The Comedy Cellar: Live from the Table - Do Unto Others - PART I

Episode Date: February 19, 2021

In our most heated episode yet, Noam goes to head to head with journalist Will Wilkinson. Danny Cohen talks about gay conversion therapy and Dan sees a mouse.       

This is live from the table, the official podcast of New York's world-famous comedy cellar, coming at you on Sirius XM 99, Raw Dog, and on the Laugh Button Podcast Network, this is Dan Natterman. I'm, of course, with Noam Dorman, the owner of the world-famous comedy cellar, Perriella Ashenbrand is with us. She's our producer and an on-air personality in her own right. It just kind of evolved. It wasn't planned that way, but that's what happened. Published author.

Published author as well, yes. Has a couple of memoirs out, which we'll discuss. Danny Cohen is with us. He's a frequent guest. He is a comedy seller regular. He is a tie maker. T-I-E.

He makes ties. He designs ties. He makes ties. They're embroidered ties. They're lovely ties. You can get them, Danny, where?ycohen uh ties.com danny cohen ties easy enough okay folks we also have a guest coming a little bit later will wilkinson and uh he's a um he he's a former uh think tank research director we'll talk to him but first there's a couple of comments

fired from the new york times you're telling a joke but go ahead we'll get to him. But first, there's a couple of comedy. You're also fired from the New York Times for telling a joke. But go ahead. We'll get to all of those things. Well, first of all, I got an email from, I guess, Liz Ferriati, the general manager of the Comedy Cellar, saying, hey, come on down to Comedy. The Olive Tree Cafe, which is the restaurant above the Comedy Cellar, will be open this week. Come on down. Say hello. Have dinner. Know them.

Yes, that's true. We're're gonna be open at 25% capacity you know which is means we're gonna start losing more money again but I guess is I guess it's the right thing to do I don't know this is the worst it would know what about stand-up? Will comics be allowed to perform? If they drop by, will there be a stage available and a mic? We have that stage set up in the Olive Tree. We're not allowed to have shows, but, you know, comedians, they want to illicitly go up there and, you know, and tell jokes to each other.

We're not going to have any scheduled shows or anything like that. But when we were open last time, it just became like a clubhouse for the comedians to hang out, which is important. And it's an important part of our function in the comedy community. So we're going to do it.

But hopefully, hopefully with the vaccine and everything that's going on shortly enough, we will be allowed actually to have real. But I keep reading articles that are saying, well, we're gonna have to live with this virus, vaccine or no vaccine. I don't understand that, do you? I don't understand it either.

If the vaccine is that effective, what the hell are they talking about? I mean, either the vaccine works and we're gonna get rid of this virus, or one of these mutant strains is gonna be immune to the vaccine and we're gonna be right back in the shitter where we were.

I don't see any middle ground. I can explain. Really? Go ahead. All right, Norm's a little skeptical of that. Place your bets. Go ahead. So even if you're vaccinated,

the virus can still live in your nose hair, which means that you can get it. You won't get sick from it, but you can still give it to somebody else. And also children have not yet been vaccinated, as we all know. And then also the mutant strains. So those are the three reasons why it's not so clear cut. Go ahead. No, go so clear cut. Go ahead. No, go ahead, Dan.

Go ahead. Take those points in turn. Number one, children will be vaccinated at some point. Number two, the mutant strains will hopefully be prevented by the vaccine. If not, as Noam said, we're right back where we started. And as far as the virus still living and you can transmit it, if the vaccine works, you won't be able to transmit it. No, because not everybody will have been vaccinated.

The nose hair thing is highly theoretical. Nobody knows if the nose hairs are really, but even if it's true, it's going to be a tiny number of people number one number two the the vaccine what is it like 95 percent of everybody who's died has been in high-risk groups and and once everybody in the high-risk groups is vaccinated then as i understand it we're reduced to disease, which is no deadlier to the remaining people than the flu is. So why would we, like, we're going to move on? I mean, even if we didn't want to move on, you think you're going to convince a bunch of 20 year olds to stay home when all the 65 year olds have been vaccinated and going about their lives? It's not going to work. So we're either, my prediction is either a mutant strain comes along or we're putting this behind us in a few months once once we're

vaccinated that's what i said that makes sense it's also vaccinal still lasts about six months seven months so the vaccine well you don't know that either you can get revaccinated you have to get revaccinated so who knows some people might forget and then they're not vaccinated and then they're, you know, open to getting the virus. Whatever. I agree that the virus won't go away completely. Even polio, I think, still exists here and there in some parts of the world. You know, there's certain diseases that are pretty much gone in most of the world, but they still kind of exist. So even if it still exists, does this mean that we're going to have to change our lifestyles,

or can we go on as we were before? And I think Noam is saying we'll be able to go on as we were before. We have to. Media being sensational. I think they're just hyping it up and making everybody. It's just media. It's just everyone's like, it's all hype. It's fine. It's going to be okay. Well, I think, yeah, I mean, I think, I think so.

Look, I don't know where you guys went to medical school, but what I studied was. God, where'd you find this woman? If everybody's not vaccinated though, doesn't it, doesn't it never go away? Isn't that the problem? Well, never going away is one thing, but, but being present enough to disrupt our lives. Like I said, polio, I don't think has gone away. I think it still exists here and there. Like every other disease we're vaccinated against. It's, it said, polio, I don't think has gone away. I think it still exists here and there. Like every other disease we're vaccinated against. First of all, you only need, I mean, you hear various numbers, 75, 85% of people to be immune for the R-naught to go significantly below one. So it peters out on its own. But the more important point to me is that once the people who are like,

not everybody dies from COVID. Kids don't die from COVID. I mean, you know, young people don't die from COVID. Well, some people. Well, some people die of everything. But if the entire population had the same risk that 25-year-olds have of dying from COVID. Right. We wouldn't have never shut down anything. We would have just been careful. We wouldn't shut down the economy over a disease that has a one in

20,000 or whatever it is. We shut it down because 20, 30% of old people and high risk people were dying, but we're not going to shut down the whole economy once it's only young people. And besides, I mean, we have vaccinations for many diseases, right? Why is this one considered to be different than all this? I mean, it's the same as all of them. I think they compare it to the flu where it could mutate and we have to find a new vaccine every year. And we'll have to do that. Yeah.

But that's a scary thought. We don't know. Although, on the other hand, I just read an article that some other people think that with this new technology, we may be able to come up with a vaccine, which is all purpose against all coronaviruses, including the common cold. They're talking about actually eradicating the common cold now. So who knows? I've eradicated the common cold by not leaving the house all year. I mean, it's been a year. I'm putting my money on medical science.

I think I'm a big optimist. All the people who are telling us it's going to take years for a vaccine, Perriel, by the way, I mean, they were all so wrong. Of course, part of that was just because Trump was president, so they had to embrace the most dire outcome.

They were saying that Trump was lying about, we talked about it, they were saying that Trump was lying about having a vaccine altogether. They were saying that like three weeks before the vaccine came out, these hard-nosed reporters were really like calling up Pfizer and Moderna and somehow, you know, they didn't spend two seconds trying to find out whether it was true or not. They just said he's lying. There's no vaccine.

I do want to, before Will gets here, also touch on one other important comedy-related issue. Mr. Dave Chappelle has apparently gotten a huge payoff, payout, payoff, whatever, comedy central just to recall just to uh review uh the chapelle show the comedy central chapelle show was sold to netflix netflix was airing it and then chapelle said i'd rather you don't air it they didn't treat me very well they ripped me off when i was young and naive i would appreciate it netflix uh as a favor to me if you don't air this uh show and netflix complied well apparently comedy central paid off paid off Dave Chappelle to the tune of several million dollars. And Chappelle said they've made the pass right. I can finally say it's a pleasure doing business with Comedy Central.

And the Chappelle show will now be airing on Netflix. Comments and thoughts on that. Danny? So, who did he say that to? He said that to Comedy Central that they mistreated him and he didn't want them to please him. He said that to the public. He said, look,

Comedy Central, when I was young, when I was young and desperate, they gave me a bad deal. We don't know what the deal was. My guess is he made far more than the average American made But it was a bad deal in his mind And it also made him famous

But it was a bad deal in his mind and therefore he felt that Netflix should not air these episodes because he was not making any extra money from these episodes Well, as a favor to Dave Netflix said, okay, we want to hear the episodes we want to do business with dave chappelle we're not gonna hear the episode so then comedy central came up and paid him for comedy center said all right dave we're gonna make the past right we're gonna pay you whatever millions of dollars according to dave dave said great now we're square and we can air these these episodes on that perfect i think that's, I think that that's how you do business. Wonderful.

I'm glad it worked out. Well, I mean, we said on the show back then that I said that I thought this was, you know, negotiating and, um, and it, it turns out it was normally it's unbecoming.

You say a deal is a deal. And, um, you know, we talk about it at the time. For instance, Comedy Central, Dave's show could have bombed,

right? And Comedy Central wouldn't have come to him and say, listen, we want the $10 million back or whatever his money, you know, that we, cost us to pay you and produce the show. But,

there is this gray area where you make a deal and then something totally unforeseen creates a windfall for one part or the other. And I think that what happened here is that when Chappelle, I don't know this, but I think that I'm right here. When Chappelle negotiated the Chappelle show, the hot issue at that time was DVD rights. Streaming was not on anybody's radar. And now all of a sudden, there are millions of

dollars to be made from streaming and Comedy Central. And Chappelle says, you know what? Fuck, this doesn't seem fair to me. They're making millions of dollars. If we had known about it, of course, they would have given me a share of that money. So I have some leverage here. My leverage is, you know, you can say what you want about it, but it's real leverage. I was like, I'm going to tell the public,

this is bullshit. Comedy Central is making all this money and I'm not getting my share and I don't want you to watch it until, and people love Chappelle. And that leverage made Comedy Central say uncle. So they settled up for some amount of millions of dollars. And, you know, I don't know. I don't know what to say about that.

It's certainly not the case. It's not the same case if somebody tries to renegotiate a deal where there were no new facts that came to light and there were no unknowns. unknowns it's it's really true that nobody had any idea that there was this pot of gold which was comedy central was keeping in its side of the the ledger and chapelle didn't even know it existed didn't know it existed either it's not like comedy center was saying was was uh you know doing right saying oh we're gonna get straight and dave doesn't even know streaming is coming up but that's my point I don't blame either. I don't blame. It's like this, Dan,

if you sell, if you sell me your old guitar and it's a shitty guitar and I buy it for 20 hours and I take it home and there's $10 million inside there, inside the hole of that guitar, you know? And I'd be like, but you'd say, listen,

yeah, but you know, like maybe you should share some of that money back. But like, we didn't know. And, and a mensch would say, a gentleman would say,

you're right. Let's make a deal for this $10 million. I'll give you $1 million. Because whatever. You're still going to make a lot of money with the guitar. But you just give them a little bit just to settle.

Because you know why? Because you both like each other. Nobody wants to fight. Noam and I are friends. Comedy Central and Chappelle were doing an arm's length negotiation. Well, you know, but nobody wants to be. I mean, the analogy is an interesting one. I don't know if it, you know, like every analogy,

it's not a 100% perfect fit. I look at it this way. Good for Dave if he could pull it off. I don't believe he's a hero. I don't believe he was wronged by Comedy Central. I don't believe he was a victim of Comedy Central's overreaching. I believe he had power.

He was able to pull it off. God bless him. But I don't- It's not much of a story. I don't see it as, but some people see it as a victory of good over evil, in a sense. That's hilarious.

I don't. It's nice to see the artist getting his due. I mean, I do think that even if it was... The artist, this particular artist has been getting his due for 20 years. But well earned, you know, and rightly so. All right, but I think we should. It's nice to see him get his due. It's not like he hasn't been a millionaire for a couple of decades.

I'd say the following. I've been treated very nicely by Dave Chappelle. I've been treated very nicely by Comedy Central. I have no idea what the initial deal was, how much he got paid. We simply don't have enough facts if we were really wanted to. What initial deal would you say is scandalous and unconscionable, I guess, is the legal term? I mean, if he were being paid $100,000 an episode for the original deal, would you say that was reasonable? No, there's no deal which is scandalous.

I mean, if it was $50 an episode, I'd say, yeah, this was overreaching. They took advantage. But I suspect it was probably more money than the average teacher, the average construction, you know, the hard-working people. It's also complicated by the fact that he walked away from the third season, was it, or the

fourth season, where he left $50 million, I think is the number they were going to pay him. $50 million. So, you know. Right. Go ahead. I think it's scandalous what happened to the Brady Bunch cast. Oh, that's a lot worse.

That Brady Bunch aired for years and years and years, and they never saw a cent because when they signed their contract, there was no such thing as syndication. Yeah. And so they made their money on the show, and that was the end of that. And Schultz never gave them a penny more ever schwarz schwarz schwarz sorry well that's a german instead of jewish but yeah i i i think i think that's right and um i mean as long as comedy central is happy and dave's happy i i i think i

think it's nice that they settled it because i think it doesn't sit right when somebody is making millions and millions and millions of dollars from a, from a revenue stream that, that was not on the table and was not negotiating. A hundred percent. Good for Comedy Central for settling and for negotiating and for working it out. Good for them. I think. They had all that money. I don't know why they canceled my show, but anyway, I think. Good for both. If they had all that money, I don't know why they canceled my show, but anyway, go ahead.

Also, not having all that money. In these contracts, I typically say all media now known or will be, I mean, they sort of include the possibility of other media being devised. It's not completely unpredictable that some other media will come about.

You know, I mean, that's not completely unforeseeable. If you have a good lawyer. And, you know, I, and, and Dave was represented by, I assume competent counsel as well as management, maybe. I mean, arguably. Can we get to the heart of the matter here? Yeah burns dan up to t chapelle making me doesn't burn me up chapelle if it burned me up it would have burned me up the past 20 years that he was making money or 25 back of the chapelle just because it's somebody not no what it doesn't burn me up I think for him to tell his fans who are hardworking people, I gather that make not even a fraction of what he makes. Look, I need your help to make more money because Comedy Central ripped me off. That does not sit exquisitely with me.

If he's able to negotiate more money, God bless him, but he's not a victim and he's not a hero. We don't know that. And Chappelle, I mean, we don't know that. And we all know Chappelle and that doesn't sound, it doesn't sound like him, what you're describing, because he's always been a gentleman and nice to everybody and always been. Yeah. I mean, he doesn't, he, he doesn't fit that profile to me. And he doesn't, he doesn't fit that profile to me and he doesn't have to tone he's entitled to

his what he's entitled to he doesn't have to tone he doesn't have to forego it because other people make less than him okay let's bring the world workers unless he doesn't have to forego it but he's also not a victim yeah I know that he's not a victim rich people can be victims of somebody taking somebody cheating them well possibly but there's no evidence to suggest cheating them there's no evidence to suggest that that it was a scandalous deal maybe it was of course we don't know i mean my guess is they paid him look you know what they paid you every week for your show it wasn't chapelle money chapelle money but i'm

sure it was it was you know the advertisers would be happy to get it. We have with us Will Wilkinson. Hello, Will. We've just been discussing Dave Chappelle and Comedy Central, in case you were wondering. An excellent comedian and a terrific cable channel. Okay. You are on neither one side nor the other in that dispute.

Will Wilkinson, by the way, just to introduce our listeners to him and our viewers on YouTube, he was the vice president for research at the Niskanen Center, a centrist DC think tank. Am I pronouncing that correctly? No, it's Niskanen. It's fine, I think I got it more or less correct.

It wasn't that horrific a massacre, but it wasn't a perfect... You know, you're going to get hate mail from Finnish people. It does have a little Finnish. It reminds me of that Maddy Nukunen, who was the ski jumper. He produced a newsletter and podcast, both titled Model Citizen at Substack, and his writing has appeared in multiple publications, including The Atlantic, the New York Times, The Economist, where he was a U.S. politics correspondent. Please welcome Will Wilkinson to our podcast. Hello, Will. Hello.

Great to be here. Thanks for having me on. Can I start? Yes. I'm totally fascinated by Mr. Wilkinson. Can I call you Will? Absolutely. I'm totally fascinated by Will. So let's go through it because to me, you are somebody who was treated completely unfairly, were two kinds of the people who treated unfairly, then in my opinion, and I want to hear what you say about it, then in my opinion, sort of have been similarly unfairly to others in my opinion.

And you'll, I'm sure, disagree with me. And I just find the whole, and obviously you're extremely bright and it's just very interesting to me. So let's start with my, where you came on my radar, which is when you got fired by The New York Times for telling a joke. You want to tell the story to the listeners? I got fired by from the Scanning Center for telling the joke. And the Times severed their relationship with you. Is that correct?

No, I'm just kind of like in a timeout with them. I thought I read that they issued a statement that yeah um i just i'm i'm on hiatus until um march or april okay they made you stand in the corner so so so but and so tell the people tell the listeners what the horrible tweet that you got all this trouble for was. Well, you know, I wrote about it recently, like Republicans keep being like, if, you know, if Joe Biden really wants unity, he'll, you know, fill in the blank with something that Republicans wanted to do anyway. Because in the inauguration, in his big speech, Biden said beautiful things about the need for the country to come together and heal. What he was talking about is that it's a bad deal when a bunch of Republicans sack Congress

while they're counting the electoral votes in order to try to overturn a legitimate democratic election. He's like, that's kind of like bad. And maybe we should try to overcome the level of division that creates that kind of heinous outcome. But all that time, Republicans, a lot of them are just continuing to feed into the big lie that led to the insurrection in the first place.

They wouldn't admit that Biden was the insurrection in the first place. They wouldn't admit that Biden was the legitimate winner of the election. They kept saying that it was rigged. A bunch of those goons voted against the certification of a couple states' electoral votes after Congress had been attacked and they were routed from their chambers. Right. So I, the, the insincerity of, you know, being like, oh, if Biden really wants unity, he's not going to sign an executive order about reversing Trump's policy on windmills or something. Right. Like when, when, when they wouldn't, when they wouldn't like concede that they're the world's most divisive things.

So my tweet, if you want me to get to that, I just feel like I need to rant to create context. You know, I tweeted that if Biden, you know, really wants – what did I say? I think you said if Bideniden really wants unity he'd he'd lynch mike pence yeah he'd agree to lynch mike pence right like because like and the joke is you know like all those they were all protesters the mob they were chanting hang mike pence that's right like like they were coming to get him because he wasn't doing his part in the coup attempt right like and and i was like well we could all agree that you know mike pence is shitty right apparently so that was the joke um well let me stop you there because i i'm trying hard to

understand how much dumbing down do the smartest people in the world expect from us? Is there anybody on planet Earth who could really listen to that joke and think that you were calling for violence? 78-year-old Joe Biden is going to – I mean, it's so obviously a joke. Like what are they doing to us? And the smartest and most interesting people, they, they say stuff like that. They say biting, interesting things. And this kind of, that we would, we just can't abide by anybody, even in just calling for violence. How, how can they expect us to swallow that?

That's just nonsense, isn't it? Well, you know, when you work for a place and they see you as a representative of their public image, they might not want you being super rash. They might think it indicates a slight lack of discernment or judgment want you being, you know, super rash. They might think it, you know, like indicates, you know, a slight lack of discernment or judgment to make cracks like that, you know, like, you know get that it was a joke.

It was a bunch of right-wing MAGA enthusiasts who pretended not you know, you know, at my employer, you know, tagging the FBI and the Secret Service, you know, like, like, this guy wants to take out the vice president, right? And there was a deluge of this stuff, right? Like, it was completely bad faith. It was opportunistic. I've been very principled and vehemently anti-Trump through the whole administration. So I, you know, you know, I wouldn't say that I was a thorn in their side, but like I, I, I, I was not friendly to the Trump folks. And they didn't like me and they saw it as an opportunity to fucking take me

down. And it worked like the, the way it works is like a bunch of people just like pretend not to know that it's a joke act like you're being completely literal can i stop you there because i didn't i didn't take it that way i took it as them obviously knowing that you were joking but wanting to see someone of the left left hoisted on his own petard. In their minds, and I have some sympathy for this view, but in their minds they see people cancelled, as it were, or for remarks and jokes

by the people who they see as on your side of things. And I was like, well, okay, you do it to us all the time. So how come, why are you letting him get away with this? You didn't see the joke when we said it so why do you see the joke when will says it so i'm not defending that i don't like this we're descending into a gotcha world i don't like it at all i'm i stand against it on both sides but i don't think they actually

pretended not to get it i think it was clear what me, it was clear what they were doing, which was just turning the tables. Well, yeah, I mean, they were pretending not to get it to turn the tables, right? Like, like, like, like, it wasn't that they're like, hey, we know this is a joke. But, you know, those like leftist bastards don't let us get away with edgy jokes. That's not what it was. It was a bunch of people literally like trying to tell the FBI and my employer that I was trying to get Mike Pence killed. That's what they were saying. That's terrible.

Inciting violence. Yeah, that I was inciting violence. And there's like a whole system for this, right? Like, so people, you know, kind of go around and find little, you know, find people that they don't like who are saying something that's outrageous. That might be just, you know, they might mean it. It might be a joke. They create a little shit storm online about it. And then the kind of right wing media institutions. So like, like within hours, like the Federalist,

the Daily Caller, you know, like Breitbart, Fox News website, they'd all written a story about this, like, and it's written in a relatively straight journalism style that just kind of describes what's going on. But like, the point of that is to amplify the controversy and to bring people into Twitter to yell at you even more. And if you've done a really great job, the producers at, you know, Fox News shows, you know, Tucker Carlson and all those guys, right? Like their producers look at, read all those websites and look at these news articles and they're like,

ah, like we can make a segment out of this, right? Like this happened to my boss at the discount instead of who had a bad tweet. Why don't, why didn't the, why didn't your the people you work for stand up for you why don't they say we're not we're not gonna play by these your rules right wing crazy people he he told a joke and you know and of course if they had just let it pass three days later nobody would even remember it like why did they put blood in the water so that they can be on the lookout for 10 more victims to do what they did to you for? That's what goes on. I mean, it reminds me of this actress in The Mandalorian who got fired now for something

anti-Semitic, which wasn't anti-Semitic at all. Like, how does this end? Like, what's going on here? And why didn't the people you work for stick up for you uh well i can't really speak to that um for a number of reasons uh i don't mean to put you on the spot and you don't i'm not going to pressure you on it but but i'm asking because that's i just think corporate america keeps giving in to twitter like this and it just it's just feeding into the problem well you know like as a general matter not you know not talking about my own case yeah it's it's it's the like the thing that's really new I don't think is that I don't

think there's like a new or novel spirit of censoriousness that's you know hanging over our culture, like a dark cloud, it's that these platforms are different. The technology is different, right? Like Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, it's like the entire world has been put into a single house that has no walls in it, right? And so you feel like everybody is watching you constantly,

right, like, you know, all of us carry around a, you know, mini film and audio production studio in our pockets, right? Like, there's nothing that you can say that you feel isn't heard, that isn't judged. And you know that you're in this giant panopticon where everybody can see everything you can see the wilding hordes taking down your allies and your enemies when it's you know to their opportunistic advantage right like and that sense i think of of being surveilled of being

watched of like having to watch your step um i think that's a function of the technology and I think it's really oppressive and I think it makes people depressed and it's bad for us. Okay, can I tell you what infuriates me about it? And I don't know what I am politically. I guess I'm libertarian, you know, but I guess by today's standards, I'm right wing,

although I don't feel particularly right wing on a lot of things. But anyway, so there's this whole talk about, and I mean, you wrote an apology where you said, I made an error judgment. It looked like a call for violence. And that hurt me to see you do that because, and I won't make you comment, and I'm like, it didn't look like a call for violence. Nobody sincere could say that looked like a call for violence, and now they have them admitting it, which makes it true in a way. So let me just give you examples that I remember, and I looked them up today.

So for instance, during the first few days of the BLM riots, I have a business in Manhattan, and I have a building there and I have my mother-in-law or my stepmother is staying there alone. And she was scared, boarding up the windows, looking for fire extinguishers. And it was very, very scary. Nobody knew what was going to happen. And of course, I think a day or two later, the governor chastised the mayor for the police not being there for anybody. And in that, in all that, Nicole Hannah-Jones tweets, violence is when an agent of the state kneels on a man's neck. Destroying property, which can be replaced, is not violence.

To use the same language to describe those two things is not moral. And I listen to that and I say, well, actually, that's a call for violence. When somebody is telling people in the middle of a riot, you know what, if you destroy property, that's not really violence. That actually makes me scared. You don't know you break down the building goes through somebody's neck. That person's dead.

I mean. Well, or just destroy somebody's life. And I'm like, when did burning down somebody's property not count as violence? And that's, and she doesn't get chastised for that. Are you kidding me? No, not by the time. No, by the time. Look, I mean, like, I agree with her well and i and i and

i tweeted about this a bit people just dogpiled me like fucking crazy with your position gnome i want to hold on i want i'm gonna give you i want to hear where you disagree i honestly don't want to give you other example and then was sarah jung who got hired by the times prior to that she tweets out, hashtag cancel white people. Oh man, it's kind of sick how much joy I get from being cool to old white men. And I'm totally fine with her getting hired.

I defended her. I'm like, well, they hired someone after she tweets that and they're giving this dude a hard time for a clever joke? There's no, I don't see any any i think those are pretty funny tweets you know yeah so speaking as a white man yeah yeah i listen i'm agreeing with you i'm saying that well i think nicole hannah jones actually is a is justifying violence and you want it you want to answer me on that sarah jung is uh is high uh irony and and i don't I don't care what she says.

I just don't understand how they can take your one thing and say, oh, well, this is actually somebody calling for violence. All of a sudden we got all these other, we get all the subtlety in these other people's tweets, but his tweet, oh my God, I mean, did you hear him call for violence? I mean, what do you take me for?

But so go ahead, What's your answer? Well, I mean, like, like, I don't think there's a general there really can be a general policy that covers all of these cases. Right. Like like one of the weird things about social media is it creates. Like interesting asymmetries in power that didn't exist before between employees and employers, right? Like if you have an employee who has a huge Twitter following, right? Like that's something that the institution is kind of buying. Like they, like that's valuable if you're something like a newspaper or a think tank. Like if you've got a star journalist, you can bring in a hundred thousand eyeballs every time they write something

or every time they like retweet something, that's really valuable to you. So that it gives them a certain kind of like leverage. Right. Where, you know, like Nicole Hannah-Jones, I mean, like she won a Pulitzer Prize. Like she's huge. You thought her tweet was OK about property?

Well, and also, I think she was right. But the thing is like, if she was right. Why do you think she was right? You know, I'm trained as a philosopher. And there's just a fundamental distinction between people and fucking stuff. Well, nobody did that. You could trash a brick, and that's not a person like you you

haven't hurt anything it doesn't have nerve endings like that brick might belong to somebody right and and that's you know it ought to be a crime to smash other people's stuff um well it's not it's different from violence it's just like a categorically different thing you haven't harmed a person watching a movie scene you and I, of some people in the deep south go to a black family's home and burn it down. All their possessions destroyed. And you want to tell me that you don't see that scene as a violent, it's not the same thing as killing them, but you don't see that as an outrageous violent scene in the same way I do.

Like you would look at that scene of the white people burning down the black family's home and say, oh, come on, what are they all bellyaching about? It's just a home. No, that's ridiculous. Yeah, but that's what her tweet was saying. No, that's not what her tweet was saying. Like if you burn down somebody's house just because they're black and you don't like black people, that is, like, that's a real, you know, incredibly intimidating threat to their welfare.

Like, did you know that they weren't in the house? Right? Like, I just don't think it's a good example. Right. Like like if it's more it's more like if like a bunch of people are having a parade and people have like a little bit too much to drink and people get a little excited and and they end up, you know, smashing a window like. It's property damage. You must think that Bernie Madoff shouldn't have even gone to jail. I mean, all he took was money. He didn't even burn anybody. All he did was-

It doesn't mean it's not wrong. Like, everything doesn't have to be the same crime to be wrong or worthy of punishment. I would say that when you burn down somebody's home- Like, you don't think shoplifting is violence, do you? No. Burning down, destroying property is violent. I don't believe. So you think walking on somebody's lawn is violent?

Because you've ruined their begonias? No, I didn't say that. Yeah, but they're all violent, but they're different. No, shoplifting. that. But they're all violent, but they're different. Well, you know, whether you want to categorize it as violence or not, Will agrees that it's wrong and a criminal. So, I mean, I think more or less on the same. Okay. The Merriam-Webster definition of violence is the use of physical force to injure, abuse, damage damage or destroy so so that's a you know if if that's if we're gonna if we're all gonna agree to go by the same dictionary then then it's

violence but what she was saying which is scary to me but she obviously should have nobody was saying it's the same as killing somebody what she should have been saying is, like, why is she making the point that it's not so bad to destroy property at a time when people's lives were being... It's because people were drawing an equivalence between the propensity of police to disproportionately kill African Americans. They were trying to delegitimize Black Lives Matter protests because windows were getting broken, buildings were getting burned down, and they're trying to say these people are just as bad.

This problem is just as serious as this, like historical, you know, like violence against African-Americans, right? And she's right. They're not parallel. And that's the point she's making. I don't remember her directly responding to someone who said something to what you're saying. If she did, then I would agree with you. But I don't think that's what it was.

What I remember hearing, and by the way ilhan omar at the time spoke very eloquently about stopping the uh destruction of property so you know it wasn't i mean it's clearly like like it's clearly wrong and bad like like dan said like like i think it's i think it's completely outrageous to trash you know somebody's business that they've spent their life first of all probably right like i just don't think it is the same kind of wrongdoing as as ending a human being's life of course it's not and and that's a straw man nobody would know that's not a straw man that's literally the comparison nobody would ever say and that's exactly what johanna jones was pushing back again maybe when we get off the thing you you can email me what you're referring to, because I don't remember hearing.

We should ask her. I think she said that I'm right. But you claimed, I don't remember hearing anybody saying it's the same. I remember people saying that it is not excusable to destroy another person's life because you're angry a a atrocity unrelated to the person you're punishing and by the way you can't just because this property doesn't actually mean it can be replaced you may not you may not be able to replace it you may not have any money to ever be able to replace it sure and awful like like and it's clearly self-defeating for protesters to like like like for the most part blm protesters did a good job of policing themselves.

They were overwhelmingly peaceful. But in a bunch of places, you know, like riots broke out, like people smashed stuff. And the fact that we're having this debate at all right now shows that they've kind of un that that undermined the moral force of their cause which is righteous and good okay but this is where i think and we'll move on this is why i actually think you're incorrect here her tweet does not reference any of the things that you say the tweet complains about the use of the word violence and she says it's not violence and she's incorrect by the dictionary definition, which is the only definition, I think. I mean, if she has a different definition, then how do I argue with her if she doesn't agree that the dictionary is?

There's a lot of different dictionaries. And, like, there's more than one. You know, if you read down the page, you'll find different. I don't know if there's any. Definition one, definition two, definition three. I don't think there's a definite there's a dictionary in the world which will say if you take a sledgehammer through somebody's property it's not does it matter if we call it violence and what we're all in accord that it is a a criminal act and that it is wrong yeah i mean the same word to describe both is not moral all right let's move on because

we didn't come here to argue about nicole hannah jones it is very interesting but whatever it is so then okay so then so so for a guy who i i think you were treated extremely extremely unfairly i i don't get it you you're you seem to be very zen about it in a way um i think the people who are done this to you every one of them is totally insincere and look like i've been a libertarian most of my life you know like i like like i it's you know at will employment is a thing right people get fired every freaking day like like today there's some woman who got fired because she you know turned down her you know the night manager's unwanted advance. That's illegal, but it happens.

And it can happen because most people don't have any protection. It's impossible to fire a school teacher or a cop because they have a union that has a contract that governs the terms of their term termination but like for most people in almost any business right like they don't have to have a reason to let you go um and and so that's just part of life and that doesn't make the jungle of free market capitalism and uh and and and so i'm not gonna like feel like i'm not gonna moan about it. Like, I'm just going to move on.

And because there's so many people who have it worse than me, that like who experience much greater injustice. I think it's just kind of too shitty to act like a martyr as though. Can I ask a question? I want to go ahead quick because I want to move on. We're going to run out ask a question I want to go ahead quick cuz I want to move on we're gonna run out of time and I want to get to the good do you think that you did something terrible like do you like why did you apologize like with that sort of diplomacy which no judgment if it was i'm genuinely curious because to me it seemed so obvious that you were being tongue-in-cheek um like obviously you weren't seriously suggesting

that like it seems insane that you know the times could take that position. I don't put him on the spot because he's, he's less in relationships with these, with these people that he, that he needs to try to, that are more important to him than our dumb podcast. Okay. But so, so then you wrote a column, which is very interesting about Barry Weiss. Now, full disclosure, I know Barry Weiss.

I don't know her well, but I would Barry Weiss. I don't know her well, but I would say that even though I don't know her well, I have a very warm and I think she, a feeling towards her and she has in return. So, you know,

you can judge my objectivity on that. So I've heard she's a lovely person. I have no people who know her who say that she's gracious and kind. So she wrote a column, 10 Ways to Fight Back Against Woke Culture. And you called it a task. And I'm trying not to cherry pick anything badly here.

At the top you said, and you quote Barry, Weiss begins, I realize the faddish thing to say these days "'is that we live in the worst, most broken "'and backward country in the world "'and maybe in the history of civilization.'" And then you, she wrote, it's utter nonsense. And you write, "'Can it be faddish to say something "'literally no one says?

"'It cannot.'" And I stopped and I thought about that and I said, "'Well, you know, he's right. Almost no one says that, although I did find some quotes, but I don't have the time to run your time. I didn't find some quotes from some prominent left-wing people that get close to that, but I would say you are right. Nobody actually says that. But then I would say, I said, but I know exactly what she's talking about. I understand her point exactly. I don't think she means it literally, just like I understood Will's point about pens. And I thought it was somehow uncharitable for Will to get literal with her when he had just been- I don't think she's making a joke.

When you're making a joke, I write newspaper columns. And when you're making it i write newspaper columns and when you're making an argument in a newspaper column uh you know people are just going to take it at face value so that's why you are careful in how you say things but you don't really think you know what she meant you don't really think she meant people are literally saying that verbatim she's saying that we live at why would she say that well because well yeah like well, yeah. Like, it's not funny. But she's, I think. Right, like, so it's hyperbole, which is what I said. I think we all just are willing to, you know, allow for a margin of hype. Okay. But like she said, but like, she's just overstating something in a way that makes her argument like she's just like clearing a path for herself that allows her argument to proceed in a way it wouldn't if she were being careful and actually representing what other people's views are accurately.

So what she's just doing is misrepresenting the people that she's arguing against. She's creating a straw man and knocking it down. That's what it is. That's what a straw man is. It's like, this is a position that people don't hold. And then she knocks it down. All right. You accuse her of hyperbole. And I want to confess, I'm liking you very much as a guest. So I'm losing my nerve actually to call you out. I don't want to want to call you out on, but I'm going to call you on this. And it's one thing, and then we can go for impeachment or whatever it is. So then on the charge of hyperbole, then later on you write, American democracy very recently failed the peaceful transfer of power test. And I'm thinking, failed the peaceful transfer of power? I know we had that violent

protest, but my vision of what failing the peaceful power of people transfer of power test would be having no transfer of power or having the people involved in the transfer of power involved in the violence and I even did some research on it you know it was like where is it uh that I forget I feel it was like 67 countries in the world that have never had a peaceful transfer of power Russia's never had a peaceful transfer power China's not having it has never had a peaceful transfer of power. Russia has never had a peaceful transfer of power. China has never had a peaceful transfer of power. If the people who stormed the Capitol still were in the Capitol today, we would still have transferred power.

They never actually implicated power. So I'm like, well, that seems like hyperbole. And then the next line is- It's not hyperbole. It's just literally true. What that means, like political theory is my field. hyperbole and then the next line it's not hyperbole it's just literally true well what that means like political theory is my field uh and and the peaceful transfer of power means that you pass from like one government to another one administration to another without any violence

that is attempting to impede that handover. This was literally violence. These people attacked the fucking US Congress at the moment that they were certifying the election because they thought it was stolen. They succeeded in scattering the Congress and delaying the certification of it. That's exactly what the failure of a peaceful transfer of power looks like. Tell me this with your political theory. Can you give me an example of another failure of the peaceful transfer of power where the two parties involved in the peaceful transfer of power had no part and had never any intention ever of being persuaded by the violence in other words the people the the the baton of power neither side was going to be persuaded by these writers who got into the

capitol so you need one of the parties involved in the transfer of power to somehow be in cahoots with the violence. There was no- How many House Republicans voted against the certification? How many House Republicans voted against the certification of the election? That's not violence. That's not violence. Right.

But what they're doing is making a vote that is based on the lie that they know precipitated the violence right like they're complicit in it if we fail to transfer power what's going on in russia what did putin do did he we just get the same grade as putin i mean no like like like of course there's like it's hyperbole no it's not it's not hyperbole. It's just freaking literally true. I don't know why you're trying to deny it. Like, because a bunch of republicans were trying to make it so that joe biden couldn't become president i'm not like that's that's what it was so like like you i mean you just couldn't be more wrong and there's nothing like in the least that's hyperbole about what i said i'm not i can refer you to a bunch of political scientists who study comparative politics around the world and they'll tell you this is an example. Like the reason it's an

outrage is that this has never happened in the United States of America, even during like the freaking civil war, right? Like it's never happened. That's why it's so shameful. It's why it's such a black mark on our history, right? Like it's never happened here before. Like we did have something to be proud of. And so like, but you're trying to come up with something that you think is like, oh, like a what about us thing where like I did the same thing that Weiss did, but I didn't. This is a legitimate reason for people to be disappointed in their country. Yes, absolutely. But somewhere between that and failing, not a B, not a C, not a D, not blemished,

but a failure, to me... It's binary. You either did it or you didn't. To me... Like you don't get a C. To me... There's no C grade in the peaceful transfer path. To me, if the Republicans actually made their way back to the Capitol or wherever they met

quickly to make sure that the transfer of power went on, despite the fact that these guys and their horns and these monsters tried to interfere with it, but both the Republicans and the Democrats- Republican Trump supporters. Yes. Republican Trump supporters. Yes, Republican Trump supporters. But the Republicans and Democrats both were very highly responsible in making sure that this, let's be honest, symbolic act of transfer here, it didn't matter if it didn't even occur, went on. It's not a failure of transfer of power. So for instance, when you read another political scientist, it says-

It's a necessary condition constitutionally. Like it has to be done. Like if they don't do it, the guy isn't president, right? Like it is usually ceremonial, like because it's considered a formality, but it's a formality that has to be accomplished. So if you could defer it indefinitely, it would in fact prevent the guy from taking power.

Okay, historical fact, 2008, as of as of 2008 68 countries including two elephants china and russia have never experienced a peaceful transfer of power between parties as a result of an election if you want to tell me that those 68 countries failed the peaceful transfer of power and america also failed the peaceful transfer power i would say that's not helpful to understanding what it means to fail the peaceful transfer the next thing you say though and is i think you'll have a heart i don't i don't know why you're reaching on this you should just admit that you're wrong okay right like and the whole point is like like the whole point is that countries are countries the way politics works is is like human beings are human beings like we've got a system that's like,

my point in this thing is that, yeah, we're the 17th freest country in the world. That's great. But like, it doesn't mean that we're the best. It doesn't mean that we're exceptional, right? It means that we're like worse than Canada. Okay, next line after that, you say, and 447,000 Americans have perished in an easily preventable viral infection. Now, that seems to me as totally hyperbolic. If it was easily preventable, why haven't the Germans prevented it? Why haven't the Italians prevented it? Like, what secret do you have that makes, like, are you saying that if that...

How many people have died in New Zealand? No. How many people have died in Australia? How many people have died in Taiwan? How many people have died in Vietnam? It's a much poorer country. So you're saying that... Their death rate as a proportion of their population is just a tiny fraction of ours.

Are you saying that when you have a curve from very good to very bad, therefore that means that it was easy? Because, of course, we go to New Zealand being an island and a tiny country. You know what? They're implementing, like before Trump, we had the world's best public health bureaucracy. The plan for pandemic response that the countries that have succeeded really well is based on the American plans that that Trump inherited right like it like you couldn't have stopped it come Germany can't prevent Germany has a high per capita higher per capita death rate currently than we do how come they can't prevent the easily preventable infection how come how come how come so many countries have not been if this is if that's if it's not hyperbolic to say COVID is easily preventable, I don't know what to say.

It's easy to prevent getting it, isn't it? I don't know. I barely left my house. New Zealand it is. and places that did dramatic shutdowns early, that closed borders and international travel, that had people very uniformly wearing masks when they did go out, who implemented big testing, tracing,

and supported isolation programs like we should have had, which is what the plan was that was completely ignored, those places have done quite well. But we didn't do that, right? Like we just didn't. Trump wanted to say that it wasn't a problem because he thought conceding that it was a big deal would make him look bad. He thought it would spook the markets because he thought conceding that it was a big deal

would make him look bad. He thought it would spook the markets and he thinks that the markets are like a barometer of his success. And so he didn't wanna like, you know, concede that it was a problem. But once it got to be a big problem, like he had to stick with the lie.

And I worked on this. I was working on pandemic response policy with members of Congress. It was outrageous. describe COVID as easily preventable, well, I guess you mean that France, Italy, Germany, Russia, all the countries that have been hit hard with COVID are a bunch of idiots because this was easily preventable. What I'm saying is that's a hyperbolic statement. That's hyperbole. It's not easily preventable. We made some mistakes, but it was a difficult challenge that we failed to meet. It wasn't an easy challenge. It wasn't just a swatted away challenge that we that we failed to to meet it wasn't an easy challenge it wasn't a just swatted away we're challenged that we're the only one in the world who couldn't manage this this was a very very hard challenge a very difficult no i mean like the politics of it

were forbidding that's why it didn't happen you want to stand by the fact that covid is easily preventable of easily preventable viral infection. I mean, I... Yeah, yeah, yeah. It's easy to not get it. And it's easy to wipe out if you do, in a community, if you do the right thing before it hits a certain,

you know, stage of fixation. I think one has to distinguish... Go ahead, Dan. I think one has to distinguish between politically easily preventable and uh logistically easily preventable uh perhaps it was easily preventable if if with with 20 if if we could had perfect foresight and were able to act. If we implemented the plan that we already had. It was not preventable. But politically, for someone to have said in January,

when even Dr. Fauci said, we probably don't have to worry about this, to shut everything down would have been impossible. I think it was always going to be a big problem in New York, the big ports of entry, right? Like there was going to be a bunch of people that were going to die because like, that's how, that's how you realize it's a huge, big deal, right? Like the alarm has to go off first, right? But there's no reason it needed to, you know, become a huge problem in my state, in Iowa,

right? Like, cause it takes a while for, like, you know, a big, you know, set of infections to migrate to different parts of the country as people travel. And if various places had been doing the right thing, and there was a coordinated response, like, the deaths could have been really severely curtailed and it would have been worse in New York, in Seattle, where like these international ports of entry where it came in first,

there would have been no kind of preventing that in the first instance, but like we really could have easily gotten on top of it because we knew what to do. We have more resources than basically any country in the world to do it. We had the world's premier public health agency and it was utterly botched for basically vanity. Well, then, okay, if we botched it for vanity, then what's England's excuse because they had a they have a higher death rate than we do same thing it wasn't easily preventable we

listen Trump was terrible Cuomo was terrible and as a matter of fact the New York Times had said that what was the number of the third or or more than a third of all the cases could have been prevented it back then if Cuomo had acted sooner. Now we have the nursing home thing. Trump and his- And this- He like fucked up royally, man. And it's Trump with this ridiculous thing against masks

and free Michigan and you're right, and the vanity and all the mess. But in the end, if you look at the entire world and New Zealand, I think is very bad. I think that you calling New Zealand as an example undermines the credibility of your case. We have to choose comparable countries. I think that they're not comparable if they're a counter example, it's a very culturally similar country.

It's got a very similar level of wealth and technological competency. Like, like it's it they speak the same language I mean like why is it not comparable okay Canada Canada New Zealand Australia there are New Zealand Australia are not common because they're there they're island nations also different climate there's all there there's density issues like Like it's very... You see what, Will, what you've done here... Why is it harder for...

You dragged me into a conversation about COVID and I don't necessarily disagree with you and you could enumerate... I wrote a piece about this. I'm saying it's not an easily... To say that COVID was easily preventable is hyperbole. I know what you're saying.

I get your point. I probably wouldn't have rolled my eyes at it if I read it because- I don't think it's hyperbole. I mean it literally. Right, well, okay. I mean, you could say that you think it's not true, which clearly you don't.

So we have a disagreement about it's truth or falsity. I think it's literally true. So you think we could have had the last year without COVID spreading? California can't even prevent COVID going around. Yes, I will. If people are interested, I wrote a piece for the Niskanen Center when I was employed there called Trump's COVID-19 culpability. And I kind of go through like I spent months. It actually sent me into a depression working with people who were doing pandemic response policy.

Like we were trying to get the federal government to do the things that, you know, it's a regular handbook for pandemic response said to do, which is massive testing, contact tracing, and supported isolation. That means like once you've, the contact tracers have gone through, they've identified the people who are infected, you need to support the people who you've identified as positive cases. You know, you have to make sure that they have enough to eat, that they can pay the rent and stuff like that, or else they're going to continue to go to work and spread the virus, right? Like it's just proven to work. It's worked over and over again with different viruses. And this one in particular in a pretty wide array of places. Okay. But then the final thing that we should go on to something that we can agree about, but then the final thing you say say is that and this is where I think really I

didn't know I was coming on to argue with my like libertarian uncle well that's okay but then the final thing you say so easily preventable infection easily preventable viral infection and uncontrolled epidemic uncontrolled pandemic which has caused the largest contraction in the U.S. economy since 1946. And at that point, I said, no, now he's just being unfair because if it was easily preventable in the way that I believe you thought it should have been prevented, of course, the economy was going to contract. You can't at the same time complain that we didn't prevent the infection and also, by the way, complain about the economy contracting because i presume if we had locked down and taken all the measures that you think

we should have the economy was going to contract just as much if not more no it would have contracted like just a tiny fraction as much like the reason you do the hard shutdowns first is so you can identify the positive cases you do do the contact tracing. You isolate the people who are positive. Then the rate of infection goes down below the point at which the virus is reproducing. And then it's more or less gone. Then you can open everything up. People still wear masks. They still distance. But that's why the economy is in the places that just did the thing that we already knew how to do are doing fine i have not many i have not i'll get dan i have not many people argue this and listen maybe you are right and i'm not saying that uh

uh condescendingly or you know like snarkily maybe you're right but just to be clear your position is that we could have prevented the infection and also kept the economy booming. I find that, wow. I mean, I haven't heard many people say that. We could have limited it to maybe 150,000 deaths, which is a big deal, not having another three or 400,000 people dying. Like, of course there was gonna be some economic contraction because you have to put- A huge economic contraction, because nobody, everybody's afraid. Nobody's gonna- No, but like it wouldn't have lasted as long, right?

Like people- It'll come right back. What did it happen? No, it doesn't come right back. Yeah, because people are not wearing their masks. Look at California. No, people wear that. That's the thing.

This is part of the problem. Virus spread during the lockdowns. This is insufferable. Okay, go ahead. Sorry. Right? Like, you don't know what you're talking about. I do this for a living.

It's just like driving me nuts. Do you think Canada did a good job? Because Canada, they have a lot less deaths, but they still have a pretty robust number. They've done a much, much, much better job. They've done a much better job. But had we done the job that they had done, would you have found that satisfactory?

Or would you still say, well- No, I wouldn't find it satisfactory because because like, it's not satisfactory to fail to do things that you know how to do that get people killed. Right? Like it's hard, like, like, no doubt, like good government administration is difficult. People are recalcitrant. Like, like Trump created huge problems in denying that it was a problem, like in politicizing mask wearing, right? Like that persists to this day. People are still dying

because Donald Trump didn't want to wear a mask. And like so much of it is directly his fault. And that attitude spilled over to other countries. It spilled over to Canada. They have, their conservatives are very similar to ours. And this became a thing, like, like as it's, it's a symbol of our freedom from the oppression of, you know, officious government bureaucrats, right? Like to, to, to go around spreading a viral infection that's going to kill somebody's grandma right like um i don't like what you said that you do this for a living i don't think i don't

well i used to well let me tell you i'll tell you why i don't like it because there are people with phds yeah because i'm pulling rank on you yeah like nobody likes that but like well let me tell you what i get to because like i study this stuff. Okay. There are people with PhDs who study this stuff who agree with me. And there are people with PhDs who study this stuff who agree with you. What I'm saying is not, is not the opinion, which is only held by ignorant people. I've heard enough important doctors, people who could pull rank on you who have said that the virus was going to

find its way one way or another. And I have evidence on my side, which is major European nations, which have had serious contractions in their economy and have been unable to control the virus. Even nations which have more obedience and more kind of like a culture of more obedience than, than we do here. We have far liberal States with terrible records. We have conservative States with terrible records. We have States where they've been in lockdown and required masks. Like all of the efforts at the state level were undermined from the beginning.

They were actively undermined. Not in Germany, not in England, not in Italy. In England, yes. Italy got it early in a really, really bad way. But their governance has never been especially strong. Right? Like, it's just like, it's fine. We could just move past it. But like, we disagree.

That's the point is that we disagree, right? But you're not going to get me in like what like you're doing the same thing that Barry Weiss is because I'm not I'm saying I'm saying what I think you think it's wrong yeah I know it's fine I find it's nice to disagree and and and I'm taking everything if you could be inside my head as you're saying things I'm actually thinking about what you're saying and rechecking my arithmetic. The only thing I take issue with, and I have to be honest, I don't like it, is this somehow pulling rank as if we were arguing about arithmetic. And you're like, listen, you're going to have to

take my word for it, two plus two is four. I was working for months. No, I'm saying I was working for months. I was working for, no, I'm saying I was working for months with epidemiologists at Harvard, talking to members of Congress, right? Like, oh, like the brand name puts you off. Like, like, I'm just saying like people, like very, very eminent epidemiologists, public health officials, trying to coordinate a response and get members of US Congress, Republicans, to take it seriously so that so many people wouldn't die. Right? Like, and so like, that's what I'm saying,

like in the pulling rank, I devoted months of my life and drove myself into a depression because it was so clear what could have been done. And to see the utter neglect and just like the contempt of a lot of our elected officials for any action that really just absolutely positively would have saved thousands of people's lives. Right. Like that just drove me into like despair. Like I didn't know what to do. I'm shaped by the following experience I had, which was early on during COVID when I was, I was telling everybody they should close the schools, including in New York.

I was called a fear monger and people were telling me, I didn't know what I was talking about. People tell me, trust the doctor. Then later on, I was, I had done a lot of research and I was on this show saying we need to have masks everybody needs to wear a mask i even went and got and we had doctors on and and said and said no you don't know and they pulled rank they pulled rank well i'm i'm the harbor blah blah blah we master bought the answer blah blah so i've seen this go around the point is that as, as I said, at the point, at a time when I can find you experts, all equally credentialed, who have varying opinions on this, it seems to me it is no longer a subject where you can

pull rank. I'm just telling you that there's an overwhelming consensus in the field. You can always find people who are out of the norm. Who defeated COVID and not contracted the economy. Well, you know, after we get up, then email me something. They're experts, perhaps, in epidemiology, but maybe not experts in politics. So that, as I said before, it might have been doable, but politically, it might not have been doable. Politically, it might not have been doable. Politically, it might not have been easy. And of course, you have to recognize that there's a problem, which is hard to do, and not everybody did. We're neck and neck with Europe for a long, long time. It goes up,

goes down. I don't see. Anyway, so do we want to talk about impeachment at all? We had never talked about it. I know we're missed at a time. Well, we're sort of out of time now. But what's your attitude on impeachment will um it's good i have some questions about it which i i didn't watch any of it but i have some questions that that that troubled me on it maybe you have an opinion on them maybe anybody's opinion on them so just for the record i think that that when Pence wrote a letter to Pelosi saying that, he actually put it in writing, that Trump, I forget the word he used, but essentially Trump tried to get him to exceed his constitutional authority on the matter of the election. I think

that was case closed in terms of being an impeachable offense. It seemed like precisely the kind of offense that the framers would have had in mind. If the president is trying to get the vice president to ignore fair and free elections, that seems to me easy. But that's not what they charged him with. So my first question to the world is, of impeachment matter are we supposed to read the articles of impeachment and determine whether or not those articles have been proven or are they just a placeholder for a general anti-trump trial where we can bring in anything we want what we have it you have an opinion about that anybody well I mean the the article was for incitement of insurrection right now do we have to for incitement of insurrection right now do we have to

prove incitement of insurrection to support the uh like like you know impeachment is a completely political process it's not a judicial proceeding uh there are no standards of evidence in the way that there are in courts like that's why he he, you know, Trump was acquitted. They were just more, you know, like- But that adds to my question though. And it's an important question in my mind, analytically. Do they need to prove the articles of impeachment as they've written it? Or can they just prove other stuff and convict him? Because I think- They focused really narrowly. I mean, they wrote about incitement of insurrection

and that's what they spent the entire trial trying to establish. Now, do they have to define incitement? Yeah, I mean, sure. Is it illegal? They have to, but like the thing is, like the process is about getting votes from senators. Right, like, and there isn't like jury instructions. is about getting votes from senators, right?

Like, and there isn't like jury instructions. Each senator can create their own criteria for the standard on which they're gonna vote, right? Like they take an oath and they kind of make a pledge, but like, there's no like mistrial, right? There's no way that they can deliberate in a way that makes the proceedings illegitimate. It's just whatever they decide is is what happens. Right. Like so when they raise the question of whether it's constitutional to impeach or convict a president after they've been out of office, right? The answer to that question is constituted by the votes of the Senate, right?

Like it's non-judiciable in the sense that like the Supreme Court cannot rule on it. It won't. That's a fundamental part of the separation of powers because this is the fundamental power of Congress, right? So whether or not it's constitutional for them to do it just depends on what the Senate decides, right? The Senate decided that it is because they had the votes for that. What I'm getting at is this, and I won't pull rank. You're not a lawyer, right? No. I won't pull rank and dismiss whatever you have to say because you're not a lawyer and I am. Go for it.

If I've got it coming, do it. What I'm saying is that they charge him with incitement. And I understand incitement as having a definition, which includes intent. And, you know, trying to force myself to be disinterested here, I would say, well, no, they didn't prove incitement. Like if it was clear that this was incitement to violence, why people as they were listening to it would have recognized it and tweeted about it as they so often do to say after the fact, I think this is incitement because somebody was violent.

Say, well, okay, but to be incitement to violence, you ought to be able to judge it without knowing how it turned out. It's not incitement to violence because somebody committed violence. If I say, I want you to go out now, take these guns and shoot everybody down, that's incitement to violence. If you don't do it, it was still incitement to violence. And if I said something like, I want you to fight like hell and you go punch somebody in the nose, that's not incitement to violence because you were violent. And I really...

I think that's a fair point, but I also think people in general knew that Trump was playing a dangerous game, whether it meets the legal definition of incitement, just like we knew... That's right. We knew he was playing a dangerous game and that violence was possible. Dan, you're bringing back my first point. That's right. But the question is, in my mind, I keep coming back to it, it's right. We knew he was playing a dangerous game and that violence was possible. Dan, you're going to bring back my first point. That's right.

But the question is, in my mind, I keep coming back to it. It's fine. Do the articles of impeachment matter? Because they didn't say that in the articles of impeachment. They say the January 6th speech. And by the way, we know that a lot of the violence. They didn't say what? My previous point was that they don't have to prove incitement according to any so what's the legal

standard that's external to whatever it is that are the articles of impeachment for the articles of impeachment are are therefore impeaching the president the house delivers them to the senate and when they do it becomes mandatory for the Senate to have a trial. That's what they're for. And the trial is a trial that like, that's going to make a decision about the guilt. Like they're going to, they're going to convict or acquit the president relative to the articles. But the thing is like, they get like the articles of impeachment, like maybe this is what, they get, like, the articles of impeachment, like, maybe this is what you're saying, that, like, the articles of impeachment, like, if you

get enough members of the House to say it, like, you'd be like, Trump once kicked the dog. Like, and maybe he never did. It's just like, they're just lying about it and say, Trump kicked the dog. He shouldn't be president. Right? If you get enough of them to do it, they put the articles together and send them over the Senate. The Senate has to have a trial. And if you get enough of them to do it they put the articles together and send them over the senate the senate has to have a trial and if there are enough senators who said who say yeah i agree he kicked the dog he shouldn't be president they can convict um he's not president anymore and there's no recourse that's the end of the story i understand that but i'm saying if i had to decide whether i was going to vote to him so in that sense the articles don't matter that's what I'm saying yeah so I find that to be very difficult to accept that especially if Justice Roberts were

presiding over a trial that that we would have this proceeding with this with the Chief Justice Supreme Court and the articles the indictment as it were are actually meaningless so when they write at the end, I brought it up, that he will, he has demonstrated, this is the final paragraph, he has demonstrated that he will remain a threat to national security, democracy and constitution if allowed to remain in office.

And I'm like, well, but he's not in office anymore. So that kind of undercuts the case. Like if that's the reason, well then no. I think they botched this. Well, they wrote the articles of impeachment before he was out of office. They knew he was gonna be out of office by the time. No, they didn't.

Like Mitch McConnell slow walked it. So that the Senate trial would occur after he was out of office, so that Republicans could say there's a constitutional problem with doing it after he's out of office. You're right. They easily could have done it while he was in office,

but they chose not to, to give themselves cover. Pelosi took the weekend to deliver it. And McConnell actually, really, to his discredit, I compared it to the old joke about the guy who kills his mother and father and then pleads for mercy as an orphan. He says that McConnell's like, well, we didn't have time. Well, you didn't, of course you didn't have time

because you didn't call the Senate back into session. Took a three-day weekend. So I really, nevertheless, nevertheless, they weren't gonna have time. They could have started the trial, but they weren't gonna have time, I don't think, to finish it. It just seems like-

They could do it in a day. I mean, there's also no constraints on how fast you go. Well, if you had been in the room, wouldn't you have said, listen, guys, let's put a paragraph in there. There's a good chance we might not be through this before he's out. He's only five days away or seven days away. Maybe we should put a paragraph in there, which doesn't rest the whole thing on getting him out of office,

when there's a good chance we might be arguing this when he's already out of office. Maybe we should mention, what I started with, maybe we should mention that he pressured the vice president to exceed his constitutional authority on the matter of fair and free elections. And by the way, the vice president put that in writing, so we have actual evidence of it like we have we have evidence that can be put into the record no no no let's just call it incitement which is a crime which has always required intent and then we're going to not be able to prove it i'm just i'm just telling you that like it's not a legal standard like they don't have to prove anything they just have to agree and vote

or disagree and vote against it. And just like the vote count is dispositive. That just settles the issue. Yeah, but just because they don't have to doesn't mean it wouldn't be extremely smart to do it. Well, I thought it was like an open and shut case. I thought the house managers just absolutely fucking killed it.

I think that they established, like even if you are using a criminal standard, I think they established, you know, incitement beyond a shadow of a doubt. If I was a jerk. That he intended to have the violence? Yes, absolutely. And how did they, I didn't watch it.

How did they stop? Like, they did a great job of like, piecing together the whole thing. Like he was spending months grooming his followers to consider any result other than his victory illegitimate. Yeah. He was, he was, you know. That's an assignment to violence. Let me ask you this.

Well, what if he. No, no. Go ahead, Dan. to violence. Let me ask you this. Well, what if he actually believed that the election was illegitimate? Does he have a right to speak about it? And then would it be incitement in that case? And they attach the incitement for the most part. It's a little, I don't want to be unfair. There is some other language in there, but for the most part, predominantly, I think I'm being fair in saying that they attached the incitement to the speech of January 6th,

which is seriously undercut by all the evidence that's come out since then that it was pre-planned, that the violence was already planned. Did you see the bit where Mike Lee just freaked out because Trump accidentally called him twice? He was trying to get, you know, that like hayseed football coach from Alabama.

What's it guys? Tommy Tubaville or something like, and so like while the insurrection is going on, he calls. Right. Like this is part of the case for, for intent, right? Like like and he's like you know like you know what's going on and like you know they tell him um and uh he's like you know like

what's up with pence like he's hiding um and like he's kind of like good right like does it that that that was the gist of it and he sends no help. He tweets nothing. He doesn't say anything to condemn the violence while it's going on. He actively refrains from mobilizing federal forces that could have protected the Capitol. Like all of those actions together, like add up to, you know, it's pretty clear that he wanted it to happen. I wouldn't say so, but I respect your opinion. I don't think that that's the definition of incitement. I think that- Well, the case that everybody talks about-

Hold on, let me put it another way. I think if Trump had never given a speech and exactly the same thing had transpired, he would have been just as happy to see it happen. And he would have done exactly the same thing. He would have let Pence doing it. I don't think that the speech- But it wouldn't have transpired.

Like he organized this thing and he was like, he was whipping people up into a frenzy before it happened he's telling them to get there it's called stop the steal like how are they going to stop it right like he he tells them that they have to fight like like 20 times um like like he tells them that like their you know sort of democratic rights and liberties are being stolen from them, that their votes have been invalidated, that the government is about to install

an illegitimate government. And we have to stop it before it's too late. Like- No, Will, is my point stupid? What did he want? No, is my point stupid? I'm going to say my point again, because maybe it is stupid.

Maybe I'm missing something. Wouldn't it be the case that people, the Trump haters watching that speech of January 6th, if this was so clear, would have been tweeting out, this is incitements of violence. Listen to what he's saying. He's calling for violence. When he says we're going to go there peacefully and patriotically, you're going to fight like hell. This is all generic protest language that we've heard a million times before. That's why I think nobody. I don't know. I like when Rudy Giuliani gets up and says it's like trial by combat. Like, I don't like, I don't know. That's part of it. That's actually, I'm not going to accuse you of

doing that on purpose. But if you go back and look at that quote, he actually is referring to legal combat. He's literally, I will eat my shirt if you look it up and say I was not being straight with you here. I look up that quote, he was referring to legal combat. I'll believe you. But the thing is, I'm not sure what it matters. Clearly you wouldn't have voted to convict him. If you were a senator. But it's not a question.

I would say, do they have to prove the articles? They don't have to prove the articles. We've already established that. Nothing needs to be proven. People can vote however they want to vote. I'm sure, I'm positive. Like, I've heard from people who know that a bunch of those republican senators think he's guilty as hell but they're terrified of getting primaried

by like a maga guy and so they so they voted against their conscience for completely political reasons and the thing is that's completely within their discretion. Like, I think it's morally and politically outrageous, but they didn't do anything illegal. Like they have no actual obligation to vote according to what they actually think, right? Like that is actionable or that they can be sanctioned for if they feel like,

there isn't, right? Like, so it's a political process, right? Like, like that, that, that is actionable or that they can be sanctioned for if they feel like there isn't, right? Like, so it's, it's a political process, right? Like it's supposed to be a political process. It's not a trial. It's not a judicial proceeding. It's about like whether enough representatives of the U S people think that this person for whatever reason is unfit to continue serving in office, or in this case, shouldn't be allowed to hold office again. That's it, that's all it is. I find it, I find it. It's not Judge Wapner, like it's not a court proceeding. I find it difficult to internalize the idea that there is a carefully worded accusation and then

that that and that carefully worded accusation is actually not relevant to whether we convict him. Well, it ought to be relevant, right? Like and the thing is, like these things are governed by norms, right? Like like you can't write a constitution. This is part of the problem. This is one of the reasons Trump was dangerous, is that like, there's a lot of gaps in between, you know, anytime you try to write down a set of procedures that any deliberative body is going to go through, right? Like a lot of questions come up

that the text doesn't answer. There are a lot of gaps. There are a lot of things that you just have to agree that we're going to do this way or else the whole thing doesn't work. Right. And Trump was constantly pushing on every one of those points in which there wasn't a literal legal requirement and doing everything that he had the legal discretion to do, even if it was totally destructive to the norms that make the system actually work, right? Like that's one of the main reasons he was dangerous. Like there's like, again, like this, it's a norm, it's a convention

that the joint session of Congress in which Congress votes to, you know, accept the electoral, the electors votes, that it's just considered to be a formality. And it's considered to be a huge breach of protocol to refuse, right? Like, like to do it, like, or to, or like like to do it like or or to or to try to override the electors votes or to protest them because that undermines the legitimacy of the person who comes in next right like and that hurts the system that makes it work worse right like so a bunch of republicans violated this norm when they did that but like they didn't do anything illegal it's totally within their discretion um and but that's that's the kind of trumpist practice of pushing absolutely everything to the

limit and trashing the norms that have made our system work as well as it has. That has made it the case that until now, we've always had a peaceful transfer of power because they heed these conventions, but they stopped doing it. Yeah. All right. I I don't totally disagree with you, but I feel like you're, we're on the path to allowing I think what i'm saying my urge to want to keep things within certain bounds is i think wise i think that impeachment is morphing into a basically a recall vote of no confidence uh where um you know you just have a trial and you know as long as you can get the votes it doesn doesn't even matter what you're charged with. But did you watch the Senate trial?

No. The thing is, the House managers did exactly what you want them to do. They accepted, the Republicans want to cast the whole thing as a judicial proceeding because the standard of evidence is so high, right? That, that, that's like a challenge for the Democrats. And if they can get that framing in place, um, it makes it harder. The Democrats, I think, I think they accepted the framing. They treated it like a trial. They had some brilliant lawyers and they fucking killed it on very specifically the language of the articles of impeachment. So it felt very much like a trial and they did a great job and they kept it narrowly tailored to proving the case set forth in the articles. Okay.

I think you're overselling this idea that it's not a trial. I think that, I mean, I mean, it's literally a trial, but it happens in the legislative branch of government, which operates according to- It talks about high crimes and misdemeanors. It talks about being presided over by the- But there doesn't need to be something

that's in any criminal code. Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. It's if they decide it's a high crime, it is. What I'm saying is that when we're saying, well, it's expedient here, let's just ignore that we didn't write this very precisely. Let's just ignore that we're gonna have a meaning for incitement that doesn't exist,

such that we could accuse him of stealing, but he wouldn't even have to really- I don't know how you're saying this if you didn't watch it like because they did they did exactly exactly what you think they ought to be doing and are criticizing them for not doing it's exactly what they did so you should be praising them i don't think they did a great job of doing exactly what i'm like conducting the trial in exactly the way you want. From what I read, they did not present evidence either on the plain words he spoke or by some other factual,

I don't think there were any witnesses at all to indicate that Trump's intention was to incite a raid on the Capitol. Just go back and watch it. It's incredibly persuasive. They make a case directly for his intention to- What I heard with people saying is that, well, we don't require intent here.

I think I heard, maybe he'll make the argument that intention's not required here. I'm like, well, that to me is shaky ground because you likened it to a jury instruction. Well, if you're going to have 100 jurors and you're going to allow them to each have a separate definition of what the crime is, how can you fault anybody for what their verdict was? But that's literally the case. It's not like, again, the incitement to insurrection, it's not, there is no crime in the criminal code. What I'm saying is why not-

That defines that crime or what standards have to be met to prove that it's been done. Why not- Like whether or not it's been done. Why not charge him with something that's not so ambiguous? He urged the vice president to exceed his constitutional authority.

That's it, open and shut as far as I'm concerned. Did you do that? But that's not as bad as actually call, summoning a mob to attack congress while they're certifying the election may not be like that's a much more sensational crime and and in the in the house managers hold on they like like oppress their case in exactly the way you're asking for so i have no idea what we're talking about will it's not about what's bad it's about what you can prove they got capone on racketeering they didn't get

him for what they they he did that was worse. But if they charged him for the stuff that was worse, he might have got off. They knew they weren't gonna get the votes. So they wanted to do the trial in public on the worst thing that he did. They still wanted to indict him in the public's mind. And they knew that-

They could have had both. So they weren't gonna get a conviction if they would have picked something with a lower bar. They just weren't gonna. Like Republicans weren't gonna vote for it for completely political reasons. Is your position here that they didn't make a mistake by not including in there the fact that he asked Pence to exceed his constitutional authority?

You don't think that was a mistake? I think it was a good idea to keep it simple and focus it on one thing that was the most egregious thing that he's done because it is in fact one of the most egregious things any american president has ever done and they're doing this in part for political reasons because they know that republicans weren't going to convict for political reasons. So they're going to show the sensational crime, make this ironclad case. And then when Republicans basically violate their oaths

to vote against conviction, they're going to hang it around their necks in 2022. And Mitch McConnell's terrified of that. I'm going to accuse you now of partisanship on that one, because I think it's obvious in retrospect, they should have also accused them of exceeding his constitutional authority because Pence put it in writing. There's no way. But why should they? What would it get them? I'll tell you why they should have, because incitement requires intent and intent is quite,

and when you have language- But do you disagree that there weren't going to be enough Republican votes to convict no matter what? Do you agree with that? No, you're probably right about that. Right, so it didn't matter which thing they picked. It didn't matter if they picked an easier to prove thing. Nixon impeachment

articles listed multiple counts. The first impeachment had three. Hold on. I think you're probably right about that, but I don't know that you're right. I don't know They knew they had limited time. They weren't going to be able to adjudicate a bunch of different issues. Well, I don't know

what it would mean to call Mike Pence to the stand and have him recount how the president tried to get him to violate their trust as vice president on the most sacred duty of fair and free elections. Maybe the Republicans would have still exactly the same amount of Republicans would have voted to acquit, but maybe not, maybe not. And certainly the country seeing that dramatic testimony, that would be helpful to see, to see a witness call tape. What did Trump do? I would have liked to have seen witnesses, but I understand that was to say that it was wise not to get that. I would say you're just reflexively defending the party.

No, I'm not. I'm just, I'm just saying strategically, I think it was wise not to get that, I would say you're just reflexively defending the party. No, I'm not. I'm just saying strategically, I think it was a good idea. Politically, like there's something that's incredibly viscerally outrageous about what happened. Yes, of course. And that instructing Pence

to violate his constitutional duty just doesn't have the same, like just visceral like like oh my god what ha like he they did this right like and so they're they're they're making a choice to put that out in front of the of the american public and to force a bunch of republican senators to say that it was okay. That's what they were doing. And they're going to run on that like freaking crazy in 2022 because their margin is razor thin.

Let's wrap this up. But I've got to tell you something. If you put a gun to my head and said to me, if a BLM speaker after George Floyd had used exactly the same language as Trump used, exactly the same language, and say we're going to finally and riled the crowd up and then somebody in that crowd went and shot a cop, which something like that kind of happened a few years ago. I would say he was playing with fire. Maybe it was reckless, but that's not incitement to violence.

He's not what he, I don't know that's what he wanted. But what's underneath all this is the fact that we know Trump was lying here. We know just how ignoble his, how phony he was. But I don't know that that's part of the accusation of incitement.

Incitement, as I understand it, is trying to get people to go out and commit violence. I think Trump was just being same old Trump. He got enamored with his own ability to dance between the raindrops and somehow he always manages to avoid the worst. And he thought he could say all this and they would go out there

and put tremendous political pressure on Congress and cause a scene. And he didn't think they were gonna kill anybody, nor did he want them to. There's certainly no proof that his intention was to see them go kill anybody and that he behaved terribly when he saw it happening. Absolutely right.

But he would have done that. Anybody who committed any kind of atrocious act on his behalf, Trump would always shut up and let it happen. So if you put a gun to my head and say, well, did they prove incitement? I would have to say, no, they didn't. I want to say they did because I know- Would you maybe watch the trial first?

I would like to go watch the trial, but I read a lot about it. I read a lot about it. But I do know that incitement ought to be, someone ought to be able to point to the words on the page and say, read that. Look at his speech. Don't you see he's calling those people out to commit violence? And again, I keep going back to, well, it's easy in retrospect, but at the time, if it's so clearly incitement, how come nobody listened to it and said, Whoa, Whoa, Whoa, stop this guy. He's inciting violence. Well, I do know that the, the Brandenburg case, I believe it's called,

does have a pretty high standard for incitement. Yeah. As it should. Cause people, people, whatever. It's, it's very tough. But like, I don't, I don't, I just, I just don't see the relevance. Okay. It's not a, it's not a criminal trial Yeah, but I just don't see the relevance. OK. It's not a criminal trial. I agree completely that in a criminal trial where somebody can get sent to prison, be stripped of their liberty

and put in a cage, that you need to meet a very high bar of evidence to show that they, be very clear that they intended for this. But that's what you're missing. But that's not what this is. This is about like whether somebody is sanctioned by Congress and doesn't get to hold power again. It's just not even comparable. I think you're missing something very important, respectfully. I think you're missing that. It's not just Trump was on trial here. What's also on trial here is whether or not, if it were that a majority of Americans wanted to express their democratic rights by electing this man president in the future, we're going to take that away from

them. And that extraordinary- He was trying to get people to take that away from all the people who voted for joe biden that's why he can't run again well yes he won't respect well the winner the legitimate winner of the election listen listen come on what i'm saying is that it's not just about i thought this would be funnier it's not you guys are kind of boring i mean like like this is the comedy seller like this is fucking this is a comedy i mean there's a lot of comic reasoning going on but like that that you know there's some laughable lines of thought that i'm suffering through this isn't funny dude i don't know why you're being nasty i'm not like i like because i don't know why you're being nasty i'm not like i i like because because i get because i don't know why you haven't had me on here to like hector me well with it with it like

you don't watch the freaking thing and then you're making these like high-handed judgments about whether they met your high personal standards you didn't even watch it okay like why do i have to listen to you well like it's dumb i get it you're a name caller and you no i'm not like like like i want to tell you the following i want to sack up gnome like you're the one who's like who's like people need to be you know like not be snowflakes and take jokes i never like like like you invite me on the comedy seller podcast i just like didn't know i was just like i wanted to get it such a not very constructive conversation. Are you going to let me in

or are you just going to keep filibustering? I want, I want to say, go ahead. Uh, I don't want, I don't want to lay credentials out on the table. I want to tell you the following.

I'm as smart as you are. I can guarantee you. All right. And I'm as well educated as you are. And I, and I don't say stupid things. Um, you may find them laughable.

You ought to examine yourself. You find the laughable. Cause I don't say anything that you think is laughable. I don't think anything you may find them laughable. You ought to examine yourself if you find them laughable. Because I don't say anything that you think is laughable. I don't think anything you're saying is laughable. I respect you even if I disagree with you. And we have a totally different view of how we view people who disagree with us. I think that I'm listening to you much more in good faith than you are to me. I was trying to make a point that it was very easy to get caught up in thinking this is about. I was just saying, I thought this was fun.

It's very important. We get caught up in Trump's right to a standard of proof and all that. And I'm saying it's easy. It's easy to say Trump's not entitled to a standard of proof. And I'm saying yes, but maybe the American people, if we, in the end, what this is really about is not about Trump anymore, but about telling them, even if you want this as a democracy, you can't have it. That has to have a high standard of proof. And that's why there's two thirds.

That's why it's a two thirds majority. And when we view it that way, it's a different way to think about it. And if you find it laughable, just like you think my opinion on COVID, I mean, what what can i say i i know people like you i'm sorry you turned out to be that way i if you think i'm stupid like like like what way i mean what i mean i'm just saying like i thought we were going to have a different kind of conversation like you like like if you wanted to have a like a thought like i spent most of my time having just like civil, you know, like thoughtful conversations about ideas. After this is over, I'm going to release you to your bubble.

I don't know what to say. Like, I'm not in a bubble, man. Like, I spent most of my professional career working with like the right. Some of the things that I'm, hold on. Some of the things that I'm saying are- I don't find your mode of discourse very constructive. I would like to talk about these ideas in a serious way,

but I feel like I'm just being ranted at. Some of the arguments that I've made are- You guys put up with this every week. Some of the arguments- Look what you're doing. Some of the arguments- I would love to hear from these guys. What are they even doing here?

I'm going to let them speak right now. Some of the arguments that I made are agreed with. I have bigger problems. I have a few mouse traps in here. Some of the arguments that I agree with are agreed with by people who you would not dare call laughable. I'll leave it at that. Dan, what do you want to say? Dan Natterman, go on.

I saw a mouse, and that's a big deal. And I have two mousetraps, and they're not working. That's number one. Get him, Dan. Number two, what I'd like to say is you've got to admit, Noam, when somebody says, hey, do you want to come on the Comedy Cellar podcast, it's not ridiculous

that they would think it would be a little more light-hearted and a little funnier. Okay. We do have a branding issue. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. It got contentious, so what? Number three, I think, I don't think that he was hectoring you, Will. I think he was arguing or debating,

and, you know, that was my take on it. As far as what am I doing here, I think that's a good question. A fair one, at least as far as today's episode is concerned, although oftentimes I do have more to say. Before you got here, we were talking about Dave Chappelle and I did do a lot of the talking there. I felt that Chappelle was good for him

if he was able to get more money out of Comedy Central, but I didn't think he was able to get more money out of comedy central but um i didn't think he was a victim that was my uh that was my take on that uh on that issue um as far as you know um i can't wait to listen to it yeah well the first one okay uh that's it you know i'm not the political i don't handle the political end of this show i handle the comedy anything related to comedy and uh and and rodents in my apartment i cover we live in a bad time i'm telling you this we live in a bad time where people feel very free to um make ad hominem attacks of one kind or another and they think that they you know know, that's appropriate. I strongly disagree with that.

I fight against that. Anyway, I think we're having this conversation. Yeah. Like, I make my argument and then you just keep going. Right? Like, I make it again. You keep going. You don't actually address

the objections you just repeat what you said before right i think he wasn't i think he was addressing the objections just when two people don't see eye to eye that's what happens inevitably i i think i actually agreed with a lot of what you said that's why i'm addressing it i think people for a living it usually doesn't go like this i i i a lot of things you said i i agreed with and that's why I didn't address it, but I, but I was trying to, I, when I told you, I'm not, I'm not going to repeat it. I, I, I found certain, I'm trying to approach it in an orderly way and certain questions get short shrift.

The first question in my mind has got to be, what does it mean to have an article of impeachment? If it doesn't really matter whether it's proven or not what is the trial there to prove what does it what does it matter what incitement means uh if it is incitement did people and i'm trying to you know come to a conclusion in my my own mind i don't know i i don't know what i have to be ashamed of i don't know no you don't like it like like i i don't want i mean if i if i'm actually a laughable thinker now i got to take stock uh i don't think you're a laughable thinker uh does anybody have anything to say about mousetraps funny god damn it dan

something's funny well i i have been i thought but also you you don't lay the groundwork for funny when you when you when you get into these political discussions. Is this what it's like to go to the comedy cellar? It's even funnier. No, well, the comedy cellar, we have a comedy cellar consisting of two elements. Is it like Fox News? Well, here's the thing. The comedy cellar has two.

Like live? No. Here's the thing, the Comedy Cellar has two- Like live? No, the Comedy Cellar has a comedy club downstairs and the comics are ranged from left wing to middle of the road. Some of them are right wing, but they don't really express it on stage. And upstairs is a restaurant where people do have debates and discussions,

some of which are like what you've experienced tonight. Others of which are- Can I say something right wing vis-a-vis impeachment? Yeah. What did I say that was right wing? Well, I don't know. I didn't bring up right wing. It's the kind of right wing

which would flip to left wing if- You keep asserting an irrelevant standard that according to which acquittal is justified and you keep reasserting it despite the fact that i just keep telling you that it's not relevant i'm sure it's a political proceeding and not a judicial proceeding i'm sure you keep ignoring that point i'm sure it's just correct i'm sure i could find it i think what he's saying is that regardless fine people saying some of the same things on behalf of Bill Clinton back in the 90s. Some of the same right wing positions

were left wing positions back then. I think what he's saying also is that whatever the standard is and what the standard should be might not be the same thing. And he's saying that perhaps the standard should be more like a criminal trial. Yeah, but that's also what I was saying is that that is sort of what the norm is, and that is what the Democratic House managers treated it as, and they did a very good job.

It doesn't bother me if people don't agree with it, but I just don't want to keep hearing the point that they should have done what they did. Okay. Anyway, I don't know if it's terribly productive to continue this discussion. No, no. I'm talking about something I've been talking about for a long time. You got anything funny to talk about?

All right, well, let's just wrap it up. No, I'm Dick jokes, Perriel. We've been on the air, we've been on, not on the air, but we've been talking for two hours. If Will would like to leave, he's certainly welcome to i don't want him to feel like he's hostage i didn't want to i i like will i don't know why he gets like that i i'm i'm i would i would i would still like to hang out with you i'm not like that you're complaining

about ad hominems and that you're doing it you're doing it if you're intellectually honest you're gonna have to admit one thing. I never said anything personal about you. And you said quite a few things personal about me. That's the bottom line. And that, and, and. You just said, you just, you just. That's the bottom line.

Like, what was it? What did I say personally? You said, I don't know. I'm talking about I'm laughable. I can pull rank. It's like, all right. You know, I don't know what I'm talking about. All right.

That's fine. You also said, you also said he was like your uncle. know, I don't know what I'm talking about. All right, that's fine. You also said he was like your uncle. Now, I don't know if that was an age thing. I don't know. No, I don't know that he's even any older than I am. But like, it's just the persistent hectoring tone and the kind of immunity to the force of the point that's being made to you.

To be quite honest, I've been really wondering about this stuff because it's really bothered me. I mean, I would like to say after what happened, good riddance and he deserves it and he was guilty, but they just put it in front of me in a way, I'm like, why do they have to give it to me this way when i went to law school and i know that incitement has a particular meaning and this is a you know a trial and the supreme court justice is supposed to oversee it and it's supposed to have intent and it's like shit why did they put me in that position and i

and i know goddamn well that if the tables were turned with the exact same issue, the Republicans would be the ones saying he's guilty and the Democrats would be the ones saying you didn't prove the case because, I mean, we know they would flip on a dime for partisan. It's a political proceeding. Yeah, but I'm saying, but they dressed it up

as if it's adherence to principle. There's no adherence to principle, but I'm saying but but but they dressed it up as if it's adherence to principle There's no adherence to principle here People are embracing the principle that's convenient right now for the outcome they want and they'll flip on it And I'm trying not to be that guy I'm trying to say what is the principle that I think ought to be it here Don't tell me don't tell me whether they're impeaching Trump or Obama I don't want to know who's being impeached as a matter of fact I don't even want to know what he was speaking about. First, tell me what the principle is.

And then give me the facts. Once they put me out on a limb on what I think the principle should be about, what the articles mean, what is the definition of incitement, all these things, then tell me what happened. So I'm locked in. Because what happened is everybody works backwards. That's what I'm afraid of. Would you say that if we were to do a top 10 list of the most acrimonious episodes we've had that next to the Lauren Duca episode this comes in at number one yes and I feel such an honor thank you guys well I try not I love Lauren Duca she's great I just don't like whatever okay listen well hopefully would you come on again if we do a less defensive topic,

like something that's more funny or something like that? I'd love to. Like, I thought this was going to be like a shoot the shit kind of thing, you know, like make some jokes about current affairs. Before you got here. Like, so, you know, it helps when you're inviting somebody on to, you know,

to, you know, helps when you're inviting somebody on to you know to you know give them some reasonable expectations about given that I'm the one who actually did that I think I gave you a very accurate list of bullet points of what no one wanted to talk to you about is that true or not true oh yeah I just like it It doesn't represent the spirit of the thing. Hold on. No, no, no. Let me just say, I think that you guys are responsible for the spirit in which you're

arguing. No, no. I'm going to. I'm the guest. I'm going to give. I'd like, you know, like I felt like I was denied hospitality. I'm going to agree with Will on that. I mean, I'm going to say that when I say I agree with him,

meaning that I take that as sincere, that this is not the spirit that he thought was going to be. And I'm sorry for that. And actually what you describe is the normal spirit of our podcast. It's just that you and I got into it and that crowded out our normal spirit, which is a mixture of. I mean, and it's kind of weird. These other guys are here and I keep expecting to like talk to them

and get their perspective. And it's just kind of an odd scene, dude. Yeah, you're right. Danny, what do you say? Well, I know, I mean, there were moments where I wanted to jump in. I was like, you know what? This is going really well.

And let's just see where it goes. where I wanted to jump in. I was like, you know what? This is going really well. And let's just see where it goes. I think we're all happy with where it ended up. It's a historic. I think we get to examine, you know, like we get to sit with like the things that we've said, the kind of people that we are

and you know, and really reassess, you know, take stock and, you know, move forward as better people. I think we've done a great job at that. All right. It's a particular time in history where there's a lot of tempers are running high. We're dealing with profound issues,

which will become part of American history and events that are viscerally disturbing. And we know that viscerally disturbing events can cause overshoot. We do know that that don't seem like overshoot at the time. And then some future scenario suffers from a precedent, which we look back on and say, well, maybe we should have, you know, maybe that wasn't helpful at that time, although it felt good at that time. These are, you know, these are,

I find these interesting things. I don't have particular confidence in my point of view I'm open trying to be open-minded about this all right what what let's let's wrap it up well let's find Perry oh let's try it it's because I don't like having bad vibes with people let's try to find a good fun topic that you know that we can invite will back on with something funny happens in the north something that Will and I will probably agree on since he's- Like if there's a story with like great animal antics.

Animal antics are great. Yeah, you know like- Just the crazy things kids say. Do you have a family? I do. I've got two little kids, six and one. See, we should start with that i have seven i have eight six eight what is eight seven and three nine that's a handful man nine nine

seven and three yeah they change change every year so it's hard to be tracked uh so why do they have to have birthdays every year it's like extremely inconvenient it's and uh so this has been a trying time being home for covid are your kids in school um yeah yeah my six-year-old uh goes to a a lovely little uh Montessori school um here that has been just incredible in terms of it's like the rigor of its you know like you're in Iowa well I'm'm in iowa yeah iowa city and yet always you're from iowa you don't seem iowan to me but i am in fact from iowa i grew up in a little town called marshalltown iowa where my dad was the chief of police you know i like most folks with my disposition don't stick around and i wasn't expecting to come back but my you know wife

got a job as a professor at the University of Iowa where she teaches writing. Iowa of course is where they make those tests that the kids take I don't know if they still take them every year. They do. University of Iowa? Yeah. Creative writing? Yeah she created she teaches in the, yeah. Nice. She's super good. Yeah, that's the best creative writing program in the country. I think our editor has some work to do because we have to get this into an hour format for serious, but- Periel has written two books, by the way, Will. You could end with-

Yeah. What are your books on, Periel? Theme-y Hot Memoirs. I only know about Iowa because I have a bunch of friends who went to grad school there. My books are non-fiction. Tell the names. Tell the titles.

The Only Bush I Trust is My Own is the first one, and the second one is On My Knees. On My Knees is the second one. Those sound really interesting. They're fun, thank you. This is gonna get edited a little bit, obviously,

but can we just talk to Danny a little bit too and see what's up? Yeah, when we edit it, can you make sure to edit out Will's arguments? I think that's enough, it's been two hours what do you want to talk to danny about real quick i just want to say what's what's going on i enjoy actually just like talking to you about like kids and books you've written and stuff like this is nice i like it what how are you yes what's going on how are you he had a root canal how's your tooth it's it's it's i mean everything is is fine i mean i'm just you know this this uh podcast is

pretty amazing so i mean you know my root canal doesn't stand you know it went all the pain went away. I forgot about the pain. Well, Danny, well, Danny has an amazing backstory. He grew up Orthodox Jewish. His parents sent him to gay conversion therapy. No, my parents did not do that. He sent himself to gay conversion therapy. That happened to me when I was 17 years old.

They had nothing to do with it. When I was 40 years old, I decided to go on my own. It's a very different thing. You're right. You're absolutely right. You're 17 years old, and you're sent away. It's a whole different ball game. It's not, I don't agree with that, actually.

I would love to hear about that experience. So you went to, you elected to go to conversion therapy at 40? Yes. Which is- Like what was that like? I loved it. I thought it was great. I learned a lot about myself. And then it was over because the place got closed down

and you know, you're not, it's just a, just the whole thing got shut down, now it's illegal. But it's a fraud, right? It's gotta be a fraud. It worked for some people, I don't know, but it's not, I don't know if it's fraudulent. I mean, there's some people, I know some people who it worked for.

Did you get the results that you were hoping? What result were you hoping for, Danny? I was hoping, I was hoping to see, I was hoping to become straight. Yeah? Yeah. I said, okay, this is what they say. They say that, you know, blah, blah, blah. If you do this, if you do that, if you do this and you do that, you know, we can change you. I'm change you i'm like all right i'll give it a shot why not let's see what it's all about and um but it

didn't work why did you want to become straight but i learned a lot about stuff yeah that's i i that's what i'd like to know too yeah like what what why you wanted to become straight like it would make life easier in some ways or Oh, it was a domino effect. There's a much longer backstory to just that. You know, it wasn't just, it's not something I just woke up and did. I became a little more religious. It was a whole thing.

I became a little more religious. And then I, my family's very religious, but I'm not religious like I was at the time. I had no interest in becoming religious like my family is level of religiosity. My mistake was telling my family, my mom and my brothers, that I was becoming religious.

And they got very, very excited by it. I was becoming religious. And they got very, very excited by that. I was totally secular. And they got very excited with the idea that I was coming back to Judaism, to religion, to God. And then, of course, with that came the Jewish law of getting married you know men have to get married it's a Jewish law you can't get around it you have to get it's one I know that every other law you know women don't have to get married but but but men have to get married so so then I that came up again and I got all I got

sucked into that whole thing and then I was like well I'm gay so that's not gonna work and then they got very upset that I brought up the gay thing again and they're like well you know what are you gonna do I'm like I don't know I'm not even there yet I'm not interested in that yeah I'm sort of just sort of reacquainting myself with religiosity with the Talmud with Jewish. That's where I am right now. I'm not interested in getting, and they're like, you're 40 years old, you're getting older, you should really think about it.

Then my brother sends me a link to Jonah, which was a gay conversion therapy. He's like, why don't you check this out? And I did, and then that's how I got involved. So really that's- That makes total sense to me but like and like it's the the sort of story you wouldn't constructed your head like have you written about that that's just fucking fascinating man uh no I haven't written about it um even though a lot of people want me to write about it um yeah you know you you don't want to I mean like

like because I don't want to you know I don't know I don't I don't get to? It's not that I don't want to. I don't know. I don't get the heart of it. I don't understand excessively. I don't know how that story can be accessible to people without people just writing it off like, this guy is just nuts.

It was... When you say that your family got excited that you're coming back kind of into the fold, I mean, were you excited about that too? Did you feel like you'd been kind of like estranged and you were looking forward to a kind of reunion? Interesting. I, maybe, but not really

because I didn't become religious for them. I became religious. It was a very true connection for me at the time. It was almost like really like I saw the light. I was in a really good place in my career and in my life. And I just felt like I wanted to just come back to God in a way that I was familiar with. And I grew up Orthodox.

I left it many years before. So when I wanted to get back in touch with God, I went back to my roots and my roots were Orthodox. So that's why, but it had nothing to do with my family. Although, you know, again, in hindsight, it was a mistake to involve them because they're very, very, you know, right wing, very conservative, very extreme. And it was a bad move on my part.

It was a mistake that I made, you know, but not really, there are no mistakes. You know, it all worked out the way it's supposed to work out. So that's how I look at it. Yeah, that's a great attitude. And that's kind of like, Noam, you'd asked earlier why I seem sort of zen

about getting canned. And it's just kind of like, I'm not a religious person, but I do kind of feel like it's just like, okay, it's time to move on. Well, what's next? And it actually made me really excited to like, what's next and i and it actually made me really excited to like right

to like to like what's the what's the next thing like you feel like this there's a field of possibility that opens up like sure you're kind of like hurt um you know you might feel like a little betrayed but like um but you know like like a lot of times when you every single time like i've like left the job whether it was because i I wanted to or not, like it's felt like, it's felt like, you know, like getting out of a semi-toxic relationship. You know, like you don't really realize how much you were suffering until the day when you finally break up and you're like, oh, this is what it feels like to not feel completely oppressed. You sound like my employees. It is a good attitude.

Well, the pandemic has, the pandemic has, the result of which is not me being fired technically, but me not working very much compared to what I had been, the amount I had been working prior to that. And one thing I've learned is that I don't need standup in my life. I need people, I need, you know,

I like to go to the comedy cellar and see people, but standup is not something that I feel like I need to do. So you learned that because you just felt yourself not really missing it? I don't miss it. A lot of comedians we've talked to during the pandemic are saying, oh, I can't wait to go back on stage. Holy shit, I miss it.

Oh my God, I'm just, I'm jonesing for it to do a set. I'm not jonesing to do a set. I am, I do enjoy the camaraderie going out of the comedy cellar and, you know, seeing people and face-to-face real interaction in person interaction, but the standup, I'm, I'm no, I, I, I'm not, I don't find myself. You have a lot of anxiety about. I do have a lot of anxiety about standup. I, I,

I get stage fright even after all these years. In fact, my stage fright is worse now than it was when I first started, probably because when i first started i thought it was a means to an end and it turns out this is the end let's just say there's no sitcom there's no this is it you know and so uh you know that that that uh has had an effect on me but well dan also wrote a novel he just he spent um quarantine in a very started writing it prior to the quarantine but he finished it he sent it to me by the way but i haven't read it yet of course but but he sent it to me that was a big step

and that was a step because i don't trust noam to give me a love i might i might be honest he's definitely afraid i might be. I don't want him to be honest. If honesty is, you know, and Noam has never appreciated me really. What do you think of my book is kind of like, do I look fat in these jeans, right? Like, it's just like, you look perfect.

The minimum, you have to say you enjoyed it. And that's a bare minimum. Now, when somebody says they enjoyed your book, that could mean anything from, it was the worst piece of shit I ever read to i enjoyed it that's the range that enjoyed encompasses if you don't hear the word love you hit love means love somebody said i loved your book that means i loved your book i enjoyed your book means it means anything at all anything from it sucked to i enjoyed it i'm scared to read it dan i don't want to be put on the spot i'm scared to read it i'm curious now you have to read it i know what go ahead well i just wanted to ask

what it's about like i'm curious okay what it's about is this fall it's about a stand-up comic slash screenwriter he's an oscar winning screenwriter he won an an Oscar for a movie that he had written and acted in. And now he finds himself self-sabotaging his career. When the novel begins, he hasn't worked in several years other than just doing sets at a local comedy club because of various reasons that he, and he got, he's got into arguments with industry people and he's had issues with getting on stage. And then he writes again he writes a memoir and through the memoir writing process it's like a book within a book through the memoir writing process he learns it's like therapy for him and we learn as the reader and he learns

writing the memoir why he is the way why he has these fears of success and these fears of also with relationships that also fears that he has so that's that's more i don't want to give there's some surprises along the way that sounds great i would love to read that yeah will you send it to will that would be a nice way i've got an mfa in fiction writing uh uh you know if you want comments i've taught i've taught creative writing here at iowa area you can send me will's email i assume you have it oh i would love i would love to read it that sounds fascinating. We have not in its final edited version yet but it's more or less in its final 90% there. I'm from the University of Arizona's creative writing program. Oh yeah? Like what year? Well I don't want to date myself. No, no I was just asking, like poetry or fiction?

Poetry, but it was just because I started in poetry, I sort of, technically it was poetry, but I wound up doing a lot of nonfiction and sort of critical theory and, you know. Do you know someone named Rachel Yoder? I don't. Okay, she's got an MFA from Arizona. Do you know Lana Musa and Jory Graham and Jane Miller? All those guys are like Iowa people. I know Jory Graham. My thesis advisor

went to Arizona at the same time like David Foster Wallace did. Oh, yeah, sure. Yeah, of course. Yeah, Antonia Nelson. We got to wrap it up. I'm happy that we turned the corner. No, I have to. Liz, I apologize for getting chippy.

No, no, don't. I really do. I was just like, I'm tired. It wasn't the kind of conversation I wanted to have right now. So like, it's been like seven degrees below zero, like as a high, I haven't been out of the house in like days. So like, I feel like a captive animal.

So I, you know, sorry for that. I've been there. But I really liked to actually talk to you guys. Like everybody being very passionate. It was heated, but it was, you know, look, you know, it was, I thought it was really interesting listening to both of you. Can I tell you something that will infuriate you on my side about this since you're in COVID because Carol knows about this.

I have a friend who is 60 years old, overweight, blind, HIV positive, and black. The black, I don't think that's relevant, but people seem to think that's relevant in this context. He has no help, has had no help whatsoever in getting a covet vaccination there's no freaking number no i finally got him a an appointment but i'm saying and and it's funny i i thought of this guy and i called him because i i knew he was on his own but this city or the state whoever it is is let the most needy people just defend for themselves. That's terrible. In a way, I can't even comprehend what would it take for them to go down.

And I was joking, like, if you want to state New York state website, there's a big website now about masturbation, how to have sex during COVID. And they talk about masturbation. Well, I'm like, can you take the people off the masturbation, how to have sex during COVID. And they talk about masturbation. I'm like, can you take the people? Yeah, yeah. Take the people off the masturbation detail and maybe put them on the phone getting appointments for people who are old and sick.

But like, does the New York State website like tell you how to jack off? Like, have you considered like, here's how you do it? I don't know. What does it say? You can just Google New York State. That's fascinating. considered like it like here is how you do it i don't know what does it say you can you just google new york state that's fascinating but i mean the the the the um the lack of competence that we see as a nation everywhere from trump but it doesn't it doesn't begin in the end it's

everywhere is just so disheartening. United States is a disaster. Like we've been like one of the worst in the country. Like we've been at the bottom of vaccination rates. Like just, you know, it's just- They're throwing out vaccines, right? I mean, they're literally just- A lot.

They're not only throwing out vaccines, they have thousands that are just not being used. No, it's just- I don't even even understand that did you see that story of that like doctor in texas who like ran around like like you know that he was they were running like a little you know like drive-through clinic sort of thing not a lot of people came that day but like and and i guess like the vaccines the kind that he had, they come in, you know, like sets of six in this like kind of cooler sort of thing. And if you open the cooler, then all of them will spoil within a particular time. But like the last person of the day came in, but like there wasn't a cooler already open.

So he had to crack it open. But then he had like a bunch of other doses that would spoil if he didn't use them so he like rushed around and just found people who like fit the right profile to give the vaccine to which is exactly what you should do but then like the the harris county da like pressed charges against him for stealing the vaccine. It's just- So what happened to him? Well, you left out one, I think it's an outrage what happened to him,

but you left out one pertinent detail, which I think I'm getting, he also gave it to his wife. Yeah, but she completely fit, like she was like immunocompromised and older, like she fit the profile. Yeah, I know when I said it, you would think I was, like I'm not trying to-

No, no, no, it is. Like it seems, you know, a little self-serving, right? Like, but the guy's just like, you know, this just this total mensch, like he spends all his time, you know, like volunteering at like charity clinics and he's like run emergency rooms and he just does the right thing yeah like like and he gets screwed over what happened to him so they pressed like the like the judge threw it out

immediately he was like the judge was kind of like like fuck you da uh but but like the fact that he had to go through that at all is just like um but like but i think that's just like indicative like there's there's like a mixture of like incompetence and just sort of like like legalistic bureaucratic managerialism like like you have to you have to do the rule do it by the rules right like or like like what are we gonna do if you don't do it but the rule and people just like lose track of of like doing the right thing and that's just like it like everything sucks if people are either incompetent or they're incredibly competent at following idiotic rules i know i i think we're i think we're in a bad time in a lot of ways in this country. I don't want to get pessimistic, but something is not right everywhere you look. I don't know. Maybe it was always this way.

Maybe just that we have a much higher powered microscope now with the digital age and we know everything in a way we didn't used to. And maybe that's, I don't know. Maybe that's just not a good thing. Would you say that we're the worst country in the history of the no well you know you should reach out to speak to barry because she's she's a just and by the way you also called her a conservative she's not a conservative on anything i may be a conservative she's a she's a liberal democrat by all measures i understand i mean i don't agree with her on many issues most she's a Democrat by all measures I understand. I mean, I don't agree with her on many issues. Most, she's a, you know, she just,

she's just a free speecher, but I mean, she's not even a right wing on Israeli politics. She hates Netanyahu. She's good credentialed liberal, but more importantly, she's just a very, very sweet and kind person. I would love to talk to her. Apparently she's dating a woman now because she was, I think she was married to a man

when we knew her, when we interviewed her. You used to date Kate McKinnon or roommates of Kate McKinnon. Yeah. Yeah, she dated Kate McKinnon, which blew my mind. That's it.

What would you say if I told you that I forgot to record this whole episode? I wouldn't believe you. It says recording, not even recording. I would feel like it was worth every second. This whole last thing with Dave. Life wouldn't believe you. I said it's recording, not even. I would feel like it was worth every second. This whole last thing with Dave.

Life is ephemeral. Let's make Will a friend of the show. I have a lot of friends in my life that started with rough friction. I mean,

I love to argue. And like, like, obviously. And, and I, and I love to give people shit while I'm arguing and, and, and I, and I love to give people shit while I'm arguing with, I like, I like trash talk. But, but like, but you kind of have to, but you kind of have to build a context of mutual

trust for the trash talk to, to, to, to hit lightly. So I don't mind trash talk. If I got next, next time we we meet I don't think I would I would interpret the trash talk in the same way now that I've seen now that I was I was definitely premature it's part of this conversation the last part of this conversation first even that would have changed the context all right totally um guys be safe everybody and. And well, I was very pleased to meet you. I think what happened to you was fucking ridiculous.

Thanks, I really appreciate that. I really do. All right. Great to meet you all. Thanks, everybody. And I really did enjoy it because I like getting bitchy. So it was a lot of fun for me. So thanks for the chance.

Good night, everybody. Thanks for the chance. Bye. Thank you. Good night, everybody. Thank you. Good night, everybody.