The Comedy Cellar: Live from the Table - Professor Phillip Glenn and Comic Erin Jackson

Episode Date: January 14, 2019

Professor Phillip Glenn and Comic Erin Jackson

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. We're here, as almost always, with... I would say 95%, 98% of the time. Mr. Dan Natterman, one of the world's greatest comedians as seen on America's Got Talent. Sitting in with us is our new producer. Is that the job?

Sure. Perrielle, how do you pronounce your last name? Aschenbrand? Aschenbrand. Aschenbrand. Aschenbrand? Aschenbrand. Aschenbrand. Aschenbrand? Aschenbrand. Aschenbrand.

That's German? German. Burnt ashes. Somebody had a fucked up sense of humor. Aschenbrand. Well, that predates the burnt ashes probably. And special guests. We'll start with Erin Jackson.

Erin is a New York City-based stand-up comedian. She may be seen performing regularly at the Comedy Cellar. Oh, my God. I don't know who wrote this. Armed with a megawatt smile. Did you write this? No argument here. Are you armed with a smile?

That's strange. Armed with a megawatt smile and a pocket full of dreams. Oh, my gosh. Erin Jackson is poised to conquer the world of stand-up. You know, this is like Steve. That's from your bio, probably. This is Steve's parting shot, like a little sabotage parting shot. You could have read it prior to reading it.

Stop, no. Anyway, this is great. She's poised to conquer the world of stand-up comedy. In fact, she'd probably be a superstar by now if her friends and family hadn't spent so many years hating on her dreams and stealing her joy. That's what they do. Okay, and...

Oh, it's not finished. She recently made... Stop it. This is ridiculous. It's really not finished. I don't think you have to read the whole thing. No, I think... A proud alumna?

I would have just said comedy seller regular Aaron Jackson is with us. A proud alumna. I thought it was alumnus. A proud alumna. That's if you're a man. Ah, so you're a comedian. No. A proud alumna.

I'm an alumna and a comedian. Of Howard University. Aaron is obsessed with Super Bowl champion Philadelphia Eagles. I am. We should talk about performing at the Super Bowl, see what you think. And, okay, our guest of honor, Professor Philip Glenn. Professor Philip Glenn is a professor of communications at Emerson University. Where is that?

In Georgia? Mass. Emerson College. There's Emory, Georgia. This is the one up in Boston, Emerson College. I should know because I went to Tufts. He conducts scholarly research, analyzing interaction, especially conflict, negotiation, and mediation, employment interviews, and laughter in everyday talk. His most recent co-edited book is called Studies of Laughter in Interaction.

Oh, that's appropriate for a... Before I do want to... You mentioned her briefly, Perrielle, but it's an exciting new era has dawned for the Comedy Cellar podcast. We have a new, as you mentioned, booker slash producer named Perrielle Ashenbrand, as you also mentioned. And I'm excited because Perrielle brings an

enthusiasm of freshness, a million-watt smile, not unlike our friend Erin Jackson. Well, you both have them. No, I was talking with Perrielle before the show. Yeah. She thinks that we have been all this time sitting on a golden opportunity, and we have just been pissing on it.

Is that a fair summation of what you've been thinking? It is a fair summation. Listen, there's always such a heady, intoxicating promise of a new situation. In six months from now, it'll be just as bitter as it were. But even if she's only half right now. I'll just be as bitter as you guys are. No, even if she's only half right, that's still pretty good. Yes.

Even if she's only 10% correct. I'm usually more than 10% correct. Well, Periel thinks we can really, really take things up a notch in terms of marketing, in terms of all kinds of things. She's got some guests. I'm really excited. We are probably the longest running show on SiriusXM right now. I'm really excited.

What are you guys doing? Nobody's doing anything. All right. Can we try to talk to our guests? Can we get to them? Well, Perrielle is a guest, and we also try to talk about things that are going on at the Comedy Cellar. Okay. And this is something that is going on at the Comedy Cellar. Okay. And this is something that's going on at the Comedy Cellar.

I can see her confidence in our future just, like, leaking out of her right now as she hears this thing. I'm extremely enthusiastic and flattered to be here, so thank you for having me. And she's got some guest ideas. Know them, they'll knock your socks clean off. Oh, great ideas. Wow, you have some great...

Barack Obama, maybe? He's on his way. Benjamin Netanyahu probably was. What are your ideas? He's on his way. Obama's on his way. Maybe Michael Jordan would like to stop by for 15 minutes. Listen, you know what?

If you don't ask, you don't know. Yeah, yeah. Well, that was Louie's excuse, by the way. Well, it's a fair point on Louie's part also. Anyway, you do have a great smile, Erin. Was it a megawatt? I mean, the bio could be cheesy, but it doesn't lie. It was a milliwatt.

There you go. A mega is a million. All right, so Professor Glenn. Not a gigawatt smile. Now, tell us about yourself. How does this pertain to stuff that we're interested in? Scott, analyzing interaction, conflict negotiation. Give us some advice on this stuff. Oh, well, my research is basic research, so it's how the world works. So the advice comes slowly after that, but laughter

is a huge, huge interest of mine. And we take laughs that people put in conversations, in job interviews, in doctor-patient interactions, and we study when they're laughing, who's laughing first, how the laughter's setting up or following what follows. And that's what the book that came out is about. Studies of laughter in everyday talk in all kinds of situations. Does anybody know why we laugh? There are theories of humor. They're kind of the grand ones that we laugh out of superiority because we feel triumphant over someone.

But why that reaction? Evolutionarily. Or out of release like Freud wrote about or out of a sense of incongruity. But humor isn't laughter and laughter isn't humor. And you all know this because you're in this business. Someone can be funny and not get a laugh or you can sometimes laugh without being funny.

Well, somebody can be funny and not get a laugh but they will not be working here at the Comedy Cellar because Noam goes by laughs. Yes. You don't blow the room apart. You can come here for the hummus, but you ain't getting on stage. I would imagine money and laughter are your two major measures. Are you an anti-Semite, sir? Oh, he's laughing. I don't understand the I don't see,

I don't understand the connection. He says, money is my main concern. Well, you're a businessman. I'm teasing. But, you know, I would guess

that laughter would, I mean, like, why, well, laughter would have, since it's out loud, it's an utterance, that it would have to probably be,

have developed to be some sort of communication as a way to indicate to other people, including the blind, how you're feeling and how you're perceiving something. It's visual and it's auditory. So those who can see and not hear can laugh and vice versa. But yes, it's also social, which is what you're pointing out.

It's not simply some psychological flooding of emotion or feeling. It's connecting with other people. And we will sometimes laugh because other people are around, and sometimes we'll suppress laughter because someone else is around, like if you're in church or in a funeral or someplace where you shouldn't be laughing. What about— You've never been to a comedian's funeral, obviously, because it's just laughter. And there's the kind of laughter that's suppressed when you know you shouldn't be and you just can't help it.

I was thrown out of class in college for a laughing fit. Yeah. And the more I tried not to laugh, the worse it got. What is that? How do you explain those like fits of laughter where you're like crying at the most inappropriate times. Well, one explanation could be you're at an Aaron Jackson show. That is probably it. Have you been to one?

Other than that, I can't think of anything. No, but it's a good question because we do it from the time we're very, very small, right? Before you know to... Children do it before they have... Concerned with other people and what they're saying. You just know that something amuses you and you laugh. So it's definitely, you know, it's interesting. Like little forever, a little puppy, you know, they hump at like two weeks. They just hump. Right. But they're not actually happy. Right. Children laugh at like a month or two.

And it's not. So it's just like it's like it's like getting themselves in training for a use which is going to come later, but it develops before the use is actually there. It's interesting. Can we laugh when we are traumatized? And I hate to bring everything back to Louis, but he... The story that was at least... Fucking Louis. The rumor that was circulating was that these women were laughing

whilst Louis was doing what it is he sometimes does. Yes. And they said, well, it was nervous laughter. Laughter often is nothing about being funny. It's about delicacy, embarrassment, managing a moment that's not easy to manage. Laughter is this kind of ambiguous response halfway between I'm affiliating with you and I'm pulling away from you. That's interesting. Yeah. So yes, it would make perfect sense

that they would have laughed in that situation where the power dynamic is so strong. It's also cultural, right? Like I lived in Southeast Asia for a year and when we would say something that was like inappropriate culturally because we didn't realize it and we would

embarrass our colleagues, they would laugh sort of very nervously. Disarm it. Yeah, totally, because they were so uncomfortable. And how does this, or is it related to conflict resolution? Because we have a lot of

conflict around here. A lot. A lot. You don't even know. I am ready to burst this week with all the conflict I'm dealing with. Well, they're certainly related. They co-occur more than we might think. Again, laughter lets you get through difficult moments. So sometimes it's very helpful,

especially if there's ambiguity. You're neither fully hostile towards somebody nor are you fully with them. Laughter lets you stake out a middle position and sometimes that gets you to the next moment and the next moment and the next moment when something better can come up. Do you think

you have a good sense of humor? And the reason I ask that is because to study laughter sounds very unfunny. Right? We dissect why things are funny to make them funnier. There are hilarious moments in everyday talk and political interactions. I'm thinking of one that's in our book where an MSNBC reporter in 2009 asks Chuck Schumer, and this is ironic now with Trump, but he asked, is

Sarah Palin the future of the Republican Party? And Chuck Schumer laughs. He just laughs. And then he dodges the answer. Right. But that laughter delegitimizes the question before it ever gets asked. That's a cool moment. And so I love collecting cool moments.

The same Chuck Schumer who was on TV last night looking like a scold. Did you see him and Nancy Pelosi? That's the jovial Chuck Schumer you're referring to? That's Mr. Comedy, yes. Did you see that? Well, that's before she kind of set the future of the party, right? Yes, yeah.

She seems mild now. It was funny back then. What is with those two? Did you see them? Well, are we now veering into... No, no. If you have any... Talk about the lack of humor.

There's a place for lack of... There's a time and a place for humor and a time and a place for seriousness. I don't know if it's quite so delineated, though. Right? I don't know. I feel like sometimes you laugh at stuff that's not supposed to be funny,

right? Yes. The laughter's doing work. And so for Schubert to laugh at that question doesn't mean he finds it humorous. Right. It's a device to treat that question as an illegitimate question. It's also a stall technique. Yes. So, but it was one of the,

so, but, oh, employment interviews. This is your other expertise is employment interviews? Yes. And then we'll move on. What, what, if you had three questions

to ask in an employment interview, what would they be? I had three questions to ask in an employment interview. Well, you can tell me anything you want about employment interviews. This is something else

that, you know, matters to me because I interview people. I interviewed her. Harry Ellis. Yeah. Yeah. Um, I think I,

I just want to hear you now without, you know, with all the things that are off the table now, but, um, can't make offers like you used to. I like the question. I have to go slow and I know we're on a podcast,

but it, I most want to hear what drives and excites the person who's being interviewed. And so questions that get at that, that get at their passions, what they're fired up about, to me are the most interesting questions. See, the thing is that I believe that nobody, but nobody is ever honest on an employment interview. Like, this is terrible, but really all that matters in an employment interview is like 30 seconds of just talking to them and saying, okay, they seem like self-assured or they speak, you know, not too wacko. Noam, do you interview every

waitress or are you that tangled? No, I used to, not a long time. It's like a first date. Nobody's ever honest. You're not going to show your whole self. I was actually talking to a therapist, not professionally. I would never do that. And I told her that my theory is that couples counseling can work

as long as everybody is not more than 90% honest. Like, it cannot work if everybody, if you were actually going to couples therapy and say what you really were thinking. That would be it. That would literally be the end of the relationship. So you have to go in with the intention of wanting something good to come out. But you have to be very smart about what you actually say.

You cannot tell the truth. That's good. I like that. I remember the last job that I had, though, my last real job, I told them I was a comic. And I thought I wasn't going to do that. And they told them from day one. And I was like comic and I thought I wasn't going to do that and they told them from day one and I was like, they're not going to hire me to do this job. Why would they care?

Because, I mean, I kind of was just like, I was asking about the vacation for that purpose. I was like, how much, so what's like the vacation? That's not a good thing to ask. They know a comic is going to leave as soon as humanly possible. The comic doesn't want to be there, obviously.

You're doing it. What was the job? I worked in marketing. I was responsible for the online marketing for the entire organization. Yeah, he is right. They want somebody that's going to say, I love marketing. Marketing is my life, and I'm going to stay here until I get my gold watch at age 60. They don't want somebody that's going to...

But I think they were like, what would you love to do? They're just trying to get to know me. I was like, well, this is what I do do, and I'm going to keep doing it. And they hired you. And they hired me. And how long were you there? Five years. Oh, so soon.

Well, marketing has a place for creativity and being funny and being humorous, so that might be a desirable... I tell you, this guy, this Glenn character, this professor, he's so nice. You must be from the Midwest. I can tell. Am I right? Or upstate New York. Well, sir, I grew up in Texas. Texas? Well, don't mess with Texas.

I don't hear the accent. These days, please do mess with Texas. But he's definitely very, very liberal. I would imagine. He's a professor. They all are. They pretty much all are. They don't have to live in the real world. They have their, you know.

We're in Texas, by the way. Dallas. Dallas, Texas. Never been. But I'm sure there's a comedy club there somewhere that I'm assiduously avoiding. Because I don't really do comedy clubs. I prefer one-nighters. Anyway, are we going to now segue into the...

Whatever you want. Talk about whatever you want, Dan. Well, I did want... I'm not now segue into the... Whatever you want. Talk about whatever you want, Dan. I'm not on my game tonight. Whatever you want to talk about. Well, you say that, Norman. You always say that. And then every week you always rise to the occasion. But, of course, everybody's talking this week about the Trump speech. Did you all see it?

The wall. Did you not see it, Aaron Jackson? I didn't see it. I was working and I did not investigate it. You know, I read something interesting. People talk, associate Trump with fascism. That association has been made. Feels accurate. But is any, have we ever, I'm not going to credit myself with this, but I read this on Twitter or something.

But have we ever seen a time where people are more engaged and expressing their opinions more vigorously? And we see SNL, for example, attacking the president. Well, he's just a bad fascist. Well, he may or may not be a fascist, but what we are seeing, I believe, looks to me like the very effervescence of democracy. People getting involved. Dan, I never gave a shit about any of this shit.

Now, all of a sudden, I all of a sudden I'm engaged. And I'm interested. This is the mistake I think a lot. I'm not defending Trump. The whole system of America. This is what I'm about to say. I think it's not that controversial. The whole system of America,

from the founding fathers to present, is based on the assumption that any president and every president is a fascist. That is why we have all the checks and balances and institutions that we have. It's the assumption that anybody in that office, given the ability

to do what he wants, will become a fascist. And is Trump uniquely fascist? I don't know. I mean, it depends if you believe in his policies or not. For instance, we've talked about this before. Franklin Roosevelt, when he had trouble in the Supreme Court, he decided he was going to add members to the Supreme Court

and essentially make the Supreme Court part of his branch. They didn't call him a fascist. Actually, I don't even know. They probably did call him a fascist. But since he's kind of a hero, well, he was our fascist, right? He's kind of a good fascist. But's he was our fascist ready kind of a good fashion but the point is that the president gets in that chair

and it's all about the checks and balances and for that reason i always felt from day one that the threat of trump is not all this fascist nonsense is what he can do in foreign policy where there are no checks and balances what's it gonna do with the the army is the president cannot do anything except at the point of a gun. Can't start rounding up Americans, whatever. He needs some people with guns to do this for him.

He needs, a judge is going to rule you can't do that. And then the army is going to say, yes, he can. It's going to be some coup d'etat. I don't think there's any chance of... The army hates him as it is, but even when they didn't hate him, the army is not going to take down the Constitution of the United States for Donald Trump to do something crazy.

We've had shutdowns before. The shutdown is such a... Isn't this like the second longest shutdown in the history of the United States? Maybe, but it's nothing. I'm not advocating a shutdown. I mean, tell that to the 800,000 people who aren't getting paid.

Yes, I will tell it to the 800,000 people who are not getting paid. No, this is nothing. It's fine. You guys are fine. I would say I'm not at all happy for your situation. But given the fact we know you will get your back pay, I imagine, I don't know this, that there's all sorts of people out there who will front people some money. But you're right. There are some people who are very badly

inconvenienced now by this shutdown over a couple weeks. Like anybody who, let's say, got sick with a flu and missed six weeks of work. Yeah, this is a real inconvenience to somebody's life. It's not life altering. No one's ever told me

they had the flu and it changed the whole course of their life. They went six weeks without working, whatever it is. But I don't want to minimize it, but let's not build it up into something. I don't believe in the government shutdown, by the way. I don't like that as a tactic, but I'm just saying. I gotta disagree though with your confidence

that the military would stop anything that he did. I mean, when people said... No, I'm saying the military would not over that he did. I mean, when people said... No, I'm saying the military would not overrule the judicial branch in behalf of the Fuhrer. I mean, Donald Trump is not... It's not going to happen. But here's what I'm saying.

He's back down every time, of course. Your confidence is because up until, like, with the Department of Defense, until recently when Mattis left, you had a guy that was pushing back a little but still did things, still sent troops to the border to protect the wall and what if he gets a guy in there that's not going to push back?

No, no. I said in issues of military foreign policy, he's got a lot like pulling out of Syria. He's got a lot of latitude and getting us into a war, getting us into a war is the thing that really scares me. Not because he wants war. He's actually kind of an anti-war president because he's a

blowhard. Especially when it comes for himself to be in that war. Well, because he's a blowhard and he's likely to miscalculate most of all. But I just want to make the point I'm really trying to make, and I'll make it again, is that we have always assumed our

president could not be trusted. It's an interesting way to look at it. Because it again, is that we have always assumed our president could not be trusted. It's an interesting way to look at it. Because I would think, maybe we're just thinking in case we get a guy like this, not that everybody would be. We've had many guys like this. To think that we just managed to be this nation for 250 years, whatever it is, and we just never

got unlucky enough to have a president who was intoxicated with power. That's absurd. I mean, Roosevelt was an example. You could probably give many examples. I mean, you have to be sort of a megalomaniac to become president of the United States. Let me ask you this about the shutdown. Why is a system in place where shutdowns are

possible? And is there a way to get out from under the shutdown? Well, let's talk about the wall. Let's not talk about the capillaries. Let's talk about the jugular. I just had a quick question, though. If you don't know the answer, we'll move right on to the wall. I don talk about the wall. Let's not talk about the capillaries. Let's talk about the jugular. I just had a quick question, though. If you don't know the answer, we'll move right on to the wall. I don't know the answer. Okay, but the fact is—

Because you have to fund the government. But why is there a situation where the president can shut down the government like this? Why is that built into the system? Why is it not some override system that prevents this? I think that this was something, I mean, obviously the Congress, what's the word? What's the word

when you segregate funds? They run out of money that they've appropriated. That's it. Yeah, Congress is charged with appropriation. Yeah, so when they run out of the money that they gave for the last year, then they have to do it every year to re-look at the budget and what are we going to allocate money towards. So when that is over and if they can't agree, then that's when the government takes that. Well, if they can't agree, but that's part of the system.

Right. You know, it's built into the system. It's something which has always been there. And just one day somebody woke up and realized they could use it as a bargaining chip. It's possible the founding fathers didn't anticipate somebody willfully obstructing the moving forward, the continuation. Both sides have done it, to be honest. Both sides have played this game.

It just feels like a temper tantrum. It also feels like this administration has showed, if nothing else, that if he believes in it, he believes in it. I think a lot of it is that a lot of the things that we thought, a lot of people thought were laws and things that were really fixed in were just norms, were just things that polite people were doing. Right.

This administration has taught us anything is that we need to codify a lot of shit that we've just been assuming people would do. And I would add one other element. I think you are right that many presidents have sought greater power. This one is different from the others in his embrace of dictators and fascists around the world. No, he's not. Nixon, Putin of Russia, Erdogan of Turkey. Look at the history of Central America. It's not unique.

I do think it is in the terms of his public aligning with them on issue after issue after issue. Look at the carnage that previous presidents had in South America, Central America. It's tended to be covert, though. Yeah, so it's covert, but much more damaging. Listen, actually, in that sense, I'm always of two minds because, yes, Trump seems so vulgar the way he does that. But we know that's been going on behind closed doors all along. We know Barack Obama was just as solicitous of the Saudis as

Trump is. And Bill Clinton. If it came across Barack Obama's desk that this Saudi prince murdered somebody, but it wasn't public, just the CIA and Barack Obama knew about it, he wouldn't have said shit about it. I think, though, there's something very different

about when he says Putin told me that Russia didn't hack our election. That's absurd. Well, he's an idiot. That's him being an idiot. But that's aligning with the fashion. Well, except that we also heard Obama. I'm saying Obama because I like Obama. Obama was caught on a microphone saying to Medvedev, you know, don't worry.

Tell Vladimir that after the election, I'll have a lot more latitude. Remember that famous? Yeah, yeah. It was an open mic was right when Obama was running for re-election. They caught him saying to Medvedev, who was that interim president. He said, well, tell Vladimir that after the election, I'll have a lot more latitude. I just want to point out. Imagine if that had come out of Trump's mouth.

Just imagine if they had heard Trump say that. I just want to point out that as predicted, Noam, who was saying he's in a bad mood, he doesn't want to talk, he has... I'll shut up. No, I'm not saying to shut up. I'm just saying that I did I say you should shut up? I'm simply saying that as usual, Noam says he has nothing to say, he's not in a

good mood, and he rises to the occasion. Yeah, but you guys say, that's what gave me the rise to the occasion, to say stuff I disagree with. So, but what we... We're talking about you guys say, yeah, that's what gave me the rise to the occasion, to say stuff I disagree with. So, but what we're... We're talking about the... The wall. The wall, that's the thing. So...

Did you see the speech now? I saw this. Well, I heard it on the radio. I didn't see the speech. So, I thought it was a terrible speech, actually. Did Trump give it? Trump gave it, yeah. Well, then it goes without saying that it's a terrible speech.

This is what passes for intellect these days. So I thought it was terrible because he didn't use what I thought would be the most persuasive arguments. I literally would have started with the speech of Schumer, literally played the video of Schumer saying he thinks we should have a wall like he did in whatever right before Trump was elected you know you've seen these things where they were most of the major Democrats including Obama and Schumer were proud of the fact that they were going to build a barrier I would have started that to really throw the Democrats back on their heels and then I would have pointed I would have made a list of all the other things we spend $5 billion on, which is long and ridiculous and trivial. And then I would say, listen, this is all politics.

He supported the wall, but the only reason he doesn't support the wall now is because I'm president now. He claims he cares about how much it costs. They don't give a shit how much it costs because they spend the same amount of money on museums or, you know, not museums, but, you know, grants for artists or research for how fruit flies made or whatever it is. You know, William Proxmire used to do that whole report he would release at the end of the year. What was it called?

Where he'd say all the ridiculous government spending. Yeah, I mean, $5 billion. They don't care about the $5 billion. So that's, instead he tried to make the case again that illegal immigrants are bad, which I don't think most people buy that argument. But I think that's the point. Like Nancy Pelosi's argument is that this is a moral decision on behalf of the Democrats. What is?

Like the wall is a morality thing. But why were they supporting it before Trump? Nobody's against border security and fencing. No, they were supporting barriers. Right, and fencing and barriers. What Trump said in his speech, it would be fencing. He said it won't be concrete wall, it'll be steel slats. What's the difference?

What difference does that make? The point is you're putting up a structure to prevent people from coming in. The reason he's saying he wants it is because of everything he said when he came out and announces his crime. So let's think about that. So you do have illegal immigrants coming in, undocumented, aliens, whatever. Can I ask a question? No, no. Coming in and doing two things.

We do have tremendous drugs coming in. Adding to our economy. No, no. He's correct about two things. There is tremendous drugs coming over the border, number one. Number two, there are people who are victims of crimes from people who came here illegally. Are those bullshit things? And no one in all the years we've had this has proposed anything that seems to work to stop this. Okay, but the people who come here for asylum... What would you do? The people who come here for asylum, he's trying to stop actual... Don't change the subject.

No, but that's what you said, people who are fleeing. That's what you said. No, I asked, is it fair to say that if people are coming over here and killing people, if drugs are coming here and we have... He said, and apparently there has... He hasn't been fact-checked.

To the contrary, more people are dying from the opioids than Vietnam, and most of them are coming over the southern border. Is he wrong to say, let's shut this border down? Isn't there a lot of politics which is going into the resistance? And the proof that what I'm saying is actually almost irrefutably true is that prior to Trump, Democrats were saying exactly the same thing. We need a barrier.

But he's not just trying to stop illegal immigration. He's trying just to say, coming here... The wall is just for illegal immigration. But what I'm saying is, in addition to promoting the wall, he's also saying, I don't want people coming here fleeing danger.

I don't want people to be able to come and seek asylum, which is the thing that they're allowed to do by law. He's stopping that. No, I don't think that's... He is come and seek asylum, which is the thing that they're allowed to do by law. He's stopping that. He is doing that. And also, so when people don't have a way to come at the points of entry... I would have to say you're not being accurate there.

I mean, all those issues are issues and he has been on various sides of those issues, but that's not the issue at hand with the shutdown and the wall. Let me just finish. So what I was going to say is, if you're telling me that immigration is an issue, people want... with the shutdown and the wall. Let me just finish. So what I was going to say is if you're telling me that obviously illegal, that immigration is an issue,

people want to curb. If it's drugs, if it's violent, people coming over the border, that's one thing, right? But if you're also now, in addition to that, because it's almost like

it feels like he's trying to stop all immigration because now you're saying when you come through ports of entry, you know what I mean, we're going to say you're a caravan

and you're dangerous and we're going to stop you and we're going to turn you around if you're coming for a legitimate through ports of entry, you know what I mean? We're going to say you're a caravan and you're dangerous. We're going to stop you. We're going to turn you around if you're coming for a legitimate reason. We're not even letting you turn around because we have laws. Right. But they're allowed to come through the ports of entry to ask for asylum. And you're turning those people around. Asylum is legal.

But they're turning those people around. Why are we talking about asylum? We all agree asylum. Because what I'm saying is when you. They are obeying the law in asylum. What he wanted to do was not turn them around. What he wanted to do was to come through particular places. Right, and the courts overruled him,

and he obeyed the courts. And that's... But his intention is to shut down those... Well, you can say that, but he didn't try to shut it down. He just tried to get... But we're talking about asylum, which is not illegal immigration.

But what I'm saying, when you make the legal things not able to happen... Can I tell you why I think really everybody's full of shit here? Forgive me, Professor. We haven't necessarily heard the Professor's opinion on this particular matter.

Because I have not heard one person say what I think would be the basic answer of an intellectually honest person. Look, I don't support the wall, but this is how I would control the border. They will not utter any... Fine, you don't want a wall?

Why should we have a wall? But will you agree that the border needs to be... Well, Schumer and Pelosi did say explicitly, we agree the border should be... Have they proposed anything? Have they voted? Well, they said, let's open up the government and brainstorm ideas. Right, exactly.

But have Schumer-Pelosi gone on record in saying, this is what we propose in lieu of a wall and this will work? Listen, if I had a problem... But that's not... Hold on, if I had a problem with my kid, and I can't think of a good analogy on top of my head, but my wife suggested some solution to stop him from stealing, that he was in trouble with stealing. And I said, no, sweetheart. I don't like that.

I would have to say, if I cared, I would say, this is how we'll stop him from stealing. Instead, all they do is they oppose that because they don't like the wall. Fine. They're hypocrites because they used to support it fine but they will not say yes we need to shut the border down yes we need to control the border and this is how we're going to do it and get serious about it if they did

Trump would be totally emasculated if Schumer if they said anything out loud which a reasonable person like me could say oh yeah that sounds fine that'll work. And that's not a wall because walls are kind of ugly and it is a bad symbol. But, you know, this idea, well, that would work too. Fine.

But they will not even accept the basic proposition that the border needs to be controlled. They'll change the subject. That's true. But I don't think I was changing the subject. Do you think the border should be controlled? Yes, of course. How do we control it? I'm not a politician.

However, let me finish. No, have you heard a politician say how they should control it? But that's also a different question. It's like, just because the border should be controlled. This is why I think Trump won. No. Well, you might be right. But I don't think it's our job to come up.

You're obfuscating. I'm not disagreeing with you, though. How do we control the border? What I'm saying is. What I have heard Democrats say is, it should be a combination of fencing, of technology, of all these things. But my only point before was when you're pushing people towards... I don't mean that in your mouth. I'm talking about the Democrats. But you're pushing people.

My point that I was trying to make is you're pushing people towards illegally coming here when you shut down previously legal ways to enter the country. They did not shut... But when you attempt to, when people hear, I can't come to this point of entry. We have millions of people here already.

I would like to jump in on behalf of Professor Glenn, who is a gentleman from Texas, and he's not used to fighting, to be heard. Although I've been in Massachusetts a long time, so I'm there. But that

Texas is still born and bred. But I would like to say thank you for giving me a chance. I want to say, though, that I wish to say you're playing into Trump's rhetoric. Okay. In that you're simplifying an enormously complex problem

into wall or no wall, and if not wall, what? If not wall, what? Is it not an absolutely basic question? I didn't come with my list of facts tonight, but surely Obama's multiple attempts and Congress's multiple attempts to improve the flow of legal migration, to have the Dreamer Acts to deal with the folks who are already here, to try to work with the governments of Mexico and Central America to slow the migrations are not easy things to stand up and yell at a crowd of angry, racist people. But they work. But you're presuming that there's a one-liner that can respond to Trump's one-liner and there isn't.

No, that's not what I'm saying. It's an extremely complex issue. No, I'mliner. No, that's not what I'm saying. And there isn't. It's an extremely complex issue. No, I'm sorry, no. What I'm saying is that I would believe the people who oppose Trump if I saw them spending any energy on an alternative solution to this problem. And that impression can't be decoupled

from the fact that they themselves endorsed this solution before the president came into office. What about the Republicans that voted on it two weeks ago and then went back on it? It is such an obvious case of politics and partisan play. I mean, how can, how can, how do they straight face say that what they supported six years ago, whenever it was, is utterly immoral? And don't feel the urge to say, listen, let me explain why I used to think it was okay and why I no longer think that way. No, no explanation. How could Republicans oppose Obamacare, which was basically a Republican bill years before this happened? Maybe you're right. Maybe we're both right.

And so nobody's, I don't think anybody here is saying, and maybe this is the sticking point, that there's no politics involved, that they're not playing a game. Because it is, right? Everybody's grandstanding chest out. They're playing chicken with border security, with people's jobs, and that is not debatable. But if we were really

looking for a solution and not just a political win, when Congress, when the House and the Senate agree on a bill really looking for a solution and not just a political win when when when congress when when the house and the senate agree on a bill and the president vetoes it and then and then you come back with the same bill you're talking about six years ago people changing i'm talking about two weeks ago what the republicans overwhelmingly voted for now trump says i was going to vote for it then he changed his mind now we're against it like that's also intellectually dishonest because they want it they're scared of

the politics of it. I agree with you. I'm trying to talk past that issue. I agree with you on that issue. What I'm saying is that I think most of the people who are against a barrier would not be against it if it came out of the mouth of somebody else.

I don't remember anybody complaining about the morality of a barrier when it was coming out of the mouth of many Democrats. I don't think anybody is complaining about a barrier. I think everybody wants border security, but what is going on is so inhumane. A wall is inhumane? No, the rhetoric... We're talking about the wall, very specifically.

He's always a sign to me when somebody's kind of on weak ground, when they keep changing the rhetoric. We're talking about the wall, very specifically. He's always assigned to me when somebody's kind of on weak ground, when they keep changing the subject. I'm not changing any subject. I'll tell you what, there's so many aspects of what you're talking about, the inhumanity, the horrors, that I agree with you 100%. So you just want to talk wall, you don't want to talk about family separation or anything, like just the wall.

Yeah, I'm against all that stuff. But can you talk about just the wall without talking about any of these other things? Because I'll tell you what he would say, and it's not ridiculous, is that if we had the border shut down, then we would be able to, in a systematic way, address all the issues. But this is chaos, and it has been chaos for years and years and years. We've tried half measures. We've tried this. We've tried that. I think we have to admit that one half the country is basically veering towards the embrace of open borders. In their

hearts, they really do not want to control the border. And I think that it's exacerbated by something I've noticed in my own life, which is that once you see something, it's very, very visceral. So, like, I saw Saddam talk about it. I saw Saddam Hussein come out of that spider hole back in the... And I felt sorry for him, you know? We couldn't have fought the Civil War, World War I,

World War II, anything, seeing these images on TV. When we began to see images on TV of Vietnam, that basically brought an end to Vietnam. The images of black people being hosed in the civil rights, that was tremendously important to changing the laws and civil rights. But I'm saying that people theoretically know we just can't let everybody in because we have literally a billion people on the planet who want to come here. We know we can't do that. Yet, you cannot look at a camera of somebody in a pathetic situation being kept out and not say, unless

you're a heartless, say, okay, just let them in. Just let them in. How do you look at somebody in that kind of desperate situation and not say, if you don't let them in, you're a monster? I think a lot of people are saying that. Right. But I'm saying you and us, when we see these people in such horrible situations, we can't help but say, how could you not let them in? Let these people in. What are you, a monster?

Nevertheless, at the same time, we know in an objective way, something's got to give. We can't let every single person who shows up. That is true. And serious people will talk about this seriously and I don't hear anybody talk about this seriously. I think that's dismissive. I think

I agree with everything that you just said. But I also think that we can't talk about... No, but I think, like you said, we can't divorce the wall from family separation, from the violence in Central America that makes people... I'll tell you why we can't. Because before the family separation happened,

before the asylum issue, before any of this happened, which is in the last six months these issues happened. That immigration has been down for years. Two years ago. Yeah, this is a manufactured crisis also, by the way. Two years ago, the opposition to the wall was just as strong, and the family separation was not on the radar.

None of these issues were on the radar. It's not as if everybody liked the wall was just as strong and the family separation was not on their radar. None of these issues were on their radar. It's not as if everybody liked the wall and then as soon as these other issues cropped up, they began to rethink it. No. They were every bit as against it. It has nothing to do with the family separation. Nothing to do with the asylum. It was opposite to the wall the second it came out of Donald Trump's mouth as opposed to Charles Schumer's

mouth. With regard to it being a manufactured crisis, I suppose that depends on your definition of the word crisis. Because Pelosi and Schumer both said, we need additional border control. Yeah, but she knows they didn't mean it. Well, they may or may not have meant it. They didn't mean it. The point is, whether it's a crisis or not, it's a problem.

Can I finish my statement? Because you were filibustering for us. It sounded like you were filibustering. Filibustering means I wouldn't let anybody in. But if you want to use the word crisis, maybe it's not a crisis. It is an issue. Are you finished? It's an issue that needs to be resolved.

And Schumer and Pelosi both said explicitly, we need to resolve the border issue. Let's not call it crisis. So everybody's on the same page. We need to resolve the issue. How best to do so? Can I drop a truth bomb? Can you even drop a truth bomb? The Democrats want this because eventually it's voters for them,

and the Republicans want it because it's cheap labor. That's the bottom line. And that is what's going on. The Republicans want it? Not the Trump base, but the business class, the mainstream Republicans. Who's going to take care of their kids? Who's going to do their gardening? Who's going to work?

What, are they going to give everybody raises? I mean, they want this. You think Trump's business is not filled with immigrant labor? We know that they are. It's also somewhat about race. You know, if it were Norway on the other side of the border, we'd have a different history. I don't know that. I agree that if it were Norway...

Who said that? He did. Well, I heard interviews of Mexicans... Penn said that, too. If it were Norway, you might have a point. However, Bulgaria. Bulgaria. I don't know.

They're white, but... I heard interviews of Mexicans talking about the Guatemalans. That sounded just like Trump supporters talking about the Mexicans. But they were the same race, you know? Well, they're the same race in your eyes. But one is maybe Mayan and one is Incan, or I don't know what goes on down there. I'm saying there's a differentiation. I think there are lots of crises in this country that are

in my mind take precedence over this bullshit at the wall. Any problem worth addressing is worth addressing well. So the question still must be asked whether you regard it as a crisis or merely an issue.

The question still must be asked how best to resolve it. And is a wall the best way to do so? What's your answer? How the fuck do I know? I don't know. Yeah, I mean, that's how I feel. Why do I have to come up with that answer? But if you don't know...

I know the wall's a bad idea. I don't think the onus is on me to come up with a solution. This is why I think you guys maybe didn't give my point the full weight it deserves, which is that if you, well, honestly, if you, somebody on the other side of this issue needs to present a solution that serious people can say, oh, no, he's serious about that. Because right now, the way it seems to me is that Trump really wants to control the border. And walls probably do work. I believe they do work. They work in Israel.

No, they don't work in Israel. Of course it works in Israel. Now you need to go back and read. Oh, God. Terrorism plummeted once that wall was finished. Right, and look at what's been going on Since that wall went up Look at what's going They work

Walls, especially with all the New technology that can accompany a wall Certainly is An effective way of stopping People from getting across A border, it's a physical barrier There's a common sense to that which Trump is Appealing to, which Trump is appealing to.

This is the problem. Even to say that a wall probably works is anathema to somebody who hates Trump. Meaning that I can't even say listen, I oppose a wall but I admit it probably works.

No, you have to believe it does not work. And why have to believe it does not work. And why do you believe it doesn't work? Not because you know anything about it, you've read anything about it, or you're experts. I've heard so many experts, like border security people,

talk about how they work. It's because Trump wants it. That's why we know it doesn't work. Well, I think that I also have heard the leadership, Pelosi and Schumer, say, like you said, we are for border security. We would talk, but here's the thing, that they are open to talking about that.

You believe they're for border security? Of course. Who can run in this government and say, I don't, nobody said open borders. Nobody said it. That's what I believe. Some people are starting to say it, like Ocasio-Cortez. I believe what she's saying, right? So then you have a president who says, I don't want to talk border security.

I only want to talk wall. That is border security. That only want to talk wall. That is border security. That's not the only way. You say it's not the only way, and I'm saying I'm yearning. Somebody tell me. Professor Green, Glenn, I realize your area of expertise is laughter and not border control. That said, do you dismiss the possibility that a wall would be an effective way to control the border? I've read accounts of walls on this border, which is so different from San Diego to Big Bend of Texas to the Rio Grande Valley,

that you face different geographic and population issues. And some of the argument there is a physical wall wouldn't be very effective in some parts. In certain areas, absolutely. I've heard that too. That sounds credible to me. But it could be somewhat effective in other areas. That's right. I think it was even Lindsey Graham who said we can talk about a virtual wall.

So we're kind of stuck in the language in a way right now. I agree with the professor. So if we could think more creatively about barriers or stopping people who are illegally trying to cross into this country and do so in a humane way to families, maybe we open up a path. But we're also in an age of high, high tribalism right now. And Trump is invoking tribes. Those scary, drug-addicted, sex-crazed, other-skinned people are coming in and ruining our country. And making it all immigrants. And the Democrats are practicing some tribalism.

So there I think you do have a point, which is anything the other side says is bad and we have to oppose it because the other side said it. And we've got to get to a point where we can start to consider some wisdom in different people's questions. Now let me ask you this question. You know, we live in a democracy, basically. What if, and I don't think this is the case, but what if all of a sudden we saw a great,

90% of Americans wanted this wall? And the polls don't show this, but suppose Trump gave his speech, and all of a sudden Americans were calling their congressmen, and it became clear that 90% of Americans wanted this wall. At some point, wouldn't you say well, we do live in a democracy and a wall's not unconstitutional.

So, my fellow Americans want a wall. I have to say they should have it. You're driving American free health care too. And clean water. What's that? This being America, we'd have advertisements all have it. The majority of Americans want free health care, too. And clean water. What's that? This being America, we'd have advertisements all across it.

All right. Dunkin' Donuts. Well, we might have that. We might have those virtual ads you see at the baseball game. But to Americans, at what point do we listen, you know, theoretically, to a majority of Americans that say, I don't agree with it, but they want it. That's the problem with all politics in this country, where you have people representing communities

and they're voting in Congress against those people's interests. That happens all the time because of special interests, because of corporate donations. I'm posing a theoretical question. A majority of Americans want a wall, theoretically. But a majority of Americans want a lot of things.

I know we would have it, but would you then say, I live in a democracy and I have to bow to the majority and say they want this wall? No. What do you mean no? You can be the 10% that opposes something. You can understand that.

That's the system. They get their way, but it doesn't mean you have to start supporting it. But they have the votes. They have the votes. Everybody understands that. There is the tyranny start supporting it. But, you know, they have the votes. They have the votes. Everybody understands that. There is the tyranny of the majority. Well, that's why we have a constitution, but there's nothing unconstitutional about a wall. But that's the problem with, I think, our government is that it's not about what the majority of the people want.

It's what the majority of the legislators decide to vote for. They're voting because they want to get re-elected. And so indirectly, it is a function of what the majority wants. But they're not always doing that. No, no, you're right. Sometimes, yes, sometimes. I think more and more because of the Internet, money is much, much, and donations is much, much less important. Less important.

Much less. Look how Trump won. Trump didn't barely spend any money at all. And, you know, it's a very good analogy for a politician much less. Look how Trump won. Trump didn't barely spend any money at all. It's a very good analogy for politicians to what I used to go through running a club. When I first started a club, you literally had to stamp

postcards to send out. If you wanted to get anything done, stamp postcards, send it out to people. It cost a fortune, and you could reach maybe 200 people. That was a big thing. know, and you could reach maybe 200 people, you know, and it was a big thing. Now we can broadcast for free to the entire planet. And so can every politician running for office.

You needed big money to get your message out prior to the internet. Big money. Tens, hundreds of thousands of dollars. You don't need dollar one. We all know and knew so much about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, right? None of it from a dollar that she spent. I mean, it's hard to even imagine.

I try to think myself, when did I see a paid-for communication? When was the last time I saw a paid-for communication by a politician that in any way affected my The comedy seller used to, every week in the newspaper, would have their goofy logo and, you know, come to the comedy

seller. Now they don't do any advertisement. Is that correct, Noah? Yeah, we didn't even advertise back then, but... Well, you did a little bit, didn't you? No. Maybe the first year we were open or something. So I think that more and more... But I remember those ads. More and more the grassroots have a lot of power over their congresspeople.

I don't know that that will lead to a better result. I don't know that the masses are necessarily wiser about certain decisions. Well, they're not wise, but the majority is, you know... But I do think what you said in the beginning, Dan, it's true that if anything, not if anything, but one of the good things that came out of this, a few good things in my opinion, administration, is that people are super engaged and people are really paying attention and dialed in. I mean, I belong to an indivisible group. I postcard with another group. We go out there.

We canvas. Just in my community. I never did that before. Me too. I worked in cable news. I worked at CNN. And I still wasn't as involved as I am now. Or that plugged into, you know what I mean?

No, this is the first time I went out to go get red people to register to vote. Yeah, it's true. Well, this is the first time I voted in the midterms. I never voted in the midterms my whole life. Me too. This is the first time I voted in the midterms. And I didn't wear the sticker, but I did vote. You really went out to vote in the midterms in New York?

Was there some contested election you were worried about? No, but I wanted to feel like a part of something historic. Good for you, Dan. Oh, brother. Well, I don't know if it's good for me or if it's not good for me. It is good. It's good. Well, what if I told you I voted all Republican, then is it still good? No. No, stay home.

All right. Never mind. I didn't. I made some assumptions. Even a Republican can't vote for the Republicans in New York because the people who are actually running are such crackpots. It's not like any wise person would ever bother running. You saw the GoFundMe for the wall, right? I'm obsessed.

You guys saw that? Yes. I'm obsessed. I have a whole new bit about it. I thought my feeling on the GoFundMe was, again, democracy. If people want a wall that badly, let's see how much they want it. Mexico is supposed to pay for it. Well, be that as it may, if people wanted enough,

that GoFundMe might have been some indication of it. That's unbelievable. Ultimately, they've got there at about 20 million. You know what's the second highest GoFundMe of all time? It's unbelievable. They raise more than the Pulse nightclub, more than Parkland, more than Vegas. How much did they raise? About $20 million now.

Which is still nothing compared to what they need. $5 billion. I think their goal was a billion. So obviously they weren't going to get there. I like to see what the people are thinking and anything that can give me a clue as to what the people are thinking to me is good. I want to know what they're thinking., and anything that can give me a clue as to what the people are thinking, to me, is good.

I want to know what they're thinking. I want people involved. Just like people said, go out and vote, vote with your wallet, too. And even if I don't agree with you, I want to know what you're thinking, what you want, and how much you want it. That's valuable information in a democracy. Has everybody tried to properly fulfill the moral requirement of putting themselves in other people's shoes? If your family were impacted in some horrible way by something or someone that came over the southern border, what could I tell you that would make you say, no, no, we don't need a wall?

Well, one thing I would say is you're taking that quality of that murderer, that they came over the wall as the defining quality of them. No, it would have prevented it. There are plenty of homegrown murderers here in the U.S. Right, but not that murder. Of course there's plenty of homegrown murderers. And immigrants to the U.S. have always brought trouble, as well as beautiful benefits and blessings. Yes, but listen, and I would venture to guess that the percentage of illegal immigrants that are criminals is below many populations which are homegrown.

Absolutely. That's possible. But there's still the fact that if they were prevented from coming in, I would have not experienced this tragedy. And just because, like, you could pull out a gun now and shoot me, but that is not an argument. Well, therefore, how can you oppose the wall? I mean, that guy shot you, so now you're complaining about, I mean, that's, I don't buy that logic. I think that if we have the obligation to minimize as best we can... Sources of persistent trouble. Things that happen that are horrible to Americans.

And if we know that a controlled border would bring in fewer tragedies than an uncontrolled border, don't we have a moral obligation to control the border? As we do guns, as we do drunk driving, as we do all that. Absolutely. And then, again, and the people who oppose the wall, don't they have a moral obligation to say to those people who lost their families from illegal immigration, listen, yeah, this is how I would have prevented

what happened to your family. The wall, I'm not for the wall, but that's not the end of my thing I'm saying to you. This is how I would have prevented, because what happened to you is unacceptable. Yes, the government let you down. An illegal person came in and killed your kids.

We let you down. See, you don't believe the government let an American down when their kid is killed by an illegal immigrant. I believe the government did let people down, and that's why a serious Democrat has an obligation to say how they would have prevented it. And I would be on board,

but they got to tell me how they would prevent it. Otherwise, I might have said, yeah, if no one else has a solution, fuck it. But that's reductive to say that somebody came over the border, and they killed somebody, and then we had to stop. I mean, think of all the things that happened in the middle. What else happened?

So that's what you're going to tell them? I said, put yourself in the shoes. If you were the mom of that, you would take that answer? It's reductive? I have a response, but I know what you're going to say. You're going to say I'm changing the subject so I can't give the answer that I want to give. I'm sorry I did that. Go ahead.

I just feel like there are so many things that if you said... You're changing the subject. Go ahead. No, because, I mean, I'm a black woman in this country. So if you tell me, like, oh, what if, you know, I mean, what if... No, you're absolutely right. No, no, say it. You're right.

You're right. There are so many things that happen, right? Like, I can say, oh, man, like, same thing with gun control or out-of-control policing or, like, what do you tell a family that we didn't stop that cop? We didn't stop that person that came over the border. A lot of shit happens in between those things. That's right. When some family loses their kid to a rogue cop and you want to complain about the training or whatever it was that could have been done to prevent that cop from doing it.

And someone says, oh, come on, but cops kill fewer people than other people. So, you know, just a certain percentage of cops kill people. No, we let you down. If we don't train the cops properly and they end up killing a young child, black or white or otherwise. Yeah, we let that family down by not doing what we could to train the cops properly. No, if I could jump in here, I suppose you could argue that in a free society, we tolerate a certain amount of death. Yes, but we try to prevent it when we can. And you might say that letting illegal immigrants in, one might argue,

and I think people think this, they would never say it explicitly, one might argue the benefits of being an open, welcoming society that values immigration and values diversity and values what immigrants bring to America is worth the occasional murder. Well, but why not do it legally with a system? As I said, I think that this idea that they're actually going to shut the border down if they could is just ridiculous. As I said before, the business community needs the labor.

The country needs the labor. We have an aging population, and we don't have enough young people to work for it. In Europe, they have this problem, and they've taken all kinds of immigrants from Muslim countries, and they have a much harder problem assimilating them than we would ever have with Hispanic Christians, you know. And so the pressures, if we actually succeeded in shutting the border down, we would feel

the noose around our neck so quickly in terms of what we'd lose by having these immigrants. Immediately, you would see the border open up because the people with money would be pressuring the government to let more people in. I do not... There is... I mean, the Trump base is utterly naive to this. They don't realize that what they would

like, the idea of a country that stays like they are and white, whatever it is, which... And by the way, I don't think that sentiment makes somebody evil. No more than I think when people in Harlem complain about gentrification that I see them as being evil. People want things to stay the way they are. People worry about feeling like outsiders where they felt comfortable. Leaving that aside, they're naive that that ship has sailed. White people don't reproduce barely at all. We don't have, we

are not replacing the population and no matter what we do, we're going to have more and more immigrants, but certainly it should be done in some kind of way where we can vet them, know where they are, have their IDs, fingerprints, whatever it is. So would you say, because I don't disagree with that, but I think that a lot of the issues people have, especially that I have with the president, are tonal, right? Like, we want to have safe immigration, right? But when you say people are racist

and they're murderers, that it demonizes people in a way that if they are supporters of him, it makes all immigrants from the Southern, let's just say, from Central America and South America, now we're like, yeah, there's a way to advocate

for improved immigration that doesn't require demonizing women and children who may be just coming to seek asylum, right? So we can all agree. And let them do it already. Who's advocating? I don't hear anybody advocating for it. That's my problem.

No, you're saying you hear it, but you don't believe it. That's what you're saying. If Schumer had his time on, if I were Chuck Schumer, I would say, listen, I want a comprehensive immigration package. This is how we're going to control the border. I mean, dude, I'll believe you, but you got to say it. You got to tell me what your solution is. But I, in my heart, I'm sure I'm right.

He doesn't want a solution. This is only good for the Democratic Party. These will eventually be Democratic voters. They don't. Schumer only cares about staying in office. Right now, his voters are very, very animated. You could not get serious about controlling the border in any way and keep supporting the Democratic Party. I don't believe that.

That's all politicians, but they're dishonest and they're the Democratic Party. Do you think that's all politicians, that they're dishonest and they're not actually compassionate? Almost all of them. See, I don't believe that. Not on every issue. Quite often, many of them have certain issues which they won't compromise. But on many other issues,

I believe there's a ratio of self-interest to principle. And close to election day, self-interest seems to carry the day more. I just don't want to be that cynical to think that people want DACA because it's going to be voters. I think they care that people don't have to get sent back. I think that. Because I feel that way, right?

So I believe that of the people. DACA is interesting because DACA has wide support left and right. There's very few people, even Trump said he wanted to keep, even before he was running, there's a very interesting debate that I heard between Steve Bannon and Donald Trump, a podcast with Steve Bannon and Donald Trump before the election, where Trump was arguing with Bannon, where Bannon was really talking to stuff like, America needs a social fabric and we need to be, you know,

we can't have all Americans working for Asians in Silicon Valley. And Trump was like, no, no, that shouldn't matter. You know, it was very interesting to hear Trump in his unguarded way talking about what he really cares about what he doesn't or what he cared about that day and what he didn't. But no, I don't think... Listen, I would agree with one thing. You do have to be a monster. One of the basic principles of morality

is that you do not punish innocents. That's really a very basic principle. And to punish somebody who was brought here as a child and send them back to a country and a culture that they have no connection to. It's monstrous.

It's monstrous. Only a really, really terrible person could advocate that. And I think you're right that probably Republicans, they don't disagree with it, but they're holding these people hostage for other political things. What Trump is using, and I have some sympathy for this, he is holding out DACA as a bargaining chip. Right, of course, that's what I'm saying. In order to try to strike some kind of grand bargain.

And I wish that on both sides they would get serious about the grand bargain. We came this close to it when Bush was president, this kind of grand bargain immigration. Do you know who filibustered it? Bernie Sanders. Bernie Sanders used to be very... Don't get me started about Bernie. Everybody should read Peter Beinart's article in The Atlantic. He's a very

left-wing guy where he discusses how liberals have changed on immigration. But it was very short while ago when Bernie Sanders was one of these people. No, keep the immigrants out. They lower wages for, he's a socialist, they lower wages for the workers and whatever. They all flip. They all flip, and we pretend they're not flipping.

And when you see them flipping, you understand, well, no, this is not principle. This is politics. Hypocrites. One man that never flips is Professor Glenn from Emerson University. The only, by the way, real white man at this table. I'm a white man, no? Should I be pleased at that description?

It's just a fact. Jews are not white? Aaron, do you consider Jews white? Yes. Well, there is debate on that issue. I consider even the darker Jews white. No, Anat was not white.

I consider my Indian wife white. Well, the definition of white has certainly changed over time. I understand what you're saying, obviously. Jews are benefit from white privilege and white passing. We haven't got time to start this. We'll have to get a white privilege present for next week. Any chance to stick it to you guys? They didn't benefit from white privilege when they got thrown out of the Women's March.

You didn't let me finish what I was going to say. It's that anti-Semitism is rampant. So you're not actually considered white. Professor Glenn deserves any white privilege he gets. He's the sweetest guy and I'm sorry that you're not used to

you're a southern gentleman. This is New York. You've got to fight for airtime in this town. Aaron has to go. She's got to take that megawatt smile and make the donuts. Can we end? I want to bring it around because Professor Glenn's probably slightly disappointed we didn't talk as much as he

might have been expecting about laughter. Well, that's true, but that seems like that ship has sailed. Well, but I want to bring it back around because you talk about laughter. You can bring it back around. Erin can go if she needs to. We'll cut it down for time. Go ahead. Very nice to meet you, sir. You talk about laughter as a coping mechanism

and whatever, but I want to just talk briefly about Louis' joke about the Parkland shooting. Are you familiar with that? I am. I am. I am. Okay. Yeah.

So, you know, is that in your estimation a subject that cannot be joked about? And if it can be joked about, did Louis do it in an inappropriate way? What are your thoughts about it? Well, people joke about everything. And somebody whose name I can't remember actually studied the duration of time after tragedies before jokes start to appear about those tragedies. But in this case, here is a white male of power and privilege

mocking teenagers who underwent a horrible tragedy and mocking transgendered people who struggle to find a way to describe themselves that feels right, there's power involved. There are power dynamics involved. This is a person in a powerful privileged position kicking the ass of those who are marginalized or suffering. That feels grossly unfair to many, many people.

So sometimes you can joke about your own end group. So you all just did some jokes about ethnicity that I wouldn't make because I'm not Jewish, right? Louis does not have the right to make fun of these folks. He does not have that right. Well, I don't mean that as a citizen, but I mean for him to do that as a professional comedian is to invite the criticism that he, I think, justly got. But isn't a comedian's job to be able to make fun of anything? I used to think that when I was a teen. I thought, I will laugh at anything as long as I laugh at everything equally.

But the world is too complicated for that. I will not tell a joke that demeans African-Americans. It is not okay for me to do it. I'll tell you one afterwards. So let me... So let me ask you this question. I actually, this may shock you, I actually don't like what he said

either. That kind of thing is not my cup of tea. It never has been. However, there's a couple things that I'd have to say to be fair. Number one, there's a couple things that I have to say to be fair. Number one, there is a phenomenon when you're in a small group of people and you've been there, you've been joking and you've been drinking

and where you say kind of outrageous, absurdist things. Something rude or offensive. You don't expect a hidden microphone there. You certainly would know not to say it in front of a parent

of a Parkland child. And you don't think somebody's going to take your fucking recording and play it for a parent of a Parkland child and then say, look at this monster.

So I think that's unfair to him. Was this a private conversation? It was a hidden microphone. Well, it was at a comedy club. So it was meant for a relatively small group. It was a small group. It was a hidden microphone. Well, it was at a comedy club, so it was meant for a relatively small group. It was a small group. It was a hidden microphone.

It was him in his role as a stand-up comic doing a bit. But, for instance, to take... Michelle was there a second ago. So, well, let's leave her out of it. But somebody makes fun of... At a correspondence center, makes fun of somebody on the dais. Makes fun of her weight.

There, the intention actually center, makes fun of somebody on the dais. Makes fun of her weight. There, the intention actually is, might be, to humiliate that person in front of a crowd on TV because you don't like them. That's kind of actually a mean motivation. Was Louis' motivation mean? No. I think Louis was trying to make a point about this

outrage culture. And he's making a point about the fact that just because you've been in a tragedy doesn't mean you're an expert on that tragedy. Just because you got killed in Nagasaki doesn't mean you know something about the World War II. And then he did that tag

which was the harshest part where he said you pushed a fat kid in front of the bullet. Now I don't know if that was off the top of his head. I don't know. It's harsh. But if I was around in a comedy club, I might not like it, but I certainly wouldn't react to it the same way as if I know he intended it to be heard

by a public audience, like by a large audience. So I think they're making more of it than is fair to him because they hate him so much. I do not like that kind of humor. I'm with you on the trans things. But again, I know Louis. He's not anti-trans in any sense of the word. He's just reacting to, rightly or wrongly, the way...

Just to this whole mob politically correct movement where people's lives are ruined for using wrong pronouns a lot. He thinks it's whatever he thinks about it. But I know that Louis is not unsympathetic to trans people. I just know him well enough

to know he's not. He's responding to the politics of it in a very coarse way that came out. And the coarseness certainly probably does have something to do with the bitterness that he feels right now because of what he's been through. Yeah, I mean, I also think that something about like everybody's always so outraged. And then two seconds later, they forget what they were so outraged. And then they're outraged at something else. But nobody's really doing anything

about it. And the other thing that I think is also worth pointing out is having a hidden microphone in a comedy club, like really breaks like the number one cardinal rule of being in a comedy club. Forget that it's Louie, like for anybody, like they take your phones and any recording device that you have when you go see comedy in many many places including here you're not allowed to you take out your phone you get asked to leave right because the thinking is you should be able to try out

your material without it being shared with the world 100% can I tell you what I think you might agree with me first what I think is the most upsetting failing of this whole woke movement is that they've abandoned the moral question of what was a person's intention. They are firing people or attacking people on technicalities right and left. Somebody uses the N-word in a conversation where he wants to talk about

sensitive subjects, like how we, they want his head. Regardless of, you know, what happened to that actor of Viggo, what's his name,

the guy? Viggo Mortensen. Viggo Mortensen. Somebody's using the N-word to discuss it. Not in any, in a way, nobody could think

he's sympathetic to the N-word. He's just discussing it, you know? It's in Huckleberry Finn, it's in Quentin Tarantino movies. He discusses it. And they want his head. They don't care what somebody's

intention was. And that's like the most I mean, in the law, that's the number one question. You can't be convicted of a crime without intent. Intention is so murky. And you often hear people who do something horribly racist or say something racist who will say, I am not a racist.

Again and again and again. But we still need to inquire. We need to inquire. Does anybody really think that Viggo Mortensen is some kind of racist? This weatherman misspoke and he said Martin Luther, he said Martin Luther King Jr.

and he came out Martin Luther King Jr. and he said King Jr. again. And they fired him. And actually Al Roker came out and and said he shouldn't be fired. And then they had examples of other people making the same faux pas because King and Jr. can be contracted to Coon. And I know because I read stories to my kids all the time. I do that.

I will take the first letter of one word and rush right past it to the next word, and it will come out of it. He just did it. I'm going to come and do it. Noam take the first letter of one word and rush right past it to the next word and it'll come out of it. He just did it. It'll come loose. Yeah. No one doesn't finish words off. So, Dan, really, we have to talk about this later. The public enjoys our sparring.

But nobody, no decent person said, well, did he mean it? Because if he didn't mean it, then we shouldn't fire him. They don't even care. And this is, I think, much of what is animating Louis' anger. There's a whole movement now which really does not even inquire any longer as to what's in a person's heart, what was intended,

where's somebody coming from. It's just about what can we get them on. And they pick and choose. So if you're Joy Reid or Sarah Jung, you can say whatever you want. What did Sarah Jung say that was so different than what Louis C.K. said? When she made that counter,

I love to see white men suffering, whatever. That was her joke. That was her counter-trolling. So they're all hypocrites, and I think that's where Louis is coming from. But to go on record again, no, I don't like humor at the expense of

shooting victims, or the trans thing, it's not that I like humor at the expense of trans people, I thought it was less at the expense of trans people. But the Asian thing

was pretty harsh. You know? But I don't think he hates Asians. I think... I don't think... I mean, you'd have to convince me that Louis C.K., to really be outraged,

you'd have to convince me no, Louis C.K. really hates Asians. And I just know that can't be true. I know that somewhere in his mind there's a deeper point he's trying to make with his outrageous statement. Well, I think the point was that Asians have small penises.

It would be helpful if he would go public and explain it, too, and he won't do that. But you're pretty the point is that asian that's not being is it will be helpful if he would go public and explain it to anyone to that we are pretty on point with that uh... professor uh... are you currently teaching any classes and and and that can can can young people at that currently enrolled in emerson university emerson college emerson college it had up in pocket take your course i have got class in conflict and negotiation i have a class in positive communication, where we look at laughter, humor, play, nonviolence in communication.

And, you know, nice as he is, I got a sense this is no easy A. Do people still use the term gut when I was in school? It's an easy B+. But to get the A, you got to really be. But we used to use the term gut for a class that was an easy A. Does that term still even exist? The gut class? I think it's lower intestine.

I don't hear people say that. Gut courses? Yeah. You had that term? Absolutely. Gut courses? I don't know. You forget how much time has passed.

You know, when I was a kid, people used to say, so she goes, she goes. So she was like. I'm like and he's like. Yeah. Now we used to say, so she goes, she goes, so she was like. I'm like, and he's like. Yeah, now we used to say, so she goes. Oh. Yeah. So language changes.

Anyway, take Professor Glenn's conflict resolution class. You may not get the A, but you'll be much more enriched for it. Periel, welcome aboard. Thank you. Thank you. And hopefully good things are ahead with the new Periel thing going on. SS Periel, full steam ahead. On it.

Noam, another excellent podcast. I think you brought up, once again, great points. Thank you, Dan. Well, I pretty much always do. Would you agree, Professor Glenn, Noam's pretty logical and pretty intelligent? Very intelligent. Not logical. Even though I disagreed with some of them, I appreciated hearing them.

It's nice to disagree, right? Absolutely. That's another problem that's wrong today is that people have lost the pleasure in getting together and disagreeing in a nice way, you know? Okay, good night, everybody. Good night. Good night.