It Could Happen Here Weekly 235

Summary

Behind the Bastards: It Could Happen Here Weekly 235

Podcast Date: June 6, 2026
Host: Robert Evans (with Garrison Davis, Mia Wong, James Stout, Sophie Lichterman, Molly Conger, Danielle Kurd, various guests)

---

Episode Overview

This week’s "It Could Happen Here Weekly" features a compilation of several conversations touching on a diverse set of topics: the American obsession with “bad guys” in popular culture, bear-human interactions and wildlife management, the lessons from historical and modern bear policy, union organizing at Muji, the fallout and farce of the Democratic National Committee’s 2024 election autopsy, the humanitarian and political disaster in war-torn Iran, California's surreal local politics, ongoing changes to US immigration, and eroding federal policies. Across episodes, themes of institutional dysfunction, political malfeasance, and societal decay are foregrounded by the hosts’ signature candidness and dark humor.

---

Table of Contents

1. The Bear Episode: Charismatic Megafauna and American Violence (02:45 - 78:58)
2. Muji Workers United: Unionizing in the Modern Retail World (81:34 - 124:56)
3. The Democratic Party’s 2024 Firestorm Autopsy (128:07 - 188:44)
4. Iran After the War: Inside a Humanitarian Catastrophe (190:50 - 217:07)
5. The Weekly News Roundup: California, Immigration, and Bureaucratic Chaos (219:31 - 286:46)
6. Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

---

1. The Bear Episode: Charismatic Megafauna and American Violence <a name="bears"></a>

Hosts: Robert Evans & Molly Conger
Timestamps: 02:45 – 78:58

Main Themes & Purpose

Robert and Molly dive into American attitudes towards bears (and by extension, dangerous animals and wilderness), exploring how fascination with megafauna is tied to deeper cultural violence. They recount historic and modern stories, critique political opportunism (e.g., “Revenge killings”), and critique misinformation about bear safety—especially bad advice following recent fatal bear encounters.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

Introduction: The Bear/Human Psyche

• Americans are obsessed with animals that can kill them; there’s a thrill in sharing the landscape with apex predators ([04:39]-[09:00]).
• European settlers, e.g., Lewis & Clark’s encounter with bears, were warned by Indigenous people but predictably messed around and found out ([18:18]-[23:25]):
  • Quote: “The Indians give a very formidable account of the strength of ferocity of this animal, which they never dare to attack...” – Robert quoting Lewis's diary ([18:33])

Bear Species & American Regions

• Black, brown (including grizzly, Kodiak), and polar bears live in North America.
• Confusing bear color names can make safety advice misleading ([06:07]-[06:26]).
• Individual bear stories: Grizzly encounters in Alaska; San Diego black bear “truthers” ([09:13]-[10:38]).

Bear Attacks, Public Policy, & “Revenge Killings”

• The politics of post-attack bear culls (“revenge killings”) after rare fatal encounters; former Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke calls for delisting grizzlies from protection ([12:13]-[14:37]).
  • Quote: “So we should start killing them.” – Molly ([13:40])
• Hosts debunk claims bears are “overpopulated” and detail actual rarity of fatal bear attacks ([14:41]-[15:54]).
• Most bear attacks result from not following basic safety principles; bear spray is effective but maligned in clickbait narratives ([15:07]-[16:33], [52:39]-[59:09]).

Historic Eradication of Bears & Habitat Destruction

• By 1930s, grizzlies were wiped out from nearly all former range ([24:25]-[25:29]).
• The mass extermination of bears (parallel to bison): “Intentional destruction” incentivized by bounties ([24:47]-[25:23]).
• Ecosystem domino effects: Rabbits in Britain, myxomatosis in Australia ([26:30]-[29:46]).

Legal and Bureaucratic Mess

• Endangered Species Act (ESA): Delistings and relistings shaped by political considerations more than science ([29:51]-[36:32]):
  • Protection fluctuation in Yellowstone; courts require broad ecological review, not just population count ([34:17]-[36:32]).
  • “Bears do not recognize jurisdictional borders.” – Molly ([35:53])
• ESA definitions: “Endangered,” “threatened,” how easy it is to use “good faith” self-defense as a legal defense for killing a bear ([30:16]-[31:58]).

Modern Bear Policy & Cultural Attitudes

• Ecological arguments often mask latent desire to control/conquer nature; trophy hunting culture perpetuated by elites ([36:11]-[39:15]).
• Absurdity of “managing” bears for caribou populations (ignoring multifactorial causes) ([39:17]-[40:40]).
• The majority of bear deaths are due to cars, trains, and human interaction—not natural causes ([42:22]-[44:02]).

Bear Safety: Facts vs Clickbait

• Vicious cycle: Delisting bears, increasing hunting, leading to more dangerous encounters ([50:44]-[51:56]).
• Bear spray efficacy: Contrary to recent viral claims, science and practice show it works. Guns are less effective and more dangerous except for trained users ([52:39]-[68:51]).
• Proper behavior in bear country: Clean camps, bear cans, bells, practical advice ([60:31]-[63:24]).
  • “If it’s in the bottom of your backpack, the bear doesn’t give you advance notice…” – Robert ([68:00])

Conclusion: Why Preserve the Wild?

• Sharing a landscape with megafauna is part of American natural beauty and identity; most fatal wilderness risks are still cars and human factors.
• Caution against safety-motivated calls for mass eradication of predators; risk is part of the reward ([71:53]-[75:53]).
• Calls for awe, coexistence, and activism for wildlife—plus, Fat Bear Week shoutout ([78:09]-end).

---

2. Muji Workers United: Unionizing in the Modern Retail World <a name="muji"></a>

Host: Mia Wong
Guests: Morgan & Renee (Muji Workers United)
Timestamps: 81:34 – 124:56

Main Themes & Purpose

An on-the-ground discussion of the union drive at Portland’s Muji store, highlighting both the modern challenges of retail work and the ways organizing can build solidarity.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

• Muji: Japanese “no brand” minimalist chain, aggressively expanding but underpaying staff and raising targets ([82:23]-[87:12])
• Spark for unionizing: paltry raises after record year ([84:20]-[87:12])
  • Quote: “My raise of 65 cents last summer… was the highest by a significant margin.” – Sophie ([86:12])
• Building a campaign: Social potlucks as organizing tool ([90:23]-[93:09])
• Litany of abuses: Wage stagnation, emotional abuse from management, sick time denied, sick hour “app” rejections, discriminatory enforcement of uniform code, retaliation against reporting sexual harassment ([95:09]-[107:12])
• Legal struggle: Boss attempts to split the bargaining unit and exclude “keyholder” shift leads; rank-and-file represent themselves at board hearing and win ([109:09]-[113:47])
• Broader lessons: Workers can learn law, advocate for themselves; importance of solidarity and mutual aid ([117:02]-[119:29])
• Direct action and community: Union as a means to both material improvements and combating alienation ([121:05]-[124:56])
  • Quote: “If you want a way out of the stultifying boredom and isolation and crushing poverty of the modern capitalist experience, you too can create a union and resist all of those things simultaneously.” – Mia ([124:16])

---

3. The Democratic Party’s 2024 Firestorm Autopsy <a name="dnc"></a>

Hosts: Garrison Davis & Sophie Ray Lichterman
Timestamps: 128:07 – 188:44

Main Themes & Purpose

A scathing—and darkly hilarious—dissection of the DNC’s “autopsy” report on the 2024 election disaster. The discussion reveals the report’s incompetence, lack of substance, and what its omissions say about the party’s future.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

• Background: Democrats lose House, Senate, and presidency in 2024; DNC promises an “honest and transparent” autopsy report—then buries it for a year ([128:53]-[133:31])
• The report: Authored by a friend of the DNC chair, often working part-time or delegating to AI ([133:33]-[136:25])
• Content leaks: No mention of Gaza/Israel, no analysis of Biden’s age, cognitive decline, or debate disaster. Focused on ad spending, unsourced stats, missing executive summary/conclusion sections ([138:43]-[147:45])
• Self-contradictory analysis: Wishes the campaign had gone both harder and softer on anti-Trump messaging ([154:15]-[155:10])
• Hilarious strategic “lessons”:
  • “Candidate definition is essential.”
  • “In order to win elections you have to win elections.” – hosts, mocking ([167:22])
• Absurd notions: “Deploy male messengers…” to win male voters ([168:29]-[169:25])
• Refusal to address: Failure to run a primary, abysmal economic messaging, or the party’s clear complicity in the Gaza crisis ([176:02]-[185:05])
• The Harris campaign’s branding failure, inability to separate from unpopular Biden, and disastrous silence on Gaza/Palestine ([178:04]-[185:47])
  • Quote: “We spent the entire election with a giant rotting fish around our neck.” – (Flattery, deputy campaign manager) ([182:14])
• Final lesson: The autopsy’s missing conclusion is “the perfect representation of what this report is.” ([187:15]-[187:47])

---

4. Iran After the War: Inside a Humanitarian Catastrophe <a name="iran"></a>

Host: Danielle Kurd
Guest: Dr. Negar Razavi
Timestamps: 190:50 – 217:07

Main Themes & Purpose

A grounded report on the dire situation in post-war Iran—from daily life under bombardment and repression, to the longer-term effects of nationalist backlashes and global indifference. Razavi and Kurd dissect how international think tanks, local fascist movements, and US empire interact in shaping both policy and perception.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

• Crushing daily reality: inflation, destroyed infrastructure, unemployment, 1,700+ civilians killed, millions displaced, heavy repression ([191:51]-[194:33])
• The regime’s use of war to consolidate power and crack down further post-January uprisings ([195:11]-[196:54])
• The convergence of fascisms enabling Western war on Iran: anti-Muslim sentiment, Aryanism/white supremacy, settler colonialism, paternalism, tech fascism ([199:16]-[204:24])
  • Quote: “This war was made possible… because several different strands of fascism have come together in this moment.” – Dr. Razavi ([199:16])
• Weaponized solidarity: anti-Palestinian racism among Iranian opposition, and how popular sentiment is shifting in the war’s aftermath ([205:18]-[207:26])
• Who benefits? Oil, weapons, and tech sectors; global losers ([211:57]-[214:05])
• The role of think tanks: analyzing how knowledge gets constructed and weaponized in US policy ([208:58]-[211:15])
• Final warning: Be critical of the self-appointed “experts” and who shapes public narrative on Iran ([214:37]-[216:39])

---

5. The Weekly News Roundup: California, Immigration, and Bureaucratic Chaos <a name="news"></a>

Panel: Garrison Davis, James Stout, Robert Evans, Mia Wong, Sophie Lichterman
Timestamps: 219:31 – 286:46

Main Themes & Purpose

A wild, freewheeling roundtable on the week’s most surreal and alarming news developments. Rapid-fire topics include intellectual property absurdity, California’s reality-TV candidate crisis, the fizzling of urban reform, the dismantling of voting rights, and the rising tide of American fascist immigration politics.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

Intellectual Property: Patagonia Sues “Pattygonia” Drag Queen ([220:12]-[227:14])

• Debate on the violence and absurdity of corporate trademark law, even when “woke” brands are involved.

California Politics: LA Mayoral Race, Rise of Reality TV Sideshow Candidates ([237:20]-[251:29])

• Spencer Pratt (of “The Hills” infamy) may advance to LA’s mayoral runoff, propelled by anti-establishment digital stardom, viral AI-generated campaign videos and a history of televised outbursts.
• Voter turnout, especially in primaries, remains puny; public faith in local government is at a nadir.

Elections: Bizarre Coalitions, Disillusionment ([252:40]-[253:43])

• Votes are down, faith in government is bust, and progressive/anti-tax coalitions are building on unsatisfying governance.

Supreme Court & Voting Rights: The Shredding of Section 2 ([254:55]-[266:22])

• Supreme Court, via “shadow docket,” guts the enforceability of the Voting Rights Act; intent to discriminate must be explicitly proven—essentially making racial gerrymandering legal if done along partisan lines.
• Quote: “This is, arguably, the death of any semblance of multiracial democracy in the US.” – Mia Wong ([262:05])

Immigration: Rubio and “Assimilation,” Fascist “Remigration” Conferences ([228:40]-[230:39], [275:20]-[286:19])

• US admits South African "Afrikaaners" as refugees for “assimilation potential” only—a nakedly racial calculus.
• Coverage of "remigration" summits: US border enforcement officials openly aligning with historical fascism, discussing “population replacement,” scapegoating non-white immigrants.

Bureaucratic Nightmares: Trump’s Bureaucracy and the End of Federal Science Grants ([266:09]-[273:56])

• New management rule to centralize and politicize all federal grants—science, Medicaid, disaster aid—under single Trump-appointed bureaucrats, essentially making peer review, independent science, and objective grantmaking impossible.

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments <a name="quotes"></a>

• “Eye for an eye for Florida man.” – Molly, on bear policy ([13:50])
• “Just so focused on fighting and fucking, they can’t even eat.” – Molly, describing mule deer rut ([04:39])
• “The bear can is not a necklace” – Robert, on proper bear safety ([41:27])
• “More people are killed by cattle… toddlers with guns… lightning.” – Robert, debunking “bear threat” hysteria ([32:31])
• “If you want to see wildlife and have no risk, you can just go to the zoo — but the zoo sucks compared to the outdoors.” – Robert ([72:51])
• “If you want a way out of the boredom and isolation… you can create a union and resist all those things simultaneously.” – Mia ([124:16])
• “It was brands, not messages. The trans ad worked because of what it implied, not what it said.” – Rob Flattery, Harris campaign ([176:04])
• “We spent the entire election with a giant rotting fish around our neck.” – Harris staffer ([182:14])
• “This is, arguably, the death of multiracial democracy in the U.S.” – Mia ([262:05])
• “Remigration is about race, ethnicity, religion, and national purity.” – Robert, on fascist summit ([275:20])
• “Fascism… is the idea of a chosen group and a scapegoat group. If the scapegoat can be removed, the chosen group will return to its former glory.” – Robert ([285:13])
• “If there were a tenth already deported, the rest would be buttoned up tighter than you can imagine. Those lines southbound… would be out the door.” – Robert paraphrasing a nativist ([279:58])

---

Overall Tone and Style

The show is fast-paced, irreverent, and darkly comic; the hosts mix personal stories, serious policy critique, and blunt cultural analysis with copious cursing, pop culture sidebars, and an undercurrent of justified rage at institutional rot.

---

For listeners seeking:

• A huge sweep of current American problems, from the gutting of labor law to the destruction of environmental protections
• Real talk on wildlife, fascism, and bureaucratic entropy
• Blunt, frequently hilarious takes on the week’s weirdest news and the abyssal state of the Democratic Party
  this episode delivers a comprehensive and memorable summary of America in mid-2026.

Transcript

[Molly Conger]

This is an iHeart podcast.

[Robert Evans]

Guaranteed Human.

[Mia Wong]

This is George Taveras and Sam Taggart from Stradiolab. Let's be real Home comes with a lot of odors.

[Robert Evans]

Cooking, pets, everyday life. That's where Febreze comes in.

[Garrison Davis]

Febreze helps fight household odors and leaves behind freshness that lasts. And with over 30 scents to choose from, you'll always find one that feels like you.

[Sophie Lichterman]

Febreze freshness that fits your life, your space, your style.

[Garrison Davis]

Febreze is a proud sponsor of the Elton John Impact Awards, honoring those who have helped shape a more inclusive and compassionate world with their artistry, advocacy, and unwavering commitment to equality.

[Mia Wong]

You won't want to miss the Elton

[Sophie Lichterman]

John Impact Awards podcast, available on June 1st on the iHeartRadio app and everywhere podcasts are heard.

[Mia Wong]

Ryan Reynolds here from Mint Mobile with a message for everyone Paying Big Wireless Way Too Much.

[Sophie Lichterman]

Please, for the love of everything good

[Mia Wong]

in this world, stop with Mint. You can get premium wireless for just $15 a month. Of course, if you enjoy overpaying. No judgments.

[Sophie Lichterman]

But that's weird.

[Mia Wong]

Okay, one judgment anyway. Give it a [e-mail] Switch upfront payment

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

of $45 for 3 month plan equivalent

[Robert Evans]

to $15 per month required intro rate

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

first 3 months only, then full price plan options available, taxes and fees extra.

[Robert Evans]

See full [e-mail] this is Jacob Goldstein

[Jacob Goldstein]

from what's yous Problem? When you buy business software from lots of vendors, the costs add up and it gets complicated and confusing. Odoo solves this. It's a single company that sells a suite of enterprise apps that handles everything from accounting to inventory to sales. Odoo is all connected on a single platform in a simple and affordable way. You can save money without missing out on the features you need. Check out odoo d o o.com that's o d o o dot com.

[Sophie Lichterman]

Your social media feed delivers plenty of advice, but it doesn't know you. It doesn't ask questions. It doesn't give physical exams or order tests doctors do. At the American Medical association, we believe the best care starts with a real conversation with someone who understands the science and your unique health. So stay curious. Ask questions. But when it's time to make decisions, make them with a doctor.

[Robert Evans]

Learn more at amahealth versus hype.org that's

[Sophie Lichterman]

amahealthvshipe.org

[James Stout]

call zone media hey everybody, Robert Evans here and I wanted to let you know this is a compilation episode. So every episode of the week that just happened is here in One convenient and with somewhat less ads package for you to listen to in a long stretch if you want. If you've been listening to the episodes every day this week, there's gonna be nothing new here for you. But you can make your own decisions.

[Sophie Lichterman]

It's bear time.

[Robert Evans]

Yep, it's bear time. Hi, everyone. Welcome to It Could Happen, a podcast where I talk to Molly Conger about animals. Hi, Molly.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

I am so excited to learn about bears. I've been thinking about it all week.

[Robert Evans]

That's fantastic. Good. I hope you've had good bear thoughts because there are people who think about bears a lot and I think it's not good for their mental well being.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

I was trying to find if I took a picture of that time a baby bear was like standing on the median strip outside my old apartment and I couldn't find it, but so I was thinking about him.

[Robert Evans]

Okay. Yeah, I hope he's okay. Hope he's found a better place to be than the median strip. I bought a show and tell item today. Molly can see it, no one else can.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

I was hoping it was going to be a live bear.

[Robert Evans]

It's not a live bear. I don't. I'm not allowed because of woke. You can't have a pet grizzly bear.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

If you're about to tell me that those are bear antlers, I'm leaving.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah, this is from. These are actually original jackalope antlers. From the California jackalope? No, it's a mule deer shed antler. I just thought it was cool. Thought you'd like to see it.

[Sophie Lichterman]

It's beautiful.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah. I think lots of people don't realize that their antlers fall off and regenerate.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

I feel like he spent a long time growing those.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah, he did. And then he just left them there as a gift for me in the wilderness. So I have a few of these.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

He's not getting laid this spring.

[Garrison Davis]

Oh, no.

[Robert Evans]

He's going to grow some more and he's going to fight another dude with them in order to get laid.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

So that fell off in a fight. So he's just walking around with one.

[Robert Evans]

No, no.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

Looking at the unicorn. Oh, he sheds. Okay. He shed them.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah, they shed them and regenerate them.

[Molly Conger]

Okay.

[Robert Evans]

Like this is how. This is how they get bigger and more robust antlers each time. But they put a lot of the caloric energy into growing these.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

It seems like that would really take a lot out of you.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah. Well, then they get horny and fight with other male deer for quite a while.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

No, those are antlers not horns.

[Robert Evans]

That's correct. But the horny is not related to them. Yeah, they get. And then they lose a lot of weight in that rutting time and then they have to gain it all back before the winter.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

Just so focused on fighting and fucking, they can't even eat.

[Robert Evans]

Yep. It's the many such cases. Many such cases. Yeah. Yeah. So I'm not talking about mule deer today. They are cool. First time I saw one, I was like, I see why they call it a mule deer. Really got the ears going on. I want to talk about another type of charismatic North American megafauna bears. So there are three species of bear in North America. Should we do a quiz? Molly, do you know what they are?

[Sophie Lichterman]

Okay.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

Grizzly, brown, black, polar, close.

[Robert Evans]

That's four. You just got to keep spraying panda.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

Those aren't even bears.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah, nominally they are, but I think, yeah, you did get them all during your period of guessing. Brown, black and polar. Within brown bear, we have grizzly bears, brown bears, and Kodiak bears. We used to think that the California bears were a different species and not they just lived here.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

They just have different politics.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah, yeah, exactly. Like they weed have been legalized. So they just saw things differently. The brown bear is the one I want to talk about. So I'm going to use brown bear as like a blanket term for when they're on the coast in Alaska, they're called brown bears. Right. And those are generally the biggest ones I know. If you've ever seen it, if you've been to Alaska, Molly.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

No, I would love to go to Alaska. I've never been.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah, Alaska fucking rips. I love Alaska.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

I found out recently that black bears can be brown. And I just think we need. I think we need to re evaluate the naming system.

[Robert Evans]

It's not good.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

Yes, because like people are, you know, the advice about a brown bear versus a black bear is different. But if a black bear can be brown and you're relying on a rhyming phrase to know what to do, you don't know what kind of bear that is.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah, it's. They call them cinnamon bears. Sometimes the, the, the brown black bears. Yeah. You can tell a grizzly bear at the bigger. They've got that more pronounced hump. They have a different shape to them.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

No, you can tell. I cannot.

[Robert Evans]

You'll know the grizzly bears coming, like, they don't make themselves, you know, quiet, but yeah, the big hump, they've got a more pronounced hump. Grizzly bears can also really get into like a blonde coloration Even.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

Well, yeah, in California. Sure. Everybody's blonde out there.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah. They, they get frosted tips when they live by the coast for too long and they listen to Sublime here.

[James Stout]

Yeah.

[Robert Evans]

Let's talk about bears. My bear interactions, by way of establishing some credibility, I want to point out that interacting with bears doesn't make you an expert. I'm not an expert. And what we're going to talk about here is non experts interjecting their inexpert opinions about bears and why that's actually a problem.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

I'm probably interacting with bears is not a desirable outcome for most listeners.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah, I love a bear, like I see because I come from a place where there's very little that can kill you. Well, I mean there are things, right. There are cars and we have cancer in the UK as well, of course. But like animal wise, you're more or less in a clearer. We have adders, which is a type of snake and they are venomous. But like I can't think of the last time I ever heard of someone getting killed. But I'm sure someone has been killed by an adid, but it's very rare.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

Yeah, you don't have, I mean you have a lion on like a flag or something. Somebody has one. But there's been a lion.

[Robert Evans]

We have a few lions. We got some flag lions. Yeah, the lions. In fact, I love the lions on a flag because they're drawn by someone who's never seen a lion. Just like a game of telephone has resulted in.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

But he knows they're very majestic.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah, it's majestic. Kind of like a dog, longer hair. I think there was the input before he drew the lions. I kind of like being on the landscape with animals that are bigger than me and like they are the apex predator. First time I saw a grizzly bear I had bush planed to a lake in the Wrangell St. Elias wilderness. That's in Alaska, Southeastern Alaska, massive wilderness area. And we were gonna hike around a bit and then pack raft off the end of the glacier there it goes into like a meltwater river. Right. And so the river's kind of different every year as it, as it melts and the river streams braid together. Then we were gonna pack raft for a few days and then hike out. And that was a fun adventure. So we landed, we hiked a bit, we inflated our little boats and we paddled across the lake at the end of the glacier. And then we got to a place where we're camping, went on a walk and immediately saw a sour grizzly bear. And her cubs, which was sick.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

That's cute as hell. I would love to see that. I would love to see some baby bears.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah, it's sick. Best to stay away from them. That's when they, they can get angry.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

I would like to see them from like over here.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

And then they can be over there like maybe on the other side of a river.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah, well, bears can be not afraid of water, but that's true. And they do love to eat a salmon. Yeah, it was sick. That was a sick trip. Generally we got to see the glacier carving. So like that's when a little baby glacier is born. Right. But the glacier, a section of it broke off and I'm talking a section the size of like a city block here.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

Oh, but it's so shiny when it breaks.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah, it's shiny and it's loud. It's like an earth shattering rumble. Right. And then this thing, I mean it was, it was majestic. Right. Like it looks like a mountain has fallen into the water. And that was cool as fuck. And then you realize that it has displaced a mountain sized amount of water.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

Okay, you better move.

[Robert Evans]

And now there are like fridge sized ice blocks coming at head height towards you. So yeah, we did some fast uphill running in that moment. But it was Alaska, so it was summertime, so it wasn't getting dark. Right. You have like 24 hour sunlight, so at least it wasn't dark when that happened.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

Plenty of time to run from the glacier.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah, great time to run from the glacier. Wouldn't want to do it in the wintertime. I don't think they carve in the wintertime. Maybe they still do. I think it's to do with temperature rising. So that was my. I've seen a lot of black bears. I'm a San Diego black bear truther. But it's another fun thing about me. For some reason people don't think there are black bears in San Diego and that is not true. I have seen bear footprints. People have seen bears on game cameras. Bears pop up on top of Mount Palomar all the time.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

It's like the ongoing feud about whether or not we have panthers on the east coast.

[Robert Evans]

Oh yeah, you guys love to. Yeah, like it's like a Carolina panther or something.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

People are very sure I have no skin in this game.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah, I think there's a breeding family of mountain lions now maybe in Michigan. So they're getting closer. They're getting, they're coming your way. You soon will. I've seen a lot of bears or a good number of Bears. Seen a lot of black bears. Right. We have them in California. The fact that I've seen bears does not make me a bear expert. And another non bear expert has been diving into the discourse on bears after a tragedy, like genuinely a terrible thing. When a hiker lost their life in Glacier. Try and say it the American way. Glacier National Park.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

I just say we're going to get messages about this. This British word.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah, right. It's not like a buffalo issue. I'm just straight colonizing it. I'm sure it had an indigenous name and so. So are you if you're saying glacier. This is really sad. Right. A hiker from Florida was mauled by a bear and died very shortly. In relation to that, serious injuries occurred in another mauling in Yellowstone national park not so long ago. A contractor at a uranium mining site was killed by a black bear in British Columbia in Canada a couple of weeks ago, maybe 13th of May. It looks like unusual to be killed by a black bear. Probably worth pointing out that very rare for black bears to kill people. And also someone at that site clearly had a firearm because they euthanased the bear. Euthanased is a phrase they use there. They killed it. Right. Like it wasn't suffering. I don't think they killed the bear pretty shortly thereafter. And it's undergoing a necropsy now. But that's another incident, I guess, to add to this list. And again, right there, there was a firearm present there, it seems, and that didn't prevent the person being mauled by the bear. And so former Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke has decided to wade into the debate. Do we remember Ryan Zinke?

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

He's not the one from Real World Road Rules. Right? That's the transportation guy.

[Robert Evans]

I don't think so. If he is, I'm not aware of what Real World Road Rules is.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

I'm just having trouble remembering which members of Cabinet have been on reality tv, and I don't think this is one of them.

[Robert Evans]

Okay.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

Sorry.

[Robert Evans]

No, not to my knowledge. Zinky, he was Navy SEAL officer. He's now a representative from Montana. He was Interior secretary in Trump's first administration. He presided over a series of attacks on public lands that we saw in Trump 1.0.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

Right, exactly what you want to see from your Secretary of the Interior.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah, yeah. He's trying to rebrand himself as some kind of protector of public lands. Now, he's kind of too late on that one, in my opinion, but he's certainly not a protector of bears. Last week he tweeted. Maybe he zeeted. I don't know.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

We're not doing that.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah, we're not doing that. We're gonna keep dead naming it. Last week, two grizzly bear attacks claimed the life of a hiker in Glacier national park and seriously injured two others in Yellowstone National Park. The tragedies are a sobering reminder that grizzly bear populations have recovered well beyond sustainable levels. And it is time for.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

Oh, so we should start killing them.

[Robert Evans]

Yep. It's. It's past time for the federal government to delist them and give states some management tools.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

Kill them back.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah, we're gonna kill them back. This is what we do.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

Eye for an eye for Florida, man.

[Garrison Davis]

Yeah, fuck off.

[Robert Evans]

I was speaking to a bear, a scientist who studies human bear interactions this week and he referred to these as revenge killings. Yeah. Because they won't just kill. They often, in many instances, don't know which bear. Sometimes we can, we can start. We can know the size of the bear right. From like the, the, the size of the jaws, that we can have several bears that are different sizes, jaws, things, the distance between the different teeth, stuff like this. Right, right.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

Like if one bear is like, if it's like a Jaws situation, like one bear just has it out for hikers. Sure, I guess. Get him.

[Robert Evans]

But that's not like, that's not what's happening. Yeah. And they will end up killing a number of bears in an area when this stuff happens. Right. Which is. It's just a revenge killing. So we're taking out, like we're taking out our anger on that species because they came after our species.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

It seems like the problem is not that there's too many bears.

[Robert Evans]

That is correct, Molly. That is, that is why we're here today.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

He seems, he seems to be positioning this as there's just too many bears. People just can't avoid the bears because there's so many bears.

[Robert Evans]

But that is not the case. Millions of people every year visit the Greater Yellowstone ecosystem and very few of them see a bear. Right.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

And even fewer of them touch a bear.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah. If you're touching a grizzly bear, it's a bad day for you. Unless I guess, it has decided it wants to be touched.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

I don't want to victim blame. Obviously, like, these are wild animals, they're unpredictable. You're in their home. What'd this guy do? Why was he so close to the bear?

[Robert Evans]

We don't know exactly what this guy did. There are a number of bear safety things which I do want to talk about. And I spoke to Tom Smith last week and I'm going to turn that into another podcast. But like this is the person who is the guy who writes the studies on human interactions with bears. Right. And specifically on how those could be like de escalated. And he said he's not aware of an incident in which someone has been killed by a bear in which they were adhering to all the best principles. Right.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

Now I'm not blaming the victim, like if you don't know, you don't know you're an inexperienced outdoorsman or whatever. But I feel like there's a series of just like pieces of advice that if you follow them, you're not going to get in that situation most of the time. Most of the time.

[Robert Evans]

Most of the time. Yeah. I think if I was going into bear country, I wouldn't take a dog. A lot of people take dogs. Dog is a great way to find a bear. If you're looking for a bear, you could go send out your dog and it'll come back to you with a bear in toe. Some, like hunting dogs can also tree bears. But that's not what I'm talking about here, is it?

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

Because the bear sees the dog as a delicious snack.

[Robert Evans]

I think it. Well, the dog sees the bear as a threat. Right. And it'll start and it'll get. And then like the bear then obviously sees the dog as a. What the fuck is this little animal? So now we're just going to get apex predator here. Yeah, like we're locked in and the dog can smell the bear. Right. So he's going to find it and the bear can smell the dog. So they're going to find each other.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

I guess I was thinking of my dog, which a bear would definitely see as a delicious snack.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah, your dog I could see. Maybe it'd be sub snack size, it wouldn't be worth it.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

But like a little cocktail weenie.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah, A sausage dog would try it, it wouldn't give it. Like I've seen, I've sent you a video of a sausage dog chase chasing off a mountain lion. They didn't give a fuck. Very brave.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

So, yeah, don't, don't take a dog. Don't try and pet it.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah, don't take a dog. Yeah, don't try and pet it. In this instance, I think the person was moving through thick country where the bear was probably foraging for berries and they probably startled the bear. So you don't want to startle the bear. If you're moving through thick country like that, that's when people will Say, hey, bear. Or they'll use a bear bell. Or they'll talk loudly and converse with people in their group. It is generally preferred to be in a group when we're in grizzly country. Right. Not on our own. We don't know the details of this incident. There have been some reports that the person discharged bear spray. And I want to get onto the bear spray topic later because I have a lot to say about that. Let's go back and talk about bears in history.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

Yes. Contextualize the bear.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah. Ren Zinki wants to delist the bear from the Endangered Species Act. Right. Bears haven't always been protected by the Endangered Species Act. That's why California has a bear on its flag that doesn't live here anymore.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

Oh, you don't have those anymore?

[Robert Evans]

No, we killed them all. We don't have brown bears here.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

So is he on the flag because you're sorry about it, because you're proud of it?

[Robert Evans]

No, I think it's more of a pride thing. I think it's more of a.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

We got him.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah, Yeah. I don't actually know what. He's on the flag. I'll do some. Do some searching. I'm pretty sure it's not because we're sorry about it. Okay. We have a good source, right, of what European people did when they first encountered bears. It's not my story from Alaska.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

Oh, I bet they did not know about them.

[Robert Evans]

Well, they did, because as it turns out, as Lewis and Clark were moving across the plains, right. They. They encountered indigenous people who very specifically told them not to with bears. Let me quote from Lewis's diary.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

I feel like you would not have to tell, like if I have never. If I had no concept of bear and I see a bear, my instinct is going to be, I'm going to leave that guy alone.

[Robert Evans]

See? Yeah. But maybe these guys are just built different. As it turns out, their bear poking, I don't know. Desire is extremely turns out counterproductive for them. Let's read from the Lewis and Clark diaries are first on the podcast. Quote, the Indians give a very formidable account of the strength of ferocity of this animal, which they never dare to attack, but in parties of six, eight or ten persons, and are even then frequently defeated with a loss of one or more of their party. This animal is said to more frequently attack a man on meeting with him than flee from him. When the Indians are about to go in quest of the white bear, previous to their departure, they paint themselves and perform all these superstitious rites commonly Observed when they're about to make war upon a neighboring nation. I think he's talking about brown bears when he talks about white bears there.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

But I was gonna say, is he talking about polar bears? Because you definitely don't do that. That's an even worse idea.

[Robert Evans]

Do not fuck with a beer. Polar bear will end you. That was on the 15th of April.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

So he's like, yeah, it takes eight or ten guys usually. One of them dies. They don't always succeed. I'm gonna go check it out. I got it.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah. Yep. So by early May, Captain Clark and Dryer killed the largest brown bear this evening, which we have ever yet seen. It was a most tremendous looking animal and extremely hard to kill notwithstanding, he had five balls through his lungs and five others in various parts. He swam more than half the distance across the river to a sandbar, and it was at least 20 minutes before he died. Then they go on to say they thought it weighed about 500 pounds, but they didn't have any apparatus to weigh it. So that's their first interaction with the bear. Less than a month later, quote, six good hunters of the party fired at a brown or yellow bear several times before they killed him. And indeed, he had like to have defeated the whole party. He pursued them separately as they fired on him and was near catching several of them. He pursued two of them separately, so close that they were obliged to throw aside their guns and pouches and throw themselves into the river, although the bank was nearly 20ft perpendicular.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

Oh, my God.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah. So enraged was this animal that he plunged into the river only a few feet behind the second man. He had compelled to take refuge in the water when one of those who still remained on the shore shot him through the head and finally killed him.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

That's not fair. They should have let him have that guy.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah. Eye for an eye. Like, it's fascinating to me, right, that, like, you do see this sometimes in, like, indigenous, like, people's records, right? There was a guy. I forget his name. I forget. I was reading about this, this one indigenous American guy who was like, every time I see a bear, I gotta go try to take it on. But, like, he recognized that was, like, not a normal response, Right? Whereas apparently everyone in Lewis and Clark's party was immediately after killing the first bear they saw despite having been told

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

we found the murder monster.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah. It tells me so much about the American psyche, right, that the indigenous people were like, yo, they. They will kill you.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

And, like, how much bear meat were they eating?

[Robert Evans]

Yeah, I mean, maybe a bit I don't know. Like, you can eat bear meat. It's kind of greasy, from what I understand.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

So they're just going after bears just because it's fun.

[Robert Evans]

I do understand that Lewis and Clark had to collect and catalog animals, which obviously they didn't bring them back alive. Right. They brought back skulls and hides and that kind of thing. So that the Western way of understanding the world could catalog and understand these animals. And there is a great deal of knowledge that that way of seeing the world gained from that expedition. But they also mixed it up with a lot of bears. You can read more examples in their diaries. There's this idea that still exists in parts of the American sort of psyche that we don't have to live alongside nature. We have to conquer it. Right. That we have to prove as our apex position. And that doesn't always go well for us.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

I don't need to prove anything to a bear.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

I'm at peace.

[Robert Evans]

I'm happy to coexist with bears. I'm happy that they're there. They're happy that I'm here. I hope we can have a nice time. I don't want to fight with bears. Lewis and Clark, by the way, I find the Lewis and Clark exhibition fascinating. At the time they were crossing the plains, they were meeting with indigenous people who had been to Paris to check it out and come home.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

I have no concept of that.

[Robert Evans]

Right. We see them as, like, questing into the great unknown. And these people are like, yeah, no, I went over.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

But those people have. They've been out back.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah, yeah. They just didn't want it.

[James Stout]

Right.

[Robert Evans]

They came back because they liked it. They were having. They were fine. It wasn't that they hadn't been exposed to the European world. It was just that the European world had not physically expanded to attempt to colonize the places that they lived. So, like, this idea that they're going

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

that really makes what they did a lot less impressive.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah. I mean, it was a long journey. Sure. Right.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

I mean, people hike the Appalachian Trail every. Every year. I'm not impressed.

[Robert Evans]

That does go perpendicular to the.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

But I'm just saying, people walk a thousand miles all the time.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah, yeah, yeah. They did a lot of canoeing.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

It's a weird hobby.

[Robert Evans]

Lewis and Clark. It's a fun hobby. I like walking, but. Yeah, I mean, it's an impressive journey. But, like, I think sometimes we have this idea of them, like, questing into the unknown, and that's just not it. They'd have met people who've been like, oh, yeah, I've been there. Like, what do you think of Paris? Sadly, the Lewis and Clark expedition was not the low point for the grizzly bear population. But Molly, talking of low points, now is a time for us to transition to an advertisement for products and services. All right, we are back. I want to quote from a federal court case here on protections for bears. By the 1930s, just 125 years after European settlers moved into grizzly country, grizzly bears were found in only 2% of their former range. Nor did this mark the low point for the grizzly. 37 separate grizzly populations were identified in the contiguous United States in 1922. Only six remained in 1975.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

So is this largely habitat encroachment or overhunting or. I mean, obviously bows.

[Robert Evans]

All of the above.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

So we were just going out there and shooting them.

[Sophie Lichterman]

Just.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah, they're bounties. They were bounties for bears by the millions. Yeah, they were paying people to shoot the bears.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

We got a buffalo situation.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah, yeah, we got a buffalo situation here.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

So this wasn't just like people doing hobby hunting and like concurrent habitat encroachment. This was like an intentional destruction of bear.

[Robert Evans]

The bear doesn't coexist well with like human habitation and specifically like animal agriculture. Right.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

Like, yeah, it's not a great name.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah, it doesn't. It doesn't give a fuck. And it's a big animal and it will tear shit down and people are scared of it. Bears used to live all across the plains. Right. It was only a small segment of the bears that lived in the mountains. They're the ones that survived just because those are the areas that it was harder to make amenable to capitalism.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

That never occurred to me. Yeah, that never occurred to me that they have retreated from the hills to get away from us.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah. I don't think it's that the plains bears went to the hills. I think it's that the plains bears are gone.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

Right. They're just the ones that survived because they were like, yeah, that's crazy. The bears just used to be roaming around down here.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah, the bears would be out and about. Actually, the easternmost grizzly bear sow with cubs that I'm aware of is on the apron, like in the. The Missouri river breaks. So the American Prairie Reserve people who didn't listen to our buffalo episode.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

Callback.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah, that. That's what they call a callback in the industry. The bears used to be all around. Right. Like, I guess maybe the plains. Right. Or an area that's especially kind of appealing, especially when we look at, like, the period after the 1920s, right. When people were trying to bring the planet to heel through the application of technology. Right. I think it's Aldo Leopold who talks about the way humans fuck with ecosystems as a bit like somebody who doesn't know how a watch works. Taking apart a watch, just being like, I know that fucking cocktails. Doesn't look like it's doing much to me. Let me whip that bad boy out. Like, make it lighter.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

I always think of, what was it? Somebody who's colonizing and farming in Hawaii brought Mongoose, because they thought the mongoose would eat some. They thought the mongoose would eat something that was causing a problem for the crops. But it turns out the mongoose don't even eat that.

[Garrison Davis]

So now it's just like feral monkeys.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

Sometimes, like around sunset at the beach, you'll see all these, like, mongoose just, like, coming out of the underbrush and taking over the beach.

[Robert Evans]

Okay, that's amazing because, like, they have

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

no natural predators there.

[Garrison Davis]

Yeah, right.

[Robert Evans]

Like, yeah. Introducing animals into ecosystems and removing animals from ecosystems has all these downstream effects that, like, we never think. Like, I talked to Sophie about this today. Like, I grew up in the uk, right, where we have tons of rabbits.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

Oh, she has a rabbit in the garden today.

[Sophie Lichterman]

Did she show you?

[Robert Evans]

Yeah, yeah, I've seen the rabbit. Yeah. It's able to identify it. The rabbit population is high in part because we've removed many of their predators. Right. The wolves are gone in the uk. The bears are gone in the uk. We have some foxes, but not as many because they are dangerous to sheep populations. Right. We have some raptors, but not as many. So now we have tons of rabbits. What do the rabbits do? Well, they eat crops in part. Right. Then they come in and eat your carrots as depicted in the Peter Rabbit.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

Oh, Peter Rabbit is just tearing the garden apart.

[Robert Evans]

Yep. Every day.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

Mr. McGregor was right, Molly.

[Robert Evans]

That is a bold statement, Molly. Molly Conger, childhood villain. Now, the rabbits have a disease called myxomatosis, which is this horrific disease where like, they sort of become almost like, zombified. Yeah. I think it came from Australia.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

They got a rabbit problem.

[Robert Evans]

Well, they were trying to eradicate them. Right.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

So they invented a rabbit disease.

[Robert Evans]

I don't know. This is what I. Now I'm wondering if they invented the rabbit disease. Let's.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

Because they did that to another invasive animal. Right.

[Robert Evans]

Well, they lost a war where they gave.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

They gave them all a disease.

[Robert Evans]

I'm not even there. Didn't they lose a war against emus?

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

That's right.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah. The Australians really have a bad record. Yeah. So basically it is a disease that existed in American rabbits only causes mild issues with them, but it is horrific in European rabbits.

[Molly Conger]

Yeah.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

It looks like they did it on purpose.

[Robert Evans]

Yep.

[Garrison Davis]

In Australia.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

Great job, guys.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah. Myxomatosis in rabbits is a thing that genuinely, as a kid, so I used to shoot a lot of rabbits when I was a kid, right. And you'd shoot these rabbits with myxomatosis and be like, what the fuck is this? How have we done this to a living creature? They become so incapacitated that sometimes crows will start eating them before they've died or they wander onto the road and get hit. Right. It's really, really, really horrible.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

I'm looking this up and I regret it.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah, no, yeah. Google me. Just pictures at your own risk.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

No, don't, actually, don't.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah. It almost looks like they have, like, cataracts over their. Their eyes. It's. It's really, really horrible. Right, but, like, this is what happens when we continually try and mess with an ecosystem that has existed in harmony. And, like, it changes based on inputs and changes in the climate. Right. Like, it's not like it's a fixed thing. It is. It has shifted and changed through time, but it has found a balance every time. And then we come in and just keep pressing one side of the scale.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

This'll fix it.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah, this will fix it more, but we keep chucking more on there and

[Garrison Davis]

wondering, kill the bears back.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

I just. I can't get over. That's just like a child's approach to things.

[Robert Evans]

This is our policy. Right? Like, okay, so let's talk about Zinke. Right? Let's talk about the protections that he wants to take away. These protections were passed into law by the Endangered species Act in 1973. 3. And the Endangered Species act lists grizzly bears in the lower 48 as threatened. If you're not familiar with the ESA, it prevents you from hunting, harming or harassing listed species without a special permit.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

Maybe he thought he's supposed to threaten them.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah, yeah, like, harass them. Like, maybe it's going to do it.

[Sophie Lichterman]

Threatened.

[Robert Evans]

These are threatening animals.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

We should threaten them.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah. He was going to post a mean tweet about them that he didn't want to be accused of harassing them. And in violating the esa, one thing the ESA does not do is prevent you from defending yourself against these bears, which seems to be the implication in his Post. Right.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

That like, because you're allowed to defend yourself against a person. So I'm sure.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah. It's likewise a bear. There was a ninth case not so long ago about someone who had killed three grizzly bears.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

So if you get arrested for killing an endangered animal, is it like a murder trial where you have to like prove self defense?

[Robert Evans]

I think it would depend on where you did it. Right.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

I was standing my ground, your honor.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah, sure I was. I don't even want to make jokes about stand your ground rules because horrible. The 9th Circuit opinion says we hold the good faith belief defense for a prosecution and then they give the legal code. Right. It's governed by subjective rather than objective standard and is satisfied when a defendant actually, even as unreasonably, believes his actions are necessary to protect himself or others from perceived danger from a grizzly bear.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

That's interesting that the language. Because you don't see that. So in self defense, in like if I harmed you and I. No, no, it doesn't have to be actual, but it has to be a reasonable assumption. Like my belief has to be reasonable. Yeah, but in this. And they're saying it's okay if your belief was unreasonable.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah. If you're just scared of bears.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

Dumb as hell.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah, yeah. If you, if you have no idea what you're doing, you can still kill these bears. Right. Like it gives you a very broad remit for self defense because you could

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

just say you felt that way because it doesn't matter if that's reasonable or not.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

So it effectively doesn't matter.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah, effectively. If you, if you are willing to state in court that you were threatened by the bear.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

I felt that way.

[Robert Evans]

Right. It seems like you can, you can shoot the bear. I was just scared. I'm a, I'm a scaredy cat. Maybe it relies on toxic masculinity to like self. Self police itself. I ain't scared. No. It also, of course, the ESA does not include animals based on how dangerous they are. So link Zinke's argument that we should delist bears because two people got hurt, one person got killed. It doesn't line up with why the ESA exists.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

And like, very sorry for those people, of course. But like that's not like an epidemic of bear attacks.

[Robert Evans]

No. Cattle kill more people by a factor of 10 than bears.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

Toddlers kill more people with guns.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah. Lightning kills more people than bears.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

Dog shot a lady with a gun the other day.

[Robert Evans]

Oh, wow. Well, good for him. It's good to see people pushing boundaries. Bad for her. I guess. I'm sorry to hear that. But I do think there are some best practices that could have been followed there that might have prevented the dog shooting.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

The dog was certainly not certified on the range.

[Robert Evans]

Right? Yeah. The dog hadn't gone, taken his apple seed clinic or whatever. So the esa, right. It distinguishes between a threatened and endangered species. An endangered species is, quote, in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant part of its range. A threatened species is, quote, likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

Right. Like if we start killing them.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah. Or keep killing them.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

Right.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

If Ryan Zinke just opens up on bears.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah, yeah. Zinke taking his Navy SEAL training and

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

going Seal Team 6 is going to Yellowstone.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah, yeah. They're going after that bear. Then they look at reasons for this, Right. Disease, predation, destruction of habitat, commercial take, inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms to protect them or natural or man made factors, including Brian Zinke killing them. Because grizzly bears in the lower 48 are threatened. There are defined ecosystems, there are six of them in which we're trying to recover the bear populations. And one of these is the Greater Yellowstone ecosystem. The Yellowstone bears have been ping ponged around the ESA for some time. As it turns out, bears were removed in 2007 and then returned in 2009 by a court decision. Then it was removed again under Zinke in the first Trump administration.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

I feel like if you're on the cusp like that, leave it alone. Like obviously if every time you delist them, they become threatened again, like, leave them alone.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah, that's it. Well, in this case it wasn't that the, the reason for the delisting was challenged in court and found to be insufficient. It wasn't that the population like took a dive.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

We're just changing our mind about how much we care about bears.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah. Or like in this case, basically what the court said. I can actually read to you from the court order. It's Crow Indian Tribet AL vs USA. The policy implications of Greater Yellowstone grizzly delisting are significant, but they cannot affect the court's disposition. Although this order may have impacts throughout grizzly country and beyond. This case is not about the ethics of hunting. It is not about solving human or livestock grizzly conflicts as a practical or philosophical matter. These issues are not before the court. Then little ellipses where I've skipped a bit by delisting the Greater Yellowstone grizzly without analyzing how delisting would affect the remaining Members of the Lower 48 grizzly designation, the service failed to consider how reduced protections for the greater Yellowstone ecosystem would impact the other grizzly populations. Thus, the service entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

So the bears got a good lawyer.

[Robert Evans]

There were two different court cases and they were combined in this Montana case that they got a good lawyer. Essentially what they're saying though, right, is that, like, this is an issue which we have to look at, like nationally, because if we have state control and Wyoming or Montana, of the three states, right, Wyoming, Montana and Idaho, one of them says that we got too many bears killing too many cows. Let's open it up on the bears. Open season on bears. The bears don't know what state they're in.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

They simply do not respect borders.

[Robert Evans]

They do not. They. Yeah, they refuse to.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

Jurisdictional boundaries, meaningless.

[Robert Evans]

They engage in interstate commerce. So this one, it's got to be like a federally controlled issue. Unfortunately, our federal government right now is not one that's massively amenable to conservation.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

It's run by bear murderers.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah, they would love to. I mean, Donald Trump's son, right, is big into.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

Oh, he does love big game hunting, doesn't he?

[Robert Evans]

Does, yeah.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

He goes on those like, rich boy safari.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah, he's got. It's funny, someone was like, oh, someone was talking to me the other day about like, you should pitch this outdoor publication. And then I realized it was. Was owned by Trump Jr. So that's a no from me. Oh, that's a clear no for me.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

I bet they love conservation.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah, I was gonna, like, I would be down to pitch a hunting publication about, like, the damage that the border wall does to our landscapes and our, and our, like. I've seen a mule deer try and get through the border wall and it's very, very. Yeah, it's really sad because she had been habituated to going that way for, for water, genetically for generations. Right. And now she can't. And yeah, that's pretty fucked. I'd love to rate that for a hunting publication, not rating it for Donald Trump Jr. S one. I don't think he's commissioning it either, to be honest.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

I don't think they'd pay for it.

[Robert Evans]

No. I think they're probably using, if I'd had to guess, some artificial intelligence, but I've never actually read it. I'm not going to. Don't care. If you're interested in the ESA and what it's done for grizzly bears, I'm going to link to a center for biological Diversity Report, which is pretty good. This was published when the ESA was 50, so it's a few years old now that people will be thinking, I have seen pictures of people hunting grizzly bears. I thought that you couldn't do that. That's because those bears are in Alaska, so they are not considered to be threatened. Different bears. Different bears, yeah.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

Or like the same species of bear, but they just live somewhere else.

[Robert Evans]

Arctos horribilis. Yeah, the. The same. Horribulus horribilis. Yeah. Yeah.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

That's the bad are for him.

[Garrison Davis]

Yeah.

[Robert Evans]

They really screwed him on the name. This is part of the way the colonial mindset interacts with nature. Right. Horrible.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

They named him Mr. Hor.

[Robert Evans]

Horrible Bear. That's mean the other, like I'm aware of, like Ursus Arctos syriacus, which is the Syrian bear. Fine. Except that makes sense.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

That's descriptive.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah. He also lives in other parts of the region, but that's okay.

[Sophie Lichterman]

Misleading.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah. Yeah. We could call him Ursoctus al Sham, I guess, if we. If we wanted to get with it. But there are translations of the Bible that use Syria to describe the whole region as well, so it's okay.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

But like, horrible bear.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah, Horrible bear. They really did him dirty on that one. Could have called it nice bear. Maybe I'll petition for that.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

He should call up those lawyers from Montana.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah. Get the coalition together again with the Crow tribe. The bear is not inherently horrible. Right. We've just been horrible to the bear. He's just doing what he does.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

Maybe that's why he's so mad.

[Robert Evans]

Maybe.

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

Right?

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

He's like, you know, if you're. If you're gonna call me horrible, I'll be horrible.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah, maybe. Maybe he's. He's playing to the stereotype. So the Alaska bears can be hunted, right? They are hunted. Things do get a little complicated in Alaska with different rules govern governing sport hunting and subsistence hunting and federal land and state land. There is a cull program in Alaska right now that is understandably very controversial. The idea is that they will cull the bear to help the caribou population recover. You are looking at a thing which is multifactorial and only. But this is like taking the part out of the watch, right. That I was talking about earlier. Like.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

Like there's other things going on for the caribou.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah. Yeah. It's not the bear who moved into the caribou's home. It is. It is people. Right. Like, it is not the bear who caused climate change.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

Right. Like there are. There are other factors we could Address, but we're taking it out on the bear.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah. Which will be a common theme throughout our discussion here today. But I understand that we want the caribou herd to survive as well. But if you're trying to manage the caribou herd for hunting by controlling bear populations to allow more caribou. I know. I. I don't think that's.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

We're modifying the wrong variable.

[Robert Evans]

Yes, that's a good way of putting it. Yeah. There is Alaska legislation that I thought was interesting to make such programs go through peer review that. That appears to be going absolutely nowhere. Seems stuck in the Alaska house.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

So we had to get a bunch of scientists to determine whether or not there'll be environmental impact of buffalo going back to where buffalo live. But we can't get a scientific review of whether or not we should be killing the bears.

[Robert Evans]

Yes. I know that there are other reasons for us to do environmental impact studies like hydrology and stuff. Thank you EIS people who reached out. We appreciate all our science listeners. But, yeah, it is pretty sad that we can't get a. Get a. I guess the argument would be peer review takes too long.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

Okay.

[Robert Evans]

But like, you could get a couple of people to be like, you know what? It takes a lot longer to get all the bears back. Get a couple of scientists. It wouldn't take that long that they need jobs right now. Get a couple of bear scientists and employ them. See how it goes. So let's talk about, I guess, like, why Zinke wants to delist them.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

A bear stole his wife

[Robert Evans]

in an eating way. They live together happily. She's living her best life. It seems that one incident was a sow with cubs who was foraging for berries. And so the other one was a bear foraging for berries. Who was surprised? This is nothing to do with the population levels, as I said earlier. Right.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

It's just like. It's an unfortunate thing where somebody was in a bad situation.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah. It's a. We live in a landscape where things can kill you. Most of those things are cars, but some of them are animals.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

Well, we should start shooting the cars.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah, but like, we don't. We don't do a revenge attack on Ford every time someone gets in a motor accident. Right. I looked at bear vault. So bear vault. If you're not familiar, money makes bear cans. You familiar with bear cans?

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

Is it like tin cans you wear around your neck so you jingle, jangle?

[Robert Evans]

Yes, yes. You can talk to the bear. He holds one. Can you hold the other one? There's a string.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

Oh, like he's in his treehouse. You're in your treehouse.

[Robert Evans]

Exactly. Yeah. And you say, I'm coming through. Please don't eat me. No. A bear can is a thing that you put your food in when you're camping.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

I was picturing like a, a big necklace made out of like old tin

[Robert Evans]

cans, like an old timey, like a, like, like a lei, but for bear country.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

Made out of like canned beans.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

I don't know why you, you wouldn't need to buy that. You could make that at home.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah, you can make that for free. Bearvault keeps like an open source collection of bear maulings. Bears, according to their data, have killed 66 people since 1974.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

That's not very many.

[Robert Evans]

It's not a lot of people. Right?

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

It's like one a year.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

A little more than that.

[Robert Evans]

It's very, very hard to make a public health argument for delisting brown bears.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

More people, more people than that have measles, like in my immediate area.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah, well, that's a whole other public health issue, I'm afraid. When they do ESA studies on what kills bears, it's human interactions. I noticed a lot of bears, probably guns, mostly trains. Trains kill a lot of bears.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

That's so sad.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah, it's really sad. So maybe.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

Wait, so you're supposed to make noise so the bear hears you coming? Trains are loud as hell.

[Robert Evans]

They come pretty fast, I think. And I think they're not like super loud if you're just like. If they're not trying to be loud, you know, like if you're in a linear direction to the train, maybe they're habituated to it because the cranes come so regularly. I don't know.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

That's so sad. Never thought about a bear getting hit by a train.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah, bears get hit by cars too, especially black bears. I mean, I'm sure brown bears do. They just bigger. I wonder if that's part of why, you know, like there's a sort of we can't afford to keep smashing our trains on bears situation here. I'm not sure.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

I think the train's probably fine.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah, I mean, the train keeps going. Some of those bears are pretty big. I'm sure it delays their train operations.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

I mean, if there was like a massive train derailment. Yeah, that's. Maybe we need to build a bear fence or something.

[Garrison Davis]

I don't know.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah, well, we have these wildlife underpasses, right, that allow wildlife to go under or over freeways. A while ago the right was getting really mad about one in Santa Monica. This was like a. I think Benny Johnson had done, like, an investigation into this overpass. His theory here was that the overpass was allowing, I'm not joking, terrible cougars to come into neighborhoods and kill people's children. We came into the cougars neighborhood. The cougars, Benny, are already fucking there because.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

And how many. How many children have been eaten by cougars in Santa Monica?

[Robert Evans]

I'm aware of one person in California being killed by a mountain lion in the last few years and a few more people have been killed. I can think of a couple more

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

people, but mostly on, like, hiking trails. Right. Like, not their yards.

[Robert Evans]

Yes. I'm not aware of a cougar coming into anybody's house. It's not really how the mountain lion lives its life.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

I mean, sometimes people's Chihuahuas have lost their lives to this scourge. I understand.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah, yeah.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

But not their children.

[Robert Evans]

Not their children. And, like, animals aren't coming to your

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

house and taking your child and the

[Robert Evans]

idea that they're not there anyway. If they want to come into your neighborhood, they can come into your neighborhood. They're good at moving across country. That's what they do.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

This will just keep you from running into it with your Lexus.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah, exactly. And it's going to allow the little mice and other small creatures that can't. So we nimbly jump over highway barriers. The obvious other argument for delisting bears is that people want to kill them.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

Get a different hobby.

[Robert Evans]

You can even kill black bears in most states in the Western United States, if that's your thing. Right. It seems like a lot of people just don't want bears around. And that makes me sad because I think sharing our landscape with bears is beautiful. And I think it's special that we have this thing in this country that, like, it's one of our, like, national symbolic mammals. Right.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

I mean, he's like a gigantic guy who just wants to eat berries and hang out.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah, he wants to kill stuff. He.

[Mia Wong]

Sure.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

But, like, just. I love the idea of just like this huge animal just like, roaming around looking for a little sweet treat.

[Robert Evans]

Yep. Yeah, they, they, they're.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

That's precious.

[Robert Evans]

They're incredibly adaptable.

[James Stout]

Right.

[Robert Evans]

They can eat berries, they can eat meat, they can eat fish.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

I love when they just take one bite of a fish and throw it back. So wasteful. He's just like, me, for real.

[Robert Evans]

It's too fishy. He wants it. Yeah, he wants it like a fresher one. The other argument, I guess, is a certain populations have recovered, which kind of it shows a misunderstanding, the importance of having a population for genetic diversity. Right.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

But also, like, I just, I'm really stuck on, like, just because there's a lot of them doesn't mean you have to kill. There's a lot of squirrels in my neighborhood, but I'm not allowed to shoot them.

[Robert Evans]

And you can't just do a squirrel genocide.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

Yeah, there's just a lot of these. I'm gonna do violence on them. Just.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah, don't do that. There are a lot of these and it's been incoming convenient for us, like, and therefore it's interesting to look at, like, the certain populations that are doing well at the Yellowstone bears. The Yellowstone bears have a much higher meat content in their diet than they

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

used to from all the tourists they're eating.

[Robert Evans]

Yes, that's right. Yeah, that's mostly it. They feed them into the moor every year they drop off a bus at the bear cave as an offering. And then the bears have violated the treaty. That's why they're mad. No, it's because climate change is making it harder for them to find their berries. Right. And human pressure is pushing them further and further away from certain areas. Eating more meat is going to lead to more conflict with hunters, both in terms of them both being in the same space at the same time trying to do the same thing.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

And honestly, it's so harmful for the bears that they've all been listening to Jordan Peterson. The carnivore diet is not for everybody. Just imagining a bear, it's not good advice, you guys.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah, yeah. They've become like terrible transphobes. That's really why we wanted delist them. I think we can look at what happens when animals lose their protections. We can see the way that Wyoming, for instance, dealt with wolves. Right. Are you familiar with this incident last year of that wolf that was horrifically mistreated in Wyoming?

[Garrison Davis]

No.

[Robert Evans]

It was really fucking gross.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

Did they torture it?

[Robert Evans]

Yes.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

Why?

[Robert Evans]

Because I guess it made them feel big and strong.

[Molly Conger]

Right.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

So again, this isn't about managing conflict with livestock. It's not about, you know, ecological management. It's not. This is about people who just want to hurt animals. Yeah, because they didn't just kill this wolf because they didn't want it around, they did something horrible to it.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah. I mean, this guy, there were videos of this. Right. But this guy.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

So they tormented an animal and then they made a video of it. They made like an animal snuff film. This is just about torture.

[Robert Evans]

I'm not saying everyone who wants to delist grizzly bears, wants to torture them in this way. But, like.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

But it is. It's this, like, this desire to engage in this violence.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah. Like, for certain people. Right. There's an idea somehow that they can prove their, like, strength and virility and masculinity.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

Get into powerlifting.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah. So what this guy did to. People aren't familiar. His name is Cody Roberts.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

Never met a good Cody.

[Robert Evans]

I've met some nice codies.

[Molly Conger]

Oh, no, there's.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

Okay, we know one.

[Robert Evans]

We know. Yeah, he hit the wolf on his. He ran down the wolf on his snowmobile.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

So it wasn't bothering you? You pursued it?

[Robert Evans]

Yeah, he chased. On his snowmobile. He taped its mouth shut and took it to a bar.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

Does this man have a wife? And is she okay?

[Robert Evans]

That's a good question. I'm trying to work out if he went to jail. 18 months probation. Probation and he gets a prison term if he fails. He filed a guilty plea to felony animal cruelty. I understand that there are people, like, within the hunting, ranching, outdoor space who think this guy's a piece of shit. There are many of them. I know many of them.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

Because that's a very weird thing to do.

[Robert Evans]

Like, yeah, it's psycho.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

It's like a thought process here. Like, what is shooting it I don't agree with, but I. I understand that you would do that. That's the thing people do. But why did you, like, chase it down and abduct it?

[Robert Evans]

Yeah. Why did you choose to make this animal suffer? Like. Like, did you just show no respect for life? Right. Like, we joke, like, oh, does he have a wife? She's okay, but genuinely, this is a person who is like a psycho. Like, yeah, no, I'm not joking.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

I'm not joking, actually. Like, if you. If this is your first instinct for how you treat a living creature, like, I. I bet he's not good to women either.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah. Like, this doesn't seem like a person who people should feel safe around.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

Oh, it was a young female wolf, too.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

Oh, no.

[Robert Evans]

What have you found?

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

Sorry, I just was. I found a picture of her.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah. No, it's really sad. The whole thing is really sad. Like, to injure this animal, Right. To the. To the extent that it can't get away or defend itself and then tape up its mouth and then drag it to a place where it's going to be in fear for the rest of its life before you kill it. It's. It's unconscionable. It's. It's horrific. I'm not saying that that will happen to bears, but I'm saying that, like,

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

a bear would be a lot harder

[Molly Conger]

to do that too.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah, it would be.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

You know, I think. I think as his punishment, this guy should try to do this to a bear.

[Robert Evans]

What I am saying is that even if we, like, go ahead and delist bears without serious controls, if we start to manage them just as, like, vermin. Right. Like, as a pest like this opens up all kinds of avenues.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

And I think a lot of people will find themselves in a situation that is beyond their grasp.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah, right.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

Like, if. If suddenly you are. If you're a guy who's like, yeah, I'd love to shoot a bear. Now you're allowed to. I think people are going to find themselves in situations they didn't anticipate.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah. I know. In Alaska, for instance, if you want to hunt a brown bear and you're not an. Ask a resident, you have to go with a guide. That's probably a good thing.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

Right. Like, I think if we start killing the bears back, more people will get killed by bears. A lot of these guys are gonna die.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah, yeah, yeah. The bad deaths will go up, without a doubt. Yeah, yeah. Already your. Your best chance of getting into an encounter with a bear is probably hunting.

[Sophie Lichterman]

Right.

[Robert Evans]

Like, if you're not hunting bears, necessarily, but let's say you're out hunting. Yeah. Because you're moving around the woods. Qu. You could start one.

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

Right.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

So that's already against the advice for not encountering a bear.

[Robert Evans]

And then if you. Then you're able to shoot something and then you use. Let's say you're in a. You're backcountry hunting. Right. You have to pack, backpack. The. The.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

Now you have meat out.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah. So but then now you're coming back to the carcass for your second load of meat. A bear may have found that carcass. Right.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

Somebody might already be there.

[Robert Evans]

He might not want to give that up.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

It's his now.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah. That you. Yeah. You're then find yourself in a difficult situation. Talking of difficult situations, Molly, I have to pivot to advertisements again. Hopefully this one's not for wolf tape. We are back. Let's talk, Molly, about safety in bear country, grizzly country, specifically, right after this. This tragedy where this hiker died in Glacier National Park. I have seen a number of articles claiming that bear spray is, quote, a placebo or that you, quote, shouldn't bet your life on it.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

Well, I think if you think it's a placebo, you should taste it.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah. It's. It shows a fundamental misunderstanding of not only how bear spray works, but also what a placebo is.

[Garrison Davis]

Right.

[Robert Evans]

Like you, three of the words in your title, all of the nouns you don't understand.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

The bear doesn't know what it is. The placebo effect will not work on bears.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah, right. Yeah, exactly. Yeah. Well, the placebo effect actually does work on bears. You can spray things that are not bear spray and they still don't bear sprayed before. Yeah, it's just the. I guess it's not maybe the placebo effect. Yeah, it's a noise. It's the cloud. Like, I guess it's not really a

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

placebo because you're not a bewildering experience because it's. It's startling to them.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah, yeah. But you're not saying it's bear spray.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

Bear will not work.

[Robert Evans]

Not actually.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

The bear will not have its sort of imaginary symptoms of bear spray exposure

[Robert Evans]

due to their belief. Yeah, yeah. That they have been bear sprayed. I. I should note that most of these articles are written by the same person.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

So what's his motivation here? Why is it he's like, does he own a company that sells something that like, rivals big bear spray?

[Robert Evans]

No, it's a person who. It's got a guy called Wes Seiler who used to write for Outside magazine and no longer does. There's a escalating trend in the severity of his claims about the lack of efficacy of bear spray that correlates with him making income that is directly related to the number of views on the articles making those claims.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

That is really destroying the information landscape. Yeah.

[Robert Evans]

I mean, I think also people not knowing what the fuck they're talking about and being given a platform is also destroying the information landscape.

[Danielle Kurd]

Right.

[Robert Evans]

But both of those are at play here, really.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

See, this sort of escalating way people write because their income is depressing, dependent on clickbait.

[Robert Evans]

Sure. Yeah, yeah, yeah. The clicks to cash pipeline is not helping us.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

I make the same amount of money even if none of you listen to my podcast.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah, you guys, you could all turn this off right now. I'd still be poor. This is not true. Right. I take really strong offense at this. I don't know if there quite a way to say this is right.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

Like if Bespade never worked and couldn't work, he wouldn't be the only one saying it.

[Robert Evans]

Correct.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

There would be. There would be scores of people saying, I tried this had nothing happened.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah. Also, like, we have data on this. Right. This is not a thing that we need to to pull out of our ass. This is not a thing that we need to rely on individual anecdotes for. This is not a thing that will be determined by the outcome of a single incident in Glacier National Park. This is a thing that we have masses of data on.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

There's bear scientists.

[Robert Evans]

I spoke to one, Molly.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

I can't wait to hear that.

[Robert Evans]

And I had a very lovely conversation. He has the two studies, and to be clear, Wes cites these. And I don't know if it's just that he didn't read them or he didn't read them well, or that he read them to the best of his ability. And this is what we're getting.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

I mean, scientific literacy is pretty poor.

[Robert Evans]

Sure. It's always okay not to write an article making claims about something that impacts people's safety if you don't know what you're talking about. It's always okay to be quiet when we're discussing other people's wellbeing. That's fine.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

Adults talk about.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah. It doesn't impact your substack in some. In the same way, but.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

Oh, it's a substack situation.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah, it's a substack situation. I would suggest that writing that bear spray is dangerous or useless is akin to saying that seatbelts are dangerous or useless in that we can, if we, if we look hard enough, find one person who was killed by their seatbelt. No one's ever been killed by bear spray. I have been bear sprayed more than once. Didn't kill me.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

And when we were talking about this earlier, this the most shocking fact of all to me so far. Bear spray is less potent than police pepper spray.

[Robert Evans]

I believe there's less OC in bear spray.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

Yeah, I would have assumed it's more, but it's less.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah. I think the idea.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

Because bears have such sensitive noses.

[Robert Evans]

Very sensitive noses. To be clear, it's still very unpleasant for humans. Like, I consider myself to have a nose of average sensitivity. And having been a recipient of bear spray, it's highly unpleasant. Right.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

But I just, I. I thought, you know, I would have assumed you said, oh, I've been bear sprayed. Like, oh, that's like, way more hardcore.

[Robert Evans]

Sure, yeah, yeah, yeah. So the bear spray part of the reason I think that it has less of the OC oil in it is that has to be propelled out at a velocity that allows it to be used even if the bear is coming at you and the wind is blowing towards you.

[James Stout]

Right.

[Robert Evans]

So the bear is coming with the wind. So you're spraying the Pain. And then the spray would be. You don't want the spray to all be blown back to you. Right. You want it to be able to get out to create that barrier between you and the bear. And it does. Again, Dr. Smith, studies have shown that bear spade does work even with an unfavorable wind. Right. I will link to both these studies everything he's done, which I think is really cool because this stuff impacts like your safety in Grizz country. Everything he's done is available publicly for free.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

Hell yeah.

[Robert Evans]

Very unusual in the academic research space. Right. But I think it's great because it allows you to look at this bear spades of placebo article and then you can go find the study. I will link it right here. And you can say, huh, sure. Seems like this guy can't read a study.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

And does he? Has he read those studies?

[Robert Evans]

He claims to. Yeah. He quotes them.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

So it's not that he just isn't aware of them. He just doesn't believe the expert because of a personal experience.

[Robert Evans]

I. I think he either didn't grasp the table or didn't grasp. So they. So I again, like, the person who wrote these studies is extremely easy to contact and anyone doing reasonable journalism would do so.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

Right. So I guess, is he saying, I read this study and it's wrong or is he saying I read the study and it agrees with me?

[Robert Evans]

He's saying, I read the study and it says, best Bray doesn't work. It agrees with me. Yeah.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

Oh, no.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah, yeah.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

He could have just emailed the author.

[Robert Evans]

Could have just asked. Could have just asked. Yeah. So like, there are incidents in the study which are considered successful and non successful uses. Some of the non successful uses are with a black bear. When you spray it and it comes back later, that is still. The brown bear is not killing you in that situation. Right. I'm sorry, A black bear.

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

It still worked.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

Like efficacy doesn't mean permanent.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah. And at some point when you're making a study like this, you have to decide like what a. You're trying to create a binary relationship about his theories of things. Right. The other study he wrote was Efficacy of firearms for Bear defense in Alaska. It's worth noting that in the efficacy of firearm study, more than 120 bears died. Out of a data set of something like 250, none of the bear spray bears died.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

Oh, that's a lot, right?

[Robert Evans]

Yeah, it's a lot.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

And I feel like it's better if everybody survives the encounter.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah. It's better for all of us if we it used this extremely well researched tool.

[James Stout]

Right.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

And Again, having read zero studies, I read zero studies.

[Robert Evans]

Yep.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

But I know only 1.1 persons a year are killed by bears.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

So if this never worked and couldn't work, more people would have been killed by bears.

[Robert Evans]

Maybe. Yeah. Yeah. Certainly a lot of people who used the bear spray didn't get killed by bears. Right.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

Like none of them did.

[Robert Evans]

It is possible to use best brain be killed by bears. Like especially it's happened to, it's happened

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

to maybe 50 people.

[Robert Evans]

Residues of bear spray will attract bears in the like.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

Well that's unfair.

[Robert Evans]

Well it's, it's an interesting smell.

[Garrison Davis]

Right.

[Robert Evans]

And they have an amazing nose. So I'm guessing like they will come check it out. And I know that like there are instances where people have for instance used bear spray in the way that one might use bug spray, I. E. Spraying their tent.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

That's not gonna work.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah, yeah. Well you're gonna bring them in.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

That's like saying I'm gonna use this gun to protect myself by making a circle around me with bullets.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah, yeah, exactly. Smearing myself with the bullets in a

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

circle around my tent.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah. It's not quite cargo cult thinking but like it's. I know, it's like magical thought process I guess. Like that's not how best spray works. You spray it at the bear.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

A homeopathic gun is where you just lick the bullets.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah, yeah. Let's talk about the things that you can do. Right. Like you can keep a clean camp. This is really big.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

Don't attract them.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah. So if we look at like Yosemite. Right. Yosemite and that, that like Yosemite, Kings Canyon, Sequoia Park System. You can't bring bear spray in there. Right. Oh, but you have to have a bear can. Like so I backpacked in that, that area. Like they have done surveys that showed that like most people were acquainted with best bear practices but we're not following them on the trail.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

So it's not that they didn't know

[Garrison Davis]

better this, that don't care.

[Robert Evans]

I think people, it's hard to like fathom a giant several hundred pound half ton creature is going to come in and steal my cliff bars. Right. But it will. And like it's hard to fathom how good their smell is because they love a delicious snack.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

Like they're berry boys. They're berry boys. They're going to come get your little treats.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah, they love, they love a high carbohydrate like energy snack. They're endurance athletes. They want to eat your Clif bar. If you're keto, you're fine.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

Oh, I bet they would like candy.

[Robert Evans]

Bet they'd love candy. Yeah.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

I know it'd be unethical to give a bear Skittle.

[Robert Evans]

So we want to keep a clean camp when we're in bear country. Right. That means stuff with odors. It's not just our food, but also, like, the. Maybe the clothes we cooked in, if we have a scented toothpaste, stuff like that.

[Molly Conger]

Wow.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah. Like, if I had. If I was in the habit of using a shampoo that smelled like. I think I spoke to Dr. Smith about this. Like, he said if I used apricot shampoo, probably wouldn't bring it with me.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

Wow. Because they just want to come check out that sweet treat.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah. Like, it's a. If it's kind of. If you think that they eat berries. Right. You make yourself smell like a fruit. Like it's kind of on you. Like, I get.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

Yeah, it makes sense. Like Winnie the Pooh, he's just, like, following his nose.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah. Yeah.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

Find a sweet treat.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah. I don't want to blame anyone for not knowing things because we're not all. None of us are born knowing anything. And. And it's not like they issue PSAs about bears every day.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

I bet there's a pamphlet at the trailhead.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah, there's definitely. Well, when you go to Yosemite, you have to sign in with a ranger for a wilderness permit, and then they'll give you the once over. But there are other things we would not do. Right. I would not sleep alone in a tent in bear country. And there were two of us. I'd probably two tents.

[James Stout]

Right.

[Robert Evans]

Like, just gives one of us a chance to deploy the bear spray. If the bear does come in, we can get bear fences. We can try very hard not to surprise bears. Right. So I was trail running in Alaska last year in some pretty thick brush. Right. I used a little bear bell. It's dorky, but, like.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

No, it sounds cute as hell. I want to look it up.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah. Well, there's an unfortunate video that you'll probably see when you Google bear bell of a hiker who thought the baobab was a repellent. And so the black bear is charging him and he's waving his bell, just

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

ringing the bell on it.

[Robert Evans]

No. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

So it sounds like people are purchasing these solutions but not understanding the functions of them.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah. And, like, I don't want to, like, blame people for that, because part of the way we get to A place where we could destroy so much of our megafauna is that so few people care about or understand it. Right. That's an education issue that we can't solve quickly. Or, like, on a podcast. I think that it would behoove anyone who's going camping in especially grizz country. Right. So in Alaska, Wyoming. Not all of Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, and, like, I've camped in those places. I've come to all of those places to learn about these things. Right. Because it's not just a negative incident for you. Like, it's also a negative incident for the bear, even if you have to bear spray a bear.

[James Stout]

Right.

[Robert Evans]

That fucking sucks for the bear.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

I mean, I've been. I've been pepper sprayed, and the bear can't even go, like, wash his hair with dawn, right?

[Robert Evans]

Yeah. He can't stand in the shower, like, looking down, like.

[Molly Conger]

I don't know.

[Robert Evans]

There's this. I guess the positive outcome of that is that the bear will be, like, likely to not want to come around people so much. Right. Because they'll associate this negative interaction with the bear spray. Right.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

So this seems like. Like, it's that it does work. And then also if we're all doing it, you'll have. You won't have to do it as much. Yeah. Because the bears will leave us alone.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah. We have the solution for being in bear country. Right. Like, it is to carry our bear repellent.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

Unless the bears are like me. You know, I've been peppers made by all kinds of cops, and I'm still gonna go look and see what they're up to.

[Robert Evans]

Just keep on. Keep on tanking. Yeah.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

I'm a very stupid bear.

[Robert Evans]

He's like the. The Yosemite, I guess they just keep spraying me, these people.

[Sophie Lichterman]

Why are this.

[Robert Evans]

There were some incidents where I guess brown bears got sprayed, charged the person, but, like, as they were charging, the person sprayed them and they came through to spray. But then as the spray got more condensed, I don't know, they knocked the person over and kept on charging. They were like, okay, I don't want any. Which is obviously not a great outcome. But it's a better outcome than you getting mauled by the bear, Right.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

Better than getting eaten by bear.

[Robert Evans]

But, like, I really want to push back on this narrative that we should be all carrying firearms.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

First of all, most people don't need a gun. Yeah.

[Robert Evans]

I mean, there are reasons to own guns. I own lots of them. But defending yourself from bears probably isn't one. Unless you're already very proficient with Firearms. And even then I don't want to kill a bear.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

But I just think if you're telling every casual hiker who goes to where bears might be that they need to own a gun, a lot of those people would not have otherwise owned a gun.

[James Stout]

Yeah.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

Are not good at handling a gun. In a situation where they need to use the gun against the bear. It's going to go badly. But also now there's a gun in their home that they would not otherwise have had in their home.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

And the odds of a firearm accident in the home are now higher.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah, well, yeah. Infinitely higher than if you didn't have one. Right.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

Like so, like it's not going to work out for you in this limited instance that you think you need it for.

[Danielle Kurd]

Yeah.

[Robert Evans]

And then you've introduced a dangerous scene.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

Now you have a gun you didn't need.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah. Like it is impossible. Molly, if you are getting. If I am getting mauled by a grizzly bear and you bear spray that bear, I will have spicy eyes and hopefully survive. If you shoot that bear, it is very possible and it has happened that you will also shoot me.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

Because the average person. Not a good shot under controlled circumstances. Bear attack. Not a controlled circumstance.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah. Like everyone. Like this is especially a thing with men. Right. They will tend to overestimate their ability with firearms dramatically. Thematically. In my experience, this is not a around and find out situation. You don't want to find out that you're not very good at shooting as a grizzly bear is charging you.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

And even if you are very good at shooting at the range, you're not in this situation.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

You're not.

[Robert Evans]

You have to deploy the firearm right now. We have to like your hands are shaking.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

There's piss running down your leg.

[Robert Evans]

We're scared. Yeah. You have to incapacitate the bear. Like I've been in up close situations with big animals. It's scary. Like thinking I'm going to die now. It has a profound effect on the human body and it's. It's not one that.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

And it doesn't improve.

[Robert Evans]

It doesn't actually enhance your John Wick characteristics. Yeah. So I would highly recommend that if you're going into bear country, you, you get some bear spray. Don't fly. What? You can't fly with bear spray. So you're gonna have to buy it

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

when you get there.

[Robert Evans]

Buy it when you get there. This is not like big bear spray. This is also an accusation that like, like big bear spray sort of funded these studies or that this is silly. Right. The desperate industry is not that big, guys. It works. It is statistically more effective than using firearms. It works.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

What does it cost, like 40 bucks?

[Robert Evans]

Yeah. Not even that.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

And how much does a gun cost? A lot more than that.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah, a lot more than that. Especially if you're going to actually practice with it. Right. If you're going to get bear spray, I would suggest you get a. You can get a dummy. It's just got water in it. And you can practice. Right. There are a couple of safeties on a bear spray. I don't know if I've got one. I do have one here with like

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

within arm's reach in your office.

[Robert Evans]

I got one over here. Yeah. I got my racker stuff. But like, it's. There's a safety on it and there's actually a zip tie when you get it to stop the safety coming off, just to stop it like blow up in your bag. Going off in the shipping container. Yeah. Or in the, in the Walmart or whatever. So you kind of want to remove that. Right. And then if they, they sell packs, which has the water one and the spicy one, and you're going to practice deploying the water one. Right. And like, that's smart. Yeah. When you're carrying your bear spray, if it's in the bottom of your backpack. Oh, the bear doesn't give you that much advanced notice. Yeah. So the bear spray is like when I was. When I'm running in places where there are grizzly bears, I wear a little running vest. I put, put it in the front here. If I have binoculars and I have a little binocular pack, I put it on the side there. I've done it on my belt before.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

I googled bear spray and the pictures, the pictures that are used to advertise this product.

[Robert Evans]

I gotta see this. What's what. Yeah.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

How do I send you.

[Garrison Davis]

How do I send you this picture?

[Robert Evans]

You can just put it in the chat.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

This is not a real picture. Is this a real picture of a man spraying a bear? Because the bear is sort of enveloped in this cloud of spray. So it just looks like one of those soft effect paintings of the bear silhouette in like a cloud.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah, it looked like. It looks like, like a. I'm a big fan of T shirts of wolves howling at the moon.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

It's a bear, an old man spraying it.

[Robert Evans]

I don't know why if you're staging it, this is bizarre.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

Because that's not a real picture of some of that happening.

[Robert Evans]

I don't know. I don't think so because there's no bare body and you can see this, you can see the bush. Right. Like, it's just its head. They haven't bothered.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

It's very close.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah. Also. Yeah. And the bear doesn't look too upset. It's kind of. Yeah. That is a fascinating. If we scroll down, there are. There are better images of people using bear spray.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

Just incredible, incredible product photos.

[Robert Evans]

That. Yeah, that is really quite remarkable. I would suggest everybody who is going into bear country buy bear spray and practice using it. Like, it's better for you. It's better for bears. It's cheaper than a gun. You can, if you want, buy a bear fence through the electric fence that goes around your camp. If you're camping in the backcountry, I think that's a good idea. If you're in an area with lots of bears. They weigh very little now. I might buy myself one, actually, after talking to Dr. Smith. Well, I won't because I haven't got enough money, but I'd like to. Maybe I'll hear from the bare fence people. You can follow all the best practices, right. And you're not just going to learn them from a podcast. You're going to, like, look up the park system. You're going to look at Dr. Smith's research.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

Ask a park ranger, he'll tell you. Yeah, yeah, that's his job.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah, some of their jobs. Depends what. Depends what kind of ranges they are. Some of them are cops. The overwhelming bulk of evidence suggests that the way to go with bears is bear spray. Until a bear kills an oil rig, we will have. We will continue to have bears on our landscape. But this is something that we should, like, genuinely care about. Like the. The trophic cascade is not as much of a. Of a thing as it was once made out to be. Like, I'm sure you've seen that thing about how wolves change rivers.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

No, you have to tell me about wolves, too.

[Robert Evans]

A whole other episode. Yeah, well, fucking wolf management is a whole other thing. The bears have entered the discourse this week because a bear killed someone. We don't talk about it when someone kills a bear. Right. Like in Alaska. They're culling bears from aircraft right now. And I'm not saying that, like, a human life is equal to a bear life, but I'm saying that hunting from

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

an aircraft is such bitch behavior.

[Robert Evans]

I know. If you want to take a bear, do it with a knife, like a hero or a bow, or, you know,

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

do it Lewis and Clark style. Use a musket.

[Garrison Davis]

That's Fine.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah, yeah. Eight of your friends and a musket at the edge of the river and you don't have bear spray, so your only option is to jump into the river 20ft off a cliff with a bear that you could have left alone. So, yeah, I want to, I guess, end by saying that the outdoors isn't entirely safe. And that's part of what makes it beautiful. There have been times when I have been in the wilderness where I thought I was going to die. And I keep going back to the wilderness because it's also one of the things that makes me feel so grateful to be alive. And it's okay if it isn't entirely safe. We know that when we enter the wilderness and we do our best to, to mitigate that risk, right? We, we, we plan, we, we take safety precautions, we bring our first aid kit and our bear spray and we tell someone where we're going and when we're coming back and we do all this stuff. But we understand that there is some inherent risk and that's all right. Like if we wanted to see wildlife and have no inherent risk and have it be comfortable, we would just go to the zoo.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

Right?

[Robert Evans]

And the zoo sucks compared to the outdoors. Right. Like, I don't want to see a bear in a cage. It's undignified for the bear.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

It's so sad for them in there.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah. Like, it's demeaning to me to see something demeaned for my entertainment in that fashion. Like I, I what? I. And we can't comprehend animals outside of their habitat. I don't think, like seeing a grizzly bear in Alaska trying to eat salmon or seeing a black bear in California doing its thing, having some berries, like that's cool. That. And I want you all to have that. I want your children and grandchildren to have that. And so like, I think we should be very skeptical about people making safety based arguments for destroying our megafauna here. Like you'll hear it with wolves, right? You're hearing people doing it with cougars, which is absolutely ridiculous.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

Like, most of these animals will not bother you if you leave them alone.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah. And like if very, very occasionally people have been killed by cougars who are not bothering the cougar. Right.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

Like very occasionally, you know, a freak accident doesn't justify destruction of an ecosystem.

[Robert Evans]

People get killed by lightning, but we're not just killing clouds. People get killed by cars. We don't go bombing the Ford factory. I understand the desire to be safe, but like we will take away a lot of things that are really beautiful if we just want to be safe.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

But again, we're controlling the wrong variables. If you're worried about people dying in unfair and, you know, terrible accidents, there are things we could talk about.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

There are policy decisions that could be made that would save thousands and thousands of lives.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah. If you want people to be safe, then be concerned about free health care.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

Bears have killed 66 people. I bet that many people died today from not being able to get their insulin.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah, yeah, right? Yeah. There's a perfect example.

[James Stout]

Right.

[Robert Evans]

Like, if you want to keep people safe and then think about things that will keep them safe. And I think we can. We can very easily keep people. Bears safe, but the threat to the bears is us. That's it. The only other thing that kills bears really, is other bears. And so it's on us, therefore, to advocate. Right. Like, the bears can't advocate for themselves. Luckily, they had people who brought that court case in 2019. But, like, if we want to continue to enjoy the outdoors in the way that they are, we need to stop randomly removing. And bears are one of those things, especially brown bears, that it's very easy to whip up fear about. But I think we should just leave them alone. I think we should be weary also of sort of anthropomorphizing them. Like, I see this sometimes with people and animals. Like, they don't exist for entertainment. They don't see the world in the way we do. And that's okay that they're animals. They have their own logic. We coexist with them. But, like, it's not like a Disney animal. It's an animal which goes about the world using its own logic, using its own understanding, trying to pursue its own ends through its own means. Right. But nonetheless, it is a majestic thing to see on the landscape and something that we should take care that, you know, we don't let corporate interests and people who find it entertaining destroy.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

I would love to see a bear.

[Robert Evans]

Okay, we'll do that. We'll add that to our list. Okay.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

Take me to see a bear.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah. I am going to take Molly camping. We will go. Maybe we'll go to. We go Yellowstone area. Like, I've never been. Have you not been to Yellowstone?

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

I've never been out west.

[Robert Evans]

Wow. Okay. I've got some friends, got a cabin outside the park. Maybe we could have a little cabin trip.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

Sophie, send me to Yellowstone.

[Robert Evans]

We can go in there and, like, look at the guys. Enjoy the Yellowstone ecosystem. No disrespect to my, like, Yellowstone friends, but that's a lot of tourists. Like I ain't going outside to be around that many people.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

Yeah, like there's, there's Yellowstone style nature outside the bounds of the park. You go there.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah. I mean even if you're just, if you're getting away from. You can get it just get away from Old Faithful and that. Let that park road and you can get away from people just fine. But yeah, we can go. We could go to Yellowstone, see a bear, maybe see an elk. Pretty cool. Elk make a pretty cool.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

I bet that's big as hell.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah, elks are big as. They're like, like a cow with horns. Well, not the cows. Cats have horns. Elk have antlers. Sorry. But yeah, we could go to. Or like that, like the greater. Yeah, like outside of the park. Like that Wyoming area just outside of Yellowstone. It's really beautiful. Be a fun place to go camping. Maybe see a bear, have a clean camp. Maybe we can find out a way to find a way to expense that bear fence.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

That's what I'm saying. We'll podcast from out there.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

It becomes business.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah. Yeah. We will podcast from bear country proving that we can happily coexist with bears. Thank you to all the ferret people, by the way.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

I can't believe how many people contacted you.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah. Massive outreach from the ferret people. So yeah, if you are someone who can help me get on one of the ferret counting surveys, I will count ferrets with you. We will make a ferret podcast and we will change America's perception of the black footed ferret on your behalf.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

It's already working. You got me. I love them now.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah. Molly's team ferret. Yeah. You can't see this because it's a podcast, but she has a massive tattoo. It's one of the biggest. It just says around the neck. Yeah, around the neck. Yeah. There's a further one in the lip, but it says team ferret.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

Oh, yeah.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah. So yeah, Molly's become a ferret advocate. I hope you have all become ferret and black bear advocates. Send me pictures of your bears. Molly, do you know what fat bear week is before we go?

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

That is my favorite thing about bears is fat bear.

[Robert Evans]

Okay. Sick. Good. Yeah. Bears getting plump in the, in the autumn before they hibernate is.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

I mean, how could you hate them? How could you hate them? They're just roly poly little guys hunting for a little sweet treat.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah. Their bulking cycle is incredible to me. Like the, the, the way a bear just adds thickness in a relatively short period. Of time. It's remarkable.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

Powerful.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah, it's powerful. That lives in power of salmon. Maybe if we didn't have trawlers, we'd all eat more fish. But yeah, check out Fat Bear week. If you haven't. If you're not from the U.S. i hope this has been fun. Little diversion into animals that live here. They used to live all the way down into Mexico, actually, but now sadly, Mexican bears. Yeah, well, there are still Mexican black bears.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

They have bears too.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah. Yeah.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

I gotta look up where bears live.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah, they live. Yeah. God. We could do a whole other one on the jaguars. That they're being fucked by the border wall by now pretty badly. But that'll be a fun episode up in over in Arizona there. Yeah, bears. Pretty cool animals. Our friends. Don't kill them.

[Jacob Goldstein]

This is Jacob Goldstein from what's yous Problem? When you buy business software from lots of vendors, the costs add up and it gets complicated and confusing. Odoo solves this. It's a single company that sells a suite of enterprise apps that handles everything from accounting to inventory to sales. Odoo is all connected on a single platform in a simple and affordable way. You can save money without missing out on the features you need. Check out Odoo at O D O o dot com. That's O D O O dot com.

[Molly Conger]

Mom, can I have Lingokids?

[Robert Evans]

Dad, Lingokids, please. When did we become the Lingokids house?

[Sophie Lichterman]

No idea. Last week it was dinosaurs.

[Robert Evans]

This weekend, Lingo Kids. Why Lingokids? Because it's the best thing ever.

[Molly Conger]

We can play games with astronauts, wild animals and superheroes.

[Garrison Davis]

With more than 4,000 interactive games, songs and shows, LingoKids is the number one entertainment platform for young kids.

[Robert Evans]

So no dinosaurs and dinosaurs. Lingokids. Everything kids love, download it for free.

[Sophie Lichterman]

Most dog food brands don't really want you seeing how their food is made. Just food for dogs is the opposite. They actually invite you in. You can walk into any of their kitchens and see real human grade ingredients like chicken, beef, carrots and peas being prepared right in front of you. It's real food made in real kitchens. Nothing is hidden behind labels. And that kind of transparency says a lot. Nothing to hide, everything to love. Go to justfoodfordogs.com and get 50% off your first order.

[Robert Evans]

Professional wrestling fans, the action continues every week. Watch TNA Thursday Night Impact every week on amc. It is like electricity blowing through your veins. Don't miss the adrenaline, the drama and the total non stop action. No one can ever be as good as this Right here. Don't miss the action of TNA Thursday Night Impact every week on AMC. For showtimes and more information, visit tnarrestling.com.

[Mia Wong]

Welcome to It Could Happen Here, a podcast about what workers can do when they try. I am your host, Mia Wong and with me today to talk about a company known I guess in Portland for being a place where you shop and known most other places for being the people who make pens is Morgan and Renee from Bougie Workers United. Morgan, Renee, welcome to the show.

[Renee (Muji Workers United)]

Thank you.

[Sophie Lichterman]

Hi. Thank you, Mia.

[Mia Wong]

Yeah, so and obviously, I guess as you may have gotten from the word union and the title probably containing the word union, I don't know, we haven't written it yet. Is that. Yeah, one of the. One of the Muji stores in Portland is unionizing. Can you talk a little bit about like what Muji is for? People who are unaware of this slash, don't follow pens and or haven't been to the store.

[Sophie Lichterman]

Yeah. So Muji is probably, I would describe it as a worldwide Japanese minimalist lifestyle department store. And that's a lot of words to say. It's a department store that is for essentially basics. Muji is short for a full name that essentially translates to no brand. And that's the idea that they're trying to push for. They're trying to show to people that it's like an eco friendly company and they try and push high quality products. And at our location in Portland, it's the only one on the American west coast and we have a relatively small shop. There's only 32 people in our bargaining unit. And this is a wall to wall bargaining unit which essentially means that everyone below the lowest management level at this location is involved with the union.

[Mia Wong]

Yeah. Which is A really cool. And B, so you're talking about how this is the only one on the west coast. This is mostly a Japanese company that operates a little bit in the US and does things here.

[Robert Evans]

Right.

[Mia Wong]

My understanding.

[Sophie Lichterman]

So it is a Japanese company. It actually primarily operates all over the world. It began in Japan in the 80s, I believe, if I know my company history correctly. But they pretty rapidly expanded across Asia and Europe and then have also since expanded into Africa and the Americas. The Americas were relatively late. I don't think that there was a store in the Americas before the turn of the millennium. And the Portland location itself opened in, I want to say 2018 sometime, like just pre Covid.

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

Yeah.

[Mia Wong]

So it's relatively recent. And I guess the thing that's even more relatively recent is y' all starting to organize a union. So can I ask sort of, how did that start and what was the sort of things that started to get the ball rolling on it?

[Sophie Lichterman]

So I guess the way that organizing started was back in November of 2025, maybe shortly before that, we had a round of appraisals. These are like yearly end of fiscal year appraisals that are technically supposed to be the end of the fourth quarter. Typically they get pushed back by a month or two. Just company practice, because the appraisals are tied to our raises, and each employee who's worked for a year or more at the company gets a praise. And so we're scored in a system of one to five. And if you get a three or better, I believe the system goes. You get a raise that is directly tied to the number that you got. They use decimal systems. So the thing is that this year they gave us the lowest raise in memory of any of the workers that are currently there, Myself included. For context. I'm one of the workers that has been at the store the longest and more than four years now. We have pretty high turnaround, which is how I ended up being the longest tenured of the lower than the management workers. And this came in a year that was the best year in the Portland locations history. Yeah. There's this competition that Muji runs internally where it. It puts each store under, like a group of stores worldwide. Almost like World cup groups in a way where you're just kind of like randomly sorted into groups. And each year, one of the groups is chosen. And within that group, they examine the performances of each of the stores within that group and select a winner to be the store of the year. So in 2024, we won store of the year. And it was kind of a shock to a bunch of us to have such low races after that.

[Mia Wong]

Yeah.

[Sophie Lichterman]

For example, my raise of 65 cents last summer.

[Robert Evans]

Jesus Christ.

[Sophie Lichterman]

Was the highest by a significant margin.

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

What?

[Sophie Lichterman]

Yes.

[Renee (Muji Workers United)]

It went as low as around like, 25 cents.

[Sophie Lichterman]

Yeah, that's right.

[Mia Wong]

I have done the math. But like, is. Is that sub inflation?

[Garrison Davis]

Like I.

[Sophie Lichterman]

Yes, that is sub inflation.

[Renee (Muji Workers United)]

It tends to be. There are employees who have been working for more than two years who still get paid around minimum wage.

[Mia Wong]

Jesus Christ.

[Sophie Lichterman]

In addition to that, the staff members who are key holders and full timers and above get bonuses. And the bonuses are directly tied to the amount of money that the store makes over the target amount for the month. And they drastically increased the targets for the year going forward, which meant that because of that, our bonuses were Getting lower. So this year, for the last month since that raise, I've actually been making less money per month than I was the year before.

[Mia Wong]

Jesus Christ. So you're getting pay cuts, Basically, yes. Jesus Christ. After winning Story of the year. Incredible stuff. Incredible stuff from the people who are running their company in an extremely normal way.

[Sophie Lichterman]

That was the spark that set this push for the union ablaze. And so in November, I contacted the iww, Industrial Workers of the World, and received a response. And so at first, it was just me and one of the IWW representatives that we were meeting together to talk about forming a union. And we ended up having those meetings somewhat regularly, and the amount of people attending those meetings slowly started to grow. So it was maybe like two people, three people here and there. And then we took a break for the holidays because people were just generally unable to make it out. And everything was super chaotic at the store. And after the holidays, I had the idea of hosting potlucks, essentially, and inviting people to potlucks. I can't remember, Renee, were you coming to these meetings before or after the potlucks?

[Renee (Muji Workers United)]

The first meeting I went to was at the hall, where it was essentially just us grieving about our working conditions while the seasonals were there. And sort of. It was. I don't know how much it was in the works for you, how much stuff you had done up until that point, but I think that was the moment where we sort of became confident as a body in our prospects for unionizing. And then the potlucks thereafter.

[Sophie Lichterman]

Yeah, and the potlucks ended up starting to pull around 10 people. I think the highest attended one was actually 12. And so when you have a shop that has about 32 people in the bargaining unit, that is about a third of the shop attending an early union meeting while we're still in the underground phase of organizing. And we managed to successfully remain underground up until we decided to go public on our own terms on March 31. We had a march on the boss, which, slightly inconveniently, the boss had actually left the shop about 45 minutes early into her shift, and we had accounted for her leaving early, but we didn't account for her leaving that early. And so the march on the boss kind of had this anticlimactic moment where the manager just wasn't in the store anymore, and there wasn't anyone that actually had supervisory authority at the store for the march,

[Mia Wong]

which I think there's two things there I want. I want to come back to. One is the like, oh, yeah, of course, management. Management never found out about the union, but just left early because they're management and it's like, oh, right, no, yeah. What happens if you leave? Just randomly walk off your job site, like 45 minutes early. You're fucked. But management is just like, yeah, fuck it, I'm just done. I'm just out. Like, I'm just, I'm just leaving. Everything's gonna be fine even if I'm not there.

[Robert Evans]

So I'm just gonna leave early. Right.

[Mia Wong]

God. I wanted to talk about the potlucks a little bit because that's a, it's a really good idea as just a way to make sure you can consistently get a bunch of people there and yeah, can you talk about sort of what that was like and how they've been and what the effect of that has been?

[Sophie Lichterman]

The potlucks came about because I had the idea that people are going to be more willing to come to an event if it wasn't just going to be a meeting where they sat down and had to talk shop and they had to start talking about work while they're off the clock. But they'd be much more likely to come if the meeting was framed more as a way to just hang out with their co workers and eat dinner. So this actually came from my experience when I was a kid. I grew up Baha', I, and even though I'm no longer Baha', I, the way that our community did it back home was mostly through community feasts and prioritizing the feasts first and then the religious discussion later. So taking that sort of idea and putting more of a union spin on it was the idea behind that and it was a massive hit.

[Robert Evans]

Hell yeah.

[Sophie Lichterman]

Renee, do you have any more thoughts on that?

[Renee (Muji Workers United)]

Yeah, I think the fact too that our worker body is, I don't know if uniquely is the right word, but especially tight knit and supportive of one another, really just sort of helped things flow in a very natural and easygoing way. It was just super like salient for everything to come about out of these pollux. We just sort of like sat down and immediately started like complaining about work.

[Sophie Lichterman]

Hell yeah.

[Mia Wong]

Hell yeah.

[Renee (Muji Workers United)]

Sort of got us going and like pretty much every meeting since, like, that's how we just like start our, our discussion or in our meetings. It's just what bullshit have you been facing from your managers, et cetera. And we have to cut it short every time.

[Sophie Lichterman]

Yeah, it feels bad sometimes to have to cut these complaints periods short because I think they can go on for two to three hours if if we're not careful. And I think the early ones did actually go on for two to three hours, and we had entirely potlucks that we didn't get any actual business done. We just spent two to three hours eating food and complaining about work with each other. And honestly, that kind of helped people get more comfortable with the idea, and it really agitated people in a way that I don't think we would have been able to do if we had just tried to talk to people at work about unionizing or had a more formal meeting, and it really just kept the momentum going.

[Renee (Muji Workers United)]

Yeah, I think it has this effect of realizing everything, because even I would walk in and thinking, like, you know, this is like such a taxing endeavor, unionizing the workplace. And, you know, every once in a while you'd have some sort of hesitation, I guess, but then every time I would leave, it would just sort of be like, this is. Like, this is the only option and we're definitely going to do it, and we're all with it, and it feels good.

[Mia Wong]

Hell, yeah. Yeah. It seems like from everything that I've heard and everything that you're saying, it seems like it's a really powerful way to sort of both combat atomization, both as a. Just like, oh, this is like a social space where you and the people you work with, who are your friends can exist with each other. And then also in a. We can combat sort of alienation and atomization stuff by just doing the union work of, oh, my God, we all have all of these issues with our bosses.

[Renee (Muji Workers United)]

Yeah.

[Mia Wong]

Yeah. And when we return, we're going to start talking and going to ask about the issues with the bosses. But first, here are, I don't know, the products and services that support this podcast. We are back. I was like, oh, I have a good transition. I can. I can go from complaining about the bottom bosses to talk about what the bosses are doing. And then I was like, I. I was supposed to cut an ad pivot here. We didn't. We didn't think of that one fast enough. But, you know, speaking. Speaking of doing things fast enough. So, yeah, I wanted to ask before we get into sort of how things have been going more recently and where. Where the campaign is going in, election stuff, other than sort of the pay raise stuff, what. What are the kinds of things that people have been dealing with at Muji?

[Sophie Lichterman]

So there's a lot of small things that have kind of piled up. And honestly, I say small things, but each one of these is kind of just like shocking on its own. But not surprising necessarily to anyone that's worked in the service industry at all. So beyond the raises, there's just been like a long pattern of emotional abuse from the bosses. People have been yelled at for pretty much no reason. The bosses have directly insulted workers abilities like on the floor as they're doing stuff. They've done things like pressure staff not to use their sick time, even going so far as occasionally implying that getting sick is like your own fault and that people are able to perfectly prevent themselves from getting sick.

[Mia Wong]

Yeah, in your job you have to be around people all the time because you're doing a service. God, I hate this weird pseudo eugenicist shit about disease that's just everywhere now that runs the Department of Health and Human Services and the cdc.

[Sophie Lichterman]

This weekend or this last weekend at the time of recording was Memorial Day weekend. And on Saturday, the peak day of that weekend, there were 3,000 customers approximately in store over the course of the day. Jesus. And reminder that we are a team of 32 people in total. And so of course not all 32 people are going to be at the store at once at the same time. And so when your Crew is maybe 10, 15 if you're lucky, people big and handling a customer volume of about 3,000 over the course of a day, you're interacting with so many people that it's worse than. Maybe it's not worse than. Because kids can get pretty nasty sometimes. Much respect to all the teachers out there. Yeah, it can get to be a bit of a biohazard. Especially when you're working in places like the fitting room that don't have ventilation and you're possibly interacting the closest with customers and you're constantly interacting with clothing that has been pressed up against people's bodies. You're interacting with people that just aren't being super conscious about the space. Or maybe you're in this small confined area with two, three, even four other people for a prolonged period of time. Of course the customer service team is going to get sick more.

[Mia Wong]

Yeah, that's like a small, medium sized like convention that's just running through your store over the course of one day. It's like oh yeah, everyone has like pax pox or whatever the like convention plague is. But that's just like going to work. It's like oh yeah, no, of course, apparently somehow you're supposed to like magically have the like anti disease talismans.

[Sophie Lichterman]

Yeah.

[Mia Wong]

As like the plagued masses.

[Sophie Lichterman]

And on top of that I've called out maybe once a month, I think that maybe There was one month where it was twice a month since January. And I've already used up all the allocated sick time that I get for a year.

[Robert Evans]

Jesus.

[Sophie Lichterman]

And that's with one of the better sick pay plans as a full timer. And so I can't imagine what people are having to go through at part time where they're already not getting enough hours to pay rent off of their job and they're having to decide essentially between coming to work sick or calling out and taking that financial hit. I know one of our staff members has actually been evicted because they were not able to make rent because they didn't make enough hours.

[Mia Wong]

Oh my God.

[Renee (Muji Workers United)]

Or just having your sick hours rejected on the app.

[Robert Evans]

What?

[Garrison Davis]

This is an app?

[Mia Wong]

Oh my God.

[Sophie Lichterman]

Yeah, that's right.

[Mia Wong]

If your sick hours can get rejected, you don't have sick hours. Like. Yeah.

[Sophie Lichterman]

What? And there's more too. It doesn't end there. They apply policies that we have this employee handbook that has this list of requirements and expectations and it is not really a huge part of our employment typically, but the policies that they have listed there are applied inconsistently. Stuff like the Uniform Code is one of the biggest examples of this where they will more heavily enforce the Uniform Code against people of color or people with alternative styles of dress. She or even they can be. They can be fairly fat phobic. There have been multiple people that have said that the managers will pressure them to essentially cover up parts of their body that they will allow skinnier people to. To show what?

[Robert Evans]

Jesus Christ.

[Mia Wong]

Oh my God. That is so incredibly shitty. And that's gotta be illegal somehow. Even under like unhinged American labor law. That just feels like. It feels like a very open form of discrimination, but. Jesus Christ. Oh my God.

[Sophie Lichterman]

Yeah. Do you have anything to add, Rene, along those lines?

[Renee (Muji Workers United)]

Just sort of like being asked to profile people. All employees can be scheduled to cover the security's breaks, which basically just involves standing around one of the entrances and reporting anything, quote, fishy on the radios, anything suspicious. They say suspicious.

[Mia Wong]

So wait, so they could just co opt you into being a security guard?

[Sophie Lichterman]

What?

[Renee (Muji Workers United)]

Yeah, the security guard doesn't have any duties regarding like, loss prevention. All the managers do that as part of their duties, I guess. But yeah, so they just sort of say suspicious people.

[Sophie Lichterman]

And on that note too, there have been times where people have been maybe not strictly disciplined. I actually don't know for sure if there's been an incident of someone being written up, but there have been times where the managers have approached people and essentially just yelled at them for allowing someone to get out of the store with merchandise. Even though loss prevention is very specifically not part of our job description and that the official store policy actively discourages staff from engaging in active loss prevention like that.

[Mia Wong]

So you're getting yelled at for doing the thing you were told to do that is explicitly not part of your job. That's supposed to be the manager's job. And the managers are pissed off that you're not doing what's nominally their job that you also, in the written thing you're not supposed to do.

[Sophie Lichterman]

Exactly.

[Mia Wong]

Incredible. Incredible, incredible. Catch 22 Logic here. But it's real.

[Jacob Goldstein]

Just.

[Mia Wong]

Oh, yeah, you're explicitly not supposed to do this. So you could get punished if you do it, but also if you don't do it, we're gonna yell at you. It's gone. Jesus Christ.

[Sophie Lichterman]

Yeah, yeah. Naturally, there's not really anything that we can do about this besides unionize and besides start taking actions on our own because the law certainly isn't going to help us for this. Even Oregon state law, which is. Which tends to be more protective of workers than other states are. They're incredibly overwhelmed right now with requests and going through the Bully Bureau of Oregon labor and Industries, I think is the acronym going down the bully website lists. There's a complaints box, but it says on the website that they have an incredibly high backlog of complaints that they're trying to process and that they're going through a triage system.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

Oh, great.

[Sophie Lichterman]

And none of the things that we've listed so far would be placed very highly on that triage. In addition to that, we don't have access to like direct access to our HR department at work. They ask us to go through a third party reporting company called Lighthouse. And as far as I know, no one has ever heard anything about Lighthouse doing anything to resolve a situation between them and management when management is treating them unfairly.

[Mia Wong]

Incredible.

[Sophie Lichterman]

And it essentially feels like just shouting into the void. Interacting with Lighthouse because you're just sending a complaint to a body that you don't have any access to and just hoping that they fix something.

[Mia Wong]

So they've contracted out their HR department. So you're just like talking to their. Or is it that you can't communicate with them directly? And that's very weird.

[Sophie Lichterman]

So they have an HR department. The workers at the physical location cannot communicate with hr. We are not given their phone numbers or their emails or anything like that. All of our HR communication has to be done through our general store manager. So when we have problems with the General store manager or assistant store managers. We can't really go to HR because we have to go through the very people that we're having problems with in order to reach our hr.

[Mia Wong]

Incredible. They saw that make HR even faker, which is incredible. Oh, good Lord.

[Sophie Lichterman]

It would also be remiss, I guess, to forget about the sexual assault.

[Mia Wong]

Oh, Jesus Christ.

[Sophie Lichterman]

Maybe not specifically sexual assault, but definitely sexual harassment. Possible sexual assault that has been raised to management before where the management supposedly pushed those complaints to hr, but then HR would wait for weeks before doing anything about it.

[Mia Wong]

Oh my God.

[Sophie Lichterman]

This happened a year or two ago. No, it was probably more in the realm of two to three years ago, if my memory is correct, where we had a co worker that was not just profiling people and calling security on people that were doing nothing, but he was also sexually harassing other co workers.

[Robert Evans]

Jesus Christ.

[Sophie Lichterman]

And the store managers told us that they had pushed these complaints to hr, but HR wasn't doing anything. And it took them about a month, I believe, to fire this person. And essentially what they were doing before is they were telling people that if they talked about the situation or created drama about the situation that they would retaliate against the people that were talking about the situation. Oh my God.

[Robert Evans]

My God. Jesus.

[Sophie Lichterman]

They didn't say outright, but they implied everything up to job loss for the people that were talking about this.

[Mia Wong]

Oh my God.

[Sophie Lichterman]

And they started pulling people into the office and essentially having one on one conversations.

[Mia Wong]

Oh my God.

[Sophie Lichterman]

That were honestly quite scary to the people that were trying to spread the word about this. And it created quite a hostile store environment for a long time. Around that time was actually the first time that we had attempted to try and get a push to unionize, but that ended up dissolving. And that was essentially the end of that up until this most recent push.

[Mia Wong]

Yeah. God, that's really hideous. Both the way in which they just pushed it up the ladder to HR and then just didn't do anything about it for like a fucking month. And that also just the only thing they did do about it was retaliating against the people who were trying to talk about it. That is. Jesus, that's disgusting.

[Sophie Lichterman]

Yeah. About the most that they did during that month to the actual co worker in question that was doing the harassment was they tried to maintain some degree of physical separation between him and the other co workers and that was it. They kept him on the roster. They kept him at the same positions that other people were working. He had essentially all the same job responsibilities as other people and still Had a pretty high degree of contact with other co workers during this whole time.

[Mia Wong]

Yeah. So the people who were trying to speak out against it until this guy was fired were getting punished more than he was, essentially.

[Sophie Lichterman]

Yeah.

[Mia Wong]

Jesus.

[Sophie Lichterman]

All the way up until he was finally fired. And I don't know what it was that actually got them to do it this time, but they wanted to wait until they had got something actually on camera, I believe. But it's kind of hard for you to catch something like harassment words on camera.

[Mia Wong]

Yeah.

[Sophie Lichterman]

If their bar for sexual harassment is stuff that they can catch on camera, they're never going to get most instances of harassment and they're not doing their proper job investigating these accusations.

[Garrison Davis]

Yeah.

[Mia Wong]

And that also means that their deliberate strategy is to wait for someone to get hurt again.

[Sophie Lichterman]

Exactly. That's right.

[Mia Wong]

They're just throwing them to the fucking lion's den. Your strategy to detect that a bus is about to hit someone is to push someone in front of the bus and take a picture of it, which is just so unbelievably unacceptable.

[Sophie Lichterman]

Yeah. And I want to be clear too, that this whole list is very much non exhaustive. There have been so many cases of just patterns of abuse from management and it's not possible for me to go down the entire list of things. I mean, as I mentioned previously, it would be two to three hours of people complaining about stuff that they had gone through at work during these meetings. And occasionally you get some repetition. But this is something that is very consistent. It's just a part of working at the store.

[Mia Wong]

Yeah. Every day there's just another unique horror that someone is experiencing. And I guess this brings us to, okay, so how do you make the horror stop? And that is unionizing. So yeah, let's talk about what's been happening recently in terms of like how the union is immobilizing and about the upcoming election, which will be a few days after you're hearing this, assuming you're listening to this, the day it comes out.

[Robert Evans]

Out.

[Renee (Muji Workers United)]

Yeah. So we've been sort of ramping up a little bit. It's been ebbing and flowing since. Yeah, we started, you know, last like November. But we're really trying to kick it into gear, get people aware, get. Get people back engaged. So we have a few things we've been doing on May 1st for May Day, we tabled with the IWW and just started a petition just for signatures from the community for support, for acknowledgment if we ever need to, you know, pull it out and show our Bosses that, you know, this is no light endeavor. This is not like something they can laugh off.

[Mia Wong]

Yeah.

[Renee (Muji Workers United)]

But it ended up being sort of successful beyond what I imagined. We got lots of attention. Lots of people saying that they didn't know that we were unionizing. People taking lots of pictures of us, our big banner. We got one inquiry for a journal report that, that I think is out now. And we were also written about in. What was it? Was it Oregon Live or was it the Oregonian? Do you remember, Luna?

[Sophie Lichterman]

We had a small article published about us by the Northwest Labor Press that was then picked up by the Portland Mercury.

[Robert Evans]

That's right.

[Renee (Muji Workers United)]

Yeah. So we did that. And then other than that, we're sort of fighting some recently published propaganda from our bosses with just a hilarious amount of misinformation.

[Robert Evans]

Oh no.

[Mia Wong]

Yeah. Average boss communication.

[Sophie Lichterman]

The other big thing that's been happening is that the reason that the election is happening so long after our initial march and declaration of intent to unionize is that the bosses have been trying to divide up the bargaining unit in a fairly strange case where the employer has been contending that the merchandising staff, which is essentially the back of the house staff, but only like a subsection of the back of the house staff, are not eligible for unionization under the same union as the rest of the staff are. They did this under the notion that the merchandising staff don't share a community of interest with the rest of the staff. And the other thing that they tried to do is they tried to take the key holders, which are sort of like a shift lead position, away from the bargaining unit by trying to get them designated as supervisors, specifically Section 211 supervisors under the National Labor Relations Act. And we managed to shoot down both of those contests in a board hearing with the National Labor Relations Board.

[Robert Evans]

Hell yeah.

[Sophie Lichterman]

And the process took a little bit over a month if I remember correctly. And without going too heavily into detail about it, the community of interest rule basically says that if employees don't share a community of interest with members of a bargaining unit, they have to unionize under a different union. And then the other thing is that the NLRA says that if you have supervisory authority and there's a whole laundry list of authorities that are defined in the act, if you are a supervisor, then you don't get to unionize legally. Period. And so what made this case strange is that typically employers try and add groups of employees onto the unit they believe are on the side of the employer, the anti union side, and the union generally has to contend that these people don't share community of interest or are supervisors or whatever. So it's kind of a bit of a strange situation where it's turned on its head where instead the employer is having to prove that these people are not sharing community of interest or are supervisors. And so even though we couldn't afford proper legal counsel, and so the union representatives were, myself and a friend of ours who is a member of the iww. We were able to essentially represent ourselves in this board hearing. And the case was decided in our favor on both counts.

[Robert Evans]

Hell yeah.

[Mia Wong]

That rocks.

[Sophie Lichterman]

It really does. I was not shocked to find out that the case was decided in our favor on the community of interest issue because that would be like saying that the back of the house workers at a restaurant can't unionize with the front of the house workers just because they have different job descriptions.

[Garrison Davis]

Yeah, gibberish, right?

[Sophie Lichterman]

However, I was surprised at first. I was surprised at least that we managed to win on the issues of supervisory authority with the key holders. I thought that it would take a pretty solid case in order for us to defend against that. And huge props to our friend who I'm not sure if they're comfortable being name dropped as an iww member like 5 to the world. So I'm not going to name them. But it is large thanks to this friend of ours that we won that case. So that's where we stand now. The board hearing was decided in our favor and the election has been decided for next week. And both sides are now just trying to have our campaigns in preparation.

[Renee (Muji Workers United)]

Yeah.

[Garrison Davis]

Hell yeah.

[Mia Wong]

It's a sort of different version of like the very common tactic of because bosses want there to be more time in between when you like file your paperwork to unionize and the election because it gives them more time to do intimidation and fear tactics. And like that period in between deciding to unionize and getting to actually do the vote is one of the periods where union is most vulnerable. And it's also really impressive that. Yeah, you just sort of walked into the board hearing and beat them by just reading a bunch of labor law.

[Robert Evans]

Stop.

[Mia Wong]

Yeah, yeah. I don't know. Workers of the world too anti union lawyers. Zero.

[Sophie Lichterman]

Yeah, basically.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah.

[Sophie Lichterman]

It was very strange cross examining my manager under oath.

[Mia Wong]

Hell yeah.

[Sophie Lichterman]

And then going to work. I didn't manage to attend the entirety of either of the days of the hearing because I had to close. I had to go to work at noon on both days that the hearing was.

[Mia Wong]

That's so nuts.

[Sophie Lichterman]

Which is why I wasn't there for the full hearing for either of the days. So I ended up having to log on in the morning onto the Zoom meeting and attend the first two and a half hours and then hop off, call and leave, and then go to work and see my managers at work.

[Mia Wong]

Oh, my God.

[Robert Evans]

After you bit her.

[Mia Wong]

Oh, my God. It's also. That's so nuts that you didn't get time off to go to the union hearing.

[Sophie Lichterman]

Exactly.

[Renee (Muji Workers United)]

Yeah. I mean, they were getting paid, right?

[Mia Wong]

That's wild.

[Sophie Lichterman]

They were getting paid.

[Mia Wong]

Oh, my God.

[Sophie Lichterman]

The managers that were. That were testifying in favor of the employer capitalism.

[Mia Wong]

Bad system. Wow. Who could possibly have expected this?

[Sophie Lichterman]

Yeah. It was actively a challenge to find witnesses to testify for us because the people who would be able to call us witnesses or co workers are people who are maybe working the days of the hearing and can't actually get time off to come testify because they have to be at work.

[Mia Wong]

Oh, my God.

[Robert Evans]

That's so fucked.

[Sophie Lichterman]

There was one person who we approached because we were hoping that they would testify for us who couldn't because she was working that day.

[Molly Conger]

Oh, my God.

[Sophie Lichterman]

And it's too complicated of a process to want to try and like, subpoena them and illegally get them to have the time off to come to the hearing.

[Mia Wong]

Jesus.

[Sophie Lichterman]

So we ended up just having to figure out a way to present different witnesses and have a slightly weaker case because of it. And thankfully that didn't end up mattering. But for a minute, I was worried that we wouldn't be able to have as good of a case as we could have because we were not able to get a key holder on the stand like we were hoping.

[Mia Wong]

Yeah, I'm glad. I'm glad you're able to pull it together. That's really impressive. And yeah. That you still just beat them even though they had. And I guess that is one of the lessons of this is like, yeah, if you're willing to put the work in and work together and figure out how to navigate the system and figure out where you can apply pressure, like, yeah, you can beat a bunch of people who have way, way, way, way more resources than you do, because they're usually just wrong.

[Sophie Lichterman]

Yeah.

[Mia Wong]

Yeah.

[Sophie Lichterman]

I want to actually really drive that point home that neither I or my co representative have experience in any sort of legal fields. Neither of us are even law students. We are just the people that decided to step up and take on this role. And I don't think that there is some special unique quality about us that allowed us to do it. It was just Putting in the work that was required. It's a scary thing being asked to essentially represent yourself in a. In a legal setting. And I think it's a testament to how people are capable of things that they're not necessarily trained to do. And that this whole process of unionization does not necessarily require the vast resources that you might think it entails. It requires some planning, it requires some tactics, but it is something that everyone is able to do.

[Robert Evans]

Hell, yeah.

[Mia Wong]

I guess if I was really on my game here, I would have something about like, the concept of the organic intellectual, et cetera, et cetera. But I don't even think that's really what's going on here. It's just like, in the same way that, like, economics is designed to be esoteric and, you know, like finance is designed to be difficult to understand, but in the immortal words of Dan Olson, there are plenty of C students who've gotten economics degrees. Like, you can understand this. It's just. It just takes some work and it takes some dedication to fighting together. And it takes, yeah, people working together. But these people are not smarter than you, they're not better than you. They have more money. But that's ultimately not the factor that decides everything.

[Sophie Lichterman]

And I don't want to discount the amount of support that we receive from the rest of our co workers as well. Yeah, this was truly a group effort and everyone helped out in their own small ways. Whether it was helping take care of social media posts, whether it was helping cook for us host meeting locations. I've been dealing with a pest problem at my apartment, so I've been unable for about the amount of time that all this legal process has been going on. So I haven't been able to host potlucks anymore. And a former co worker of ours has been hosting instead and putting in the work for that. It really is something that works when everyone comes together and takes part in the process.

[Mia Wong]

Hell yeah. So speaking of everyone coming together and helping to work for the process, if people want to help y', all, what can they do?

[Sophie Lichterman]

We are looking actually at a bit of a financial struggle right now. The biggest thing is that. But we don't have the funds at the moment to go on strike. Not for any significant duration at least. We have a GoFundMe Muji Workers United.

[Mia Wong]

Yeah, we will put that in the description.

[Sophie Lichterman]

The other thing is that we are looking for a lot of social media support. Actually. Muji is a very media driven company and we are trying to set up an Instagram account that has a lot of visibility. You can follow us. Also, Muji Workers United on Instagram. And it seems like people have been sharing our articles and across the Internet, both the NWLP article about us and then now you're interviewing us, which is an enormous help to us. Mia, thank you. We super appreciate it.

[Renee (Muji Workers United)]

Yeah, thank you so much.

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

Of course.

[Mia Wong]

Happy to.

[Sophie Lichterman]

I don't know if you have anything to add to that, Renee.

[Renee (Muji Workers United)]

Yeah, just the Instagram. We have lots of very talented artists working at Muji. Like everyone, great graphic designers, a lot of just very fun and cool people. So yeah, I'm sure that will be expressed in our future social media posts.

[Mia Wong]

But yeah, oh yeah, we'll link that in the description too.

[Sophie Lichterman]

Awesome. Thank you, Mia.

[Mia Wong]

Yeah, One final thing. Do you want to plug direct action?

[Sophie Lichterman]

Yes, I do. So we've spent a lot of time talking about the legal side of unionization because our union is currently seeking federal recognition with the nlrb. I want to emphasize that this is not the end of unionization. The goal is not a contract. The goal is to use direct action to enact the changes that you want to see in your workplace. For what are probably obvious reasons. I don't want to talk about specifically stuff that we have planned, or maybe not even stuff that we've done in the past. But for example, one thing that I can talk about is that we have an ICE response plan. Like what do we do if ICE shows up at our workplace and tries to raid us? We have a plan for that. And I obviously don't want to go further into detail about that, but that is something that we did as an example of a direct action. There's also other stuff. There's lots of historical examples of workers getting gains in their workplace. You have examples of stuff like just a Simple march on the boss has historically worked to sway the boss, even without necessarily a change in the contract. Or you can have stuff that's all very legal and above board, obviously of people just agreeing to not be as friendly with their boss at work and emotionally sway their boss that way. Or having smaller outside of work actions where people are helping each other out and having a workplace mutual aid project, or even something as simple as implementing a workplace fitness plan. That's something that we've discussed a couple of times at meetings very loosely, like just going on hikes together or having the community sports and stuff just to keep each other in shape and keep our communities healthy. All of this stuff is stuff that exists beyond the contract. We're currently emphasizing the contract because that's what we are at the moment seeking because the contract helps this feel more real for people who aren't quite on board with the idea of unionization yet. But unionization at a workplace gets you much more than just a better contract with your employer. And you can enact changes at your workplace faster if you work together with your co workers and organize your co workers. Hell yeah. Anything to add, Renee?

[Renee (Muji Workers United)]

Everyone in the union is very aware regarding their respective capacities to help what they can and cannot do, their limits. And I think just after working together enough, everything marries in a very effective way. And yeah, even just like all of these sort of direct actions that Luna was naming just came out of our meetings. Just ideas that people think might be fun to do or people sharing their hobbies and want to share them with other people.

[Mia Wong]

Yeah.

[Renee (Muji Workers United)]

And so, yeah, it really is just sort of a fun hangout. I don't want to trivialize it, but it's like, you know, extreme hanging out.

[Mia Wong]

Well, yeah, I think it touches on something that's really important about all of this, which is, you know, people will in the abstract talk about unions as, like, social institutions, but, like, what. What that actually means is it's like, yeah, it's a place where you and your friends and the people you work with go and do stuff together. And, you know, I guess I want to wrap up on like. Like, if you want a. A way out of the stultifying boredom and isolation and crushing poverty of the modern capitalist experience, you too can create. You too could create a union and resist all of those things simultaneously.

[Sophie Lichterman]

Yeah.

[Renee (Muji Workers United)]

Yeah.

[Jacob Goldstein]

Jacob, this is Jacob Goldstein from what's yous Problem? When you buy business software from lots of vendors, the costs add up and it gets complicated and confusing. Odoo solves this. It's a single company that sells a suite of enterprise apps that handles everything from accounting to inventory to sales. Odoo is all connected on a single platform in a simple and affordable way. You can save money without missing out on the features you need. Check out odoo@o d o o dot com. That's O-O-O dot com.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

With my mom and dad living in Orange county, when we bring my five and seven year old to visit, we are sometimes in for a two hour drive that could feel like 10.

[Robert Evans]

Oh. As an avid camper, I know all about this. We'll pack up the RV and know this is either gonna be the trip of a lifetime or a complete disaster.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

Which is why we load up the iPads with Lingokids before we even pull out of the driveway.

[Mia Wong]

It's what dreams are made of.

[Robert Evans]

Lingokids keeps kids engaged and quiet with

[Sophie Lichterman]

over 4000 interactive games, songs and shows that kids simply cannot get enough of.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

You can pack whatever you think you'll need, but Lingokids is the only entertainment you'll need for a stress free car ride.

[Robert Evans]

Or really any ride, plane, train, hovercraft, whatever.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

Download Lingokids for free today or unlock

[Robert Evans]

even more amazing content with LingoKids.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

Plus choose the yearly plan and save up to 60%. Search LingoKids in the App Store or

[Sophie Lichterman]

Google Play Lingokids Everything kids love. Think about it when it comes to your own food. You can walk into a restaurant, see what's being made, and know exactly what you're getting. But with dog food, most brands keep that completely hidden. Just Food for Dogs does the opposite. They've built their entire brand around open kitchens. You can actually walk in and watch them prepare your dog's meals with real human grade ingredients like chicken, beef, carrots and peas cooked right there in front of you. No mystery. No behind the scenes, you're not allowed to see. That kind of transparency is rare in the pet food world and it's a big reason they've become the number one vet Recommended fresh dog food earning trust from pet parents who want to feel confident in what they're feeding. When a brand is willing to show you exactly how your dog's food is made, it says a lot about the care, quality and standards behind every meal they produce. Nothing to hide, everything to love. Go to justfoodfordogs.com and get 50 off your first order.

[Robert Evans]

Professional wrestling fans, the action continues every week. Watch TNA Thursday Night Impact every week on amc. It is like electricity blowing through your veins. Don't miss the adrenaline, the drama and the total non stop action. No one can ever be as good as this right here. Don't miss the action of TNA Thursday Night Impact every week on AMC. For showtimes and more information visit TNA wrestling.com.

[Garrison Davis]

Welcome to It Could Happen Here. A show about things falling apart. The thing falling apart the past few years, the Democratic Party. That's what we're going to be talking about today. I am joined by Sophie Ray Lichterman. Hello.

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

Hi. I'm not excited about this.

[Garrison Davis]

This is great because last time we were on an episode together we were talking about our two favorite Democrats, Bill and Hillary Clinton.

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

Ah yes, they gave me Covid at the dnc.

[Garrison Davis]

I'll never forgive them not talking about them today. But we are talking about the dnc. The other dnc. The One who puts on the DNC the. A Democratic National Committee. Because we're going to be talking about the DNC autopsy.

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

Oh, boy.

[Garrison Davis]

First, some background.

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

Yes.

[Garrison Davis]

After the Democrats lost the House, the Senate, and the presidency in 2024, if I'm reading that correctly, including losing the popular vote, something that has not happened in 20 years, the Democratic National Committee, the DNC wondered, why did that happen? So the DNC commissioned a report on what happened with the 2024 election, and this report came to be known as the 2024 autopsy. The newly elected DNC chair, Ken Martin pledged to make the upcoming report public, announcing after his chair election, quote, there has to be some lessons that we glean on that so we can operationalize it not just here in D.C. but through all the 57 state parties. We have to look backwards and look forward at the same time. The 2024 election autopsy was commissioned in early 2025 and was supposed to come out later that spring, but got pushed back to the end of summer and then the fall. And finally, In December of 2025, Ken Martin announced that the DNC would not, in fact, be releasing the autopsy report. In Martin's brief statement explaining, or rather not explaining, why he's backpedaling on his promise to make the report public, he claimed that the committee is, quote, already putting our learnings into motion.

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

Who votes Ken Martin in to be the chair? Because I know his career is basically Minnesota guy.

[Robert Evans]

Yes.

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

Interning government jobs, vice president, chair, and

[Garrison Davis]

then basically around 400 members of state party chapters are chosen to be members of the Democratic National Committee, who then in turn vote on national party leadership and decide how primaries operate. Though if a sitting president is a Democrat, the president can effectively choose the chair. CNN reported that DNC officials had concerns that the report would, quote, inflame ongoing tensions within the party at a time they felt they had begun to generate winning momentum. Him, unquote. And the committee officials decided that it would be a, quote, unquote, strategic failure on the part of the DNC to publicly look backward. That was their reasons for not releasing the report. We're already winning elections in 2025, so there's actually no point in just looking back at why we lost in 2024. And this was alluded to in Ken Martin's statement announcing that he would not be releasing the report. Quote, we are aligned on what's important, and that's learning from the past and winning the future. Here's our North Star. Does this help us win? If the answer is no, it's a Distraction from the core mission. So the report would just be a distraction from letting us currently win going forward, per the DNC chair.

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

That logic is ridiculous.

[Garrison Davis]

No, because that's not the real reason why the report wasn't released. We will get to why the report wasn't released to that.

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

Okay.

[Garrison Davis]

Very soon.

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

That sounds like a majorly half assed reason. So. Okay, say more, say more. I'm listening.

[Garrison Davis]

As the public release of the autopsy was continuously delayed in 2025 and just eventually canceled, speculation about the contents of the report grew. That the DNC must be hiding the report because its findings on why the Dems lost so bad in 2024 must run contrary to the interests of party elites. So by burying the report, the DNC must be trying to protect the future political prospects of Kamala Harris, obscure the misuse of massive funds donated to the DNC and election campaigns. Or the report must actually definitively prove the Biden Harris administration's failure to act on the genocide of Palestinians while aiding and abetting Israel must have played a significant factor in the election, possibly the determining factor. So if the report found such things, then the DNC might want to suppress the report to not have that information be public. But now we know that's not the reason the report was not released. The autopsy finding that the Democrats pro Israel position cost in the election was not the reason the report was buried. Because last month the DNC begrudgingly released an incomplete version of the election autopsy which actually does not contain a single mention of Israel, Palestine or Gaza. It is not discussed in any way in a 192 page report.

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

Then what, what is, what is in this report?

[Garrison Davis]

Oh, we will also be getting into what's in the report. Okay, yes, a lot of bad statistics for one. Unsourced graphs and discussions on whether you should spend more money on digital ads or TV ads is really, really the bulk of the report, honestly. But before we get more into the report's findings, let's discuss the circumstances that led to the publishing of the unfinished autopsy nearly a year after the finished version was supposed to come out. So this autopsy was authored by a guy named Paul Riviera, who's a longtime Democratic strategist and personal friend of DNC chair Ken Martin. Now, Riviera has not worked on a presidential campaign since 2004.

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

Oh, wow.

[Garrison Davis]

And despite being the sole person, like, tasked with running the report, and it's unclear how many people actually worked on it, but it was led by Rivera and seems to mostly be done by him. And despite that Riviera only worked on it part time while managing other contracts with cnn, reporting that Riviera would say that he would only be available to conduct autopsy interviews before 9am or after 7pm or on weekends. That's when he conducted interviews for the report was only before 9am in the morning or after 7pm in the evening on weekdays and then also weekends.

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

What's this weirdo doing?

[Molly Conger]

What's his problem?

[Garrison Davis]

Not much.

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

Yeah, apparently not.

[Garrison Davis]

Not much, sir, because, yeah, this report was like delayed almost a full year.

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

Yeah.

[Sophie Lichterman]

Sheesh.

[Garrison Davis]

Now, only after his initial spring 2025 deadline did Riviera actually reach out to state party chairs in Battleground State to interview them for the report. And he did not contact like key Harris campaign staff until September. And many were not even asked to be interviewed. Portions of the autopsy were first revealed at a DNC National Finance Committee retreat for top donors held at a hotel in Middleburg, Virginia last October. Now, Percy and Nick at the donor retreat, Riviera himself gave a quote, hour long presentation with slides in part drawn directly from the report, in part via running his findings through an AI engine, unquote. There was AI generated slides. He ran his report findings through an AI engine, according to cnn, which also generated slides. And that was what his presentation on the report at the Zona retreat was based on, was the, the AI's regurgitation of report findings.

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

Hold on, hold on a second. So he's not willing to do work after 9am or after 7pm, cannot conduct

[Garrison Davis]

interviews in that time? No, too busy.

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

Can't do any of that time. But yet he's just like using AI.

[Garrison Davis]

Yeah, great.

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

Dnc. Feeling really hopeful. Continue. What did CNN find?

[Garrison Davis]

So one of the slides that Riviera presented at this, at this donor record retreat attract the candidates, quote, unquote, area of focus by quote, unquote, content, slash theme, CNN notes, quote. Riviera used an unclear methodology for the breakdown, assigning percentages to 10 categories of content or theme for Trump, Harris and their running mates. The percentages in every column, one for each candidate, added up to well over 100%, unquote. What he was trying to do here is like measure campaign themes, like, you know, how much Trump focused on immigration compared to Harris, right? So he had these like 10 categories of like what the campaigns were focused on, but the percentages did not actually add up to 100%.

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

Of course they didn't.

[Garrison Davis]

So he's just like making this stuff up, right? Like it's, it's again, they know there's like an unclear Methodology for the breakdown, the fact these add up to over 100 like you cannot trust the legitimacy of any of this research now, now. So after parts of the presentation were leaked to cnn, CNN then obtained even more information about the contents of the shelved autopsy. Before publishing their findings, CNN presented the DNC with what they knew about the report, prompting the DNC to just release the full report as submitted by Paul Riviera. And around this time, donors were also threatening to withhold funds for not publishing the report. So that probably also contributed it. One of CNN's sources said that after the autopsy was published, Ken Martin informed DNC staff that Paul Rivera was no longer associated with the committee.

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

These people. These people. I mean I did not read the entire report intentionally so that you could tell me about it, but the highlights that have been spread across the Internet is did not mention Gaza, did not mention Joe Biden's age, and did not mention when Joe Biden dropped out late, effectively.

[Garrison Davis]

So what we'll get into some of, some of those in a little bit more detail. I think one of the most interesting parts about the DNC's publishing of the unfinished report is that the published version of the autopsy contains annotations and corrections marked in red that the DNC added to the copy of the report as submitted by Riviera. And these were added for its public release.

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

Okay.

[Garrison Davis]

At the top of every single page, all 192 pages, reads a disclaimer, quote, disclaimer, this document reflects the views of the author, not the dnc. The DNC was not provided with the underlying sourcing, interviews or supporting data for many of the assertions contained herein and therefore cannot independently verify the claims presented, unquote, that is in red at the top of every single page. Ken Martin did issue a statement when the autopsy was published reading, quote, when I was elected DNC Chair, I commissioned an after action review of the 2024 election that I wanted to be honest and transparent and with actionable and specific takeaways for the future of the Democratic Party. When I received the report late last year, it wasn't ready for prime time, not even close. And because no source material was provided, it would have meant starting over. I could not in good faith put the DNC's stamp of approval on the report that was produced after last November's massive Democratic wins. I didn't want to create a distraction. But by not putting the report out, I ended up creating an even bigger distraction. For that, I sincerely apologize. For full transparency, I am releasing the report as we Received it in its entirety, unedited and unabridged. It does not meet my standards and it won't meet your standards. But I am doing this because people need to be able to trust the Democratic Party and trust our word, unquote.

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

I don't know man. That doesn't really sound very trustworthy, bro. Sounds pretty bad. Sounds pretty bad. Here's a half assed report. I didn't, it's, it's not very good and I've delayed it for over a year, but yeah, I, I guess here it is. No, it doesn't include any of the big issue things. Enjoy.

[Garrison Davis]

It's a stunning sequence of events that kind of highlights all of the issues that everyone already has with, with the Democratic Party. Like the guy who was chosen to do the autopsy just happens to be a personal friend of the DNC chair. And said friend then fails to interrogate the institutional bias of the party. It is such a condensed, condensed little version of why the party has had so many, so many troubles. And the report as published seems unwilling to actually be able to learn from successes that have been happening since the 2024 election. Effectively what this report actually is is a poorly sourced opinion piece. Yeah, that's dressed up as an election autopsy. It misspells names, it has typos, it has factual and statistical errors and unsourced claims. Multiple key sections are left completely blank because Riviera never submitted them. The report is less interested in collecting data and interviews to inform analysis, but rather starts with certain assumptions and then cherry picks data to support those assumptions. But it doesn't even do that well because the included data is often inaccurate and at times the analysis contradicts itself.

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

Jesus Christ.

[Garrison Davis]

A state party chair told cnn, quote, it was very clear that it felt like Ken's theory of the case for the future of the party through the lens of 2024 as opposed to a quote, unquote autopsy. And after reading the report, I agree this is very much a report that's designed to fit in with what Ken Martin wants the message of the last election to be. And it, it tries to, to squeeze that into these like very rough shape of like an after election report. But it's really not.

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

It's just like reeks of like lazy AI work with all the like left out sections that the things that don't add up, the misspellings specifically the statistical

[Garrison Davis]

and like factual errors, yeah are, are really confusing and it feels like someone's getting, if not the actual writing, but it feels like, like the research search was like AI assistant in the way that, you know, AIs will shoot out different answers for the same question.

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

Sure.

[Garrison Davis]

So it feels like that in a few areas. And like. Like you've already mentioned. Right. The report never brings up Biden's age or mental state as a factor contributing to the election. And in as much as the report criticizes Biden, it critiques the Biden administration's failure to adequately prepare Harris to be a viable candidate.

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

Does it discuss the debate? No, it doesn't bring up the debate where now we know that, like, from an interview from Dr. Jill Biden from a few weeks ago, that she legitimately thought that Joe was having a stroke on stage during that debate with Donald

[Garrison Davis]

Trump, even though she took him onto a different stage afterwards to tell him how good he did. And then they went to a Waffle House.

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

I mean, the things you do after

[Garrison Davis]

you go after you after you believe your husband has had a stroke, when

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

shit has hit the fan, Gary, you go to Waffle House.

[Garrison Davis]

Maybe. Maybe the Waffle House actually is the move.

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

That's what I'm saying. The Waffle House is the least shocking of the entire situation. But that's not mentioned in there at all.

[Garrison Davis]

No. It says, quote, the White House did not effectively support Vice President Harris over three and a half years to improve her standing before the candidate switch, unquote. That's all it says about. About switching from Biden to Harris.

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

Harris.

[Garrison Davis]

That's all it says.

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

I don't. I don't disagree with that statement because, you know, the amount of people that we spoke to when we went to both political conventions, one of the common things that they said about Kamala Harris is, like, how ineffective she's been and how they don't use her and how. How can we trust her when they don't even trust her to do basic things for the administration? Which was one of the main, like, Republican talking points about her is like. Like she has no skills, which is not true. But that was a position that was against her, is not utilizing her enough. And then, you know, they're like, bibbidi Bobbidi boo. She's your candidate without a primary. Do they mention anything about there not being a primary?

[Garrison Davis]

No.

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

Okay.

[Garrison Davis]

The port never interrogates or considers Biden's decision to run for reelection or lay blame on those who encouraged and enabled that decision. Nor does it identify the lack of a legitimate primary as a contributing factor leading to the results of the 2024 election.

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

We're going to take a quick break while I have you know, an attack of my mind, your ads. And we're back.

[Robert Evans]

Ah.

[Garrison Davis]

Let's now pivot to how the report describes its own research methodology.

[Robert Evans]

Jesus Christ.

[Garrison Davis]

This is quoting from the start of the autopsy. Quote, the report analyzes a range of publicly and commercially available data to identify actual investments, actions and eventual voter behavior. The analysis also includes qualitative data obtained in the form of in person and virtual interviews with more than 300 organizations and individuals. After this sentence, the DNC has highlighted and annotated a little note that reads, no source material or data provided. Unsourced claims cannot be independently verified. So despite claiming that 300 people or organizations were interviewed, which may be true, the report never says who these people are, nor does it allude to their relevant expertise.

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

This is just an op ed.

[Garrison Davis]

A source at the DNC told CNN that Riviera did not even provide a list of names of the people he spoke to to the dnc, nor did he submit interview notes or recordings. So there's no record that we have of like who these people are or why they were interviewed or what they actually said. And it's not like he's like quoting from people like with quotation marks. It's like, like regurgitating maybe portions of interviews into different text.

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

Right.

[Garrison Davis]

Riviera also failed to provide data that he said was given to him by senior campaign leadership that he says is influencing the report. But we don't see it and he did not provide it to the dnc. So like, they don't know. It's just, it's just some guy saying, trust me, bro, that's what it sounds like. So after the introduction to the report, report is a section called the Executive Summary. This section was not provided by the author. This section is completely missing.

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

Great.

[Garrison Davis]

After the missing Executive Summary section, the report moves on to the electoral landscape which has just very basic stuff. Quote, millions of Americans are suffering from poor access to health care, manufacturing and job losses, and failing infrastructure, yet continue to be persuaded to vote against their best interests because they do not see themselves reflected in the America of the Democratic Party. Unquote. Just really basic stuff. Very like average, a 10 year old can say this. Next, the report talks about how the Democratic Party rebuilt itself in the 90s. How after three consecutive presidential losses, the Democrats embraced a new strategy which got Clinton elected in 1992. And we all know how well that went. Then there's seven pages of summarizing party history from 2008 to 2024. I don't know if he was getting paid by the word. But that's just like. It's just seven pages that just don't need to be there. And then the report reads, quote, we must be careful to draw the right lessons from this experience and not miss opportunities to identify and build upon some of the positives of the 2024 cycle. We must acknowledge how close the margins actually were. The report then goes on to misstate how close the margins were, but. But on the other hand, it goes on to say that in the past 16 years, quote, Democrats have lost ground at every level of government. This remains true even in the face of the blue wave in the most recent elections. 2025 Gubernatorial and mayoral wins in Virginia, New Jersey, New York City, Detroit, and elsewhere may lead to a false sense of security and a belief the Democratic Party has again found ways to bring voters back to the booth with their messages. While these wins are welcome and point to optimism entrenched in the major party strategy, a dive into the details shows some of these elections were tighter than Democrats should be comfortable with and points to room for improvement in future efforts, unquote. It never gives this dive into the details. So we don't even know what it's taking there. And to me, this paragraph just demonstrates an unwillingness to understand why some of these elections went the way they did, especially the one in New York City. It doesn't want to acknowledge why someone like Zoran ran such a successful campaign. And claiming that the margins were tighter than what Democrats should be comfortable with. Also ignores the fact that Zoron's biggest opponent in both the primary and general election was another Democrat who ran as an independent, someone who was associated with the Democratic establishment. It's a bizarre little tidbit that they throw in there.

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

This is so weird. Just like a highly unnecessary tangent.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

And it.

[Garrison Davis]

It just shows this, like, uncomfortableness and, you know, on one side being uncomfortable, on the other side, just, you know, also being incurious about why those elections have gone the way they did.

[Molly Conger]

Yeah.

[Garrison Davis]

And what you can actually learn from them.

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

This is baffling.

[Garrison Davis]

I'm not gonna go over every single section of the report because there's a lot. And the way that DNC annotated it gets interesting because at a certain point, they stop actually trying to address or annotate specific claims.

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

Yeah.

[Garrison Davis]

And instead just annotate the titles of entire sections. Writing no sourcing provided for several claims in this section. And no evidence provided for many claims in this section. Public reporting and data contradict several claims.

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

Wow.

[Garrison Davis]

The introduction for the what happened Electoral overview section is also completely missing, as well as the National Review section. These are just not included. The author did not provide those sections. The next section, the one on battleground state outcomes, contains very basic factual errors. In just the second sentence, quote, states which had consistently and reliably voted for Democratic candidates, including Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, voted for Trump, unquote. All these three states voted for Trump in 2016. I don't know if Riviera has a different definition of consistent or reliable, but these are. These are notably swing states and swing states that voted for Trump in 2016. Yeah, just like a lot of little details like that just don't make sense. And later on in this section and beyond, it gets dates wrong, wrong. It gets the percentage of votes wrong. It falsely claims that a Capitol Police officer was beaten to death by insurrectionists on January 6th. That's not true. That did not happen. An officer killed himself a few days later, but he was not beaten to death. On site at January 6th. The report uses the word gaslighting, which I think is funny.

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

I, I just kind of wonder if you, like, uploaded this, this to one of the, like, AI softwares to tell you if it's AI or tell you if it was, you know, plagiarized and those kinds of things, how much of it would be flagged?

[Garrison Davis]

Yeah, who knows, right? Like those, those sorts of tools aren't the most accurate themselves.

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

No, but it's just crazy.

[Garrison Davis]

The, the, the level of errors is, is shocking.

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

Yeah.

[Garrison Davis]

Like, for instance, the report claims that in the 2024 election, Democrats netted two seats in the House, flipping 10 seats from Republicans while losing eight. This is not true. This is just not a true claim. Democrats netted one seat rather than two, flipping nine Republican held seats while losing eight Democrat seats. It's like there's just small little errors like that that I'm like, how, how, how did you do this?

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

Unbelievable.

[Garrison Davis]

There's also a bunch of just unfounded claims about the intentions or assumptions coming from the Harris campaign, which may be true, but they're not supported in the actual report. Like, you're not providing evidence, you're not providing citations for some of the claims about what the Harris Party intended in some of their messaging or stances. But I want to move on to one of the biggest takeaways that the report had. It argues that anti Trump sentiment was assumed doomed by Democratic campaigns and that campaign ads should have hit Trump harder to remind voters of how bad he is. Quote, the national campaign did not effectively drive Trump's negatives. The retrospective job Approval for Trump was too high and the campaign and allies failed to remind voters of his incompetence. The idea Trump's negatives were, quote, unquote, baked in is a major failure of analysis and reality given how his favorability has cratered less than a year into this term. Unquote. The DNC notes that no evidence was provided for these claims and that this claim contradicts claims elsewhere in the report. Because a lot of the report also criticizes Harris for only defining herself as not being Trump, as focusing too much on Trump and not defining herself. So the report kind of tries to have it both ways here. The campaigns did not hit Trump hard enough, but were also too focused on Trump, never illuminating what attacks against Trump should have looked like. Exactly.

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

Is there any mention in these reports about Epstein? No, no, no. Yeah.

[Garrison Davis]

No, absolutely not.

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

Yeah, because it was baffling to me that because they needed to have Bill Clinton make the worst speech at the dnc, that they didn't target Trump over his relationship with Epstein at all during the campaign. So, you know, of course it's not in there.

[Garrison Davis]

I mean, yeah, there's a lot of, a lot of things that you could hit Trump on and a lot of, yeah, Democratic ads like did, maybe not in ways that people found convincing. You know, like when we were at the dnc, a lot of the anti Trump stuff was based around like the horror of January six.

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

Yeah.

[Garrison Davis]

Not his regular failures as president. Yeah, right. Like, like the, like, like the day to day incompetence that he showed as president. It was like Trump is threat to democracy, which just did not turn out to be a compelling enough reason to vote against Trump.

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

Oh my goodness.

[Garrison Davis]

The report claims that Harris struggled with defining herself beyond not being Trump and just framing the race as prosecutor versus felon. The report notes, quote, the truncated campaign timeline didn't help, but the campaign did not quickly resolve on how to tag Trump and define Harris. The report says that the enthusiasm gap was predictable. That Trump just generated more enthusiasm than Harris. Does not provide evidence to support this claim claim, though some people may believe this to be true. But this claim is not supported in the actual report. And it reads, quote, anti Trump sentiment alone was insufficient to motivate voters. The Harris campaign appears to have relied on Trump being unacceptable rather than building an affirmative case for Harris base. Voters needed reasons to vote for Harris as well as vote against Trump. DNC notes, no evidence provided for these claims. So, like, I kind of agree with portions of this. I think, I think, yeah, you do need reasons to vote for Harris, you cannot be just defined as not being Trump. This does contradict the previous takeaway that anti Trump sentiment was not driven hard enough into voters. So perhaps this claim isn't necessarily wrong, but it is armchair analysis. It's not actually attempting to substantiate its claim. It's lazy and sloppy. And it ignores that there were also reasons to not vote for Harris. It's not just that the campaign needed to generate reasons to vote for Harris, but it also should have addressed or changed its course to address the reasons that people might not want to vote for Harris, which we will get to at the end of this episode. In terms of the election analysis included in this report part, a lot of it is focused on comparing Harris's performance to state level races where Democratic candidates outperformed her, but also where she outperformed them. And the analysis often conflates the two. It reiterates that, quote, lower profile races needed affirmative cases to vote for candidates, not just opposition to Trump. And it credits successful state campaigns to local name recognition and digital presence, things that Harris was not necessarily lacking in. Harris spent a decent amount of money on digital presence and as vice president had a degree of name recognition. There's more just odd errors here. The report gets the number of 2024 gubernatorial races wrong. It forgets that Delaware had a gubernatorial race. And it focuses much of this section of the report on Josh Stein of North Carolina, who's the governor. Yeah, quote, while Stein was able to keep the governor's office under Democratic control, it is concerning how Robinson was able to capture 45% of the state's vote, even after his repudiation of equal rights for everyone and proudly and loudly asserting he was a black Nazi, unquote.

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

Man, I forgot about that guy. I'm mad that you brought him up. I forgot he existed.

[Garrison Davis]

A lot of the section of this report is actually praising Josh Stein for how well he ran his campaign, while also finding it concerning of how much the vote Robinson was able to still get. Except it gets the number wrong. Robinson did not get 45% of the vote. He got just over 40%. And later in the report it says he got 42.7%, which is also wrong. So it has two different numbers. The report says 45 and 42.7, neither of which are correct. The correct number is 40 people. This is a lot of stuff like this. This is just kind of baffling. And it's even more baffling because of how much of a load bearing section this Josh Stein bit is. All right, it Writes about how Josh Stein ran almost eight points ahead of Harris. And it says that, quote, stein didn't just win by default. He addressed the exact problems Harris did not. But it never actually explains what those are. It doesn't actually explain this. It just says it in a sentence later on. It says that based on the North Carolina governor's race, Democrats should, quote, focus less on abstract issues and identity politics and connect with voters on the issues they say matter most, including the economy, disaster relief, and addressing housing affordability, unquote. But the Harris campaign was not actually focused on abstract issues and identity politics. They were trying to address these things often inadequately, especially on the economy, because of how much Harris had tied herself to Biden. But she did address housing affordability for, like, a decent bit of the campaign. Whether voters actually knew that, that's a whole other question, right? It's whether they were successful in communicating her platform on housing affordability is a different question. But it's not that Stein's success was focused on this as opposed to focusing on abstract issues, which is not really what the Harris campaign was actually focused on. The report continues, quote, harris saw dramatic drops in support among young Latino men and young black men compared to Biden's 2020 performance. However, Stein recovered significant ground with both groups, suggesting his campaign found effective ways to reach these voters. Stein's results suggests it's possible to win women and compete with men with the right approach, unquote. Does it explain how Stein did this?

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

No.

[Garrison Davis]

No, it doesn't.

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

Of course it doesn't.

[Garrison Davis]

It doesn't say. Now, the report also praises Washington Governor Bob Ferguson, who was elected in 2024, quote, running on a platform of housing affordability, reducing costs for families throughout the state, and improving public safety allowed him to easily capture the governor's office. His message resonated with voters concerned about how bidenomics failed to lower the cost of eggs and how the Trump administration would gut avenues of education and upward mobility. Stein and Ferguson, notably both then incumbent attorneys general for their state states, had a definitive strategy to approach voters. Their wins provide a blueprint for candidates in other states seeking to align themselves with their voters, unquote. So Ferguson's win in Washington state is presented as a blueprint for candidates as compared to Harris's failed strategy. But in fact, Ferguson ran almost four points behind Harris. Harris did better in Washington than Ferguson did. But the report promotes Ferguson's strategy, or it's its opinion on Ferguson strategy as the winning blueprint despite it doing worse in Washington. So that's what I mean, in terms of there being lots of self contradictory claims.

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

Yeah. Did nobody proofread or edit or peer review?

[Garrison Davis]

Well, no, I think that is a big part of this. Right. Is that once the DNC received this, they saw how bad it was and it was like, we don't even want to proofread and edit this. Like, this is just so bad. We, we just don't even want to deal with it anymore. Like, it's just done. Right. We're just, we're just putting shelf.

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

But dude released anyways.

[Garrison Davis]

Well, I mean, they released it after public pressure because of, you know, accusations that they were hiding certain findings that were damaging to the Democratic Party or the interests of party elites.

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

No, it's just, it's just that somebody did a bad job when in fact

[Garrison Davis]

it's just like, oh, this was just like a massive up. Like that's, that's why you're hiding it.

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

Right, right.

[Garrison Davis]

Like this, this, this section that I just like read. And the section on like Stein.

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

Yeah.

[Garrison Davis]

That's the only time where the word cost is used in relation to prices. This is, this is the only mention of affordability.

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

Oh, my God.

[Garrison Davis]

The report does not a single time mention inflation.

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

Oh, my God.

[Garrison Davis]

Except in adjusting, like donation numbers for inflation. Like, it does not, it does not mention inflation as an issue. It does not mention the causes of inflation, messaging around inflation and how that may have been a factor contributing to the results of the election. The economy only gets mentioned six times.

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

Okay. Just thinking back to when we were at the RNC and I. I'm sure you had the conversations with, you know, newly eligible voters, young males.

[Garrison Davis]

Yeah.

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

And you asked them, you know, why they were voting for Donald Trump. They would always say the economy is the first thing.

[Garrison Davis]

It's the first thing. Yeah. And that's the core of Trump's ad strategy.

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

How are they not understanding that, you know, bringing out Oprah at the DNC instead of talking about how you're going to lower the price of milk and eggs and gas and help people get jobs. Like, how are they not realizing that you're not reaching normal human connection?

[Garrison Davis]

And this like, continues to be a problem now. Right. People will look at macroeconomic factors.

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

Sure, sure.

[Garrison Davis]

And be like, by some accounts, the economy is actually not doing terrible. But those sorts of statements don't reflect the reality of Americans who are dealing with rising prices and may not be experiencing the same wage growth that some statistics show in the macro sense. And specifically the way that there's this like, condescending messaging around macroeconomics yeah, that really like polarizes people against you because they're having a very hard time. They don't have a lot of hope for the future. And just asserting that actually on a macros level, the economy is doing well. It feels like you're gaslighting them. Right?

[Danielle Kurd]

Yeah.

[Garrison Davis]

You see this in like the discussion of like, you know, the Vibe session.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

Yeah.

[Garrison Davis]

Which I mean, I have a lot of opinions on, but that's, that's, that's another episode.

[Robert Evans]

Oh, man.

[Garrison Davis]

And right now we're gonna go to ads.

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

Oh boy.

[Robert Evans]

Foreign.

[Garrison Davis]

Okay, we are back. So after this section talking about the gubernatorial races and stuff, it has a list of strategic implications for Democrats based on these state level races. And these implications are, quote, anti Trump sentiment has its limits. Irregular voters are swing voters. Candidate definition is essential. Clear accomplishments and concrete plans matter more than vibes. State parties matter. Voters are sophisticated. The 8 to 10% who split tickets are decisive. They evaluate candidates individually. Geographic formula is non negotiable. Strong urban plus competitive suburbs plus limited rural losses. You need all three. Unquote. Yeah, no shit. In order to win elections, you must win elections. Yeah, that's what this is saying, is that in order to win elections, you have to win the election. Yeah, we know, we know.

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

Yeah. There's this, there's this announcer in the NBA that got slammed many years back for stating, well, you know, the team with the most points at the end of the game wins. And that's exactly what this is. They're like, hey, if you get more votes than the other guy, you win.

[Molly Conger]

It's.

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

It's crazy, it's lazy that this whole, this whole thing reeks of just like.

[Garrison Davis]

Yes.

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

Lackadaisical, insufferable laziness.

[Robert Evans]

Yes.

[Garrison Davis]

And I want to mention two. Two other strategic implications, please. One, elections remain winnable with the right candidates and strategies, even in difficult environments. Demographics are tendencies, not destiny. And voter support is impacted good and bad through campaign choices, unquote.

[Danielle Kurd]

Wow.

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

Thank you so much for, for saying that. If people, genius people believe in and like the candidate, maybe they'll vote for them. Wow.

[Garrison Davis]

Voter support is impacted through campaign choices.

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

Just, just. Oh my goodness.

[Garrison Davis]

So that's obviously laughable.

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

Yes.

[Garrison Davis]

This last one is more interesting. Male voters require direct engagement. The gender gap can be narrowed. Deploy male messengers, address economic concerns and don't assume identity politics will hold male voters of color.

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

Men hate women.

[Robert Evans]

Men hate women.

[Garrison Davis]

It's not the messenger. It's not the messenger. It's the message. It's not about who the messenger is. It's the message itself. And they can't grasp that.

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

Why is that their take?

[Garrison Davis]

They're doing the same. Identity politics?

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

Yes.

[Garrison Davis]

That it's that it's like trying to critique. It's like, no, we need men to talk to male voters. That's the only way. That's also identity politics. You don't understand that. It's not about who's giving the message. It's about what the message actually is. How did white dudes for Harris work out? You literally tried this. You literally tried to do this. It did not work.

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

Carson, once again, I did block that out of my brain. I did not like hearing it. Yeah. Their take is, sorry, if you want to talk to the boys, you also have to be a boy.

[Garrison Davis]

It's crazy.

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

What? It's lazy. It's stupid.

[Robert Evans]

God.

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

All right, what else hit me? I know that you're saving some of the worst for the end.

[Garrison Davis]

Yeah, I am saving some of the bad stuff for last. There's a few other small errors I want to go through.

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

Like, let's do it.

[Garrison Davis]

Like, it claims that tens of thousands of voters in a handful of states are who sent Trump back to the White House. That's not.

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

That's not accurate.

[Garrison Davis]

That's just. That's just not inaccurate. And the DNC notes this happened at all.

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

Okay.

[Garrison Davis]

And out of 34 Senate races, the report only reviews six of them, which it attempts to extrapolate a pattern from. And it does not review Wisconsin, a key swing state. And the author also just did not include this section on House races. This section is completely blank. It's also missing.

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

Cool, cool.

[Garrison Davis]

Now, it does have a list of, you know, lessons that we can learn from Senate level and state level races. The positive ones are that, that Democrats should maintain a year around presence. We should kind of always be campaigning. Don't just wait till the end. Just always keep a level of engagement. And that engagement should be community oriented. It should be grassroots in nature. You should be establishing partnerships with local community organizations and groups in working class communities because member to member outreach is more effective. Rather than having strangers do door knocking, you should have people from that neighborhood be door knocking in their own neighborhoods. And their messaging should be bilingual and culturally competent. So, like, all this stuff is like, yeah, like, I, I sure. This is like, I kind of agree. Right? This is like, yeah, very, very basic. But yes, this is, this is a good idea. You should strengthen your connections in Latino neighborhoods and with unions, and you should lean on those to help win elections. Yep. That's how politics works.

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

You learn very young. Stranger danger. And so it's like if you are someone like me who has cameras at their house and you see a strange person coming to your door, you're not necessarily going to answer that.

[Garrison Davis]

No. Someone with a clipboard is, is, is gonna approach me. It's like, oh, no way, I'm not doing it.

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

I, I can't. You're, I'm already overstimulated. Please leave me on. But if it's like, oh, hey, it's my neighbor. Yeah, I'm gonna open the door for them and hear them out.

[Robert Evans]

Out.

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

That's. I fear that's just common sense. I don't think that was necessarily needed in this report. That's common sense, but it's something I don't disagree with for like the first time in all these things that you said.

[Garrison Davis]

Now, the sort of negative things that the Democrats can learn from.

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

Yeah.

[Garrison Davis]

Include what the report calls the leadership voter gap. The fact that the Democratic Party leadership seems increasingly alienated from the priorities of, of voters. And voters may still support their local Democrat on the state level or local, local races, but maybe we'll vote for Trump because he's offering an alternative to the stagnating corpse of the Democratic Party, even if that alternative turns out to be also terrible and in some ways worse. So this is what they call the leadership voter gap. They also identify late engagement, doing the bulk of your campaigning from like September to November, ceding the entire summer for the Republicans to establish kind of the territory of the race, like what the issues are. The report mentions messaging misalignment. This is similar to the leadership voter gap, where there's tensions between the leadership of the party or the concerns of the president and what working class Americans are were concerned about. Quote, the Bidenomics framing emphasized macro statistics rather than the micro realities voters experienced daily and specifically tied President Biden by name to actual economic anxiety, unquote. I think that's completely fair. Another of the key challenges is Republican inroads with working class voters. This section has a typo, so it's kind of hard to read, but it

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

essentially states there's so many typos, but

[Garrison Davis]

it essentially states that the Trump campaign targeted working class households with populist messaging which distracted from his anti worker record. And working class men, particularly manufacturing and construction, saw Trump as more aligned with their cultural values than Democratic candidates. To condense these down, Democrats need to have a year round presence, more economic messaging and address cost of living concerns that resonate more than quote, unquote, identity politics. This is kind of where the actual election analysis portion of the document ends. The rest of the document is on how to more effectively spend campaign funds. Debating door knocking versus text and phone banking. Addressing dropping voter registration rates. Comparing media and ad spending, digital versus TV ads.

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

Is there anything interesting in those findings?

[Garrison Davis]

No, not really.

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

Okay.

[Garrison Davis]

It's filling. It's filling the page count account like the Democrats got a lot of money. The problem isn't the funds. We have the funds. It's that there's small ways that you can use them better. And sure, yeah, but all of this is just treating the symptom, not the problem. The problem wasn't that you were spending more on digital and not enough on broadcast. The problem was the candidate and the message, not differences in ad spending.

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

It's not that you. You had ads running. It's that the ads you had running weren't connecting with the people whose votes you needed, the people that were going to vote for you already. That's who those ads were targeting to. As opposed to bringing in voters who were like, oh, man, I'm really not sure. Trump was pretty bad last time. I'm on the fence here. Or just first time voters.

[Garrison Davis]

The first time voter registration was. Was down significantly.

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

Yeah. The fact that you ran ads in certain places, that was not the problem.

[Garrison Davis]

No.

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

You weren't advertising to the people that needed to be advertised, too. Your messaging was wrong.

[Garrison Davis]

And there's. Yeah, there's this more core issue that people did not get to actually pick the Democratic nominee. And the Democratic nominee had a lot of issues and direct ties to the many failures of the Biden administration. Which brings us to our final section here.

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

Here, I'm afraid.

[Garrison Davis]

Based on three polling studies, the campaign pollsters concluded that it was, quote, important for the vice president to find separation from the status quo. They recognized voters were looking for change and felt it was necessary to find ways to demonstrate how a Harris Walls administration would be more effective in addressing American needs. The pollsters acknowledged the loyalty demonstrated by the vice President, but also suggested it was contrary to strong signals in their data about how even measured breaks would help position the vice president to win, unquote. And the Vice President Harris did not do these measured breaks. She remained extremely loyal to the legacy of the Biden administration while she was vice president and while she was campaigning for president in 2024. Now, these campaign pollsters were also part of discussions on how to respond to Trump attack ads. Quote, in particular, the attack ad focused on the vice president's prior statements on transgendered Americans. You can't call them that, bro. They all recognized the attack as very effective and felt the campaign was boxed in. The ad was a video of her saying what she said, and it was framed as an attack on her economic priorities, cities. If the vice president would not change her position, and she did not, then there was nothing which would have worked as a response, unquote. This polling section's also missing its conclusion, but let's get into that a little bit more, okay? Before the autopsy was released, Rob Flattery. I'm gonna say flattery. I don't know what it actually is, but I'm calling it flattery. He was Harris's deputy campaign manager, and he wrote an article in the Bulwark about what what he said in his autopsy interview, also noting he was one of the few Harris staffers who was actually interviewed. Flattery argued the main issue of the 2024 campaign was branding. And he clarified that the Kamala is for they them ad was not actually the most effective attack ad. According to campaign data, it was the Trump ad from July 2024 with clips of Harris saying that, quote, unquote, quote, bidenomics is working. Flattery wrote that, quote, the brilliance of the Trump team's ad strategy was that everything was a proof point that leveled up to a core narrative. She cares about liberal, not you. Her position on immigrants. She's focused on the wrong thing. Harris talking about trans prisoners focused on the wrong thing, says, bidenomics is working. Focused on the wrong stuff. It was brands, not messages. The trans ad worked because of what it implied, not what it said, unquote. Rob, Flattery, like the autopsy, insists that there was no way to directly respond to the Kamala is for they them. Trump is for you ad claiming that they tested five to six response ads against ads about the economy, and the economy ones tested better, quote, so, not wanting to make the fight about an issue we were losing, we talked about the economy more. A literal rebuttal would have been a loser. I absolutely stand by this decision. Look at the 2025 elections in Virginia where Republicans made trans issues the core of their advertising strategy. It failed because voters didn't find it relevant, unquote. Except that's exactly what Trump did with the they them ad. That was a big part of his ad strategy as well. So there's this sort of learned helplessness with how to address both, like, the trans issues as well as the Israel, Palestine stuff, which we'll get to in one sec. Like Harris not seriously addressing the they them ad also did not seem to Help. And you don't need to run an ad directly opposing that slop. But through media appearances, you can pull the old uno reverso while affirming that you'll stand up for the rights of all Americans, no matter their gender or race. And that includes making health care more affordable and more accessible. And it's Trump and the Republicans who are focusing on bullying a disadvantaged small minority of Americans to distract from the fact that they have no real economic plan. You can talk about the economy while still standing up for trans people. It doesn't need to be the focus of your campaign, but it sure as hell was a key focus of Trump's campaign, and you not addressing it did not help and contributed to real harm and negative polarization against trans people.

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

Yeah, I mean, a trans person did not speak at the 2024 DNC, which was weird and not normal. Trans people have spoken at many DNC conventions in the past, but in the 2024. Nope. And trans issues were. Were barely even mentioned. Largely absent.

[Garrison Davis]

And like, it doesn't need to be a key issue, but the fact that Republicans made it, made it a key issue means that it is worth addressing in some way and affirming that you will actually stand up for the rights of trans people. Beyond making very kind of vague, confusing statements like Kamala made, that she'll follow the law. That's which just does not make sense to anyone. This sort of learned helplessness around, like, not being able to address these issues. This is the same thing with Palestine. Yes, altering course is simply not considered possible and in par with Palestine because Harris was the vice president. Flattery wrote, quote, given the Biden administration's position, Gaza was an impossible issue to communicate around. Protesters drove coverage away from campaign events. Digital creators or even supporters were afraid to say anything nice about Biden because their comments sections would get rocked. For many voters watching the horrific, painful footage out of Gaza, it became a moral question, one we didn't have a good answer for. In ways that may not be reflected in a poll, it meaningfully reduced enthusiasm. As one person from the campaign told me. We spent the entire election with a giant rotting fish around our neck.

[Robert Evans]

Necks?

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

Is Joe Biden the giant rotting fish?

[Garrison Davis]

Well, no, I mean, it's. I mean, in part, yes, but like the genocide in Gaza, like, like this, like, you know, well documented mass death.

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

They didn't let a Palestinian person speak at the DNC either. They had. They had one panel on it, which I attended. It was phenomenal. It was the largest attended panel of the convention. And then they refused to let a Palestinian person speak. Speak.

[Garrison Davis]

I mean, and even beyond just letting people speak, it's like there was no real plan to actually stop this from happening. Like, you can. You can cut off aid to Israel. You can do serious things. You can. You can not send them weapons. You can take away weapons. You can do more things. As we've seen, America is not afraid to occupy territories in that region. You could literally invade and be like, no, you have to stop. But, like, the. Not being able to. You even consider that you could have an answer for this moral question. You. You could just change your position. Not being able to even consider that. And the compounding difficulty of Harris being in the VP role made this the giant rotting fish around the campaign's neck. Yeah. And the fact that the autopsy does not actually address this question, and flattery does, I think is another damning indictment against the autopsy and its sheer incompetence of the deputy campaign manager himself, acknowledging that this was a serious. A serious issue that meaningfully reduced enthusiasm. And like the whole deal in this Bulwark article is that politics is now about brands, not messages. And this is kind of silly, right? Because these two things are related.

[Danielle Kurd]

Yeah.

[Garrison Davis]

But the brand of the Harris campaign was largely defined as not being Trump and just being more of the same.

[Robert Evans]

Same.

[Garrison Davis]

Which in 2024, wasn't exactly great.

[Danielle Kurd]

No.

[Garrison Davis]

Another of Trump's main ads featured a clip of Harris saying that she wouldn't have done anything different from Biden. So the branding issue certainly wasn't helped by the campaign's unwillingness to sever ties with Biden and criticize his policy.

[Mia Wong]

No.

[Garrison Davis]

Flattery argues that would have been hard, if not impossible, because of Kamala's position as sitting vice president. If she doesn't go against Biden's policy, it puts fractures within the party and the White House itself. But also it would demonstrate how she effectively held no power as vice president. So, like, there is. There is these issues, but if you actually have principles, that would not actually be an issue. You could just blaze through that. You could actually take the real correct stance on issues like Palestine and acknowledge the massive failures that the administration had. And you are now going against the status quo of the administration despite being the vice president. Right. That. That could have been an option. One that. That was just never actually considered for whatever reason.

[Sophie Lichterman]

Right.

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

I mean, statistically speaking, at that time, Joe Biden was. Had a very low approval rating. And so, you know, Kamala running as the pro Joe candidate doesn't really resonate with voters because they're unhappy.

[Garrison Davis]

Yeah, exactly right. And if your message is just more of the same, then it seems pretty easy for your opponents to define what your brand is.

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

And whenever she tried to say, you know, I'm going to change this, I'm going to change that, they were like, but you're in office now.

[Garrison Davis]

Like Harris herself did not actually campaign on like progressive immigration policies. She did not campaign on trans rights. She didn't campaign on identity politics.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

No.

[Garrison Davis]

But in absence of a real message, it's all too easy to associate the campaign with the concerns of like, liberal elites disconnected from the economic realities of most Americans. And her previous statements on Bidenomics and how she wouldn't have done anything differently. Absolutely. Compounded this flattery, wrote that the campaign underestimated just how disillusioned people were and the widespread degree of anti institutionalism. But unlike the autopsy, he at least acknowledges Biden should have never have run for reelection in the first place and that Democrats should have have run a real primary, which would have provided an opportunity to actually address all of these, you know, issues about feeling tied to the death worshiping aspects of the Biden administration with Kamala being the vp.

[Danielle Kurd]

Yeah.

[Garrison Davis]

Now speaking of the autopsy, let's get to the final sections of the autopsy.

[Molly Conger]

Yeah.

[Garrison Davis]

Near the end of the report, a paragraph reads, building to win requires new thinking and building to last requires thinking about more than the next election. It requires finding the best way to connect with the right voters in the right places. And if 2024 has proven anything, there is enough money to do it all the right way. And that's kind of the end. That's not the conclusion of the report because the final conclusion section is left blank.

[Molly Conger]

Super.

[Garrison Davis]

It's missing as well. So that sentence is kind of the last piece of analysis because it actually has no conclusion. I think that's the perfect, the perfect representation of what this report is is that it does not have a conclusion. It's literally missing the conclusion. There is very little you can actually take away from this report positively to improve election strategy going forward because there is no conclusion anyway. That's the, that's the 2024 autopsy that it turns out was real, but was

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

just really bad and didn't address anything real.

[Garrison Davis]

No, did not address what I, I would argue were the key issues affecting the campaign, Biden's decision to run again, his age, the lack of a primary, and Israel, Palestine.

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

Yeah, that. And honestly, people like to choose their

[Garrison Davis]

candidate in a democracy, really.

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

And, and this entire thing really is very frustrating because who knows when A non CIS male will be the candidate again after that.

[Garrison Davis]

Yeah. I mean, at this point, I think anyone who can address serious economic as well as these moral issues around like imperialism and the US military is going to serve a better, a better chance.

[Molly Conger]

Yeah.

[Garrison Davis]

Because that is the, the situation we have, we have found ourselves in.

[Sophie Lichterman]

Yeah.

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

The Democratic National Committee. It's a bummer.

[Jacob Goldstein]

This is Jacob Goldstein from what's yous Problem? When you buy business software from lots of vendors, the costs add up and it gets complicated and confused. Odoo solves this. It's a single company that sells a suite of enterprise apps that handles everything from accounting to inventory to sales. Odoo is all connected on a single platform in a simple and affordable way. You can save money without missing out on the features you need. Check out Odoo at O D O o dot com. That's o D o dash o dot com.

[Molly Conger]

Mom, can I have Lingokids?

[Robert Evans]

Dad, Lingokids, please. When did we become the Lingokids house?

[Sophie Lichterman]

No idea. Last week it was dinosaurs.

[Robert Evans]

This week it's Lingokids. Why Lingokids? Because it's the best thing ever.

[Molly Conger]

We can play games with astronauts, wild animals and superheroes.

[Garrison Davis]

With more than 4,000 interactive games, songs and shows, LingoKids is the number one entertainment platform for young kids.

[Sophie Lichterman]

So no dinosaurs and dinosaurs.

[Robert Evans]

Lingokids. Everything kids love, download it for free.

[Sophie Lichterman]

Most dog food brands don't really want you seeing how their food is made. Just food for dogs is the opposite. They actually invite you in. You can walk into any of their kitchens and see real human grade ingredients like chicken, beef, carrots and peas being prepared right in front of you. It's real food made in real kitchens. Nothing is hidden behind labels and that kind of transparency says a lot. Nothing to hide, everything to love. Go to justfoodfordogs.com and get 50% off your first order.

[Robert Evans]

Professional wrestling fans, the action continues every week. You got it. This is total non stop action. TNA Thursday night impact every week on AMC. For show times and more information, visit tna wrestling.com

[Danielle Kurd]

hello everyone and welcome to It Could Happen Here. My name is Danielle Kurd. I'm a researcher and analyst of Arab and Palestinian politics. And today I'm joined by Dr. Nagar Razavi. She is a political anthropologist at the. I'm going to get this right. Mossavar Rahmani, center for Iran and Persian Gulf Studies at Princeton University. And her work is on the role of think tanks in shaping US security policies towards the Middle east and Iran specifically. And I've recently Had the pleasure of being at a symposium with Dr. Rossavi, and I thought she would be a really welcome viewpoint for our audience. Thank you for joining us.

[Molly Conger]

Thanks so much for having me.

[Danielle Kurd]

So. So I think in regards to the war in Iran, there's been such a focus on the Strait of Hormuz and the economic impact of that that conditions on the ground have really slipped from our radars. Like, I don't see it as often, and I think I'm a very well plugged in person. So can we start there? Can you tell us more about the situation and what it's like for, like, the average Iranian right now?

[Molly Conger]

Yeah. Thank you so much for leading with that because I do think that is absolutely missing in not only mainstream media, but in much of the policy discussions that both of us follow closely. It's very bad on the ground for ordinary Iranians on all fronts. Economically, it is very dire at the moment. Inflation is now at unbelievably high rates. The level of damage that happened to the country, the physical damage, caused a lot of people to lose their jobs, if not their lives, because they hit hospitals, they hit schools, they hit factories. These are places where people work. So now all of those people are without a job. The cost of living again has skyrocketed. People who depended on the Internet somehow to do their work are also now out of a job because it's been the longest Internet shutdown in Iran's history at this point. So that's the economic aspect that implicates every single person inside Iran at the moment. And we're hearing that even people can't exchange the dollar. So things are really, really bad at this point. And then you add on the layer of the number of people who have been killed. By the latest count, I think I saw 1700 civilians have been killed, 3.5 million Iranians were displaced. And this is mainly people trying to escape major city centers. They went to areas that were very under resourced. And so they were also suffering from lack of water and electricity wherever they were going. Those people have now slowly been coming back to the major cities. Many more thousands of people were injured or maimed. And then of course, the entire population has been terrorized by this war and the uncertainty of whether it's going to start again. I mean, the threats that Trump has given up until just a few hours ago was at any moment the bombings could start again. And then lastly, I want to say in terms of, I touched on the infrastructure, but they hit desalination plants, they hit hospitals, they hit oil Depots, People's quality of life right now inside Iran is pretty bad. And then you layer onto that a now even more repressive government that has been executing people they accuse of being traitors at unbelievable rates. A total clampdown on levels we haven't seen previously. So again, short story, it's very bad inside of Iran right now.

[Danielle Kurd]

Yeah, I really wanted to make sure that people got that full scope. You know, we forget that there's an Internet blackout. We forget that Iranians have already dealt with such a repressive crackdown right before the war started. You know, like, I want people to make the connection that, like, conditions are super, super dire. You know, since you did mention that point, maybe we can elaborate a little bit. How do you think the Iranian regime is using this moment? I know short term they are utilizing it to just crack down on any dissent, but how do you think it'll be used kind of medium and long term?

[Molly Conger]

Yeah. So, you know, in our line of work, it's always hard to make predictions, but we can use past experiences as a somewhat of a guide here. So just to remind your listeners, in January there was a major uprising of Iranians against their government. And there was one of the most massive crackdowns since the 1980s when there was a massacre against political dissidents. And so going into this war, there was already one of the most brutal crackdowns happening. And then what people who are much more knowledgeable about Iran's domestic politics are telling me is that the people who are essentially replacing the leaders that were killed by US Israeli strikes are more hardliner and are more aligned with the hardline factions of the IRGC or Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, which is one branch of the military in Iran that is very, very powerful and is loyal to the supreme leader, who is now the son of the previous supreme leader who was killed on the first day of the war, actually. And so using the last time Iran was at a war, which was in the Iran Iraq war, repression is going to get so much worse under war conditions because anyone who they don't like or who anyone who speaks out can then be made a traitor and an enemy of the Iranian people. And so they can use warfare as the grounds to essentially go even further in their oppression. And that's what a lot of human rights activists and people on the ground are worried about.

[Danielle Kurd]

Yeah, I also read a really interesting article. I'll put in the show notes about the popular mobilization that the Iranian regime has like, really fostered over, you know, many years through a variety of ways, whether it's through inserting, you know, their forces in universities or through particular kinds of cultural practices around, like, martyrs and things like that. So, like, the Iranian regime is also kind of, of mobilizing its supporters in a way that, I mean, obviously for people who, like, want democracy and freedom, like, this is. This is the worst case scenario. We, as in the United States, I shouldn't take responsibility for that at all.

[Molly Conger]

But neither of us should.

[Danielle Kurd]

Yeah, neither really. It's not our fault, but we really have, you know, given the worst actors, a huge victory.

[Molly Conger]

And also to that point, if you don't mind me jumping in.

[Danielle Kurd]

Yeah, yeah, of course.

[Molly Conger]

It's also, you know, triggered nationalism among segments of the population. The war has made many people who were even protesting in January against the government now coming out and defending at least not the. The sovereignty of their country or the integrity of their country.

[Danielle Kurd]

I mean. Makes sense.

[Molly Conger]

Yeah. So there's all these strange. Now alliances forming and the government is actually playing some parts of it smartly, where you'll see them having women without hijab coming to pro government rallies and having a Lebanese woman singer's voice at their rallies, which, for those of you who don't know, women are not allowed to sing as solo artists in Iran. They can be part of a chorus. So they're also playing this interesting imaging game where they want to also show, look, we can also be open and inclusive at the same time that they're executing people at the highest rate since the 1980s.

[Danielle Kurd]

Yeah, I'm going to have to look for that video of the Lebanese singer.

[Jacob Goldstein]

Yeah.

[Danielle Kurd]

So we participated, both of us, in a symposium at Princeton. I think it was titled, like the Long Arc of Fascism. Very interesting set of presentations. And your presentation was about the different kind of political strands that facilitated this war on Iran. So I just. I just wanted to just start off with. Could you outline the argument of your presentation for our listeners?

[Molly Conger]

Yes. What I argued in the conference, which was fantastic and I really learned so much from your presentation as well, was the idea that this war was made possible in a sense, because several different strands of fascism have come together in this moment. And I called it converging fascism, just to go quickly through it, because I don't want to drill on and on, but the idea is that one of the core strands has been this growing anti Muslim sentiment that really goes across so many different fascist movements that we see, whether it's the far right in Europe, here in the United States, Islamophobia is so central. And of course, the Shootings at the mosque in San Diego is just the latest of long string of violence. The Hindutva in India, anti Muslim sentiments racism is central to the fascism that we see there. And then of course in Israel, that's been a core element of their anti Palestinian racism generally, but also specifically anti Muslim racism. So that's kind of the big strand that I identified as coming together. And within that there's an inflection of anti Shia sentiment. And there's lots of scholars who have talked about how really the anti Muslim project starts with the 79 revolution, this like modern manifestation of it. And so it's always had this anti Shia sentiment to it.

[Danielle Kurd]

Inflection.

[Molly Conger]

Yeah, inflection. Thank you. The second strand that I wanted to highlight was this white supremacy and Aryanism, which is interesting because it actually loops in the far right of Iranian actors and Iranian diasporic actors in particular, those that are tied to the former Shah of Iran's son, Reza Pahlavi, who are really linking their wanting to overthrow the regime in Iran to restoring this Aryan nation that existed before. And this is their words, not mine. The Arab invasion of Islam, and this is really important for the far right movement that supported this invasion was this idea that they're going to save Iran from Islam, which again the Islamophobia, but also the racialized violence against Arabs in the region and particularly against Palestinians. There's this very strong anti Palestinian current in this movement that I'm talking about where they are actively recruiting and aligning themselves with Israel in the genocide, which is so horrible. The third strand that I wanted to talk about was settler colonialism and nativism. And I think your listeners probably know enough about this, but this is essentially the bringing together of both the settler colonial violence that we see in Israel, the United States, Australia, et cetera, with the anti immigrant sentiment that has swept across much of the world, including in

[Garrison Davis]

places like South Africa.

[Molly Conger]

Then the next strand that I talk about is nostalgic paternalism, I call it

[Danielle Kurd]

that you always need a little bit of patriarchy.

[Robert Evans]

Right, right.

[Danielle Kurd]

Yeah, yeah.

[Molly Conger]

And it's basically like the people who call Trump daddy, you know, this idea that, that we need some strong man in our lives. And like Egyptians had this with Sisi, you know, this, this idea that we just need this strong man to guide us forward is, is so dominant in a lot of these fascist groups. Modi is somebody's, you know, paternal figure. And again, Reza Pahlavi, this, the self proclaimed leader of the Iranian opposition in exile, has numerous times called himself the father of the Iranian people. And he's used really cringe language around how Iran is this abused woman and he's going to come in and save it. And completely out of touch with this amazing feminist movement that came out of Iran organically in 2022 called the Woman Life Freedom Movement. He's put himself in direct opposition against that movement, which is wild to think about. And then the last kind of fascist strand that I identified, and this really also links to Naomi Klein's work, who was also at the conference, are these techno fascists. And that's like the palantirs, the anthropic dystopian future that a lot of these techno bros want to impose on the world that is very anti human. And so all of these strands come together at this very particular moment to justify and advance a war that some actors have wanted for a long time. And I say that it's kind of the blending of these at this particular moment that enabled this war.

[Sophie Lichterman]

Effy?

[Danielle Kurd]

Yeah, I think the convergence is an apt description. And yet especially the patriarchal stuff like cringe is the right word, like it's extremely cringe, but also, you know, dangerous, that all of these things are coming, coming together to facilitate this kind of violence and then the, the war in Iran is facilitating the expansion of fascism here and vice versa. I wanted to just kind of get your opinion of something. I read this article by Mustafa Bayoumi in the Guardian about how in the United States, what actually drives Islamophobia is at its root anti Palestinian racism. I mean, and you certainly, you know, in your presentation talked about that strand as well in the Iranian context. Is the anti Palestinian racism kind of tangential to the kind of broader racialized Islamophobia? Yeah. How would you see that?

[Molly Conger]

Yeah. No, I agree to a large extent to what Biomi is saying. I think anti Palestinian racism is central to how the opposition in Iran views itself. This hasn't been helped by the fact that the Iranian government, the current Iranian government, has been at least materially and ideologically, one of the biggest supporters of Palestinian liberation and has used the issue, as many other dictators in the region have, by the way, have used the issue to actually suppress and oppress their own people. And so for a long time, there was a sentiment inside Iran that the Iranian government is sending its resources, sending its weapons, making Iran an isolated rogue state on behalf of the Palestinians, while we, the Iranian people, suffer. And so this created this people to people tension where anti Palestinian sentiment grew inside Iran and outside Iran, obviously in these, in these fascist movements. And then that feeds back into the Islamophobia, this idea that we have nothing in common with the Palestinians because they are part of a religion that has also oppressed us or a part of a ethnic group that has oppressed us. So it's this feedback loop that's pretty horrible.

[Danielle Kurd]

Yeah, yeah, yeah, that's good that we outlined kind of the different mechanisms there. And it's really, you know, it's. It's so unfortunate because, like, you see polling of, like, Palestinians, and Palestinians were very much against what the Iranian regime did in Syria, for example.

[Sophie Lichterman]

Yeah.

[Danielle Kurd]

But like you said, there's a weaponization of these. These different causes. Just like the United States weaponizes the woman life freedom movement. You know, every regime uses things for its benefit.

[Molly Conger]

Just to add, like, a slightly hopeful note is that I actually think, think the experience of this war has actually made more thoughtful Iranians see more of themselves now in the struggle of Palestinians.

[Sophie Lichterman]

Interesting.

[Molly Conger]

Because they are actually seeing the hollowness and hypocrisy of what the US And Israel say and do. And so now I think there's been a little bit of a shift back in the direction of solidarity with the Palestinians.

[Danielle Kurd]

Oh, that's excellent to hear. You know, we could talk about this all day. Like, there's such a disconnect between diasporas and what happens on the ground. And this is not specific to the Iranians. But I imagine even if you lean that way, but you're in Iran being bombed by Israel, that's going to change your opinion in a way that, like, if you're in Los Angeles waving the Israeli flag, it's a little bit different.

[Sophie Lichterman]

Absolutely.

[Danielle Kurd]

There's kind of stakes there.

[Molly Conger]

Yeah, yeah. You're like, who's the one dropping the bombs?

[Danielle Kurd]

Exactly. Yeah, yeah, that. That is actually a very hopeful note before I turn it to a less hopeful one. So your research is on, as I said earlier, like, kind of the think tank landscape in. In D.C. i remember, by the way, finding out about you back in the heydays of Twitter and being like, somebody studying think tanks. Like, that's so cool. That's so clever.

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

Like, yes, we should be studying them in this way.

[Danielle Kurd]

And basically, like, your research is like, the types of knowledge and the sources of knowledge that become hegemonic in these spaces. And then that, of course, impact American policy. So could you, I know this is kind of a hard ask, but could you tell us, like, some basic findings of your. Of your research the past couple of years?

[Molly Conger]

Yeah, so thanks for that setup because I actually have a book coming out on this and it's called the geopolitics of a expertise. And that's one of the central findings of the book, is that this think tank landscape needs to be understood as a transnational space. That's one of the key findings in which a lot of actors and stakeholders, especially from the Middle east or Swana region, are invested in shaping the narrative from the inside out. And this is something that I think traditional models of understanding US empire, for example, failed in understanding, which is that, you know, when you have Arab Gulf states or Turkey or Morocco or Israel invested in ensuring the debate in Washington is shaped in a particular way that meets their interest, which is not always aligned with the US they're going to throw millions of dollars into think tanks to essentially shape what I call the common sense on any number of issues. And so they are co constructing the imperial imagination. And this is one of the key findings. And then when it comes to Iran in particular, they paradoxically want to ensure that Iran remains an unknowable enemy. That's the other key piece of the book, which is that this constructed unknowability is key to ensuring that the US maintains posture of confrontation with Iran. And that means that you want to have this enemy that you can never fully figure out, or this enemy that's always unpredictable, this enemy that never follows the rules. Because if you had a predictable rational enemy, you'd eventually have to make some type of peace with them because that's actually the rational course of action. But when you have weapons manufacturers, when you have foreign governments, when you have all kinds of interests shaping the debate in Washington, you don't actually do what's, quote unquote, the rational policy for US national security interests as narrowly defined. So sorry if that was too rambly of a explanation of the book, but.

[Danielle Kurd]

No, not at all. I mean, it's interesting because we come at it from different disciplines. I'm a political scientist and, and in the international relations landscape there was, you know, well, first and foremost, like American empire is not really recognized in like American political science. But there was this argument that percolated and like I remember going to grad school and learning this is that like the United States is hegemonic and we can like study hierarchy. And there have been political scientists who have studied like global hierarchies, but it's a liberal hegemon and it can't be considered an empire because it does provide these voice opportunities for our subordinates essentially to come and shape policy.

[Molly Conger]

Interesting.

[Danielle Kurd]

And so it's an interesting, not a flip on its head. But it's like a kind of a nuancing of that argument here is like, yeah, they are here and they are shaping policy and shaping kind of US Empire, which I think, you know, poses some questions about like the agency of these actors, of course, but also like, what is the broader project of U S Empire? Like we don't need to think of it all the time as like kind of top down in a way.

[Molly Conger]

Exactly. There's lots of actors implicated or coherent or. Right, right. Or you know, even the Iran war is a clear example. Right. There's been winners and losers, as people in D.C. like to say of this war. Oil companies are reaping the greatest profits of like the last decade because of this war, because of the shortages coming through the strait of hormones. Weapons manufacturers are doing really well right now. Private equity and AI are doing well. But the damages that we are now seeing coming out of the production side across the Gulf, including inside Iran, is going to have very long term detrimental effects for all of these same industries, paradoxically. But in the short term, they're winning. Meanwhile, everybody else is losing. Food prices are going up, up. Gas prices are going up. I have a friend who works in research with helium. There's no helium in the world right now. So if you want to go get an mri, good luck because there's not much helium. Most of it comes out of this one facility in Qatar.

[Danielle Kurd]

And I was just reading an article about how Qatar has lost so many billions of dollars as a result of this war, as a result of the attacks on some of its facilities. And it's like Doha is a ghost town. And I used to live in Doha and for anybody who has, you know, been there or whatever, I mean, Doha like, like at its best is a ghost town. Like often it is a ghost town if it's not like a busy season. So like what even does it mean that these places. I can't even fathom what's going to happen long term given the impact of this war.

[Molly Conger]

And that was with just 60 days of war, right?

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

Yeah.

[Danielle Kurd]

So we don't know.

[Molly Conger]

It's like in such a short amount of time. The amount of damage it caused is unbelievable.

[Danielle Kurd]

Yeah. Like you said, it's good to start to disentangle who's. Who is benefiting in service of which actors here. Are we attacking Iran? Yeah. And this is like the most corrupt administration imaginable. It really is like kind of breathtaking, the, the level of corruption. So yeah, hopefully, you know, historians and political scientists and political anthropologists will have years and years of research to study this moment. All right, well, is there anything else you think people should keep an eye on when it comes to the situation

[Molly Conger]

in Iran moving forward? I think we need to be much more critical about who is shaping the narrative on Iran moving forward. A lot of the figures who are now disavowing the war in these think tanks and saying war was such a bad idea, Trump fumbled it, and this was a terrible idea, had essentially been, I say, hedging for this war for a long time, which is that by constructing Iran as this unknowable enemy, you can't negotiate with an enemy that you can never predict. You can never negotiate with an enemy that lies about everything. These are the narratives that these Iran experts have been advancing for years. And now we're expected to go and turn back to that same group to get us out of this mess. And that's what I would urge all of the listeners is be much more critical about who is analyzing Iran in such a moment. Look at who they work for. Look at what types of analysis they've done in the past. How do they access Iran? How do they know what they know about Iran? It sometimes takes five extra minutes when you're reading a New York Times piece to just go through and highlight who they're quoting as experts, for example. And New York Times has all kinds of problems, but pick whatever Wall Street Journal, Foreign affairs, foreign Policy, and just do five minutes of due diligence on who that piece is citing as an expert on Iran. And that's my key takeaway for people.

[Danielle Kurd]

Yeah, that's such a good takeaway. I mean, I think there's so many aspects of our politics in which people are trying to convince us. The same people who got us into these messes are. Are like, all we have, like, Democratic Party operatives that, like, led us to Trump.

[Sophie Lichterman]

Exactly.

[Danielle Kurd]

Are the ones like, now pretending they really dislike the genocide in Gaza and whatever. And it's the same thing. These Iranian experts, they're not even Iranian. Sometimes it's just Iran experts claiming expertise. And it's like the way that you have shaped this discussion is why we're at this point.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

So.

[Danielle Kurd]

Yeah, that's a very good takeaway. I appreciate that. Yeah. Thank you so much, Negar. This has been really enriching.

[Molly Conger]

Thank you so much, Dana.

[Danielle Kurd]

I will put all of the things we talked about in the show Notes. Does your book have a publication date yet?

[Molly Conger]

No, but I signed the contract, so.

[Garrison Davis]

Okay, good, good.

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

So people be on the lookout, but

[Molly Conger]

it'll be with Stanford University Press. So, yeah.

[Danielle Kurd]

Excellent.

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

Excellent.

[Danielle Kurd]

So I will make sure to note

[Garrison Davis]

that and flag that.

[Molly Conger]

Thank you. Thanks so much for having me. I really appreciate it.

[Danielle Kurd]

Of course.

[Jacob Goldstein]

This is Jacob Goldstein from what's yous Problem? When you buy business software from lots of vendors, the costs add up and it gets complicated and confusing. Odoo solves this. It's a single company that sells a suite of enterprise apps that handles everything from accounting to inventory to sales. Odoo is all connected on a single platform in a simple and affordable way. You can save money without missing out on the features you need. Check out Odoo at odoo. Com. That's O D O o dot com.

[Molly Conger]

Mom, can I have Lingokids?

[Robert Evans]

Dad, Lingokids, please. When did we become the Lingokids house?

[Sophie Lichterman]

No idea. Last week it was Dinosaurs.

[Robert Evans]

This week it's Lingokids. Why Lingokids? Because it's the best thing ever.

[Molly Conger]

We can play games with astronauts, wild animals and superheroes.

[Garrison Davis]

With more than 4,000 interactive games, songs and shows, LingoKids is the number one entertainment platform for young kids.

[Sophie Lichterman]

So no dinosaurs.

[Robert Evans]

And dinosaurs, mango cakes. Everything kids love, download it for free. This is Bethany Frankel from Just Be with Bethany Frankel. Most dog food is marketing, not nutrition. That is why Biggie and Smalls eat just food for dogs. Real, 100% human grade food with ingredients I actually recognize. And yes, I do see the difference. Better digestion, healthier skin, more energy, dogs that feel better. My babies, if you've been on the fence about switching, stop overthinking it. What's more important than your furry babies and their health? Go to justfoodfordogs.com right now and get 50 off your first box. No code needed. Just try it. Professional wrestling fans, the action continues every week. Watch CNA Thursday night Impact every week on amc. It is like electricity blowing through your veins. Don't miss the adrenaline, the drama, and the total non stop action. No one can ever be as good as this right here. Don't miss the action of TNA Thursday Night Impact every week on AMC. For showtimes and more information, visit tnawrestling.com.

[James Stout]

Welcome back to Executive Dysfunction. Could happen here. Nope. No. Is that all right, Garrison?

[Robert Evans]

I thought we were.

[James Stout]

That was pretty close.

[Garrison Davis]

There's another, like, show or column called Executive Dysfunction now.

[James Stout]

Oh, is there?

[Renee (Muji Workers United)]

Yep.

[James Stout]

Sons of bitches. They stole it from us.

[Garrison Davis]

That covers, like, legal issues relating to the Trump administration, so.

[Robert Evans]

Okay, well, that brings us neatly into our first story. Who did it?

[Garrison Davis]

This isn't going to happen here. Executive Disorder. Our Weekly, weekly newscast covering what's happening in the White House, the crumbling world, and what it means for you. I'm Garrison Davis. Today, joined by James Stout, Robert Evans, Mia Wong, and Sophie Lichterman. We're covering the week of May 27 to June 3.

[Robert Evans]

Let's talk about intellectual property lawsuits.

[Garrison Davis]

Let's.

[Robert Evans]

Right, right off the bat, anyone who is in any capacity using Ed, you're on notice. It is going to be us against the Viagra people. I'm talking today about Patagonia, the brand suing Pattygonia, the drag queen. God damn it.

[Molly Conger]

This is.

[Robert Evans]

God damn it. Yeah. I've successfully walked you into my little world. This is a situation very reminiscent of people. Remember the north faces lawsuit against the South Butt.

[Danielle Kurd]

Yes.

[James Stout]

I would argue it's actually kind of different, but. Okay, I get what you're saying.

[Robert Evans]

The South Butt lawsuit was funny. If people aren't familiar, it's really funny. They were bound to arbitration. They arbitrated, they settled, and then the guy turned around and launched the butt face, like, a few weeks later, and they sued him again.

[James Stout]

That was a beautiful case of somebody trying to troll a company and also, like, trolling the concept of, like, intellectual property laws in, like, a really creative way, which is. Which is different from what's happening.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah. Yes. What is happening here is that Win Wiley, whose drag Persona is Patty Gonier.

[James Stout]

Right.

[Robert Evans]

Does a lot of fundraising for outdoors causes, environmental causes, public lands, that kind of thing. Think. Has attempted to trademark their use of Patagonia for clothing. Patagonia is suing Wiley to protect its trademark on its logo. Because some of the logos that Patagonia has used are very obviously like. They're mirrored Patagonia logos. Yeah.

[James Stout]

She's trying to get a trademark for her Patagonia logo, which is just Patagonia instead of Patagonia in the company logo for Patagonia.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah. I'm not sure. She tried to try to trademark, like, the. It's Sarah Fitzroy. Right. Like it's a mountainscape or. She just tried to trademark Patagonia.

[James Stout]

It looked like it. Well, I'll double check that right now.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah. Because I think what she has offered as a settlement right now is to stop using the logo, but to continue using the name.

[James Stout]

Yeah. The second is whether Patagonia should be entitled to trademark registration. And at least they have a picture in the trademark application of her Patagonia logo.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah, yeah. And they've claimed it's confusingly similar.

[James Stout]

Yeah.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah.

[James Stout]

And you made a good point when we were talking about this earlier, James. That I hadn't thought of, because you are a better mind than I am in this way, which is that it is. Because my initial thinking on this was, like, when I saw that she was trying to trademark just, like, her version of the Patagonia logo, I was like, well, you just took their logo and

[Robert Evans]

put your name on.

[James Stout]

Like, that is fucked up. But you pointed out, well, Patagonia's logo includes this, like, actual mountain range that she includes, and Patagonia doesn't really have the right to trademark the silhouette of a mountain range. It is a little more nuanced than I thought initially.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah, yeah. There are a couple of things at stake here that people perhaps don't understand.

[James Stout]

One, like, I'm at a moral level, not a legal one, folks.

[Robert Evans]

But, yeah, morally, I think we should be asking the question, is it okay for a company that grosses 1.4 billion a year to own the rights to a skyline? I think we should be asking that. I think also people maybe should look a little bit deeper into. I've written about this a bunch in a bunch of outlets, but, like, Patagonia has millions of dollars of military contracts that they don't like to talk about, and they did through a different company called Lost Arrow. And, like, I know people just need to stop seeing a giant company like, this is woke that, like, the companies ain't gonna save us. The sustainable shorts aren't gonna save us. Like, buying a fancy fleece is not the way that you're gonna make the better world that you want to live in. That's my take. Yeah.

[James Stout]

I feel like Patty was kind of poking the bear here 100%, like, in a massive way. Really?

[Robert Evans]

Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. No, clearly she knew what she was going for here. Yeah.

[James Stout]

And Patagonia clearly doesn't want to be fighting this lawsuit.

[Garrison Davis]

Where are you seeing this stuff? Is this like a blue sky news story? Like, where are you seeing this?

[James Stout]

No, this is like a big.

[Robert Evans]

This is.

[James Stout]

I came into it. I saw it first on Reddit, but it's also just been pushed into my newsfeed. Like, I've never heard of four or five different articles. It's a big story right now, unfortunately.

[Robert Evans]

I followed her just, like, generally been aware of her for probably six or seven years.

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

Is.

[Garrison Davis]

Six. Seven.

[James Stout]

The New York Times has a feature that's just on this right now. It's a sizable tale.

[Garrison Davis]

Interesting.

[Robert Evans]

I did note that most of her merch is sold out. So the strikes and effect, it's in full force here. Yeah, yeah. Like, if you wanted to find A way to sell as many Patagonia stickers that look like the Patagonia logo as possible. You would sue her?

[James Stout]

This is the way to do it.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah. They're suing her for $1 plus legal fees people don't seem to have grasped. But that doesn't mean that all that is at stake is a bug here. The fees will be very substantial.

[James Stout]

Yes.

[Mia Wong]

Yeah.

[James Stout]

Although the fees will be substantial. That said, this is clearly a fight Patty wanted to have. So, like, I am not in a situation where, like, I feel particularly angry or disturbed about this lawsuit. Like, this is something that any company would have done some version of this in response.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah.

[James Stout]

It's not good that Patagonia's doing this. It's just what anyone, any corporation would do that has a fiduciary duty to its shareholders. And that shouldn't change your opinion of Patagonia from what it was previously. But your opinion of Patagonia should never have been that. It's like an altruistic entity.

[Robert Evans]

Right. Like, yeah, 2% of its shares are held by its Purpose Trust, which are all the voting shares, and 98% of its shares are held by the Holdfast Collective, which is a 501C4. So I think people see that as, like, you know, they'd like to say that Earth is our only shareholder, but, like, the Purpose Trust is, as you say, Robert, duty bound to make a profit, to give to the C4. This is not the same thing as, like, activism. It's different. It's a company. It's a company that has to make profit, like you said, Robert. And I think people need to grasp that. Yes.

[James Stout]

And if they. I mean, literally, if they were not. If they were to not fight what she's doing here, like, this could cause serious issues for them.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah. I think someone tried to put their logo on a gun or. I've heard. I couldn't find reporting on this, but a couple of people have mentioned it to me and obviously they'd sued about that and they go, you know, so if they didn't. If they hadn't done this one, they couldn't do the Right.

[James Stout]

And so again, this should not.

[Robert Evans]

I'm not.

[James Stout]

You shouldn't be like, well, Patagonia's in the right, but also you shouldn't be like, wow, I've completely changed my opinion

[Robert Evans]

about this company, you know. Yeah, yeah. It's just that they're doing what they do.

[James Stout]

Yeah.

[Mia Wong]

I think the underlying structural thing here and something we've talked about on this show at some length is Just the underlying violence of the intellectual property system. Like, irrespective of this case. This is a kind of silly case of it, but, you know, like, there are a lot of people in the world who are dead right now because a bunch of. A bunch of corporations get to hold, like, patents on vaccines, for example.

[James Stout]

Yeah.

[Robert Evans]

Or insulin.

[Mia Wong]

This has always been an extremely violent regime that is enforced by quite like one of the most powerful international bodies that has ever existed. And. And yeah, if you want to hear more about this, friend of the show, Vicky Osterweil, released a book called the Extended Universe, about how Disney pioneered a whole bunch of this that, yeah, you should read about, because the entire system is just pure violence and always has been.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah. We have some episodes from years ago that I made about drug IP and evergreening as well. That's a very good point, Mir. Moving on. We learned this week that the F15E pilot who was shot down over Iran in April had been shot down the week before over Kuwait.

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

What?

[Robert Evans]

Horrible, horrible week. Yeah.

[James Stout]

I think you've had a bad week at work.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah.

[Mia Wong]

This person is joining just the list of all timers. Like that guy who got nuked at both Hiroshima and Nagasaki. There's that guy who got sunk on four consecutive ships.

[Garrison Davis]

Is there such thing as a reverse ace?

[James Stout]

Like, if this guy gets shot down

[Robert Evans]

three more times, is he like an anti ace? If he gets shot down three more times, he ain't gonna be able to reach the controls of the plane. Like, he's already compressed his spine so much. Yeah. I'm surprised.

[James Stout]

I didn't think they would let them. I didn't think, period, after getting shot down and ejecting, you would be allowed to fly a plane at all like, that quickly.

[Robert Evans]

No, I was not aware that there was a protocol.

[James Stout]

My understanding is you're not normally supposed to, like, I don't think this is how normally things would be done, which kind of suggests. Suggests that there was, like, they didn't have enough pilots.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah, right. It's kind of remarkable that they were able to get him another F15 quickly, I guess. But, yeah. Yeah, he probably not flying any more planes for a while.

[James Stout]

I would imagine not.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah. I mean, who knows? Maybe. Maybe the F15s are free, I found, etc. Yeah.

[James Stout]

It sounds like he's just feeding F15.

[Robert Evans]

He must. Yeah. The desert gods demand an F15 sacrifice every six days. Marco Rubio in the House has claimed that Africanas we spoke about this first week. Right. They're raising the cap to admit Africanas as refugees. Africana should be admitted and others not because they, quote, have a high likelihood of assimilation. We have gauged that there is real interest from a unique subset who would be interested to coming in the United States and who we assess have a high likelihood of rapid assimilation and success in our society. And hence this program was created. Now, that's not a program that's going to exist in perpetuity. It's a program that's designed in the fact that we are seeing the demand. We are seeing applications from South Africa of people willing to enter the United States. And we think this is a group of potential refugees.

[Danielle Kurd]

Our Afghan allies are refugees. They have been vetted. 1100 versus this new 17,000.

[Robert Evans]

But it's more than just vetting. We're also trying to determine against is the immigration policy of the United States. Like, everything we do has to be geared by the national interest, and it is in our national interest. If we are allowing people to enter our country, be people that can quickly assimilate into society and be successful, why

[Danielle Kurd]

can't they assimilate into society? A background check to their centers. In my district in Queens, they have assimilated and contribute and pay taxes.

[Molly Conger]

Taxes, yeah.

[Robert Evans]

But we've already assumed a lot of Afghan refugees, as you said. You have them in your district. We've already assumed a large number in the past. The point is that the general policy has been to limit the entry of refugees from all over the world and then to create the special track because of a unique circumstance in the short term of a high demand from a number of immigrants that we have determined if they pass the vetting and the checking very quickly assimilate and contribute to our society. I think it's really interesting. It's one of the more clear elucidations of the way they see immigration that we've had.

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

Yeah.

[Robert Evans]

Like he said, it's not about vetting. It's not about background checks. It's specifically about people who can, quote, unquote, assimilate.

[Garrison Davis]

I wonder what the economic strata of the African is getting. Getting refugee status are.

[Mia Wong]

I mean, it's. In terms of the way that Rubio is looking at it, their economic strata is white, which.

[Garrison Davis]

Yeah, well, I wonder what. I wonder what their actual economic strata is. That is an interesting aspect.

[Mia Wong]

Like, South Africa is a place where that maps on very, very cleanly.

[Garrison Davis]

Yes, right.

[Mia Wong]

Like, that's. That's what I'm saying. Right. Like, it's like, that's what I'm saying.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah.

[Mia Wong]

Like, definitely a lot.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah. And I think just having the means to apply for this.

[Garrison Davis]

Yeah, I mean that's, you know, clearly

[Robert Evans]

like Rubio saying, like he's doing this because there is a demand. Let me tell you, there is a demand all over the world. Like I, I have seen demand to live in the United States in every continent on the planet, apart from the one that are covered in ice. This is as clear as you're going to get to them saying these folks are white, they're coming to America and we're going to lock out the folks who are not like. I thought it was very interesting to see him go right up to that line. Next, I have Medicaid work requirements. Work study of volunteering requirements of 80 hours a month will be imposed by the 1st of January for the 40 states who expanded the program under the Affordable Care Act Act. This is according to a notice published today in the Federal Register, today being Wednesday. This will impact millions of Americans. And the speed at which this is being done will also be very hard for state bureaucracies to keep up with. Right. We, we have less than six months for a massive change and that like the requirement for states to monitor this. It's going to be very difficult for them to retain the stability and pivot to this. And that's going to impact people whether or not they are working. Yeah. Which sucks.

[Mia Wong]

This is something that like particularly impacts trans people because there are a ton of trans people on Medicaid and a lot of those people are also disabled and that's just been an absolute nightmare for them. If you are in a position where you can hire someone for I think the work. What's the word? It's like 30 hours a week, I

[Robert Evans]

think Is the requirement 80 hours a month?

[Mia Wong]

Yeah, 80 hours a month.

[Robert Evans]

20ish a week.

[Mia Wong]

Yeah. Like if you're in a position to just hire someone for that, you should do it because that's the difference between these people like having food and not having food.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah. This is a potential. This will kill people. Yeah, like just, just the fuck ups in the bureaucracy. Even if people are able to find the work or volunteer or study or whatever.

[Mia Wong]

Yeah.

[Robert Evans]

But the delays that that will cause will kill people.

[Mia Wong]

This is also a thing, by the way, that some unions have historically done like WW has done this, which is like getting people positions to be able to do volunteering. And if that's a thing you can do, you should do this because this is a unfathomable humanitarian crisis for a bunch of the most vulnerable people in the US and yeah,

[James Stout]

real bad.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah, it's not good at all. I think that is a good point, Mia, that if you're in a place to help people coordinate their volunteering and document, that's a good thing to start thinking about. Garrison, you got any small things?

[Garrison Davis]

Few more small things. Trump signed an executive order to expand AI cybersecurity capabilities and protections. And last Friday, Tulsi Gabbard resigned as Director of National Intelligence, citing her husband's recent cancer diagnosis. Trump has selected Bill Pulte, head of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, to serve as Acting Director of National Intelligence. Pulte is a Trump loyalist with no intelligence background and even Republican senators don't seem too keen on this choice. Senate Majority Leader John Thune told reporters, quote, well, we don't need a weaponized dni. We need professionals there. If he's somebody, they wanted that position permanently. He's got, as you know, a lengthy road ahead of him.

[Robert Evans]

Let's catch up with the war in Iran. Iran this week hit a commercial vessel with an anti ship cruise missile in the Persian Gulf as well as firing at US Facilities and hitting the international airport in Kuwait. They've killed at least one person there. This comes as talks are continuing to fail to reach a resolution, at least in part because Israel refuses to stop attacking Lebanon on and committing war crimes. Axios is reporting that Trump said in a call to Netanyahu, quote, you're fucking crazy. You'd be in prison if it weren't for me. I'm saving your ass. Everybody hates you now. Everybody hates Israel because of this. Sure. In recent days the IDF has explicitly threatened Beirut and further expanded its ground campaign again. Right. Like this war is now becoming very much a regional thing, has been a regional thing since it started. But like the peace deal is also a regional thing and that the fact that Israel refuses to do anything other than exactly what it wants, which seems to be killing more and more people in its neighboring countries, means that it's going to be very hard for this war to come to an end which is going to have long term economic consequences for the whole world. NBC has also reported, talking of the whole world, that it was a Chinese manpad that shot down the F15E. That's for the second time time in April that such equipment, along with long range radar was possibly supplied to Iran in the early days of the conflict by China. Obviously this, this makes any kind of detente with the US and China more difficult. Right. It's not clear if the particular actual manpads man portable air defense system. People aren't familiar if the particular surface to MSR used had arrived recently or had been in stockpiles for some time. But it appears that China, at least right before or early on in the conflict, was perhaps supplying some air defenses to Iran. Maybe this can explain just a little bit about how the bombing campaign has been relatively unsuccessful in its objectives in many ways.

[Garrison Davis]

Let's go on a break and then we could talk about the California elections and the Supreme Court. Okay, elections in California. Why is California like that? What is going on over there?

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

It's because I left. It's my fault.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah, we're all grieving, Sophie.

[James Stout]

That was the last thing holding it together there.

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

I'm sorry. In this heart.

[Garrison Davis]

Let's start with the LA mayoral race.

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

I want to talk about it. It's my duty to talk about this. I would like to talk a bit about Spencer Pratt who may.

[Garrison Davis]

May be advancing.

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

Who may be advancing. That's what I'm saying. At time of recording, which is Wednesday, June 3rd at around 3:30pm Pacific Time, Pratt is currently in second place with 30% of the votes. Bass is at 35% and is already already been guaranteed to move forward and Nithya Raman is in third with 22%. And like I said, there's 60% of the votes counted. So why the is Spencer Pratt a former reality TV cast member? I'm not even gonna give him star running for mayor. Pratt grew up in the Pacific Palisades neighborhood and lived there until the fires happened and he and his parents house houses were unfortunately burned down and he started making videos on TikTok was getting a lot of attention for it and decided that it was his destiny to it was his according to his website, his mission to run for mayor per his own campaign website. Pratt is a media entrepreneur, questionable, outspoken advocate, depends on who you're talking about. And an emerging political leader. He does have a political science degree from usc, I will say that. But he. He does claim to be Karen Bass. Worst nightmare. Now, if you're not a millennial who had television in the late 2000s, you're probably unaware of how unhinged Spencer Pratt is. Here are some highlights, listeners.

[James Stout]

We apologize for what Sophie's about to make you experience.

[Garrison Davis]

This is a lot of audio, Sophie.

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

We need all of it.

[James Stout]

Oh God.

[Mia Wong]

Oh no.

[Robert Evans]

Just do it, Garrison. Just do it.

[Mia Wong]

We're gonna get copyright strips.

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

We'll just do it.

[Garrison Davis]

Just do it for me. That was the best. Like I was proud of myself for not doing what I wanted to do to you because what I wanted to

[Robert Evans]

do and say to you, dear.

[Garrison Davis]

I didn't. Cuz I was praying. Praying like I do every day to not say the things that I want to say to you, to your mom. No, no, I do.

[Sophie Lichterman]

I'm not.

[Molly Conger]

That's why.

[Robert Evans]

Do you see how I'm not saying them?

[Sophie Lichterman]

Yeah.

[Garrison Davis]

I'm very proud of myself.

[Robert Evans]

Like your head's about to explode.

[Garrison Davis]

So I'm sorry if I disrespected you, but I'm very emotional these days.

[Robert Evans]

Very, very.

[Garrison Davis]

So I say things that I feel.

[Danielle Kurd]

I was the one that wanted to

[Sophie Lichterman]

kill anybody that would ever talk like

[Garrison Davis]

that about my sister.

[Robert Evans]

And I still would. But that goes for my mom too.

[Danielle Kurd]

And as a family, that's how we all should be.

[Garrison Davis]

Well, I didn't say anything negative about your mom. Your mom is just the vagina that made Heidi come on to earth. Your mom is not Jesus or God or the creator.

[Robert Evans]

So why can't I say that? So why can't I say that? Why can't I say that?

[Garrison Davis]

No, it's not. It's my opinion.

[Robert Evans]

It's my opinion.

[Garrison Davis]

Hey, preacher. Preacher. This isn't Bible study.

[Robert Evans]

This is earth. No one's preaching.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

No one's preaching.

[Garrison Davis]

No one's preaching here.

[Robert Evans]

This is life.

[Garrison Davis]

You're not her sister. You're not her friend.

[Danielle Kurd]

You're a lot liar.

[Robert Evans]

And I'm gonna walk away from these

[Garrison Davis]

lies because she's gonna sit here and

[Robert Evans]

keep lying to you.

[Garrison Davis]

You're the biggest poser in this town. You know what?

[Robert Evans]

You're gonna burn for me. I know, I know, I know. She's a Spencer.

[Garrison Davis]

Go back to your real estate job, you liar.

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

Yeah, that was Spencer talking to his sister in law about his mother in law.

[Robert Evans]

Oh, wow.

[Garrison Davis]

All this is fake. This is all acting.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

Like this.

[Molly Conger]

This.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

I don't. This.

[Garrison Davis]

This doesn't move me at all.

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

Half of this is acting. Half of this is not acting.

[Garrison Davis]

Yeah. Yes, that is. That is.

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

Here he is talking to his own sister.

[Robert Evans]

Okay, okay.

[Mia Wong]

Oh, no.

[Robert Evans]

We've already cataloged this.

[Garrison Davis]

I'm gonna leave. But I didn't get to say hi.

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

How are you guys?

[Robert Evans]

Good.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

How are you?

[Robert Evans]

Excellent.

[Garrison Davis]

How are

[Robert Evans]

you? What are you crying about, 70? What the are you crying about?

[Garrison Davis]

That's why you're not in my life, you crazy bitch. Because you come to barbecues and just start crying. I was just enjoying myself and my wife and I get crying sisters in front of me.

[Robert Evans]

She just wanted to say hi, but

[Garrison Davis]

that gets us crying away.

[Robert Evans]

What the do I need to do to you, Drama? He just ignored me at the party. Much. What just happened? We're over here having a little conversation and then all of a sudden I got people storming out of here and

[Molly Conger]

I can't even talk right now.

[Robert Evans]

I know it's your brother, but he's off his rocker. I don't know what's wrong with him here.

[Garrison Davis]

I'm talking about my little sister who's not relevant to my life. Oh, God. Oh, no.

[Robert Evans]

Okay. I like to fade out.

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

And just to say. Just to say, say she has told people not to vote for her brother in modern times.

[Molly Conger]

Just to say.

[James Stout]

That's shocking. Shocking stuff.

[Garrison Davis]

Yeah.

[James Stout]

He seems like he's a even tempered guy.

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

Yeah.

[Molly Conger]

One.

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

One less clip just because I'll. I never want to talk about him again.

[Robert Evans]

So I'm going to get so deep on this.

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

I am the managing executive producer of this podcast. Let me have this. Thank you.

[Garrison Davis]

Girl in this club.

[Robert Evans]

Dude, relax, bro. Wrong with you.

[Garrison Davis]

I hate that.

[Robert Evans]

Excuse my French. Hey, you're crazy. You're being a weirdo, bro.

[Garrison Davis]

You just yelled at me.

[Robert Evans]

Very gnarly.

[Garrison Davis]

I surrounded somebody's yell in my face in three years.

[Robert Evans]

I'm over it. I don't want to hear anything. You have to tell me my face, son.

[Garrison Davis]

Walked away from me before we have a problem. Walk the away. God,

[Robert Evans]

How dangerous I am. Like, I just really had to like

[Garrison Davis]

hold myself smashing his head off, you know?

[Robert Evans]

Like, this is like.

[Garrison Davis]

All right, so this is so. So this is like if like clavicular, like ran for office in like 10 years.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah, right.

[Garrison Davis]

Yeah, 20 years. Yeah.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah.

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

And. And you know, it's a reality TV show. You're. There's parts of it that are scripted. There's parts of it that are enhanced. There's parts of it, but you can't. You can't fake that vein popping out of his head.

[James Stout]

A lot of it's scripted, but you don't get cast, so to speak, to be that kind of character if you're not already a giant asshole.

[Robert Evans]

Right.

[Garrison Davis]

I mean, yeah, it's in some ways less explicitly scripted than like wwe.

[James Stout]

Right.

[Garrison Davis]

But you, you fall into certain roles because that's what you are getting paid to. Like, that is, your job is contingent on performing this kind of real. Not real thing. And I honestly, you know, like, the, the sort of like, like IRL streamer thing is. Is a very similar version of that for like the contemporary age. And I think it's so it really. There was. There was one specific like, like line there that really reminded me of like one of one of clavicular is like, on camera meltdowns. I'm like, oh, this is really just if. What if you had a guy like that just run for office for, like, the mayor of whatever city in, like, 20 years?

[Robert Evans]

Yeah.

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

Yeah. Well, I want to talk a little bit about his campaign style. He shared this. This video on X, the Everything app, and it got millions and millions of views with people saying it's the best campaign video of all time. Time. And so we're gonna play it for you now.

[Robert Evans]

This is more of him than I've ever seen.

[Garrison Davis]

This is the Batman one.

[Robert Evans]

I haven't seen this.

[Garrison Davis]

He did not make this video.

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

He did not make this. He shared it and he. He's big on the AI sharing video trend.

[Garrison Davis]

Yes.

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

His website is. Is filled with it. Yeah.

[Robert Evans]

There have been a lot of AI videos in the LA race this time.

[Garrison Davis]

There's been a lot of these LA election, like, Batman videos.

[Robert Evans]

Yes.

[Sophie Lichterman]

Yeah, let's.

[Garrison Davis]

I guess let's watch this one.

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

Sure. Until. Until we get bored with it. Yeah.

[Robert Evans]

Wait, hang on. Just. Just break that down.

[Garrison Davis]

Yeah, I think this makes sense to watch a little bit, then pause and talk.

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

Yeah.

[James Stout]

Yeah. We have to explain first. We start with the entire Hollywood sign of flame.

[Garrison Davis]

And the next thing you see is these. These goons dressed in all black tactical gear with white that says dsa, which is one of the best things I've ever seen. That. My favorite part about this video.

[Robert Evans]

Yes.

[James Stout]

The paramilitary DSA forces in Los Angeles.

[Garrison Davis]

And then it goes into the sort of Dark Knight Rises, like, courtroom.

[James Stout]

Yeah.

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

Karen Bass in the middle, except Karen

[Garrison Davis]

Bass has Joker makeup.

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

And Kamala Harris is, I think, drinking alcohol on one side, and that's.

[Robert Evans]

Oh, yeah. She's, like, straight from the bottle, too. Is that.

[James Stout]

I'll say, too. I think there's a little bit of District Hunger Games. Hunger Games. The Hunger Games capital in that design, too.

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

Anyway.

[Garrison Davis]

Yeah. And Gavin Newsome's in, like, you know, like.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah.

[Garrison Davis]

Aristocratic garb.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah. Okay. That's. Gavin. Okay. Please, I'm begging you.

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

There's homeless drug addicts in front of the schools.

[Robert Evans]

My children aren't safe. Look, if you were a transgender migrant, I could get you a free pussy.

[Garrison Davis]

All right?

[Robert Evans]

Wow. Wow. I know. Holy shit. Holy shit. I'm fascinated by what we've got here.

[James Stout]

Amazing.

[Garrison Davis]

James, have you not seen this before?

[Robert Evans]

Absolutely not.

[Mia Wong]

No, I haven't seen this either.

[Garrison Davis]

I shared this video in our work chat, like, a month and a half.

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

Yeah.

[Mia Wong]

Oh, wait, no shit. I have seen it.

[Robert Evans]

Oh, God.

[James Stout]

I didn't watch it.

[Robert Evans]

I gotta control my exposure to this shit. It's made me very angry. So we now have a marionette of like a Latina Nithya Ramen. Okay. God.

[James Stout]

Yeah, that makes sense.

[Garrison Davis]

But no, there's like DSA people. DSA thugs and tactical gear. Like, push.

[James Stout]

Yeah. They throw the woman on the ground who's complaining about. Yeah. The homeless, drug addicts.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah, I think we're good.

[Garrison Davis]

It's all that kind of stuff. Like, it's.

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

Yeah, whatever. There's like a fake Batman scene. They ask for Spencer. Spencer in a fake Batman costume. Blah, blah, blah.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah.

[Garrison Davis]

I mean, yeah, Spencer Pratt is Batman. That's what. That's Spencer Pratt's Batman.

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

Yes. You know, that's the kind of stuff that he's sharing. And, you know, one of the biggest things he's run on is that his house was burned down and he was. Didn't have a place to live. And he claimed that he was living in a trailer on the property where his house used to be. And then it turned out that he was actually not staying in that trailer, but he was staying at the Hotel Bel Air, which is one of the nicest hotels in Los Angeles.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah.

[Garrison Davis]

Oh, yeah, I bet.

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

And. And in response to. To that, he made this video.

[Garrison Davis]

Now, this is a story all about how my life got turned upside down. The prince of a town called Bel Air.

[Robert Evans]

Wow.

[Garrison Davis]

Oh, God.

[James Stout]

Oh, God. I don't wanna. I. I don't want to get me, get. No, no, no.

[Robert Evans]

You get the picture, though. Millions of views.

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

Millions of views. And. And this, like, weird, rogue, no, no qualification, political candidate thing is working people

[Garrison Davis]

are like, we need a change.

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

And per the BBC, in terms of fundraising during the race, Pratt has blown away the other two. He raised $2.7 million between April 19 and May 16. That's nearly. Nearly 10 times what Bass, a longtime politician raised in the same period, and approximately seven times what Nithya Rahman raised.

[Robert Evans]

I mean, no one likes Bast, Right. It's the other thing, Right. The Democrats have, like, doubled down on doing exactly the same shit they've been doing for decades across California.

[Garrison Davis]

Yeah, it's this, like, feckless moderate liberalism.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah. Like carceral libs will be how I describe the Democrats.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

Yeah.

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

And just to say, like, Nithya Ram did enter the race late, and she is far, far left from Karen Bass. So we're seeing that. But the thing that's really interesting to me about this is there's 9.69 million people in LA County. And, you know, I. I'm comparing it to what I think will probably be about what it'll be for 2026. But in 2022, you know, Karen Bass got 278, 000 votes. Rick Caruso only got 232,000 votes votes and Kevin de Leon only got 50,000 votes out of 9.69 million people. That's the amount of people that actually voted in the primary in 2022. And it's. And it's looking to be very similar for 2026.

[Garrison Davis]

Yeah. Maybe even a little bit lower. I mean, I agree.

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

I think it might be a little bit lower.

[Garrison Davis]

That only has 150,000 votes.

[Robert Evans]

But he's.

[Garrison Davis]

He's in second place.

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

But he's in second place. Yeah.

[James Stout]

Again, this is interesting because you're seeing higher than analytical places, higher than average turnout. And I think part of why is just because most people voting know that like with both the California mayor and gubernatorial elections, the likeliest outcome is like someone who isn't the worst possible choice but isn't going to like make things better. Like LA is not going to have a good mayor. Most people are fairly confident of that. And so there's just not a lot of. There's not. I don't think people are very motivated because they feel like what the fuck is the point of caring about this?

[Robert Evans]

You know?

[James Stout]

And I don't. I'm not saying that's the right way

[Robert Evans]

to look at it.

[James Stout]

I'm just saying that that's what I think is part of what's going on here.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah, like I know like just from the discourse around San Diego, like people they're tired of being shamed into vote for like some mediocre ass candidate who will just give all their money to the cops like the last five mayors have done.

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

Yeah, we're going to keep seeing these kind of candidates. It's going to become a regular thing. We even have know Jersey Shore star Mike the Situation. Sorrentino saying he's thinking about running for New Jersey governor. I hate this trend. This trend sucks. And in the the words of Lauren Conrad, he's a sucky person. He's a sucky person. I hate Spencer. I've never gonna like Spencer. Please don't make him your mayor. Los Angeles. Do better. He's awful. He's horrific. He hates unhoused people. Terrible person. No bad shame. I'm done. I hope to never have to talk about this person ever again.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah.

[Garrison Davis]

So in case people don't know, the. The two top winners of the LA mayoral primary advance to a runoff. So Bass is going to Be there she is. She is in the lead. And right now it is between Pratt and Ramon. And Pratt's lead in second place has been sliding as more and more votes come in, but as of Wednesday afternoon, he's still in second. Second as for governor.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah.

[Garrison Davis]

Steve Hilton, Republican, is in the number one spot with 1.3, almost 1.4 million votes as of Wednesday afternoon. Sarah's in number two with 25% of the vote. Tom Steyer is in number three with almost 20% of the vote. And this is about 55% of the vote in. Becerro is a former Biden cabinet member, Health and Human Services secretary.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah.

[Garrison Davis]

So more of kind of moderate liberal. Styer, Stier, the more progressive candidate. But it seems because he is a billionaire, that did in some ways affect, like, enthusiasm to vote for him. On the Democratic side.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah.

[Garrison Davis]

There's another Republican candidate who's in fourth place with over half a million votes.

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

But again, the amount of votes that are actually happening compared to the amount of people. People is insane. It's so low.

[James Stout]

Yeah, it's really bad.

[Robert Evans]

There's a massive field of candidates, but no one really captured the imagination of people here. No one was enthusiastic for this.

[James Stout]

No.

[Robert Evans]

I guess I can cover a couple of small San Diego things quickly. San Diego measure A. Measure A was a tax on second homes defined as unoccupied for the majority of the year. Yeah. Looks like it's going down the nation.

[Garrison Davis]

Oh, it's not souping. Sorry.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah. Unfortunately not like it's. I mean, there is nothing that unites San Diegans more than hating tourists. But I think you have this interesting alliance of like, boomer homeowners thinking this will mess with their property prices and generally not wanting to pay taxes. Yeah. And people who understand that any money we give to our city is just going to go directly to the cops.

[Garrison Davis]

Where do you get that idea from that. That is a sentiment among the people who voted for this. Like, is this, like, demonstrated anywhere?

[Robert Evans]

Yeah. Like, if you go. If you look on social media, Right. Like let's say San Diego next door, Reddit, etc. Right. And then from meetings, like, we've had discussions within unions. I'm part of, like. So if you look at what our city's doing right now, it's slashing the arts budget, it's slashing the park's budget. Yeah, it's slashing everything apart from the police budget, which is continuing to increase. Right, Right. Most notably in San Diego, they have started to try and charge for parking at the park and at the beach and on major thoroughfares, which like charging San Diego to go to the beach is the most radicalizing thing that any politician could ever do. It's incredibly stupid as a revenue generating measure. Like people have, people have vandalized parking machines in very bougie neighborhoods because this is just like so offensive to people. People. And I think there's like a, just a growing disgust with our mayor. And then like the idea that giving them any more money would result in better outcomes for people just isn't going to fly anymore, if that makes sense. Like they've, they've done all these revenue generating measures.

[Garrison Davis]

It's, it's like a lot loss in faith that any revenue will actually just go towards improving their like, standard of living.

[Robert Evans]

Our city spent I think 100 million on a building filled with asbestos, which is worth less money than the land would be if the building wasn't on it. And from years and years tried to kind of play political football with the fact that they bought a cancer tower. Like. Yeah, there's a reason that San Diego is sometimes referred to as Enron by the sea. And I think folks are, folks are kind of having enough of it. They're reissuing under the perfect sun for folks who want to read more about San Diego politics.

[Garrison Davis]

This sort of like alliance between like small capital, you know, people who don't want to pay for a tax on the second home. That alliance with people who've like lost faith in, in sea services. Right. Who are going to oppose funding because they don't think it's actually like worthwhile. That's an interesting coalition of the modern moment.

[Robert Evans]

Right? Yeah, yeah. And it's definitely like a creation of like specifically in California. Right. This idea that we don't get to choose. Basically we're going to get a Democrat and that Democrat will just do whatever they want. It's made that position very appealing to people, I guess. Moving on from California, I do want to mention just briefly that Sam Forstag won the Democrat primary for Montana's House District. District. This is really interesting. He's a progressive union organizer. He used to be a smoke jumper, forest service firefighter. He is one of those folks who was like, I guess his entry into national politics came from Doge. Doge was cutting all these guys like GS2 people. Right. People. People at the Forest Service, people at these big public lands management agencies who are making. Barely making a living.

[Garrison Davis]

Yeah.

[Robert Evans]

And who have struggled for a long time in places like Bozeman. Right. Where second homeowners have driven up. The price of significant that sort of pathway to progressive politics is one that's very interesting to me and one I want to do a lot more reporting on. But I thought it was a positive sign to see see him winning that primary.

[Garrison Davis]

Speaking of elections, before we go on break, I do want to talk about the Supreme Court following up on a story from last week. Last week, our final segment on the show was on the five year battle in Alabama over two different House maps, or technically three. But the Republican ones were very similar. It was about these Republican drawn maps that have only one black majority district and a court ordered map that has two following the Supreme Court's weakening of Section 2 of the Voting Rights act earlier this year. Late last month a federal district court ruled that the GOP drawn map in Alabama intentionally discriminated based on race and diluted the voting power of black Alabamans. So they placed an injunction on that map and ordered the state to use the court approved map that was already in use in previous elections for the upcoming primaries. This ruling was appealed to the Supreme Court who on Tuesday night overruled the District Court, issuing a four page unsigned shadow docket ruling allowing Alabama to use the GOP map that eliminates a black majority or a black opportunity. District Supreme Court said that the State is likely to succeed on the merits of its claim claims. Quote at this preliminary stage, the State has shown that it is entitled to interim relief from the District Court's injunction, unquote. So this is the first time the Supreme Court has evaluated another court's interpretation of their Louisiana ruling. And in this case the Supreme Court is saying the District Court got it wrong in the updated rules for section 2 as a part of the Louisiana ruling ruling in order to succeed in arguing a Section 2 violation, plaintiffs have to submit an alternative map that must, quote, meet all the state's legitimate districting objectives just as well as the state's own map including quote unquote the state's specified political goals and any other goal not prohibited by the Constitution. Yeah, so the the alternative map that plaintiffs need to submit when challenging a map based on section 2 has to have the same like partisan goals represented is is what these updated rules in the Louisiana ruling stead and Supreme Court said that this was not followed by the District Court's ruling. Section 2 challenges must also quote, provide an analysis that controls for party affiliation and quote, show that voters engage in racial block voting that cannot be explained by partisan affiliation, unquote. So basically the Supreme Court claimed that the district court ordered map fails to do all this by not maintaining the state's, quote, constitutionally permissible community of interest on the Gulf coast by cutting into a section of the Gulf coast in the Black Opportunity District, also failing to avoid contests between incumbents. The Supreme Court said that the district court's ruling, ruling, quote, unquote departed from the updated standards set in the Louisiana ruling, quote. As to intentional vote dilution, the district court did not heed the presumption of legislative good faith because it interpreted the state's legal disagreement with the court's earlier remedial order as proof of discriminatory animus, unquote. Sconus is basically saying that just because it was was definitively demonstrated to Alabama Republicans that their map had a discriminatory effect and then they pass it anyway, that itself does not qualify as intent. So showing, quote, unquote intent is effectively impossible, like at this point, because maps can be sliced up like crazy and they can just do that based on party. And this is what the Supreme Court is saying, quote, quote the district court also failed to follow our instructions that the mere fact that voters of different races vote for different parties is not relevant to proving racially polarized voting patterns, unquote. This was specifically the thing I was most curious about is if if this idea that the district court wrote, if this idea that showing someone that their map is doing discrimination, if you show someone that and then they pass it anyway, does that, does that prove that that person then had intent because they knew it was discriminatory and the Supreme Court is saying no, that does not. That does not actually show intent. That is the main way that the Supreme Court has. Has overruled the district court ruling. If they also argue that the district court meddled in the state election too close to the primary, even though it's actually the Supreme Court ruling that is green lighting this redistricting midway through the primary process. Process. But that's kind of the added on at the very end of the. Of the four page unsigned shadow docket ruling.

[Mia Wong]

The. The macro level implication of this is that the Voting Rights act is unenforceable. Like the. The parts of the Voting Rights act that are supposed to protect from literally this specific thing, this specific thing of intentionally diluting black people's votes so that they can't elect candidates. Was the Jim Crow practice at this part of the.

[Sophie Lichterman]

Yep.

[Mia Wong]

Of the Voting Rights act was specifically designed to do. And you can't do that anymore. It is just. The Supreme Court has decided that this part of the Voting Rights act doesn't exist.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah.

[Mia Wong]

And They've decided this because they want to, like, they want to do racist gerrymandering so Republicans can win elections. And that's, I don't know, I mean, like, arguably the death of multiracial, like any semblance of multiracial democracy in the US which is not great.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah, I don't know.

[Mia Wong]

It's, it's really, really bad.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah.

[James Stout]

I mean, it's, it's, it's what they've been working for for decades.

[Robert Evans]

Right.

[James Stout]

It's what Yarvin's always talking about.

[Robert Evans]

Right.

[James Stout]

It's the repealing the 20th century. You know, like that's, that has been the goal for a very long time. And they see this as one of the most important steps towards doing that.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah, this is pretty devastating.

[Garrison Davis]

I think there is a way to do, I think some more in depth analysis like on this topic that might have to be in the future.

[Mia Wong]

Yeah, I mean, I, I did a full episode on this like a couple weeks ago.

[Garrison Davis]

I mean, specifically the way that the interpretation in the shadow docket ruling, how it clarifies certain things, like, you know, just because statistically different races may vote for different parties, that does not actually prove racially polarized voting pattern. Like, there's, there's certain things here that we can do a lot more analysis of. And like in terms of proving an intent, a lot of states don't even need to do like mustache twirling. I'm going to look at race maps and draw it based on race maps. They can just draw based on party affiliation. And that is going to get the party the actual effect. Right. Because these maps are passed by the party that's in control of the state legislature and they want to maintain power with their party. So that's going to be the most effective way to do that. And if they just do that, then there's leaves very little ground for these maps to be challenged on any sorts of racial ground grounds, even if there is racial discrimination as an effect. Right. And this, this was the, the biggest change of the Supreme Court ruling in Louisiana. It was Alito.

[Robert Evans]

Right.

[Garrison Davis]

Who, who technically wrote that one.

[Mia Wong]

Yeah, yeah.

[Garrison Davis]

But being like, like we are in a different place, we are in a different social, social place now than when the Voting Rights act was passed. And so therefore we are going to update these rules accordingly. Even though literally, you know, three years ago the Supreme Court was ruling in the opposite way in Alabama in a very similar situation. The change in those few years is very stark. And this is all goes downstream from the ruling in 2019 that specifically allows partisan gerrymandering because there's no law in the United States disallowing that. So like the Supreme Court is like, we cannot make a new law by saying this isn't allowed because there's just no law in the books. So if the legislation wants to pass laws against that, then they can't. Can. But we cannot disallow partisan gerrymandering in the courts, effectively, because there's no law preventing it.

[Mia Wong]

Yeah. And it's worth keeping in mind that the specific standard in the Voting Rights act literally says effects, which is specifically an effects based test and not an interpretation or not a proving intent test. And the Supreme Court was just like, no, fuck you. So that's sort of just where we are now legally is that they're just making up what they think the test should be and making everyone else follow that.

[Garrison Davis]

Yeah. In three, three justices did dissent in this recent ruling. Sort of more. Kagan and Jackson. They wrote, quote, before the court are two paths down one lies an orderly election held under a tried and tested congressional map that protects black Alabama's right to vote and with which all voters, election officials and candidates alike are familiar. Clear down the other lies a chaotic election held under a never before used congressional map that intentionally discriminates against black Alabamans that Alabama adopted in unabashed defiance of a prior court order directly affirmed by this court and that will require officials to change the voter registrations of hundreds of thousands of voters in just days at best, a task Alabama previously represented would take months. The majority chooses the second path and disregards both democratic values and the rule of law. I respectfully dissent. We'll go on a break now and conclude with one more, one more section of this.

[Mia Wong]

And we are, are back. So. All right, we need to talk about a fairly obscure bureaucratic rule change that is being rushed out by the Office of Management and Budget omb, which is where it's the like management bureaucracy office that's currently headed by like one of the guys who wrote Project 2025. This change that they are proposing right now is effectively the formalization of all of the sort of doge cuts and then sort of post doge departmental cuts of grants from the US Government. The way this is largely being covered right now, and I understand why we're going to run through that one first, is that this is effectively the death of American science. Because one of one of the things that what this does, it's like a 400 page document. One of the early sections of it is that instead of the current system where grants for scientific projects go before a peer review committee of scientists that are usually independent, and then those scientists give their recommendations to the department on whether or not this is a good use of funds, and then the department executes those recommendations. Right. So grants, Grants are determined by scientific, by a scientific peer review process. This kills that and says that instead of the way that it has worked, which is that agencies adopt the recommendations of it, this has not been how it works formally. Like, it hasn't been a legal stipulation that this is how it works, but this is just literally how all science has worked since World War II, basically, with the exception of the McCarthy era, is that these independent committees do the review of the grant and the federal agencies submit the grants. Instead of that, the heads of federal agencies will appoint one person who will individually look through every single grant and approve or deny them. So this is, this is the formalization of the DOGE process. This is the administration basically centralizing control of the entire scientific grant process. And this actually turns out, turns out, it turns out is for all grants, which we'll get to in a second. But what this means is that instead of again, like scientific peer review being the thing that decides what science gets funding, it's now political appointees and specifically Trump administration political appointees. There are a whole, in this ruling, there are a whole bunch of. Absolutely. Or not this ruling, the proposed change. There is just a bunch of just absolutely unhinged screeds about, about the U.S. anti AIDS programs turning into woke left mobs in Africa that support like gender politics and stuff. I sound very incoherent explaining that. I, I swear to God I am more coherent than actually reading out the quote. It's just, it's completely unhinged, like weird right wing conspiracy stuff for like half of it and half of it is like extremely technical budget change stuff.

[Garrison Davis]

I know that in the DOGE stuff this has been talking about like, you know, sexual health clinics in like a country in Africa that's supported by the US Government. Right?

[Mia Wong]

Yeah, yeah, they're, they're, they're, they're pulling all these examples and then just like screaming stuff about how they're like abortion centers and you know, like doing like genital mutilation or whatever. There's been some good reporting on this by Elizabeth Genexi, who used to do like program reviews for, for the NIH before a lot of things, including this administration took over. This is effectively the centralization of all of the grants given out by the U.S. government. Right. And if you remember, if we think back to, like, the early days of Doge, right, You'd find these giant lists of grants that they'd gone through and just cut. And they had absolutely no legal authority to do that. They just did it.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah.

[Mia Wong]

This is the formalization of that process. Right. This is. This is. This is setting up the bureaucratic apparatus to allow gdp, just one random griper they've like, hired and stashed off in a room in like, the NIH or something, to just go through and cut whatever grants they want. They also have the power to terminate grants that have already been given out at will. There's other even weirder things where they're also very paranoid about, like, scientific collaboration with other countries, which is just the basis of how all science is done. There's, like, restricted countries, effectively, where you can't collaborate with scientists from those countries, which even by US Standards is, like, not how things work. That's, like, messed up by the standards of, like, American foreign policy. And then also, if you are doing any collaboration with any scientist from a. From another country and there's money involved in it, that grant has to be individually approved by, like, this person that they've set up. So this makes scientific collaboration effectively impossible. Right? Because most of those things aren't going to happen because this is going to, you know, reproduce the sort of Doge bottlenecks that we saw where suddenly all these grants are disappearing, even ones that would eventually get approved. The people who were supposed to be getting them are completely screwed because their reliance on that grant coming in in order to do their research and the pivot in control of, of how, how these grants are being given out from people who are, at the very least scientists to, you know, just the people who are currently running the NIH who are like RFK Jr right? It's those kind of people who are going to be running these kinds of grants and they are going to be able to do damage to this that is, quite frankly, incalculable. This is the destruction of the entire system of American science. Like, almost like vast, vast percentages of all the science in the US Is done off of government grants. Either it's either it's done by, like, the NIH or like, by, by government institutions or not entirely all, but a huge portion of science is done at research universities, which is, again, how, like, most science happens is also supported by these grants.

[Sophie Lichterman]

Grants.

[Mia Wong]

And if we're in this situation now where all of these grants are again going through one person who is solely motivated by political factors as to whether or not they're going to approve this, which is what the system leader attempting to set up. This is the death of American science. And it's worse than that too, because. And this is the thing where I'm going to do a full episode about this next week because there are a lot more implications, but the section of rule sets being changed here, here by. By the Office of Management and Budget. This is not the session for the grant allocation for science. Right. This is the section for all grants given out by the US by the US Government. So for example, Medicaid.

[Robert Evans]

Oh, wow.

[Mia Wong]

Yeah. So all of that is now subject to this stuff. Right? Like disaster aid.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah.

[Mia Wong]

You know, like any money the government is giving out. Right. That's going through the grant system is now going through this process. U.S. yeah. There's, I think, public comment on this ends July 7th. So I guess if you want to scream at them, that's technically possible. It's really not clear if Democratic politicians are going to actually try to substantively do something to stop this, which there's no direct legal mechanism for them to stop this. They could do another government shutdown or something.

[Robert Evans]

Right.

[Mia Wong]

But. But yeah, this is just sort of the state of things, which is that a lot and a lot of this stuff has already been happening. It's worth saying, right. Like a lot of these funding for everything from like vaccine programs to like the very small amount of research that was going into trans healthcare or like queer healthcare in general. Like, those grants are just gone. And, you know, we've already seen a whole bunch of chaos from the interruption of the grant system on the sort of university level for scientists. But this is all just going to get significantly worse as this rule change rolls out. Yeah, yeah. So on. On that happy note, last week, the

[Robert Evans]

former chief patrol agent for the El Centro sector and also commander of Border Patrol's operation at large, Gregory Bevino, took to X the Everything app to announce that he was on his way to Delaney Hall. Hall wasn't exactly clear.

[James Stout]

Why?

[Robert Evans]

Because Pavino is no longer a serving law enforcement officer. In fact, he was en route to a re migration summit in Portugal. At the conference, Pavino joined politicians from FOX and afti. They spoke sort of behind closed doors. Journalists who wanted to cover the event had to stay in a car park outside where they were harassed by a drone. He's not listed on the website, but it's like a sort of mystery speaker and I'm guessing that that was him.

[James Stout]

Right.

[Robert Evans]

Remigration. If people aren't familiar, we're Going to do a whole episode on this next week. But the. The website for the conference sets it out as a set of fiscal, cultural, economic, social, political, and logistical policies whose objective is to prevent population replacement through the reversal of migratory flows. It is very explicitly about undocumented, documented, and naturalized people. It's not about following the law. It is explicitly racial. It's about race, ethnicity, religion, and the idea of, like, national purity. Purity and cleansing the nation of people who it considers not to be pure. If you think this is something that has maybe happened before in European history, you would not be alone. Greg Bervino took the chance to compare himself to Rommel in one interview.

[Sophie Lichterman]

Great.

[Robert Evans]

Also compared himself to T. Lawrence and Patton, which is a fairly remarkable set of Rommel and Patton.

[James Stout]

Yes.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah. Right. Without skipping a beat. Maybe he's one of those guys who's like a clean, fair, marked guy. He also sort of. It was interesting, like I said. I'm gonna break this down more next week. I think what was more interesting than, like, Greg Provino talks to Nazis about Nazi shit, which, like, come on, what does one expect? Is the way he talked about stuff in terms of, like, the role he sees Border Patrol having. He referred to them. He said they're often referred to as federal law enforcement, Marine Corps. The Border Patrol can operate anywhere in the United States and associated territories and simultaneously fulfill all enforcement missions. It goes on. He goes on to talk about them. He says that they are the only organization capable of planning and executing this type of operation. He's not wrong. They are the only agency that could do something like a mass deportation campaign like we're seeing. But like this, this Marine Corps of the internal Marine Corps is interesting. Right. That is how they have been used, especially by the Trump administration. Right. Think of Portland in 2020. Right. Like, these are the government's goons. Like, when they need a hit squad to fuck people up, this is who they go to. Yeah. And that identity is something that Bevino et al. Have clearly embraced. Right. Bevino was in BORTAC not. Not extremely recently, but he has points in his career been in bortac. He also kind of tried to set distance between BP and ice, which is interesting. He called them. He said the Newark fiasco last night in New Jersey illustrates what happens when untrained investigators are sent to handle a situation that it's the responsibility of uniformed specialists. He's there suggesting that the ICE employees lacked the necessary training to do what I guess they would call crowd control.

[Mia Wong]

Which is really funny because that's also the Democrats line. It's like, oh, no, these people aren't trained well enough.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah, well, his line is therefore like, turn it over to the people who are well trained enough so we can fucking him up. Which I guess is also kind of what the Democrats are at. It's not. Not a million miles apart. And Bavino has also been doing some right wing podcasts. He went on a Border Hawk podcast where he appeared seemingly from his office. Behind him, he had a shadow box. Does anyone want to hazard a guess what was in the shadow box? Military memorabilia of a certain kind. Yeah.

[Mia Wong]

Is it German Nazi crosses?

[Robert Evans]

No, no, it is. It is contemporary. It pertains to his career.

[James Stout]

That's good.

[Robert Evans]

Is it his.

[James Stout]

One of his challenge coins that he got from fucking Chicago or wherever?

[Robert Evans]

They're probably smart enough not to put their challenge coins on public display anywhere. Yeah, no, it's a bunch of left lethal grenades. Ah, okay. Of course, like the thing with which I guess he wishes to be associated,

[James Stout]

I have a lot of those at my house too. The used ones.

[Robert Evans]

It's just like taking pride in being the guy who stamped down harder on the First Amendment than anyone has in recent history tool. He's also been very critical of current DHS leadership. Right after Buffino and Gnome took to the national media to lie about Alex Pretty. In the hours after Alex Pretty died, they both became too toxic, even for this administration. And he clearly has some hard feelings about this.

[Garrison Davis]

He mentioned the 20 million figure.

[Robert Evans]

My figure is 100 million.

[Garrison Davis]

His is 20 million. Now let's take a look at that number, Dan.

[Robert Evans]

So we've got, by Tom Holman's estimate, 20 million illegal aliens. If that's the case, then he's already arrested 1/10 of all illegal aliens present in the United States. Do you see that with your eyes on the streets?

[Garrison Davis]

Do I see that with my eyes on the streets?

[Robert Evans]

If it's really going that good. A tenth of all illegal aliens. And they're all legal aliens. They're not immigrants or anything else.

[Garrison Davis]

Illegal aliens. A tenth.

[Robert Evans]

If there were a tenth already deported, the rest would be buttoned up tighter than you can imagine. Those lines southbound for self deportation would

[Garrison Davis]

be out the door. That's not happening. This is really interesting.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah. We'll go into this. In our specific episode, the way he arrives at that number is through the number of traffic delays in Charlotte, North Carolina during the Border patrol operation there.

[Sophie Lichterman]

What?

[Robert Evans]

This is the evidence he cited? Yeah. Okay. It's fascinating. Like. Like he. He talks about how he thinks a number is higher because of his Time at Border Patrol. Right.

[Garrison Davis]

He may think there is like 100 million illegal immigrants.

[Robert Evans]

He believes this in his. Yeah, like deep down in. Yeah, like, he.

[Garrison Davis]

Interesting.

[Robert Evans]

This is 100% what he believes. And he wants to deport that many people. Yeah, I don't know if it's that

[James Stout]

he believes there's that many people who are illegal in the way.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah, he doesn't differentiate or he's just

[James Stout]

considering everyone who is not, you know, white here.

[Garrison Davis]

Yeah, well, I mean, he, he did differentiate in this video, which is interesting. He did.

[James Stout]

No, no, no, that's not what that meant. But yeah, yeah, he was making the case that anyone border patrol goes after after is an illegal alien, I think.

[Garrison Davis]

I mean, but that's not what he said.

[James Stout]

Well, I mean, what he said was the term that you should use for these people is illegal aliens, not migrants or something. Like, he, he does not like that. A lot people of. Of folks think it's wrong to refer to a human being as illegal. That's specifically what he's saying. Like, he's not making a deeper point than that. But I do think his belief is that that hundred million number includes a lot of people who were, for example, naturalized or who were made citizens through like, ju. Solely, which we've seen. Like, he thinks should go away and so does the administration.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah. Or indeed like people on visas. Right.

[Mia Wong]

Yes, well, but I mean, more like if you're. If you want to get to 100 million, you're deporting people who are just non white. Like, you can't. There aren't 100 million, like natural.

[Garrison Davis]

Like, but it's. It sounds like he just believes there is like way more undocumented immigrants in the United States than what there actually is. Like, that is. Yes, he does in this short clip. But that is what he's like referring

[James Stout]

to in part because he believes a lot of people who everyone else would consider legally immigrating have not. Like that is part of why he's saying that. Now there's also a belief that, like the num. That the government's lying to you about how many of them there are. There's vastly more. Yeah, but part of it is he does not believe a lot of the ways that people become citizens who are not white are. Are legitimate. Like, that is an aspect of what he's saying.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah, he. He spoke about this at length in his interview. Right. He was saying how many people he'd seen come. He talks about whole villages in Mexico coming across the border. Like, lots of this is fairly familiar rhetoric. Right. I can. I'm just scrolling down here. If I can find his. His hundred million claim. 100 million, Pew researchers figure hasn't changed since the 1970s. He said. Said. He says 30 years ago, illegal immigrants were absent from large portions of American territory. I don't know where he's getting that information. He said he began seriously examining these numbers in 2008. He then says that around 2006, he found some information from Bear Stearns. That's a bank. They're like an investment bank, I think. He claims that drove his number. He saw an uninterrupted flow of illegal immigrants across the border without any internal application capable of producing mass expulsions. From 2006 to 2020 26, our borders were nothing but speed bumps. Illegals and smugglers knew that once they crossed the border, they were virtually safe from any consequences. Of course, that does include Trump's first term. But then he. He goes on to cite these bizarre statistics, like. I'll just. I'll give you the Charlotte traffic example. One of the indicators that we're looking at is commuting times. For these times to be considered, quote, unquote, good, between 15 and 20% of commuters must be taken off the road. In Charlotte, there are 153,000 commuters per day. Approximately as soon as we launched Operation Charlotte's Web, Travel times did not move into the good category, they moved into the excellent category. Estimates indicated that 30% or more of commuters were no longer traveling. This means that at least 30% of them were most likely illegal immigrants. That is a logical leap across the Grand Canyon of logic. Jesus Christ.

[James Stout]

I'd read that that's how he's calculating. Which, you know, cuts out a lot of obvious reasons people might not drive during this who are. Are legal. Like the fact that ICE has undeniably deported citizens and taken people into custody for long periods of time who were citizens, you know.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah. That they've pulled random brown people out

[Mia Wong]

of cars, that they've shot and killed people.

[Robert Evans]

Yes. Yeah. This happened also in late November of 2025. A time where people travel. A time where people get sick.

[Garrison Davis]

Yeah.

[Robert Evans]

Commutes generally go down in late November.

[Garrison Davis]

Commuters fluctuate. Yeah.

[Mia Wong]

Like, that's just gibberish.

[James Stout]

It's an insane way to draw the conclusion he's drawn.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah, yeah. It's. It's bonkers.

[Mia Wong]

It's also. It's also this thing where it's like, in order to, like, think this is what's going on. Like, one of the premises of this Is like, oh, it's like the illegal aliens that are, like, making every single problem bad. Like, you see this with. Yeah, the, like, the people who support this online who are like, oh, the housing crisis would end if we just deported everyone. And it's like, yeah, yeah, yeah, obviously. No, but like, they're coming at it from the motivated reasoning of I want to do an ethnic cleansing, and then they're sort of post hoc creating justifications for it.

[Robert Evans]

This is what fascism does, right? It blames all the. All the problems of the chosen group on the scapego.

[Garrison Davis]

Blames these economic problems.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah, yeah.

[Garrison Davis]

Yes.

[Robert Evans]

Like, the scene Equanon of fascism and its very core is this. This idea of a chosen group and a scapegoat group. And the scapegoat group are responsible for the decline of the chosen group. And if they can be removed, the chosen group will return to its former glory. Like, that is. Yeah. Fascism in five minutes. And that's what we're seeing. Right. Unsurprisingly, given that he's at a conference with straight up nuts. But I think this. This 100 million number is interesting. And, like, what's interesting is him talking in a way that he didn't talk to the press when he was in charge of Border Patrol, but that he probably did believe. But Vino is popular among Border patrol agents. Right. There are a number of them who feel that he was the leader that they needed. He showed up in the field. Right. He had the support of agents because he was there with them. And like, him believing this tells us a lot about the agency. And I think that's something I want to dive deeper into next week.

[James Stout]

Okay.

[Robert Evans]

And email us with your news tips. Cool Zone tips. Proton me? Yeah.

[Mia Wong]

Put a trans girl on your couch.

[James Stout]

Well, friends, that's going to be it from all of us at It Could Happen here. Ed. This week we'll be back with more episodes on the normal schedule that we put out episodes. And you should keep listening to them because we love you. And we reported the news.

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

We reported the news.

[Robert Evans]

We reported the news.

[James Stout]

Hey, we'll be back Monday with more episodes every week from now until the heat death of the universe.

[Sophie Ray Lichterman]

It Could Happen Here is a production of Cool Zone Media. For more podcast from Cool Zone Media, Visit our website, coolzonemedia.com or check us out on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to podcasts, you can now find sources for It Could Happen here, listed directly in episode descriptions. Thanks for listening.

[Jacob Goldstein]

This is Jacob Goldstein from what's yous problem. When you buy business software from lots of vendors, the costs add up and it gets complicated and confusing. Using Odoo solves this. It's a single company that sells a suite of enterprise apps that handles everything from accounting to inventory to sales. Odoo is all connected on a single platform in a simple and affordable way. You can save money without missing out on the features you need. Check out [e-mail] that's O-O-O.com mom, can I have Lingokids?

[Robert Evans]

Dad, Lingokids, please? When did we become the Lingokids?

[Sophie Lichterman]

No idea. Last week it was dinosaurs.

[Robert Evans]

This week it's Lingokids. Why Lingokids? Because it's the best thing ever.

[Molly Conger]

We can play games with astronauts, wild animals and superheroes.

[Garrison Davis]

With more than 4,000 interactive games, songs and shows, LingoKids is the number one entertainment platform for young kids.

[Robert Evans]

So no dinosaurs and dinosaurs. Lingo, kids, everything kids love. Download it for free. This is Bethenny Frankel from Just Be with Bethenny Frankel.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

Let me be blunt.

[Robert Evans]

Most dog food is junk. It just is.

[Molly Conger (guest or co-host)]

And I'm not feeding junk to Biggie and Smalls.

[Robert Evans]

That is why they eat just food for dogs. It's real, 100% human grade food with ingredients I actually recognize. Not mystery pellets pretending to be healthy. And once I switched, the difference was obvious. Better digestion, better skin, more energy. Dogs who actually feel good instead of just surviving dinner. Here's the thing. You care about quality. You make an intentional choice to be healthy. So why are you gambling with your dog's health? So let's think about our furry babies. Go to just food for dogs.com right now and get 50 off your first box. No code. Just try it. Because once you see the difference, you're not going back. Professional wrestling fans, the action continues every week. This is total non stop action. TNA Thursday night Impact every week on amc. For showtime and more information, visit tnarestling. Com.

[Sophie Lichterman]

This is an iHeart podcast.

[Robert Evans]

Guaranteed Human.