The Comedy Cellar: Live from the Table - The Inside Story of the Bias at NPR with Uri Berliner

Episode Date: August 9, 2024

Uri Berliner was a reporter at NPR for 25 years.  His work has been recognized with a Peabody Award, a Loeb Award, an Edward R. Murrow Award, and a Society of Professional Journalists New America Award, among others. Support the show and get 20% off your 1 st Sheath order with code CELLAR at https://www.sheathunderwear.com/CELLAR

The Comedy Cellar live from the table is brought to you by Sheath Underwear. If you want to support the show and get 20% off your order, head over to sheathunderwear.com slash cellar, code cellar, for 20% off your first order. That's sheathunderwear.com slash cellar, code cellar. This is Live from the Table, the official podcast of the World Film's Comedy Cellar, coming at you on Sirius XM 99, Raw Comedy, also available at the podcast and on YouTube. We are Live from the Table, but today no one's actually at the table because we're coming at you all from Zoom, from our respective apartments, apartments places of businesses and vacation homes this is dan natterman i'm with noam dwarman hello noam is the owner of the world famous comedy cellar we have perry alashan brand with us hello comedian and uh co-host slash producer of our show.

And with us also Uri Berliner, senior business editor and reporter at NPR. His work has been recognized with a Peabody Award, a Loeb Award, and an Edward R. Murrow Award, and a Society of Professional Journalists New America Award, among others. Welcome. I'm not with NPR anymore.

Okay, I'm sorry. Formerly of NPR, that was on my bio, so I don't know whose mistake that was, but it wasn't mine, which is the important thing. We are all together by the miracle of teleconferencing. Zoom, I wish I had invested in Zoom, but I didn't. Among many things that I missed out on. Anyway, here we are. Noam, I'll leave it to you. I did read that article, by the way, you sent me. Now, Dan, before we go, how's your cryptocurrency doing? Oh, my Dogecoin is not doing well at this time, though I haven't checked it today. I bought it at a thousand and it's now at six hundred ninety three. So but I am holding I'm hodling, if you will, and don't plan on selling at a loss anytime soon. Yeah, I told you not to buy that dumb stuff. Well, you know, I did make money on some money. I'm still ahead, by the way, in the crypto game by about $2,000.

But in any case, I don't believe in crypto, you know, but I do believe that the market is irrational enough for it to go to a million, you know, potentially. All right. I don't know if our guest has Yuri, has any opinion on crypto, but Dan invested a lot of money, so I just wanted to ask. Okay. I invested $1,000 in Dogecoin. I pulled all my money out of Bitcoin. Yeah, I have a Doge. I have a dog, a Shiba Inu, that looks exactly like the Dogecoin. But I've never bet on the Dogecoin. Probably I should have, you know, like, I don't know, 10 years ago, I got interested in Bitcoin and I thought, oh, maybe this would be good.

And I started to like check it out and to see if I could open an account. But it was too complicated for me. And I missed out on, I don't know, a few million dollars probably. But that's life. Well, we all did. But in any case, you know. So, Yuri, you wrote this article. We met once a couple months ago.

We had a very nice meeting. You wrote this article about your experience at NPR, and I want to go through it because I re-read it again today, and it's so infuriating. But can we start with your feel for the fact that Josh Shapiro was passed over, the way it's being reported now in the mainstream media, and how you think NPR would have reported it, and would they have made the same mistakes which you described? You must have a lot of feelings about this. Yeah, I do.

I mean, and they're not that obvious. You know, I think Shapiro seemed to have basically the same views on Israel as Wallace and Kelly. And basically they were exactly the same. But Shapiro was the one who was targeted by the fringe in the party. And so, you know, that clearly is very troubling, the fact that he's Jewish. And it seemed like he was. But, you know, if you look at the policies on Israel, it doesn't seem like Walz's and Shapiro's are that different. So, I mean, I wouldn't, you know, have any insight into the fact that, like, Harris picked Walz because he, you know, he's more anti-Israel. I

don't think there's any evidence of that. But the whole thing is troubling the way that Shapiro was singled out and targeted by the fringe. And and this clearly arguing with, but this is the way I see it. From all the analyses of the gold standard types that nobody thinks is partisan, Harry Enten, Steve Kornacki, Mark Halperin, Nate Silver, everybody seemed to say, and I don't even think I'm overselling it, that this was the clearest case of a no-brainer VP pick in American electoral history. There has never been a case where it was so likely that a single state was the most important state, where a sparkling, charismatic, extremely popular, over 60% governor of that state was ready to be vice president. And so that's what the decision has to be measured against. And they're trying to tell me that it was because they didn't have good chemistry. As if Kamala Harris and Joe Biden had

good chemistry after she tried to call him a racist. As if Ronald Reagan and George Bush had good chemistry after he accused him of voodoo economics. And you can go on and on. I'm just going to speak a little bit more. As we know, as it should be, behind closed doors, the only thing they care about is winning., winning, winning, winning. And now if you are up in the polls or you think you are like Hillary thought she was, maybe then you can indulge other aspects. But when you're at a 50-50 race, the only thing any, I would, I would kick anybody out of the room if they mentioned anything after election day. I say, we're talking about winning here. And yet they picked walls. And to me, there can be only one reason.

I don't really blame them. They couldn't, they didn't know what kind of eruption would come from the far left, the same people that have been disrupting the Academy Awards and shutting down bridges and throwing paint on statues of Anne Frank and all of it. And they didn't know where that would go. And they said, as the famous, was it Alan King in Casino or Goodfellas? Why take the chance? Why take the chance? So go ahead. Yeah, I, you know, that makes a lot of sense to me. But I also think we live in a time where the normal political way the brain works is to be rational and try and win. I think that's been

warped a little bit by the desire to get the other side, own the other side, and by memes and things like that. I mean, clearly Shapiro was the more rational choice, the one who could swing Pennsylvania and maybe help Harris win the election. But you could say the same thing about Trump's pick of J.D. Vance. If he had picked Glenn Youngkin of Virginia, he'd probably be in much more solid shape right now than with the Vance pick. And the Vance pick was more appealing to the MAGA mindset. And I think in some way, the parties are not acting like they should, which is purely rational trying to win at all costs. They're doing weird stuff.

Well, I would say the following about that. First of all, Trump is known to not respect deliberative decisions. And he won by tripling down on appeals to his base in the past. But maybe even more importantly, when he picked Vance, he thought he was running against Biden. And it was he didn't feel the urgency of needing this vice president to inch him over the top. He was kind of imagining his legacy of instilling MAGA from here on in. And the proof of this is that very few people were commenting, except how bad Vance was. But if Vance had been good, you know, that would have been different.

But in this case, it's all coming down to Pennsylvania. This is what everybody says. And it's just, how could it be anything other than the fact that they were worried about the progressive left? How could it possibly be chemistry? It can't be. And they're telling us it is. And by the way, this is the same team, the same reporters, and also the same insiders

who are now reporting to The Times that told us that, no, no, Joe Biden is sharper than ever. It's the very same people. Right. I mean, there's this been reporting that I, and I believe it, that Tom Harris is very influenced by what's going on in the online world that she's, that she, and then the online world, there's these progressive conversations, these progressive attacks, rather than which the vast majority of people don't know anything about and couldn't care less about. And if that's influencing

her, I could see exactly what you described happening. And the reason I say I don't blame her is because it would look terrible for the party to have this kind of open rupture of anti-Semitic protests and vibes. Or pro-Palestinian. I mean, we all know I'm trying to be respectful to the other side by not saying it's anti-Semitic, by not saying it's pro-Hamas, but we do know that it does veer into pro-Hamas. We do hear the Hamas songs. We do see the Hamas flag. We do hear anti-Semitic rhetoric. It certainly, I wouldn't say 100% of these people are like that. Maybe it's 20% of them, but it's enough of it that I'm not being unfair to say it. And they don't want that. So, but this does really dovetail. It's yet another story that if you were quitting NPR this week,

as opposed to six months ago, whenever it was, this would be another story. I'm pretty sure that NPR would just have blinders over their eyes. Probably. I mean, the coverage at NPR and elsewhere so far with Walsh has just been a love affair. You know, he's a down-home Midwesterner. I mean, the coverage at NPR and elsewhere so far with Walsh has just been a love affair. You know, he's a down-home Midwesterner.

He's got a great sense of humor, veteran, schoolteacher. What could be more American and, you know, great for the Democratic brand than that, you know, and ignoring some of his policies, which I think are pretty much out of sync with a lot of Americans, including his views on speech, which you probably are interested in. Including what? His views on speech. Yes, yes. Yeah, yeah. He said that, well, he said wrongly, I just saw it right before it came on, that

misinformation, disinformation, and hate speech are not protected by the First Amendment. I mean, that's quite a thing for a governor of a major state to not understand the First Amendment. Yeah, actually, I was shocked when I saw that. I mean, how can you be in politics and think that so-called hate speech is not protected by the First Amendment, except in extraordinary circumstances? So as you say, he's out of step with, his policies are out of step with not just the American people, but the swing state voters that are essential for her to win. He comes from a state which was 88 or 90 percent already likely to go Democratic. It think there's a great future for um pro-israel or jewish-minded jews

in that party yeah so i mean do you think there's going to be a sort of big switch like you think that there's going to be a an exodus no i'm be some. I think we're going to see some exodus. And then we're also going to see, especially the minute that a reasonable Republican is running, like, you know, and then I think that a lot of Jews are just going to sell their souls, forgive me, and just further distance themselves from their ethnicity. That's what I think. Yeah, I mean, it was a hard blow, I think. I wasn't expecting the Walls pick. I've seen the rationalizations.

It kind of came as a shock to me. But getting to the other side of it, the press, and then we'll really go back to the NPR thing. When I say, it almost sounds flippant, but I'm actually quite serious and I think quite rational that when the people from within the White House told us that Joe Biden was fine, including Kamala Harris's team, and we know now they were outrageously lying. I mean, Carl Bernstein reported afterwards that there were 15 or 20 other incidents where he froze up. We know that Obama knew.

We know that everybody knew. And that's the people telling us about this pick. And then we know that the reporters certainly knew or didn't look into it in any serious way. But they had to have known. Not only that, the New York Times, when it got hot, the New York Times had to do an article about his age. And they found an expert, Dr. Olshansky, who did our show, who told us that Joe Biden was a super ager, like Mick Jagger. He's a super ager. He's not just okay. He's a top 1% of an agent. And at some point, and I don't want to sound like

some conspiracy theorist because I hate conspiracy theorists. My God, that's my beef with Republicans now. So I wouldn't call it a conspiracy. But at some point, someone has to convince me why I should trust what I'm reading anymore. Well, in a sense, I can't blame you. You know, to me, the cover up, the unwillingness to report on Biden's age was really the worst transgression by the media in quite a while. You know, when I wrote about NPR and other news organizations dismissing the lab leak theory or a Hunter Biden's laptop. I think those were problems. Those were real, that was wrongdoing. Those were bad mistakes by the media. But, you know,

you can't expect our audience to sort of be able to figure out computer forensics or virology. But with Biden, the public, the audience, they knew he was old and geriatric. They could see it with their own eyes. The guy couldn't string sentences together. He couldn't walk properly. He looked glazed. Everybody knew that, you know, they've seen this, people have seen this with their own families. So when the media is saying, no, he's sharp as a tack or, or no, that's exaggerated. That is, that was just terrible. Yeah. Everybody knew except the people who are supposed to be the experts in the country at knowing. Right. Exactly. So yeah, I mean, this was a case where, where, where every person, every, every, every person or just about everyone

in America was watching this and seeing this dude's too old. They were saying this and poll after poll after poll. And it wasn't because they were misinformed. Their eyes were informing them. Yeah. And just not to dwell on it, but it's true that some of the videos were edited to make him look worse because they always overplay their hand. But we saw just the one dynamic of Obama taking the president of the United States by the hand and leading him off stage if you know anything about human interactions i mean if the guy is fine you just let him stay there as long as he wants who tells the president of the united states you need to come on stage and then if you think he's just like not picking up on a cue but he's also fine say hey joe or you tap him on the

shoulder or something you you don't lead somebody by the hand like that. Nobody's ever led me by the hand like that. This is like something you do with your grandmother, getting her. Yes. Yeah. And I'm sure Obama didn't even mean to telegraph that to us. Right. He was just, he's kind. He was being kind.

He was being human. He was being decent. It was like this man, I don't know if he's going to fall, so let me just guide him out. Yes, yes. All right. So, so, Perry L. Dan, you want to ask some questions? Let's get to the article,

because it's an amazing article, and very, very significant to the current scene. You're asking me if I have any questions about the article? Yeah, do you want to do it? I'm not giving you a chance to get in, because you got to get on the... I have a question question but go ahead i was going to say that you know as somebody who always i mean until october 7th anyway identified uh very closely with

npr um and listened to it my whole life actually perry l perry l i'm sorry it's my fault should we do an over you want to give us a little overview of the article? Yeah. You could give us a little overview of the article, what it's about and what you impart from it. And then we'll ask you the questions. So I wrote an article for the Free Press, was published in April, about my experience at NPR and just sort of my observations about NPR, a place I had worked for 25 years and loved very much and had a great career there and always admired my colleagues. But over time, I just saw the coverage becoming more and more reflexively progressive and that we were overlooking some crucial stories and that there was this sort of over just tremendous emphasis on race and identity to the exclusion of other

subjects that a lot of the coverage post-October 7th was, in my opinion, you know, pretty one-sided, especially when it came to campus protest and anti-Semitism, overlooking things that were going on on campus. There was also sort of a mindset that, you know, there was diversity when it comes to race and ethnicity, which I have no objection to, but not when it came to outlook or intellectual diversity. So I had made these points within NPR for years and years and years and saying, look, we're going into a wrong direction. I don't think it's good for our journalism. I don't

think it's good for our audience. And I didn't even think it was good for our business. But people were polite. They listened to me, but nothing changed. And then when we were about to have a new CEO, I thought it would be a good time to actually make these views public. And the story was published in the Free Press. And one of the stories is there, you came forward and you looked it up, I guess, and you found that 100% of the employees there were registered Democrats? Not 100%, but the ones that I found, I looked in DC where it was, it was at the time quite easy to find people's party registration. I found 87 Democrats, zero Republicans. I also found about 40 independents, but for my purposes, they weren't relevant because I wanted to show the ratio between

Democrats and Republicans. And that was 87 to zero in DC among editorial. Amazing. Go ahead, Perry. What was your question? Well, two questions. Number one, I was curious if you ever did hear back from John Lansing after they canceled that interview because he was under the weather. No, I never heard back from him. They said, oh yeah, he's going to get back to you. And it was all very friendly and nice, but of course, I never heard back from him. We never talked. So you've got to give the backstory that what was that parallel?

That you had found Yuri had tried to present these findings to the CEO of the company that he had made this discovery and he thought that it was detrimental on for all the reasons that he had just articulated. And so he got a meeting with the CEO. And then on the day of, he canceled under, well, allegedly for being under the weather. And then they just, well, as he just said, I was curious if I was trying to give him the benefit of the doubt, but apparently not. No, I never heard back. And now we have a new CEO. Yep. Right, who's very interesting.

And then my second question is, I don't know if it's so much a question, but I identified very much with all of the profile of the kind of listener. Right. with all of the profile of the kind of listener. And it's really disappointing actually, as somebody who really feels a little bit politically homeless, and I know I'm not alone in that, that NPR would be the exact place that I would hope would kind of rise to the occasion.

So, you know, I, I know exactly what you mean. And, and I feel the same way, you know, and, and I, in my story, I wrote about how back in 2011, our audience really had a much more broadly represent representative of the country. It was split pretty much evenly. There were a bit more liberals than conservatives, but it was ballpark. It was a third, a third, and a third more liberals. And then that completely switched by 2023, where it was 67% identified as somewhat or very liberal and only 11% as conservative. And, you know, the audience had changed and I felt like we were targeting that audience and that was not good for our journalism. I don't think it was good for our civic mission. And, you know, I don't think even think it's good for the audience when you're sort of serving up their stories to confirm their biases, it gets predictable after a while.

Where would one go nowadays, in your estimation, for a rational, unbiased view of things? You brought up a few particular cases where NPR just became completely polemic. The vaccine not being a lab leak, the Russian interference or the collusion. And there was one other, I think. The laptop was the story where we said, you know, our managing editor at the time said, we're not going to be distracted by stories that aren't stories. So where does one go? I mean, that's the most important question. Look, I think you, people now, instead of going to one or two sources, they graze and, you know, they find places that they find useful and informative. Look, the place where I'm working now, the free

press, I think is very independent minded, fearless, does stories that are unpopular, you know, but it depends, you know, and, but I think people go, you know, maybe they'll read something like The Economist or The Bulwark or, you know, read somebody's sub stack. But I don't, I think the days of going to one or two sources, you know, main big time legacy news sources for a lot of people, they don't trust that anymore. They don't feel like they're getting a complete story or a completely trustworthy. I do think the, you know, caveat emptor is a good, is something good to live by in the realm of news, you know, and to be a an informed news shopper, I think is the way to go. I agree completely. To me, I understand completely and I share the view that a lot of the big legacy media organizations,

you know, people don't automatically trust what they see. They are very skeptical. And a lot of them are suffering financially. You know, I don't know necessarily just because of their coverage or because the business has changed but I think it's, it's not a good thing for for the civic society when you don't have well resourced news organizations that can go to where the story is whether it's in on the border and the Middle East or the Ukraine or to the school board meeting in Florida, you know, it's these, it's very hard for smaller sub stackers or, or, or like, you know, less funded news organizations to be where the stories are happening. And I think too much of journalism now is done from like, oh, who said what online? And what are we going to weigh in on some what someone said online, as opposed to being there and witnessing events. What I have trouble processing, it reminds me in a certain way, I think that one of the ways people go wrong on the Middle East conflict, and I suffer from it too, is that we really can't imagine ourselves thinking the way the jihadists think. When they talk about

killing their own children and they use their children as mind sweepers and they talk about, we love death. Well, it's so impossible for us to internalize. We think they don't really mean it. So if we would just talk nicely, I'm sure they do want peace. Of course they want it. They're like, no, we want the destruction of Israel. We want them all dead. We don't care how many of our own. And so naively, but it's difficult. People just can't process it. So they give them the benefit of the doubt. I'm having the same trouble with these journalists. So like NPR speaks to Adam Schiff, what was it, 25, 30 times,

on the Russiagate thing. Now, those of us who were getting independent information pretty early on knew that this whole story was bullshit. The Steele dossier was ridiculous. There was so much obvious evidence, the FISA warrants. It I'm not an uncareful person when I take opinions. I was ready to bet anybody any amount of money that Mueller was going to find

nothing. So Schiff leads NPR astray. All right, I get it. And then it all comes out. It turns out Schiff knew nothing. He hadn't seen evidence. He had basically lied, whatever it is. Now, you would think at partisans, right? But no, I'm sure Adam Schiff is still a guest in good standing on NPR as if it never happened. And this mantra or this as if it never happened, you can apply this over and over and over and over to things we're seeing. It doesn't matter. The same thing with the laptop. 51 intelligence have said it's a Russian information. Joe Biden looks in the camera and says it's a hoax. He's banned.

So many reporters are making the case that it's fake. But you know what? It turns out to be 100% real. So a lot of people lied. A lot of people lied. No, it doesn't matter. These people are the same people who are on TV the next day. You say, oh, better luck next time. I'm talking a lot. You get what I'm saying, right? I can't comprehend it. Right. I mean, I think there's

not really a, you know, I don't think there's a price to pay for being wrong often in America. And, you know, maybe that we should rethink that. It's, you know, in some ways it's understandable. You, you know, people think they have part of a story and they say it and it's not, you know, and they, and they, and they miss it, but, you know, they, they, they told you what they knew at the time and they were wrong and you move on. But, but I think that, that, you know, they told you what they knew at the time, and they were wrong, and you move on. But I think that the lack of sort of keeping sources accountable is a problem. But also, you know, it's part of the game of journalism, which is you rely on these sources, and then there's kind of a symbiotic relationship that develops, and it's not always healthy, and something I think that should be reassessed. It's summer, and it's not always healthy. And it's something I think that should something that

should be assessed, reassessed. It's summer and it's sweaty out there. When the weather is this hot, you're going to want to be wearing sheath. It's the official underwear of comedy. We wear them and we love them. Sheath features two pouches, one's for your balls and the other is for your dick. It keeps things separated so stuff doesn't become a sweaty mess down there. Now, we've had good experiences with sheep. I know, Periel, there's a version for the lady parts as well. There is, and they are so soft and particularly pleasant to wear in this sweltering heat. It keeps nice and cool.

I know that you wrote a book called The Only Bush I Trust is My Own. wear in this sweltering heat. It keeps nice and cool. I know that you wrote a book called The Only Bush I Trust Is My Own. I'm wondering whether the sequel will feature sheath underwear. It very well could. Very well could. Max, you enjoy sheath as well. Yeah, I've gotten a few pairs from the show

and now they're great. And it does make it feel worse when you're wearing other people's underwear. It's noticeably better. Well, there you have it, folks. The Comedy Cellar team loves sheath. And you should try it too. With a model and elastane fabric blend, they're ridiculously comfortable and last a super long time. Go to sheathunderwear.com slash seller or use code seller at checkout

to get 20% off your first order. Each order includes Sheath's 100% money back guarantee. Again, for 20% off your first order, sheathunderwear.com slash seller or promo code seller at checkout. Get Sheath Underwear, support the show, support your balls. So like if you watch Fox News at the time of the laptop, you knew that the FBI had had this laptop

for a year already. Exactly. I mean, you know, the New York Post got it spot on and people ridiculed the Post, but they've done some really excellent reporting. And I think like, you know, this stigma of like a tabloid versus a so-called reliable news source has got to end. You've got to look at this story. What's actually in the story? And are you getting it right? So that was Russiagate, the laptop.

Oh, and then this is where the and then everything is racism. So you can't say what did you say? They analogized it to not finding WMD in Iraq? Right, right. With the lab leak. With the lab leak. Explain that. Right.

Well, I think it was that some of the people who were promoting the idea of the lab leak were people like Mike Pompeo. And, you know, and they would say, well, you can't trust him because this is the same kind of mindset, the same kind of, you know, and they would say, well, you can't trust him because this is the same kind of mindset, the same kind of, you know, false intelligence that promoted the idea that there were WMDs in Iraq. So you got to be super skeptical. Meanwhile, there were like some of the top investigative journalists and scientists who were actually saying, no, there's plenty of

circumstantial evidence and this needs to be investigated. Even some of the scientists who, you know, went on the record doubting the lab leak privately, they were saying they didn't know. So I think that was a totally bogus way to, you know, reason for not pursuing the story. Yeah, it absolutely was. And it was the woman from the New York Times, Asha. The one who said it was racist. The other Times reporter. Yes.

The, you know, this is, by the way, this just is a little aside. The fact that something was wrong in the past is not logically proof that something is wrong in the present. Absolutely. You can learn a lesson in caution and not jump to conclusions from that. But you don't say, well, they got WMD. Even if they said today Iran has WMD, people would say, no, they don't. They didn't have it in Iraq, so therefore they didn't have it. No, that's not the way it works.

Absolutely don't make the same mistakes that we made in Iraq and assuming it's true. But it tells us nothing about whether they have it in Iran or not. They're not connected in any way whatsoever. And also, I mean, I think that like one of the most sinister things about your piece is that NPR had so many opportunities to be like me, a culpa, like, listen, we got this wrong and this is why. And now we know that it was a lab leak or it was this, or it was that. And just the fact that like none of these so-called journalists are willing to do that is so enraging. Cause it's like, why are you a journalist? And you could just listen to somebody like me all day long who, you know, it's insane. I don't think it's just an NPR thing. I think we live in a culture where people are won't admit they're wrong. It's become like, you know, politicians, scientists, journalists, public health officials, the idea

of admitting to a mistake somehow has become impossible to do in our society, which is, we all make mistakes. I've made them, everybody's made them, you know, and just say, you know, I've made a mistake, I was wrong. But for some reason, that has sort of left our culture, the idea that you can acknowledge you got something wrong and I think it's really corrosive I mean there is a there's a sort of innate human desire to not be wrong I don't I don't know that that's anything new it may be it may be greater than it used to be well I think that online and social media like facts don't really matter right like you can say anything and people have the attention span of like a mat

and then they move on to the next thing. But I would really expect so much more from journalists, especially at NPR, especially at the New York Times, especially at the New Yorker, especially at like all of these places that are supposed to really model like journalistic integrity look that this is what i would say this is what i would say that the the lessons of double blind procedures in science are very profound for perriel um when they have done when they have double blind the assumption is that no matter how objective you want to be, and when you're testing medicines or something, you clearly want to be objective. The very fact that you know some details of the thing makes your perception of whether it's helping them or hurting them unreliable. Um, so in a newsroom, if you have the entire newsroom that all that basically thinks the

same way, it's pulling in the same direction and creates an atmosphere of peer pressure. Whereas if you are the one who wants to go the opposite way, like, like Yuri was, you are going to be ostracized. They should, they should make it their business, not because they care about the other view, but because of the psychological dynamic they're creating. They should make it their business to have diversity so that if somebody wants to come out in the opposite direction, he's not, it's not one against a hundred. It's like, oh yeah. And, and, and other, and somebody else might take up the argument and they can debate it within the newsroom and they can take it to the editor and through the conflict of ideas, you know, they can hone it down and get some good sense of the truth. But go ahead,

I see you nodding. I agree completely. At one point at NPR, I suggested let's hire someone who have a rotating role in the newsroom of being the devil's advocate. Every big story, point out the best argument for the other side, the weakness of our case, and just be that kind of antagonist, not in a personal way, but just to make sure we're getting it right. They said, oh yeah, that's a great idea. It never happened. After I left NPR, I wrote a post on LinkedIn about, you know, about hiring differently, hiring people who have different backgrounds, maybe who'd served in the military or went to religious schools or lived in parts of the country where they're not sort of in on

a coastal bubble, you know, and I think there are ways to get more diversity of outlook into a newsroom. But as far as I know, that hasn't happened at NPR. And it hasn't happened at a lot of other news organizations, too. And I think it's a huge problem, a huge part of why they're floundering in these ways. Yeah, and I think the personal pressures, I heard someone actually say this, That was not my original thought, but it's really stayed with me, that personal relationships are more corrupting than anything, more corrupting than money. They're the most difficult to overcome. And these dynamics of peer pressure and personal relationships, they're much more important

and significant to these mistakes than it has been discussed, I believe. I agree. I mean, I think the idea that you would be ostracized or at least criticized by your peer group, by your friends, by unsettling a consensus, it's very hard to do. And I don't think it's natural humanly. And I don't think we should expect people to do that. I think what you need to do is to have a broader spectrum of people with different outlooks, then it just happens naturally. But when there's an overwhelming consensus, I don't think you can expect people to say, you know what, I think you're wrong. And you're going to lose friendships or respect from your peers. It's just, I don't think that it's something we can expect that. So that's why news organizations really need to have

to shake up their, their staffs in terms of the outlook on the outlook of their, of their journalists. Now let's talk about the free press, you know, full disclosure. I know Barry Weiss and I'm very fond of her. We're friends. I mean, not like chummy every day, but we're definitely friends. And I see her from time to time socially. And and I also know Michael Moynihan. I know Eli Lake and I know all these people and I'm a big admirer of them. So maybe I'm biased, but I really think that they are truly onto something there in exactly what you're describing, this culture of being iconoclastic in a way, and encouraging that and respecting it. So why don't you tell us a little bit about what they're doing right and differently there. Well, I'm still really new there.

It's just been a little more than a month. But I can tell from the beginning that in terms of outlook and discussion, people have very different perspectives on stories, and they will share and argue and it's respectful, but it's definitely not groupthink. And I think beyond that, I think there's just sort of an embrace of doing stories that are difficult and overlooked. And I think that's kind of part of the mantra of what they do. And that sort of changes how you approach stories when you're not doing the same stories that everyone else is. You know, it's, and it has a sort of, you know, it's, it's grown very fast. And it's sort of started out very small with Barry doing a podcast and

publishing once in a while. And now they're turning out, you know, a number of stories a day, a daily newsletter, four times a week podcasts videos um the there's a lot large ambitions and i think you know it's it's shown in in the the growth of uh of the subscribers uh and the audience it's the number one go ahead sorry well you mentioned that your people don't want to change their minds uh things. Is there an example of Barry changing her mind or you changing your mind on something of great importance? I can't speak for Barry. I mean, I've changed my mind about a lot of things. I mean, I cover economics and the economy. And look, a couple of things there. If you study economics, you believe in free trade, and I still do. And I just thought these were no-brainers. And there are severe consequences to trade agreements and free trade that I think people

who are in the economic world overlook. And we've seen that, especially when it comes to China and the impact it's had on a lot of working class in America. And I think that, look, I still believe a lot in free trade, I think, but I think I overlooked, like a lot of people who study economics or think about economics, overlooked the real impact and pain that it causes to many people. And in the U.S., that was our working class, you know, in large parts of the country. So I think that's one example. Yeah, I mean, I can I can talk about others, but that's one. Let's talk about. Go ahead, Dan. Do you think that in part people's reluctance to to admit that they were wrong is branding?

People make a lot of money picking one side over another side. I think that's absolutely right. I don't think you get rewarded for nuance. That's not the way our world works. So let's talk about free trade for a second, because this is something that I'm wondering about myself and kind of grappling with. Back in the 90s when NAFTA was being bandied about, of course, basically what you're kind of alluding to, every smart person was for it. From the right to the left. Clinton was for it. William F. Buckley was for it.

Only an idiot, only an idiot didn't understand that NAFTA free trade was a good idea, except one person, Pat Buchanan. Now, Pat Buchanan at the time was the enemy of any good Jew. So I was not disposed to take the Pat Buchanan side, but I remember very well him speaking against NAFTA and thinking to myself, hmm, you know, this is not, this doesn't sound stupid to me what he's saying. And I, and I remember my, my position on NAFTA at that time was, well, I guess I'm for it because the people I most respect are for it. And it's kind of over my head, you know, I don't know but i i don't know like i i was like i don't know and sure enough pat buchanan i mean i haven't gone back to read exactly what he said

but i think that in in in in the basic outlines he was right about at least what the effects would it be maybe there was no way to avoid it anyway that i don't know so now we have um some temperance uh a tempered uh confidence in it and now they say they want um tariffs and then the wall street journal says well trump's economic record is very good but tariffs this is this is ridiculous stuff it costs each american household 625 a year and then my question is okay well but what do we American household $625 a year. And then my question is, okay, well, but what do we get for that $625 a year? New York City was going to charge every New Yorker, New York City resident or, you know, who drives $4,000 a year just for the pleasure of being able to drive into Manhattan. Unions, who knows what that costs every person a year, but we think it's worth it.

So what they never tell me is, what's on the other side of the ledger? If anything, do tariffs help us in any way for that $625 per household? Have you come to grips with that question? Yeah, I'm not a big fan of tariffs. I mean, I think what they're designed to, I mean, most tariffs are designed to protect a certain industry that's struggling and the domestic industry and the cost is borne by people who buy stuff. Maybe it would be OK if the industry then thrived. But often those industries have problems that go beyond foreign competition and that protecting them through tariffs doesn't necessarily make them healthier. Now, what Trump wants to do is to have a tariff on everything that comes in. That's a whole other thing. you can argue whether tariffs for protective steel industry. I don't know. We don't have that many, like how, like this steel, steel, you know, there are not that many people who work in the steel industry. You feel, you know, it's terrible when someone loses their job, but I don't know that trying to protect an industry actually is the solution

to making it healthy. I don't know. I mean, I could, I could spell out a, spell out a really childish thing, which is there's a certain number of people in the country who are just not able to do anything but earn money by the sweat of their brow. They're not going to learn to code. Labor overseas is so cheap,

it becomes impossible to compete with slave labor. So we can preserve these industries somehow, try to, or charge each household $625 in transfer of wealth for social programs. You can do that. But also beyond that, they're like, okay, so if you don't buy the toy from China and you buy it from America, which is great, but you may be paying that $625 from the tariff or whatever. But also the toy maker in the U.S. is going to charge a lot more because they're paying higher wages. So you may also be paying more for the toys. I think this is not like there's a simple yes or no answer. With trade, there are very particular people who suffer from trade. And these are the workers in these certain

industries. Free trade, the benefits are broad. They're diffuse. The costs are very specific to certain individuals. I mean, the flip side is obviously nobody should lose sight of it. That like we carry a supercomputer in our pocket that tracks us from a satellite within inches of the planet Earth for free, like basically for free, right? So this is what the, and when you start tying down the market with strings like Gulliver, you don't know when you're going to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs, if I can mix my metaphors. So you have to have some humility about that

because you can literally lose sight of all the great things we've gotten this way. Absolutely, yeah. But, and with Trump, would you agree that you never know with Trump whether he wants it or whether he wants the bargaining chip? Yeah. I think that's where Trump actually has some, you know, there's some intelligence on his side.

It's like to take an outlandish position as a bargaining, as a leverage point. And I think this comes from his background. You know, he's making deals in real estate. And that's savvy, I think. And that's something that a lot of politicians don't have. And I think that he understands both from his experience and instinctively. Yeah, I agree with that. I mean, look, I'm struggling with Trump now. Well, let me ask Perrielle. Perrielle, what what would God have to guarantee you vis-a-vis Donald Trump?

That would make you then vote for him? I mean, I think that among everything else, my issues, among all of my issues with everything with Trump, I think that at the end of the day, I just think he's so impulsive and erratic. And I mean, I can't answer that question because I can't imagine what it would be. I mean, I think the nature of other side, the policies, the fact that I want to see this anti-Semitism, a black eye. If God could punish me that Donald Trump would not, through his impetuousness, create a world catastrophe, some sort of horrible consequence of death in the world, I would have to vote for him.

That's the only thing that gets me about it. I'm not worried about democracy. I don't think he's going to try to stay on past 2028. I just don't like the idea that he shoots from the hip. I like the idea, I've said before, of Nixon and Kissinger sitting in the Oval Office and gaming out carefully their next move and thinking it through. I don't like that he called Kim Jong-un Rocket Man. And I don't like that stuff. It scares me. Other than that, policy-wise,

there's no particular policy of his. I don't like the idea he talks about mass deportation. In other interviews, he's not talked that way. He's talked about deporting the worst, or the most obvious people, candidates for deportation. I don't like any deportation, quite frankly. I'd be much happier with just controlling the border

going forward. Other than that, but I don't like the Harris immigration vibe, that's for sure. Can you- Go ahead, Dan. No, just to be be clear are you saying that were were you forced to vote at this time you would vote for the before kamala for the democratic ticket no i can't i can't i can't vote for kamala and i and i but if you had to vote for one of one

of the other i this is what i think about kamala i don't't want to put Yuri on the spot. I think she's a zero intellectually. I snobbly say she failed the bar. She got into a third-tier law school, despite the fact that she should have been able to get into a first-tier law school. That there are too many... I've said that the Kamala videos are to her intelligence

as the Biden videos were to his cognitive health. And similarly, you have a lot of people who know she's dumb and who are covering it up and a lot of people who are deluding themselves

into thinking she's not dumb. It's exactly the Biden cognitive issue except with Kamala's intelligence. That's how I see it. I think she's an order of magnitude less intelligent and less capable than anybody we've ever had considered for that office. And that if she had a nominating process to go through, there'd be absolutely zero chance that she would be picked or that she would distinguish herself. I think.

George W gives her a run for her money. Who does George W. No, no. And, and, but I would say this to the other side, I think it is rational to say everything I'm saying and say, but I know very well and predictably the team that she's going to have around her. I know these people. And, and team that she's going to have around her. I know these people. And if you like that worldview, then I don't think you have to worry that much that she's not smart because you still get predictive, predictable decisions and steady hand from these people in general. But having said that, I think their worldview, especially when it comes to

foreign policy, has proven to be very dangerous over the last four years. And they don't have a single success to show for themselves. I was just going back. I'm not talking a lot, but this is amazing. I was going back and looking at Blinken's statements when they pulled out of Afghanistan. Do you know that this guy had the nerve to say that the Taliban had promised to be more inclusive with women in the government? And he said that they want to be accepted in the, you know, among the Congress of Nations or whatever that expression is. And they plan to be more. What kind of madness thinks this way? I mean, that's a mistake Donald Trump would not have made. I don't got to comment on all this. No, I think I think that's not something Trump would believe for a second.

I just feel like I've never seen a more dispiriting, pathetic bunch of candidates. And we have brilliant people in our country. We have so many talented, gifted people. And to have this slate of candidates is demoralizing. And, you know, I was not a Trump supporter, and I can't imagine a scenario where I would be. But I mean, I look at Harris, and I get quite alarmed by, you know, her views, especially on what may be on the Middle East. And then, you know, I thought maybe I'll for a second, I'll look over at RFK Jr. We'll find out he dumps a bear cub in Central Park. I don't think I'm

not going to be a guy I'm going to vote for. So I don't know. It's like, how do you I just don't understand what we're doing in politics right now when we have we have so many talented, smart and and ethical people around this country. What was that story about the bear cub? He had a dead bear cub in his car. I read that this morning. I couldn't even wrap my mind around what was he doing? I'm not exactly I haven't read too deep into it, but maybe but I don't even know if I want to. Now, can you parse out what you were saying earlier in the beginning of the show about Waltz?

Were you saying that because Minnesota is a given for the Democrats, it makes no sense that that would be the reason why they picked him? Did she not pick Shapiro because he's Jewish? Was he the obvious choice? Like I said, from the people who are reliably nonpartisan and analytical, they said he's not just the obvious choice, but basically there's never been

a more obvious choice. Than Shapiro? Yeah, than Shapiro. And they've said, I don't know if they all said this, but more than one of them said this. Important security message. Your company has been locked up. Who's that?

Your IP address was used without your knowledge or consent to visit websites that contains identity theft virus. To unlock the computer, please call. Dan got caught. Is that Jeffrey Toobin? So, oh, that normally the conventional wisdom is that the vice president pick really doesn't matter. Okay. And Shapiro is so popular that this slight 0.2 or 0.3 percent, maybe 0.5 percent of a percent that Shapiro could change in election could actually swing the entire presidential election. And that is unprecedented. And it was like all focus on the thing. So so she had to have a very, very, very good reason to pass that up. The fact that I'm afraid we might not hit it off is just not going to cut it.

So are we saying that the reason is, is because he's a Jew? That is maybe amounts to the same thing. It's not the way I would put it. If I wanted to be careful about about it i would say that but but it amounts to that that they were afraid in my i'm just you know that that the left the anti-israel left wing of that party would erupt into incidents and protests which would embarrass the party in the way that the columbia or the very school school sit-ins embarrassed the party. And yes, for some reason, for some reason, the fact that he's an observant Jew sets them

off in a way that other politicians who have the same views that he does, does not set them off. So I'm not saying that it's Kamala doesn't like the fact that he's Jewish. Kamala doesn't like the fact that he's Jewish. Kamala doesn't like the fact that he's so provocative. Let's put it another way. If he was not Jewish, but he had that same effect on the left wing, she would just as much not want him to be the candidate. It's not that she has a problem with him being Jewish.

I don't think that at all. Is that a charitable way to, not charitable. I think that's, you know, I want to be fair in the way I put it. I think that's right. I mean, I think that, you know, if we're going to say that this is not because of anti-Semitism, it's because of fear from the fringe that they would erupt in protest violence, maybe disrupt the convention and harm their chances because the fringe left goes wild over Shapiro's nomination and that that would, that would, you know, put them at a disadvantage. So it's not antisemitism, it's fear of antisemitism?

Yeah, maybe. I mean, that's, that's a theory. It's capitulating in some way. I think it's capitulation. Yeah. You know, like, remember that in 1968, the convention erupted, violent protests outside of the convention over the Vietnam War. We have a precedent for this kind of stuff. I also want to say, maybe this is the last thing we'll talk about. I think we're seeing a real change of the guard. I had said earlier today to somebody that I really believe if you gave Joe Biden sodium pentothal and asked him his feelings about Israel, you would find that he's actually a Zionist and is actually quite pro-Israel. He comes from the generation of Americans

who were responsible for the golden age of American jewelry that they gave to us as people of a certain age in the 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s. It was the people like Joe Biden who created that America for people like us. And maybe because of their memory of the Holocaust, various numbers of cultural, various cultural issues and overlaps. These people were wonderful to the Jews. Now we're seeing a change of regard to somebody who doesn't have that memory. They don't come from that generation. They come from third world countries. Forgive me,

my wife does too, but third world countries where they don't have that cultural feeling about Jews, let alone Israel. As a matter of fact, they might very well identify with what they perceive as the victims in this conflict, the Palestinians, in the same way the Irish tend to identify with the Palestinians. And that's going to affect policy. When Kamala said right out, she's met with Netanyahu, but I will not be silent. That was all I needed to hear.

That is such a catchphrase of somebody that's coming from a particular mentality. Yes, this is who has the right to defend themselves. Yes, yes, yes. But I will not be silent. Well, who's telling you to be silent? You only say that when you feel pressure to be like that. Nobody's telling you to be. So I don't trust her. And I don't trust her on Iran. And I'm very pessimistic. So that changing of the guard, I think that's it for me and the Democrats, unless, I mean, if Josh Shapiro runs for office,

but I don't think he has a future. Did you hear his speech, by the way? Yuri, did you hear his speech? The one right that he just gave? No, I haven't heard it. He's very good. I mean, he says stuff I didn't like, some Democratic boilerplate stuff. But,

you know, but what he said at the end was it was kind of a non sequitur. He says, but I will not apologize for my faith. And my faith teaches me like to work hard or something. But it was almost as if he was feeling a little bitter in some way. I mean, I could be reading that into him, but it really wasn't necessary for the speech. Go ahead. Go ahead and say something. No, no, I didn't hear him. I heard him when he, after the attempted assassination of Trump, he was really terrific talking about the fire chief had been killed. And he was very compassionate and was not sort of, you know, reaching out to the people who were at that rally. And I thought he was really good. I

think he said exactly the right tone, which was a difficult situation for him. And he did really well. I didn't hear his speech. But I think, you know, I think this idea also that's being floated about Shapiro, that he was too ambitious for Kamala and that Waltz knew that this was the end of his career and he would just be very happy to be her lieutenant. I think that's kind of ridiculous because you want your political figures to have dreams and ambitions. I don't really understand saying someone is too ambitious. It should be a disqualifier. I'm so happy you brought that up because I'd forgotten to bring that up. I had exactly the same answer. Like what vice president has not had presidential ambitions? And when was that ever a disqualification? Nixon had them. Humphrey had

them. Johnson had them. Harris, Kamala Harris had them. Al Gore had them. It's assumed. This is why they're so amateurish. If they wanted to spin it properly, I tweeted this. They would have said the following. Yes, of course, some people brought up this issue about the protests and whatever it was, and the fact that some of the left seems to react to him. But Kamala quickly told everybody, we're not to consider that. I don't care what they say such things. We just need to pick the best vice president. But instead, they pretend that it never came up.

Nobody in the inner circle ever once mentioned this issue. Now, that's a lie. I again, like from time to time, I would stake the lives of everybody I love to say that there is no way that this issue was not discussed when they were deciding whether who the vice president would be. It's just and the New York Times reporters repeat this credulously. Don't they know it's a lie? Don't they know? It's a lie don't they know it's a lie would anybody who could say it wasn't a lie who could say yeah i don't think they're i don't think that everybody's talking about it cnn is talking no nobody ever mentioned it son of a gun yeah you're right isn't that funny nobody we didn't think of it like like that's why i said like it would be it would be believable to say yes of course it came up but she rejected it out of hand.

She got angry when they suggested that some idiot suggested to her that what about how these people might react? She says, please, we do not capitulate to anti-Semites here. So you don't bring that up again. That would at least be probably also a lie, but at least it would be a narrative that could make sense, right? Right. Anyway, so yeah, not good. We're just about out of time. I think that on election night, I've said, I hate to admit this because I don't want

anybody to use it against me, that, well, I said this when it was Biden. When it was Biden, I'd say, I think Biden, I would vote for Biden. But in my gut, I know I'd be kind of rooting against him just because I can't help it. I just I just feel I hate the left so much. But now when it comes to her. But I'd like to remind you that I don't remember who said it, but you you're you said that all of the people, all of like the lifelong Republicans who worked with Trump all said that whatever you do, do not give this guy the keys to the Oval Office ever again. That's what I did say.

But then I think they're going to vote for him. I think those people who said that are going to vote for him. I think they will. They're not going to vote for Kamala Harris. Uri, do you believe in not voting or are you just going to make a decision one way or another? I think that's a really interesting question. Look, I think that we have a civic duty, a civic obligation to vote. But I also think that when you go and vote, you should keep in mind the Hippocratic oath and like do no harm. And I think in this election, I think, boy, whoever you vote for, like, I don't know you can say that I'm doing no harm because the candidates have their views and their characters are so deformed.

So I hate the idea of not voting, but I also see the rationale. Is it not voting, still voting, though? I agree with you. I always feel like I have a moral and ethical and civic duty to vote because there are people all over this world who would give anything to be able to vote. Cue the music, Max. Go ahead, go ahead, Pearl.

Hilarious. What was the last election you voted in, Noah? For president? Jimmy Carter. I did go. I went to the polls to vote in the McCain versus Obama election. I don't think that counts. And I hadn't decided as I was walking who I was going to vote for.

By the way, it's very interesting that it wasn't that long ago that you could have two candidates. And the differences were considered important, but you could still, I'm not, I can live with either of them. I mean, I quipped that the people who voted, people who supported like Romney and the people who supported Hillary, they don't even remember what it is they disagreed about. Like the differences were so slight. I think the minimum wage should be 13. No, I think it should be 15. Now the differences are so profound. I kind of, you know, there is, it's all odds, right? Nobody knows. People don't want to speak in terms of odds often enough. But there is a scenario where Trump is very good,

where he faces down Iran, gives Israel the green light to end this problem once and for all turns the course of history. Let Israel bomb the frigging nuclear. Like there, there's, there's a, there is a scenario where a, a president like Trump could, could allow some very good things to happen. Even if there's a scenario where he miscalculates and it's disaster, right? Right, and even if that's true, there's also a scenario in which he replaces J.D. Vance

with like Hulk Hogan. J.D. Vance is a terrible choice, my God. Agreed. Well, you know, chaos theory, you know, dictates that, you know, even the smallest difference can, you just don't know how things are going to go. Trump could end up saving the planet, you know.

Well. I think the Trump bet is the riskier bet. And I think the scenario that Noam described is a possibility. There's also his impulsivity. And to me, the problem, the biggest problem with Trump is the narcissism, the self-regard that everything revolves around him. And I've never seen any indication that it goes beyond that and that he has the interest of the country at heart. It's all like, do you like me? Have you said something nasty about me and what's

in it for me? And to me, that's the most disqualifying thing about him. I will give you two examples of really rank hypocrisy in the media. So one is that, you know, for years we've been hearing that Trump is an anti-Semite, right? Trump's an anti-Semite, over and over and over. And people would say, he's not an anti-Semite. His daughter is Jewish. His son-in-law is Orthodox Jewish his grandchildren are Jewish and don't give me that hogwash now people are implying that Kamala Harris

is being soft on Jews and in New York Times, what are you talking about? her husband is Jewish the same argument that they've been dismissing all this time they're accepting I lost it there's another i lost it right there's another similar kind of hypocrisy that they that they do what was it they uh shit all right i guess we're

we're gonna go home you tweeted recently that uh along the lines of whether to vote or not to vote that that i forgot the word you use but turns your stomach makes you ill to to to tell the democrats to keep doing what they're doing by voting for them. Something like words to that effect. Say what? Say it again? That you felt to vote for the Democrats would be to basically say, keep doing what you're doing. And then that notion to you was repugnant or whatever words you used. I don't remember that. I don't remember that.

I don't remember that. I'm trying to find the tweet. I'm trying to find the tweet. Oh, I remember the other thing about Trump. The other hypocrisy is that, I'm happy I remembered it. We hear for years that Trump is transactional. Trump doesn't believe in anything. He's transactional.

Now, I actually think that has always been one of the weakest cases about Trump. As a matter of fact, no politician, maybe in my lifetime, has been more steadfastly sticking to the core principles that he ran on than Trump. I don't think he checks the polls. But let's assume it's true. Now, people like Jonathan Chait, what know, very, what are they tweeting out? Well, Kamala needs to do this. And then she needs to turn to the middle

as quickly as she can. What does that mean, turn to the middle? It means be transactional. It means give up your left-wing policies and move to your center policies. So they use it as a criticism against Trump that actually doesn't even stick. And then they advise their own

candidates to cynically change their views in order to get elected. This is why my head wants to explode. Like, what do they stand for? All right. Yeah, I don't I don't know who you're going to vote for, Dan. Well, I may not vote. I'm a known woman. I may not vote, too. I may not vote. I'm a known woman. I may not vote, too. I may not vote. Somebody did say the upshot of Walt is that at least now we know for sure that on SNL, Steve Martin will play him. Oh, is that true? Well, I mean, he looks like he's you you know, that he's younger than I am. He's younger than Brad Pitt. Apparently that's become sort of an internet thing.

Oh my God. Wow. There is no God. All right. Anyway, you're a, you're a, you're a, a gentleman and I like you very much. This is the second time I've met you. I hope to meet you many times again in the future, hanging out with some of our mutual friends. We thank you very much for joining us. I don't know if you have anything else, any other things that you want to talk about before you leave. Otherwise, we're going to allow you to...

I would ask, as a Godfather fan, do you have a soft spot for Waltz? Why? I missed that part. That was the producer in the Godfather. That's Waltz. Waltz with a t i think in the godfather oh and the godfather yeah you know the producer that the horse was in the head yeah the horse's head oh the horse's head yeah yeah that was waltz oh waltz okay yeah waltz um okay all right yuri that's it yeah that's it for me. Thanks. Thank you so much.

Good luck with the free press and all your future endeavors. And thank you very much. A podcast at commieseller.com, everybody. Are you on your way to Japan? I'm going to Japan on the 17th. A huge thanks to Sheath Underwear for sponsoring the show. Don't forget to head to sheathunderwear.com

slash seller and use code seller today to get 20% off your first order. Support the show and support your balls with sheath.