It's Way Too Early for the Horse Race

Summary

FIREWALL with Bradley Tusk
Episode: “It's Way Too Early for the Horse Race”
Date: March 31, 2026

---

Episode Overview

In this wide-ranging discussion, host Bradley Tusk and producer/friend Hugo Lindgren tackle a trio of big themes:

1. Why political “horse race” talk, especially concerning the 2028 Democratic primary, is premature and mostly pointless—at least for donors and most observers.
2. Expansive reflections on purpose, progress, and whether humanity is on the right path, inspired by current events and existential questioning.
3. The joy, value, and metaphorical potential of starting a band, drawn from Hugo’s recent New York Times op-ed and his work at P&T Knitwear.

The episode marries political skepticism, philosophical exploration, and cultural enthusiasm—all delivered with a mix of candor, humor, and friendship.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Basketball Losses and “Attention Economy” Culture

(00:10–05:45)

• Hugo opens with a personal story about a heartbreaking Duke basketball loss and how Duke’s freshman, Kaden Boozer, handled his mistake:
  • “He really just should hold the ball, but he tries to make a pass down court, it’s deflected… this kid from Indiana playing for UConn grabs the ball, hits just, I don’t know what it was, a 40 foot shot… they win by one. So it was a kind of crippling mistake…But the thing that really stayed with me from the game was actually after the game… he was so sort of non performative, non theatrical, just like kind of in the moment. Real.” (01:16–02:44)
• Bradley counters with an anecdote about bad sportsmanship at an NBA game, fueled by social media posturing:
  • “He spent the entire game, like, just doing theatrics for social media…He didn’t watch a second of basketball…made the entire experience about himself… It was like the opposite of good character and sportsmanship. It was like a society that is totally now ravaged by the attention economy…” (03:36–05:34)
• Larger point: A contrast between authentic accountability and the desire for attention—teasing themes for Bradley’s next substack post.

---

2. Does It Really Matter Who the (Democratic) Nominee Is?

(05:47–14:10)

• The conversation pivots to Bradley’s argument that the Democratic “horse race” for 2028 is overblown, especially for donors.
  • “Unless AOC or somehow Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren is the nominee, I think the Democrat is going to win, whoever it is, and I don’t think it matters who it is. … The scope of our problems is such that you can’t fix it in four years… They then fail to deliver on it. And the voters who are already pissed off say, screw this, throw the bums out, let’s try the other side.” (06:07–07:23)
  • “Trump is unpopular… you can’t win the Republican presidential nomination without the MAGA base… so you’re going to have a weak Republican nominee…As long as the Democrat is not someone that is wildly out of step with most Americans, like an AOC, I think they’re going to win.” (07:23–08:25)
• On the “donor class”: “Within that range of 15 cent or left, all kind of the same candidates…People like Shapiro a little more, that might also be just because I live in New York and I’m Jewish…But no, I don’t see an Obama like, talent emerging. If there is one. It’s AOC, actually. But I think she can’t win the general.” (12:39–13:06)
• On progressive threats to “stay home”: “The progressives will threaten to stay home in the general election and all this other shit. They won’t because they’re not going to want Vance or Rubio or whoever to be president. And so it’s just posturing.” (11:56–12:01)
• Verdict for donors: Save your support for the general election; the primary is unlikely to matter unless the far left rallies around a candidate who could lose the general.

---

3. The (Lack of) “Point” & Human Progress

(14:10–25:34)

• Bradley dives into existential territory, provoked by headlines about conflict in the Middle East:
  • “If all we’re doing as a species is competing and fighting over resources, over power, over money, over status, from the day we’re born till the day we die, just like what’s the fucking point of all of it, right?” (15:23–15:45)
  • “It just seems to me that the only purpose that’s worthwhile in life is advancing humanity itself…when we create, when we build, when we do tangible things that help people and advance humanity…that makes life worthwhile.” (16:45–17:11)
  • “Purpose and meaning in life do a lot more for us than the stuff that we’re fighting over, like status and wealth.” (17:21–17:39)
• Hypothesizing on humanity’s place in the universe:
  • “What if it’s that we actually are an evolutionary aberration? And we are too smart to exist.” (18:52–19:22)
  • Worrying about human self-destruction through technology, bioweapons, nuclear weapons, and existential risk: “Maybe it’s that we were never meant to be in the first place. Does that sound totally crazy to you?” (22:26–22:31)
• Still, existentialism offers comfort: “In a way, I actually find existentialism almost helpful...all you can do is what you can do in the time that you’re here...the reward for living a good life is living a good life is true.” (23:24–24:02)
• Resigned optimism: Focus on advancing humanity “because that’s pretty much the most I think anyone can do.” (25:34)

---

4. Happiness, Hobbies, and “Start a Band”

(25:40–36:18)

• Hugo discusses his NYT op-ed, “Let’s Start a Band,” and the importance of band culture—both literal and metaphorical.
  • “The band is sort of. It’s both a real thing and a metaphoric thing…It’s a really good way to sort of start the conversation.” (26:27–29:09)
  • “There’s a kind of a culture out there now…that everybody has these sort of incredible skills…And I think it kind of freezes a lot of people…One of the great things about a band is it gives you this sort of context to sort of be bad together.” (27:12–28:14)
  • “It’s not a bad idea to like, learn, know an instrument and then start a band…But I think the first question is, do I want to do it?” (28:14–28:34)
  • “The value of doing it is learning how to sort of work with other people, to figure out what your skills are, to get better at things together, to help other people get better, and ultimately to sort of…create your own center of gravity.” (28:32–29:01)
• The Scandinavian secret to happiness:
  • “There’s just tons of hobbies and people have group community activities…in places like Scandinavia, people have just a lot more hobbies that involve other people, things like being in a band. And as a result, they just feel better.” (30:15–30:59)
  • Referencing Henrik Carlsen’s essay about how Sweden’s community centers spark creative culture, especially bands. (31:00–32:13)
• “If you could be the president…quarterback of the super bowl winning team, or be a true rock star, you’d pick Rockstar.” (34:28–34:41)

---

5. Recommendations & Literary Sports Discussion

(36:18–45:49)

Books and Music:

• Everybody’s Fly by Fab 5 Freddy, recommended by Bradley as a cultural memoir and slice of NYC (36:25–39:39).
  • “He is the guy that in many ways brought both graffiti as an art form and rap as an art form into the mainstream.” (36:46–37:03)
• Discussion on the transmission of musical culture across generations and what counts as “lame” or “cool,” referencing Tribe Called Quest, Wu Tang, Nas. (38:35–39:04)
• Mention of “Sounds of Saving” (mental health/suicide prevention through music) and possible intersections with band projects. (40:02–40:27)

Sports Literature:

• Roger Angell’s classic New Yorker profile of a Yale vs. St. John’s college baseball game featuring Ron Darling and Frank Viola.
  • “It’s really just beautiful writing. Like you just. You just want to live. It’s like one of those pieces you just want to live inside.” (42:05–42:15)
• Literary qualities of various sports—baseball, boxing, football highlighted as particularly rich, with specific reference to classic sports books like Breaks of the Game. (42:19–45:47)
• Basketball’s occasional literary greatness, but Breaks of the Game holds up as perhaps the best sports book Bradley has read. (44:11–44:19)
• Conversation about Bill Walton, Wemby, injury-prone big men, and the fragility of promise in both basketball and elsewhere.

---

Notable Quotes

• On politics and futility:
  “Unless AOC or somehow Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren is the nominee, I think the Democrat is going to win, whoever it is, and I don’t think it matters who it is.” (06:07)
• On existential purpose:
  “If all we’re doing as a species is competing and fighting over resources, over power, over money, over status…just like what’s the fucking point of all of it, right?” (15:23)
• On happiness and creativity:
  “One of the great things about a band is it gives you this sort of context to sort of be bad together.” (28:14)
• On cultural envy:
  “If you could be the president, get the…Oscar for best actor, the quarterback of the super bowl winning team, or be a true rock star, you’d pick Rockstar.” (34:28)
• On legacy:
  “No matter how great we are, we’ll be forgotten…All of humanity may not exist that much longer…all you can do is what you can do in the time that you’re here.” (23:24–24:02)

---

Timestamps for Essential Segments

• 00:10 – 05:45: Basketball, character, and attention economy
• 05:47 – 14:10: Why the 2028 Democratic horse race doesn’t matter
• 14:10 – 25:34: Existential meaning, human progress, and risks
• 25:40 – 36:18: The value of starting a band and communal hobbies
• 36:18 – 45:49: Music/literary recommendations, sports writing, and cultural reminiscence

---

Episode Tone & Takeaways

The dialogue is sharp, skeptical, and self-aware. The hosts are unafraid to challenge conventional wisdom in politics and probe the philosophical voids created by both modern politics and social media. Yet, the episode is ultimately optimistic about the value of creative collaboration, communal activity, and striving for meaning—even if, in the sweep of time, very little truly matters.

Whether you’re a political junkie, existential thinker, music fan, or literary sports reader, you’ll find thought-provoking reflections and practical advice on where to actually invest your energy (spoiler: it’s not obsessing over primary politics).

Transcript

[A]

Foreign.

[B]

Welcome back to Firewall.

[A]

I am your host, Bradley Tusk.

[B]

It's a Tuesday episode, so with. This is our friend and producer, Hugo Lindgren. Hugo, how you doing?

[C]

I'm okay. As you know, I'm a, I'm a Duke fan, a Duke graduate, and yesterday we had probably the most devastating basketball loss maybe in the history of Duke basketball.

[B]

Was the, was the, how did the loss feel compared, if you can remember this far back to how you felt when Laitner hit the shot?

[D]

Well, it's a good, you know, it's

[C]

the same team, two teams, as you remember. And I mean, that was such an incredible, ecstatic moment. I guess it's about as different as you could, as it could be. I want to, I want to explain the situation to sort of maybe non basketball fans because I think there's a kind of cool thing in it. And so what happened is that Duke was up by two points. There was 10 seconds left in the game. All they needed to do was inbound the ball and kind of get fouled and hit one or two free throws and the game would pretty much be over. And instead they made a couple of passes and they got the ball to one of their star freshmen, Kaden Boozer, who's one of two twin brothers on the team. His brother is sort of the superior player, but Kaden's pretty damn good too. And they get the ball to Kaden and he really just should hold the ball, but he tries to make a pass down court, it's deflected by one of the defenders, the ball's loose. This kid from Indiana playing for UConn, but from Indiana, grabs the ball, hits just, I don't know what it was a 40 foot shot, like, you know, well, behind the three point line. It's a three point shot. They win by one. So it was a kind of crippling mistake by this kid, caden boozer, 19 years old. But the thing that really stayed with me from the game was actually after the game where they interviewed him. And it's pretty tough. You just make this sort of huge mistake right on the, for, you know, millions of people to see and they, they, they're talking to him and he's. I, I think he just did an incredible job of, of both answering the question, talking about how upset he was, talking about taking responsibility for making a mistake that I think he said he ruined his team season. But then he also talked about how much he loved his team. And he was so sort of non performative, non theatrical, just like kind of in the Moment. Real.

[D]

It was.

[C]

It actually put this kind of, like. Kind of. I think I'd actually call it, like, inspirational kind of feeling to the end of the game, even for a Duke fan to see someone. Obviously, the UConn guys were celebrating like crazy, which they deserve to do, because it was an elating moment for them. But to see, even in defeat, like, a really.

[B]

I don't know, just.

[C]

It's not even, like, good sportsmanship. It's just, like, human. Like, he just was very present and very real, and it was pretty. Pretty cool.

[B]

How do you think he'll be treated on campus?

[C]

Oh, I mean, totally great.

[A]

Oh, no.

[B]

Like the kids. And is that just because of the Duke culture or because he handled it so well? The people will really respect it?

[D]

Well, I think it starts with the

[C]

Duke culture, but they.

[D]

But. But.

[C]

But then he adds to that, too. But I don't think. I mean, he's been a great player all season, and.

[D]

And if you can't be a true

[C]

fan of a team and blame a player like that, I mean, I guess

[B]

Bill Buckner, he's like a kid. What's he, 18, 19?

[C]

19. Yeah. 19.

[B]

Yeah. Yeah.

[D]

So anyway, it was.

[C]

It put this kind of nice ending to. To what was otherwise a kind of, like, horrible, horrible moment for. For Duke fans.

[B]

Right. So I had the opposite experience, basketball experience.

[D]

Okay.

[B]

Which was. Lyle and I were in North Carolina looking at colleges last week, and we were in Charlotte, and the Knicks happened to be in Charlotte, so we went to the game and. Have you ever heard of the rapper called the Baby?

[D]

I have not.

[B]

I hadn't either. But Lyle knew who he was, and he just happened to be sitting next to us.

[D]

Okay.

[B]

Or right by us. And he was the opposite of what you just described. He spent the entire game, like, just doing theatrics for social media. So he would get, like, a Brunson jersey and stomp on it. He had a person with him who just filmed him the entire time. He didn't watch a second of basketball, didn't seem to give a shit if the Hornets won or lost, was just made the entire experience about himself. And then to make it even worse, there were people in our section who seemed to actually really think that was great. And we're just getting absolutely loaded, and, like, drinking's fine. Just hold your booze, you know? And the ball happened to come to our area, the seats, because we were sitting on the baseline, and this guy grabs it. And what you normally do in that situation, if you're sitting there as you hand it back to the reference. This idiot who wants, like little the baby to approve of him or whatever, decides instead to try to shoot the ball seated from his seat over the top of the basket to the other side. And instead it hits con canipple in the head. And Lyle showed me the video. It's been former Duke player.

[C]

I want. I want you to know former Duke

[B]

players, which has now been seen apparently millions of times online. And it was like the opposite of good character and sportsmanship. It was like a society that is totally now ravaged by the attention economy, changing our values. And this is my substack for tomorrow that we're going to talk about next week because we had too much for today already. But. But as a preview, you know, a society where we seem to equate getting attention with. With virtue or value or service. These fans were the worst.

[C]

I. I assume they threw the guy out of there, right?

[B]

No, nothing. He would have been banned for life

[D]

for hitting, for hitting a player in

[C]

the head with the ball. I mean, I know he didn't intentionally throw.

[B]

I was surprised. I was shocked by all of it.

[C]

We have some other important things to talk about, including. You wrote a substack essay called does it really matter who the nominee is referring to? The Democrats. I have a feeling the answer to this question is no.

[B]

Yeah, I mean, I was just thinking about this. So our friend Jamie Rubin, who's, you know, on this pod, you know, on the podcast sometimes, and we talk about

[A]

him because we work with him on

[B]

a lot of stuff, was saying to me the other day that, oh, he was at a dinner party and people were really into the conversation of, like, who should they support for the Democratic nominee in 2028. And this is a group of, like, wealthy finance people who will all be courted by the candidates because they can make, you know, meaningful contributions. And I started thinking about it, and my answer to him, both and in general and to turn into a substack, was, don't bother at all. And the reason is this. I think that unless AOC or somehow Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren is the nominee, I think the Democrat is going to win, whoever it is, and I don't think it matters who it is. And this is for a few reasons. So one is even putting Trump aside for the moment. We live in a world where people are incredibly unhappy, incredibly frustrated. Faith in all of our institutions, but especially in government, is lower than ever. And when you run for office, you run on the notion of things are screwed up and I'll fix it. And the Problem is the structural flaws of our system combined with the enormity and scope of our problems is such that you can't fix it in four years. You can make progress, but that's really it. And so by definition, the. The candidate promises this, they win. They then fail to deliver on it. And the voters who are already pissed off say, screw this, Throw the bums out. Let's try the other side. Which is why, by the way, even if Biden hadn't had the whole dementia thing, I'm still not sure he would have won in 24, simply because people are frustrated. And Biden, by the way, putting aside the dementia and a few things, was a somewhat effective president. Doesn't matter, right? So that's number one. Number two, Trump is unpopular. His approval rating is kind of high 30s at the moment. That will probably decline even a little more simply because, you know, the bombastic nature that I think people sort of enjoyed at the very beginning because it felt like he was at least doing stuff, wears thin pretty fast because it's all an act. So he's going to be less popular. But then at the same time, you can't win the Republican presidential nomination without the MAGA base. And so all these people are going to try to imitate Trump.

[A]

You can't imitate him.

[B]

He is singular. And so they'll just look foolish, Vance especially. And so you're going to have a weak Republican nominee. And as long as the Democrat is not someone that is wildly out of step with most Americans, like an aoc, I think they're going to win. Which means it doesn't matter if it's Josh Shapiro or Gavin Newsom or Gretchen Whitmer or Andy Beshear or any of these other people. You know, I think the substack lists 16 different options. You know, there might be minor personality distinctions. Nome is the Hollywood candidate. Rahm is the kind of candidate Harris could say, you know, I came so close last time. I know what to do differently this time. But. And I think Harris might be a little bit in a weaker position just because people don't like Biden right now. But overall, whoever makes it through that nominating process, I think will be good enough to win that election. Which means for the primary, it just doesn't make a difference now for the general, just because of the divided nature of the country. It'll be close. And therefore, if you want to support the Democrat, that's the time to do it. I'm sure that I will likely, unless it is someone from the far left. Be pretty supportive financially of, of the, of the Democratic nominee. But I just think overall the media, because it's much more, and you can speak to this as a former reporter and editor, it's much easier for you guys to talk about politics and process than it is about policy and substance. We'll try to make a big deal about the horse race, but I just don't think it matters. And so for the listeners who, you know, might be thinking about, who do I support financially, who do I back in different ways, volunteer for whatever it might be? I would just say, especially about financially, just save your money for the general because I just don't think it makes a difference.

[C]

Well, okay, you mentioned aoc, so couldn't one criteria for one of these other Democrats be like who is best positioned to beat her?

[B]

You know? Yes, but, but here's my guess, and who the fuck knows, but here's my guess as of today is how this might go down, which is you're going to have, you know, the race will start in earnest after the midterm. So figure, roughly call it just January 1st, 2027.

[A]

Right.

[B]

And then these 20ish people will spend the next say 12 months until Iowa running all over America, giving speeches, raising money and debating each other constantly.

[C]

Right.

[B]

And at least until Iowa, they'll all be in the race pretty much. And then I could see a world where AOC wins Iowa and maybe even the next few primaries. Not unlike how Bernie Sanders, I think Buttigieg maybe edged him out, but basically won the first few in 2020. And then when Covid hit, all of a sudden everyone's like, oh shit, Bernie Sanders can't be president. And then Biden just sort of slid into it. I could see a world where AOC wins or does extremely well in the first couple of states. And then what happens is the Democrats say she can't be the nominee because she's the only one of us that could probably lose to whoever the Republican is going to be, Rubio or Vance or someone else, and they'll settle on somebody and then it'll be that person versus aoc, and then that person most likely wins. The progressives will threaten to stay home in the general election and all this other shit. They won't because they're not going to

[A]

want Vance or Rubio or whoever to be president. And so it's just posturing.

[B]

So I think you don't need with your dollars to help anoint the anti aoc. They will just emerge through the process and whatever amount you give, whether it's one hundred dollars or a hundred thousand dollars isn't going to affect that.

[C]

So your argument here is, is sort of directed at the, at the sort of donor.

[A]

Donor class.

[C]

Picking flavors.

[B]

Yeah.

[C]

And now do you think, have you ever heard of anybody, I guess, in the donor class talking about one of these candidates with, with sort of genuine sort of passion and, and kind of like, like this could be a kind of generational politician? No, no.

[B]

What, what I hear more than anything is like, that within that range of 15 cent or left, all kind of the same candidates that people like Shapiro a little more. That might also be just because I live in New York and I'm Jewish. And so he resonates a little more

[A]

among maybe the people that I know.

[B]

But no, I don't see an Obama like, talent emerging. If there is one. It's AOC actually.

[D]

Right.

[B]

But I think she can't win the general. Do you.

[C]

Could you imagine changing your mind on this as the, as the, as the sort of, you know, election unfolds or as the race unfolds? Like, maybe.

[B]

But I just think, I mean, could

[C]

you imagine discovering that one of these guys is a lot better than you think?

[B]

Perhaps, but keep in mind, at least of the. And if you go back and look at my substack, I think I list 15 to 20 different potential people. They're all already in the public realm.

[D]

Right.

[B]

And I don't. None of them have felt that way to me. I've met most of them. You know, they're all going to be charismatic if you happen to meet them one on one. And they're all going to be reasonably impressive because you don't even get to be a potential serious candidate for president without being that. And maybe someone does emerge from outside the political class and that could be interesting and different, but among the normal politicians, they're all kind of the same.

[C]

You have another substack piece, actually. Is this, is this going up on substack?

[B]

It didn't actually go up because it didn't feel good enough. And instead I've got a piece that I already mentioned that'll go up tomorrow that I think is a lot better. But, but, but, but it's worth.

[D]

Yeah.

[C]

Why don't you quickly summarize the. What's the point theme. I mean, it's a pretty. It's something we've sort of been. Been talking through a bunch of different ways on the podcast over the last.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

And that's partly why we're not putting up as. It felt too similar. But, but it was just basically this, which was. And I, I think I might have even texted you when I first had the initial thought around this, which was, you know, I was reading the Times the other day, and there was just a headline about the Israeli said they killed the head of the Iranian navy. And it wasn't like a big story at all. In fact, when I went back to even find a link, it was already gone. Like, it wasn't even a successful story anymore, an update. But it just kind of got me thinking, right, which is the people who

[A]

run Iran are truly evil.

[B]

No question about that. They brutally oppress their citizens. They fund terror against innocent people all over the world. So removing them from power, or even from the Earth for that matter, is fine with me. Although I wish Trump had an exit plan before he started the war. And there are certainly plenty of times in life, whether you're an individual or a nation, where you have to fight to protect yourself. And that's why Israel exists in the first place, right? It's an insurance policy, as I see it, for Jews post Holocaust, that, you know, if we don't last in a country like the US and my gut is at some point we, we will be chased out, just like we have

[A]

in every country throughout history.

[B]

There are somewhere to go where you can be safe, right? But, but taking a step back from that, if all we're doing as a species is competing and fighting over resources, over power, over money, over status, from the day we're born till the day we die, just like what's the fucking point of all of it, right? Like we know that human beings are a blip in a universe that's 14 billion years old. The Earth is four and a half billion years old. Humans in our current form have only existed for about 60,000 years. From, for most estimates, the average lifespan globally is about 73 years. At 79 in the US it tops out in a place like Singapore about 84, 85. And even if we make it another 60,000 years and doesn't seem like we will, but even if we do, that's still like a rounding error of a rounding error of the rounding error of the Earth, let alone of the universe entire entirely. And so if we spend all that 120, 000 years, or 73 years, however you want to look at it, just competing with others to see who has more, and that this race, this country, you know, this ethnicity is the winner, like, just so what, right? It just seems to me that the only purpose that's worthwhile in life is advancing humanity itself, right? I mean, just take a look around and whether it's our skyscrapers or our rocket ships or dishwashers, or universities or museums or libraries, or just anything small or big, human beings are capable of so, so much. And when we create, when we build, when we do tangible things that help people and advance humanity and that could be system level change or just helping another human being, like you know, helping

[A]

someone old person cross a blind person

[B]

across the street, whatever it is that makes life worthwhile. Right? We don't know what happened before we were born, we don't know what happens after we die. But if we do things that advance humanity, then at least while we're here, we're taking what we have and we're improving it. And it also makes us happier because as we know, purpose and meaning in life do a lot more for us than the stuff that we're fighting over, like status and wealth. And so, you know, should Israel fighter end? Yeah, maybe if they truly believe that they're existence is actually at risk based on Iran's leadership and military capabilities, then yeah, do what you need to do. But if that's the entirety of it, even for Israel, if that's the entirety of it, I fail to see the point. I mean, Jews have led the world for thousands of years and everything from science to philosophy, art, literature, technology, business, medicine, government, entertainment, philanthropy. And that's what makes me proud to be Jewish and that's what makes me proud to be human. And without that, like who cares what religion or nationality you are? Like identity based on demographics, it doesn't make any sense. Being born into something is not an achievement, nor is it a flaw. It's what you do after that. And so to me, like life can't just be a fight over resources and power for the sake of resources and power. Because if it does, I think that's what contributes to sort of an existential misery among humanity because we know deep down that it isn't worth it. So that was the point. And then I had another thought yesterday that kind of layers on top of

[A]

this that I want to just throw

[B]

out there and correct it, which is what if it's that.

[A]

Not that human beings haven't evolved enough yet, right? Like I've always sort of held the view that we're a relatively new species and that over time, should we manage to somehow persist and exist, we would maybe be able to evolve towards a far more consistently moral perspective on things. What if it's that we actually are an evolutionary aberration? And we are too smart to exist.

[B]

And that because we have the ability

[A]

to create all these ways to hurt ourselves, hurt each other, destroy ourselves. And because we, we at the same time have 8.2 billion people, each with their own unique DNA sequence, which means everyone's a little different. And even if, you know, if 10% of people have sort of those dark triad personality traits, that's 820 million people, it's like the population of the US almost three times over. And you know, even if it was 1% and even if it's, you know, 8.2 million, and even if only 1% of that are the kind of people that would truly, you know, seek to destroy humanity, that's still something like 20, you know, 8,200 people or something like that.

[D]

So just 8,200 people trying to destroy

[B]

humanity, who and would have the means to do so. Right. It's a lot.

[A]

Right. And so ultimately, perhaps it is that, that we should not exist and that in existing we are too intelligent to be able to not destroy ourselves and

[B]

we will end up being this very,

[A]

very, very small blip in history simply because we weren't meant to be in the first place. It's hard to reconcile that with my view of God. But at the same time, if you

[B]

take a view of God, which I

[A]

generally hold, I have this sort of cognitive, dissonant view of God, of which I believe from a macro perspective that God effectively created the Big Bang or whatever it is, and it all kind of takes shape from there. While I also believe that God is somehow looking out for me personally, which obviously those two things don't make any sense, but, but if it were the former, then, you know, there's evolutionary aberrations and genetic mutations and all kinds of stuff all the time, right? And perhaps that is what happened here.

[B]

And maybe there are species on other

[A]

planets that are, are so much more intelligent that they can handle the responsibilities that we may not be able to, and therefore they can manage to not destroy themselves. And look, we haven't destroyed ourselves yet. And like I've said on this podcast, you know, multiple times before, in some ways, to me, one of the greatest achievements of humanity is that we've now had nuclear weapons for 80 odd years and haven't really used them. I mean, Truman used them in Japan, you can debate whether or not he should have, but he did. But ever since, they have not been used. Now, to me, as we're at nine heading towards, assuming Iran does in nine countries with nuclear weapons, but I think a world where non state actors seem more likely to get their hands on them eventually, one way or another, that risk only increases and perhaps that discipline will eventually erode. But. And that is a sign that humanity does care enough about existing that even the Mad Men don't quite go that far.

[B]

But

[A]

maybe it's that we were never meant to be in the first place. Does that sound totally crazy to you?

[D]

No, it doesn't sound crazy. But I guess I'm wondering, do you feel crazy thinking it? I mean, does this soothe you in a way of just trying to gain some kind of intellectual like control or mastery, the kind of chaos of the day?

[A]

No, because at the end of the day,

[B]

I hope that

[A]

myself and my children, and I hope and assume that I will live long enough to meet my grandchildren, if I have any, can survive before the end of humanity. But at the same time, there does come a point where it's far enough in the future that it's hard to really relate to it. You know, and you also, a very

[D]

technologically optimistic person like you, think that we will solve climate change through technology.

[A]

I do means I do. Although whether that's in, you know, that really to me comes from figuring out how to do carbon capture at a very large scale. Because ultimately, if you can remove carbon in a meaningful amount from the atmosphere itself, then all of a sudden the fact that even if we are emitting it doesn't create the same kind of risks. Although a lot of harm has already been done, the icebergs that have melted are not going to refreeze absent a new ice age. And it very well may be that there's going to be a lot more catastrophic harm before any of that does happen. But yeah, I am a techno optimist, but I also do worry that, you know, when it comes to, say, bioweapons, you know, somebody could, through AI, learn how to create something that is highly transmissible and highly lethal and do it on their own. So I don't know. But no, to me, in a way, I actually find existentialism almost helpful in the sense that we're only going to exist for this tiny blip of a blip of a blip of a blip. And no matter how great we are, we'll be forgotten pretty soon regardless. And all of humanity may not exist that much longer, and that much longer might mean 10,000 years, but it's still a very small amount of time in the big scheme of things. And all you can do is what you can do in the time that you're here. And I think I have a decent sense of at least what I should be doing to try to make my life as good as it can be. And I do believe that, you know, the basic notion of the reward for living a good life is living a good life is true. Doesn't mean that I'm always able to stick to it. But, you know, so, no, I don't know that it makes. Gives me any sense of mastery to wonder if humans are an evolutionary aberration, because I can't control for that one way or the other. All I can do is try to maximize the value of my life. And getting back to the discussion we had, you know, at the beginning of this, it's to try to advance humanity in whatever ways that I can, because that's pretty much the most I think anyone can do.

[D]

And not waste your time worrying about who the Democratic nominee for president in 2028 is going to be.

[A]

No, not till the general election.

[B]

So we're going to flip it here, which is Hugo wrote a terrific op

[A]

ed that ran in the New York Times. What was the date last? Sunday,

[D]

23rd, about 20 seconds.

[B]

Basically telling people that they should start

[A]

a band and what he was doing, and then I'll let him speak to it. But is making the case that, like, it's not that everyone's gonna go be major rock stars and win Grammys and all that, but that the act of being in a band has tremendous value to us from an interpersonal standpoint, from a skill development standpoint, and ultimately from a happiness standpoint. And therefore, it's the kind of activity that may not seem intuitive to most people, but really does yield a lot of happiness.

[B]

So why don't you tell us more about it?

[D]

Sure. Well, I should say, by the way, that it had its kind of origin right here at PNT Knitwear, where we did an event for a zine that I made with my friend Christiani called Let's Start a Band. And we did this kind of really cool thing here at the bookstore where we started a couple bands in the room with some kids and had a really good time. But the, you know, the band is sort of. It's both a real thing and a metaphoric thing. So I do. I am excited about kids starting bands or grownups starting bands or really old people starting bands. I'd love my kids to be in bands. I think I'd love for you to be in a band, Bradley. But they're also really more as powerful as kind of a metaphor just in terms of the sort of collaborative approach to life and also the sort of idea that you don't need to be an expert to start doing things. I mean, I think there's a kind of a culture out there now. It's certainly supported by everything you see online that everybody has these sort of incredible skills and incredible sort of work habits and these abilities to do sort of things that you've never seen anybody in your real life do on social media and so forth. And I think it kind of freezes a lot of people. Like, the idea of kind of getting comfortable, like learning something and being bad at something is like, it's very threatening to people. And one of the great things about a band is it gives you this sort of context to sort of be bad together. One of my favorite stories, for example, is like, when U2 started, they wanted to play other. Other bands songs, but they literally were not good enough to sound like, to play anything that anybody would recognize. So they had to start writing their own songs. And that's like, that's one of the, you know, greatest bands of our times. Starting off in this, like, really pathetic way. So. But.

[B]

But why wouldn't someone have to first

[A]

learn how to play an instrument in order to then be in a band?

[D]

Well, here's the thing. It's not a bad idea to like, learn, know an instrument and then start a band. That's perfectly fine. But I think the, the, the first question should not be like, am I good enough? The first question is, do I want to do it? And it.

[B]

So what's the value of doing it?

[D]

The value of doing it is learning how to sort of work with other people, to figure out what your skills are, to get better at things together, to help other people get better, and ultimately to sort of. I talk about sort of creating your own center of gravity. Like, I think so much of our culture is about sort of running after what everyone else is running after. And getting together in a studio with three, four, five other people and trying to figure out songs and learn how to play them together is a way of truly creating your own center of gravity.

[C]

Gravity.

[B]

And would that be ultimately different than say, join and, you know, club field

[A]

hockey team as an adult?

[D]

No, I actually don't think it would be that much different at all. I mean, like I said, I think it's metaphoric as much as anything. And I think there's lots of things you can join and do. You can start a magazine, you can start a bookstore and have a group of people hire them to work there and be part of That, I mean, I think the band part is not the most important, important aspect, although I think it's. It's a powerful, cool thing. So it's a good way to sort of start the conversation. Yeah.

[B]

I don't know if you read.

[A]

There was an op ed in the New York Post today and it was about the World Happenings report which came out.

[D]

Are we going to talk about that?

[A]

You know, we're not. The only reason we're not going to.

[B]

Is I read it.

[A]

And the reason why I didn't think it was actually worth either writing a substack about or doing a podcast about was it was all focused on social media and kids.

[B]

And it just felt like it was well researched and written, but it was like they told us what we already know. It's bad, right? And, like, so I just didn't see. I didn't. For the first time, I felt like they didn't say anything particularly new or

[A]

insightful, and I didn't really learn anything. So we're not going to.

[B]

But there was a guy that wrote.

[A]

I think he has a book coming out about happiness and he was making the point about why people in, say, Scandinavia tend to seem happier.

[D]

They do start a lot of bands in Scandinavia, right?

[A]

And that was his point, is that there's just tons of hobbies and people have group community activities. And his larger, I guess, argument was Americans are very isolated, kind of behind our screens and everything else, and as a result, we are unhappy. And in places like Scandinavia, people have just a lot more hobbies that involve other people, things like being in a band. And as a result, they just feel better.

[D]

Well, there's a great essay by this guy named Henrik Carlsen who writes a substack called Escaping Flatland. He's a Swedish guy and he wrote this piece about why there are so many more bands from Sweden that there seem to be, because Sweden's a pretty small country and yet it exports a lot of music. And there's a bunch of different theories about it, but one of them is that they had all these kind of community centers that were built everywhere in Sweden because mostly because it was so cold and dark during the winter, you know, kids couldn't play outside and stuff, so they needed somewhere for them to go, right? And they typically had instruments that were just, you know, part of the. Part of the community center that anybody could play. And it really had this effect of, like, kids, you know, that they gave them something to do when they, you

[B]

know, expose Bill Gates to a computer lab.

[A]

And there's Microsoft.

[D]

Yeah. So it's kind of a cool, like, just idea.

[B]

Who are your favorite Swedish musicians?

[D]

Well, it's funny you asked that. I mean, of course I love abba, but do you remember the Hives, that great garage rock band? They were Swedish and they were sort of of that era in particular. There were all these really excellent, like, Swedish rock bands coming out and Dunion was one that I loved. They were sort of a little more proggy, if you can. If you can stand that kind of music. Not me, but anyway, this essay, I'm gonna put it in the show notes too. Cause it's a really cool.

[B]

It's a great Op Ed.

[D]

Oh, thank you. I was also going to talk about the Swedish guy, but it was really fun to write. I really appreciate that you liked it because I. I did. I did think when we were talking about this. Talking about this on the episode that, you know, you're not someone who has always wanted to start a band and yet in your own way, you do a lot of things that that piece is about, I think.

[B]

I appreciate that.

[A]

What I also like is you start things.

[B]

I do start things.

[A]

And I liked also that, you know, on this podcast, because we talk so much about happiness and we talk so much about how, you know, interpersonal relationships that have real love and support and things that give you senses of meaning and purpose are the things that ultimately make you happy. You know, starting a band encapsulates a lot of that in one tangible thing. And you've actually been working on it, right? So, yes, there's the Op Ed, but you've also been actually working on. Trying to.

[D]

Yeah.

[A]

You know, encourage people to do it and you. We had that great event here at the store and. So what's next for you in this project?

[D]

Well, we're gonna do two things. We are starting a band, me and Chris, called Steinbrenner, which is a sort of punk cover band. But the other thing is we're. I'm gonna step back from the actual sort of public part of it and be the producer. We're creating like a live show that's gonna include sort of somewhat well known musicians. We'll see. Maybe we'll get really famous ones to talk about how they started bands and then also do some audience engagement. Have people come up and play. Play instruments and start.

[B]

Are you familiar with School of Rock?

[C]

Of course.

[D]

Yeah.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

That's really. My friend Elliot, who was on the podcast weeks ago. His son Jamie is a really. He's like now at the University of

[A]

Pittsburgh and like their music program, which apparently looks like a really good music program. But he is a really talented bassist, I believe, and he. I've seen him play, and I think, you know, a lot of the kids there go on to really try to have careers in music. But. But it's also just this incredible thing where you have all of these kids starting bands and performing.

[D]

I think School of Rock is amazing.

[A]

It's fantastic.

[D]

I think part of the message is that there's lots of different channels to do it. School of Rock is a really good one.

[B]

Yeah. Separately, but kind of related.

[A]

Even though I don't really have any experience in music other than listening to it, I was thinking this.

[B]

If you could be the president, get the. The best. The Oscar for best actor, the quarterback

[A]

of the super bowl winning team, or be a true rock star, you'd pick Rockstar.

[D]

Yeah, Right. Rockstar is Rockstar.

[A]

Yeah. Yeah.

[B]

And I think most people would. Right?

[D]

Yeah.

[B]

Maybe if you were already trying in one of those fields and you're sort

[A]

of working towards that, then you would pick the ultimate manifestation of it.

[B]

But it just seems like otherwise, like,

[A]

who wouldn't want to be a rock star?

[D]

I think for the true experience of, like, the seas parting in front of you, you know, I think probably Rockstar is the right.

[B]

Now, maybe there are people like Obama

[A]

at his height or maybe even Trump at his rallies among an adoring base

[B]

or whatever, feel that way, but that's

[D]

when they achieve the Rockstar vibe. Right? That's right.

[B]

But even then, it's. It's because they. Right.

[A]

Became the equivalent of their. In that case, they're a political rock star.

[B]

Right. Like, when someone calls you a rock

[A]

star, that's like a compliment that's actually used. No one ever calls you, like, super

[B]

bowl champion or president. Right. Or Best actor.

[D]

You know, there's no metaphor. No.

[A]

So I think that's definitely true.

[C]

Good.

[D]

All right, well, thank you, Bradley, for bringing that up.

[A]

No, thanks for writing and doing it.

[B]

How do people learn more about it?

[D]

Well, so we're republishing the zine we sold out of our 100 print run. Incredible. So we're republishing it. We're actually like. The first edition will be a little bit of a collector's item because it's got some coarseness to it about drug use and things like that. And we actually decided to do one that's a little more parent, kid friendly. Like the drug stuff, it turned out just. I mean, we weren't celebrating drug use or anything, but we Were talking about a lot of things like that that's not necessarily good for kids to be reading. So we're doing one that's just a little more. A little more sort of directed at kids. But the cool thing is that everything in there will still be, you know, you could be a 60 year old kid too. So.

[B]

Yeah, very cool.

[C]

Do you have a recommendation?

[D]

I do 5, but obviously you go first. Sure.

[B]

So it's a book called Everyone's Everybody's fly by Fab 5 Freddie. You know who Fab 5 Freddy is?

[D]

I do. I actually went to the little. Like they did an event and it was a block from my house and Fab 5 Freddie was in a panel. So I went, yeah.

[B]

So Fab. For those of you who don't know

[A]

him, he is, you know, he's a lot of things. But I think it's. When I was trying to tell.

[B]

I was recommending the book to Abby

[A]

the other day and over text. She was in Dublin, actually. I was trying to explain why, because she knew who he was, why he was relevant and why it was a really good book. He's the guy that in many ways brought both graffiti as an art form and rap as an art form into the mainstream.

[B]

Right.

[A]

And he is the guy that saw both these things and did both of them. Right. He was a musician, he's still alive and an artist.

[B]

But I think in addition to sort

[A]

of being talented at those things, I think his real genius might have been that he was able to just connect with lots of different kinds of people from all different walks of life who were interesting and bring together, you know, Andy Warhol and Keith Haring and Basquiat, right. Who by the way, started out as a graffiti artist, right. And were able to bring together, you know, Grandmaster Flash with Debbie Harry and Blondie and ultimately take these different sort of art forms that came out of, you know, a much more urban setting that I think art critics or music critics didn't recognize as legitimate in the late 70s and a lot of the 80s. And he was able to through, through a lot of persistence and hard work, popularize a lot of it ultimately on the music side, culminating in being the host of Yo. MTV Raps, which I think really, and here's how you know that rap is so in the mainstream is that I listen to rap. Lyle listens to rap. When I recommend musicians from say, you know, rap artists from the 90s to

[B]

Lyle, he looks at it as just

[A]

as old and sort of outdated as I might from something my dad would have recommended. In rock. Right.

[B]

So the fact that a kid can look at their dad's rap recommendations as totally lame. In a way they're lame though. I don't think like Tribe Called Quest or Gangstar or Wu Tang is.

[A]

Or Nas are lame, but he thinks they're lame pretty much.

[D]

Oh, really? Okay.

[B]

You know, so. But in a way that's great.

[D]

Right.

[B]

Because that's how you really know you made it.

[C]

Right.

[A]

And it all.

[D]

Yeah. It just also means that he's got intense interest and he's like passionate about it.

[B]

But if you are a fan.

[A]

Fan of those mediums, it's a great memoir. But it's also just a great memoir if you just are a fan of New York City. It should certainly be a contender for the next year's Gotham Book Prize because

[B]

I think he's just such a good

[A]

writer that it captures what New York City, or at least a component of New York City was really like from say the mid-70s up until the story kind of tails off. Late 80s, early 90s, but. But in that sort of 15ish year period, I think he really captures what it was like.

[D]

So I was wondering if you. It doesn't sound like this, but you know, our friend Charlie Gross's good friend Mark Roso wrote that with him.

[C]

So.

[D]

And I'm sure.

[B]

Oh, I didn't know. I knew someone wrote it with him but I. I should have paid.

[A]

I didn't and I didn't know that. That he was a friend of Charlie's.

[D]

Yeah. I'm sure you've met him in any case. So. So speaking of Charlie, Mark is a really good writer.

[B]

By the way, what I was going to ask you off my parents were just do it is what you're doing

[A]

with Start a band in some ways. In terms of the. Having artists talk about how they started their band is not totally different than what Charlie does with sounds of savings. Sounds Saving is very. It's about teenage suicide prevention through music and it's a lot of great art musicians talking about the struggles that they've had with their own mental health.

[D]

No, we may well want to work on that together.

[B]

But the two. But in a lot of ways, I'm sure that a lot of.

[A]

Of the same people who you might be interviewing around this could also have really interesting things to share that would be meaningful for kids.

[D]

Sure. And very likely that starting bands was inspired precipitated by stuff people are going through. So I think there's a lot of overlap. I want to just do one quick recognition because our Other good friend. Here we are talking about all our friends. Howard Wolfson sent me a piece, a Roger angel story from The New Yorker, 1981.

[C]

And.

[D]

And it's. He's. He's watching a baseball game pitched between Ron Darling and Frank Viola, Yale versus St. John's but the craziest thing is he's watching it with Smokey Joe Wood, who was like one of the greatest pitchers of all. Smokey Joe Wood won 34 games in one season, like in like 1914 or something.

[A]

Right.

[D]

And he.

[B]

But.

[A]

But never.

[D]

He threw out his arm. So I don't think he's in the hall of Fame.

[B]

Okay.

[D]

So. So he had this crazy thing of having one of the greatest years ever, but not being in. I'm pretty sure he's not in the hall of Fame. I guess we'll have to check that. But he had a relatively short career.

[A]

But he lived a long time.

[D]

But he lived a really long time.

[A]

If he was watching a game in

[D]

1941, I have to say this piece.

[B]

Who did? Darling outdoor.

[D]

It was a famous thing. Darling had like a 12 inning, no hitter or something crazy or 11 innings, but he lost the game.

[B]

This was while they're still in college.

[D]

While they're in College, yeah. Yale versus St. John's both became.

[B]

I don't know if they were teammates on the max.

[D]

Think they were.

[B]

I think Darling's career was a little shorter than people realize.

[A]

And then he didn't finish on the Mets. He was like the A's or something.

[D]

That's right. And Viola wins and then came to the Mets later. Right.

[B]

So I don't know if they overlap.

[D]

Well, the piece is just. It's really just beautiful writing. Like you just. You just want to live. It's like one of those pieces you just want to live inside. And I don't know where Howard saw it, but he just sent it to me and I.

[B]

Did Roger angel ever write anything other than baseball?

[D]

Oh, yeah, he did. He definitely did.

[A]

Like what?

[B]

What other kind of stuff did I write?

[D]

It's funny, I have a collection of his from. From like the late 60s. And it's really funny. It's just all these essays about his life and his family and stuff, but he wrote pretty widely. I mean, baseball was his real.

[B]

And it is. What sports would you say are kind

[A]

of the most literary?

[D]

Well, it's weird. I think all of them. Hockey's not literary, baseball is. But the funny thing is there's a ton of really good football books too.

[B]

Even though you wouldn't think that.

[A]

Yeah, like the, like Fan's Note by Fred Jackson.

[D]

Oh, my God, look at you. Yeah, that's. That's, that's. That's really one of the classics.

[A]

Yeah.

[D]

For some reason, I was thinking of a book called Three Bricks Shy of a Load. About Three Bricks Shy of a Load, which is about the Steelers in the early 70s.

[A]

I forget. Delilah had a good football book.

[D]

Oh, yeah. End Zone.

[A]

Yeah.

[D]

Yeah. Really good.

[B]

Yeah. I mean, he had a lot of

[A]

sports books because he had the hockey

[B]

book that ultimately became the.

[A]

The Gay Hockey Show.

[D]

Well, they weren't related, but. But you know.

[B]

They weren't. No, I thought it was like the best.

[D]

It's funny you say that because, you know, for years he's. He totally, like, refused any recognition for that. Wouldn't talk about it. And now they actually are republishing it because of the Gay eye show.

[A]

And then Underworld all starts off about the San Francisco, the New York Giants and Polo Grounds and.

[D]

Which is like that short story that was originally Harper's. It's like one of the just most underworld pieces of writing.

[A]

I still think Underworld might be my favorite Delilah book, actually.

[D]

Really?

[A]

Yeah, I think so.

[D]

I like it.

[A]

And then boxing, obviously has just incredible literary. It just lends itself really well.

[B]

Basketball less so. Not that there's not good basketball writing

[A]

and obviously breaks the game. Yeah.

[B]

And that it's interesting.

[A]

I don't think that basketball writing tends to be as good as, say, baseball or boxing writing, but Breaks of the

[B]

Game probably is the best sports book I've ever read.

[D]

Yeah. Because.

[B]

Yeah. And he just captured really well.

[A]

And you just had great personalities. It's about the 1978, 79 Portland Trailblazers who won the NBA title.

[B]

And Bill, they wanted the year before.

[D]

Right. And this was like the next season. I think it wasn't the championship season.

[B]

This is the year they lost to the Bullets.

[D]

Yeah.

[A]

And I think it was unselled.

[D]

And I don't think they. Did they get to the playoffs or did they get to the finals? But Walton was hurt the whole year,

[B]

which was the story of his life. I mean, Walton is. I was trying to give Lyle the

[A]

cautionary tale for Wemby. Right.

[B]

Because there is a world in which Wemby is just the greatest basketball player ever. Right. Because to see someone that big with those skills.

[A]

We were at the Knicks spurs game a couple of weeks ago at the Garden, and in the same game, like, I watched him just so calmly swish a shot from way beyond the three point arc. And then at the same time the most ferocious dunk you've ever seen.

[B]

So it's unique but really big guys.

[A]

Ralph Sandstrom is a bunch.

[B]

Greg Oden often do get hurt.

[A]

He's also really skinny and their feet tend to get fucked up. Porzingis is another one.

[B]

And so you know, Wemby could be better than Jordan and Lebron and Kareem even or he could be, you know,

[A]

someone that ultimately like Bill Walton spends his career just struggling to stay healthy. So anyway, all right, well, thanks for the episode.

[D]

Thanks brother.

[A]

Firewalls recorded at my bookstore, PNT Knitwear look located at 180 Orchard street on the lower east side of Manhattan.

[B]

We'd love to hear from you with

[A]

questions, feedbacks or idea for a guest. Just email me at Bradley Firewall Media or find me on LinkedIn. And to keep up with what's on my mind and my latest writing, please follow my new [e-mail] thanks again for listening.