Suspension of the rules. - Isaac and Ari run the show today and dive into more Epstein files criticisms and Ari breaks down the EPA Endangerment Ruling.

Summary

Tangle Podcast: “Suspension of the rules” (Feb 20, 2026)

Hosts: Isaac Saul & Ari Weitzman
Summary by Tangle Podcast Summarizer

---

Main Theme & Overview

This episode features hosts Isaac Saul and Ari Weitzman in a “back to basics” episode—just the two of them. The show splits its attention between ongoing criticism and coverage of the Jeffrey Epstein files (“Epstein Stuff”) and a deep-dive, led by Ari, into the recent EPA Endangerment Ruling—what it is, what changes, and what it does and doesn’t do. The hosts also touch on podcast corrections, anecdotes from their personal lives, and field arguments from across the political spectrum, as is Tangle’s core commitment.

---

Episode Structure and Key Discussion Points

1. Opening Banter & Correction (01:57–08:34)

• Co-host Camille’s absence: Isaac jokes about “firing” Camille while Ari clarifies he’s just on vacation (“He’s finally spending a week with his family and getting some time to reset and relax.” —Isaac, 03:19).
• Travel Anecdotes: Isaac shares proud dad moments traveling with his one-year-old (“I flew from Philadelphia to Phoenix, Arizona today with my one year old son by myself… I did it, I survived.” —Isaac, 03:58).
• Show Correction: Isaac addresses a factual error in last week's episode about the Super Bowl halftime show; he mistakenly relayed a viral rumor about Bad Bunny gifting a trophy to Liam Ramos, a child previously in ICE custody; fact-checking reveals a different child was involved (05:36–08:13).
  • Notable quote: “I obviously do not intend to say things on the show that are not accurate or true, so apologies for that.” —Isaac, 08:13

---

2. Jeffrey Epstein Files Criticisms & Coverage (09:09–28:58)

A. Audience Feedback and Future Guests (09:09–12:15)

• Isaac mentions the strong audience interest in continued Epstein coverage. He shares efforts to invite diverse guests: Congress member Ro Khanna, journalist Julie K. Brown, and contrarian reporter Michael Tracy.

B. Isaac’s Measured Perspective (12:15–17:03)

• Epstein’s Crimes and Media Narrative:

  • “Jeffrey Epstein was a very bad person … I don’t mean to minimize what he’s alleged to have done… At the same time, I also think there’s a lot of hysteria about the story, mass hysteria about this story.” —Isaac, 12:42
  • Clarifies that while Epstein has convictions for sex crimes, the ‘pedophile’ label is technically unsupported in law or specific conviction records; critiques loose language in media coverage.
  • Isaac expresses discomfort with minimizing the claims, but insists on journalistic accuracy.

• Ari notes the difficulty of precise language:

  • “Pedophilia is not a crime either. Like that’s a predilection. Child molestation is a crime. But if I’m going to go ahead and make that parsing here, it feels like… I’m excusing this. And it’s not really what we’re trying to do.” (14:56)

C. Michael Tracy’s Role and Media Critique (17:03–22:09)

• Isaac respects Tracy’s knowledge and research, even while finding his tone and style “insensitive at the least, scummy at the worst.” Notes examples where Tracy corrects media myths:

  • Lolita Express was a tabloid fabrication.
  • No evidence that sex crimes took place on Epstein’s island, despite public perception that it was “ground zero.”
  • In the Palm Beach case, many “victims” tracked by police denied being victimized.

• Ari: “We do have a bias towards mania… as long as you’re talking about terrorism or child molestation, you can make accusations to your heart’s content.” (20:59)

D. The Dangers of Mass Assumption (22:17–28:58)

• Isaac cautions against painting everyone in Epstein’s circle as a criminal, and expresses the need for balance between seeking accountability and protecting journalistic ethics.
  • “I am trying really hard to be specific and level-headed about this stuff because A, I’m liable for things I say… B, I take journalistic ethics really seriously… and C, I do think that we’re in a little bit of a dangerous territory…” (22:17)
• Example: A misunderstood “torture video” email that was part of a political news cycle, not evidence of Epstein’s crimes.
• “There’s a lot of sketchy info out there also, and I think we should approach this stuff with skepticism, even if it’s easy to want or believe that everybody in Epstein’s circle is some horrible elite criminal…” (26:25)

---

3. EPA Endangerment Finding Explained (28:58–43:29)

A. Ari’s Primer: What Happened? (29:39–34:38)

• On Thursday, EPA administrator Lee Zeldin repealed the EPA’s Endangerment Finding—a Nixon-era principle that underpins most federal greenhouse gas regulation.

  • “The bedrock principle that undergirds almost every regulation for greenhouse gases that the EPA makes.” —Ari, 29:44

• Clean Air Act (1970) → Supreme Court (2007) → EPA required to regulate greenhouse gases (“endangerment finding”).

• Enabled the Obama administration’s fuel efficiency and emission regulations; also impacted manufacturing and power plant emissions.

• Key Point: Repeal of the endangerment finding doesn’t eliminate all federal authority over emissions. California’s strict tailpipe laws often set de facto national standards because automakers want to sell to that large market.

B. What Actually Changes? (34:38–41:34)

• Isaac asks: Will emissions increase?

  • Short answer: Not immediately. 2027 vehicle models already in production; changes show up, if at all, from 2028 forward.
  • Most emission standards for 2027 cars are already set; real regulatory change will be marginal and go into effect after several years.

• Automakers meet both EPA tailpipe emissions and NHTSA (Department of Transportation) fleet fuel efficiency standards. Repeal mostly affects how standards are calculated, not whether they exist.

  • Notable moment: Start-stop ignition technology (“auto-off at red lights”) and other “off-cycle” efficiency features will see their credit calculations shift, but cars with the features might persist because automakers need to keep efficiency high across their fleets.

C. Technical Details & Quirks (41:34–43:29)

• Even if the EPA stops calculating credits for efficiency features, the existing credits “are still there,” leading to a “weird legal limbo.”
  • “It’s sorta like if you’re doing your math homework, show all your work and you get your answer and then you just erase all your work. The answer’s still there, but we just don’t know how you got it.” —Ari, 41:55

---

4. Philosophical & Political Angle: Should We Regulate? (45:11–54:14)

A. National Review’s Conservative Critique (45:11–46:13)

• National Review: Is the threat of climate change worth the economic cost of federal greenhouse gas rules?
• Ari’s response: The actual change from endangerment repeal is minimal for cars; bigger deregulations already happened with Trump’s “Care 3” regulations, making emission targets easier to meet anyway.

B. Is U.S. Climate Leadership Futile? (47:48–54:14)

• Isaac summarizes the “why bother” argument: U.S. is a shrinking fraction of global emissions; does regulation matter if China, India, etc., aren’t matching us?

  • “I would rather us lead and also try and make the small dent than not do anything, because I think climate change is real and I think humans are causing it… we can do some stuff to help mitigate those things.” —Isaac, 48:54

• Ari’s three-part answer:

  1. Energy v. Environment: Regulation vs. the imperative to raise people from poverty through abundant energy is a real tension. But in the U.S., regulation often drives cleaner, more efficient energy, which is good for both economy and environment.
  2. Economic Liberty v. Regulation: Existing regulatory schemes give consumers real choice and keep efficiency incentives for automakers, so “freedom” isn’t stifled.
  3. Why Should the U.S. Lead?: “Shrinking share” of global emissions is due to successful policy. “It’s like the ozone layer hole thing… Whatever happened in that risk, we did stuff. It was a good thing.” —Ari, 54:00

---

5. Closing and Airing of Grievances (54:52–61:49)

• Personal Anecdotes/Grievances:

  • Isaac: Missed a diaper change on a long solo dad flight; baby “completely covered in his own pee” just as the family comes out to greet them.
    • “You were one out away from a perfect game.” —Ari, 57:44
  • Ari: His teeth are realigning unexpectedly as an adult and it’s all he can think about; muses on the uncontrollable nature of dental shifts.

• Notable quotes:

  • “I think teeth just shift. That’s what happens. I’m going to put that on your tombstone, Ari Weitzman.” —Isaac, 61:37
  • “Surely I’ve said better things than that.” —Ari, 61:45

---

Standout Quotes & Moments (with Timestamps)

• “Jeffrey Epstein was a very bad person…I also think there’s a lot of hysteria about the story, mass hysteria about this story.” —Isaac, 12:42
• “Pedophilia is not a crime either. Like that’s a predilection. Child molestation is a crime.” —Ari, 14:56
• “It’s like, they’re not defenses I would line up to make.” —Isaac, 22:07
• “We seem to be making these assumptions that, like, anybody who went to Epstein’s island was a pedophile, that Epstein…was running a sex trafficking ring…now baked-in assumptions that inform every other part of the story.” —Isaac, 17:17
• “It’s sorta like if you’re doing your math homework […] erase all your work. The answer’s still there, but we just don’t know how you got it.” —Ari, 41:55
• “Shrinking share [of emissions]…didn’t just happen like that’s the outcome of us having regulation that tries to incentivize these choices.” —Ari, 51:20
• “I think teeth just shift. That’s what happens.” —Ari, 61:43

---

Useful Timestamps

• 01:57 – Show introduction & Camille’s absence
• 05:21 – On-air correction (Bad Bunny halftime rumor)
• 09:09 – Jeffrey Epstein files: audience feedback & future guests
• 12:15 – Isaac’s view: balancing accuracy & skepticism on Epstein coverage
• 17:03 – Michael Tracy’s perspective, correcting myths
• 22:17 – Risk of mass hysteria & reputational harm
• 28:58 – Transition to EPA Endangerment topic
• 29:39 – Ari explains what endangerment finding is/was
• 34:38 – Q&A: What will actually change for consumers and automakers?
• 41:34 – Technicalities about credit systems and vehicle regulation
• 45:11 – National Review’s argument against regulation; hosts’ responses
• 48:54 – Is U.S. climate action worthwhile?
• 54:52 – Airing of Grievances
• 57:44 – “You were one out away from a perfect game.”
• 61:43 – “I think teeth just shift. That’s what happens.”

---

Tone and Style

• Candid and conversational, with a mix of humor and earnestness.
• Tangle’s dedication to staying non-partisan and fact-informed runs throughout, especially as Isaac expresses discomfort with overreach or assumption in public narratives.
• The show is a blend of deeply-researched, clarifying explanations (Ari, on environmental regulations) and “real talk” about the limitations and frustrations of media reporting (Isaac, on Epstein).

---

Summary Takeaway

This “old school” episode of Tangle blends accountability (through on-air corrections), clarity (explaining the technical complexity and limited immediate impact of the EPA’s Endangerment Finding repeal), and media analysis (urging skepticism and precision in covering explosive issues like Epstein). The episode remains accessible—with explanations, personal stories, and a steady commitment to measured debate, even on the most fraught topics.

Listeners leave informed both on how policies work behind the headlines and on the challenges—and necessity—of holding the line for rigorous, non-hysterical, fact-based journalism.

Transcript

[Commercial Narrator]

Busy work weeks can leave you feeling drained. Prolon's five day fasting mimicking diet works at the cellular level to rejuvenate you from the inside out, providing real results that include fat focused, sustainable weight loss with no injection needed. NextGen builds on the original Prolon with 100% organic soups and teas, a richer taste and ready to eat meals. Developed at USC's Longevity Institute and backed by top medical centers, Prolon supports biological age reduction, metabolic health, skin skin appearance, fat loss and energy. Get 15% off plus a $40 bonus gift when you subscribe at prolonlife.com start that's prolonlife.com start why choose a sleep number Smart bed Can I make my site softer?

Can I make my site firmer? Can we sleep cooler?

Sleep number does that cools up to eight times faster and lets you choose your ideal comfort on either side your sleep number setting. Enjoy personalized comfort for better sleep night after night. And now during our President's day sale, take 50% off our limited edition bed plus free home delivery with any bed and base ends Monday only at a sleep number store or sleepnumber.com BetterHelp Online

[Ad Voice (BetterHelp)]

Therapy bought this 30 second ad to remind you right now, wherever you are, to unclench your jaw, relax your shoulders, take a deep breath in and out. Feels better, right? That's 15 seconds of self care. Imagine what you could do with more. Visit betterhelp.com randompodcast for 10% off your first month of therapy. No pressure, just help. But for now, just relax.

[Isaac Zol]

Coming up, it's just me and Ari again because we fired Camille. We talk more about the Epstein files and I offer some, I hope measured, maybe slightly controversial responses to some of the criticism. Ari tries desperately to explain the endangerment ruling. I still have no idea what's going on. And then the show ends early cause my son face plants downstairs. It's a good one. Good morning, good afternoon, and good evening and welcome to the suspension of the rules podcast. We got an old school episode here for you. We fucking fired Camille. Cut. Camille. He's out back to me and Ari. We're bringing it back. No, I'm just kidding. Camille's. Camille's taking a break, which he never does. He's on vacation right now with his family somewhere.

[Ari Weitzman]

Appreciate it.

[Isaac Zol]

What? Oh, doxing. Yeah. Yeah, I should. Yeah. No, I'm not going to dox him. But he, Camille never takes a break. This guy has been flying from San Francisco to New York and back like every week for the last eight months. And I think he's finally spending a whole week with his family and getting some time to reset and relax. So we excuse him. This is an excused absence, but we're bringing it back. It's me and Ari. This is how the show started, baby. So, yeah, we've got plenty to talk about. A few things, I mean, first of all. So I guess to start Shout Out Camille, you know, he's worked hard, he's earned a little break. We'll see you in hell. We don't really care when you're not here.

[Ari Weitzman]

We give him a lot of shit for the travel stories that he has about how he doesn't get his first class upgrade when he wants to have them. But it is kind of a lot of travel that he subjects himself to. He goes coast to coast all the time and I think that wears on a fella.

[Isaac Zol]

Yeah, it is. Speaking of travel, Shout Out. Me, I flew from Phoenix or from Philadelphia to Phoenix, Arizona today with my one year old son by myself, which I'm very proud of. Five hour flight that turned into like six and a half on a plane because we got stuck on the Runway and then we hit headwinds and at 30 minutes. This is not a grievance. My grievance is going to come and it is related to the flight. I'll share it at the end of the show. For now, just positive. I'm proud of myself. I'm here, I did it, I survived. And I woke up many, many hours ago. So I'm a little bit exhausted, but I was like, I'm going to lock in. We're going to do the shouts out.

[Ari Weitzman]

Andre too, for taking that flight.

[Isaac Zol]

He was awesome. He crushed it. I texted my wife, we landed and I was like, we have an incredible baby. I don't know what we did, but we are blessed with a good eight people on the flight were like, he's so good. He didn't fuss at all the whole time. I was like, I know, I didn't do anything. I just fed him, just brought tons of snacks and let him play around a little bit in his seat. So, yeah, super happy about that. Also, some introductory material I have to do. We have a correction, a suspension of the rules, specific correction, which I don't know if that's ever.

[Ari Weitzman]

And it comes on the tails of me earlier today giving reading, my first ever correction that I've had to read on the podcast. Usually that's your job, but as a sub host, I was like, oh, I don't like the way this feels.

[Isaac Zol]

Yeah, that's I'm sorry you had to do that. It sucks. It's way worse saying it out loud than it is. Just like writing it in a blurb at the top of the newsletter. I know exactly what you're talking about. About the correction that we have was my fault. A suspension of the rules correction. I wish I didn't write down the name of the reader who wrote this in, but last week I was talking about the Bad Bunny halftime show. I think that was. Was that last week? Yeah, I think it was. And I said that Bad Bunny gave this trophy to Liam Ramos, who is the kid who I went viral when ICE detained him. It turns out maybe this story was a little bit more complicated than the initial viral post suggested. I think a lot of people were saying ICE, like had the kid and they were holding him and they were trying to lure the dad outside of the house to come get his son. When it turned out maybe ICE approached the dad, the dad fled, left the kid with Ice. Whatever. Kid's name is Liam Ramos. I fell for a viral Internet rumor, basically. Now, in my defense, we were just kind of riffing about the Super Bowl. This wasn't like a topic I researched. We were talking about the Bad Bunny halftime show. I was just being a little loose lipped, I guess, and I said that part of the show offhandedly that Bad Bunny gave Liam Ramos, presented him with this trophy. It was another. It was a different young five year old, ish Hispanic boy. Many people interpreted what Bad Bunny did as something that was meant to evoke that story in the performance. I don't know whether he intended that or that was always what he was gonna do in the show, but I saw all over Twitter and stuff that it was Liam Ramos. Like the actual kid was in the halftime show. And I just never bothered to actually fact check whether that was true. And then I talked about on the podcast and it wasn't true. It was a totally different kid. And yeah, so I'm sorry again. I wish I made a better note of the reader who wrote in to let us know. I have it in my inbox. I know, but thank you for writing in and calling that out. Only one person actually emailed about that and there were several news articles about it. So correction count for suspension of the rules, I guess. 1.

[Ari Weitzman]

Let's not get it started though. I feel like if we wanted to plumb the archives, we'd find other things that we've maybe misspoken of. It is a little bit of a looser show. So you get a Little bit of a pass. A little bit, but yeah, a little

[Isaac Zol]

bit of a pass. But still, I obviously do not intend to say things on the show that are not accurate or true, so apologies for that. And yeah, I think that's it. And then shout out Ari. Just holding it down rock solid this week. You're recording the pod, you're editing, you wrote two takes in the newsletter. Well, you haven't written your second one yet, but you're writing it right now

[Ari Weitzman]

most of the way down. It's a lot, a lot simpler than the one that we just wrote about emission standards, that's for sure, which we're

[Isaac Zol]

going to talk about because you wrote this whole thing. We researched, we published a newsletter. I read the whole newsletter and I was like, I don't have any clue what's going on. So I'm excited for you to explain a little bit more about this ruling and well, I guess not the ruling, but the endangerment standard and what the administration see. I don't even know how to talk about it. I have no idea what you're doing.

[Ari Weitzman]

All the words are confusing. You get another pass.

[Isaac Zol]

We're going to get into it. Before you do, I'm going to start the show today with some Epstein stuff. Actually, I suspect there are probably some people who listen to the show who are like, please stop talking about this. But I don't hear from them. I only hear from people who are criticizing the coverage that we've given the Epstein file stuff, insisting we do more coverage of it or writing in to tell me they really appreciate the level headed takes that we have. So a few things that I want to let our audience know because my sense is that the people listening to the show actually really care a great deal about this issue and I really want to respect that. First of all, I have reached out to Ro Khanna and Julie K. Brown and invited them on the show because Ro Khanna is a member of Congress who's all over this issue. Julie K. Brown is like the Epstein journalist and I want to talk to both them about it. I've also invited Michael Tracy onto the show who is a very controversial figure right now because he's one of the very few dissenting voices, I think, on the Epstein file stuff. Honestly, I think his views, though not articulated with the sensitivity that I would articulate them, are probably closer to my views on this issue than maybe a Ro Khanna or Julie Brown. And he's way clearly from watching his reporting and reading his writing, he's way more well read than I am on a lot of the Epstein file stuff. I actually think he's done a ton of really in depth coverage on it. So my hope is we get Ro Khanna, we got Julie Brown, we get both of them, one of them, whatever. We also get somebody like Michael Tracy and we bring a diverse set of voices in here, and I'm hoping that that happens fairly soon. I've not heard back from Julie yet, send her two emails. She had expressed openness to come on the show many months ago, but I think she's probably inundated right now with media appearances and invites. And we're working with Ro Khanna's team and I'm hoping that that happens. And Michael Tracy has accepted my invitation and I just need to find a time for him. But I want to get Roe or Representative Khanna or Julianne first. I also, while we're here talking about this, I want to just articulate a little bit more about my perspective on this. After having some back and forth with our audience members, listeners, readers, I really am of a couple minds here. First of all, I think it's very clear that Jeffrey Epstein was a very bad person. Yeah, like, I, I, I don't, I don't mean to minimize what he's alleged to have done and, you know, what he's been convicted of and what a lot of these survivors are saying about what they experience at his hands. At the same time, I also think there's a lot of hysteria about the story, mass hysteria about this story. So just to give you one example, it is now like a commonly stated claim that Epstein is a pedophile. Jeffrey Epstein has never been convicted of that particular sex crime. The conviction that he has is basically one of the prostitution and a certain sex trafficking.

[Ari Weitzman]

Solicitation.

[Isaac Zol]

Solicitation? Yeah, the, the like child sex ring, pedophilia commentary aura of like, how we talk about this issue around Jeffrey Epstein is literally based on unproven allegations. Saying that does not mean that I think there's no chance that that happened. I'm just pointing out that the way a lot of people talk about it, commentators, people online, people on X, YouTubers, it is done in a very sort of loose way that doesn't necessarily live up to the kind of journalistic standards that I try and hold myself to when I'm talking about something as serious as like a sex crime. So I say that and when I say that, I immediately feel uncomfortable because somebody like Michael Tracy, who again, I think has done some really good work on this, does things that also make Me really uncomfortable. Like, you know, he beats the drum that Jeffrey Epstein had. You know, there's like an allegation of a 16 year old girl and that she was sort of like groomed. But in Florida the age of consent is 16 years old. And so like Michael Tracy might hammer something like the idea that it's not illegal for Jeffrey Epstein to have a sexual relationship with a 16 year old. And I would say it's disgusting and evil probably that Jeffrey Epstein, this like rich 40, 50 something year old person at the time was having sex with a 16 year old.

[Ari Weitzman]

Right. But it's not something that makes it illegal. And when you're making an argument that says, hey, Jeffrey Epstein maybe didn't break as many of the laws that people think that he did, it does. It's tough to walk that line in a way that doesn't sound like you're defending child molestation. I mean even one of the things that comes to mind as I'm listening to you talk is pedophilia is not a crime either. Like that's a predilection. Child molestation is a crime. But if I'm going to go ahead and make that parsing here, it feels like something where I'm saying, oh, okay, so you're excusing this. And it's not really what we're trying to do. It's just to say let's just be specific about the things that we know and lay them out so we can talk to each other about things from a level playing field where we all agree on the things that happen. It's hard to do that in a way that doesn't sound like defense, but I get it and I get what you're saying.

[Isaac Zol]

It's insane to put yourself on the side of an Epstein defender is like, I obviously have no interest in doing that, but I'm just trying to give an example of the kind of thing that I feel like happens where I try and be measured or level headed. And the response is a desire for just the purely speculative kind of unhinged or imprecise language about this stuff. Again, I'll go to Michael Tracy because I think he's actually done a really good job covering a lot of this stuff. He just had a tweet the other day about this article that came out in Mint Press, which is a pretty, I would say, in my view, not reputable news source that is increasingly popular online. Just a few bullets about what Michael Tracy said. Again, people hate Michael Tracy. He says and does and approaches this issue in A way that I find

[Ari Weitzman]

insensitive at the least, grating insensitive at

[Isaac Zol]

the least, and scummy at the worst. But he also knows the topic extremely well, has clearly spent a lot of time with the court records, the redacted stuff in the files, the interviews with the survivors. I mean, he actually was one of the people who helped undermine the credibility of Virginia Giuffre, who was one of the survivors and accused us of Epstein ended up killing herself. So it is an uncomfortable thing to point to him as somebody who. Whose credibility, I think is strong enough to be worth listening to. But my judgment is that when I see Michael interact with other people who talk about this issue, he seems to know as much or more than they do. He just went on Piers Morgan with Tara Palmeri, and I thought, kind of wiped the floor with the whole panel of people who were saying a lot of things that were, in his estimation, outlandish or not rooted in fact. So just to give you a couple quick examples, Michael Tracy had this long tweet about this Mint Press news piece. He notes, among other things, Jeffrey Epstein was never convicted, charged, or even credibly accused of anything to do with pedophilia, which is defined in all relevant medical literature as a pathology denoting sexual attraction of prepubescent children. Again, makes me feel very uncomfortable to see somebody be like, it's not a pedophile. She was only 16. Whatever. Like, it's awful. But yes, if it was like an 8 year old, I think we'd all agree there's some degree of that that feels worse. Some other things. Epstein's plane was never called Lolita Express. Just like that was something that got made up in the tabloids. And just like one of these details, it's just been repeated ad nauseam that people think it's real. It's not real. Total myth.

[Ari Weitzman]

I mean, it's real now, but it's something where at the time that's not like something that people who knew Epstein were referring to it that way.

[Isaac Zol]

Right. Epstein's island was actually not the location of many of his worst sex crimes. According to Tracy, there's never been any credible evidence that any sex crimes ever took place on the island at all. And there's definitely never been credible evidence that any children were ever sexually trafficked or raped on that island. But a lot of this stuff happened in New York and Epstein's residence there. A lot of this is a defense of Noam Chomsky that, that Tracy was posting about. He goes into some of the misinformation about Chomsky's relationship with his children. He adds that 36 survivors never came forward in the Palm beach investigation circa 2005, 2008. They were actually tracked down by local police, then by the FBI. Many of them who got approached denied they were ever victimized by Epstein and opposed efforts to prosecute him. Refused to cooperate or acknowledge lying about their ages, telling other girls to and having fake IDs when they attended parties with Epstein. So one, a 14 year old, expressly told investigators she had lied about her H. Epstein after an older girl who is then an adult, 18 or 19, instructed her to lie because it was understood that Epstein would believe anyone brought to the house was at least 18 years old. Does this make it better? No. Is it a detail that I don't see reported in other places very often? Yes, just some stuff that, like, gives me pause when I see people looking at a single redacted email and trying to concoct a new crime out of it.

[Ari Weitzman]

We do have a bias towards mania, I think, when it comes to child molestation some. I mean, I've said this, I feel like once a month on this podcast that as long as you're talking about terrorism or child molestation, you can make accusations to your heart's content. And I think with Epstein, where it's sort of both a closed case and that he's gone, and also an open case and that we don't know anything really, or as much as we think we ought to, there's files that still aren't released and a lot of it's redacted. Then it is an open invitation to try to read more into what's there because, yeah, there's no one who wants to play the Michael Tracy role and say, well, maybe these women were wrong and maybe some of them lied in order to get into this residence. And maybe some of the things that we're saying about Epstein aren't true. It doesn't. I mean, it's an unpopular position to take because there's almost no incentive to do that. I can understand that. At the same time, like, a lot of those defenses feel like not defenses I would line up to make either saying, you know, this woman may have lied.

[Isaac Zol]

They're not.

[Ari Weitzman]

Definitely.

[Isaac Zol]

It's like they're not defenses I would line up to make, which is why

[Ari Weitzman]

it'd be interesting to talk like.

[Isaac Zol]

Right. My point is only that we have, as a society, we have made this. We seem to be making these assumptions that, like, anybody who went to Epstein's island was A pedophile, that Epstein molester, that he was running a sex trafficking ring that like all these things that are, they're now baked in assumptions that inform every other part of the story. And I see our audience doing it too when they address me about it. I'm just here to say I am trying really hard to be specific and level headed about this stuff because A, I'm liable for things that I say on the air or published in the newsletter, B, I take the journalistic ethics really seriously on issues around accusing people of crimes and C, I do think that we're in a little bit of a dangerous territory where there are people whose names are being dragged through the mud who maybe didn't do anything wrong. We talked about, you know, Nellie Bowles or whatever. So I am not trying to like double down on some position or I hear the criticisms people are leveling. I think Jeffrey Epstein was an extremely bad, evil person. I think that's pretty clear. I would love to see more concrete evidence coming out of these Epstein files that is prosecutable and that functions as leads. Because I want accountability like everybody else does. But I also want to be tempered and measured and careful when we talk about this stuff. Just one last example. An email that somebody sent me personally, a redacted email that was like to Epstein and said I really enjoyed the torture video or something like that. And then there's been all the speculation about who the sender was and. And somebody wrote to me like, well, how do you see this? And you don't like understand or know that there's like, think about like the horrific stuff Epstein must have been pushing around to people. And then you go look at news articles from around the time period the email was sent and there was this huge story in the news from back then about this torture video that was aired during a congressional hearing from the United Arab Emirates or something. It was just a political news story that happened. Somebody emailed Epstein about it and it turns in 15 years later they're like, oh, Epstein was sharing torture videos of kids in some sex dungeon or something. And I'm not willing to admit it. It's little stuff like that that I'm seeing over and over again. So all this stuff together is why again, I'm trying to be careful. I'm also trying to be open minded. I'm trying to hear the feedback from our audience because I mean, I don't have to try to be open minded on this issue. There's a lot of stuff I want to know. I just think there's a lot of sketchy info out there also, and I think we should approach this stuff with skepticism, even if it's easy to want or believe that everybody in Epstein's circle is like some horrible elite criminal who's doing terrible things. So I don't know. I'm not sure how any of this lands. I respect the work of Julie Brown. I respect what Ro Khanna is doing. I respect the work of Michael Tracy in a lot of ways. In some ways, not so much. I want to talk to all of them. That's what the show is about. That's what Tangle is about. I've heard and read the feedback from you guys. I hope that you see I'm picking spots where I feel like there's rock solid stuff that I want to know more about and talking about it. But I'm also trying to just better communicate why I carry some skepticism into these stories and why I'm a little bit nervous about just the let's hang them all in the town square vibe that I'm getting right now around just these big out of context file dumps. That's where I'm at. We'll be right back after this quick break. A well built wardrobe is about pieces that work together and hold up over time. That's what Quince does best. Premium materials, thoughtful design and everyday staples that feel easy to wear and easy to rely on even as the weather shifts. Quince has the everyday essentials I love with quality that lasts. Organic cotton sweaters, Polos for every occasion, lighter jackets that keep you warm warm in the changing seasons. The list goes on and on. Quince works directly with top factories and cuts out the middlemen. So you're not paying for brand markup, just quality clothing. As I sit here recording this advertisement, right now I'm wearing my Quince cashmere hoodie. It's one of my favorite pieces out of their winter and fall collection. It's ridiculously soft and it does not cost a fortune. So if you want to, you can go refresh your wardrobe with Quince right now. Go to quint.comtangle for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. Now available in Canada too. That's Q-U-I-N-C-E.comtangle free shipping and 365 day returns. Quince.comtangle

[Ad Voice (BetterHelp)]

better help. Online Therapy bought this 30 second ad to remind you right now wherever you are, to unclench your jaw, relax your shoulders, take a deep breath in and out. Feels better, right? That's 15 seconds of self care. Imagine what you could do with more. Visit betterhelp.com randompodcast for 10% off your first month of therapy. No pressure, just help. But for now, just relax.

[Isaac Zol]

All right? I just, I have, I don't know how well John's going to be edit this, going to be able to edit this podcast, but I'm in the midst of an insane coughing fit, which is great timing because we're going to move on from the Epstein stuff for now. And we're going to talk about Ari's take today, which I want to dig into a little bit more. Ari, obviously some people don't listen to the podcast every single day, so maybe you could start by just setting the table about what just happened, what you wrote about a little bit today, the basics of the story. It's the introduction to the daily podcast. And then we can talk a little bit about your take.

[Ari Weitzman]

Let's do that. So basically, last Thursday, the EPA administrator, Lee Zeldin, made this announcement that he talked about making for a while. We covered this actually last July, which was repealing the EPA's endangerment finding. That's something that matters to a lot of people who follow environmental regulations because it is the bedrock principle that undergirds almost every regulation for greenhouse gases that the EPA makes. It is itself based on the a revision to the Clean air Act from 1970. So this law isn't new. It's Nixon era. It's something that has been existing for a while. It allows the Environmental Protection Agency, which again is a Nixon era, something that came out of the Nixon era. And it says that the Clean Air act does the federal government can regulate airborne pollutants. Around 2007, the government or the EPA decided that it wanted to try to see if around 2007, the EPA decided that it wanted to classify greenhouse gases as pollutants under the Clean Air Act. That was challenged in court. And in a finding called Massachusetts for the epa, the Supreme Court found that greenhouse gases mix or they meet the Clean Air Act's definition of an airborne pollutant. And therefore the EPA is required, not allowed to, but required therefore to regulate them. So that finding is known as the endangerment finding, the one that says these are airborne pollutants. As such, the EPA then then released emission standards for what can come out of tailpipes. It allowed the Obama administration to create legislation and initiatives that went to both incentivize electric vehicles as well as power plant emissions and manufacturing emissions and made regulations about how much could come out of smokestacks as well as the tailpipe. It. Then during the Obama administration, they used it to inform some of the guidelines for efficiency standards, which is where things kind of get off the rails a little bit, because I think a lot of the story and that's where I kind of went down a rabbit hole for a while. Because a lot of the story that we hear is this endangerment finding. It's what allows the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases as emissions. That's all true. But I've also found that it turns out it is not at all the only thing that allows the federal government to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, at least by proxy. There's other things that they use to do that. And also California, with its sort of junior president in the governor's mansion, gets to set a lot of what become de facto regulations for the United States. I mean, it's a little bit of an inside joke for tangle that I had like 50 previous jobs, and one of those previous jobs is I was a mattress salesman. And one of the things that I learned as a mattress salesman is that there's a little tag on all of your mattresses that says a lot of stuff about don't remove this tag. But part of it is this contains some sort of required fire retardant, because California passed the law after somebody was smoking in their bed and then the cigarette burned the mattress and then they immolated, which is a terrible way to go. California passed the law saying mattresses have to have some sort of fire retardant. That's a California law. But because mattress companies want to sell to California, every mattress that you buy is going to be compliant with California's regulation. So every mattress has a flame retardant. That's kind of the same with greenhouse gases. California has really stringent laws about what you're allowed to like, what the standards have to be for tailpipe emissions. So if you want to sell to California, you have to meet it. And you don't want to have separate production line. So you just say, this is our standard everywhere. I'm sort of getting into my take here now a little bit. But this is part of the stories going back to 2025. In July, the Trump administration repeal or they released a finding or they invoked a law in order to say, we're going to say this is no longer something you can do to California. California sued. That's working its way through the states now. That's one aspect of it. Greenhouse gas emissions regulated by the federal government is another aspect. And then efficiency standards regulated by the Department of Transportation is a whole other ball of wax. But all that we really hear about is endangerment findings getting repealed. Is that good or bad? Should it be the federal government's job to do this? And it sort of misses the forest through the trees because we're still going to have federal emissions.

[Isaac Zol]

Okay, okay, let me ask you, most straightforward way I can, what is actually going to change now? Like, are cars going to be emitting a lot more greenhouse gases now because of this ruling? What happens next?

[Ari Weitzman]

It's pretty weird because first, cars that are going to be released for 2027 are kind of already finalized. Those are already in production now. So next year's vehicles, they're not going to change at all. So really, we're thinking about 2028, and that's something that manufacturers are starting to develop now. A lot of these models are not going to change a lot between now and then, which means these businesses are mostly trying to project further out. So they're thinking, what are my actual constraints going to be after the midterms? And it's hard to really know. So for the time being, not a ton is really going to change for vehicles, for the law itself. What will change after that horizon? Let's say that there's a Congress after the midterms that's not too different than this one. So there's no change to this standard. What automakers are going to do, assuming that this is like the greenhouse gas endangerment findings gone, and the EPA just has the regulation on the books that they have now, that means that tailpipe emission standards for cars aren't going to include greenhouse gas emissions. So every car that's made it has to pass some sort of standard for what comes out of the back of the tailpipe. And that includes, but is not limited to greenhouse gas emissions. The endangerment finding added that, but generally that means, and has before, the endangerment finding meant nitrous oxides, fuel vapor, well, mixed particulate matter, that stuff they still have to meet. And usually those things are really intermingled. So if you have a car that burns really dirty, it's probably the case that you're going to get some of those emission standards just by meaning for greenhouse gases, just by meaning the tailpipe standards that already exist. So any change there is going to be a little bit marginal, and it's going to apply in a really surprising way to efficiency standards, which it relates to a second thing that Lee Zeldin did, which is he said, I'm repealing the standard. And then he said candidly, as a bonus, I'm also removing off cycle credits that go into things like this auto start stop feature that people hate. Now that's gone. So you won't see those on cars anymore. Weirdly. Weirdly it honestly, hell yeah. I mean, two weeks ago. I only learned about this feature two weeks ago. Candidly, just because our friend and young person who's going to take our jobs one day, Russell, he posted on our Team Slack, that's like, look, Zelda is saying that they're going to kill this feature. And I was like, russell, what the hell is that? This start stop thing, I've never heard of it. I'm operating off of like inherited 30 year old outdated knowledge that says if you turn the car off, you have to wait two minutes in order to get efficiency gains from the idling engine because the ignition itself is going to release more fuel than you'll get from two minutes of idling. That hasn't been true ever since carburetors weren't standard. I didn't know that. So that's something that does lead to genuine fuel savings, especially if you do city driving. But it is annoying and

[Isaac Zol]

the research on it is actually kind of remarkable. It does seem to save a lot of fuel. The thing that I always wonder is, does it fry the starter on the car? Because like you're just. The ignition is just happening over and over again, like, and I'm sure they're figuring that out. I didn't know I was driving a 2006 Honda CR V for years. And before that I had like an 80s Civic and I've never had a new car. And then I bought the Kia Telluride a couple years ago and that has the auto start feature. And I will say, to me, it's very annoying. I turn it off most of the time I'm driving, I hate to admit because I'm pretty sure it does save gas and probably reduces emissions, but it's just like, yeah, the light changes and then the car turns on and there's just this weird delay before you can drive and it. Yeah, I don't. Yeah, it just feels weird. I don't like when like the car feels like it shuts down. Like I want to be able to move really quick.

[Ari Weitzman]

It feels like you lose a bit of control.

[Isaac Zol]

Yeah, I don't know. I don't love that.

[Ari Weitzman]

But you know, it's weird. This rule might make it more likely that that feature stays in place. Yeah.

[Isaac Zol]

Why?

[Ari Weitzman]

Because in ending these credits, these off cycle Credits are used by the National Highway Transit Safety Administration, which is under the Department of Transportation, which if you know your Civics 101, the Department of Transportation is not the Environmental Protection Agency. It's a completely different thing. And they regulate efficiency standards. So what the EPA does is they say, well, we're already measuring tailpipe emissions and greenhouse gas emissions, so we're going to do you a solid. This is an Obama era thing from like 2010 to 2012. They try to couple these things together so it'd be more unified and easier. Easier for automakers to know what they had to do. They said the EPA did. We're going to convert off cycle features like start stop, like adding glazing to your car that's going to reflect more light so it doesn't heat up as much like vents that close when you're on the highway to reduce drag. All these little things that go into adding up to more fuel efficiency that doesn't get measured at the pipe at the tailpipe. For the epa, they said, we're going to convert, we're going to make some sort of calculation that converts this emission standard to an efficiency standard. We're going to allow the National Highway Transit Safety Administration to use those as something that you can credit for a car maker towards their ability to meet those separate set of standards. So that means like Kia, for example, they're, they want, like their Telluride has to pass admission standards, but every car that Kia makes all together as a fleet have to pass efficiency standards from the Department of Transportation. Does that make sense so far?

[Isaac Zol]

Yeah, that makes.

[Ari Weitzman]

So Telluride's one of the more popular models that Kia sells in the United States. So the way that they. So that means it counts more because they average it out based off sales. Everything's weighted. So if Kia sells a bunch of Tellurides, that means that their efficiencies are going to go down compared to their sedans and other models that are smaller and more fuel efficient. So Kia, if they want to pass these efficiency standards, they need a little bit of help. The way they get that is these off cycle credits that the EPA's calculating, they can apply those against their efficiency standard metric and then that kind of lowers what they're doing so they can get under that bar. With those credits gone, that means Key is going to need a little bit of help clearing that bar. However, that may not disappear right away because there's this weird legal limbo state where these efficiency standards are calculated or these credits are calculated by the epa. Now Lee Zeldin's saying they're not any more. Poof, that's gone. But the credits are still there. So it's sort of like if you're doing your math homework and you show all your work and you get your answer and then you just erase all your work. The answer's still there, but we just don't know how you got it. But you're like, okay, well, we have this, so we're going to use it. So that's not going to change. But in the future, if the Department of Transportation wants to change their crediting system, they now have the ability to say, we don't have a way to calculate this, so we're not going to use it again. Which is something that automakers wouldn't want. Anyone makes Start Stop features probably more likely to be in place because they do help efficiency and they're not getting double counted for credit. So they're going to have to double use it. They'll have to put it in more cars in order to meet their standards.

[Isaac Zol]

Got it. Okay. All right. I think that all makes sense. There is a lot going on here. We'll be right back after this quick break.

[Ari Weitzman]

Well, the holidays have come and gone once again. But if you've forgotten to get that special someone in your life a gift, well, Mint Mobile is extending their holiday offer of half off unlimited wireless. So here's the idea. You get it now, you call it an early present for next year. What do you have to lose? Give it a [e-mail] Switch limited time.

[Commercial Narrator]

50% off regular price for new customers. Upfront payment required $45 for 3 months, $90 for 6 month or $180 for 12 month plan taxes and fees.

Extra speeds may slow after 50 gigabytes per month when network is busy, see terms.

Blood donation is now more inclusive. More people are able to donate blood with the American Red Cross through FDA guidelines that eliminate eligibility questions based on sexual orientation. The Red Cross celebrates this historic change and welcomes those who may be newly eligible to donate blood. There's a place for everyone in the mission of the Red Cross. The Red Cross is committed to achieving an inclusive blood donation process that treats all potential donors with equality and respect while maintaining the safety of the blood supply. Join us and help save save lives. To learn more and make your appointment to donate blood, visit redcrossblood.org LGBTQ that's redcrossblood.org LGBTQ.

[Isaac Zol]

I wanted to ask you one question because I was reading about this and one of the pieces I read was from National Reviews editors, which we cited today in the newsletter. I think you didn't really address their piece, which is fine. You can't. There's six arguments in every story. And I know from writing that takes so much that you can't address every argument that comes up, but I slacked you about it. I liked your response, so I wanted to talk about it a little bit here on the air. This is, this was the national. This was National Reviews framing. Which is the greater public menace, ubiquitous greenhouse gases or the contraction of economic liberty necessary to limit their emission for over 15 years? The federal government chose to target the former at the seemingly limitless expense of the latter. But not anymore. How do you respond to that?

[Ari Weitzman]

Yeah, I mean, I don't think we're really changing anything for car emissions right now.

[Isaac Zol]

The.

[Ari Weitzman]

I mean, not with the endangerment finding anyway. So I do want to address that head on. But in order to do so, we have to leave the land of the endangerment finding and go towards another thing the Trump administration's doing, which is this like whole other three paragraph thing that I ended up cutting from the take because it's just too long, which is they lowered the efficiency standards through this new suite of regulations called Care 3, which is like an acronym about like efficient electric vehicles. I'm not sure exactly what it is, but it essentially lowers that bar. So that limbo that Kia and other car makers have to get credits to like the, that they need the credits to help them get under the bar, that limbo that they're doing, the bar is now like really easy to clear because the Trump administration raised it and they, the civil lawsuit mechanism, the big Beautiful Bill act, removed it. So even if they don't clear the bar, the government's not going to sue them. So the National Review's premise of saying, okay, the regulation state's gone. That is already the case. That already happened last year. It just kind of came and went without us realizing it. The endangerment finding is this big flashing light that's really, it's like a lightning rod for this stuff. But the major news event already happened. We can have the conversation. But it's something that, you know, it's, it's about a completely different thing, which is the deregulation the Trump administration already did over the summer. So do we.

[Isaac Zol]

Hold on one second? Could you pause right there? I think one of the things about the. I'll speak like there's something about National Reviews perspective or like, I don't know what it's called, I guess it's a perspective that they're taking a lane that they're taking that's somewhat resonant with me, which is like, the federal government can't stop this from happening. We're responsible for 13% of global emissions. China, India are industrializing and they're emitting more than we are. And some federal regulations aren't going to make a meaningful dent in climate change. And it's just like if we're making cars more expensive and costing jobs and hurting the economy, is it really worth it? Do you buy any of that? How do you feel? And I know to me, I think where I ultimately land is I would rather us lead and also try and make the small dent than not do anything. Because I think climate change is real and I think humans are causing it. And I think we should do something to address it. And you don't have to be. It's not like a big green scam thing. It's just like care about the environment and you want clean air and you want clean water and you don't want desertification and massive storms and flooding and whatever, and we can do some stuff to help mitigate those things. So I don't think I agree with National Abuse editors, but I do find part of that argument appealing in some particular way. I'm wondering how it lands.

[Ari Weitzman]

Well, there's kind of three things here. First is the idea of economic advancement versus regulation that's holding us back. And I think this is sort of the Ben Shapiro line of abundant energy allows people and has for time immemorial to elevate themselves up out of poverty. And when energy is more expensive and we tax simple, easy to access fossil fuels makes it harder for people to access energy, which makes it easier for the rich to stay rich and the poor to stay poor. That's pretty cogent, I think, and it does invite actual legitimately difficult questions to wrangle with of which of these two things are we going to hold up as more important the ability for us to regulate our shared global environment, which is more connected in ways that that than we've ever seen and we understand in ways we never have? Or is it more important to make coal easy for people in rural India to use or like for farmers to burn peat, which is extremely carbon intensive, so that they can actually have something, something to burn and some fuel? That's not an easy question. But the best answer to it is that countries like us regulate like we aren't burning coal because it's not efficient. We have other fuel sources. It's not actually some hippie greeny thing to say we should use them because they're making cheaper, easier to access energy for us. And that's going to offset some of the countries that are still developing. So it doesn't actually feel like a paradox to me. The second thing that comes to mind is this freedom of choice versus regulation state argument. And I think there's always going to be a conflict there too. I think there's kind of give and take to it, and honestly, the regulation suite that we already have does a pretty decent job to me of threading that needle. If you are somebody who needs a lot of towing capacity or passenger capacity for a large vehicle, those credits we're talking about allows you to have a fleet that clears that bar. It offsets what they're doing, emitting so you can get those vehicles. They're not being credited to the same degree that like your Priuses are. So that economic choice isn't something that's as easy to make. But if you need a big truck, you're not going to buy a Prius anyway. And if you need a big truck, you're probably not going to buy a Ford Maverick because its towing capacity is like 4k. If you need 8k, it's not going to do the job. So the ability for you to get the freedom of choice already exists, but you're just not getting a little bit of incentive from the government for it. And I think that's fair. Now, the third thing is something of like, should we lead here? Is it important that the United States is doing this instead of China? And something that's interesting to me, that stood out when I was reading the National Review article is they said, I'm going to read from the article here. If nothing else, the end of the endangerment finding is a triumph for realistic governance over moral fanaticism, since the EPA was never going to avert significant, significant climate change with any regulatory scheme it could devise. The United States contributes less than 13% of global emissions, a shrinking share. So the thing that stands out to me there is a shrinking share that didn't just happen like that's the. That's the outcome of us having regulation that tries to incentivize these choices. So in my mind, the shrinking share is good. And the National Review seems to think so too. It's kind of a false dichotomy they're setting up between we're going to have a policy that eliminates fossil fuels entirely in some sort of grand regulatory State versus we can't do anything here. Like, we're trying to thread this needle. At the same time, I appreciate that there's going to be voices like the National Review trying to argue that we've gone too far. Like, that's the role of a lot of peoples to make that argument. I find myself on the other end of it saying, like, I understand there's trade offs, but I think most of them are worth it, and I think we should probably pursue them where it's appropriate.

[Isaac Zol]

Yeah, I think that's a really good response. I think I'm like, you articulated what feels wrong to me about that approach. I didn't catch the 13%, a decreasing share thing, but yeah, I think that's a keen eye for just this little data point they seem to be throwing out that they think is making their point. That kind of undermines it, which is.

[Ari Weitzman]

It's like the ozone layer hole thing that people throw up. It's like, whatever happened in that risk, we did stuff. It was a good thing.

[Isaac Zol]

Yeah, we fixed it. We actually. Yeah, it worked. We had like, science and NASA and people who looked at it and knew what to do to change it.

[Ari Weitzman]

And then people cooperated and look what happened.

[Isaac Zol]

Yeah. All right, well, Ari, I promised you a one hour show because it's late where you are, and now I'm forcing a one hour show because my child just fell face first downstairs and is apparently bleeding. And I'm going to go. Yeah, help Omri recover. I'm sure he's fine. He's learning to walk. This is all part of it. But, yeah, speaking of Omri, we got to do some grievances, and I have a child specific one today, so. John, you can. You can play the music.

[Ad Voice (BetterHelp)]

The airing of grievances.

[Ari Weitzman]

Between you and me, I think your country is placing a lot of importance on shoe removal.

[Isaac Zol]

All right, I'll. I'll start. And Ari, I'm trusting that you have one, too.

[Ari Weitzman]

I have a child related one, too. Here's my grievance, but not in the way you might expect, but go ahead. That's my cliffhanger.

[Isaac Zol]

Interesting. Okay, so I did the dad solo dad trip. First time. We've traveled with Omri a bunch, Phoebe and I together, but this was the first time I'd flown with him by myself. Is that true? Yeah, I think that's true. Maybe I can't answer this question. Definitely the first time. Yeah. Okay. Yeah, but this is a big flight. We're. I think I already said we're out in Phoenix just for A couple days. A few days for a family reunion. Amri's downstairs playing with his cousins, which is how he just got hurt. And it was supposed to be a five hour flight turning a six and a half hour flight. And I was crushing it. Just like every little thing that came up, I packed the thing I needed to solve it. I was feeling myself on the plane. There was good vibes, nice people on the plane giving me compliments about dadding it up. And Omri did awesome. He was like so good on the whole flight. I was texting Phoebe like this amazing. We did it. We have the best kid ever. I'm so happy that we can. I can like travel with him alone. It's not the end of the world. Whatever. It just felt really good. And I made one mistake, which is we got off the plane. I went to rent the car, so I had to like, you know, I'm carrying tons of bags and I loaded everything, right. We're like traversing the rental car place and I'm keeping him awake so I can nap him when we get to the Airbnb to kind of like reset his schedule and get him on the west coast time. And when we left the rental car place, I forgot to change his diaper, which, like, he was due, he needed a change. But I just like loaded him up in the car seat and I was like making sure I have everything, counting bags, counting bottles, giving him stuff in the back to keep himself busy. Had like a 20 minute drive to the Airbnb and in the last five minutes of the ride, he just really started freaking out in the back. And I was like, wow, the tiredness is finally catching up to him. And then we got to the Airbnb and he was just like completely covered in his own pee. Like, had pissed through his diaper, which I had not changed. And then like peed all in the car seat and like then sat in it and like his clothes were soaked and he was like so upset. And I was so upset. Cause I was like, I almost like, I was in the very last, like the last five minutes of the last drive of like a 12 hour trip.

[Ari Weitzman]

You were one out away from a

[Isaac Zol]

perfect game to just like get him in the one out away from a perfect game.

[Ari Weitzman]

Dude. And.

[Isaac Zol]

And it was my fault. It was totally my fault. And it was uncomfortable and sucked for him. So I had to like strip him down. And first of all, the family like came out to greet us. So grandparents, aunts, you know, like, come out.

[Ari Weitzman]

Oh.

[Isaac Zol]

And I'm like, you can't actually hold him right now. Cause he's soaking wet in his own piss because of me. So I'm sorry about that.

[Ari Weitzman]

And trust me, this is not representative of the performance that I put in.

[Isaac Zol]

Everybody watching?

[Ari Weitzman]

Yes.

[Isaac Zol]

That's not how our day went at all. We had a great day. I was a perfect dad all day. But like, here, the moment I have to present him to the family, he. He's just covered in his own urine. And. Yeah, so that's my grievance is one out away from a perfect game, and I put one right over the plate. Fastball right down the middle at the very moment the whole family was going to come out and see him and crush him. Yeah. So, yeah, that's my agreement.

[Ari Weitzman]

That's completely different from mine, which is I'm having this. This weird experience that I don't think that I've had since I was like 10, 9. I'm not sure which is. I can feel my teeth realigning. So I now there's like two teeth in my mouth that are connecting in a way that they never have before. Like, I can close my mouth and I can feel these two teeth touching. And it's extremely alien to me. So I spend so much time when I'm just idly doing nothing, like touching those two teeth. And like, wow, look at that. Huh? That's weird. And I don't know if I'm ever going to get past it. I feel like a basket case. Like I'm in the middle of a nightmare where I'm like, somebody else's mouth is in my mouth and it's going to take me forever to adjust to this. I thought I was past it. Maybe also my fault because I've never worn my retainer, but retainers are dumb. So I also don't think it's my fault, but now that I say it, it probably is.

[Isaac Zol]

Agree. Yeah. Wow. Good one.

[Ari Weitzman]

That's really strange. It's tough to communicate to people, for whatever it's worth.

[Isaac Zol]

Similarly odd tooth story. I. For like two years, I wasn't wearing my retainer either. Because I'm not a loser. Yeah. Now might be the ruined. I went from having like a normal bite to like a even bite where when I closed, it was like my front tooth and my bottom tooth touched. And then that was like the case for two years. And then it went back to normal. I didn't do anything.

[Ari Weitzman]

It just shifted.

[Isaac Zol]

Just like, I just kind of got a little bit more of an overbite again. And now when I close my mouth, my bite's perfect. And I don't know how or why that's happened or how that could even be possible, but it's what happened. So maybe your teeth will just go back to how they were before. And that's how.

[Ari Weitzman]

I mean, that's the thing.

[Isaac Zol]

I wish that.

[Ari Weitzman]

I hope so, too. I think teeth just shift. That's kind of what happens. And I remember I. The last time I went to the dentist, I said to them, I feel like there's like, these teeth are closer. They hadn't quite touched yet, but I was aware of it and I was like, I feel like maybe I'm sucking my teeth at night and I'm pulling the teeth in and they're like, yeah, that's not really how that works. That's a nice try, that. Like, really nice medical professional. They're like, it's a good try. They pat you on the head. They're like, no, teeth just move. And I was like, yeah, yeah, I reject that. I want control over what's happening in here, but I guess you just don't have it. You kind of have to accept that there's shards of bone sticking out of flesh that's inside your body sort of that other people can see, and they're just going to do what they want. I don't love it. Teeth are weird.

[Isaac Zol]

I hear you. Kind of wolveriney.

[Ari Weitzman]

Yeah.

[Isaac Zol]

I think. What was the quote you just said? I think teeth just shift. That's what happens. I'm going to put that on your tombstone, Ari Weitzman.

[Ari Weitzman]

Surely I've said better things than that.

[Isaac Zol]

Yeah. There's something maybe low key, profound about that that we could ruminate on for a little bit, but that sounds like an awful podcast, so I'm going to end it now.

[Ari Weitzman]

We'll leave that as an exercise to listener then.

[Isaac Zol]

Yeah, thanks for joining me. I'm going to go clean up my kid's bloody face, I guess. And yeah, appreciate you being here and I'll see you guys soon. So have a good one.

[Ari Weitzman]

Your teeth never shift.

[Isaac Zol]

Peace. Our executive editor and founder is me, Isaac Zol. And our executive producer is John Lowell. Today's episode was edited and engineered by Dewey Thomas. Our editorial staff is led by managing editor Ari Weitzman, with Senior editor Will K. Back and associate editors Audrey Moorhead, Lindsay Knuth and Bailey Saul. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet75. To learn more about Tangle and to sign up for a membership, please visit our [e-mail].

[Commercial Narrator]

Guys, it's no use putting it off. The best time for an underwear refresh is now Tommy John Underwear is designed for a perfect fit that stays put all day. There's zero chafe thanks to four times more stretch than competing brands and their innovative horizontal Quick Draw fly is a game changer. With over 30 million pairs sold, there are thousands of men out there more comfortable than you. Don't settle for less. Go to tommyjohn.com today for 25% off your first order with code comfort. That's tommyjohn.comfort Tommy John comfort Perfected Pro

athletes don't spend their time meal prepping. They eat smart, train hard and recover fast. Factor makes it easy with Dietitian designed chef prepared meals built to fuel your performance. Choose from High protein calorie smart GLP1 support and vegetarian options designed by nutrition experts to support strength and recovery. Train like a pro. Eat like a pro Right now go to FactorMeals.com healthy50off and use code healthy50OFF for 50% off and free promotional breakfast for a year. That's FactorMeals.com healthy50OFF code healthy50OFF hey, this

is Paige from Giggly Squad. We all have way too many subscriptions and bills and no good way to manage or track all of them. But now we have Experian. It's the best place to manage your finances because you can connect all of your accounts in one place, track all your spending, and you can let Experian do the work of finding ways to to save you money. January is the perfect time to get your finances in order. It's the perfect new year resolution. Let your big financial friend Experian do the work for you. So get started today with the Experian app. Now.