isn't that a wonderful thing? And we need more people going and becoming plumbers and electricians and welders and that's what we need to point people in the direction of because soon the coding jobs and the software engineers and all of those things, the white, the white collar jobs are going to be replaced. And he kept talking about it as if this was a great revival of the middle class. And I'm just like, everything is more expensive vocational workers, it takes you years and multiple certifications in order to be able to get into a six figure range. Right? And they, they are saying it as if it's something that happens immediately and as if the person that is gets to make $150,000 a year, if that's actually going to not look like $90,000 a year in terms of the inflation that you're dealing with and the recession that you're dealing with and all of these other, like, it's just so while their kids, right, are the ones that are going to run the corporations and the factories and the network and blah, blah, your children, right, are going to be designated to this blue collar working class situation. And again, no, like no shade on course, not on blue collar work at all. But the fact is it should be a decision, not a direction that is being placed on people. And basically sticking you in that space. So without education, without access to that, you roll back affirmative action, you roll back, you know, like equity, you roll back scholarships, you put people in, you do all of these things. That's what you get, a permanent underclass. And that's the goal.
- [17:23]
Andy Levy
Yeah, no, it really is. And it, and it's, you know, for a long time the, the sort of cry on the right was learn to code. And it was basically aimed at liberals or people who worked in like liberal arts jobs and stuff like that. And now they are, like, all about AI and they're all about AI doing all these coding jobs and doing all these jobs. And really the utopian science fiction view has always been, oh, AI and robots will replace all the menial work, leaving humans free to, you know, do whatever they want. And we're seeing very quickly how that has turned into, you know, no, humans will be the plumbers, humans will be the electricians. And again, absolutely no shade to those. Those are vital jobs, you know, so no shade on those jobs. But like you said, those are the only options they want for.
- [18:22]
Host 1
Correct.
- [18:23]
Andy Levy
And those are jobs that basically, for lack of a better term, they're not technically, I guess, service industry jobs, but they kind of are. I mean, you know, when you're a plumber, you're fixing other people's stuff. And guess who those other people are. Those other people are the rich people. That's what they want. So. So yeah, all of this is of a piece. You keep people uneducated. You try to replace as many humans as possible with artificial intelligence, regardless of the fact that it don't work. But the important thing is you make humans sort of, I guess, a menial class, for lack of a better word, or most humans anyway, to service the elite few. And all of this, you know, cutting public education, cutting npr, all in service of that.
- [19:13]
Host 1
Yeah, it's just they're creating the new feudal system. That's what they. The new feudal system.
- [19:21]
Andy Levy
Perfect.
- [19:21]
Host 1
It's wild to me that people don't put those dots together. It's like you just keep taking these things in like pieces and it's like, that's the big picture. Like feudalism, serve servitude right on top of like slave labor that they're going to turn these concentration camps into like. That's the goal.
- [19:44]
Andy Levy
Yeah, 100%. 100%.
- [19:49]
Host 4
If you're running a business, you know that every time you miss a call, you're leaving money on the table. When every customer conversation matters, you need a phone system that keeps up and helps you stay connected 24 7. That's why you need OpenPhone. OpenPhone is the number one business phone system that streamlines and scales your customer communications. It works through an app on your phone or computer, so no more carrying two phones or using a landline. Plus, say goodbye to voicemail. Their AI agent can be set up in minutes to handle calls after hours, answer questions and capture leads so you never miss a customer. OpenPhone is offering our listeners 20% off of your first six months at openphone.com tech that's O P E N P H O-N-E.com tech and if you have existing numbers with another service, OpenPhone will port them over at no extra charge. Open Phone no missed calls, no missed customers.
- [20:43]
LaFontaine Oliver
I'm no tech genius, but I knew if I wanted my business to crush it, I needed a website. Now, thankfully, bluehost made it easy. I customized, optimized and monetized everything exactly how I wanted with AI. In minutes, my site was up. I couldn't believe it. The search engine tools even helped me get more site visitors. Whatever your passion project is, you can set it up with Bluehost with their 30 day money back guarantee. What have you got to lose? Head to bluehost.com to start now.
- [21:15]
Host 1
Folks, I am very happy to welcome to as the World Churns, the president and CEO and executive chair of New York Public Radio, LaFontaine Oliver, here to talk about the 2am decision by Republicans to pull back $9 billion in funding that would foreseeably gut National Public Radio, NPR as well as PBS and essentially just did this, LaFontaine, in the middle of the night, knowing that people were asleep. Right. That this has been something that Republicans have been talking about for the longest time. And my feeling is because they want a very undereducated populace. But give us your perspective, perspective on where things stand and the importance of public radio to the people.
- [22:13]
Host 2
Thank you for that. You know, I would first start with the importance of public radio to the people. You know, I have dedicated the bulk of my career to working in public media in part because I recognized how important it was to have locally owned, operated and controlled media in a particular community during a time where so much of our media and our outlets are owned, operated and governed outside of our communities. And so that is one of the reasons why public radio has resonated with me. And because of that sort of configuration, it means that, you know, we are aligned with our local communities. We are beholden only to our local communities as not for profit. Community organizations we are not beholden to our, to sponsors. It is our job to serve the information needs of our local communities without fear or favor on issues of a controversial nature. Not to present both sides, but to try to present all sides, to give our community the information that they need so that they can then figure out what the news of the day means for them in their own lives. And I think that there's something very transformational about this sort of democratic process of public media that is really only here because local communities want it. We, unlike our for profit commercial counterparts, there's not a profit motive. We give our content away every single day. It's not behind a paywall, there's no subscription fee to access it, but we give our content away and every single day and we ask that if people find value in it that they become members, they become supporters. And it is through that support that we're able to do the work that we do as it relates to bringing them this unique mix of local, regional, national and even international news, information and perspectives. And then on top of that, you know, I think some of the most creative programming that you, you can find anywhere talk about serendipity and surprise and delight and storytelling and you know, sort of, sort of stretching the, the mind to, to really be able to meet people where, where they are. And so that's why I think public media is, is so important. We're connected to local communities. Our, our, our only job is to, to be there for those communities to reflect their local taste and desires and needs and wants. And that makes us a really powerful vehicle. Now what has happened, you kicked off there with the late night or early morning rescission vote is that after passing by a narrow margin in the House, the Senate was of course hearing arguments and then taking a vote on the rescission package. And as you know, the result was yet another, another narrow margin. But that package was passed by the Senate, although it was amended, because a small part of that package in particular for pepfar, the program that oversees AIDS relief, there was an amendment to that. So now it's gotta go back to the House. I think folks are counting us out at this point. I mean, they're saying, you know, the handwriting is on the wall. There's no way that the Senate, that the House, excuse me, is not going to get behind this. I'm an eternal optimist. So I am hoping there will continue to be bipartisan support that has supported public media for many decades to show up when they vote tomorrow. But should that not happen, you know, this means just an existential crisis for public media. It means a fundamental change in how this country thinks about the importance of informing, entertaining, engaging, educating local communities, providing them with emergency alerts and preparedness, all of those things. And so it will send ripple effects through the public media system, both public radio and public television. And we are bracing locally, New York Public Radio with WNYC and wqxr. This is disappointing, but we've been preparing for this moment.
- [26:44]
Host 1
Let me ask you this. This is not the first time that Republicans have tried to gut public broadcasting. It is not the first time. It has been a point of contention for Republicans for years, but most notably over the last 10 years with the rise of Trumpism and Donald Trump. And I want to get your thoughts on why you think that is, why Donald Trump, why this particular Republican regime is so dedicated to defunding, essentially, public education. Right? Because that's what public radio, public television is. It's public education. It is education that is provided through media without a paywall. And what we've seen over the last several years is a slow death of journalism, of education behind paywalls that leave a large portion of the population out. Right. There's been this bifurcation all over the place where everyone having to pay $5, $6, 7, everywhere, right. In order to just get a little bit of education. So talk to us about what you see, that you may see as a difference between how this regime has gone after public radio versus other Republicans who have been antagonistic to this kind, this form of public education.
- [28:18]
Host 2
Yeah, that's a great question. So a lot to unpack there. So I would take a step back and say, you know, from my perspective, I certainly recognize that the federal appropriation, which I should point out, amounts to about a dollar and 70 cent per American taxpayer. And that money that flows from the federal appropriation through the Corporation for Public Broadcasting is then leveraged on the local level. So it really is one of the most powerful examples of a public private partnership, because that $.70 is leveraged in local communities across the country. And in our case, we then match that locally with an additional 7 to $8 in funding from our local community to support our work. So it really is a real bargain, I think, for the American taxpayer and represents a phenomenal example of a public private partnership. With that said, when you go all the way back to the beginning of the appropriation, yes, it has been controversial. It has been a bit of a political football. There have been threats against this appropriation from the very beginning. But what I would point out is that it has largely been the bipartisan support, both Republicans and Democrats, that each time the heat gets turned up on this particular issue, that we somehow find a way to say, you know what, as American people, we still think that there's value, there's validity, there is a reason why we are doing this. And I have to say, in large part it has been Republican lawmakers, particularly, who represent small and rural communities, where oftentimes the public broadcaster, be it the public radio station or the public television station in that community, might be the only real source of local news information and, to take your term, education in those local communities. It might be the only source of things like local weather alerts or information about crops in rural agricultural areas, information on high school athletics. And also they may be some of the only outlets where those representatives can actually go in and speak to their constituents in those communities. And so it truly has been a bipartisan effort that has kept the federal appropriation. Now, what is different in this moment?
- [30:52]
Host 1
Mm.
- [30:53]
Host 2
I would say that we have seen an attempt, I think, by the current administration, I think, to apply certain types of leverage that perhaps have not been used as much in the past in order to ensure that a particular agenda or funding package or rescission package gets across the finish line. And I think that that is part of what is different in this moment. I also think that what is different in this moment is that we have an opportunity, and I would dare even say an obligation to recognize that the news information ecosystems, the habits of communities have changed quite a bit. And we need to take the opportunity to also figure out how we are going to change along with that. Communities are very, very skeptical. Also, the business models that have supported news and information and journalism are fringing, and that is not just in public media, but writ large. And so I think that, and the growing skepticism, the bifurcation, as you talked about, the fact that the sort of barriers to entry as it relates to getting news and information no longer exists. You know, you've got, you know, obviously traditional media with print and broadcast. You've got podcasts, you've got social media, you have all. You have digital print. You have all of these things that are competing for space and time in readers, listeners, viewers, minds, eyes and ears. And I think all of those things have sort of created a situation where we gotta wake up every single day and we've gotta earn the trust and respect of our audiences. And I think during this time of high skepticism, folks are seizing on that and using this as an opportunity to Say, hey, here's a chance to finally end support for public broadcasting in this country. And I am not surprised, but I am disappointed. And I'm gonna continue to fight on behalf of not just my organization, but on behalf of my local community, because I believe that what we provide and what my colleagues provide across the country in what they do is. Is not a luxury. It's a lifeline for many of these communities.
- [33:19]
Host 1
You know, and when you say lifeline, too, I think about, you know, the recent flooding. Well, one that happened in New York City and New And New Jersey, that cost the lives of. Of two people in New Jersey. But I also think about Kerr county in Texas, and I think about the over 130 people and the lack of emergency signaling that they have. Right. And when you talk about, you know, at the top, we said national, you know, public radio, local radio, that's where people get their information. That's when they know a storm is coming. That's when they know that they need to get to safety. And so, you know, in this moment, right, where so many agencies, departments, are facing an existential crisis, you said that you are an eternal optimist. What opportunity do you see in the obstacles that are being presented to you right now? And what opportunity is there to pivot and what do you need from the public in order to be able to do that?
- [34:21]
Host 2
Yeah, I mean, I think the loss or potential loss, because I'm not there yet, of federal funding creates an imperative for us to envision and create a new public media system in this country where we serve even more America, where we serve them in even more and different ways, and where we stay claim to every platform where they may roam, so that we become indispensable to our communities. I think that's the opportunity here. And sometimes, unfortunately, it takes both a crisis and strong leadership to bring forth change in systems that have been around. And so I think that is the opportunity. I think there's also an opportunity right now in media literacy to inform this country, because an informed, engaged electorate is important to our democracy. I like to say public media is the oxygen of our democracy, because I think that's what we do every single day. But there's a component of sort of media literacy that I think is also an opportunity in this moment, in this time, where the barriers to entry are not there, where misinformation, disinformation are running rampant, that we help communities understand what it means to be a trusted, legitimate source of information. I like to say all content has intent. You know, sometimes. Oh, I Like that is to. To alert you to something, to make you aware of something, to inform you. Sometimes the intent is to divert you, so to take your mind off of it, whether it is escape or entertainment. And then sometimes the intent is connection. And so I think the other opportunity in this moment is really to seize on that, that third component, which is connection. If you really look at what's in short supply now, it is not content. We are swimming in content. I mean, we can get content 10 ways to Sunday on all sorts of platforms from so many different providers. But what is in short supply is community and connection. The outgoing Surgeon General talked about, you know, just the sort of epidemic of loneliness.
- [36:49]
Host 1
Loneliness, yeah.
- [36:51]
Host 2
When we look at what we've come through as a country, as a nation, as a world coming out of COVID when we look at how disconnected we are, we look at how divided we are, I think that the real opportunity now for us in public media is to think about community and connection and building connection. And I'm really proud to say, I mean, we do a phenomenal job of doing that with programs like the Brian Lehrer Show. I was on with Brian Lehrer earlier this morning, and he had something happen on the show that his producers tell me happens only about once a year, and that is a guest drops out, and this is a live show. And so, you know, what happens on a live show is like, okay, the show must go on. But Brian has a muscle that many broadcasters have long abandoned, which is, you know what? I'm gonna open up the phone lines, and I'm gonna talk live to my listeners in my communities, and I'm gonna ask the community to report on the news with me. And he had a phenomenal segment, and there's something really powerful about that. There's something, you know, I think, therapeutic about that. There's something sticky and binding about being able to allow space and opportunity to create community around the content that we create. And so I think there's an opportunity there. I would also say, I think there are opportunities for us to think about and reinvent how we produce, distribute, and fund public media in this country. It's one of the reasons why I'm so excited about the fact that I'm taking on a new role in our organization as executive chair. And when we find our next CEO, that will give me more time to sort of pick my head up and really think about the future, to think about how we remake our work, and quite honestly, how that work impacts how we remake how the system thinks about how we connect with audiences in an environment where there are so many things fighting for space and time and our listeners and attention and their attention. And so those are just a few of the opportunities I see. And I will just say in the immediate, I see an opportunity for communities to speak up and to let elected officials know what is important to them in their local communities. And that's why I'm hoping folks are going to reach out to their congressional representatives and let them know that, hey, I know that this is in front of you. I know that you're going to be voting on this. But let me tell you how my local public radio station, my local public television station, how npr, how pbs, you know, has impacted me, has enriched my life, has helped me think about how I fit into my community, how I fit into this country, how I fit into this world.
- [39:46]
Host 1
Well, LaFontaine, I cannot thank you enough for the work that you do to educate, enlighten and engage audiences through public radio. And I really hope that people take this moment as an opportunity to get involved, take it as an opportunity to advocate for themselves and their communities. So I appreciate you for making the time for as the World Churns and would love to have you back again as you navigate what could be this new horizon.
- [40:20]
Host 2
Well, thank you for thinking of us, and I would love to come back anytime.
- [40:25]
Host 4
If you're running a business, you know that every time you miss a call, you're leaving money on the table. When every customer conversation matters, you need a phone system that keeps up and helps you stay connected 24, 7. That's why you need OpenPhone. OpenPhone is the number one business phone system that streamlines and scales your customer communications. It works through an app on your phone or computer, so no more carrying two phones or using a landline. Plus, say goodbye to voicemail. Their AI agent can be set up in minutes to handle calls after hours, answer questions and capture leads so you never miss a customer. OpenPhone is offering our listeners 20% off of your first six months at openphone.com tech. That's O P E N P H O-N-E.com tech and if you have existing numbers with another service, OpenPhone will port them over at no extra charge. Open Phone no missed calls, no missed.
- [41:18]
Sponsor 1
Customers Avoiding your unfinished home projects because you're not sure where to start. Thumbtack knows home so you don't have to don't know the difference between matte paint, finish and satin or what that clunking sound from your dryer is. With Thumbtack, you don't have to be a home pro. You just have to hire one. You can hire top rated pros, see price estimates and read reviews all on the app. Download today.
- [41:43]
Andy Levy
Back in 2013, Bradley Balco wrote the book on the militarization of the police. It's called Rise of the Warrior Cop. And in the 12 years since it came out, its stature has only only grown. So when he wrote a terrifying piece called the Police Militarization Debate Is over in his newsletter, the Watch, I naturally took note. Radley, thanks so much for joining us.
- [42:03]
Host 3
My pleasure. Thanks for having me.
- [42:04]
Andy Levy
The piece is terrifying. I don't know any other word for it. But before we get into why, talk about what the debate over police militarization has been for the past several decades. Would I be correct in framing it as a debate between people who say the police have to have bigger and better weaponry so they're not outgunned, and they have to be allowed to use tactics that might not always strictly adhere to the Constitution? And then on the other side, there's folks like you who have argued that turning cops into war fighters who use the same equipment and tactics as our armed forces is wrongheaded and dangerous. Is that a fair summation of the debate?
- [42:44]
Host 3
Yeah, I think that the point here is that, you know, going back to the founding, there's always been this kind of healthy skepticism of using the military for domestic policing. The founders were very wary of standing armies for precisely that reason. And, you know, and since then, we've done a pretty good job of keeping the military out of domestic policing. There have been a few times when they've been called up and, but it's always, generally, it's always been temporary. That's been, you know, kind of treated with the, the solemnity and the kind of profundity of that decision, like we're going to do this because this threat is wrong or, you know, is, is immediate and urgent. But, you know, we know that this is a thing that, that we don't do in this country, and so we're going to treat it that way. The only real exception was reconstruction, which obviously was a, you know, a pretty big deal. And, you know, it, maybe it was, it was un, it was necessary in that particular context. So we've done a pretty good job of that. What I've been arguing for most of my career is that where we've dropped the ball is we've let the police become more and more like soldiers. We've trained them like soldiers, arm them like soldiers. We tell them they're fighting A war. They've adopted kind of the mentality of soldiers. In fact, you know, one, one bit of feedback I've gotten over the course of my career is people in the military telling me, I agree with your general point about police, but, like, we aren't even that bad, right? Like, when police saw or when military people saw it was coming out of Ferguson, you know, they were appalled. Like, we don't even treat people, you know, in Iraq and Afghanistan that way. And so that's been a debate for a long time. It's been sort of like, you know, what, what does domestic policing look like? How is it, you know, soldiers have a very different set of skills than police. It's a different task, it's a different mission. It's dangerous to conflate the two. So, yeah, I think your, your summary was pretty spot on.
- [44:27]
Andy Levy
Okay, so why is the debate over? And why do I have the feeling that the people on our side lost?
- [44:34]
Host 3
Right. So, you know, the debate was always, you know, I, I have vehement disagreements with people on the other side of the debate, but the debate was always about which of these two roles is appropriate in a free society. And the people on the other side were like, ah, you know, doesn't we, we can dress cops like soldiers and arm looks like soldiers and put them in camouflage and, and you know, it's not a threat to society. But there was still this shared understanding that it's bad for the people who do our day to day policing to think of us as the enemy. Right? There's still a shit understanding that there are constitutional limits for both cops and soldiers. The question is which one should apply when people are patrolling the streets. And the argument I'm trying to make in the post is that debate is over because Trump doesn't give a shit about any of that. I mean, what he wants is his own personal paramilitary force that will do his bidding. He wants somebody he can sic on his enemies. He wants somebody who can, you know, if people are protesting, show how strong he is by shooting people in the kneecaps, as he tried to do during his first term. And it kind of erases this entire debate. One of the more really alarming things that Pete Hegseth did after he took over the Pentagon was he fired all the JAG officers. These are the lawyers who determine the rules of engagement, who tell the military when they're doing something that is, you know, unconstitutional or that conflicts with, with federal court rulings. They're the ones who tell the president when he can't do something that he wants to do. And they got rid of all those people for a very specific reason, because Trump doesn't want any limits on what he can do. And, you know, made this very clear over the course of his career. You know, I mentioned in the. The piece about all of his dumb tweets about, you know, cop soldiers and bikers who are gonna, like, you know, be his muscle and do his enforcing for him. That's what he wants. He wants his own personal army, and he's getting it. The courts in Congress are complying.
- [46:30]
Andy Levy
You say this in the piece, and I think it's very fair to say that for Donald Trump, there is no difference between cops and troops, is there?
- [46:36]
Host 3
No. I mean, he sees the entire federal government as. You know, he sees the DOJ as his personal law firm. They're giving fucking polygraphs to FBI agents not on their fidelity to the Constitution or whether they're double agents working for a foreign government. They're giving them polygraphs to test their loyalty to Donald Trump and Cash Patel. I mean, that's who they want to screen for. They want to make sure everybody's loyal. And, you know, we've seen this throughout Trump's hiring process during his second term, over and over. There have been lots of media reports about this. But when people are questioned, when they're interviewing for jobs, they're asked about whether they're loyal to Trump. That's the only thing that matters. It's not about the Constitution serving the public.
- [47:13]
Andy Levy
The thing is, though, I feel like most of this debate was focused on cops becoming more like the military. Like, for example, the name of your book was the Rise of the. Of the Warrior Cop. Now, it seems like the flip side of that. The military being used as sort of, you know, quote, unquote, super cops has, at the very least, sort of achieved parity.
- [47:34]
Host 3
Yeah, well, I mean, look, I think one of the things I argue in the piece is, you know, the. The National Guard has been called up before to put down insurrections, riots, even. During the 80s, we saw the National Guard invoked by state governors to fight the drug war. We saw them frequently in California. They would patrol the mountains and wilderness to find, you know, illicit pot farms. They were even used to raid, you know, housing projects in the cities. And, you know, that was all terrible, and I think those were all abuses of power. But in every one of those cases, it was the state governor that called up the guard down. You know, in some cases, they were working with the DEA or some federal agency, but it was the state government who was like, this is an emergency. You know, this is bad enough that we need this extra help. And you know, again, I argue this in the piece. I don't think that the crack epidemic justified the, the kind of trampling on civil liberties that we saw. But there was a crack event, right? I mean, people were dying. There was a lot of violence associated with the, as the kind of black market shifted, as crack kind of came onto the scene. So there was a plausible reason why this kind of force might have been necessary. Again, we, we could have that debate. Trump is calling up the Guard a over the objections of state governors. Right. Their explicit objections. That's never happened before in our history, ever. And then he's deploying active duty military also over the objections of governors. And that only has happened a couple of times. And once, the last time it happened was in Little Rock, you know, to desegregate Little Rock High School or Central High School in Little Rock. And he's doing it over an emergency that doesn't exist. It's a lie.
- [49:15]
Andy Levy
Right.
- [49:16]
Host 3
He's been saying from the start that we're being invaded by migrants. And, you know, legal border crossings were down over the last three years, down the last two years of the Biden administration. And his argument is that we're getting invaded and all these people are committing crimes. Well, crime is down for the last three years. It's about to hit record lows. There's no evidence that undocumented people commit crimes at higher rates than native born people. If anything, it's just the opposite. There is no urgency here. He's calling, this is a show of force and a show of power. He is calling these troops up to demonstrate that he is a strong man on par with the strong men who he idolizes and envies. And that's terrifying. That is not what troops are for. It's not what the National Guard is for. It's not what the Marines are for.
- [50:03]
Andy Levy
Yeah, there was a report the other day that I think it was the Marines who were deployed to Los Angeles only detained one person the whole time they were there, which obviously it should have been zero people, but it really does feel like, as you said, they weren't really sent there to do anything beyond Project power, and in particular Project Power, that Donald Trump has power. Right.
- [50:27]
Host 3
Well, I mean, it's illegal for them to, to do domestic policing. They can go, they can be, they can serve in a support role. But if they, you know, if they had been arresting people, we'd be, you know, in a whole different. Sure. Zip code here in terms of alarm. But, you know, that's what he wants. That's where he wants to be. I think that there is no. The thing that I find really terrifying is, you know, we've seen how Trump has been gutting the intelligence agencies, and not just gutting them, but also filling them with people who aren't going to tell him what he needs to know, but what he wants to hear. You know, that's not what the intelligence community is supposed to be doing. And it's going to make us really vulnerable to another attack. And I worry that. I worry that, you know, if people start protesting against Trump, he's going to crack down and bring the military. But I'm more worried that we're going to be vulnerable to a 9-11-style attack, and Trump's going to respond by, you know, declaring martial law and deploying the military. I mean, that is, that is, I think, the existential threat, because he doesn't want to be blamed for it if it happens. And so he's going to, you know, crack down on anybody who suggests that, and he's going to use the fear that will be. You know, it's one thing to sort of crack down on, you know, the no Kings protest when there's this massive resistance where people become very compliant and very acquiescent to, you know, tyrannical power, is when they're scared, you know, and, and no, we're never more scared than we are after an attack. And so if there's some kind of September 11th style attack, I mean, I think that opens the door to complete authoritarianism. I think that that's the scenario I fear most.
- [51:53]
Andy Levy
Yeah. So, you know, I'm an Army veteran, and I've always had at least a little bit of faith that even if a president failed to understand that the military isn't a domestic police force, at least the upper echelons of those who wear the uniforms, the generals and admirals and the civilians at the Department of Defense, that at least they understood that and were ready to, you know, sort of project that. I'm not sure I feel that way anymore, Radley, because of what you just said, because of the people that he's kicked out and the people that he's replaced them with. Yeah.
- [52:25]
Host 3
You know, one of the examples I give a lot of time, you know, I think the idea of bringing up National Guard troops to, you know, clear Lafayette park, for example, the optics of that were terrible, and the motivation and thinking behind it were really alarming. But, you know, one of the Things I took comfort in is that while you saw the. The federal police departments use violence to clear that park, where you saw pushback, it was from the National Guard. The National Guard, right. They were not happy to be there. You saw troops testifying before Congress directly contradicting what the White House was claiming. And, you know, I think that's because the National Guard is made up of us. Right? I mean, National Guard troops are not lifelong cops who've been immersed in police culture and toxic sort of us versus them mentality. You know, the National Guard is made up of, like, the guy who works on your car and the guy who fixes your air conditioning. And, yeah, these are all. They're us. Right. And they. So I, you know, I take some comfort in the idea that I don't think National Guard troops are going to, you know, open fire on citizens like we saw at Kent State. I think they're the least likely forced to do that. The problem is that the. That Trump is assembling this. This ICE Border Patrol DHI force that, you know, is going to be doubled or tripled over the next couple of years.
- [53:40]
Andy Levy
They're not going to.
- [53:40]
Host 3
The only way they find people to fill out those. Those numbers to staff up like that is by lowering their standards and hiring people who. The only qualification is going to be loyalty to Trump. And so if that turns into Trump's personal paramilitary force, you know, those aren't the people who are going to question his orders. Those are going to people who are going to be enthusiastic about carrying them out.
- [54:00]
Andy Levy
Totally agree with all of that. But just getting back to the military for a second, you know, you write in the piece, I think you talk about how a lot of this seems to be driven by the fact that Trump can't stand that in his first term, he was told that he couldn't order people to shoot protesters. And I feel like those people who told him he couldn't do that are not around anymore. And particularly with Hegseth as Secretary of Defense, with the generals he now has around him, I feel like there may not be someone who's gonna tell him that, no, you, in fact, can't order troops. Not. You can't order troops to shoot at. Protest. At peaceful protesters.
- [54:41]
Host 3
Yeah, I guess, you know, I guess at some level I still hope that, you know, he can't replace the entire military. So I hope at some point in the chain, and you're going to get people who still, you know, understand those kind of basic values. Maybe that's naive of me to hope that, but Yeah, I mean, I think you're right. I mean, it's telling that Trump replaced the chief Joint Chairman, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, with a guy who literally, according to Trump, told him he loved him and that he would kill for him. Right. I mean, that's who. Who he put at the head of the military. And of course, you have Hegseth who, you know, thinks the military should be recruited in a holy war and thinks that Trump was sent by God. So, yeah, I mean, I would, I would hope that. I mean, you know, the funny thing is the, the biggest fear of the founders was that there would be a military coup. Right. That the military would take over the civilian control. And so that's why we have civilian control of the military. You know, what they didn't anticipate is that the problem would be with the civilian control and not with the military itself. You know, I think.
- [55:33]
Andy Levy
Right.
- [55:34]
Host 3
Right now we have a civilian who wants to use the military for unconstitutional reasons and pretty terrifying reasons. And the question is whether the military will defy that civilian, which is not. Not a problem that we anticipated, you know, as recently as 10 years ago.
- [55:48]
Andy Levy
Yeah. And it's also, it's, you know, it's a coup from the person who is already in power.
- [55:53]
Host 2
Right.
- [55:53]
Andy Levy
It's not someone trying to overthrow the person in power. It's the person in power trying to, you know, subvert the Constitution and increase his own power. There's something you wrote about in the piece, the dual state model. Talk about that.
- [56:04]
Host 3
I guess it's sort of the phenomenon we're seeing that if you read people who, you know, historians who have written about fascism, one about. And there's a good piece in the Atlantic about it a couple of years ago, also a brief written by a bunch of former DOJ attorneys during Trump's first administration. The idea of the dual state is that you have an authority or state or, you know, people in charge of the government are arguing in court, are making one set of arguments in court that are sort of, you know, they're still bullshit, but they're, they're. They're grounded in some kind of legal principle. They're, they're plausible, I guess, in some way. Meanwhile, the policies that they're enacting that are justified by those legal arguments are completely, you know, off the rails. Right. And so we see this with Trump where they're arguing, you know, they're trying to parse these arguments about, you know, rendition and, you know, whether what, what kind of due process undocumented people are afforded before they Send them off to, you know, gulags and foreign slave labor camps. They aren't abiding by any of the legal arguments they're making in court. But because the courts confer this kind of legitimacy on the government, because it's the government they, the courts only hear, the courts will only consider arguments in the context of the cases that they're hearing. So if the Trump administration is found to have been lying to the federal courts when it comes to shutting down USAID or shutting down the Department of Education, it could be the same attorneys from the Solicitor General's office making these arguments that are openly lying to the courts and found to openly lying to the courts and misleading them. They get another case where they're talking about, I don't know, birthright citizenship or sending people off to foreign slave labor prisons, they still get that deference and that assumption of legitimacy and this idea of regularity that the government's not going to lie to the courts. Like, you have to. I mean, you have to. I mean, you see this when these judges, these district court judges, they're getting lied to over and over and over again, and they're giving the administration every single chance, you know, before they try to find them in contempt. Whereas if you or I were caught doing any of those things, we'd be found in contempt on day one and thrown in a jail cell. But because you're representing the government, you have this sort of assumed legitimacy and regularity. And so what it allows them to do is just allows them continue to break the law on a regular basis so long as they're making quasi plausible legal arguments in court. And, you know, for me, I've always thought it was bullshit that the courts, you know, assumed good faith on the part of the government because, you know, I've seen enough prosecutors and police abuse cases to know that, like, they don't argue in good faith. And, and anytime the court says, oh, yeah, the police broke the law here, but they had good faith, that just becomes a roadmap for police to break the law in the future. Well, like, all you have to do is use these magic words and the court will assume you're acting in good faith. Right. So, you know, it's all kind of catching up to us now. I think this, the, the Roberts court's, you know, love of executive power, the deference to the government. And then finally you have this, this executive that is just openly and unapologetically operating in bad faith, lying at every turn. I mean, they lie when they don't even have to lie, you know, and we're seeing, like, the kind of the. The foundations of our legal system kind of crumbling in front of us. And the, you know, the really terrifying part is when you read, you know, people who write about the history of fascism and the history of authoritarianism, like, it's all really familiar to them. Right. I mean, this is exactly. I know we're not supposed to compare anything to the Nazis, but it's exactly what these did. They made, like, legitimate arguments in court while they were terrorizing people on the ground, and the courts continued to just assume everything they were saying in court was legitimate. And that's where we are. I mean, it's. Yeah, I find it. I, you know, can't think about it too much. Because it'll drive you crazy.
- [59:48]
Andy Levy
Yeah, yeah, no, for sure. And that's why, you know, like I said at the top, your piece was terrifying to me to actually think that this debate is over and, as you said, and that we are witnessing the same. I know, again, you're not supposed to compare things to the Nazis, but the playbook is just very clearly the same one. Radley, thank you so much for coming on. People, go check out the Watch. It's just an absolutely great newsletter. And if you haven't read Rise of the Warrior Cop, I don't know what's wrong with you. Radley, thanks so much.
- [60:19]
Host 3
We're doing a new edition, working on it, so look forward to the next. If books are still legal.
- [60:25]
Andy Levy
Right. I look forward to reading it in Canada.
- [60:29]
Host 3
Yeah. Take care. Thanks.
- [60:31]
Andy Levy
Thanks, Rodney. All right, Danielle, close out this week for us. Who is your. Fuck that guy? I'm assuming it's not anybody I know.
- [60:41]
Host 1
You would assume wrong, Andy. It is somebody that you know, and it's somebody I hope to never fucking know. You know, sometimes I will watch these Fox News segments, particularly the show the Five, and I will pause and say to myself, is this 2025? Like, is this actually happening on air? And this week was one of those fucking moments where I guess they call him a comedian, but I don't think he's funny. Greg Gutfeld on Tuesday decided, Andy, that conservatives need to learn something from black people. Now, I would just say, full stop, stop, you're 100% right. And then just keep it moving. But what it is that he thinks that they should learn from black people is how black people remove the power of the N word by ref. By referring to themselves. Wait for it. Referring to themselves as Nazis. Then he went on to go around the panel and use the Nazi Word. Yeah, yeah, my Nazi. And like, yeah, that's so Nazi. And it was the most obscene clip I have ever seen. There is of course a backlash that is happening, but clearly not enough because he's still fucking employed. And what is wild to me, we already know that the people that run Fox, anti Semitic, racist, all of these things. Fox has been sued out of close to a billion dollars for lies, you know, for gaslighting their audience, all of these things. And this man thinks that he wants to reclaim the word Nazi, which is associated with the Holocaust. Genocide of millions of people is pretty much a single stand in for the most despicable ideology and reclaim that as a point of empowerment. Just shows you where the fuck these MAGA mind melt people are at the moment. And honestly I could go on and on about not even understanding the depth of the reclamation of the nword that was created by white racists like Gutfeld to in order to diminish black people and tell black people who they were without having, allowing for self determination. So I, I could go on, but I won't. But that man, that man. And I'll put that in quotations like I do. His title of comedian is a piece of shit. So fuck that guy. I'm sorry, Andy, I didn't mean to come after your friend like that, but.
- [63:43]
Andy Levy
No, no, it's fine. Okay, moving on. Next. No, okay, look, a couple things here. One, he was joking. I just want to be clear on that, that I understand he was joking because I addressed this a little bit on Blue sky when it happened and someone was like, tried to throw something back in my face because I had done a whole thing when I was at Red Eye on Fox saying you don't have to get the joke or you don't have to like the joke, but you have to realize it's a joke. Yeah, I know he was joking, but the joke doesn't work. The joke isn't funny and that's, you know, whatever. The joke doesn't work because black people reclaimed a word that was used against them. As you, as you pointed out, a word that was used by white, I keep saying was like, it's strictly in the past.
- [64:38]
Host 1
Exactly.
- [64:38]
Andy Levy
But you know what I mean? Yeah, Nazis called themselves Nazis. Like nobody, nobody gave them that name to try to belittle them. That's, that's what they called themselves. So you can't, there's nothing to reclaim. Like, it's just, it's a, it's a, it's a, it's a dumb joke. And look, I Understand, you know, this is what Greg does now. And I always hate to be one of those people that. That say someone used to be funny, but Greg did used to be funny. He legitimately used to be funny. It was a long time ago, but he legitimately used to be funny. Now he does shit like this, you know, and the same goes for Kennedy. I don't want to let Kennedy be overlooked here because she jumped in on it and. And she is a smart person and knows better. And I'll let you draw any inferences you want from me referring to her as smart as opposed to someone else. But, yeah, it's just. It's a dumb joke for him to sit there and say the criticism doesn't matter to us when you call us Nazis. Yes, it does, or you wouldn't be talking about it. It's just the whole thing was just incredibly stupid and obviously incredibly offensive, but, you know, yeah, just. Yeah, fuck those guys.
- [65:59]
Host 1
So, Andy, have you brought somebody new to our list, or are you resurfacing somebody that has been embezzled into our marble hall of fame?
- [66:12]
Andy Levy
I think he's already been there. I think I've. I think I've put him there. But, yeah, and this. This plays off your. Fuck that guy. Because that clip was on, I want to say, Tuesday and then Wednesday, the next day, this Motherfucker goes on FoxNews.com and writes a piece with the headline, will Zoran Mamdani protect All New Yorkers? He owes the Jewish community an answer. And this is Jonathan Greenblatt, the head of the Anti Defamation League. And I don't know if I've made him my. Fuck that guy. I think I have, but I know I've talked about him on the show and how much I just, at this point, I straight up loathe him. What he is doing, what he has done is so bad. And for him to sit there and say that Zora and Mandani owes the Jewish community an answer. Why? Why? Oh, he founded a Students for justice in Palestine chapter when he was in college. Good. I mean, that's a good thing. And I know a lot of Jews who think that that's a good thing. So please stop saying he owes the Jewish community answers. I think I'm part of that Jewish community. He doesn't owe me any answers. But to sit there and have this published on FoxNews.com, which tells you right away, by the way, where the ADL is at these days, and it's not an accident that Greenblatt has also Spoken at Republican events lately. And he is a straight up Trumpist at this point. And it's absolutely disgusting. So one day you've got people joking on Fox News about reclaiming the word Nazi, which again isn't really reclaiming, but whatever, and calling each other Nazi to take the sting out of it. And on the next day you've got Jonathan Greenblatt, the head of the Anti Defamation League, publishing shit on there about how Zoran Mandani owes the Jewish community an answer. Let me talk about what this is real quick and then I'll get out. This is Islamophobia. This is racism. Call it what you want. For the head of an organization called the Anti Defamation League to be trafficking in shit like this is as low as it gets. And I just, and that's why I say I have nothing but contempt for him. I have nothing but contempt for the ADL with him as its leader. And they are, to use a phrase, my people, they are bad for the Jews at this point. And, and we don't need this. I don't want this. And really, man, pick your spots a little better to have something published on foxnews.com the day after. There are people are making jokes about calling each other Nazis to take the sting out of it. Yeah, fuck that guy.
- [69:02]
Host 1
I just, you know, I think that him at the head of the adl, is an embarrassment to that organization and takes out all of the good work that had been done for decades prior to his tenure. And he has shown himself to be an Islamophobe, an embarrassment, a Trumper, and just frankly a disgusting human being and shouldn't be representing anyone, anyone at all. So for that reason and so so many others, fuck that guy.
- [69:37]
Andy Levy
Yeah, it used to mean something when the ADL called someone out.
- [69:41]
Host 1
Yep.
- [69:41]
Andy Levy
Like you'd be like, oh man, this person must be pretty bad now. It doesn't mean shit. It just means that Jonathan Greenblatt has found a Muslim or someone that he wants to target to attack. Yeah, fuck that guy.
- [69:59]
Sponsor 1
Quince believes that quality products shouldn't be a luxury. Whether It's a breathable 100% European linen shirt or effortless stretch cotton pants, all of their high end top quality pieces are about half the cost of similar brands. Yes, really. By working directly with top artisans and cutting out the middlemen, Quints gives you luxury pieces without the markup. Get the high end goods you deserve@quints.com upgrade for free shipping and 365 day returns.
- [70:27]
Sponsor 2
Did you know that parents rank financial literacy as the number one most difficult life skill to teach. Meet Greenlight, the debit card and money app for families. With Greenlight, you can set up chores, automate allowance and keep an eye on your kids spending. With real time notifications, kids learn to earn, save and spend wisely. And parents can rest easy knowing their kids are learning about money with guardrails in place. Sign up for Greenlight today@Greenlight.com podcast.