The David Pakman Show - BONUS SHOW: Weathermen say they can’t predict hurricanes, Texas goes after Doritos and M&Ms

Episode Date: June 7, 2025

-- On the Bonus Show: Florida weathermen say they can’t predict hurricanes due to budget cuts, Texas considers warning labels on Doritos and M&Ms, and Chuck Todd says his tires were slashed after Trump targeted him, much more... -- Become a Member: https://www.davidpakman.com/membership -- Become a Patron: https://www.patreon.com/davidpakmanshow -- Buy David's book: https://davidpakman.com/book -- Book David Pakman: https://www.cameo.com/davidpakman 

Hey, everybody, David here. What you're about to hear is an episode of The Bonus Show. We do a bonus show every day for our members and for a limited time. We will release one of the week's bonus shows on Saturdays exclusively for our audio podcast listeners. If you'd like to get access to all of the bonus shows, simply sign up at Join Pakman Dotcom. Here is that bonus show episode. Welcome to the bonus show. We spoke yesterday about how it appears as though the director of FEMA didn't know that there is a thing called the hurricane season in the United States, where it's from between June into the end of summer, early fall, where we see way more hurricanes. It's that simple.

It's a hurricane season. And now people are arguing, oh, is that a joke? Is that not a joke? Whatever the case may be. We now are starting to see the real world repercussions aside from whether the FEMA director knows about hurricane season. We are starting to see the real world repercussions of the funding cuts, not just to FEMA, but also to the National Weather Service, because veteran Florida meteorologist John Morales

issued a warning about hurricane season. He is saying he's in Florida because of the budget cuts federally to the National Weather Service and to NOAA, the National OSE, OSE and a graphic, I forget what NOAA stands for. I'm sure you can Google it. No need to email me. OK, he can no longer guarantee accurate hurricane predictions. And this video went sort of viral. He's covered storms for three decades.

He says now there is a staffing issue. There's a 20 percent drop in weather balloon data. The hunter flights, the hurricane hunter flights that Noah does, which are crucial to storm forecasting are threatened due to these budget cuts. And he described it as a sledgehammer attack on science with multigenerational consequence and potentially needless loss of life, needless loss of life. How well if your forecasts are degraded, you are less accurately able to predict where

and how severe our hurricane impacts going to be. You then have to say, evacuate everybody, even though we're not sure everybody needs to or you may not actually issue evacuation orders for people who should be evacuating. It's chaos. It's that simple. So this is a really unfortunate example, but it but it's stark and sort of really distills down how ideological governance in this case, it's just we're hostile to science.

We're hostile to expertise. We're hostile to federal agencies. That's what it is. It can directly have deadly consequences, potentially at this point. We hope that it doesn't go from potential to real. And this warning from Morales, who's a meteorologist, it cuts through political rhetoric and it just shows lives could be lost because we are defunding tools that protect people. And this fits into the pattern of the deliberate erosion of public institutions under Trump's

second term. The goal appears not to just be let's cut costs because a lot of these things are really drops in the bucket. Let's undermine trust in government's ability to do anything. We don't want government doing a damn thing and certainly not federal government. And this is I'm sorry that I talk about this so often because it's so relevant. Cripple the system, say it's broken and then eliminate it completely. That's the kind of playbook from a lot of these right wingers.

And we also I mean, so that's like the broad analysis. More narrowly, American leadership in science and disaster preparedness is also at a humiliating low point. Covid's the Covid reaction under Trump is obviously kind of part of that. And there was a there was a time when this was really the gold standard for for global weather forecasting in the United States. And now we have American lives at risk. We're seating ground internationally and it is no longer theoretical.

So the hope, of course, is that some of this will end up being reversed. But I don't know that it will, because Donald Trump tends never to reverse course when he is, I guess you would say, confronted by the reality of what he is doing. And that is why I am worried, especially for our friends in Florida, in Hurricane Alley all across the country, that it could be a very rough hurricane season. I hope that that's not the case. Meanwhile, going from Florida to Texas, Texas is poised to pass Senate Bill Number 25. This would add warning labels to package foods like Doritos, M&Ms, Mountain Dew and Skittles if they contain any of over 40 ingredients that other countries have flagged as unsafe

or not recommended for human consumption. This is backed by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. It's going after synthetic dyes. It's going after bleached flour and other additives. The law would take place, would take effect in 2027 if Texas Governor Greg Abbott signs it. Now, there's a lot of interesting things going on here. Number one, Texas is known for minimal regulation, minimal regulation. What they're looking at doing is adding regulations around food labeling.

One of the things that's also a reality is that if these companies that manufacture Skittles and all this stuff, if they have to label foods a certain way for Texas, they will almost certainly just start labeling that them that way nationally to avoid having to do two different versions. So even though this is in Texas, it could actually have national implications. Now here's the very interesting thing. I am someone who suggests based on everything I've read to really keep consumption of ultra processed foods of these kinds, Skittles and others to under 10 percent of daily calories.

Where did I get that number? That's just what the literature I've read suggests. You know, you don't have to say zero of this stuff, but keep it below 10 percent of calories in a 2000 calorie diet. That would be get under 200 calories a day from this sort of stuff. And, you know, you look at the calories on some of these things and you realize it's not a lot that that gets you to the to the 200 calories. I'm all for it. At the same time, I think it's important to know that there are a lot of games being played with this. Europe has already banned this stuff. I'll give you some examples. There are some dyes which we hear Europe has banned it, but the U.S. hasn't.

And then you look more deeply and you find out that, yes, there is a die that's allowed in the U.S. that's banned in Europe under that name, but it is allowed in Europe under a different name, even though it is chemically essentially the same thing. So the point I'm making is I'm all for let's reduce our consumption of ultra processed foods. You know, I eat chocolate, but Skittles and all of these things, I just I just don't eat them. I want to keep it out of my diet.

I think that's a great thing for people to do. Eat ingredients, right? Go to here's a carrot. And I've got, you know, you're making something from ingredients that are just a single item that that is better. At the same time, now this intersection of pseudo right wing populism and Maha make America healthy again, which on the surface is about consumer transparency. It's really about just sort of following the lead of Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who on much of this stuff

is kind of going beyond what the science says on raw milk, on vaccines, on all of these things. Now, this does put us in an ironic place. Conservatives who often oppose big government are suddenly all in on the nanny state style warnings. They want warnings about vaccines. They want warnings about skittles. They want warnings about all this stuff as long as it's framed as RFK and Trump's battle to make America healthy again.

But when these same sort of initiatives came from the left and they were branded differently, they were against them. So could become a regulatory mess. I am all for labeling. At the same time, the labeling should really be consistent with the science and it shouldn't be about Corporate power and political identity that sort of governs how we are Monitoring and putting information on food labels and

We'll see ultimately whether this is something that passes. Former Meet the Press anchor Chuck Todd revealed that his tires were slashed after then President Donald Trump publicly attacked him during Donald Trump's first term. And Todd said that this was actually part of a larger pattern of harassment and threats that he was receiving after Donald Trump mentioned him. He said he was getting death threats. He was getting weird phone calls and that his tires were also slashed. And he recently did an interview with Times Radio where he said there was a correlation

between when Trump would mention him publicly and the threats that he received. And apparently this applied to other journalists as well. You know, anecdotally, what I can tell you is that when Donald Trump Jr. and Candace Owens and Scott Adams and whoever else tweeted about one of my tweets a few years ago, the number of death threats not only I got, but that family members got. People found my dad and sent him messages like you should have aborted your Jew son. Think about waking up to that one in your inbox. Anecdotally, I can tell you this is exactly how it works.

When Magda turns its ire and its attention to any individual, it becomes very, very bad. Now, Chuck Todd's specific story, the bigger story here is the normalization of targeted harassment under Trump's leadership, the slash tires, the death threats, the indifference from Trump. This is a reminder of how Trump's rhetoric has really helped to create an unsafe environment for for journalists, even without explicitly calling for violence. And it's part of the hostility to a free press. Trump's language will be, you know, sometimes he'll blur the lines between a critique and an incitement to do stuff.

And Trump will say, I'm just talking about people. Chuck Todd's a nasty guy who wrote bad about me. But we know January 6th being a great, great example. Trump supporters do interpret Trump's words as marching orders very often. It could be against the press, against judges, against political appointees. And then the other aspect of the story that's underscored is that Trump doesn't just attack institutions.

He will personalize his attacks. And in fact, they are much more emotionally salient that way. Attacking ABC or NBC. All right. You know, it'll get his followers to what rallies go. Fake news, ABC. Fine. But when you go after Chuck Todd, when you go after Jim Acosta, when Donald Trump Jr.

went after me, do I have my Candace Owens one? David Pakman does not have a soul. Exactly. Soul. David Pakman does not have a soul. Exactly. A soul. That personalization, naming, assigning nicknames, knowing his audience knows who to target, making sure his audience knows who to target. This creates an ecosystem where they feel emboldened and sometimes even justified in going after individuals. When we think about the post Trump. Era of politics, which were three years and six

months, three and a half months, three, three and a half years away, we will eventually get there. Maga may remain, it may not. We just don't know. One of the top priorities, I believe, has to be getting back to we we can't be personalizing and weaponizing attacks in the way that we have because it's actually dangerous for people. And Chuck's store, Chuck Todd's story certainly certainly confirms that. Thanks for bearing with just me this week as producer Pat is off. Bonus shows will be back to both of us next week and full length as well. Everybody doing double duty with Pat's much deserved vacation this week.

I'll see you tomorrow. New show, new bonus show.