Latest / Normally / Normally Podcast: Iran Uprising, Transgender Sports, Anti-Semitism & Trump’s Legacy

Transcript

Normally Podcast: Iran Uprising, Transgender Sports, Anti-Semitism & Trump’s Legacy · Normally

0:08
Speaker 1: Normally the show with normalis takes. But when the news
0:10
Speaker 1: gets weird, I am Mary Catherine Camp.
0:12
Speaker 2: And I am Carol Marko. It's Mary Catherine. We get
0:14
Speaker 2: a lot of messages saying that we should banter more.
0:17
Speaker 2: Do we not banter enough?
0:19
Speaker 1: Well, you know, we get right to it.
0:22
Speaker 2: You know, we're efficient, is what we are.
0:27
Speaker 3: We should banter. I like the band, Let's banter. Oh
0:30
Speaker 3: my goodness, Well we have a lot a lot of Yeah.
0:32
Speaker 2: There's a lot of news. Who can banter at a
0:34
Speaker 2: time like this?
0:35
Speaker 3: This is what I'm saying. We're going to keep this
0:38
Speaker 3: a little vague because we don't know what will happen
0:40
Speaker 3: post recording. But in Iran there is of course a
0:44
Speaker 3: continued uprising. We're on week two of thousands of people
0:49
Speaker 3: in the streets. Unfortunately, that also means because it is
0:52
Speaker 3: a repressive, awful regime, possibly thousands murdered for being in
0:56
Speaker 3: the streets to stand up to the regime. I think
0:58
Speaker 3: we have numbers of thousands coming from the regime itself,
1:01
Speaker 3: which means there are more than that. In addition, of course,
1:05
Speaker 3: it's hard to get information out of there. But the
1:08
Speaker 3: Crown Prince was on special Report last night ran into
1:12
Speaker 3: him in the green room, like you do. Interesting, yes,
1:15
Speaker 3: and he is a person who in the past has
1:18
Speaker 3: not been in favor of military intervention necessarily, but when
1:21
Speaker 3: asked about it by Brett Baer was like, look, they're
1:24
Speaker 3: maybe twelve to twenty thousand people dead, and the reality
1:27
Speaker 3: is that they don't have weapons and we need help.
1:31
Speaker 2: Right yeah, Look, and like you said, we could be
1:35
Speaker 2: sending that help by the time you hear this podcast
1:39
Speaker 2: or not. We really you know, as we like to
1:42
Speaker 2: say in our house, are you asking me to get
1:44
Speaker 2: into the mind of Donald Trump? Because I don't know.
1:48
Speaker 2: It could be anything could happen. It's tough. Like we've
1:51
Speaker 2: talked about it on here. We're not big military intervention people.
1:54
Speaker 2: But then when Trump pulls it off so effortlessly, both
1:58
Speaker 2: the first time in Iran and then recently in Venezuela,
2:02
Speaker 2: it's hard not to be for that. And I root
2:05
Speaker 2: for the Iranian protesters, so, you know, hard to say.
2:08
Speaker 2: I don't want to lose any American lives. I think
2:11
Speaker 2: that should be the first priority always, But these people
2:15
Speaker 2: deserve a fighting chance. They used to be a normal country,
2:18
Speaker 2: ish normalish country, and they can get back to it again.
2:21
Speaker 2: And that's what they seem to be fighting for.
2:23
Speaker 3: Well, and the Crown Prince, who has been exiled since
2:26
Speaker 3: seventy eight. He was the son of the Shah American
2:28
Speaker 3: Backshaw in nineteen seventy eight and nine. He says, there
2:31
Speaker 3: is a polity that still exists here. There is a
2:33
Speaker 3: civil level of society that still exists, that understands that
2:38
Speaker 3: lived through this, that lived in a free society, which
2:41
Speaker 3: is part of what you need.
2:41
Speaker 1: I don't know how much organized opposition there is. He says.
2:44
Speaker 3: There are also people outside of Iran who he obviously
2:47
Speaker 3: cannot name for security reasons, who would be willing to
2:50
Speaker 3: be part of a transition.
2:51
Speaker 1: Should it happen.
2:53
Speaker 3: And also, I think when you're talking about Venezuela and Iran,
2:55
Speaker 3: especially from yours and my point of view, which would be,
2:58
Speaker 3: if we're doing military intervention, how is it helping America if.
3:03
Speaker 1: Those places end up even marginally freer? Yep, Yeah, we
3:07
Speaker 1: are safer, Yeah, we're safer.
3:09
Speaker 3: And I think the first Iran strike is a total
3:13
Speaker 3: and the results of it the total repudiation of the
3:17
Speaker 3: Obama Biden strategy which I coddle these people and to
3:22
Speaker 3: hope that they just played nice and if in ten
3:24
Speaker 3: years they get a new guy, you know, that's not
3:25
Speaker 3: my problem. I mean that was the stated policy, in
3:30
Speaker 3: addition to giving them palettes of cash.
3:32
Speaker 1: It was not a good policy.
3:33
Speaker 2: So ten years rolled around and hey, here we are,
3:38
Speaker 2: but we're still concerned about this. Yeah, you're right, marginal
3:41
Speaker 2: change would be a huge help to us. Just a
3:45
Speaker 2: safer world, a more normal world, all of it.
3:48
Speaker 1: So I don't know.
3:49
Speaker 2: We'll see what happens with Iran and whether we step
3:53
Speaker 2: in there. I mean, if we had to guess right now,
3:56
Speaker 2: I'm guessing we do step in. Trump, see like you
3:59
Speaker 2: want to, and when Trump wants to, Trump does it.
4:04
Speaker 3: We also have an update on the synagogue in Mississippi,
4:07
Speaker 3: and someone tweeted this, and now I don't know who
4:10
Speaker 3: to credit to, but it was he said, basically, Nick
4:12
Speaker 3: fuintes Candice Owen's Nazi, not Islamist.
4:16
Speaker 1: Hamas to be a Nazi. Yeah, and I think, unfortunately, due.
4:21
Speaker 3: To the horseshoe of anti Semitism, that is a succinct,
4:25
Speaker 3: in correct way to say that. His name is Steven
4:27
Speaker 3: Spencer Pittman, a nineteen year old who had a baseball career,
4:30
Speaker 3: who went to college, who has you know, Yeah, seemingly
4:34
Speaker 3: a stable family and clearly went down a very bad
4:38
Speaker 3: path here.
4:38
Speaker 2: Yeah, our friend Bonchi Red State tweeted about him and said,
4:43
Speaker 2: almost every groper which is a Nick Foinds follower you'll
4:47
Speaker 2: find out on here that shares their identity is either
4:50
Speaker 2: middle class or higher. It's not a movement of abused people.
4:53
Speaker 2: It's movement of board morons trying to be edge lords,
4:56
Speaker 2: led by self serving influencers who like money.
5:00
Speaker 1: And that's what.
5:01
Speaker 2: We've got here. I'll also add that I've had sources
5:05
Speaker 2: tell me that Pittman had a bad drug problem. I
5:09
Speaker 2: don't want to make it sound like that excuses anything
5:11
Speaker 2: at all, but it sounds like he made a few
5:14
Speaker 2: bad calls in his life and this is where he
5:17
Speaker 2: ended up where burned a synagogue, Like you know, people
5:21
Speaker 2: are on X been joking around like has he ever
5:23
Speaker 2: even met a Jewish person? Is it like even remotely
5:28
Speaker 2: part of his life? He did it, you know, seemingly
5:30
Speaker 2: for no reason at all, and will likely have destroyed
5:34
Speaker 2: his life over this. The candices and pointesses of the world,
5:38
Speaker 2: it's at their.
5:38
Speaker 3: Feet and well, and they'll just go on making money,
5:41
Speaker 3: so they're fine.
5:42
Speaker 2: They're fine. Right.
5:43
Speaker 3: We also have a big case at Scotis. Yeah, so
5:46
Speaker 3: this is West Virginia and Idaho laws. The states at
5:51
Speaker 3: Scotis defending their laws that ban boys from.
5:55
Speaker 1: Competing in women's sports.
5:57
Speaker 3: So right, that would include trands identify buying boys from
6:02
Speaker 3: competing in women's sports. The argument from some lower courts
6:05
Speaker 3: and from left activists is that they don't have the
6:08
Speaker 3: right to say that only women can play in women's sports,
6:12
Speaker 3: that in fact, you have to allow boys to play
6:15
Speaker 3: women's sports, which to me is so insane because it
6:17
Speaker 3: utterly undermines the whole point of Title nine, Yeah, which
6:21
Speaker 3: is the statute under which they are bringing these cases
6:24
Speaker 3: Title nine, and also equal protection in the fourteenth Amendment.
6:28
Speaker 1: I listened to the.
6:29
Speaker 3: Audio of this, and I got to say, it was
6:32
Speaker 3: like who's on first, or or theys on first? Because
6:37
Speaker 3: they What happens here is that lefties require you to
6:42
Speaker 3: go to the Supreme Court to explain things that are
6:45
Speaker 3: plainly obvious. Now, the reason they're doing that is because
6:48
Speaker 3: they don't like the facts. Yeah, that this is plainly
6:50
Speaker 3: obvious that men and women are different, the fact that
6:52
Speaker 3: they should be separated. Yea, that men shouldn't take up
6:55
Speaker 3: women's spaces, and so they turn it into this gobbledegook
6:59
Speaker 3: of gender matters when we want it to, but sex
7:02
Speaker 3: matters when we want it to.
7:03
Speaker 1: But gender matters now.
7:04
Speaker 3: But they just switch as needed as they're making a
7:08
Speaker 3: legal argument. And I got to say, I felt like
7:10
Speaker 3: I was being subjected to their mental illness listening to it.
7:14
Speaker 2: Like my head hurts from this. The two people in
7:17
Speaker 2: the case, I'm just gonna tell you what their names
7:20
Speaker 2: are now Becky pepper Jackson and Lindsay Heacox. Now Heacocks
7:25
Speaker 2: is twenty five, no longer competes in any sports that
7:29
Speaker 2: matter in this case, and in fact no longer wants
7:32
Speaker 2: to be a part of this case. But it's at
7:34
Speaker 2: the Supreme Court and it's too late for all that.
7:37
Speaker 2: Pepper Jackson, however, in West Virginia, still very much in
7:41
Speaker 2: high school, wants to play with the girls. And the
7:45
Speaker 2: arguments here are that pepper Jackson quote unquote transitioned very early,
7:50
Speaker 2: so it has taken puberty blockers, so hasn't gone through
7:54
Speaker 2: male puberty. And the lawyers on that side are making
7:58
Speaker 2: the argument that book, you know, took puberty blockers. Therefore
8:05
Speaker 2: is a girl therefore never went through male puberty, therefore
8:08
Speaker 2: has no advantage. And the truth is that there's still
8:11
Speaker 2: an advantage. I just look at a group of ten
8:14
Speaker 2: year old boys play a sport and a group of
8:17
Speaker 2: ten year old girls play a sport, and see what
8:19
Speaker 2: the differences are. I have a little, tiny ten year old,
8:23
Speaker 2: you know, we always joke about him. He's really little,
8:26
Speaker 2: but he's very athletic, right, ramming into people like you
8:29
Speaker 2: couldnot even imagine. And there's a big difference between boys
8:33
Speaker 2: and girls. And it's obvious to any parents, even before
8:37
Speaker 2: these kids go through puberty. Any parent who has ever
8:39
Speaker 2: watched kids play sports.
8:41
Speaker 3: I think obviously there's a fairness issue, that's a safety issue.
8:44
Speaker 3: I was at a protecting Women's sports gala last night
8:47
Speaker 3: with the Americans Defending Free or Alliance Defending Freedom, which
8:51
Speaker 3: is part of this legal action, and one mom is
8:56
Speaker 3: talking about how her kid had to quit the track
8:59
Speaker 3: team because right the boy on the team was making
9:02
Speaker 3: sexual threats to the women on the team and the coach,
9:07
Speaker 3: and the administration is saying, we can't do anything or
9:09
Speaker 3: we'll be fired or sued. That the idea that you
9:13
Speaker 3: cannot protect these young women that that is the thing
9:16
Speaker 3: that is a bridge too far instead of the actual
9:19
Speaker 3: sexual threats of minor children. Is so crazy making to
9:24
Speaker 3: me that we've got to this point at all. But
9:26
Speaker 3: I do think the humors of liberal activists two times
9:31
Speaker 3: now has led them to the court making what sound
9:34
Speaker 3: like pretty bad arguments. We can't say what the court
9:37
Speaker 3: will do on this. Obviously, in Bostock in twenty twenty,
9:40
Speaker 3: they sided with transgender arguments that in a employment situation
9:44
Speaker 3: you cannot discriminate.
9:46
Speaker 2: Listen, but I feel like that's normal.
9:48
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, Title nine is very different.
9:50
Speaker 3: Title nine requires separating sex's that was the point. You
9:54
Speaker 3: want to take that into consideration. But they seem to
9:57
Speaker 3: have gone up there and made very bad arguments, and
9:59
Speaker 3: in fact conceded a lot of their arguments by saying, hey, no, no, no,
10:03
Speaker 3: we just want an exception for the medically treated trands,
10:07
Speaker 3: which by the way, subjects all high school and elementary
10:10
Speaker 3: school and middle school women to blood testing.
10:12
Speaker 1: At some point. Is that what we're going to do
10:13
Speaker 1: right right? At any rate?
10:15
Speaker 3: It's all impractical and stupid, And I'm going to put
10:18
Speaker 3: you a clip of Justice Alito. Having reached the point
10:22
Speaker 3: that I've reached where he goes, this is all crazy,
10:24
Speaker 3: except he says it in a more dignified way, and
10:26
Speaker 3: he asks, like, seems like we need a definition of
10:29
Speaker 3: sex if we're going to establish that you've been discriminated
10:32
Speaker 3: against based on sex.
10:33
Speaker 1: Do you have one?
10:34
Speaker 3: Here?
10:34
Speaker 1: We go it does that?
10:35
Speaker 4: Then? Is it not necessary for there to be for
10:39
Speaker 4: equal protection purposes? If that is challenged under the equal
10:42
Speaker 4: protection clause? An understanding of what it means to be
10:46
Speaker 4: a boy or a girl or a maneral woman? Yes?
10:50
Speaker 5: Sure?
10:50
Speaker 4: And what is that definition for equal protection purposes? What
10:54
Speaker 4: does what does it mean to be a boy or
10:56
Speaker 4: a girl or a manoral woman?
10:58
Speaker 5: Sorry, And the centers to your question. I think the
11:00
Speaker 5: underlying enactment, whatever it was, the policy, the law would
11:04
Speaker 5: we'd have to have an understanding of how the state
11:06
Speaker 5: or the government was understanding that term to figure out
11:09
Speaker 5: whether or not someone was excluded. We do not have
11:11
Speaker 5: a definition for the court, and we don't take issue
11:14
Speaker 5: with the We're not disputing the definition here. What we're
11:16
Speaker 5: saying is that the way it applies in practice is
11:19
Speaker 5: to exclude birth sex males categorically from women's teams, and
11:23
Speaker 5: that there's a subset of those birth sex males where
11:25
Speaker 5: it doesn't make sense to do so according to the
11:27
Speaker 5: state's own interest.
11:29
Speaker 4: Well, how can a court determine whether there's a discrimination
11:34
Speaker 4: on the basis of sex without knowing what sex means
11:38
Speaker 4: for equal protection purposes?
11:40
Speaker 5: I think here we just know that we basically know
11:43
Speaker 5: that the that they've identified, pursue into their own statue,
11:47
Speaker 5: Lindsay qualifies as a birth sex male, and she's being
11:50
Speaker 5: excluded categorically from the women's teams as the statute. So
11:53
Speaker 5: we're taking the statues's definitions as we find them and
11:56
Speaker 5: we don't dispute them.
11:57
Speaker 3: There needs to be a definition of sex for you
11:59
Speaker 3: to determine whether someone has been discriminated on the basis
12:03
Speaker 3: of their sex. What happened here, it feels to me
12:05
Speaker 3: and Scrimmetti was similar, is that a tantrum made its
12:09
Speaker 3: way to the Supreme Court, and like all these bizarre
12:14
Speaker 3: definitions and uses of language that don't comport with legal
12:18
Speaker 3: standards or legal tradition make their way to the Supreme Court,
12:21
Speaker 3: and then the lawyers glitch out when their internal logic
12:25
Speaker 3: is eventually confronted. Because the internal logic of the gender
12:29
Speaker 3: movement doesn't work.
12:30
Speaker 2: Right there's no logic. It's just I feel. I feel
12:33
Speaker 2: that this should be the way it is, and there's
12:35
Speaker 2: no logic there. You're arguing that there's no difference between
12:39
Speaker 2: boys and girls, like get out of here, Like stop. Yeah,
12:43
Speaker 2: you know. I had a column on this in Yesterday's
12:46
Speaker 2: and Wednesday's New York Post. And there's a reason wh're
12:49
Speaker 2: not seeing biological girls in front of the Supreme Court
12:54
Speaker 2: desperately trying to get into boys sports. There's a reason
12:57
Speaker 2: for that because they would not succeed in those sports,
13:00
Speaker 2: and that is why they're not fighting to get into it.
13:02
Speaker 2: These biological boys are crushing the girls in these sports,
13:06
Speaker 2: and that's why they are trying to get into it.
13:08
Speaker 2: It's pretty easy.
13:09
Speaker 1: Yeah, there are benefits that were down to them.
13:11
Speaker 3: Even a UN report at that GALLA last night was
13:14
Speaker 3: cited for saying, like some six hundred plus medals and
13:17
Speaker 3: awards have gone to biological men in competitions. And by
13:21
Speaker 3: the way, if you do want to play a sport
13:22
Speaker 3: which I think is healthy and good for you, yeah,
13:25
Speaker 3: mentally and physically, there are many co ed, not very
13:29
Speaker 3: competitive situations in which you can just happily play with
13:34
Speaker 3: men and women because men and women have decided these
13:37
Speaker 3: are the spaces in which it is safe for us
13:39
Speaker 3: to do this together.
13:40
Speaker 2: That's right.
13:41
Speaker 3: So there are opportunities, but you are not going to
13:43
Speaker 3: be able to reach the higher echelons of sports, nor
13:46
Speaker 3: should you in like properly regulated competitive areas. Join erect
13:52
Speaker 3: league of adults who play doing men and women's soccer.
13:56
Speaker 1: Easy call. Yeah, I got to do it at my gym.
13:59
Speaker 1: I go to my gym and I compete with myself. Guys,
14:01
Speaker 1: I love it.
14:05
Speaker 2: We'll be taking a short break on normally and we'll.
14:08
Speaker 1: Be right back.
14:12
Speaker 3: All right, we are back on normally. Carol with a
14:15
Speaker 3: story about a tax debacle out of California. This one's
14:20
Speaker 3: quite a story. Billion billions, billions of dollars in wealth
14:26
Speaker 3: are leaving the state of California now like piecing out
14:30
Speaker 3: now why Because California has a ballot initiative process that
14:35
Speaker 3: allows them to announce a ballot initiative.
14:37
Speaker 1: It will be on the ballot in November.
14:40
Speaker 3: The one they have this year is a wealth tax
14:42
Speaker 3: that would affect all these billionaires that live in the state.
14:44
Speaker 1: They want to confiscate huge amounts of.
14:46
Speaker 3: Their money, sometimes on real life money, just like whatever
14:49
Speaker 3: you got, we're going to take because we're we're promising
14:52
Speaker 3: free stuff to everyone. They put it on the ballot
14:55
Speaker 3: for November, and then they think to themselves, Aha, if
14:58
Speaker 3: we put it the lefties go on the ballot in November,
15:02
Speaker 3: then all the billionaires will will take their money. And
15:05
Speaker 3: so we're going to backdate it the effective date, and
15:08
Speaker 3: the effective date was January of this year. Yeah, before
15:12
Speaker 3: it's even on the ballot. And so the billionaires were like, noted,
15:16
Speaker 3: we will take our mind.
15:18
Speaker 1: Now. The cell phone is incredible.
15:21
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's amazing because these people, so it's the SEIU
15:26
Speaker 2: United Healthcare Workers West, it's a statewide union of CERTAINCE employees,
15:31
Speaker 2: and their leadership are the ones who put this Billionaire
15:34
Speaker 2: Tax Act on the ballot. It's actually not on the
15:37
Speaker 2: ballot yet. They need a million signatures by I believe
15:40
Speaker 2: it's June or July, so they still have some work
15:43
Speaker 2: to do. It not only might not pass, it might
15:47
Speaker 2: take the ballot.
15:47
Speaker 3: On the ballot and they've already screwed themselves.
15:51
Speaker 2: But here's the reality of it is that the billionaires
15:53
Speaker 2: who left don't trust their fellow Californians not to pick
15:58
Speaker 2: this right. That's what this is all about out there
16:00
Speaker 2: thinking it's possible. Like if this made it onto the
16:03
Speaker 2: ballot in Florida, I would be confident this would not pass.
16:07
Speaker 2: But California, who knows. So I've got a piece on
16:10
Speaker 2: this on the Fox News website tomorrow Friday. But Larry
16:14
Speaker 2: Page and Sir Gay Brint, co founders of Google, they
16:19
Speaker 2: left and I love this. All the billionaires as they're leaving,
16:22
Speaker 2: they're like I moved in December. They're all like, you know.
16:27
Speaker 2: Peter Thiel released a press release about moving and made
16:31
Speaker 2: sure to note that he got the office space in December.
16:33
Speaker 2: But basically Gary Tan, who is self described San Francisco Democrat,
16:39
Speaker 2: he explained that Brinn and Page can't stay in California
16:43
Speaker 2: because the wealth tax would confiscate fifty percent of their
16:47
Speaker 2: Alphabet shares. They each own around three percent of Alphabet stock,
16:51
Speaker 2: this guy says worth about one hundred and twenty billion
16:54
Speaker 2: each at today's fourtullion market cap, But because their shares
16:59
Speaker 2: have ten times the voting power, this billionaire tax would
17:02
Speaker 2: treat them as owning thirty percent of the company, and
17:06
Speaker 2: that means each founder's taxable wealth would be one point
17:09
Speaker 2: two trillion. A five percent wealth tax on one point
17:12
Speaker 2: two trillion equals sixty billion dollar tax bill each, so
17:18
Speaker 2: fifty percent of their holdings would be wiped out with
17:22
Speaker 2: this guy five percent tax. Now, the thing is, you know,
17:27
Speaker 2: I don't love that people who supported this insanity right
17:31
Speaker 2: up until the leopards ate their face are making a move.
17:35
Speaker 2: I think some people are going to have to stay
17:39
Speaker 2: and fight. And I just think, like, I don't know,
17:41
Speaker 2: Page and Brynn. I've heard that they really smartened up,
17:45
Speaker 2: and not like not in the last few months, more
17:48
Speaker 2: like in the last few years. They both have made
17:50
Speaker 2: some real shifts in their beliefs. I hope that's true.
17:53
Speaker 2: Peter Thiel, he's obviously an open conservative, so he can
17:58
Speaker 2: move wherever he wants. But some of the other ones.
18:01
Speaker 2: Reid Hoffman, I'm the co founder of LinkedIn. He supports
18:05
Speaker 2: every ridiculous Democrat proposal. You're gonna have to stay and
18:08
Speaker 2: fight for this one, mister Hoffman. This one is at
18:11
Speaker 2: your feet.
18:12
Speaker 1: This is like, you're very real, mugged by reality. Yeah,
18:16
Speaker 1: in the state of California.
18:17
Speaker 3: I just love that California is so crazy and so
18:21
Speaker 3: willing to be crazy that the very proposal of the
18:24
Speaker 3: crazy is like, I can't risk that.
18:27
Speaker 2: I can't risk the insanity.
18:29
Speaker 3: And I also enjoyed that the SEIU thought that it
18:32
Speaker 3: was going to outsmart the billionaires getting so good, and
18:35
Speaker 3: the millionaires are like, you can't outsmart us.
18:37
Speaker 2: Leaving me now the most mobile people in society, Can
18:41
Speaker 2: we just be real here, the people who have Like,
18:43
Speaker 2: if me and you have to move tomorrow, that's going
18:46
Speaker 2: to be tough. If Larry Page has to move tomorrow,
18:49
Speaker 2: he's got an army that can move them tomorrow.
18:52
Speaker 1: Yeah.
18:52
Speaker 2: And he can get his kid into Eddy school he wants,
18:54
Speaker 2: he can do, he can move anywhere. He picks a
18:57
Speaker 2: house that he likes, he pays ten times what it's worth,
18:59
Speaker 2: and that's his else now it doesn't matter. Yeah, they
19:03
Speaker 2: picked on the wrong segment of the population.
19:05
Speaker 4: Yeah.
19:05
Speaker 3: Let me let me just add Gavin Newsom is vowing
19:08
Speaker 3: to fight this. Okay, well you already you've already lost
19:11
Speaker 3: the fight to a great extent. And it says he's
19:13
Speaker 3: he has not backed wealth taxes in the past, And
19:17
Speaker 3: I would just say, why, why, Gavin Newsom are you
19:20
Speaker 3: against this? Because if they're not paying their fair share in.
19:22
Speaker 2: The state of California, lecture share the rest.
19:25
Speaker 3: Of us about all the time, then you shouldn't oppose this.
19:28
Speaker 3: The Union argues, this is New York Times, that the
19:30
Speaker 3: tax is necessary to make up for deep cuts to
19:32
Speaker 3: healthcare that President Trump's signed into law last year, including
19:35
Speaker 3: reductions in Medicaid that's fraud prevention YEP, YEP, Formal Care
19:38
Speaker 3: Act subsidies, fraud prevention, COVID nonsense, and food assistants. The
19:43
Speaker 3: Union's proposal calls for the state to spend ninety percent
19:45
Speaker 3: of the new tax money on healthcare, with the rest
19:47
Speaker 3: of voted to FOD assistance in education. By the way,
19:49
Speaker 3: they're bleeding themselves drive with fraud and benefits to illegal.
19:52
Speaker 1: Aliens as well.
19:53
Speaker 3: Right, and I love this quote from the chief of
19:56
Speaker 3: staff to the labor to the governor.
19:58
Speaker 1: Is focused on the wrong problem here.
20:01
Speaker 3: Susanne jim And has said, the problem is not just
20:04
Speaker 3: about the preferences of two hundred ultra wealthy individuals. The
20:07
Speaker 3: problem is millions will lose healthcare, and that's really the
20:09
Speaker 3: problem we're trying to solve. She doesn't understand what the
20:12
Speaker 3: two hundred un have and why it's important, and like
20:16
Speaker 3: it doesn't belong to you.
20:17
Speaker 1: You amazing you can't just take it. That's not how
20:19
Speaker 1: it works.
20:20
Speaker 2: Timath Pellipidia, he is one of the hosts of the
20:24
Speaker 2: All In podcasts. By the way of the four two
20:28
Speaker 2: are gone, one left recently, and two are still in California,
20:32
Speaker 2: I think, just seeing what happened, but he points out
20:36
Speaker 2: that the excess of seven hundred billion left California just
20:41
Speaker 2: last month, and that means that the two trillion of
20:43
Speaker 2: California wealth they expected to tax is already right now
20:48
Speaker 2: down to one point three trillion. Like they are not
20:51
Speaker 2: going to have anybody to tax when this is over.
20:54
Speaker 2: And you know who should be worried, honestly the multimillionaires.
20:57
Speaker 2: After that, all the billionaires have left and they bought
21:00
Speaker 2: up all the property where you might want to live.
21:02
Speaker 2: They're coming for the next wrong down and they're going
21:04
Speaker 2: to keep going until they could pay for their ridiculous proposals.
21:08
Speaker 2: So you know, here here we are, I'm not surprised
21:12
Speaker 2: that California did this. I think that that's they've become
21:16
Speaker 2: the place where crazy ideas are born. And Gavin Newsom
21:20
Speaker 2: could be against this all he wants, He's still responsible
21:24
Speaker 2: for the tsunami of insanity that exists in his state. Yep, yeah,
21:31
Speaker 2: I liked Mike's Solana, who's one of my favorite Twitter follows.
21:34
Speaker 2: He's letter in chief of Pirate Wires. Just so smart
21:38
Speaker 2: and funny, he tweets. Now that we're calculating net worth
21:42
Speaker 2: as control, I'd like to remind you that Rocanna, who
21:45
Speaker 2: is a congressman and is one of the people who's
21:47
Speaker 2: supportive of thiswealth tax, is one of five hundred and
21:50
Speaker 2: thirty five United States legislators that gives him a roundero
21:53
Speaker 2: point nineteen percent control of a six point three trillion
21:56
Speaker 2: budget and brings his net worth to something like twelve billion.
22:00
Speaker 2: His tax bill five hundred and ninety eight million, five
22:03
Speaker 2: hundred thousand dollars.
22:06
Speaker 1: Row, pay up, Pay your fair share, buddy, Yeah, you.
22:09
Speaker 2: Want to You want to talk about unrealized gains. That
22:12
Speaker 2: that's one of them.
22:14
Speaker 3: Left he's not seeing. How incentives work is just a
22:17
Speaker 3: classic genre. It happens all the time. We'll never get old.
22:21
Speaker 2: It really won't. We're going to take a short break
22:24
Speaker 2: and talk about how some writies don't understand how incentives work.
22:28
Speaker 6: Well.
22:29
Speaker 5: Now.
22:29
Speaker 2: The next segment will be Trump administration, the good and
22:32
Speaker 2: the bad. We are back on normally where look, the
22:39
Speaker 2: Trump administration, some hits, some misses. This is what it's
22:42
Speaker 2: all about. Well, let's start with the misses, because we
22:44
Speaker 2: just tease that Donald Trump is proposing a cap on
22:48
Speaker 2: credit card interest rates, and that cap is going to
22:51
Speaker 2: be ten percent. This is a really dumb idea. I
22:56
Speaker 2: give him a lot of leeway with his economic populism
23:00
Speaker 2: because he ran on it and he won on it,
23:02
Speaker 2: and that's the way things go. But this is really
23:06
Speaker 2: one of the ideas that are so poorly thought out,
23:09
Speaker 2: and we'll have such a percussions. I just think, on
23:13
Speaker 2: a really basic level, I grew up in Brooklyn. You
23:16
Speaker 2: can find someone to lend you money at a high
23:19
Speaker 2: interest rate if you need to, and it won't be
23:22
Speaker 2: chased or visa. It'll be the shady guy on your street.
23:27
Speaker 3: Well, I think what happens is people assume, and it
23:31
Speaker 3: sounds very People are gonna like this idea that the
23:34
Speaker 3: sound of it is good right up until they won't. Okay, great,
23:37
Speaker 3: credit cards can't charge me. More than that, You have
23:41
Speaker 3: to think to the second order consequences beyond the first
23:45
Speaker 3: one once they can't charge you. That prices are a signal,
23:49
Speaker 3: interest rates are a signal your interest rate is a
23:51
Speaker 3: signal of how risky you are to rent to give
23:54
Speaker 3: loans to and so once you cannot be charged the
23:57
Speaker 3: amount that is commensurate with your riskiness, you will not
24:01
Speaker 3: get money. That's how it works, and unfortunately that will
24:04
Speaker 3: fall on people who need money, who are in more
24:09
Speaker 3: dire situations, lower income brackets, who want to rebuild, who
24:14
Speaker 3: need tools to do that, and they will end up
24:17
Speaker 3: doing payday loans or as you noted, extra an extra
24:22
Speaker 3: financial sector investments and transactions, and it will go badly
24:28
Speaker 3: and suddenly when those people don't have access to credit,
24:31
Speaker 3: they will be very mad at the people who cause
24:33
Speaker 3: that problem.
24:34
Speaker 2: Yeah, and you know, I think about all of the
24:36
Speaker 2: tech bros whose stories start out with we started this
24:40
Speaker 2: company in our garage and we put everything on the
24:42
Speaker 2: credit card. And yeah, interest rates are high, and you
24:47
Speaker 2: should avoid them as much as possible by paying off
24:50
Speaker 2: all of your credit card debt every month, then your
24:54
Speaker 2: interest rate is zero. But people take chances with the
24:59
Speaker 2: loans that they get, and it's going to lead to
25:02
Speaker 2: fewer people being able to take chances, like the people
25:05
Speaker 2: who start their businesses and their garages and put all
25:08
Speaker 2: the money on the credit cards and all of that.
25:10
Speaker 2: It's going to be a real hard thing for people
25:13
Speaker 2: like that.
25:13
Speaker 1: Also, Trump loves debt. What do we do?
25:15
Speaker 2: What is going on? Yeah, he's you know, I feel
25:18
Speaker 2: like he's getting some bad economic populism advice. And I
25:21
Speaker 2: you know a lot of people who like Donald Trump.
25:24
Speaker 2: Every time he does something they don't like, they blame
25:26
Speaker 2: it on people in his ear. But you're right, he
25:28
Speaker 2: likes debt. How is he now anti debt? How does
25:31
Speaker 2: this make sense?
25:32
Speaker 3: I mean I would love to just like keep the
25:34
Speaker 3: credit card stuff where it is and do some more
25:37
Speaker 3: financial literacy from the presidential podium.
25:39
Speaker 1: That might help.
25:40
Speaker 3: Yeah, but yeah, there are downsides, of course, But there
25:43
Speaker 3: are downsides to this policy that people do not recognize.
25:47
Speaker 2: Our friend Jesse Kelly has been all over this, and
25:50
Speaker 2: I really enjoyed his tweets, But he tweeted, if you
25:53
Speaker 2: think putting a cap on credit card interest will help
25:56
Speaker 2: with affordability, then there's little that can be done for you.
25:58
Speaker 2: Jesse's kind of abrasive, but that's why we love him.
26:01
Speaker 2: That's not at all how that's going to work. You're
26:03
Speaker 2: simply going to regulate the poor out of access, as
26:05
Speaker 2: price controls always do. I mean, that's it, that's what's
26:09
Speaker 2: going to end up happening. And you know here we are. Yep,
26:13
Speaker 2: it's true.
26:14
Speaker 1: But we have a good story for mood.
26:16
Speaker 2: All right, let's hear the troll story from the Trump administration.
26:19
Speaker 3: Right. Well, we have a little clip from twenty fourteen
26:22
Speaker 3: South Park that previewed this week's news.
26:25
Speaker 1: Can we play that.
26:26
Speaker 6: It's dinner time on the East Coast in less than
26:28
Speaker 6: an hour, people are going to die.
26:30
Speaker 3: Sir.
26:30
Speaker 1: We've got a boy on the highlight.
26:31
Speaker 7: It says he might know something. Who is this?
26:34
Speaker 1: My name is important?
26:36
Speaker 2: What matters is that The answer is in the pyramid.
26:39
Speaker 7: The pyramid.
26:40
Speaker 6: That's ancient stuff.
26:41
Speaker 7: You're talking about it.
26:42
Speaker 1: You sure bring up the pyramid, but what is it?
26:47
Speaker 2: What is it?
26:48
Speaker 3: Thought?
26:49
Speaker 6: We built the pyramid a long time ago to illustrate
26:51
Speaker 6: how much people should eat in the four basic food groups.
26:53
Speaker 2: Sir.
26:54
Speaker 6: We abandoned the pyramid when Michelle Obama got involved. The
26:57
Speaker 6: pyramid doesn't work. We've already tried it.
27:00
Speaker 2: It's upside down.
27:02
Speaker 8: What upside down?
27:05
Speaker 7: Turn the pyramid upside down?
27:07
Speaker 2: You can't be serious.
27:08
Speaker 7: That would put the butter in beat at the top
27:10
Speaker 7: of the damn food pyramid. This is not FDA approved.
27:14
Speaker 7: It's dinner time on the East coast in ten minutes. No,
27:16
Speaker 7: do it, sir, We've got a match.
27:25
Speaker 2: Nutrition is stabilizing.
27:28
Speaker 6: We've got a well balanced vaccine, Sir.
27:34
Speaker 7: Get the President on the phone, tell him to have some.
27:39
Speaker 2: Steak with his butter.
27:43
Speaker 1: I love that.
27:44
Speaker 2: Yeah, south Park ahead of its time.
27:46
Speaker 1: Yeah.
27:47
Speaker 3: So the thing about this is that South Park, although
27:50
Speaker 3: it looks very much like it knows the future a
27:52
Speaker 3: soothsayer in this uh bit.
27:55
Speaker 1: We all knew it by then.
27:56
Speaker 3: We've all known that the nutrition advice was very bad
27:59
Speaker 3: from the federal government, has been bad for a long time.
28:02
Speaker 3: Is in part created by big agg by subsidies. Yeah,
28:08
Speaker 3: I think I think it was Jillian Michaels who said this.
28:10
Speaker 3: The pyramid isn't like advice for regular people. Although it
28:13
Speaker 3: does trickle down and people get bad advice, It's not
28:16
Speaker 3: just that it is a map for subsidies and a
28:20
Speaker 3: map for US giving billions and trillions and money to
28:26
Speaker 3: interests that don't necessarily serve nutrition. What is supposed to
28:29
Speaker 3: be the message here? And so I think, look, I
28:32
Speaker 3: think this is a needed correction. I often disagree with
28:35
Speaker 3: RFQ Junior but not on this one. I also would
28:38
Speaker 3: like to shout out that they did fantastic design.
28:41
Speaker 1: Work, so nice a design firm on this poster.
28:44
Speaker 3: Yeah, and I have never wanted a piece of government
28:46
Speaker 3: messaging in my home before, but that poster is making
28:50
Speaker 3: me rethink.
28:52
Speaker 2: Yeah, come on you let you had the Cuomo Hill
28:56
Speaker 2: poster that he made for himself, right, the mountain of
28:59
Speaker 2: mountain of yes.
29:01
Speaker 3: The courage Mountain or whatever he called it. But I
29:03
Speaker 3: think I think this is a correct move. I think
29:06
Speaker 3: that if you are funneling subsidies to us processed food,
29:10
Speaker 3: if you are encouraging people to find real food, if
29:14
Speaker 3: you stop demonizing protein and fat, that's we're all good
29:19
Speaker 3: things direction.
29:20
Speaker 2: Yeah, go have some steak with butter tonight.
29:22
Speaker 8: Friends, Yes, quit eating your rice cakes and like soda,
29:28
Speaker 8: that's not gonna have soda and the rice cakes. Like,
29:30
Speaker 8: I'm not hating on either one of them, but like
29:32
Speaker 8: those are not going to solve your problems.
29:33
Speaker 1: That's right.
29:34
Speaker 2: Well, thanks for joining us on Normally Normally airs Tuesdays
29:37
Speaker 2: and Thursdays, and you can subscribe anywhere you get your podcasts.
29:41
Speaker 2: Get in touch with us at normallythepod at gmail dot com.
29:44
Speaker 2: Thanks for listening and when things get weird, act normally