Not Even Mad: Ruy Teixeira and Jesse Adams

Summary

Podcast Summary: The Gist – “Not Even Mad: Ruy Teixeira and Jesse Adams”

Date: January 29, 2026
Host: Mike Pesca
Guests: Ruy Teixeira (The Liberal Patriot), Jesse Adams (The Ivy Exile/The Washington Examiner)

---

Episode Overview

In this edition of "Not Even Mad," Mike Pesca convenes a roundtable with political analyst Ruy Teixeira and journalist Jesse Adams for a spirited yet measured discussion about immigration enforcement under Trump, public and political responses to recent ICE tragedies, and America’s evolving relationship with Europe post-Greenland-summit. The conversation mixes sober political analysis, memorable quotes, and the hosts’ trademark witticisms. Later, the hosts share candid “goat grinders” (pet peeves) about sports commentary, TV salaries, and the slow demise of common cultural touchpoints.

---

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. ICE Aggression and Minnesota Tragedies

(08:05–32:50)

• Setting the table: The conversation centers on recent ICE-related killings in Minnesota and their impact on public sentiment and Trump administration policy.
• Pesca highlights the repeated pattern: after each overreach or tragedy, Trump’s response is to reassign personnel but double down rhetorically, not to moderate policy.
  • “He essentially called [Republican senators] losers, because even killings…are not going to get that tiger to change his stripes.” (09:00)
• Jesse Adams critiques the Trump approach: current ICE tactics play to the more racist parts of the Trump base but don't meaningfully curb illegal immigration. The real solution is employer enforcement, which is politically unpopular.
  • “It’s chum in the water that satisfies perhaps the more racist parts of the Trump base, but it’s not effective.” (11:19 – Jesse)
• Ruy Teixeira contextualizes ICE excesses as a consequence, partially, of the prior Democratic administration’s lack of robust border enforcement, leading to a backlash:
  • “The predicate for what’s going on today goes back to Democrats and particularly Biden’s policies…they basically have not been too interested in border enforcement for a long time.” (12:22 – Ruy)
  • Trump proved shutting the border was possible, but in "interior enforcement," his coalition unleashed unnecessarily aggressive tactics, especially in sanctuary cities, resulting in tragedy.
• The Cruelty Debate: Pesca references Adam Serwer’s “the cruelty is the point” argument. Jesse Adams asserts that perceived cruelty is partly unavoidable and partly political theater to deter would-be migrants, but sees real enforcement as a form of protection for American workers.
  • “Some degree of cruelty is just absolutely unavoidable…if it isn’t a sword of Damocles hanging over somebody’s head, then they have no reason not to come.” (17:29 – Jesse)
  • “I just tend to see immigration enforcement as more a measure of love and protection for working class Americans…than cruelty of wanting to throw people out.” (20:10 – Jesse)
• Ruy’s Rebuttal: He agrees that necessary enforcement involves difficult trade-offs, but critiques the narrative of “cruelty is the point” as a dodge:
  • “Framing it as just cruelty or not cruelty, the farther away you are from a solution.” (24:48 – Ruy)

2. Public Opinion and Political Fallout

• Pesca cites polling: Americans broadly support interior enforcement (72%), but over half (54%) think ICE is too forceful if it sweeps beyond real criminals.
  • “On the one hand, shows maybe the reasonableness of Americans. On the other hand, maybe it shows their wishful thinking.” (21:18)
• Ruy notes that prior to the killings, ICE and Trump’s immigration numbers were already slipping, suggesting public disillusionment had been building.
  • “Even before the apotheosis of these problems…approval of ICE was losing altitude.” (26:38)
• The hosts point out that friction is worsened because of non-cooperation by Democratic-run “sanctuary cities.”
  • “If authorities in Democratic-run cities had cooperated with ICE…incendiary situations [would be] far less.” (27:57 – Ruy)
• Both sides—ICE agents and activists—are blamed for escalating tensions; the Trump administration is critiqued for “wanting the conflict,” but is now losing public support.

3. Solutions and Missteps

• Jesse advocates for carrots and sticks: incentivize cooperation by threatening federal funding (e.g., highway funds)—a more surgical approach than blanket crackdowns.
  • “If [Trump] could…incentivize [sanctuary leaders] to minimally cooperate just by making it really clear, you’re going to lose a third of your highway funds…” (31:16 – Jesse)
• Ruy agrees: A more calibrated policy would have been effective and less destructive, but “shock and awe” is the governing instinct of the Trump team.

---

4. Trump and America’s Role in Europe

(34:15–54:29)

• Recent “Greenland” episode: Trump’s saber rattling and performative desire to acquire Greenland as leverage at a NATO summit is dissected.
• Jesse: It was partly egotistical—Trump wants to make a historic territorial gain on the nation’s 250th birthday—but mostly a negotiation tactic: demand far more than you expect to get.
  • “He added the most territory since the Gadsden purchase or whatever, and that it was on America’s birthday.” (35:45 – Jesse)
• Ruy: Trump “loves to mess with people’s heads.” While overdone, his aggressive posture prompted needed reflection on Europe’s overreliance on the US and challenges to their welfare/social model. Trump’s “theatrics are part of what you buy with Trump, but it’s not like there’s not a rational kernel in there.” (38:50)
• The guests agree that, despite bluster, Trump highlights real issues: Europe’s underinvestment in security, mismanagement of migration, and institutional stagnation.
• Ukraine as a Turning Point: The ambivalence of U.S. leadership in Ukraine and the rise of populist parties in Europe leave European leaders especially jumpy and uncertain.

5. Is NATO Obsolete or Just Changing?

• Pesca: Argues it's overwhelmingly in the US interest to maintain a NATO alliance, despite allies’ shortcomings. The alternative—letting Russia regain influence—is riskier.
  • “Germany essentially without an army. France with an army, but only in Africa…If you said this was going to be the situation…most historians would say wow, what a great situation.” (45:31)
• Jesse questions NATO’s future role, citing deep demographic and cultural changes, especially in the UK, and the EU’s democratic deficit.
  • “I’m not sure how useful or relevant NATO will be in another 20 years.” (47:16 – Jesse)
• Ruy: Suggests Europe must recalibrate expectations and focus on a more realistic, mutual defense framework. Pretense that nothing has changed is unwise:
  • “Let’s not pretend everything’s great and nothing needs to change and Europe and America are exactly the same as they ever were.” (50:20)

6. American Honor and the Weight of Alliance

• Pesca admits to feeling “ashamed” of Trump’s posture given NATO’s loyalty to the U.S. (e.g., after 9/11, Denmark’s disproportionate sacrifice).
  • “Isn’t it a bit shameful that the only time Article 5 was ever invoked, it was to help the United States after 9/11…?” (51:02)
• Jesse agrees Trump’s rhetoric is “shameful,” but also feels Europe has taken the US for granted. Ruy summarizes: “No more Mr. Nice Guy” has been said for years, but Trump is the only one who means it—though he always overdoes it.
  • “It seems to be hard either left or right to have a reasonable but strong approach to a lot of these issues and not overdo it in either direction.” (54:29 – Ruy)

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• Jesse Adams on employer enforcement:
  “The priority should be going after unscrupulous employers rather than tackling day laborers in Home Depot parking lots.” (11:37)

• Ruy Teixeira on public opinion:
  “People now associate what the Trump administration is doing in terms of interior enforcement with…rounding up day laborers…that’s not necessary to actually have effective interior enforcement.” (22:25)

• Mike Pesca on political style:
  “A lack of excess does not characterize their methods or their thinking.” (20:31)

• Jesse Adams on Blue Bloods spin-off:
  “So Blue Bloods was the equivalent of like eating a big meaty chuck steak…Boston Blue…is the most contrived waste of time…assuming people are looking at their phones and not paying attention kind of programming.” (58:33)

---

Timestamps for Major Segments

• [08:05] Immigration, ICE killings, interior enforcement debate begins
• [11:14] Jesse: critique of Trump’s tactics and call for employer focus
• [12:22] Ruy: Democratic policies as the predicate for the backlash
• [16:30] The “Bankruptcy of Democrats’ Don’t Be Cruel” approach
• [22:25] Public opinion on interior enforcement (with stats)
• [27:57] Ruy: Sanctuary city cooperation, escalation of protests
• [31:16] Jesse: Incentivizing cooperation over confrontation
• [34:15] Transition to US-Europe: Trump’s Greenland gambit, NATO worries
• [40:27] Ukraine, the “middle power” dilemma, Europe’s internal struggles
• [51:02] Pesca: American honor and the meaning of alliances
• [54:29] Transition to “Goat Grinders” (pet peeve closing segment)
• [56:06] Rui: Major League Baseball salaries and sports economics
• [56:57] Jesse: Lamenting the death of broadcast TV culture and bad spinoffs

---

Tone and Style

The conversation is candid, lively, and occasionally irreverent—a blend of wry humor and serious political critique. Pesca keeps the guests on their toes, while both Teixeira and Adams display deep expertise and ideological nuance.

---

Conclusion

This episode of The Gist delivers a substantive and lively discussion that goes beyond familiar partisan talking points. It unpacks the roots of America’s immigration enforcement crisis, examines shifting political norms in the U.S. and Europe, and injects an authentic, lived-in perspective on contemporary politics, television, and sports.

Memorable sign-off:
Pesca: “We’re not saying we’re right. We’re not saying you’re right. Oh, no, no, no. But we are saying we’re not even mad.” (61:13)

---

For further listening:

• Jesse Adams’ Substack: Ivy Exile
• Ruy Teixeira’s Substack: The Liberal Patriot

(Episode skips ads and non-content sections as requested.)

Transcript

[Mike Pesca]

The gist is brought to you by Progressive Insurance. Fiscally responsible financial geniuses, Monetary magicians. These are things people say about drivers who switch their car insurance to Progressive and save hundreds. Visit progressive.com to see if you could save Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates. Potential savings will vary. Not available in all states or situations.

[Ad Read Announcer]

Looking for a Valentine's gift she'll truly love? 1-800-flowers.com knows what she wants. For 50 years, 1-800-flowers has helped guys like you get it right, delivering millions of fresh Valentine's roses nationwide. 1-800-Flowers offers premium fresh cut flowers backed by their seven day freshness guarantee plus same day delivery when you need them on time. Valentine's is coming up and bouquets are selling fast, so don't wait on this order today at 1-800-FLowers.com podcast. That's 1-800-FLowers.COM podcast.

[Mike Pesca]

It's Thursday, January 29th, 2020 from Peach Fish Productions. It's the gist. I'm Mike Pesca and today is a not even mad day. We have Rui Teixeira who've been trying to get on for a while. I really like his Liberal Patriot, maybe even the Liberal Patriot substack. You know you don't want to Smashing Pumpkins. The Smashing Pumpkins. Definite article when it doesn't belong, but leaving it out when it does. And we also have Ivy Exile, or maybe the Ivy Exile, the Jesse Adams at the end of the show. And how do I know this if I'm talking to you now and the show comes later? Well, it's because we pre t shape the show, in my case, from a closet in Florida. But I'm back now and at the end of the show we do our goat grinders and I talked about football and I'm sometimes reticent, often reticent on the gist to talk about sports, even though it's one of my top three interests. Passion. I don't know if you just had a accurate monitor of what I spend my non news consumption family time doing. It's something to do with the world of sports. Can we include me working out in the gym? Sure, why not? Just to help my thesis. But I'm always reticent to talk about it in case, you know, I lose people in the audience who aren't here for the sports. But that's kind of crazy. I am talking about the specifically some details of the AFC Championship game. I don't know, maybe you heard those words and said what? Don't care. Maybe I'm being too reactive and thinking about my NPR days when that was a concern. But as we spoke to Chuck Klosterman about, there is no monoculture. The thing that comes closest is sports. And that AFC Championship game is going to be the second most watched thing on television this year. In fact, the second most experienced thing by Americans. There were almost 50 million people watching it and there were 57 million people watching it at its peak, according to cable ratings, which I don't quite trust for reasons that aren't important to get into. But I was hesitant, I was reticent. And it's odd because I'll dive into and talk about without really setting up who Greg Bevino is. Maybe as a good news host, I'd say Greg Bevino and then give his title or maybe just situate him as the on the ground commander of the ICE forces or the Border Patrol troops, first at Midway Blitz and now in Metro Surge. These are the very testosterone laden names of going into Chicago and Minneapolis. But I'll just say Greg Bevino without any clarification or other context. And maybe I shouldn't. Maybe I am assuming that people know or read in on aspects of news and culture that they aren't and assuming or worrying that they're not familiar with things that are as close to ubiquitous as can be in America. And I only say this about Greg Bevino. I mean, if you know the guy, you know the guy. But I was talking to a person who's very, very interested in everything that's going on with ice in Minnesota. And he watches a lot of cable news, Ms. now, but he did not recognize the name. I know this person watched the AFC Championship game, but if you asked him which are you more concerned or knowledgeable about? I am almost certain they'd say Minnesota and ice. And yet I don't know. I'm sure they could name Patrick Certain or individual defensive players on the Denver Broncos. So it's a little contemplation about what interests us and how we name that which is important, but live and actually experience the world in a different way than what we name as the important things and the things that are worth paying attention to. All right, if that's not interesting, don't worry. This show is Rui Teixeira. Jesse Adams not even mad. Up next. I don't even know where to start with folding a fitted sheet in the middle somewhere. And hims can't help you with that either, but it can help you with other aspects of performance in bed. So if you have Ed, it doesn't mean your love life is over. With hims, it may be getting started or some rocket fuel. Through hims, you can access personalized prescription treatments for ed, though not for fitted sheets. You need a prescription, but getting a prescription is very easy if you qualify and the price is really affordable. Generics that cost 95% less than name brands if prescribed, they bring the experts straight to you. It's all online personalized treatment, and it's not a one size fits all care that forgets you in the waiting room. They put your health and goals first with real medical providers. So think of HIMS as the digital front door that gets you back to your old self itself, where you did not care about sheets except what activities occur on top of them as opposed to how to fold them. To get simple online access to personalized affordable care for ED, hair loss, weight loss, and more, visit hims.com the gist that's hims.com the gist for your free online visit hims.com the gist Featured products include compounded drugs, products which the FDA does not approve or verify for safety, effectiveness or quality. Prescription required. See website for details, restrictions and important safety information. Actual price will depend on product and subscription plans.

[Ad Read Announcer]

So when I ask, what is Odoo, what comes to mind? Well, Odoo is a bit of everything. Odoo is a suite of business management software that some people say is like fertilizer because of the way it promotes growth. But you know, some people also say Odoo is like a magic beanstalk because it grows with your company and is also magically affordable. But then again, you could look at Odoo in terms of how its individual software programs are a lot like building blocks. I mean, whatever your business needs, manufacturing, accounting, HR programs, you can build a custom software suite that's perfect for your company. So what does Odoo? Well, I guess Odoo is a bit of everything. Odoo is a fertilizer. Magic Beanstalk Building Blocks for Business yeah, that's it. Which means that Odoo is exactly what every business needs. Learn more and sign up [e-mail] that's O-O-O.com Most drivers overpay for car insurance, not because they're careless, but because the system is needlessly complicated. Jerry fixes that. Traditional comparison sites give you quotes once, then disappear. But Jerry can handle all the insurance shopping legwork and never stops working. Compare 50 plus insurers side by side and purchase directly in the app. No spam calls, no hidden fees. They'll even monitor price trends and can alert you to better rates. Drivers who save with Jerry could save over $1,300 a year. Download the Jerry app or visit Jerry AI LibSync hello and welcome back to.

[Mike Pesca]

Not Even Mad, the show where we're out of the closet about being all the buzz that will be explained in a moment. Today we speak of Trump putting Minnesota aggression on ice, Trump putting the US Reputation at stake over an ice covered island, and Trump icing out Republican senators. But for how long? We do so as we uphold our reputation for refutation but vow to be not even mad. Who are we today? We are rooted to share. A senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, co founder and politics editor of the substack newsletter, the Liberal Patriot. And the buzz to which I refer, I don't know, maybe we'll take it out in compost. I think everyone's buzzing about your articles, but specifically there is a buzz on your computer, I believe.

[Rui Teixeira]

Rui yes, no, that is true. And you know, tech gods giveth and the tech gods taketh away.

[Mike Pesca]

I agree. And the closet I refer to as the closet with which I am ensconced because of a blizzard. But don't worry, I'll be back tomorrow. The one member of our team was just recording perfectly and I compliment him for it, is Jesse Adams, who writes for the Washington examiner and and is a writer, writer, editor and consultant behind the IV exile on Substack. Jesse, thank you for coming to us in such clarity.

[Jesse Adams]

Thank you. My pleasure.

[Mike Pesca]

What's your secret?

[Jesse Adams]

Well, I'm in the Midwest right now, about five feet away from my router, so what can I say?

[Mike Pesca]

So in Minnesota, after the killing of Renee Goode and then after the killing of Adam Preddy, we had for a moment and maybe until today some degree of at least rhetorical retrenchment on behalf of Donald Trump. He reassigned some personnel. Greg Bevino out, Tom Homan in. And however, when asked about the criticism of such Republican senators like Murkowski and Tillis, he essentially called them losers and blasted them because even killings and a public that is more and more upset by what's going on with ice in Minnesota is not going to get that tiger to change his stripes. But what I want to ask each of you is let us examine the killings and their role on public sentiment. But let's also examine what what got us here. Was it a design, a misdesign, or just bad luck on behalf of the administration, Jesse, I'll start with you and I'll just put my cards on the table. I don't know if the word inevitable is fair, but I do think that especially Stephen Miller falsely claiming that ICE agents have immunity after the first shooting seems to tie pretty closely to this second horrible killing of Adam Preddy. Do you think that's fair?

[Jesse Adams]

Yeah, I think that's fair. And it's frustrating. I mean, I've been an activist for reduced migration for 20 years now. And what they're doing, it's kind of this. It's chum in the water that satisfies perhaps the more racist parts of the Trump base, but it's not effective for removing large numbers. I mean, my position has always been that the priority should be going after unscrupulous employers rather than tackling day laborers in Home Depot parking lots.

[Mike Pesca]

And so, Rui, I read your article, which was about the Democrats and warning lights for them about what they should or could be doing in terms of immigration enforcement. So you could talk about that, or if you would just tell me what you think the flaws and faults of the policy and its implementation have been thus far.

[Rui Teixeira]

For the Trump administration or for the Democrats?

[Mike Pesca]

No. Yeah, the Trump administration.

[Rui Teixeira]

Okay.

[Mike Pesca]

Well, literally calling the shots.

[Rui Teixeira]

Yeah. I think that, you know, clearly the predicate for what's going on today goes back to the Democrats and particularly Biden's policies on immigration, where they basically not been too interested in border enforcement for a long time. Of course, under Biden, the floodgates were open and there was not only an enormous surge of flat out illegal immigration across the border, but several ways in which essentially irregular immigration was enabled, where people who didn't really have a normal route to get in here by the typical legal means were paroled or, you know, I mean, asylum system was abused. I mean, obviously it was completely out of control. And that's what people thought. And it was a great issue for Trump in the 2024 election. Democrats were definitely on the back foot about the whole immigration issue, and people believed they were completely negligent and out to lunch in general about keeping control of what was going on in terms of immigration, which fed into a general sense of social order and a loss of social order in the country. So Trump comes in, he's got the wind at his back. In a sense. The problem is that it's not the thing that's easy. You know, wasn't easy for the Democrats, but Trump correctly realized he could do it was simply shut down the southern border. Democrats said for years, we can't. We can't just do that. There's no really way to do that. But in Fact, there was a way to do that. It wasn't even that hard. So they did that. The problem comes with interior enforcement. There's like what, 10 million illegal quasi legal immigrants came in under Trump. There were many here before that. What do you do about those people? Is it the case that if you are, certainly if you're an illegal immigrant who comes in and commits a crime, it should be pretty easy to deport you, but the fact of the matter is illegal immigration is illegal and you're susceptible to deportation. And even if you come in and you're like a, you know, a good non citizen and don't do bad stuff, you're not an axe murderer, you're not a pedophile, whatever. So Democrats have a huge problem with that. They don't really like, deportation is cruel, you know, it's yucky. You know, I mean, there was a famous line in one of the more sensible liberal pundits. He just said, well, you know, this whole thing is like, yuck. Who would want this job to be part of ice? Well, is ICE a legitimate law enforcement operation? You may not like what they're doing. I don't. But to pretend that this isn't a role that has to be performed is wrong. But here's the problem. I mean, Trump correctly realized that you can't shut down the border. There has to be some sort of interior enforcement. What should that regime be? That's where it got really dicey. And he had to deal with the problem of the sanctuary cities, right, where there's a ton of places in the United States, typically deep blue places, where basically the authorities are committed to not cooperating with ice. In terms of people in jail, people encounter the criminal justice system. You know, the local police aren't supposed to cooperate with ice. Even if they're being harassed by local activists, they're not supposed to do anything. And that just really got the goat of the people who were responsible for the actual implementation on the ground, which is not so much Tom Homan, the so called border czar, but rather Kristi Noem Bongino and Stephen Miller kind of egging them on. And this has resulted in the things that have become so viral in terms of the excesses of ice, you know, going after day laborers and the aggressive tactics that met with increasingly aggressive tactics on the part of protesters and finally resulted in the tragedies in Minneapolis. So I think that is just. It was kind of baked into the cake once, in a sense, Trump unleashed the more draconian forces in his coalition on the issue of interior enforcement. Not border enforcement. Interior enforcement.

[Mike Pesca]

Right. So I will quote the title of that liberal Patriot article, the Bankruptcy of the Democrats. Elvis Presley. Presley approach to immigration. Don't Be cruel. Makes for a great song, but terrible policy. But, Jesse, I want to ask you if it is true, and I think we all agree that a lack of cruelty is not a policy. Adam Serwer has said, coined a term, made a cottage industry over alleging the cruelty is the point. My question to you is, could this have been done to your satisfaction or to maybe the public satisfaction? They wanted a lot of immigration without a fair degree of cruelty. Does seem that Trump is quite drawn to some aspects of it that are unnecessarily cruel. And I know you said you thought they should go after employers. That seemed to be the least popular strategy, especially among Republicans. Do you think it was baked in that there would be this amount of cruelty in excess?

[Jesse Adams]

I think some degree of cruelty is just absolutely unavoidable because we're talking about people have to have entering illegal, illegally, a credible fear of deportation at some point. You know, even if it's in 10 years for a DUI, if it isn't a sword of Damocles hanging over somebody's head, then they have no reason not to come. I mean, there has to be real reasons not to come. But the cruelty I see as really a form of theater that's kind of playing for the audiences of people still in foreign countries who are considering migrating. I think there's.

[Mike Pesca]

Yeah, let me, let me interrupt you there and say that is why Kristi N. Poses in her athleisure in front of sea cot prisoners who aren't even trende alagua. But it's also a modification of the cruelty, is the point. It's not exactly to be cruel is the point. It's to use harsh messaging to somehow suppress or to suppress the desire of others to come. So that would be an argument that it's not about cruelty. It's about showing the toughness that you actually possess. Sorry to interrupt. Jesse, you were saying, oh, no problem.

[Jesse Adams]

But also the cruelty. There's an element that the administration doesn't actually want to be as harsh on immigration as its rhetoric. I mean, the easiest way to remove, you know, several hundred thousand illegal immigrants, at very least, would be just send ice to the poultry plants in Arkansas. I mean, that industry is entirely dominated by illegal labor at this point. But if they did that, the price of chicken tenders would skyrocket and it'd be very politically buy chicken tenders.

[Rui Teixeira]

Oh, no.

[Mike Pesca]

Yeah.

[Jesse Adams]

And so there's an element to which.

[Mike Pesca]

The true third rail of American politics.

[Jesse Adams]

Yes, attendees, the cruelty sort of satiates Trump's political base in, oh, they are doing something about the border. Even as the administration tiptoes around the question of the employers, or like in my neighborhood here, as of 2019, all of the landscapers and roofers and everybody, they were white and black American citizens. And after Covid, they are all Spanish speakers and they're all working for significantly lower wages than prevailed in 2019. And so Trump doesn't want to go after them, even though those are the people who are directly competing with some of my relatives who work in those fields. And so I just, I tend to see immigration enforcement as more a measure of love and protection for working class Americans and the American labor pool than cruelty of wanting to throw people out. I mean, I just, I kind of reject part of that premise.

[Mike Pesca]

Yeah, you see, I think that he, the administration could have done it without the excesses, but in a way they couldn't because that's just not their way of doing anything from quote, unquote, reforming colleges to doge cuts to just about anything I could think of. A lack of excess does not characterize their methods or their thinking. Especially when, you know, if you look at the characters who are in charge of this policy, it's people like Stephen Miller. Now, during the campaign, he always campaigned on promised, we will be attacking the worst of the worst and we'll be arresting criminals. But you could go over many campaign events where he contradicted that. And he jokingly, not jokingly in his manner, said, we will be going into the interior and arresting tons of people who shouldn't be here illegally? If you ask the public what they think, there is just a new survey out by Adam Jettison of the Searchlight Institute. And he I'll read you a couple of the statistics. Voters support interior immigration enforcement, 72%. But if it focuses on criminals and people who pose a threat to the community, the majority, 54, believe ICE tactics have been too forceful. So this is, on the one hand, shows maybe the reasonableness of Americans. On the other hand, maybe it shows their wishful thinking. You can have a real decrease in illegal immigration without upsetting the public and going past the criminals in the community. Should you, in the process of looking for a criminal, come across someone who is just here illegally and their criminal status is because they're breaking the law and real enforcement is not going to turn a blind eye on that? Do you think the public's in a reasonable place, Rui or do you think they're in a place that they don't want to hear about the friction inherent to achieve their immigration goals?

[Rui Teixeira]

I think, yeah, the public is conflicted about this, and it's particularly conflicted now because interior enforcement has become associated with the super aggressive tactics of ICE in a lot of these sanctuary cities, which makes people think, oh, interior enforcement, isn't that where they round up day laborers and prowl communities looking for people who might be illegal immigrants? That's not necessary to actually have effective interior enforcement. But people now associate what the Trump administration is doing in terms of interior enforcement with that sort of thing. So. But on the other hand, the more they think about it that way, the more they kind of, oh, it's just yucky to deport anybody. And, you know, I mean, the media are full of sob stories, right, about perfectly nice people who get deported. And, you know, the fact of the matter is, and I think Jesse was alluding to this a little bit, and it's just a fundamental truism if you want to have an effective immigration enforcement system, it cannot be a system where the only reason you ever get deported if you're illegal is if you commit a terrible crime. I mean, if the idea is you come here, you manage to get in through the border, however, and you kind of hang around in your community and you have a family and you have a job and you don't mess with anybody, then you get to stay here forever. That's a great deal. The incentive structure is completely destroyed in that case. And I think what the rational kernel of what the Trump administration was doing, and obviously overdid it, was to send a message, no, you're not completely safe here forever. If you come here illegally. And, boy, the message has gotten out, and there's been, according to the census data, appears to be a fair amount of people leaving of their own accord as opposed to being deported. But in the process, the Trump administration has destroyed the public consensus around immigration enforcement, at least at the current time. And that's bad for them politically. It's bad as policy. And I think they're now scrambling to try to figure out how to attain some of their goals without giving up on their entire enforcement regime. But being more moderate, the whole cruelty is the point thing. It's just such bullshit, basically, if you'll pardon my French. I mean, there's a reason why immigration became a big issue. There's a reason why people care about immigration enforcement. The idea that Trump and his minions, they're Just all about being cruel to the maximum amount of people. The maximum amount of the time is just alighting. The very difficult issue of how do you have an enforceable, fair immigration system? This about cruelty is the point. It's just a smokescreen for refusing to deal with, with the fundamental issue, which is, as my piece argued, don't be cruel. Great song, but it is not a policy around a difficult issue like immigration. And the more you frame it as just cruelty or not cruelty, the farther away you are from a solution.

[Mike Pesca]

Yeah. David Leonhart says of the Democrats that the public's perception, and Leonhardt is saying this is more or less accurate. Of the Democrats, immigration policy is more is good, less is racist. And I think at least through three years that played out under Biden before it became a crisis, ISIS deported more than 500,000 people this year. The majority, I'm not going to say vast majority, it's about 250 to 160, have been internal migrants, internal deportations. Like we said, there's going to be friction and sympathetic stories in the media, but I maintain that but for the killings, but for these horrible killings that we can all see from many angles on TV and maybe even. But for the killings and the lying after the killings, the public would not be nearly as up in arms as they are. And the administration, I think, would still be. They'd still have the case that we should keep doing this. Do either of you disagree with that?

[Rui Teixeira]

Well, I guess I slightly disagree based on, I mean, I've been tracking the issue pretty closely and I agree the killings have really ratcheted up the contradictions around this issue. But even before that, approval of ICE was losing altitude. Trump's rating on the immigration issue was losing altitude. So even before the apotheosis of these problems occurred with the two killings, people were definitely getting the impression that ICE had gone too far and they were doing some stuff that just didn't seem necessary and seem vaguely racist or vaguely or cruel or whatever. I mean, it was already far beyond what they needed to do to simply get some image. But there's the other side of the coin which you really haven't talked about, which is very important to understand this dynamic is another thing that would have prevented this from really getting out of hand, is if authorities in Democratic run cities had cooperated with ice. I mean, it's very well documented. You look across the country in places that are either red or where Democratic mayors have cooperated with ice, and it's far less incendiary situation. And you know they actually go, are able to easily go after the criminals first and maybe get to other people afterwards. But.

[Jesse Adams]

Right.

[Mike Pesca]

New Orleans and Memphis being two examples of that.

[Rui Teixeira]

Right, yeah. The conflict has been just, you know, it's just terrible on both sides. The activists are out there accusing these people of being Nazis and harassing them, interfering with arrests, blowing whistles in their ear, knocking on their, you know, but blocking their path with cars. It's just don't do that stuff. But they did it. And you know, ice, I mean, I don't think that Alex Betty deserved to get shot at all. But do not bring a gun to a peaceful demonstration. I mean, what was he thinking? And there's no way he should have been killed and he has any second amendment right to carry. But I mean when you ratchet up, the tension between the two sides is far and people feel like they're basically we're fighting the Nazis in the last days of Weimar Germany. So anything goes really. You can't be too aggressive. Right. Shit will happen. And it did. But that's their side of the problem. I mean, without the way Frey and Walz were handling things in Minnesota, Minneapolis, I don't know if this stuff happens and if ICE also wasn't so friggin aggressive, being egged on by Bongino and Nome and all those, maybe this doesn't happen either. But. So it's a terrible dance. But the dance both sides have been participating in.

[Mike Pesca]

Yeah, but one of the things that changed is I think the Trump administration wanted that dance. They wanted that conflict. They thought if that was the parameters of the conflict, they would win. But with the killings, they're losing because Americans hate chaos. And it's, and I think rightly they're blaming the ICE agents on the chaos. So if they had been more professional and held to account, and I've advocated this on the show, done a real enough investigation of the first killing to maybe even offer a fig leaf justification or suspension or something, you would have perhaps forestalled the second killing. You could make the case that you just made this is more walls and fray situation or spurred on conflict. But they can no longer make that case. They're losing the conflict that they want.

[Rui Teixeira]

This guy intended to have, you know, a mass shooting death situation was just ludicrous.

[Mike Pesca]

So right that he wanted a massacre. And that is also a function of Trumpism, that the wildest, craziest, least tethered to truth most solely appealing to your base is a thing that you can and should say that is not an accident. You Hired the person who was going to say that because they've said that in the past. So they don't get a pass on any of that. I mean, Trump doesn't get a pass on any of that, I don't think.

[Rui Teixeira]

Yeah, well, you know, it's important though, to think of the Trump administration as a coalition. Right. And it's not like they all move in lockstep. I mean, there are different factions and, and yes, I mean, Trump is responsible for unleashing the faction that wanted to approach the issue of immigration enforcement in this way. But it's not like there weren't other people saying, terrible idea.

[Mike Pesca]

Well, who's the, who's the Marco. Who's the Marco Rubio on immigration?

[Rui Teixeira]

Oh, Tom Holman, clearly.

[Mike Pesca]

Right. So he's the guy that you send in to replace Bevino. I don't know that that will be the solution. And, you know. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Jesse, you want a last word on this?

[Jesse Adams]

Yeah. Trump has talked at various times about cutting off funding to sanctuary jurisdictions in some form. And I think 100% is too much and I think it's tied up in the courts right now. But to me, if he could manage to incentivize people like Waltz and Frey to minimally cooperate just by making it really clear, you're going to lose a third of your highway funds or you're not going to be able to build this bridge you were planning to in the next two years. Like, I think that could align incentives so that we just wouldn't see these sorts of fracases in the street to the same extent.

[Rui Teixeira]

I agree with that. I think that's a good idea. I mean, part of the reason why they don't do that, I think, and it lies behind their overall immigration enforcement strategy, how they handle the universities, lots of other stuff. They really do have sort of a rational intent here. But they're first instinct is shock and awe. I mean, let's just like unload with 85 shotguns, both barrels, and that will shock the system and it will change things. So I think just like the way they handled the universities, the super aggressive way they've handled immigration and the way they've threatened the sanctuary cities or whatever, I mean, you could accomplish much more with a more fine grained, calibrated approach that would use the levers of power at your disposal, but it's just not the way they think. You know, it's like, it's a big problem. Let's blow it up, you know, so. And now we're seeing some of the results.

[Mike Pesca]

In a moment, we will go from ice in Minnesota to the land that Trump called Iceland in front of Davos a few times. Greenland. We'll be back in a minute. I'm not even mad.

[Ad Read Announcer]

Flowers die in three days. Matching underwear from Meundies. That's a gift that lasts. Meundies creates matching prints for couples and friends. Same adorable designs and different cuts for each of you. All made from their signature ultramodal fabric that feels impossibly soft. With 30 million pairs sold and 90,000 five star reviews, MeUndie's matching prints are the perfect gift. Valentine's Day is February 14th, so don't wait. Get exclusive deals up to 50% off at meundies.comfort code comfort. That's meundies.comfort codecomfort. Shipping, billing, admin, Payroll, Marketing. You're managing all the things, so why waste time sending important documents the old fashioned way. Mail and ship when you want, how you want with stamps.com. print postage on demand 247 and schedule pickups from your office or home. Save up to 90% with automated rate shopping. That's why over 1 million small businesses trust stamps.com. go to stamps.com and use code podcast to try stamps.com risk free for 60 days.

[Mike Pesca]

We're back with Rui Teixeira and Jesse Adams. They are, respectively, the Liberal patriot and the IV exile. I feel like I'm revealing your super identities. You know, he's Green Lantern, this one's Superman. But we just saw Trump get back from Greenland after he was widely criticized, though maybe not to his face by most of the leaders of the world. Then Mark Rutte, who is a runs NATO, essentially, I think should be widely lauded for inventing some sort of carve out that placated the quote, unquote mad king. But during the speeches that Trump gave and right before that, that Mark Carney of Canada gave, the sentiment was to quote Mark Carney that this isn't a change, this is a rupture. But now that we're a few days past, I wonder, how much of a rupture is it? And did we, the analysts, and maybe even the world leaders fall for taking Trump literally and not seriously? Jesse, assess what we've learned from his dalliances and his desires to acquire Greenland. How seriously should we have taken that? At the risk of if you don't take it seriously enough, it could totally destroy the most effective partnership and alliance the Western world has ever known.

[Jesse Adams]

Yeah, it's. I think the wild card is that this is America's 250th anniversary. And so some part of Trump, you know, wants to say that he added the most territory since the Gadsden purchase or whatever, and that it was on America's birthday. I think that egotistically, that is part of the equation. But I also think it's kind of classic art of the deal of asking for much, much more than you're going to get. And just sort of all the saber rattling of, Was it France that sent a few troops up to Greenland for. For training and all of that.

[Rui Teixeira]

In Germany, they're like 14 soldiers are going to hold them off or whatever.

[Mike Pesca]

Yeah, but they get 14 programs. 14 soldiers is, you know, 2% of the population.

[Jesse Adams]

Yeah, it was just such a clown show that I think it did show the issue of Europe just not spending enough on NATO and just preferring the butter to the guns for year after year and expecting that America will always pull its weight and bail them out. Like, with the troubling things going on with civil liberties in Europe and the rise of these Islamic parties and stuff, a lot of attention needs to be paid to what's going on in Europe and what we can anticipate the changes being over the next 10 or 15 years. So I think Trump making the point was ultimately not a bad thing.

[Rui Teixeira]

Yeah, I mean, I agree with Jesse. I mean, I think the overall intent is what he was saying. It's to kind of put Europe on notice that we're, you know, America's concerned about these things. You have to carry more your own weight. This, you know, civil liberty stuff isn't so good. What you're doing with tech isn't so good, and just generally throwing their weight around, you know, and you don't get a pass anymore just because you're part of NATO or you're part of, like, Europe and Western civilization or whatever. In his actual. I don't think he was ever, like, 150% committed to acquiring Greenland, but I think it was a great. It was a great thing just to mess with people's heads. That's part of what he likes to do. He likes to get in people's face and shake things up. And he did shake things up. But in the process, we may be moving toward a relationship between America and Europe that in some ways at least, would be an improvement over what we had before. Is this the end of NATO? Is the end of Europe? Is the end of. I mean, that's not clear to me at all. I think that the first reaction of a lot of people always is to say, well, whatever we had before was sacred and we shouldn't shake it up. But I don't think that necessarily follows given the current state of geopolitics in the world. And I think that Mark Carney's attempt, the allegation he's going to organize all the middle powers to be a counterweight to China and the US is, I don't take that too seriously. So they're trying to figure it out themselves. What is their relationship going to be with an America that no longer plays as nice as it once did and now is no longer an endless source of support for things they'd rather not spend money on? So that's, you know, I mean, of course he's overdone it. I mean, the theatrics are part of what you buy with Trump, but it's not like there's not a rational colonel in there somewhere, too.

[Mike Pesca]

Yeah. Do you think the foreign leaders taking him so seriously? More seriously than I thought that they should. Although I started getting a little frightened when I heard all these people and Carney, I mean, this is a, this is the epitome of this stayed Canadian saying the stayed Canadian version of our alliance is at least in jeopardy. So I did get a little concerned, more concerned than I should have. Or when I looked at the Calci trading markets where just Trump acquiring Greenland. There's been a market on this since he took office, and it was trading at something like 34% possibility before he left office. But then in the week of the Davos speech, it spiked it for 43%. Now it's down to 34%. Seemed odd to me that all these entities who should know better didn't know better. And my question is, do you think the lesson of Ukraine, where the middle powers have actually had to step in, where the United States has withdrawn, is that very much informing perhaps their over wariness of what turned out to be 99% bluster, do you think, Jesse?

[Jesse Adams]

Yeah, I think they're very apprehensive. And certainly the establishment parties across Europe have really been struggling with a migration issue and have been wanting to crack down more on speech. So I think that they're feeling existentially wary in general. And so for Trump to be blustering around, is this symbol of there being a potential populist upsurge that really reshapes Europe and the European Union and the trajectory it's been on for 20 years? Yeah, I think definitely Ukraine and these underlying issues made them a little jumpier than they should have been.

[Rui Teixeira]

Yeah, I think that's right. I mean, Trump has said some things, he said some crazy things, but he also said some things that are not inaccurate about Europe's problems, that they have actually made a huge mistake in how they've handled the issue of mass immigration and what it's done to their societies and welfare states. They made a huge mistake or a huge over sort of ongoing economic problem with the levels of regulation that they have there that actually prevents the kind of economic dynamism we have in a. We got our problems too, but certainly we're better off than Europe at this point. So it's a bit of a stagnant area of the world now for, especially for such an advanced area of the world that, you know, it's continued to shoot itself in the foot in a lot of ways. And it's been because of the establishment parties. And because of that, you see the right populist parties gaining strength election after election, of course, makes the establishment parties nervous. So, you know, of course they're very jumpy and Trump sort of comes into this and starts throwing the China around the shop and it gets them even more nervous. But the Ukraine stuff I think is really interesting because the U.S. has signaled you guys it's kind of on you to settle this thing. And the fact of the matter is they can't settle this thing. I mean, there will have to be a negotiated peace with Russia eventually. They're not going to defeat Russia. I mean, European leaders for quite a while were acting like it was possible to militarily defeat Russia. Of course, that's not possible unless you want to invade the country. And you're going to have to actually figure this out in a sense on your own and make it happen, or at least stand aside while we make it happen, we being Russia and the United States and perhaps Ukraine. So I think they're very uncomfortable with their lack of dynamism in their own way. The rise of right populism, their own inability to support their militaries, their own inability to settle the Ukraine situation. It's a bit of a wake up call for them. And I'm not saying they should send Trump, you know, telegrams of, oh, thank you, thank you for bringing this to our attention. But I think we are in a bit of a fluid situation there in terms of Europe itself. It's not just all coming from Trump by any means.

[Mike Pesca]

Yeah. So Trump offers a good, plausible critique of Europe, especially now. The sick man of Europe is Europe. All, all of Europe. But this is what he does to some extent. It's what politicians do. They're messengers of a critique and then you trust them to offer the solution, which he does not. Trump's solution in this case. And you know, let me also add and quote my friend Yasha Mook, who says as a European, he thinks in general, Europe's progress, Europe's prospects for the future is something like more of the same, just a little worse. And America would never accept that. And it is fairly sad if that is a best case scenario for the Europeans. And I don't see a very plausible alternative to that. So all noted and all stipulated, but Trump's formulation for the way forward is something like spheres of influence, defining Europe as out of our sphere of influence and maybe into Russia's. And in that, I think he's just wrong. Not even for humanitarian or honor reasons, but for our own self interest. I think the NATO alliance, even if they're not paying their way, is so much in the United States, self interest. And I always say this on the show, if you told anyone over the last 200 years, here's what's going to be the problem. Germany essentially without an army. France with an army, but only in Africa and not aimed towards Germany or towards England. England not wanting to fight with France through much of world history. If you said this was going to be the situation, and the problem is they were all outsourcing their military aspirations to the United States, a superpower that is more economically viable than all of them, I think most historians would say, wow, what a great situation. There's almost no point where you wouldn't sign up for that. But what do you think? Isn't it, not in the United States, self interest, as me, someone who's never going to go to Davos, who doesn't care about the approval of the continent, cares more about maybe Jesse, of the well being of people in St. Louis than people outside the St. Louis Basilica. What isn't it in our self interest to sort of do the opposite of what Donald Trump is critiquing?

[Jesse Adams]

I think it is, but that without a shakeup, we're on a bad trajectory. I mean, I've been. When you study the European Union and sort of Public Policy 101, something that kind of gets glossed over is the democratic deficit. They call it that the EU was pretty systematically designed to limit the influence of national electorates. So it's all just managerial technocrats. And that's really curdled into this very insular monoculture that in some cases is happy to work with Islamic parties to hold power. And then you see civil Liberties start to vanish and sort of the legitimate substantive representation just kind of going out the window. And so I look at Europe now and I can still see some of the forms that it had 20 or 30 years ago, but with the changes they're seeing, I'm not sure is England going to be a reliable ally to the US in the way that it's historically been when most of the population is not rooted in sort of an England that somebody would have recognized even 25 years ago? And so I agree with you that NATO has been good for the most part up to now, but the future with Europe's struggles just seems. I'm not sure how useful or relevant NATO will be in another 20 years.

[Mike Pesca]

What do you mean recognizable demographically or what?

[Jesse Adams]

Demographically and in terms of just the folkways of politics. So, you know, Britain with so much of its legal system just being traditional and not written down, that can really change when the population dramatically changes. So I compare the England today of sort of Cool Britannia Britain when Tony Blair was first coming into office, and it's really, you know, collapsed down several rungs of the latter.

[Mike Pesca]

I would say, yeah, I would say that voting for Brexit had something to do with that. But Rui, you're a political scientist. Let me ask you this. If you had to make the best choice for your country and you were a country in a NATO alliance member who relied on the United States for protection, would you say now is the time to realize that the United States won't be an ally? Or would you say, I think Trumpism is more than a passing fad, but it is passing. The last president couldn't be more pro NATO and Joe Biden. You know, there was at least a above 50% chance, slightly above 50% chance that the next president will be a Gavin Newsom Democratic type, who will be NATO alliance or J.D. vance won't be. So where do you make your bets? Is the United States at a rupture point or just this one party who might not be trending towards permanent power, a huge headache slash warning sign?

[Rui Teixeira]

Well, I think you'd probably want to basically realize you're in a situation that's changed quite a bit, and therefore your relationship to the United States as a NATO member might have to change as well. Yeah, I mean, it's not like Trump or Trumpers are going to be in power forever. But even if there's another Democrat gets into power, the nature of geopolitics and economics has been changing and the appetite on the part of the American public For basic subsidizing, Europe is not what it once was. And NATO doesn't have the same cachet it once did. I mean, let's face it, NATO hasn't had the same cachet as the Soviet Union. Filled part which was the original point of NATO was that the Soviet Union was a genuine threat. They were an incredibly powerful country and there was this Cold War, two superpowers and so on. Things have changed a lot since then. Obviously Russia is still a problem, but they're not what the Soviet Union once was. And to some extent the world has moved on. So if I'm a NATO country, I try to figure out regardless of who's going to come down the pike, how can we renegotiate our relationship with the United States? How can NATO renegotiate its relationship? Let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater, but let's not pretend that everything's great and nothing needs to change and Europe and America are exactly the same as they ever were. Like the Chinese say lips and teeth or whatever. So I don't think that's true. And I think all this should be a wake up call that it's time to rethink things a lot. And you know, it's a bad idea for it's a bad idea for the US to throw Europe out the window and it'd be a bad idea for Europe to throw the US out the window so perhaps reasonable people can meet somewhere in the middle. But again, let's not pretend there's nothing to the idea that things have changed quite a bit.

[Mike Pesca]

Sure. Okay, so this is what I will say and maybe it's too driven by emotion, but I'm a little ashamed by Donald Trump's stance in all of this. True, Naito doesn't reach so many of the countries don't reach the 5% threshold and he has been instrumental in getting them to pay more. And Naito hasn't been able to rally and stand up to Russia and drive them out of Ukraine. I never thought Naito would. Even the United States plus NATO wouldn't. But isn't it a bit shameful that the only time Article 5 was ever invoked it was to help the United States after we were the beneficiaries of it, after 9, 11. And that per capita, the country that gave the most lives to this effort, to our wars, though ill conceived though they might have been, was Denmark. And these are the countries because we are a superpower and we can and we have elected Donald Trump. These are the countries that we are taking for granted in all of this. I would think that the heroic country that bestrides the world and wants to to some extent remake the world in our image of democracy and openness should be acting better and more honorably than all of this. Again, not so I or Americans look good in Europeans eyes just so we can hold our head high for our own sense of honor. Do you feel that at all, Jesse?

[Jesse Adams]

I do. And I mean, the rhetoric that Trump used about what has Great Britain done for us lately or whatever, when there were all these British troops who died in Afghanistan and the mission, I mean, that was completely inappropriate and I would use the word shameful for that. On the other hand, I think some of the attitudes that Europeans have had towards us cowboy Americans or whatever have taken us for granted for a long time. So definitely Trump went too far. I don't endorse that rhetoric, but I think enough has been. There's something rotten in Denmark. You know, enough has been, I've heard that before. Enough has been rotten for long enough that some changes are needed. And Trump always goes too far. But hopefully with the art of the Deal, it'll get dialed back in to something.

[Rui Teixeira]

Basically, no more Mr. Nice Guys, you know, and he's, it's, I mean, it was only him who did it, let's face it. I mean, people have been, you know, bitching about this for a long time, that Europe doesn't carry its weight in terms of a lot of the stuff we've been talking about. And there are these problems, but Trump actually like kicks their ass and says no more Mr. Nice Guy. Of course, of course he overdoes it. That's, that's the nature of him, his movement, his view of the world. But, you know, the other side of it is, you know, his opponents, his political, you know, the political part of the political spectrum that abominates him. Never did any of this stuff. They never said no more Mr. Nice Guy and meant it. You know, he says no more nice Mr. Nice Guy and he means it. And then he says a whole lot of other stuff he should probably shut up about. But that's, you know, this part of our, you know, I'm not going to shock you here, Mike. Maybe I will shock you. Our politics is kind of messed up. It seems to be hard. It seems to be hard either left or right to have a, a reasonable but strong approach to a lot of these issues and not overdo it in either direction. Either be too indulgent or too, too brutal.

[Mike Pesca]

Yeah, well, maybe there's Something rotten in Denmark. Maybe, though this be madness, there'd be a method to it. I don't know. We could quote Hamlet forever. But what we can do is go to our goat grinders. These are the things that. That grind our gears or get our goats or just get us going. Could be little annoyances, could be big annoyances. I'm going to start with, in the grand scope of things, a little annoyance, which is that the AFC Championship game, okay, Football Corner, it was played in a blizzard. And the reason that's not my annoyance. I like a nice blizzard when it comes to football. But when coaches get fired and defenses get complimented, as they did without noting the. The blizzard, the giant blizzard that affected things, the goat gets ground a little bit. So Denver gained almost no yards in the second half. Would you like to know why they gained almost no yards? Because there was a blizzard. And then they fired their offensive coordinator. The ESPR ESPN article citing the only 26 yards and the paucity of offense from the Broncos once the blizzard hit. There was also. The blizzard started in the third period. It really hit in the fourth. Fourth quarter. There was almost no offense from the Patriots either. It turns out that no teams can move a ball in the blizzard. But now poor Joe Lombardi is being moved out of his job or his office in Broncos training camp. The same critique goes for the announcers of the game who talked about the fine and stalwart Patriot offense. Maybe so, maybe not. But the blizzard also had a lot to say about that. Basically, my analysis of that game was there was a blizzard, in case you haven't heard. All right, Rui, do you have a goat grinder?

[Rui Teixeira]

Yeah. No, I was going to say something more political, but since we're talking about sports, I mean, I'm a baseball junkie and I'm just like, are you kidding me? $240 million for Kyle Tucker for four years? I mean, this is outrageous. He's like a five war player. He doesn't deserve that much money. And the Dodgers are just like, they're buying, you know, domination of the sport. So I am full, you know, 150% for some sort of salary cap at this point. Enforceable. I mean, this has just gotten out of control. The Dodgers in particular cannot be trusted. And I just. I was already mad at them. But when they threw all that money at Kyle Tucker. Kyle Tucker, he's a good player. He's even a really good player. But I think that was just outrageous. So my goat was totally gotten.

[Mike Pesca]

All right, Jesse, you ready with yours?

[Jesse Adams]

My Goat is being ground by the slow death of conventional television. I started my career working for Bill Moyers on tv and I still watch probably more TV than most Millennials because I'm a big game show fan. But over the past couple of years, when they talk about cutting pharmaceutical ads, making them illegal, I mean, if that were to happen, the last vestiges of the television industry would just crumble away. But I miss the water cooler talks. I miss the cultural commonality. And I wrote a piece last year about the TV procedural Blue Bloods with Tom Selleck, which was. I'm not going to defend it as the best written or the best acted show, but it was about a family and it ran for 14 years. And they just seemed like a family. They seemed like real people and it was compulsively watchable. And this past season, they debuted a spin off show called Boston Blue, where they got rid of most of the cast and suddenly moved the star to Boston. And the whole format is slavishly borrowed from Blue Bloods. But it's a black Jewish family that our hero now has dinner with every week.

[Rui Teixeira]

And it's a black Jewish family.

[Jesse Adams]

Yeah, black Jewish family.

[Rui Teixeira]

Why not? Why not?

[Jesse Adams]

And so instead of Sunday dinner, they go to the Seder every Friday. And. But yet this.

[Rui Teixeira]

But they had to make a black. To throw in more diversity or something. That is just.

[Jesse Adams]

They really did. They really did.

[Rui Teixeira]

Utterly bizarre.

[Jesse Adams]

So Blue Bloods was the equivalent of like eating a big meaty chuck steak or something. It wasn't the greatest cut, but it was nutritious. And this Boston Blue show, I just had to give up after a couple of episodes. It's the most just contrived waste of time, kind of assuming people are looking at their phones and not paying any attention kind of programming. It's just sad. And if we could go back to what television was, you know, in the 90s, certainly, but even in 2010, my goat would be much less ground right now.

[Mike Pesca]

I like, I like your invocation of the banning pharmaceutical ads, which, yeah, would Destroy Many a TV show watched by people over 50, which is to say many a broadcast TV show. But it would eliminate my goat grinder of a phrase. People who are allergic to name of. People who are allergic to insert name of medication here should not take name of medication here. The no jaw clause. Thank you. Thank you for that fcc. Thank you for, for that fda. By the way, have you been on a game show?

[Jesse Adams]

Uh, I haven't. I've tried out for Jeopardy. With their anytime test. Any number of times, but they've yet to give me a call.

[Mike Pesca]

But you passed the test.

[Jesse Adams]

Well, they don't tell you if you pass it or not, but it's a 40 question test and when I've taken it, I've tended to think that I probably got 36 or 37 of them. So I assume that's probably over the threshold. Well, thank you, Ken Jennings. Call me.

[Mike Pesca]

And the other lamentation for the lack of Blue bloods is that Steve Schirippo will now be relegated to TV appearances courtside for the Knicks only, at least for a time he was appearing in an actual TV show as opposed to just showing up and waving to the roar of a crowd. Who remembers him from the Sopranos at Madison Square Garden?

[Jesse Adams]

So, you know, I, I walked past Steve Schreppa at 97th and West End maybe a year and a half ago or something, and he was yelling at his face. How long did his phone. Well, he was yelling into his phone, I think to his agent. So I think I happened to see the very conversation where he was told that the Blue Bloods gravy train was over.

[Mike Pesca]

Was he yelling, I could play black. I could play Jewish.

[Jesse Adams]

I think Steve Sharipa is Jewish.

[Mike Pesca]

If I'm not mistaken, a Jewish. Sharipa was just so, so convincing in the Sopranos, so. Ruiz Teixeira of the Liberal Patriot, thank you, thank you. And Jesse Adams of the Ivy Exile, thank you, thank you. And until next time, we're not saying we're right. We're not saying you're right. Oh, no, no, no. But we are saying we're not even mad. And that's it for today's show. Corey Ward, the producer of the Gist, Kathleen Sykes, helps me with the Gist list. Jeff Craig is in charge of moving images. You know, he also does some audio editing. I don't like to brag too much about Jeff. Multi talented fellow. Leah Yan is the production coordinator of Peach Fish Productions. And Michelle Pesca is the CEO in Quite a coup for Peach Fish Productions in Peru. G Peru. Do Peru. And thanks for listening. Marketing is hard, but I'll tell you a little secret. It doesn't have to be. Let me point something out. You're listening to a podcast right now and it's great. You love the host, you seek it out and download it. You listen to it while driving, working out, cooking, even going to the bathroom. Podcasts are a pretty close companion. And this is a podcast ad. Did I get your attention? You can reach great listeners like yourself with podcast advertising from Libsyn ads. Choose from hundreds of top podcasts offering host endorsements or run a pre produced ad like this one across thousands of shows. To reach your target audience in their favorite podcasts with Libsyn ads, go to Libsynads.com that's L I B S Y N ads.com today.