The Comedy Cellar: Live from the Table - Gleib for President

Episode Date: October 4, 2019

Ben Gleib and Dov Davidoff

You're listening to The Comedy Cellar, live from the table, on the Riotcast Network, riotcast.com. Good evening, everybody. Welcome to the Comedy Cellar Show here on Sirius XM Channel 99, the comedy channel. We're here today, of course, with Mr. Dan Natterman, as always. Welcome, Dan. As always. Here he is. And I always neglect to introduce her, and I feel bad about it. Ariel Ashenbrun, our... As about it. Ariel Ashen Brund are

Ariel the brand. On the list of things you feel bad about, I imagine that's near the bottom. Relatively low on the list, yes? Before I do, I do feel bad about last week's podcast where I lost my temper at the nice professor from Columbia.

I almost didn't run it. I felt I was right it. I would like to see that. You know, I felt I was right about what I said. You're almost always right. Almost always, yeah. But I don't know why it got me so angry, but it did, you know, and I'm not proud of it anyway.

So I apologize to anybody who thought that I shouldn't have been so angry. I agree with you. Okay. Dove Davidoff is a comedian, actor, author, real estate. I don't know that we have to add that real estate thing. If that rings. Why do we need that? But anyway. Can we sub out real estate investor, developer.

Yeah. I mean, I am. And sub in recovering sex addict. I've already recovered. What does recovering mean? It means it's one day at a time. No, it's not one day at a time. I don't believe he's. I know. I'm already recovered. What does recovering mean? It means it's one day at a time. No, it's not one day at a time. I don't believe he's...

I know, I'm not struggling. I don't know if he's a sex addict, but if he's a sex addict, I believe that if you put a tail on him, you would find quite a life. Dove Davidoff is a comedian, actor, author, real estate developer, and survivor of childhood. All right.

Who wrote that? I wrote it. You wrote it? No, no, of. Who wrote that? I wrote it. You wrote it. No, no, of course I did. But I wrote it on my phone. I wasn't thinking it through. He may be seen regularly at the Comedy Cellar. I'll write a better one.

And he's funnier than that at the Comedy Cellar. Yeah, yeah. On my intro. Don't cancel your reservation. Yeah, exactly. How do you pronounce the last name? Gleib? Gleib?

Gleib works. Ben Gleib. Actually, it could be Gleib, right? It could be a lot of things. Ben Gleib is a stand-up comic, and he is running for president in 2020. Oh, yes. Facts. His Showtime hour special is called Ben Gleib, Neurotic Gangster.

Why can't you do that? You know what? I'm going to switch it. He was a regular on Chelsea Lately, and he hosts Idiot Test on Netflix. TBS calls him one of the funniest comedians working today. One of the funniest comedians working today. Called me. They don't say it regularly.

When you say TBS calls you that, who is the spokesperson? Mr. TBS. Ted Turner? They have an official official blog and they wrote a story. The funniest comedians working today. That's right. I was on it. Between Norm MacDonald and Harlan Williams. Well, that's certainly good company indeed.

Pretty good company. Yes, it is. So they ranked them? Yeah, it was top 100. I was like 48 or something. That's not bad. Not bad. Not bad at all.

Because that included legends like Rickles was on the list. Seinfeld was on the list. It wasn't even just like. You sound Southern or something. Where are you from originally? I sound Southern, but I'm not. I'm from L.A. It's weird.

You're from L.A. originally, Ben? My mom's Israeli. My dad is. I didn't know you were from L.A. From L.A., yeah. So a few people are from there. Now, you are really running for president. I know.

Are you going to be in the Democratic Party? Democratic Party know. Are you going to be in the Democratic Party? Democratic Party. And are you going to be in the primary ballots? We are working on getting on the debate stage. We've been on the campaign trail constantly. I already have people pledge to caucus for me. We're the 19th highest fundraising active Democratic campaign. We are trying to...

How much money have you raised? Not as much as the first 15. It drops off pretty significantly after 15. It drops off pretty significantly after 15, but we are 19. There you go. 19. I don't want to... And you're running,

I would presume, because you're dissatisfied with the other candidates? Correct. And the reason for that is? I just don't think they're going to beat Trump. I think that Trump's pretty hard to beat this go-round and you can't do it with traditional politics. I think we tried that in 2016 and we lost pretty miserably. Well, where are they going wrong? They just aren't taking strategy into account.

They're not trying to beat him at all at what he does. It's like they're trying to bring policy papers to a wrestling match. You can't beat... Donald Trump's not a politician. He's the greatest heckler in political history. And as we all know, the way you take down a heckler is with a comedian. And that's what I'm trying to offer is a different choice. Obviously, you haven't seen Dan and a heckler go together. Not in all cases.

Not in all cases. Sorry, Dan. Good stuff. Good stuff. I'm pretty good at taking down hecklers. I don't know Dan's heckler skills, but he's a very funny man. So you want to get down in the mud with Trump. Very much, yeah.

So should we go through your platform? Whatever you want to do. It's printed here on the thing. Oh, wow, look at that. Should we all follow? We'll follow along, sure. You read aloud. It's like when you're taking the standardized test.

We'll read silently while the proctor reads aloud. It's like when you're taking the standardized test. We'll read silently while the proctor reads aloud. And at home, you can probably follow along at home by going to glebe2020.com. That is correct. There's even more issues on the website. There's a lot of planks in this platform. There's like 22 issues on the website. Maybe there's like, I don't know, 18 or something, 16. Okay.

It says, Ben Gleiber, President, take our democracy back. Mm-hmm. Facts. Okay. Stop thehmm. Facts. Okay. Stop the orange monster. Okay. That's not a policy position. That's not a policy, but that's kind of my leading thing.

That's your goal. Mm-hmm. Save our planet because you can't breathe on Mars. Yeah, that's also true. I don't know if you've heard a lot of the facts about Mars, but you can't. That is true. I've heard that as well. I agree.

Yeah, but that's a false comparison. You couldn't breathe on Mars even if our planet was saved. Right. He's saying we have nowhere to go. I'm saying we have nowhere to go. That's basically the point. This is how it started with that Columbia professor. So can I question you on this?

You end up eating. The only way to survive on Mars, you've got to live in a bubble like John Travolta Bubble Boy. It's no life to live. The only way you can eat food is growing it through Matt Damon shit potatoes. We've all seen the movie, and nobody wants to eat that. What I meant is that it's not an argument that our planet needs saving

to say that you can't breathe on Mars. Well, if you could breathe on Mars, then fuck the planet. We'll go to Mars. And that is the argument also because everybody's saying we should go to Mars, and it's giving people this false sense of hope that we can shift our civilization. Are you referring to global warming? Oh, a lot.

Well, yeah. But Elon Musk is like, we have to colonize Mars. And I'm like, that's not viable. Okay, so let me ask you this. We're not going to colonize Mars. So let me ask you this. Now, I'm going to presume that you're 85% serious about this campaign. I'm 100% serious about the campaign.

Okay, so you're 100% serious. So then I I'm 100% serious about the campaign. Okay, so you're 100% serious. So then I will take you at your word. Sure. So when I watch the Democratic debate about the environment, the things that go through my head are the following. First of all, there is no current technological solution to global warming that doesn't include nuclear energy, probably as much nuclear energy as we can produce right now until such time safer alternatives come

along. If you really believe that the Earth has 11 years left before the tipping point, then you go full bore with whatever you have available to you now, because civilization is in the balance, which is nuclear. And nuclear, the energy created by nuclear power plants could run all the electric cars. And so when I see them, I think one of them, maybe Cory Booker, one of them recently made some embrace of nuclear power, but it wasn't really serious. When I see them not, and then I'll give you the second part,

and then I'll just talk. When I see them avoiding nuclear power, I say, you know, they're just not serious. They're just not serious at all. And two is that, according to everything I've read, unless, if America shut down, it would have almost no impact on the trajectory of global warming because we're not the big problem. So what is your answer?

How do you get China and India to play ball? And what about nuclear power? Can I add one thing that I read recently? And I don't know if it has any validity, but I posted it on Facebook. With the caveat that, hey, this is something interesting. Have a read. Sure. I forgot his name, but he's at West Point.

He's a professor of climate science. What's the worst that could happen if you spread fake news on Facebook? What's the worst? Well, I didn't give a caveat. But his point was that what we absolutely must do is keep economic growth going because poverty is going to kill a lot more people than global warming. That is to say, if we bring progress to, say, the third world, that's going to save more lives than the global warming would take, ultimately.

So we cannot cut back on economic progress, is basically what he's saying. Okay, so don't get sidetracked by his thing first because he gave you the easy one. Why don't you deal with all three of them? Sure. First thing, nuclear. Nuclear.

I'm not super against nuclear. I'm open. You're not serious. No, I'm open. You have to be No, because there are tons Absolutely for it or you're not serious in my estimation.

I think we can use nuclear as part of the solution in the short term to make up the need. What else do we have in the short term? We have tons. We have tons the short term? We have tons. We have tons of alternative energies. We have wind.

We have solar. And we have a lot of energies. Solar energy is going to run cars and factories? Electricity and solar and wind are things that we need to invest much more heavily in. Invest. That's long term. No, but they already have ways to scale them up. They already do power cars.

They already can power cars. Barely. Barely. That's all you term. No, but they already have ways to scale them up. They already do power cars. They already can power cars. Barely. Barely. That's all you need. We need to make adjustments in our society and how we live to be able to save the planet. That's what he's saying. We got to cut back. We got to tighten our belts.

I'm sorry. I'm going to give you a C- on that. Okay. What's next? Well, no. Because the fact is that- We just have to get off fossil fuels. No.

The fact is that- That's the most important. Yes, right. We have to get off fossil fuels. And we have to address population control as well. No, no. Why not? Well, hold on.

Why is nobody ever going to talk about this? Hold on. Because population is not really growing. If you read about... 7 billion people. If you read about the analyses of the actual benefits of electric cars... Yes. It's minor at best.

Totally minor. Because they burn a lot of coal and other shit to make them run. Also to make them. To make the car. To make the energy. To make them. No, to power them. Also to manufacture.

Also to manufacture. But making them is a one-time thing. And I don't know how to add to it, but the day-to-day running of it, it's a lot of... Because of the charging of them and where that electricity comes from? Yes. I don't disagree with you. I'm agreeing with you. We can use nuclear in the short term, but it shouldn't be the long-term solution.

It's a dangerous energy source. See, it used to be global warming was this thing, over the next hundred years, we have a big threat. All of a sudden, the time window has shrunk to 11 years. 11 years was like, what movie came out 11 years ago? I've heard it argued that the tipping point has already taken place. What? Mrs. Miniver? I don't know. I mean, 11 years ago like, what movie came out 11 years ago? It's like, I've heard it argued that the tipping point has already taken place. What? Mrs. Miniver? I don't know.

I mean, 11 years ago was just nothing. They said it used to be 100 years ago. They said that 40 years ago. So we've already lost a lot of time not doing anything. It was like 15 years ago. No, but like Jimmy Carter put solar panels on the roof of the White House and then Reagan took them out. But they weren't talking about global warming then.

Jimmy Carter was doing that. Well, back then they were talking about conservation and acid rain were the big issues back then. Do you remember that kid in the Statue of Liberty tour that said, don't be fuelish? Give us kids a chance. Do not remember that thing. This is interesting to say about Jimmy Carter because the Jimmy Carter example is part of the reason that older people are slow to the global warming thing is because we've seen so many warnings before. And when Jimmy Carter was president, we were being warned that there was a new ice age coming and that we were at peak oil, meaning that by where we are now, there was supposed to be basically no more fossil fuel as opposed to more fossil fuel than we ever had before.

And the chief is finding new sources to get it, too, though. So but the point is, I'm saying that once, once you have a 10 or 11 year time window, imagine your child has 10 or 11 years that you have to do something or they'll die. Yeah.

Then what you do is, what any smart person would do is take 100% of the advantage of what is available to you today because every day is, which is nuclear.

And once you have that in place and civilization is secured, then you set about doing all... There's no reason not to do all of it, is all I'm saying. There's no reason not to do all of it at once. The reason not to do all of them is that it just doesn't work out that way.

The point is that we can't have... We can't do everything at once. And there is no focus... You're saying the most productive way to mitigate what's taking place is through concentrating everything. All the resources on nuclear. 99 to 1. Right. I understand.

We at nuclear energy is it. Okay. The second thing is why not China? What about China-India? How are you going to get them to? Well, the way to do it is not by withdrawing from the Paris Climate Accords. You get back in the Paris Climate Accords on day one. Then on day two, you start pushing for a more serious agreement, a more enforceable agreement,

with more checks on it so that you can actually start pulling ourselves back. What is our leverage? Our leverage is that we are an enormous economy. We're the richest country on Earth and we have leverage more than any other country on Earth. We, China, and India are three of the biggest.

So we have leverage. We have one third of the leverage, basically. What's the leverage? What do we do? How do, China, and India are three of the biggest. So we have leverage. We have one third of the leverage, basically. What's the leverage? What do we do? How do you get China and India to really do anything about this? You appeal to people's humanity, and you try to get them... Like in Tiananmen Square. They tried that. They're showing a little more restraint now

in Hong Kong. They just shot somebody. One guy. They shot one guy. They've been pretty restraintful for months now. I think, actually, from an environmentalist in Hong Kong. They just shot somebody. One guy. They shot one guy. They were pretty restraintful for months now. I think actually from an environmentalist point of view, I think pulling out

of the Paris Accords was a good thing for the people who were against global warming because I think if we were still in the Paris Accords

right now, the people who care about this issue would find that the issue was off the front burner. We've signed the Paris Accords

and we've kind of, you know, we've done what we were supposed to do, and it's very hard to get people all worked up about it again. Like, okay, yeah, we signed the Paris Accords, so shut up. I mean, there are huge marches happening now, so you can use that evidence. No, I'm saying it wouldn't have happened maybe if we didn't pull out. But I disagree, because right when we signed it,

everybody that I heard in the news and everybody I heard in conversation say, this is just the beginning and it's nowhere near as enforceable. Yeah, but they say that, but the point is that you can't sell it twice. What percentage of the Paris Accords was about public relations on a global level? And what percentage of it is actually about addressing climate change? By the way, we know that China, the Parisis of course still exists just we're not in it china has upped their uh production use of coal because it wasn't enforceable that's right exactly right because it wasn't enforceable which means that in my opinion i thought this at the time they signed on as essentially as a way to tie down the american

economy for their own competitive advantage a dictatorship never has any intention of caring about humanity or worry about it. China was never going to abide by the Paris Accords, but they knew America probably would. So it was a no-brainer for them because we have to worry about, we have a population that will object if we're not. And there's no downside to signing something that looks good up front. There's no downside to signing. It was all upside to that. And that isn't enforceable.

So I thought it was very bad from the environmentalist point of view. I thought the powers of course was dumb. But that argument is literally like saying we should take no action because the action is not big enough and we need to wait for bigger action. You said it. You have to take enforceable action. Yes. But you can prove it. If somebody won't sign up.

If somebody will not sign up. Like the Iran deal. You don't take yourself out and have no replacement prove it. If somebody won't sign on – If somebody will not sign on – Like the Iran deal. You don't take yourself out and have no replacement for it for a year. No, that has some enforcement mechanisms. And also has the military option, which is also in the balance. But you don't sign on to an honor system deal about the end of civilization. That's my point. That's what we signed on to.

Everybody's on their honor. That was just a good first step to get people to get on the same page. It's not a good first step. You're getting people on the same page. You're getting people to at least say, okay, we're in theory not going to want to run. I'm getting the feeling you're a liberal. Because liberals have this

utterly naive view of what dictatorships are. These are thugs. Amoral thugs. They never got... So how do you suggest you save the environment? They never got on the same page. They pretended

to get on the same page. That's why the left was so late to accepting that Soviet Russia was murdering people. So shouldn't we be approaching this through the lens of behavioral economics, which is the acceptance of self-interest as inevitable aspect of human nature?

And it's got to be some economic and or military reinforcement. Otherwise, nobody's going to do what they signed on to the Paris Accords to do. Or a total embargo of Chinese. That is an economic incentive. Yeah, a total embargo of Chinese goods until such time as they shut down. But the fact is, you can do that if they're not holding true to their agreement. If you take Asia out of agreement, now you don't even have an agreement to get angry about it. A line of communication in the first place is to establish it.

But it seems to me that developing cheaper nuclear power, it's a lot easier, you know, a spoonful of sugar. What nuclear companies are you invested in? Where is this deep... How did you know that? Noam owns a random dance point. My point was, well, not my point, but... Well, that's another point, but my point was not really...

My point is what I read on, what I read in an article, I think it was in the Atlantic, but I'm maybe not sure, about this guy's point was is that technological development is crucially important and if we have to just choose between poverty and global warming

we have to It's a completely false choice because these alternative energies are going to be great job resources for the planet and if you invent you don't have to rape the environment to also give people jobs of energies are going to be great job resources for the planet. Shut up with that job resources. You don't have to rape the environment to also give people jobs.

New industries create jobs. Part of the Green New Deal is creating a shitload of jobs and promising that we're going to find jobs for people that are displaced. Are you saying a net increase of jobs? You're not going to lose jobs. One example that he gave, and I don't know if it's valid, he said that global warming was supposed to or is supposed to increase death from infectious diseases.

But what really kills people from infectious diseases is poverty. And if people have access to vaccines and clean water, and, you know, then they'll be less likely. And that malaria has gone down. Yes, you do both. That's not an either or. Okay, let's go. We're going to spend the next one. Well, we can't do the down. Yes, so you do both. That's not an either or. You're sure the Bill Gates documentary? Okay, let's go. We're going to spend a whole day. Next one. Well, we can't do the mall.

I think we can. Very many. Cost of living tax refund for low and middle incomes. Yes. I've been saying that for years. I think it's way better than minimum wage and all that stuff. Well, you'd have to expand. Yeah, it's just an expansion of the earned income tax credit. I really came up with this as a reply, as a retort to Andrew Yang's

universal basic income, which I think is ridiculous. And I told him to his face recently. Go ahead. tax credit. I really came up with this as a reply, as a retort to Andrew Yang's Universal Basic Income, which I think is ridiculous. I told him to his face recently. Go ahead. I told him in an Asian accent and I got fired from Saturday Night Live. I told him that I think it's ridiculous to just accept the onslaught of automation

and then say we're going to give everybody $1,000 a month. First of all, giving everybody $1,000 a month just inflates the economy because you're giving everybody the same amount of money. And it comes out that his plan actually takes benefits away from poor people to get that $1,000. So it actually benefits poor less than those who need it. So giving $1,000 to rich people a month when we don't have it, it's near $4 trillion a year. He wants to give it to rich people too? Every single person. He's not means tested? Every single person. He's not means-tested?

Every single person. That's silly. So dumb. And so, mine's means-tested. You just give it to people that are working full-time jobs. Aren't these people good at math? It's very confusing. Wait a second, no? That's his whole argument. It's not racist, it's a compliment. He says the opposite of Donald Trump is an Asian who loves math. I don't know that.

I am skeptical of your depiction of his plan. I do think he's a little bit more substantial. That's what his plan is, 100%. We'll have to fact check that. But okay,

so you want to give people $1,000 a month. You just want to make it as a tax refund. Yeah, I want to give it and you can get it. And that won't inflate everything.

No, but you give it just to those in low and middle incomes. That's another way of essentially means testing Andrew Yang's kind of intent. Yeah, and saving half the money every year. Dan.

What, Dan? I'm just saying we got a lot here, and I definitely want to get the guy here. Don't be foolish. So the reason I think that's a good idea is because I think the minimum wage is actually a dumb idea. I think that, for instance, a guy who has a family who is working on the minimum wage needs help.

And I think like my kid who's living in his parents' basement and working for GameStop for 11 bucks doesn't need a raise to $15 that GameStop can't afford. And when you know, for instance, in the restaurant business that 50% of restaurants go out of business within X amount of years. I believe it's three out of four within five years. Three out of four within five years. So obviously there's a certain percentage that hold on, which are just hanging by a thread. Yes, of course. And you just start increasing everybody's wages.

In theory, it could have a net loss. Well, they don't even pay the minimum wage to servers. What Noam is trying to say is he doesn't make any money off the restaurant. No, you're wrong about that. It's up to like $7 or $8 an hour for servers. Maybe in New York. Nationally, it's like $2.50.

We're asking what the externalities of the policy are, which are the unintended consequences of any policy, right? So you're asking, is there a net gain in our economy and certainly in job production? Well, there's just been barely any raise in the minimum wage for so long. But dude, you're only talking about tipped workers. There's a lot of that. No, also overall. Yeah, but they don't

like at a McDonald's they're not paying $2 now. They're paying full minimum wage. Oh, for sure. But we can mitigate your problem by just saying that you don't need to increase the minimum wage for underage workers. If you're working as a summer job or after school, that's fine. But if you're an adult and you're providing for your family at that job, there should be a use for people to live. Well, your plan, you get the cost of living refund.

But also, don't look too down on the card then. Here's my notion on minimum wage. No minimum wage. If somebody is falling through the cracks, then we as a people help them. With what? Your non-minimum wage? No, no. We help them with welfare benefits, tax refunds, and so forth.

You're going to have so many more now on that program if you just don't. Well, first of all, you may or may not. Minimum wage is the basic floor we have. There are those who believe that a higher minimum wage means more unemployment. There's that school of thought. Of course it does. Higher minimum wage means more unemployment. Well, that was my net job loss question.

Yeah, but you used too many big words. Yeah, I'd like to give Dov a credit for that. Make housing affordable. See, this is why I would object. That is a wish. That's not a policy. Well, you have to put on rent controls in major hubs. Rent controls don't make...

Even Paul Krugman will tell you rent controls are the worst thing to make housing. There was a Freakonomics episode about rent controls. They had a very negative perspective on it. I don't know. Paul Krugman changed his mind on a lot of shit. Not on rent control, he hasn't. He said it's the one thing that every major economist agrees with. That rent controls.

So you think people should be able to be priced out of the city that they work in and have to commute from- I don't think they would be priced out of the city for rent control. What do you mean rent control keeps rents down? You know how many people I know living in rent control apartments who have no need- I know them right off the bat. Paying ridiculously low rents. They were the children of rent control. So there's control.

There's stabilized. There's control. So there's control. There's stabilized. There's control. I was in somebody's apartment. They have a three-bedroom. It's about 2,500 feet. It's a really big place, and they pay $800 a month. But they were grandfathered in under their father or mother. And many of these people were.

And everybody I know right now with a stabilized apartment is somebody who has a white-collar job. The ones that I know. I'm not saying that. And that I don't agree with either. But all I'm saying is there has to be... That's what rent control is. I'm not saying rent control

across the board. So how about food? I'm not saying for grandfather things. Why are you choosing rent? What about food, electricity? Why don't you put a price control on everything that people need? Well...

Now you're asking a good question. Why are you singling out rent? You need shelter over your head. You need shelter. There's a lot of things we all need to survive. We do have food subsidies. We don't have housing subsidies.

No, we don't have food controls. Yeah, but I'm not suggesting across the board. Obviously, a real estate developer hates rent control because it limits their profits. But I'm not saying across the board. No, no, I'm building actually controlled. I actually know something about this. I know you do. I'm building 30% of my square footage is going to be allocated to stabilization.

And for that, I take advantage of what's called a tax abatement. I believe it was called the 421A tax-free tax exemption. And that incentivizes development. The question is whether or not there is a net positive between the city's loss in tax revenue and the developers creating affordable housing for a very small number of people relative to the number of people that need housing. So if you enter a lottery, you're about one in a thousand that's going to get a home. So we're not really addressing the housing issue. And the word, the economics term, externalities, addresses the unintended consequences of these policies. And like you said- Can you guys answer me this question? Why would it be if rents were market rate and people started making a lot of money that more apartments wouldn't be built like any other time people are making money in an industry?

People jump in and you would find some equilibrium. And maybe if you want to help the poor. You're talking about efficient inputs and outputs. That's what Thomas Sowell thought. Why would the market not? Because the market doesn't. Why are cell phones dirt cheap, but it wouldn't work for apartments?

Cell phones aren't all dirt cheap. Are you kidding? They're getting more and more expensive constantly. The new iPhone's $1,500. You don't need an iPhone. You're saying the poorest people in the country all have cell phones and television. No, no.

iPhone has become a home computer in a pocket. It is no longer a cell. I mean, it does the phone function. The phone function may be the least of what it does. Do you know what it would have cost to have the technology of an iPhone five, six years ago? $20,000. So I'm saying the price has crushed down. Sure.

But it's not happening in housing. Of course not, because they're all controlled. You can't build, you can't rent, you can't sublet, you can't do nothing. I would just say this. I would say the same thing I said about minimum wage. I would say the same thing about housing. Let the free market do what it does, and if there are people that are homeless, then we as a society take care of them. You are aware that there are cities without rent

control and apartments, major cities, and apartments are affordable. What do you do about somebody that, for whatever reason, the market's doing what it's doing and cannot afford an apartment? You help them. That's right. He already said that. Cost of living refund. That would cover for rent.

But are you saying, Dov, that you think you shouldn't have to have 30% of your properties be affordable? No, absolutely not. That's a good thing. I'm questioning whether or not. It's not a good thing. Well, the problem is it's a good thing for me in terms of my bottom line. So I take advantage of that tax abatement.

Which is what Trump, which is what everybody, left, right, everybody's trying to write off, whatever they can. I'm wondering whether or not the net effect is positive. And I'm not thinking from the perspective of a developer. I'm really thinking from the perspective of a citizen of a municipality, of a city, a government. If you're just joining us, we're talking to Ben Cleese. Comedy and welcome to the Comedy Cellar Podcast.

Modernize education because um, I think you misspelled um, because um, it's our children. I don't know if um has a particular spelling. That's right. What do you mean modernize our education? Well, our education is just very antiquated, right? We have technology advancing in every single way.

Our society advances in every single way. Why would that help education? And our schools still have dusty chalkboards, dusty textbooks, the same educational textbooks from back in the day. Why is that bad? It's bad because we have the... Dust is bad. Is there any data that modern methods

help people learn any better? Yes, America is one of the worst, as far as educational standards on the planet for a developed rich country. We're like on the bottom of the list. Can we address these parents? I just feel like so much of it is cultural, and we allow people to get away with...

Well, we need high-speed internet in classrooms. We need computers in classrooms. We need to teach financial literacy in schools. We need computers in classrooms. We need to teach financial literacy in schools. It's insane that you go to school your entire life and

don't learn financial literacy. Not everybody can grow up in a Jewish home. You need to teach financial literacy. You have to teach

context in school so students can feel as though they're opting into school. So it's not punitive. Can we somehow

police these parents that are creating these moronic cultures? If you would send $19,000 laptops to every kid I went to school with, everybody would be... They would sell them.

It'd be on porn. They would sell them. They had not... They put them up their nose and they'd shoot them. No, I'm saying, regardless of what you're providing, I have to be able to take advantage of or I have to care about the thing that's being provided. Otherwise, it's just a high

tech. So can I amplify that? Andrew Yang said in one of the debates that someone got almost no attention. He said that 70% of what a child needs to do well in school occurs outside the school. And we're asking the schools to do the other

70% that's beyond. And I, and I asking that, and I remember when Oprah created a school. And I, I'd said, listen, I went to New York city public schools 50 years ago, different school system. People were,

no 50 years ago, people were saying exactly what he's saying today, because there's always, there's, there's always the modern private, always better than public 50 years later, nothing has changed. It might've even gotten worse. Right. But we should. There's always the modern. Of course. Private always is better than public. 50 years later, nothing has changed. It might have even gotten worse.

Right, but that's exactly my point. You should teach coding in school. Now explain to this. My father's generation, probably your parents' generation, grew up, my father's generation grew up in the 40s. And they had basically no technology whatsoever. And quite often they were in one-room schoolhouses even. And they read and write

and did math on a level that we could only hope to get our kids on today. Which to me is evidence that it has nothing to do with the technology and everything to do... Do you think the Asian kids getting into Bronx Science all have higher test scores because they have better computers in their homes? No, their parents don't even speak English, by the way.

That's correct. It's because of their culture. It's because of their culture. But in addition to that, it would be nice to have high-speed internet. No, I'm all for high-speed internet, but I think it's ridiculous. It's not. Hold on. Don't you understand? It's not going to matter if they have high-speed internet. If your kid can't fucking do

his times tables, a flash card is not inferior to a fucking computer to learn the times tables. You're burning money. This kills me. All the guys in Silicon Valley. This is why liberals are out to lunch. They really think, oh, the problem is we need computers. They all send their kids to tech-free schools.

There you go. I almost didn't let you speak. I just have to fucking barrel through to get a word in. I know, I know. All of the super successful guys in Silicon Valley are sending their children to $70,000 a year private schools that have no screens. And they're building with blocks and making things. That's cool, but you're picking out one thing from a list of things. I didn't even finish the list.

I also think we need to have national courses that they take online so we all have some semblance of the same education. We can all agree. We need to teach coding. We have to make sure. Coding good. Financial literacy good. We need to prepare people for the future.

Preparation good. Absolutely. So the school of the past prepares people for jobs in the 50s. What about now? Speaking of education. We have to change curriculum. We have to change our curriculum. Speaking of education, what about, now speaking of education, we have to change curriculum. We have to change our curriculum. Speaking of education,

what about English and history class? I think history class is largely unnecessary. I really do. Who cares? What a surprise. Don't be foolish. No, I think you need to learn history.

We don't need to learn facts and dates. We don't need to teach to test. It's totally unnecessary. What did we all do in school? We just memorized facts and dates. We forgot it the second the test was done. We have to teach concepts. We have to learn facts and dates. We don't need to teach to test. It's totally unnecessary. What did we all do in school? We just memorized facts and dates. We forgot it the second the test was done. We have to teach concepts. We have to teach about what's the lesson from these wars.

Have you lost your fucking mind? Kids, we suffer because people don't know their history. I don't agree with that. No one suffers because we don't know what year a war happened. The names and years don't matter. First of all, nobody knows their history anyway because they forget it. No, that's not true. You might forget the specific year that Pearl Harbor happened. You forget certain.

We forget. The year doesn't matter. Hold on. The details of our own lives, dates, names, becomes blurry. But that's not to say that knowledge of our past of our lives is not. No, of course. If you want to teach World War II without making kids memorize the dates, frankly, for the smarter kids,

I think the dates are helpful to put the various things... Like context. So I'm reading my six-year-old. I read him a book on Thomas Edison and Albert Einstein and Frederick Douglass. We're reading some historical figures. And he asked me to show him

when they all lived in comparison to each other. He was trying to put it in his head. Did Albert Einstein live at the same time as Thomas Edison? Was that the same time as Abraham Lincoln? He was trying to figure that all out. Sure, but that's just the peculiarity of how he wanted to learn it, but it doesn't mean that needs to be taught that way.

You can mention the year. I'm just saying that's not the point. You have to teach lessons and what takeaways are. First of all, we're never going to get through this list. You can mention the year. I'm just saying that's not the point. You have to teach lessons and what takeaways are. First of all, we're never going to get through this list of planks of the platform. Don't be foolish. At this rate. Okay, you go, Dan. Legalize marijuana.

You know, I mean, these are also topics we've gone through. We've talked about. Pass a social amendment for a woman's right to choose. Not with a candidate for the president of the United States. Let's just pick out the highlights that get known the most infuriating. Why bother with the ones that only get a marginally infuriated? That's not fun at all. We want him to lose control.

This is not going to help me get spots at the cellar, is it? We want him to lose control. That you got wrong. It's absolutely going to help you. Noam does not. He separates what you do on stage from what he thinks about you off stage. No, this is even worse than that. I actually want. I need punching bags. No, this is even worse than that. I actually want,

I need punching bags. Yeah, yeah, yeah. That's right. That's right. That's why Manny gave Dino a dollar spot. Yeah. No, don't think,

we'd never have anything. Yeah, they'd never, Gnome is the one club that I know of that doesn't mix personal with his decisions about who he's going to book. Every other club,

it seems to me, It's kind of like Dove's sex life. Every other club, it seems to me... It's kind of like Dove's sex life. Every other club, it seems to me, they book people they like personally, that hang out. Totally. Noam doesn't give a fuck.

And by the way... And take a look at the lines outside. And you see what happens in economies where nepotism is a big part of the economy. Nobody can compete. And by the way, the opposite is also true. Noam could love you as a brother, and you ain't getting on that stage. No, I love that. If he doesn't think you're funny. And by the way, the opposite is also true. Norm could love you as a brother, and you ain't getting on that stage.

No, I love that. If he doesn't think you're funny. And I respect that. And my only point is – He will cut you off at the knees. And if you stop being funny – At the knees. At the knees. Look, I said it as a joke, but I just want to make this point.

Ever since I was passed here by SD, I don't live in New York, but I haven't gotten a spot. So if I need to abandon – You said you weren't really passed. So was that – I don't live in New York, but I haven't gotten a spot. So if I need to abandon... You said you weren't really passed. Was that? I didn't even know about this. You want a spot? You can have a spot tonight if you want. I would love that.

Yeah, let's get him a spot tonight. Thank you. But my point is, if I need to abandon rent control to get more spots, I'll do it. Fuck people that need housing. There you go. Fuck rent control. I'm off it. This is my point.

I'm going to abandon anything that you feel in your heart to work here. You know, one of my favorite platform positions are... Should we talk about Trump and the impeachment? Yes, I would love to. One last one. One last one on my platform. One last one that I like that's my most unique platform that nobody else talks about. If you want to reduce corporate crime and have prison reform, just combine white-collar prisons with regular regular prisons why do we need a class system in our jails as well why do we have to treat

white collar criminals better and put them in country club jails when they ruin people's lives and stole their life savings and people that sold weed in their neighborhood to put food in the table have to be in there with murderers and rapists just put everybody together it's a less violent demographic for one i mean even in max, they try to separate out the hardcore gang members from the guys in general population who aren't going to stab people. And so we have to have some system. But a weed dealer. No, I agree. Nonviolent crime, absolutely. They should not be

in the... They should be together. 100%. I'm not saying put them with murderers, but I'm saying there should not be a stratification. Nonviolent criminals should be in nonviolent... The whole prison system is a disaster. The whole prison system should be dismantled. I just attended a whole talk on it last night here at Criminal Justice Reform Seminar. And my friend who is a public defender here, it's just a completely racist system. And it's tilted against people who don't have money and who are people of color.

And you don't get punished for the same crimes equally. Give me an example. Don't get punished for the same crimes equally. Just if you have money and you have means, you can get lawyers. You don't need public defenders. You get lawyers that can, you can get lawyers. You don't need public defenders. You get lawyers that can get you off of crimes. You don't end up in jail.

Cash bail keeps people in jail for a very long amount of time that can't afford even the bail before their trial. So you're literally just kept and basically enslaved in prison for a long time until your case comes up.

Yeah, I'm actually even, I might even be to the left of you on this, although I don't want to put, I mean, I don't like the vibe of... How could you be to the left of him? put, I mean, I don't like the vibe of- How could you bid to the left of him? I'll tell you. I don't like the vibe of wanting to see white-collar criminals, you know, shivved. Yeah, of course.

But I think that there's a strong argument, I've said this before, to be made that most of the prison system violates the Eighth Amendment rule against cruel and unusual punishment. The stuff that goes on to prisoners under our nose, and we know it's happening, at some point it becomes like, well, you know what, we can't in good conscience send people to prisons anymore, even though we're not the ones doing it. I don't know. Well, I'm told, by the way. It reminds me of Sabra Shatila.

I know you don't know history Well, I'm told, by the way— It reminds me of Sabra Shatila, you know, the— I know you don't know history, but in the— That's not—they don't teach that in the school. In the 80s, there was these camps where Israel allowed the Palestinians to go in— I mean, the Lebanese to go in and slaughter the Palestinians, I think it was. And Ariel Sharon got in trouble for it and was kicked out of the government. Anyway, so Israel's defense was we didn't do it. You know, it was them.

It was between them, but Israel didn't lift a finger to stop it. And that's kind of what we are with our whole prison system. We know what's going on, and it's disgusting. I'm just wondering whether that Sabra Shatila analogy added anything to our understanding of the issue. Don't be foolish. But in any case, I read, by the way, not I read, but I heard.

You would have been the guy complaining about Babe Ruth striking out. Yes, of course. How many balls has this guy got to hit out of the park to give him one? And by the way, single pitch gets by the guy, you hop on him. To a certain level of person who has a certain amount of knowledge,

I think that analogy actually helps make the point. They understand, oh yeah, I didn't like that. It was. It just requires a lot of context because nobody knows Israeli history in this room or listening. Well, certainly not listening,

but we've proven my point about we should abolish history. Podcast at ComedySorrow.com. Please write us and let us know what you think about Dan. Don't be foolish. I also, I've heard that this whole notion of being raped in jail is exaggerated.

Oh, have you heard that? I've heard it. I don't know if it's true. Who did you hear that from? I forgot, but I've heard it's exaggerated. Sounds legit. I have an old juvenile stand-up bit about that exact part, so I don't know if it's true. Who did you hear that from? I forgot, but I've heard it's exaggerated. Sounds legit. I have an old juvenile stand-up bit about that exact person, so I don't disagree with you. Of course, we all have bits about that. Now, you call yours juvenile. I call mine one of the best bits I've ever read.

About prison rape. Hey, can I get a bottle of water? Is that for you? Prison rape is... Oh, I have one here. Thank you. Prison rape is obviously a very popular subject among comedians right up there

with Hitler and midgets as popular topics. I used to have a bit about Hitler being raped in prison by a midget and it was a triple threat. Oh, that is...

Well, if you combine them then all of a sudden it's not hack. I'm really interested in what else you're far left wing about. That's probably it. Well, if you combine them, then all of a sudden it's not hack. I'm really interested in what else you're far left-wing about. That's probably it. Well, the lottery, I think it's ridiculous that the government has a lottery to induce the most poor and ill-informed people to spend their money on something

that no intelligent person would ever spend their money on, money they don't have. And we advertise it to try to induce them to do it. And we call ourselves fiduciary. I mean, the government calls itself a fiduciary. Well, let me induce some poor black and Puerto Ricans to spend their milk money on a lottery ticket. Well, I don't know. I don't know that it's blacks and Puerto Ricans necessarily.

I know Russ Maneef buys the lottery ticket quite frequently. Russ Maneef can because he's upper middle class. What I'm saying is that... I was just in Puerto Rico for a week until two days ago and they're not buying a lot of lottery tickets on the island, just so you know. It's not a giant issue. You can read about it. You go to any

bodega and a lottery ticket is a big, big thing and there's ads everywhere. They still play the numbers uptown. Everybody's always playing. It's hope. It's packaged hope. This is always the irony of trying to discuss things, is that you are supposed to assume that black and minority people are in need of special help. Of course.

But if you ever utter the idea that the poor people are blacks, and the poor people, why are you saying this about blacks in Puerto Rico? Why are they the poor people? Because that's what I've been hearing. They are the poor people, and I'm doing this because I care about, you know, It's a mathematical fact, and there are plenty of poor white people as well, just as a percentage

of that population. Not in New York City so much. There's a very minor population. But by extension then, what would we do about, you know, credit card companies are playing off a very similar, I mean, all these pay, you know, like the little check cashing places, credit card companies, the rates are usurious, right?

I mean, am I pronouncing that word right, Perio? Usurious? Usurious? Yeah, that's what the Arabs and the Christians say about the Jews. Yeah, yeah, loan shark. Usury? Charging interest. Usury, yeah, loan shark. Usury? Charging interest. Usury, yeah, usuriousness.

Dude, you're not making a good argument for not taking history, all right? That's really a vocab problem right there. No, but if the rates are usurious, is there something that the government could do to mitigate that issue? Because when I get something from a credit card company, every time, I don't need it.

I know enough, I have financially literate enough to pay them off at the end of the month or at the beginning of the month. But when you get one... I'm financially literate enough to forbid my wife from having one. Yeah, precisely. That's a much better way to do it.

Beautiful confluence of sexism and financial literacy. It's a confluence of sexism. Not weakening the Consumer Financial Protection Board is certainly one way to do it, and Trump's done a lot of that, and that's a bad thing. Right, the Consumer Financial Protection.

I know, speaking of Trump, Noam, I know wanted to move things along and talk about- Sure, I would love that. Talk about the impeachment of Donald Trump. I want to hear what Ben says. Yeah, sure. I think- Well, Ben's probably in favor. First of all, it was interesting-

Probably. I'm definitely in favor of impeaching him. I was in Washington Washington D.C. just about 10 days ago and I got arrested protesting corruption yet Donald Trump is corrupt and is currently they're talking about impeaching him

for being on the phone maybe you shouldn't have done it with your dick out why did you get arrested I was protesting in the back of the house through somebody's window I wanted people to think there was a bigger crowd and by the way he was on the phone noticing the back of the house through somebody's window. I wanted people to think there was a bigger crowd. But the point is, and by the way, he was on the phone with the Ukrainian

comedian president. It's not lost on me. Just six months ago, this guy was a comedian with no political experience, and now he's the president who's bringing down Trump. That's at least some positive that this guy is doing, and this is the kind of benefits you get from a comedian president. I think it's great. I think Trump finally walked into it, and I i think when people say like i've seen some people on the

left saying it's ridiculous to only limit this impeachment inquiry to just this phone call no you should because that's maybe the one thing that won't be controversial to people on the right as well and you might even get senators flipping on him and saying well on this one specific thing you certainly on a phone call shouldn't be asking for personal political favors and withholding aid for that reason. And I could see even if there's a sweeping. So let me ask you this. There's a lot of ways to look at this.

I'm not going to ask you to get into the weeds of the legal issues because. How do I put this delicately? Because I don't think you have any idea about the legal issues And I was being flippant Why would you It takes a certain amount of knowledge I'm not a lawyer And you don't Whatever I didn't mean that to sound snarky

But From a From a more Zoomed out We have an election coming in 14 months. We know that 100, whatever, 70 million, I don't know how many people voted for Trump. The right to vote is the most basic of constitutional liberties. And what we are talking about doing is nullifying the vote of a little bit less than half the country. In what regard?

Well, far less than half the country. We're going to overturn the election. But not based on nothing. Not to say it's based on nothing. But not saying the election is fraudulent. They're just saying, even if somebody voted for somebody, you're buying into Trump's line

that he's putting out on Twitter that this is a coup and it's undoing an election. I'm not buying into any line. I'm saying that this is an – you can make the same argument for Clinton. The president could do something that doesn't nullify the election. So does this phone call where nothing actually happened – Well, he did withhold aid.

No, he didn't. He talked – well, we can get into that. But the aid actually went through and the investigation that he that he was asked for never happened. So that's why I say nothing. There was no actual history. The timeline of history did not change. The aid went through the investigation. Biden was not investigated. We know there was no steps towards an investigation? I think we know that, yeah. I didn't hear that. So my question is, is that a high enough crime that you don't worry about the consequences? I mean, I think I'm not alone in thinking that perhaps the biggest problem we have as a nation now is this division that we have. The electoral map is red and blue and has never been more divisive.

What could be a bigger gas can to throw on this number one problem that we have than nullifying this election when we can just vote him out in 14 months? Then he's not out for 18 months or 17 months. That's fine, but the point is that we just vote him out in 14 months. Then he's not out for 18 months or 17 months. That's fine, but the point is that we can vote him out. Is the argument that it's a moral imperative and that we owe it to our standards of our democracy?

I don't think it's... I disagree. That's the biggest problem we have. The biggest problem that we have is not the divide. We've been divided for a long time. Trump's making it worse, quite intentionally. And so also you can argue that taking him out early would at least stop his continuing of trying to divide our country along blue and red. Well, you could argue that. But even if you don't want that argument, it doesn't matter. I disagree that that's the biggest issue.

The biggest issue is that Trump – and to me why I think getting Trump out and being anti-Trump is not a left or right issue, a red or blue issue. It's just he's an existential threat. And why people say that is because he just, not only does he question and try to undermine every institution of our government at every turn and undermine the freedom of the press. Like the right to vote? Like the right to vote. Like saying our elections are fraudulent.

Impeachment. But that's a legitimate part of our government. Impeachment is a big undermining. No, but that's just that. So he says our FBI is bullshit and our CIA is bullshit and our elections are fraudulent. He might turn out to be right about the FBI. Did you read the Inspector General report on Comey? It wasn't like Trump was like whistling Dixie and McCabe got fired and there's a lot of shit that's come out.

It's not all nonsense. Okay, but the president. Of course you read it. You read that. Don't be foolish, for God's sake. The president... So deep in the weeds. The president shouldn't be throwing gasoline on every institution and trying to burn it up

and making up the fact that there's 3 million fake votes and then saying that it's a precious enemy of the people and then furthermore even just taking the concept of facts and throwing facts up into limbo. But you see what you're doing? You're making an argument that because

taking him out of office would anger so many people that would be a problem for the country. I'm arguing back that far worse for the country is to allow this out of control person with no norms or respect for our Constitution or country to continue for nearly two more years.

In your opinion, because you happen to be on the side that didn't vote for him. And your opinion is that two more years of him is fine because the country might have civil war if we remove him under fair, impeachable offenses? Well, let's spin this out. Do you think it's possible that some of these right-wing, white supremacist killers that most people that think like you blame on Trump for encouraging, how many additional deaths by angry right-wing killers will you say, it's all right, we're still worth it? Oh, that's interesting. Well, I don't think that's going to—

A, you cannot legislate out of— Don't duck the question. I won't. I won't. You cannot legislate out of fear, firstly. Yes, you can. Well, you shouldn't. B— So then you don't care how many deaths.

You'll still say it was still better than an election. I don't care if another Oklahoma City bobby happened. I'm still married out of fear. Part B of my answer addresses your question directly, is that if, the only way he'll be removed from office, so he'll just be impeached by the House, just like Clinton was, and no one's going to be upset about that, right?

If the Senate, the only way he'll be removed from office is if the Senate flips on him. So you're not for removal? I am for removal, but the only way that happens is if all the Republicans also flip on him, or a huge number of them, and in that case there won't be the huge revolt and extra killings because they're going to realize that some norm was broken because the people they also respect, the Mitch McConnells and these people, Lindsey Graham, are going to also vote against him. I think that's an interesting point.

So I'm going to ask you another question. Do you believe that the thing, wag the dog, you've heard the expression wag the dog. Is that a real thing? Sometimes. So, like, if a president like Bill Clinton was accused of bombing the pharmaceutical plant in Sudan, killed, I think, killed one person,

injured, like, 11 people, they said, Christopher Hitchens wrote a whole book saying that Clinton did that to distract from the Monica Lewinsky thing. Is that a greater or lesser violation of using foreign policy for your personal ends than Trump's phone call? That's an excellent question. If that, first of all, I haven't even heard of that.

So if that's true. Take any wag the dog incident that you believe is true., but anyway, take any wag the dog incident that you believe is true. No, take any wag the dog incident, which is essentially the president drums up some sort of foreign policy thing for political gain. Every one of them, to me, seems to me to be more outrageous than this phone call about Hunter Biden, which is like, this is nothing. No, because it shows the disposition of the president. So I agree with you that any wag the dog thing like that. But I've never heard of any wag the dog thing being brought up for impeachment for it. That's my point.

It's like, this is a very- But this is not a wag the dog. This shows the priorities and focus of this president, as we all suspected and see in public and onto Twitter feed, but now you see a transcript that he doesn't care about the country. He uses it for his own personal gain. It's just an example of that. Next question.

Did Hillary... Where in that call, last thing on that, where in that call did he say, also let me discuss what America needs? Never. It was, here's what Ukraine needs, and I need these things only for me, me, me, me, me. And that shows how he's not fighting for us. I agree with you, although I— Your argument is sound.

Clearly there's a moral equivalency, and it's just politicized. Yeah, I also think that it's—well, I mean, I've been reading in the Times that he— we don't know if it's true or not, but I read in the Times that Zelensky and the Ukrainians didn't even know the aid had been withheld, which some people have claimed it doesn't change anything. But to me, it's this. So I'm an employer. Like I'm Periel's employer, sort of.

If I ask her for a favor, any favor, she's going to feel pressure to do it because of the relationship. So that's why I don't ever ask for favors. But if I ask her for a favor and I have her kid chained to my radiator in my apartment but she doesn't know it then the fact that the fact that I was withholding aid

the fact that I have your kid hostage is not fair to interpret that conversation. She has to know that I have her kid. But you're speculating and then assuming. Well, it was reported in the Times. That Zenske for sure did not know the aid has been withheld? They didn't use the expression for sure. It said that he didn't know.

I think it says that some people think maybe he didn't know. That's a big difference than the Times saying he did not know. You know, all of these things aren't about the letter of the law as much as they are about the intent of the law. And people don't believe Trump has an honest intent. Right. And then you see it in a transcript.

Then you directly see where he just doesn't have our interest at heart. So vote him out! But certain things are impeachable. Certain things are impeachable. So why not impeach him also? What's impeachable? You know what I'm saying? A high crime of misdemeanor against our country.

What's the crime here? The crime is using your political office for personal gain. That's a statute. There's a statute. That is. People use their office for political gain all the time. And when it's caught, those people are fined or removed from office. No, no, no.

You don't have to give me that. I know you don't like history. I think he committed treason in Helsinki publicly next to Putin, and that's the definition of treason. So Kenneth P. Vogel says the Ukrainians were not made aware that the assistance was being delayed, reviewed, until more than one month after the call. That's what the guy from The Times says. So you can interpret that whatever you want.

Fine, but even regardless of it, you're still... That's what I say people say. They say it was everything that was a quid pro quo, and then I'm like, well, actually it doesn't matter if it was a quid pro quo. But like you just said about power over somebody,

you don't need to have the sun tied to the radiator to know that you shouldn't ask Perriel for favors because already Ukraine's very aware that the U.S. has their fate in their hands. Do you worry that it's

extremely naive to think that heads of state don't ask each other for favors and this is very selective. I worry about that. Do you agree or disagree that Hillary Clinton hired— You don't have to worry about it because you know that they do. What's that?

Hillary Clinton hired Fusion GPS, who hired Christopher Steele, who was the— I'm getting too into the weeds here. Hold on. Christopher Steele's resume. Sometimes the facts matter, Dan. Christopher Steele's, not everybody's an ignorant idiot like you think they are. Christopher Steele's, you know, Dan only wants to do a

threes company. Dan would have totally vetoed Breaking Bad or anything like that. What I want to do We need tits! What I want to do is offer— Hold on. They hired the former head of the Russia desk at MI6 to speak to people active within the Kremlin to get dirt on Donald Trump.

In other words, they were getting dirt from foreign sources. This is what Hillary did. I think it's fine, by the did. I think it's fine, by the way. I think it's just politics as usual. But don't you think there's something weird now about saying that she can do it and Trump can't? No, I think you should impeach Hillary

as well then. She's not president. Good answer. That is the correct answer. But I think we're going to shine a spotlight on hypocrisy. If he withheld aid for this, I would think it's probably impeachable. That still doesn't make it wise to impeach him, but I tell you, that's actually a crime.

Bribery or I don't think campaign finance violations. There's massive hypocrisy on both sides. Never ask me for favors. Never ask me for favors. Can we? What favor do I ask you for? I'm not saying facts don't matter. I'm saying we have a limited amount of time.

Limited amount of time. We have a limited amount of time. We are the Comedy Cellar Podcast. That's right. Selling that comedy. So, you know, I think that that has to... We have to be mindful of that in terms of our content. Let's not be foolish, of course.

Not letting robots take over. I'm going to sleep in the arm of the Statue of Liberty tonight. Just in of our content. Absolutely. Let's not be foolish, of course. Absolutely. Not letting robots take over. I'm going to sleep in the arm of the Statue of Liberty tonight. Just in the robot protest. So we have a choice. I'm going to ask Dove's opinion. Yes, of course. Should we discuss the possibility of opening up a new room on Bleecker Street and expanding the Comedy Cellar, or the case of the woman, the cop that got found

guilty for shooting the man in the apartment she thought was her apartment. I mean, they're both good subjects. One is more comedy cellar related, certainly. The other one is, I don't know all of the details, but... I know a significant amount of details on the guy. Sure, if you want to get into it, we can get into it. I love your premise was like, this

is the comedy cellar show, so let's talk about the comedy race. Should we talk about the cop? Well, talk about the cop and make it funny. Go ahead. Internal business of expansion or murder by police. I would like to... Which comedic angle do we take? I don't mind talking about weighty topics, but I want them to be weighty

topics where everybody can understand and grasp. Can we be honest about something, Dan? The people who are tuning in to hear a comedy-centric conversation have abandoned us long ago. Yes, that's true. That may be true. That may be true.

I think we can offer a good mix like Howard always did. He would have the news and he would have the funny stuff and the silly stuff. Anyway, so what happened, Noam? I'm shocked you don't know about this in more detail.

Go ahead. There was a cop, a woman cop in Dallas. She goes into her apartment building. She goes to the wrong floor. What color is everybody? She's a white cop. She goes to the wrong floor of her apartment building. We have a history of racist slurs.

Hold on. Say she's in apartment 6-8. She goes to apartment 5-H. Whatever it is, it's apartment right underneath. Which, by the way, I've done. But she goes one step further. You've gone into another apartment and killed somebody because you mistook. I've gone to an apartment that's right below mine and thought it was mine.

And killed the person. No, I haven't. And then I'm like, oh, fuck. And I put the key in. It doesn't work. And I'm like, oh, she's not my apartment. I tried to get into hotel rooms that weren't mine. So anyway, but she goes one step further.

On accident. The door was left open for whatever reason. The guy that inhabited this apartment left the door, but she goes in. She still doesn't realize it's not her apartment. Maybe the light's off. I'm not sure exactly, but there's a guy in there. It's a black guy. The velvet painting of the black girl with the tits.

She had no idea it wasn't her. But why does it matter whether or not he's black? Because a lot of people are making it matter. Oh, she had a history of racist comments. She walks in. She thinks she's in her apartment. She thinks there's an intruder in her apartment. She shoots him dead.

Okay? And she was found guilty of murder. I think originally they wanted to just eliminate the murder charge and just go with manslaughter. But there were protests. So she was found guilty of murder. And just today, she was sentenced to 10 years. Now, a lot of people are very upset about that sentencing. They think it's much too little.

But murder is contingent upon there being a premeditated aspect. That's first-degree murder. Well, what's this murder? I don't know. We've all been there, murder. We've all been there, murder. We've all gone to the wrong floor. No, but I thought manslaughter was when it was an unintended consequence of an action.

But they're arguing that this person did it on purpose. There are people that are arguing that this was a cold-blooded murder, which I find hard to believe that she shot this guy on purpose. What was her motive? She has no motive. Second-degree murder is defined as an intentional killing that was not premeditated. which I find hard to believe that she shot this guy on purpose. What was her motive? She has no motive. Okay, second degree murder is defined as an intentional killing

that was not premeditated. That sounds like it. In other words, it's a crime of passion, last minute. You know, you say there's an Asian chick that says something

that upsets you on a podcast and you flip out and kill her. I think that would be manslaughter. That's second degree murder. That's second degree murder? You meant to kill her but it wasn't premeditated. Okay, that's second degree.

First degree is premeditated. Second degree is I meant to kill you but I didn't't premeditated. Okay, that's second degree. First degree is premeditated. Second degree is I meant to kill you, but I didn't think about it beforehand. And manslaughter is I hit you in a physical fight and you fell on the side of a guy. Manslaughter is spur of the moment murder. No, manslaughter is not intentional. Manslaughter is when you're so reckless. Like if you get really, really drunk, you did something so reckless that a death resulted, a predictable death was the result.

Third degree murder can be committed with the intention of causing bodily harm, but not necessarily death. You didn't mean to kill. So if I kick the shit out of you and you drop dead. Right, right, right. Which was she convicted of? So that would be kind of what the cops. Did she shoot him more than once?

That Eric Garner killed. That would be like a foot selling thing. How many times did she shoot him? I don't know. But once a cop starts shooting, they keep shooting. I don't know how many times. Is that true? What kind of murder was she convicted of?

Murder. I don't know. What's her name? Her name was Amber Geiger. G-U-Y-G-E-R. Extraordinary act of mercy. Brother of Botham Jean hugs and forgives Amber Geiger after 10-year sentence imposed. So his family,

does he believe that the killing was... Yes, no, they do. Especially his mom. I mean, it was just... Anyway, a lot of people are making this racial. They're saying that, A, she was racist. Can I finish my sentence?

But it's not a lot of people who are making it racist. Can I finish my sentence? Go ahead. A lot of people are saying that she was motivated by racism. And furthermore, a lot of people are saying that she was motivated by racism. And furthermore, a lot of people are saying that the court was motivated by racism in giving what they regard as an unsatisfactory punishment. So it's becoming a racial issue because everything in America is viewed, rightly or wrongly, through a racial lens.

The joys of diversity, ladies and gentlemen. I'm not saying diversity is a bad thing, but rest assured it is a big, big challenge. It's a challenge. It's not easy to be a diverse society. It ain't easy. I just want to clarify, this story is our one chance to be funny, or is there like a funny dog story after this? I don't know if there's going to be.

What do you think about it, Dan? Well, my thought is I cannot imagine that she meant to kill this guy with with that. It was like some elaborate scheme. OK, I'm going to pretend that I'm going to go into the wrong apartment and that's going to be my excuse. And the jury 11. It's unimaginable.

I believe is crazy. It sounds and it sounds crazy. I'll grant you. She thought she was in her apartment again. How? I mean, that's ridiculous. But OK, it's not ridiculous if the lights are out. Well, I'm not sure if the lights were out. These apartments are pretty

cookie cutter. I mean, you know, if you go in one apartment, it looks just the same as the other, unless there's a massive, you know, difference when you walk in the room, or it's well lit. That could be, and I'm not sure if the lights were on or off. I don't believe, I do believe she thought it was her apartment. I do believe she thought he was an intruder. I also believe that this kind of

outrageous incompetence and recklessness cannot be allowed to be unpunished. There has to be consequences. Right, but it's not necessarily a function of racism. Especially when people have a gun. They have to be that much more prudent, that much more careful. We cannot allow this kind of thing. So she needs to be punished. I think manslaughter would probably be a more appropriate charge. I agree with you.

And also, you can, in theory at least, be racist and shoot somebody without shooting them because they were black. That's not mutually exclusive. That's true, too. She could have been a racist. Your odds are going down. But that doesn't mean that she was guilty of murder once. But what it might mean is that if he were a white man, she might have

given him the benefit of the doubt. Maybe, but that's not a crime to not give somebody the benefit of the doubt. Maybe, but that's not a crime to not give somebody the benefit of the doubt. Right. What do you say, Ben? Look, I think that you... Well, it's still manslaughter. But if I kill them

because they're black, then it's a racial killing. If I kill them because they're in my apartment, that's pretty difficult to prove, even if she is racist. Or if you kill them because they're in your apartment

and they're black. I know, but you can't prove that. You could just prove that she didn't have a high opinion of black people. I mean, this guy was sitting on the couch eating ice cream. Once they're in your apartment... Well're black. I know, but you can't prove that. You can just prove that she didn't have a high opinion of black people. Once they're in your apartment, and maybe... Once they're in your apartment, I think you're allowed to shoot them.

And that may not be... You may argue that that's a bad law. Is that true? Well, it's certainly true in some states. You break into my house, I can shoot you. Guys, once again, I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure the law isn't also that once they're in their own apartment you can shoot them.

Of course not. But we're trying to distinguish between manslaughter and murder. We also have no idea what we're talking about. I'm the only one here who has no idea what we're talking about.

Did the man who accused me of getting down the weed say we're trying to distinguish between manslaughter and murder? Yeah, because I... This is getting heavy-witted. I've explained what mans... We've all explained very clearly

what manslaughter and murder were. I think that... Do you want her in jail? Did you just tell me you thought nobody should go to jail anymore? Never said that. You said that. So I think the following... I want to hear Noam's analysis.

That's really what I want. I do have some faith in juries, and so I am very reluctant to have any opinion on this because I don't know any facts. I think we gave you a lot of the material. No, but you don't know any facts. They sat in the trial every day. They judged the probity and the vibe of the witnesses. They saw her speaking.

They got a vibe. So, I mean, I'm very reluctant to say that, but I will say this, that if it's as you said, with anybody who makes an honest mistake that I can understand and leads to a tragedy, I don't believe they belong in prison. no matter how horrible the outcome is, if you didn't intend to do something wrong when it comes to that, or even intend to be negligent or whatever it is, I don't see what is done by putting somebody in prison. Well, I think we would all agree with that. You should read some of her text messages. What's that? You should read some of her text messages.

What do they say? One of them said, if I ever walk into somebody else's apartment and they're not white, I'll shoot them. Well, what did the text message say? I don't have to read them. I'm not going to remember all of them. I mean, I've been reading about it for a few days.

But the crux of them was that she wanted to be violent towards you? Yeah, she said, you know, she talked about her gun and be careful because she's going to shoot you. She said, I think one of them was, they should give me credit for having the patience not to shoot people. To kill you, you're lucky I didn't kill you.

I mean, just, you know, it's not a good look. She was a cop on the edge. She was a cop on the edge. Maybe she, maybe, and maybe the police department. A lot of good cops are on the edge. Well, this is my point. Like, yeah, it does matter in a way. Like, was she over the line in her behavior?

And I have no basis. It's not like the OJ trial. I watch that every day. You know, I don't know. But let me ask you this question. You answered the question, but assuming she really believed that she was in

as crazy as it is, as nutty and insane as it is, assuming she actually believed that she was in her apartment. It's not insane. Do you think she deserves any jail time? In that case, she should get a new couch

with six months, no finance. Let me answer. Interest-free. So in law school, I remember vaguely, I think it was a British case, actually,

but they told us a guy who meets another guy in a bar and he says, listen, I want you to go to my apartment. Right. My wife is going to pretend

that she doesn't want to but I want you to force her to have sex with you she's in on it and this is this is a joke this is a real case and the guy goes and he rapes this poor woman

and she actually knew nothing about it and the guy was not convicted because he didn't have the necessary intent to rape. So that is similar to what... And then you say, Maury, I have to, but you? So what you're saying, I

agree. If somebody walked into the wrong apartment... Right. Imagine if in that story, they also walked into the wrong apartment. There was just somebody else in bed. What if they walked into the wrong... This is what's interesting. What they also walked into the wrong apartment. There was just somebody else in bed. What if they walked into the wrong... What if she walked into the wrong apartment and then the guy

is sitting on the couch with a registered firearm and then he shoots her. Then she shoots him. Right. What would we say then? We would say that her supposition that he's an intruder has more credence. Yeah, that's a good answer. At some point, if you're seeing the gun,

you're also noticing the couch isn't where your couch is. And the light's not where your light is. Or how about I'm just not in my apartment? Right. How long does it take to... Do we believe that she... The smell of it, the look of it. Let's take this from the other way.

By the smell of it, I assume you're talking about my apartment. If we believe she didn't know. Let's take this in the other way. By the smell of it, I assume you're talking about my apartment. Let's take this in reverse. The guy lives! What is the reason? What is our theory of punishment that we want to see

somebody in this scenario, as Dan described, in prison? Do we want to rehabilitate her? Do we want to deter other people from walking into the wrong apartment and shooting someone? I mean, this has never happened before. Why do we think it's going to happen again? I've never heard this story.

I'm going to suggest a punishment, can I? Or do we just want to see her in jail? I think you put her in a bad neighborhood. Or is there another option? I think you put her in a bad neighborhood, make her sit in 12 different apartments, one a week for 12 weeks, tape over her mouth, in a bad neighborhood, and then just wait until people come home and then see what happens. I think that I've asked a very good question. Yes, you have.

I would say if there is a theory as to why she should be in jail, and I have thought of that precise question, Noam. The theory is to teach gun owners, you're a fucking gun owner, and unfortunately, you're not allowed to fuck up that bad agreed and you better god damn well check yourself before you

okay so fair enough there is an interest I don't know if that's hold on is 10 years necessary for that would not a year make that same point? No. If she really thought...

People are ready to whisk a year? If she really thought it was her apartment. Yeah. We're going by that thing. If she really thought it was her apartment, she had the gun, someone sitting on her couch, not aggressively getting towards her,

but eating ice cream on the couch. Well, Jerry must have believed it was gratuitous. I mean, I couldn't see. I think that's really kind of the point. Yeah. I mean, obviously the nuance is that the jury believed that there was some intent to hurt this man without enough proof. That's right.

I mean, think about how long it takes to open the door, walk into your apartment, see somebody sitting there eating ice cream, register. I mean, in all of this time. It takes shorter than you just saying it out loud. No, I don't think so.

It's not instantaneous. You open the door. It could be. We don't know how long it took. You shouldn't fucking do that. You shouldn't open the door and then shoot people. Yes, of course you shouldn't. There is such

a luxury, and we do this all the time as people, to just judge others in situations like I'm so sure that could never happen to me. How many of these friggin' people we know who've been canceled

were on the other side of all this liberal divide when, before they were canceled, just casting judgment, casting judgment. I, I, I,

I take this very seriously. Somebody was murdered and you haven't gotten into the racial issue. I don't, the racial issue is, um, only interesting if you think that that's the re that the jury did came to their verdict because of somehow racial, but just assuming everybody's the same color,

it's still a fascinating question. And I have trouble thinking that somebody should be punished for essentially winning the lottery of a tragic circumstance. Put it another way, if this was a really evil person, wouldn't they have shot somebody in a less ridiculous situation where they were more plausible? Cops can shoot people. It's possible that she had.

Yeah, I don't know. There's nowhere else to go here unless we know more about what happened. Clearly the jury believed there was something gratuitous here. There's no definitive sense of anything. I mean, if we believe that you shot and you really, really should have known better, then you deserve to be locked up. If we believe you didn't know better and it happened in the moment, then you do not.

How are you serving society by locking somebody up for 10 years? Is it worse or would you punish it more or less than somebody who is above the legal limit for alcohol and kills somebody in a vehicular homicide? Because I believe they usually get punished less. Much less than 10 years? You can kill somebody in the streeticular homicide. Because I believe they usually get punished less. Much less than 10 years? You can kill somebody in the street and get less than 10 years. So, I mean, that's you have intention to be reckless. You're drinking.

You get behind the wheel drunk. You kill somebody. There's no mistake, whatever it is. Should that be worse than knowing you're in the right place or the wrong place? No, I think when you intentionally do something which is reckless, that should be worse than what we've described with this woman. If we agree that she went into the wrong one by accident. Yeah, yeah.

Oh, for sure. Ten years seems like a long sentence if it happened that way. If she went in by accident, I think it should be like a year. Now, here's the irony. If you believe it wasn't that way, then ten years is a very light sentence. Like the middle ten years is very difficult to justify from either position. It almost sounds like they weren't sure. They're like, let's just go middle on this.

But if you're not sure, you're not supposed to, the law says if you're not sure, you have a doubt. That means that it's not a proper verdict. That's right. Well, it is a fascinating discussion, which is why, and I thought you would just take it like a fish to water, and you did,

and that's why I insisted that we talk about it. It was an excellent point. And that's why I insisted that we talk about it. That's an excellent point. And that's why I It was a good one. I had to unfortunately cut out some of the planks in Ben Gleave's platform.

That's alright. So, okay, we have to wrap it up. Ben. Yes. Are you going to be on the ballot in any primary?

Well, I already have people committed to caucus for me in Iowa. Wow. Are you going to go there? I've been living in Iowa and New Hampshire basically for the last

You really have? You didn't even tell us about this. That's so awesome. Yeah, I've been on the campaign trail hardcore for five months. He was just in Puerto Rico. I was just in Puerto Rico for a week on the second anniversary of Hurricane Maria. They don't vote. Yeah, but they vote in the primary. But I was just there because I wanted to show that they're a part of our country

and we have to honor them like any other part of our country. And I wanted to be there for a deep dive, see how the recovery effort's going. And I've been in New Hampshire and Iowa probably for about 31 of the last 50 days. I've been living there. I've been campaigning there. I spoke at a huge event alongside every major candidate, the AFL-CIO convention in Iowa. There were only 15 candidates on the lineup, and it was just the 15 top-tier candidates and me. I was the only one that was not on the debate stage that was there. There were only four standing ovations the entire event, and it was just the 15 top-tier candidates and me. I was the only one that was not on the debate stage that was there. There were only four standing ovations the entire event,

and it was Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker, and me. And I'm the only union member in the race. What union are you in? SAG. SAG. Screen Actors Guild. That's not a union. It's under AFL-CIO.

You try telling that to some fucking auto worker. I told it to them. The Steve Fitter's 302. I told it to them. The Steamfitters 302. I told it to them and they gave me a standing ovation. They want somebody who actually has to work for a paycheck and work for a living more than these multimillionaires. They asked me to do two shows within two hours and 25 minutes? Yeah, yeah. No, but I mean this is part of the argument of my that is that a road traveling comedian is much more of a working.

You're in the same union as Tom Cruise, by the way. And Donald Trump. Yeah, that's right. But I make the argument. That's a wonderful retort. Like, I wish I thought of that. Really? So Donald Trump could say he's a union member?

Yeah, exactly. I wish I hadn't said that out loud. But I'll say this. We can edit it out. Do you agree or disagree? Disagree. Certainly, a road traveling comedian is not as much of a working man as somebody who's an auto worker or a steel worker. But do you not agree that it's much more of a working man than most of these candidates and most of these career politicians and most of these multi-multi-millionaires

and the Donald Trumps of the world. Of course, we're hustling out there for our salary every weekend. I agree with you. I agree with you. The road is horrendous. It's horrendous. It's tough.

You're working for your meal every night. The teachers are unionized, too. I want you to get some violin music that we can cue. The teachers are unionized, too. I don't know if getting up in the morning and hustling on Wall Street all day long is a walk in the park either. I mean, there are a lot of people that do a lot of tough jobs.

You think what I do is easy? That's right. Arguing with people all day. It's not easy. I'm just not giving you a cost of living tax refund. That's all. You think it's easy to be hated? That's right.

It's not easy to be the boss. You're right, Doug. There's a lot of tough jobs. But being a road comedian, I would not say is an easy peachy job. No, no. I would never argue that. But I didn't think that's what the context was. The Texas Tag doesn't cover road comedians.

No, they do not. No, they don't. Also true. You would be the first Jewish president. You entitled white actor. Mexicans work hard. And I know you care about it. Don't go tell the Mexicans that you're a union, hardworking union guy.

I will tell them that. Fucking guys work like crazy. I travel all year. They might use the word pendejo as well. I'm headlining clubs, traveling the country. I'm on the road 25 weekends a year. Kill the music, Zach. Are you ready for sad music? Violent.

I don't make enough from stand-up to live, to pay my high-cost living in LA. You know who does make enough from stand-up to live? I can't say. The people who kill. I kill. I kill. I take that.

I've never heard you. That was a generic. That was a generic. We got people here from the, what time's the next show? I kill. I don't know. Whatever. Hot Tem's here.

Nobody cares that Ben would be the first Jewish president. Oh, Hot Tem's here. We got to go. We got to go. We have to wrap it up. I didn't know Hot Tem was here. We have to wrap it up. I don't know how Tom is here. Very quickly, I have to... I told Hot Tim I do the show

and of course I enjoy doing it. I do have to tape an audition. We're going to do it. I have to go. This is showbiz shit. People love to know the showbiz inside shit. So Periel, if I have to do this show right after,

you're not going to wait around for me while we do this show. But how long is it going to take? I can tape it for you. It's an hour. Or Hatem. Hatem, can I... Do the first half an hour, then leave. How long is it going to take for us to do it?

I don't know. I might have to do a couple takes. It's fine. They don't call me One Take Natterman. I usually take two or three. Let's wrap it up. I'd like Hatem to be on the tape, but that'd just be funny to have an Arab voice on the audition.

Just for fun. On your audition? What would he say in your audition? He has to just say the other lines. Oh, I see what you're saying. You know what I mean? Are you mocking him? It's an audio audition? I just think it'd be fun. Diversity! Diversity is in Noam.

It's all diversity now. Why don't you get Matteo Lane to do one of his... Not diversity of an audition partner. You don't want a voice off camera getting the role over you. You don't want them to outshine you with their diversity. That's fine if they do. Okay, that's nice of you. I'm saying, Perrielle, this podcast is about an hour.

Are you going to still be here? Why don't we wrap this up and... Right. Okay. You're against racism? No. Pro-racism. Pro-racism.

That's the one thing. Good night, everybody. Good night, everybody. Wait, wait, wait. What? Follow us on Instagram and send emails to? Podcast at ComedyCellar.com. Instagram is FatLiveFromTheTable.

Yeah, and I'm at Pittsburgh Improv, 18 to 20, this month. And I'm at the Blue Room in Springfield in Zany, Chicago, and Yuck Yucks in Vancouver coming up, and you can check out the campaign at They really named a chain Yuck Yucks? Oh yeah. It's a big one. Big one in Canada. In Canada? I guess it's a good name. Okay, good night everybody.