The Ricochet Podcast - Coconut Buttons

Episode Date: August 14, 2020

We’ve got a new VP candidate, we’ve got Mark Simon (right hand man to Hong Kong freedom fighter Jimmy Lai), we’ve got historian Tevi Troy on political conventions (or the lack of them) and using songs for political rallies, we’ve got a warning on Blazing Saddles and we’ve got a Lileks Post of the Week (courtesy of Ricochet member Sage Wolkenfeld) about the importance of dressing well. Source

They say you can't hurry love, but if you don't get to your post office by March 23rd, you'll miss your chance to save €2.50 on a book of 10 heart-shaped love stamps. Now, just €14. Down from €16.50. Perfect for all kinds of love messages like, We're getting hitched. You're still my favourite. Or,

Growl McCree. If you've a couple of fuckle. Buy yours now at your local post office or at onpust.com. Send joy. Show growl. Send love. Onpust. For your world. T's and C's apply or at OnPost.com. Send joy. Show grow. Send love. OnPost. For your world.

Teas and seas apply. See OnPost.com. I have a dream. This nation will rise up. Live out the true meaning of its creed. We hold these truths to be self-evident. That all men are created equal. But here's the good news.

We don't have to accept the failed government of Donald Trump and Mike Pence. In just 83 days, we have a chance to choose a better future. I'm the president and you're fake news Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall It's the Ricochet Podcast with Rob Long and Peter Robinson I'm James Lilac, today we talk to Mark Simon about Jimmy Lai's Hong Kong fate And Tevi Troy about conventions and music So let's have ourselves a podcast I can hear you.

Welcome, everybody. It's the Wicked Show podcast number 508. I'm James Lalix here in Minneapolis, which, despite what Tucker Carlson said this week, is not... Downtown is not Beirut. What he showed was not downtown. Downtown is underpopulated. The whole city is sort of still sighing, as I imagine is New York, where Rob Long usually is. But he's joined that exodus of people who are saying goodbye, and he's fled out to the Hamptons. Peter Robinson in California, where I imagine he conducts his usual academic life, where it's like Mask of the Red Death, all the people looking down at the carnage around from the serene collegial setting in which they have. Hello, gentlemen. How are we today? We're all right, all things considered.

Lockdown continues. That's the bad news. The good news is Kamala Harris is now Joe Biden's vice presidential candidate. Did you pronounce that correctly? I want to make sure. I did. I did. I actually. Camelot, right? Camelot? No, no, no, no. It's comma as in the punctuation mark.

That is what. Comma. La. Comma. La. Lord, I hope I have it right because I've practiced it to make sure I got it right. So I didn't get it wrong. Exactly.

There's no good reason for getting it incorrectly. It's a stain on you. If you pronounce it like Joe Biden has pronounced it, it's automatically a proof that you're right. As a matter of fact, any sort of criticism, and again, this is the obvious thing everyone's been saying this week, but any sort of criticism has to be looked at with a cocked Spock eyebrow, because why are you saying that exactly? You're strong. You say a cocked Spock eyebrow? Yes, I did.

Did you just invent that? That's really great. I guess I did. Although no easier to say than Kamala, by the way. Kamala's cocked Spock eyebrow. The worst criticism, apparently, is to burrow through her ethnic identity and to come up with a question as to whether or not she is actually African-American in the sense that we are understated. I don't care.

But that's where we are these days. We have to parse everybody's genes and skin color down to the most minute element. Um, it is odd, although I would say that the fact that she has Indian heritage is sort of sloughed off and forgotten in favor of this other more prominent and important ethnic identity. Whereas I think all of these things are actually cool to talk about for 30 seconds and then go onto the issue and the personality and the characteristics and the character and the rest of it. But, you know, we got to see everything through this prism. Why do you think it is that there isn't more interest in the fact that she has Indian heritage? Well, that's not part of the narrative right now, right?

It's just. Yeah, I would say stay tuned. You know, I was having this very conversation, very frank conversation, which you can get to after three glasses of wine. You're sitting on the beach with a bunch of people and one of whom said, look, the question is, is she eligible for reparations? And the answer is no. But for right now, look, Joe Biden does extremely well with African-Americans. He's going to do very well with them in November, probably. That is very important. This is a game of inches, I think, and they are playing it i mean i didn't this was not this would not have been my choice for a smart pick for him but i can see the

logic i i think that her south asian identity um will emerge um triumphant in october uh there's a whole lot of south asian small businessmen in America and women in America. The South Asians are really a very, very quiet, right now quiet, but potentially powerful political bloc. So she's going to play a lot of songs on that piano. And some of them are going to be Bollywood tunes, and some of them are going to be classic R&B. And that seems, honestly, the cynic in me, which is the only thing in me, I think that's kind of smart. It's probably a smart move. Maybe. Maybe. It was a smart move from the point of view of Joe Biden's base of what has now become the Democratic Party's base. Yes. In as much as, yes, African Americans

are part of the base, yes, the hard left is part of the base, and she is hard left. The idea that she is a pragmatic moderate, which is what the New York Times put in its headline, that really, they know better. There's nothing moderate about her. Just examine any of her all right but the real joe joe biden's real base is the press and they find her cool and glamorous and it's not simply that identity politics now protects her against criticism in the eyes of the press it makes her it makes her almost a saintly figure all right so fine move from the point of view of the base particularly the real base which is the press but if you ask yourself now you bet you by the way both of you may have different answers to this question it seems to me to be a question that comes pretty close to answering itself but you may disagree If you ask yourself in those northeastern states and upper midwestern states, which are going to be the critical states, or certainly at least they were the critical states in the last election, in Scranton and Wilkes-Barre and Lackawanna or in Michigan and Lansing and Kalamazoo and Travis City.

And what we know about her, which is that she flamed out fast in the Democratic primaries, I believe she's simply not likable. And I've seen this in the press again and again in the last, whatever it's been now, 48 hours or so, that the Biden campaign is following the Hippocratic oath, first do no harm. So you please your base and you choose someone who's going to do no harm in the general election. I'm not quite sure of that. I believe we have pretty considerable evidence that she's just not a likable candidate tulsi gabbard of all people won two delegates to the democratic convention kamala harris won none so i i i i believe that they the felt need to play to the base that was a sign of weak this is not a move if you have your base under total control you move to the center and this is not a move of any this is not a move. If you have your base under total control, you move to the center.

And this is not a move of any – this is not a move to the center at all. Well, I'm not sure that's – I take their point, but I'm not sure that's true. I mean, the press is far, far left. Kamala Harris is far left. I mean, Kamala Harris gets criticism from the far left for being a cop for being a law and order putting too many people behind bars in california when it was convenient to do so when that was right but i'm just talking about i'm just like just about campaigning right um you know the vice president in general doesn't really do much for you but you know that this is going to be as they always say

it's a it's complete complete um uh yeah cliche but it's cliche because it's true. You know, Joe Biden's going to be in Pennsylvania. Joe Biden's going to be in Ohio and Michigan and Wisconsin. Kamala Harris is going to be in Texas. It's easy for you to say. Senator Harris is going to be in Texas, where it's close. She's going to be in places where she can round up a popular vote that stays home a lot on the Democratic side, doesn't really vote in the presidential. So, like, you know, these are these two groups.

It's a very interesting election. I mean, because you have like you can spin it a couple of different ways. I mean, it's 72,000 votes across three states. That's what decided it last time. It's that's it's tight. So you fight for everything. You fight for everyone. I would have made Duckworth. I would have thought Duckworth was a choice. I don't know why. I mean, I guess I must have missed the oppo on Duckworth. I thought she would be a really good choice for him.

I thought so, too. So I guess my simple summary is it's clear that she pleases the people who would have voted Biden anyway. It's unclear. I'm not I guess I'm not going to make an argument. I'm just going to say it's unclear that she moves anyone into the Biden column who is in the undecided column or the Trump column now. That just seems to me very unclear. Now, of course, if you ask yourself, is Donald Trump such a fine political practitioner that he can see these weaknesses and take advantage of them? I have to say, I use the word again, unclear. I think it's less unclear. Less unclear.

Yeah. Who knows? It is interesting. I mean, you know, you have to just divorce yourself from the sense that the country's falling apart and just look at it as a... Yeah. Although one more sort of small... I guess we're in for this from now until November.

The granular political world. My friend and Hoover colleague Bill Whalen made and noted something the other day that the guy who's running the Trump campaign, whose name escapes me now, but probably will be sick of by the time of Election Day. Well, he'll be gone. Well, the guy who's running the Trump campaign ran Christie's reelection campaign in New Jersey. We now think of Chris Christie as a has-been. Chris Christie, as a Republican, won 60% of the vote in New Jersey. So we have a skillful practitioner running the Trump campaign now. We'll see. Well, yes, we will. The question is, is whether there's in the press an assumption that Biden is going to get elected and then step down, that actually this is about her. I'm curious because I think they kind of would like that. I think that gives them a little thrill in their stomach to realize that actually what the Republicans are saying is a possibility.

They say, yeah, well, that's kind of – What do you mean step down? You mean like he just doesn't run for a second term? No. I mean within six to eight months of his term, he realizes, you know, my cognitive decline is severe and for the good of the nation and also to elevate and for justice, for great justice, it's time. And Senator Harris is now the president. I mean, I can see a significant portion of the intelligentsia going in to vote for Joe Biden with the assumption and conviction that he is mentally unfit for the job because it will accomplish something even greater.

I mean, Biden's all over the road. Nobody knows what the guy stands for anymore. Harris is all over the road. It depends what the moment stands for, too. But right now the party is saying things like she's pragmatic and she's a moderate because when it comes to eliminating gasoline-powered automobiles, she sees it on a seven-year schedule instead of a two. That's what comes to mind. Tomorrow, right. Yes, yes. By the way, it's Bill Stepien. Bill Stepien is Trump's campaign manager, the guy who's running the Trump campaign now. Here's something else to tell you.

Well, wait, James, can I just ask you a question about that? Don't you think that's also what a huge version of the Trump vote will do? Stop. I want somebody to transcribe that little bit of vocal scat that Rob just did. This one? I don't know. Yeah. It was beautiful. It was a series of phonemes and syllables that didn't cohere into words, but just got your point across immediately. Untranscribable.

Untranscribable gibberish. That's your Nat King Cole song. Untranscribable. Untranscribable gibberish. That's your Nat King Cole song. Untranscribable. Anyway, you were saying. Don't you think that's partly what a lot of Trump voters are doing? I mean, a lot of Trump voters don't like him very much and don't think he's very consistent. He's not. But the other side is worse.

They're just trying to keep Kamala Harris out or keep Joe Biden out or whatever it is. I mean, it does seem like we will finally... Look, people actively despised Hillary Clinton. That's right. Trump's secret weapon was that people actively despised her. Yes. And she still won a smashing popular vote margin. Pretty big.

In percentage terms, it wasn't huge. But three million, if you sit down and count them one by one. Yes, it's a lot. It's a lot. It's like people are going to vote for Trump, even though they don't like him. So what these two candidates have to do is they have to say, I know I'm terrible. I know I'm terrible. But the other side, how bad they are. And that is a very hard thing to put on a bumper sticker. And it'll be interesting to see what tricks and gimmicks each side uses to gin up the enthusiasm of what is, in fact, a pretty unenthusiastic politics. Well, it depends. I mean, if you have a smart campaign manager in the right, you're going to have somebody who's going to hang the entire summer of disorder around the Democrats neck.

Because if there's if there's one thing that we haven't been talking about much in the press, it seems it's it's the fact that several major American cities are being sundered from the inside with with a wink and a nod from the people who govern them. It's extraordinary. I mean, Chicago, what happened in Chicago, off the paper now, is heart-rending. What happened in New York, what continues to happen to a great city. I mean, one of the great stories that we've had in the last 10 years has been the urban renaissance that's taken place across the country.

And now every single one of these cities at its core seems to have this poisonous coal seam that's constantly burning and erupting into fire. And when people look at that and see all the Democratic politicians just sort of shrugging their shoulders and saying, well, you know, basically the higher issue is important here, and that's justice, et cetera, hang that around their necks. Every one of these places is the apotheosis of Democratic politics. So you're telling me that that's not indicative of the way they govern and the way they believe? but having said that of course the voter just the

voter psychology is you know there's really only two buttons right there's change election and a not change election and that's right this and when when stuff like this happens, at least it has happened in the past, it goes very quickly, very quickly to a change election. I mean, George W. Bush was 90% popularity after the Gulf War, 90%. And then there was a short recession. We were coming out of the recession by June. But there were riots in Los Angeles, big riots in Los Angeles that spring. And people just thought, it's time for change. And change is a powerful, change is such a powerful, powerful word and a feeling in American politics that governor, the Iowa governor Branstad, was it Branstad,

Terry Branstad? Terry Branstad. Yeah. He ran on a change platform. And then when he ran that governor uh the iowa go to bransted was a branch terry bransted the governor of iowa yeah he ran on a change platform and then uh when he ran re-election his his slogan was re-elect change um which was very very complicated thing to do but i think he was he was successful at it in iowa and i think that trump's got to somehow it's uh sell that to american people it's gonna be hard it's gonna be hard trump the Trump campaign has to make the issues the issues. The Biden campaign just has to make Donald Trump the issue. It's pretty simple. If Trump is the issue.

In my neighborhood the other day, you know where I live, Northern California, I was out walking and saw a political sign that somebody had already stuck in their yard, and it said, any functioning adult in 2020. Now, functioning has now become a question with regard to the Democratic nominee, but just anybody other than Trump. And if that is the overall feeling, then Biden wins. Simple as that, I think. It'll be interesting, but it's actually it yeah it'll be interesting but it's simple in the in in the end well we can look forward if biden wins to the fact that the riots will suddenly become inconvenient and condemned oh yes because and furthermore

the country will undergo an instantaneous and miraculous healing we'll all be allowed to reopen the press will suddenly discover that there has been no coronavirus danger for several months. I mean, just imagine. Anyway. Oh, really? You think so? Oh, yeah. From Mr. Everybody should have a mask for three months? Right. Exactly. You know, the other day I was driving around and I realized that I hadn't taken off my mask in my car. I was that guy. I was that idiot who got into his car and didn't take it out. Lord only knows. My car is airtight, but they're probably,

if I cracked open the window, the covidian miasma could have seeped into the front, you know, got me right then, and I could have been plagued. I could have seen spots. I could have driven my car into a pole all because I wasn't wearing my mask in my car. You know, well, I didn't do that. And as a matter of fact, I made it home quite safely

because all of the electronics in my car were working just perfectly. But that's not always the case. It just isn't. And then it isn't the case that it's over. You've got to sell the car. No way to fix that. Cars are late.

The judges are putting up a 6.5. Well, I'll take 6.5. Computer systems in the cars, like I have in mine, and yours perhaps, too. It's the new normal. From electronically controlled transmissions to those cool little touchscreen displays that leave your fingerprints all over the place. Dozens of sensors, all that stuff, which can't fix it. It's not like the old days where you could pop the hood and change something and swap it out and do another. No, forget about those shade tree days.

It's too tough in that car. All these features. So something breaks. You don't know. Could cost a fortune. And now, you know, it's really not the time for expensive repairs. That's why you need CarShield. CarShield has affordable protection plans that can save you thousands of dollars for a covered repair, including the computers, the GPS, the electronics, and more. The people at CarShield

understand payment flexibility is an absolute must these days. Monthly plans can be customized to your needs with rates as low as $99 a month. No long-term contracts or commitments either. CarShield gives you options others won't. You get to choose your favorite mechanic or dealer to do the work, and CarShield takes care of the rest. They will also offer complimentary 24-7 roadside assistance. Isn't that nice for the peace of mind? And a rental car while yours is being fixed. You got it all. CarShield has helped over 1 million customers. So drive with confidence knowing you get coverage from America's number one auto protection company. For as low as $99 a month, you can protect yourself from surprises and save thousands for a covered repair. How? Well, call 800-CAR-6000 and mention that code RICOCHET or visit carshield.com and use the code RICOCHET to save 10%.

That's carshield.com, code RICOCHET. Deductible may apply. And our thanks to CarShield for sponsoring this, the Ricochet podcast. And now we welcome to the podcast Mark Simon, right-hand man of Jimmy Lai, the owner of Apple Daily and a high-profile Hong Kong freedom fighter who is currently under arrest by the Chinese Communist Party. It's his first appearance on the Ricochet podcast. We welcome him. Mark, bring us up to speed. What happened and how's he doing? Well, Jimmy is doing well. I told him I was going to be on with you, and he gave me a

warning. He said, don't be boring. So he's doing okay. His primary concern is essentially the staff members who were arrested around him and, of course, his sons sons so he's been down this road before in other words uh uh the they have walked jimmy out of his house multiple times uh this time they actually made a a significant change in how they did it not in terms of uh the physicality or anything but in that they went out of their way to uh they went out of their way to basically handcuff him, which was completely unnecessary. So they were sending a message. So essentially, the Hong Kong government has now decided that they're going to be very open about the fact that they're going to basically try to shut down Jimmy's Apple Daily, Next Magazine, and our digital operations. So that's

what he's worried about. Jimmy really does not worry about himself. I know people find that hard to believe, but I've been with the guy, worked with the guy for over 20 years. I've never seen an ounce of concern about himself. He's really more concerned about others and also his businesses. Mark, you're in no danger. You're in New Jersey. You've always had your family in this country and you've flown back and forth to Hong Kong a great deal, but you're in New Jersey now. So you're out of any danger, right? That's correct. I mean, there's rumors that there's warrants for me, but I mean, that doesn't mean anything because the United States is not the United States is not at this point in time, you know, honoring any extradition treaties. So we also may have something for the for the Chinese on that.

What what do you mean by that? You may have something for the Chinese. If they want to extradite me, then we're going to give them the opportunity to ask them to come into court. And if they've got something, then I'll live by it. I'll honor it. I don't think they'll answer the suit. I don't think they'll answer the lawsuit. But that's the whole thing. I mean, it's hard for people to really understand the nature of the charges.

That's exactly what I wanted. Two ways they do it. They charge you what they want you to. So that's what I wanted to get to. What difference? So Jimmy has been speaking out for, well, in a certain sense, since 1989, since the Tiananmen Massacre. But he's been warning the United States that the imposition of the new national security law would be, as he said in his interview with me in June, that would be the end of Hong Kong. Are they still is the Hong Kong government? Is this arrest? Are there formal charges?

Are they simply are they simply going through the motions of pretending to obey the law or are they still following the law is there still some hope that by arguing in court jimmy can free himself or or is this all are we have we reached the stage in which the law simply doesn't matter and it's pure power and the law is that they're doing nothing more than paying lip service to the law. Well, they are paying lip service to the law, the police and I think the Chinese Communist Party. However, they're still stuck with the system. So the answer is yes. And that's part of why I want to get him in the U.S. But Jimmy, what they do is they arrest us.

You know, they arrested Jimmy on national security legislation. Now, I know this is going to sound not odd to people who remember the Soviet Union, but basically a violation of national security law can be everything from Jimmy Lai calling for sanctions, meeting with Mike Pompeo, to a 16-year-old kid who gives a Zoom talk to the UCLA Democrats. In other words, that's the range of the national security law with the Chinese. And so what they do is they basically apply that. The national security law also is something like national security laws anywhere. It exists quasi outside the judicial system until the time they have to bring you in the judicial system.

In other words, they can charge you, they can hold you longer, they can have more investigative powers. But that is why it's obvious the courts still matter, because you've seen charges of fraud and other things. They mentioned money laundering and all those things. Nobody has been charged with any of that, because then they have to put up. In other words, if they take the traditional route, which they're doing, then they have to put up. So what they did is that's the tactic they used to dirty things up. I think everybody in Hong Kong knows that. It's actually quite funny.

Somebody made a comment the other day that said basically the police have lived inside Jimmy Lai's Mark Simons, and it's true, and our company's bank accounts for the last 10 years. So in other words, like, when did we sneak off and do something? So what's happening now is they're using the national security law to hold us. So for example, they took everybody's passports who were arrested. They further went after Jimmy's passport. And that's very important because Jimmy has a trial coming up next week, 19th and 20th, on a separate charge. It's a criminal intimidation charge. Two and a half years ago, Jimmy had a verbal altercation with a pro-Beijing reporter. And two and a half years after a verbal confrontation between a 71-year-old, I mean, a 70-year-old man and a 33-year-old reporter,

Jimmy was charged with criminal intimidation. And so that comes up. Once he solves that, Jimmy could travel. There's nobody holding his passports. They do not want Jimmy to travel. Hence, they made the move and they've made the move on the other people. But they could only do that under the national security law. They didn't have enough. They didn't obviously didn't have enough under the other charges. So, you know, that's because we haven't seen anything there. Hey, Mark, it's Rob Long. Thank you for joining us. I haven't talked to you in ages. It's good to hear your voice. I only wish we were talking about something more pleasant. But just to set the stage a little bit for our listeners who don't know, Jimmy Lai is like a

media buccaneer pirate entrepreneur in the United States. He would be kind of a legendary um swashbuckling figure right i mean he's got the guy is sort of a fearless media baron in the area stop me when i'm wrong and he's made a whole lot of money and created a whole big business by kind of printing the truth in a place where the truth gets you arrested. Is that a fair assessment? That's exactly, that's a fair assessment. I mean, one of the things about us is, one of the great things about working for Jimmy is there's not a huge ego there.

In other words, we don't mind when people say we're a tabloid publication, but we're a tabloid publication that has this really top-notch political section that drives the right people crazy. In other words, Jimmy is, you know, basically, I can't think of a place we've entered where we haven't had a fight. You know, we had a fight in Myanmar. We had fights in Taiwan even before. You know, basically, if you're a free press in Asia, you're going to have fights. That's the nature of the beast. And Jimmy is not scared of a fight. The number of times that he has met with people and they've asked him for consideration or this and that, he does not mind dining alone, as he said.

He told somebody, he said, you know, the best thing about his career is he's upset so many people in Beijing. He doesn't have to go to those god awful dinners that they have all the time. OK, so he is. You know, I mean, Rob, the thing is, I mean, yeah, yeah, he's a badass. That's the short way of describing him is he's a badass and he's got a high profile. So my next set of questions is, yes, he's tough guys. And the second questions are really about is this a new level of aggressive intimidation, strong arming? Is this a new level from Beijing?

Has it been roiling under the surface for a while? It just seems to me that when I saw pictures of Jimmyimmy lyon handcuffs i thought to myself that's this feels new to me and or am i just missing it no i mean they they have been look jimmy has had surveillance outside of his house 24 7 for at least 17 years as long as i've been around i mean i'm around 20 but i mean since 2003 he's had basically pro-Beijing reporters who follow him everywhere, go everywhere. You know, he goes in Hong Kong, harasses him. We have a massive advertising boycott on us. I mean, our business people are heroes the way they try to find ways to earn money.

But yes, they've really ramped it up. Why? What really excited hong kong because now they're because because basically because i think once they've done is they've seen all these efforts they've made fail in other words they have not been able to beat the hong kong people and in their minds this is the odd thing and i'm not taking credit away from us in their minds minds, they're saying, oh, it's all because of Jimmy Lai. It's all because of Apple Daily. It's all because of these guys.

Once we get rid of them, that's it. So they surged 200 police officers into our building, into the largest newsroom in Hong Kong. They surged those guys in there. They're sending a message. They arrested Jimmy. They walked him around in handcuffs. You know, at one point in time, it almost looked like a friend of mine told me almost like the scene from Robin Hood where like they've got Earl Flynn in handcuffs and they're walking around. But everybody, everybody in the courtyard is on Robin Hood's side. You know what I'm saying? And, you know, there's the government is Sheriff John. But the thing is, they're ramping it up. They are really ramping it up. So let me ask you, this is this is my assessment. I know Peter wants to jump in.

So my question is this. Sometimes when a government, when a strong arm despotic government does a thing like this, it's because they're winning because they look around. Chinese Beijing looks around the world and they see, well, the Americans are going to do anything. Americans are obsessed with covid and obsessed with an election. And they have a president who at best is inconsistent in his policies with us. So we're kind of, we got to, everyone else is looking the other way. We got a free hand here to mop up some troublesome things. Or is it, as you, I think you were intimating, is it at a weakness? It's like, we can't get Hong Kong to buckle. And now we're going to do whatever we can to get it to buckle. What do you think? Is it strength or is it

weakness? Or is it a little bit of a combination of both? It's a combination of both. It started out as a strength move. It started out as, all right, we're going to move. And it really started out as a strength move, you know, really really near the end of the 2019 when they started restoring order. And that's when they said, we're coming in, we're in charge. And, you know, here comes the here comes the government saber rattling. That's when they thought they could do it. In other words, they had not in their mind. They saw covid coming in. They said, said, now's the time to do it. The problem is, is they didn't execute. So in other words, they couldn't get control of the city and the Hong Kong people fought them. I mean, some of the things these people do is amazing. I don't know if you

all heard the other day, we had like 14 kids, high school kids arrested because they went into a mall. I mean, think of the creativity of this. They held up blank pieces of paper. So all they did was they held up blank white pieces of paper. And they were arrested. I mean, how brilliant is that? You know what I'm saying? The other thing they did is they did like a dance conga line through a mall.

And the thing is that it's a constant overstepping by the government but here's the thing they really don't understand a free market you all know bill mcgurn he always says watching hong watching the chinese government handle hong kong is like watching a gorilla with his tratavarius in other, they have no idea of the implications that happen. And that's why the financial markets, and they're so worried about people leaving, you know, still about 65 to 70 percent of the investments made in China are basically handled through Hong Kong because of the rule of law. And so once they start damaging that, you know, we'll start seeing things. President Trump's not wrong. It's a very brutal way to put it, but he's not wrong. Basically, when Hong Kong loses, places like New York City win because

essentially that business has to go somewhere. And even though New York is high taxes, it still has the rule of law and a free press. And that's one of the things as well. I think they have no understanding of the value of a free press. They don't even understand Singapore. When they start talking about Singapore, my Singaporean friends are like, well, no, we are closed in certain ways, but we are open in every other. None of those ways the Chinese could handle. What do people in Hong Kong think people in America think about this? Because it's not on our front page. I think there's just America's busy.

You're right. They're completely obsessed with COVID and Trump. And I think a lot of people are paying attention, just sort of looking down the road and saying, if China wants it, China's going to have it. And there's nothing we can do about that. What do people in Hong Kong think the West feels about their situation? I can't hear, but what can I possibly do? Look, Jimmy said it often. Jimmy said, look, I'm not looking for the seventh fleet to show up. I'm not looking for, I'm not looking for the United States to essentially ride to the rescue.

We understand where we are. We understand we're connected to the mainland. We're not Taiwan with 200 miles of water between us. We're not an island. We are connected. We are part of China. There's no doubt we're part of China. We never argue that we're not part of China. We've, we never argue that we're not part of China. What we're asking is from the American people is really this don't give them a free ride on it. In other words, make them pay a price. If they're, if they're not going to live by the agreement with us, they're not going to live by the agreements with you. In other words, it's kind of there by the grace of God go I, and that's what we're asking for the American people. In other words, when somebody comes up and says, well, you know, it's not so bad. No, it is pretty bad.

This is a successful society. This is an incredibly successful society that was basically moving along until this guy, Xi Jinping, and it's very much him, decided that, you know, he was going to clamp down and his way of working was going to work. There's a really interesting article in The Economist this week. I don't agree with most of it, but they do have one insight in that she is very confident of his ideology and he believes that he can make things work. This is a guy who believes, as a friend of mine at a very large technology company said, Tencent, he said, you know, these guys actually believe that

they can like have us run our company based on Marxist socialist principles. They actually believe that stuff. Right. And that's hard for the American. That's what I'm at. Jimmy is that we're asking the American people to don't give them a free ride. Don't make it easy on them. You're next. I mean, everybody else is next. This is not something that I stop. Mark, closing question. And by the way, I know you're in touch with Jimmy. Give him our best. And the minute

when he finds himself in a position, if he finds himself in a position in which he's free to speak, my camera's available. We'll have him on Ricochet. Please give him our best. Now, kind of a closing question. He's looking forward to do it again. Oh, great.

He's looking forward to do it, but if you tell him I'm boring, I'm not going to put you through, okay? You've been wonderful. Last question, then. You have been in the press as Jimmy Lai's right-hand man. In other words, the government of the United States knows that if it wants to figure out what Jimmy Lai is thinking and ask confidentially what it ought to be doing to help the situation, the phone call to make is to Mark Simon.

Now, don't give away any privileged conversations here, but are you satisfied that the government is doing what our government is doing what it can, that it's paying attention to Jimmy Lai and the situation in Hong Kong? They're doing what they can do. We have incredible support out of the White House. Pompeo has been fantastic. And they're taking action. I mean, the sanctions was a huge move. I mean, a lot of the China hands thought they'd never, ever do the sanctions on the individuals. And then, you know, you saw Trump out there the other day. And one of the things Trump's doing, by the way, when he tells everybody the U.S. is winning is that's I guess whether that's the ego or whatever it is. But the message that's being received in China and Beijing is that basically she is blowing it in Hong Kong and the Americans are taking the advantage. So when Trump's saying we're going to make a lot of money on this, the message that they're

getting over there is, hey, our actions are costing us money in business. But I mean, basically, we're doing quite well. I mean, one of the disappointing things is, and since I wrote a column on it, you know, it's OK to say I'm little bit disappointed that the people in the Biden camp have not taken any meetings. And I'm not talking with Mark Simon or even Jimmy, but there are people like Martin Lee, Anson Chan. There are figures out there that are very much stately. With Biden's people, Tony Blinken and these guys could send a message that, hey, we're paying attention.

Unfortunately, every time they talk about Hong Kong, I realize it's a political season. So, you know, I realize that we're just cannon fodder for them. But that's what we tend to be for those guys. Now, that said, look, Pelosi, Ingalls, Sherman, Schumer, absolutely fantastic. I mean, really offering things up. And one of the things also is that I'll leave it at this. One of the things that Pelosi has been wonderful on and everybody has been wonderful on it. Like, you know, the way the Chinese are blowing it is the five, this final slot is basically after World War II, the gift to America, Hitler's gift to America, where the Jews and the immigrants, Xi Jinping is going to give a gift to the gift to America, Hitler's gift to America were the Jews and the immigrants.

Xi Jinping is going to give a gift to the world, too, and that's going to be the Hong Kong people who just won't tolerate it and are leaving. I'll tell you, the Americans, we need to open our shores to these people if they want to come over, because they are going to be fantastic Americans. Exactly. Well, if you have bipartisan consent on that, then it shows that Sinophobia is not the insult that it used to be, and CCPphilia is not a winner going forth. Both are good developments. Mark Simon, thanks for coming on the show today. Give our best to Jimmy, and we'll hope for the best. And the next time we talk to you, we hope we got good news. Mark, tell Jimmy that you were not boring.

And we said so. And by the way, you can follow Jimmy on you were not boring. And we said so. And by the way, you can follow Jimmy on Twitter if you go. Okay, I'll take care now. Punch his name in there and take a look. Thanks, Mark. You know, it just reminds you of what we take for granted here, doesn't it? I mean, can you imagine being in Hong Kong and growing up under rule of law and freedom and the rest of it, and you've got that gorilla eyeing your Stradivarius. I mean, the idea that they're holding up blank pieces of paper, brilliant as it is,

unfortunately means that any government with a good Photoshop team can scrawl all sorts of incendiary messages and what they were saying and attempt to discredit them to the rest of the world. But nobody believes China. Nobody believes China. I mean, Rob, Peter, do you believe anything that they say? Do you believe any of their economic numbers coming out? Do you believe their protestations about the way they've handled the virus? Do you believe their bank numbers? Do you believe anything? Do you think that it's actually kind of a brittle country that is going to go all the way of all authoritarian states, shatter, crash? Therefore, the people who are left to pick up the pieces will have to figure out

how... Oh, Rob. Oh, I know. I'm just searching for it. I can't find it. No, no, no. You were actually going to... It's like you were going to... I was going to answer the real question, wasn't I? I was personally going to segue into a segue interruption, but okay. Oh, nice. Yeah, you're going to answer the question

sincerely. Well, we'll get to that at some other point. Point is, if anything Hong Kong teaches us here, it's the importance of liberty. A notion that, you know, people roll their eyes at. It makes you sound like one of those weirdos who's got a Betsy Ross flag and the rest of it. Liberty, more liberty. It's the foundation of the country and what we believe in, what we are. Making sense of current events during these extraordinary times can be little trying and difficult. Conceived in Liberty, that's a podcast. The Bradley Speaker Series. It's a new video series that offers meaningful perspectives through engaging 15-minute interviews. Visit bradleyfdn.org slash liberty to watch their most recent episode featuring renowned scholar Robert P. George. He's the McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence and Director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at

Princeton. George is a 2005 winner of the Bradley Prize and a member of the Bradley Foundation's Board of Directors. In this episode, he makes the case against judging historical figures by present standards and for telling the truth about America's history. You know that 1619 stuff here, right? Protect the integrity of the institutions in our civil society, and he also tells us how to be more understanding of those who have perspectives different than our own. Relevant information for these times,

and again, an engaging 15-minute interview. That's Bradley with an L-E-Y at the end, FDN.org slash liberty to watch the video. The whole URL, of course, is edricochet.com. New episodes debut weekly, so come Ricochet.com. New episodes debut weekly, so come back off and subscribe to the YouTube channel to be notified whenever a new one is posted. Conceived in Liberty. And we thank Conceived in Liberty for sponsoring this, the Ricochet podcast. And now, welcome to the podcast, Tevi Troy, presidential historian,

former White House aide, author of Fight House, Rivalries in the White House from Truman to Trump, and of course, a Ricochet podcast superfan, self-described I'm sure, finally made it to the big show. Welcome, Debbie. Hey, you had a piece in the Wall Street Journal about political conventions. And, you know, when I was going to cover political conventions, at first it was, I am so thrilled to be part of this magnificent American tradition. And then it was, I am so dismayed by the jaded formulaic nature of these things and how little it means. And then finally, it was, I'm so happy to be part of the inner circle that now understands how formulaic and jaded these things are. And then I missed them and I stopped going and I wish that they were there.

Now, that's just the perspective of somebody who rolled through them for a decade or so. To the people watching at home, it's what it is. It's the great state of. It's the roll call. It's the final speeches. It's the trotting out of Clint Eastwood or somebody else. But for the parties themselves, they do form functions. So let's take a look at what we're going to have this year when we don't have them.

What are we going to miss? And what do you think the end result to the public and to the parties is going to be? Well, James, I think that was a great description of the arc of political conventions. At one point, they were actually decision-making bodies because in the 19th century, you didn't have instantaneous communications. You had to get together face-to-face to make these decisions about who runs the party, who is the elected official that you're going to put up there before the public, what are the platforms going to look like. And then once you started to have telephone and you can make these decisions remotely, then people realized the propaganda benefits to these conventions, but they are only propaganda beneficial if you have some kind of control

over it, right? So 1968 Chicago Democratic Convention is a complete mess. They didn't have control. So the parties have tried to assert control. And that kind of leads to this formulaic nature that we now have. So we're not really getting people resolving differences at conventions. We're trying to put a happy face and paper over differences. And as I said in that Wall Street Journal piece, sometimes that leads to rivalries inside the

administration that explode once the team wins. Tevi, what was the last Republican and the last Democratic convention that mattered? Well, I was about to say that mattered in deciding the candidate, but that mattered in deciding the platform or the candidates where something important politically got achieved because the delegates were there. Yeah, I would point to 1980 on the Democratic side. Carter did go in with enough delegates to win, but it was close. And Kennedy made Ted Kennedy ran against Carter in the primaries, challenged him from the left. And Kennedy had a plan for how to overtake Carter at that convention. If he could win on some rules discussions, he didn't. And they ended up having Kennedy come up and give his same as dream

will never die speech. And so that was kind of an important moment in conventions, even though Carter really had the edge going in. And then 76 is the piece I taught, is the one I talk about in my Wall Street Journal piece in the Republican convention, very bitter floor fight. Reagan thought he had a chance and he was going up against Ford. The master delegate counter on the other side against him was James Baker, which was his first big political role. And he was successful in beating back the Reagan force. There was a lot of bitterness. I tell the story in my Wall Street Journal op-ed about Nelson Rockefeller, who was Ford's vice president but not going to be vice president nominee on the ticket. But Nelson Rockefeller was angry that the Reagan forces knocked out the delegate floor telephone for the New York delegation, and he was very mad about that. And then Ford wins this bitter fight, and he gives

Reagan a chance to speak, and Reagan gives a beautiful speech about reconciliation, and also pretty much asserts himself as the next standard bearer in 1980. Ford closes the gap with Carter, almost wins, but doesn't. But then Reagan obviously comes in in 1980 and brings in three straight Republican terms. So curiously enough, in in 1980 and brings in three straight Republican terms. So curiously enough, the last two conventions that mattered, the Republican convention in 76 and the Democratic convention in 80, both chose the nominee and placed him in a weakened position leaving the convention. Roughly, that's right, isn't it? That's absolutely right, because when you get challenged from one of the sides, that is one of the indicators of when an incumbent is in trouble. The other thing that's related to that point is the party said, hey, we've got to get these conventions under control because they're a great tool if we can put our propaganda messages out there.

But they are not great for us if we just see a bunch of squabbles on the floor. OK, so, Tevi, you argue that the last convention that mattered took place 40 years ago. 1980 is 40. Yes, it's 40 years ago. Good Lord, 40 years ago. And yet you argue that the parties may end up missing the conventions, these virtual conventions where nobody, including the candidates, is going to turn up. Why? Who's going to miss what? Well, I think there are still important moments that take place at a convention, sometimes not to the party's going to miss what? Well, I think there are still important moments that take place at a convention, sometimes not to the party's liking. So, for example, Pat Buchanan's famous speech in 1988 that Anne Richards joked was better than the original German,

the culture war speech. I think that was an important moment. And I think it gave, it indicated there was a dissatisfied side of the Republican Party in that 92 convention with the speech. So I think sometimes there are important moments of rhetoric that happen. And then I also think that you can have moments of reconciliation where the candidate brings his challenger up on stage and they hold arms up above above the sky and show that they are both on the same team. So I think there can be positive moments. I also think that the platforms are undervalued. I think there is real merit to a platform if it shows what a party stands for. Sometimes they're gobbledygook, but sometimes they are actually well-written and convey a message.

Hey, Tevi, it's Rob Long. Thank you for joining us. So I want to talk a little bit about conventions and then move on to something else. If you don't mind, I'm throwing you a curveball. So I was at the 96th convention in San Diego, the Bob Dole, the 96th Republican convention, and Bob Dole was nominated. And, you know, in retrospect, I mean, I was young, but I left that convention thinking, you know, Dole's going to win this. So there is a value, right, to these conventions of stirring up the base, even if it's for a hopeless cause. And then I would say the only other one I went to that I thought was even mildly interesting was 2004, which was the G.W. Bush reelect. And I was supposed to cover it

for public radio which i was terrible at and i got trapped in i had weird past that i got trapped in a stairwell when arnold schwarzenegger was giving his speech and i was trapped in a stairwell with a jamaican um security guard and she was sort of seated there to guard the stairwell, and a maintenance guy, and me. And we both watched, all three of us watched his speech on a tiny little TV that the security guard had. And I felt like that was sort of emblematic of what Schwarzenegger was really trying to, what the message he was trying to give to Republicans at that time. So I wrote about it, and I thought, okay, that's good.

So it seemed to me that the only thing that these conventions are good for are those weird little emblematic media moments, which for me, if you do them right, can be enormously beneficial to the party. So I guess what I'm saying is, when has the party, when has a party blown it at a convention, which would argue to not have them again? They seem like they have almost unreservedly, except for maybe Buchanan, unreservedly positive outcomes. Well, let's look at 2012 for a moment, if you will, because there you had two complete mess-ups. One was the interaction with Clint Eastwood in the chair, which was just bizarre. And Stuart Stevens, who was Romney's strategist at the time, said he saw Clint Eastwood's performance and he went out of the room and threw up. It was so bad. I mean, it's a moment in prime time where you have an opportunity to give your

message to the nation and you hear this kind of old of old aging former star pretty much talking to a chair. Also, and this is more Stevens's fault, Stevens refused to give the speech or let Romney give the speech that had been prepared for Romney, that had been painstakingly written by McConnell and Scully, John McConnell and Matt Scully, the best speechwriters in the GOP. And that speech was not given. And instead, Stevens and Romney gave the speech that Romney never saw in the teleprompter until the moment he went up on stage. So the first time he was reading that speech was when he was on that stage. And it was a disaster. He had a great chance to give his message to the people and he didn't do it. So 2012 was a real lost opportunity convention.

Can I, I just can't, I'm sorry. I can't resist this. I know there are still people who think Mitt Romney was a wonderful candidate. What it really came down to was he said, I can manage the government. I know business. I'm a good... He couldn't even manage his own speech. All right, sorry, I'm withdrawing. You're not wrong, Peter. I mean, I thought the great irony of 2012 is that Romney was the management consultant guru and he couldn't manage a good campaign. And Obama, who we all said had no experience, actually managed a pretty well-oiled machine. And it was frustrating for me because I was working on that Romney campaign. But that is the reality of what happened. um okay can we change the subject briefly and i know we want to get back to this but you're also a um a middle east watcher so united arab emirates emirates and the israeli government are now exchanging diplomats there was a formal recognition from that was 30, 40 years after Egypt recognized Israel.

Now the United Arab Emirates has recognized Israel. How important is this on a scale of one to important? I mean, is it something that we're going to roll our eyes and think, well, you know, not that big a deal? Or is it a big deal? Yeah, Rob, there's no eye rolling here. I think it's a big deal whenever one of these Arab states that has long histories of being hostile to Israel says, hey, we're going to welcome this nation and be friends with them. But there's kind of an unfortunate pattern in that Egypt makes this peace in the 70s. And then in the 90s, Jordan makes this kind of peace with Israel. And now more than 20 years later, we've got Bahrain doing it.

So are the Saudis going to have to wait until 2040 and Oman wait until 2060? They are playing along. So why do they do it? Why? What's in it for them? Well, first of all, Israel is a real powerhouse economically and militarily. And also, you know, Israel was founded in 1948. So there is a bit of a sense of permanence.

I mean, the Arab countries thought they could wait out Israel for a while, but now it's pretty clear that Israel is not going away tomorrow or next week or the week after. So there are strategic and diplomatic advantages to siding with them. And there's already been some kind of quiet business dealings going on with Israel and some of the Gulf nations already. I think this is just making it more overt than it was before. So do you think that there, I mean, I guess what I'm saying is what's in it for them. It seems like there's going to be blowback from the region, from the countries in the region.

I mean, it is that region. So it is sort of the dominoes are falling every 20 years. So it's not really quite a cascade. But what do you think is the... How do you think the relationship between those two countries is going to change? What do you think Israel offered, and what do you think the UAE needs from Israel? Or is it really just... Am I trying to read too much into it

because I'm a fan of Middle Eastern spy thrillers? No, I don't think you're reading too much into it. I think there's some real benefits here to nations recognizing that we're not going to be in these states of war anymore. So I think the UAE is a little more forward-looking than some of their Gulf allies, and they were willing to take the plunge first. And if you start to see more commerce and more business deals taking place that actually benefits the UAE's GDP, then maybe some of the other nations will take the plunge and they won't have to wait in these 20-year cycles. Iran, that how much are we seeing, you know, we're seeing more Saudi and Israeli cooperation on intelligence. How much of this is just this idea that there's a big foot in the region now that the wagons need to be circled?

Or am I, again, this is spy novel stuff, so I could be wrong. Look, Iran is the sine qua non. The reason that some of these nations have taken a different view of Israel covertly is because of Iran. But I think it's beyond just Iran when a country recognizes there are economic benefits to aligning with Israel. And there are already Israeli businessmen going to the Gulf states, sometimes on their own passports or sometimes with that insert page that you take in and out of the passport.

So I think Iran starts this whole ball rolling, but then there are other benefits once you can see the world in that different way and you see the strategic alliance between the Arab states and Israel versus the Persian state of Iran. Tevi, Peter here once again. You know politics well. You served on the Romney campaign. You've written a marvelous book called Fight House on rivalries in the White House, exposing that what those of us who've worked there have always known, which is it's a snake pit. I want to ask a blended question here. Start with the Middle East and then get you back to the political campaign. How much credit does the Trump administration deserve for what has

happened? It strikes me that the answer is more than the press is giving it this morning. And how competent does the Trump administration seem, both with regard to handling the press to trumpet this new development and with regard to the nuts and bolts of politics? How good does that campaign seem? Can this guy, Biden's been leading in the polls for what? Essentially throughout the COVID crisis, which is now four or five months. Can Trump turn it around?

Yeah, that's a good question. And let me bring it back to Fight House, which, Peter, you very kindly blurbed. And I also cite the Ricochet podcast in Fight House, I cite episode 360, where you made this great point about that there's always been fighting. And there was lots of fighting in the Reagan White House, but we didn't have Twitter, Twitter, Twatter to talk about it. So it's a great quote from you that makes the book and the footnotes, Peter. That does sound like Peter, I have to say. But you're getting to an important point,

which is one of the things I identify in White House that leads to fighting in administrations is ideological, right? There was the fight between Reagan and, I'm sorry, between Mies and Baker was on ideological grounds. They were fighting over stuff that mattered. Mies was conservative and Baker was more of a, I wouldn't say Baker's not conservative, but he was more of a dealmaker. He was what the New York Times called Kamala Harris the other day. He was a pragmatic moderate. Right. He was pragmatic, but you know, he was from Texas and he had conservative tendencies, but he was willing to make deals. And Mies was more of a purist. And I would say that in this

current White House, there are certainly a lot of fights, but they're especially on the issues in which the larger Republican Party has disagreements, immigration and trade. And on the issues in which the larger Republican Party does not disagree, I would say conservative judges, for example, and Israel, Middle East, then there is less fighting. And then you see kind of more competence on those issues. So you don't see the same kind of snake pit on the Israel issues. And I think that allows them to make these kinds of improvements or big gestures like the one with the Israel deal that we just saw

this week. Right. And what about the campaign? How competent are they in politics? You know, I just, look, I'm a historian and I look back once I have documents and I can make assessments. It's just hard to say. The campaign is obviously driven by its principle. And you always talk about how the more disciplined team wins. I mean, that's not a disciplined principle, right? I mean, he says things that he feels he wants to say at that moment, and the campaign can't control him. You've had this before with Reagan.

There was the whole let Reagan be Reagan. You want to let Reagan be his unvarnished self. But it often takes place in the context of, okay, we have a larger message and we're going to push that message. If the campaign and the candidate don't always agree on what the message of the day is, then you're going to have problems. Let's go back to Baker for a moment. I mean, he was relentless about message discipline. What did he and Deaver have? They had message of the day. Every single day. This is our message and we're going to push it and we're going to get the media to report it on it, even if they're biased against us. And they were pretty good at that. Well, it does take a sustained attention span.

And showing that I have none, I'm going to change the subject and go to something else. This cultural trip. Some artists have signed a letter saying that they don't want politicians to use their songs in which the meaning might be misconstrued or twisted or inapt. I always thought it was very strange that Republicans would play Born in the USA at all. If you look at the lyrics, I don't think that song means what they thought it means. It's clear that Fleetwood Mac loved the Gore and Clinton guys playing Don't Stop Thinking About Tomorrow, but I think that Fleetwood Mac should have been mortified that their song was eternally twinned with the horrifying sight of these stiff people up on

stage attempting to dance, which rendered the entire band uncool for about 10 years until the half-life changed. So how does this work exactly? Are we then to accede to the artist's demand and say that we should never use their art in a way in which they did not intend? Are we to consult them? Are we to apply this to the graphic arts? Does everybody have to be ideologically completely twinned with the artist in order to quote or cite their work. Where does this go? Well, look, this is a longstanding battle between liberal musicians and Republican candidates. So you correctly note that Reagan played Ford in the USA, and Bruce Springsteen complains about that. And George H.W. Bush plays Don't Worry, Be Happy, and Bobby McFerrin complains about that.

So it is something that goes on campaign after campaign. But the the artists they sign what are known as these blanket license deals and that means that a venue can play whatever music is in that blanket license deal and the artists get some money as a result and if the artists want to say okay this venue can play my music at that venue can't then that could change their copyright protection. And they need to start thinking about that. So they can't just say, I don't want certain people to play my music at their venues that have purchased this blanket license agreement. Well, I mean, I'm waiting for, I mean, everything's been politicized these days. Everybody has to choose a side. I'm waiting actually for artists to just get out there and start requesting that people with whom they

disagree intellectually, and again, we're talking artists to just get out there and start requesting that people with whom they disagree intellectually and again, we're talking artists, just simply avoid their music entirely. That we end up with two... That's what they do, James. But the interesting thing is that it's not necessarily a bad thing for a Republican candidate

if some lefty musician complains about their using the song. There are political advantages. So the only thing that the artists have to get a Republican to stop using their music under these blanket agreements at the venues is the supposed embarrassment. If Bobby McFerrin says, oh, don't use my music, and Bush says, okay, Bobby McFerrin, I'll listen to you, and I won't use your music.

But if the Republican says, you know what, I don't care if some lefty artist complains about me because that actually has political benefits to me, then the artists really have no power over the candidates and whether they use the music or not. Teddy, it's been great to have you on. And I love somebody we can talk about history and politics and culture and music and all the rest of it. So you've guaranteed yourself another slot here at the big show coming up soon. Can't wait. Thank you. Thanks, Tevi. The book, again, is Fight House. Fight House. Fight House. Great book.

You know, I didn't mention this at the time, but I remember Rush Limbaugh used to be large. I mean, not just culturally so, but he used to be physically large, right? And I remember Chrissy Hine complained about him using a Pretenders song for his intro music, which he did for years. I'm not sure if he still does. Probably does.

It's Ohio. And, again, it's a song about going back to Ohio and finding your city gone, done away by deindustrialization and suburban strip malls and all the rest of it. And it's a Chrissy Hynde song, and she's great, and the Pretenders are great, all the rest of it. It's a Chrissy Hines song, and she's great, and the presenters are great, and the rest of it. But I remember somebody calling up to Rush's show and talking about how much she hated him and his show. She even hated his theme music because it sounded fat. And ever since then, we're talking 15 years, I have never been able to hear that opening waddling wet bass line

without thinking exactly that. But I'm sure the royalty check's cleared and i'm sure that everybody else complaining about their song all of a sudden finding a new audience might think well here's a check i'm going to donate it where i want to do i've got some new attention etc but no the virtue signaling is strong amongst all these days right but again i'm you know i'm i it's impossible to to listen to the music that i do without knowing that roughly 65 of the people i'm listening to hate my guts for reasons that they don't know because they assume certain things about my politics there's no hiding there absolutely isn't as a matter of fact in the old days if you wanted to get music uh well you know you you guys are old enough to remember cassettes. Peter,

Peter and I are probably... Oh, Peter, come on! You remember the distinctive clunk-clunk that an 8-track... I remember real to real. That's how old I am. Oh, okay. You're the guy then in the Eames chair with the slippers and his pipe like you have to listen to the T-Act

and marveling at the highs and the lows. I got it. I got it. I got it. But then again, you know, after that, we all had to rip our records and make them into MP3s.

And then there are the people who didn't have them in the first place. And they had to go on dodgy sites like Napster and LimeWire and the rest of it. And who knows what kind of sins you accumulate. Oh, you got all these viruses. You just was very insecure. Well,

you did. And that would be a, that would be an interesting point. It still happens, by the way. Well, if I was advertising antiviral software, I would say, Rob, that's pretty good. But it's the point that... Encrypting data is hard. Well, it's not even an encryption matter. It is a privacy matter. In the olden times, if you wanted a pirate, which was wrong, and we can have that debate on Ricochet if you want, but it's wrong, you would be leaving your IP address all over the place. Well, today,

even if you're doing legitimate things on the internet, you're leaving your IP address everywhere. And you think, hey, who cares? So what? They can't trace it to me. Well, you think I'm using incognito mode. I'm invisible. I'm Claude Rains. They'll never find me. No, let me tell you something incognito mode does not hide did I say in incognito incognito Kamala Harris incognito mode does not hide your activity no it doesn't matter what mode you use or how many times you clear your browsing history empty cache empty cache wife's coming home no your internet service provider can still see every single website you've ever visited and that's why why, even when I'm at home, I never go online without a VPN.

ExpressVPN. Doesn't matter if you get your internet from Verizon or Comcast or USI that I got here. In the US, they can legally sell your information to ad companies, and that results in ads. ExpressVPN is an app that reroutes your internet connection through their secure server so your ISP can't see the sites you visit.

Express VPN also keeps track of your information securely by encrypting 100% of your data with the most powerful encryption available. Most of the time, you are not even going to notice you've got Express VPN on. It runs seamlessly in the background, and it's so easy to use. All you have to do is tap one button, and you are protected. Express VPN is available for all your devices. And by that, I mean phones, your computers, even your smart TV, which may be phoning home from time to time. So there's no excuse for not using it. There really isn't. And you can protect your online activity today with a VPN that's rated number one by CNET and

Wired. Visit this exclusive link, expressvpn.com slash ricochet, and you can get an extra three months free on a one-year package. That's expressvpn.com slash ricochet, express.com slash ricochet to learn more. And our thanks to ExpressVPN for sponsoring this, the Ricochet Podcast. And now, and now... And now... You're doing so well. All right. The member post of the week, the James Lylex post of the week chosen is by Sage Wolkenfeld. It's called The T-Shirt.

Quote, a woman does not have to be modest in order to be respected. End quote. This is a quote from a T-shirt worn by an otherwise scantily clad female model in a magazine. According to this T-shirt, modesty doesn't matter anymore, that it's archaic and we've got better things to do. But the T-shirt is wrong. It's not our values that need changing, but ourselves. Modesty is what we need to strive for, not to use excuses for our problems. And it's the member post of the week because, you week because you can go to any site in the world you want

and you're going to find people yelling about politics. What a surprise. What you get at Ricochet is culture, music, arts, entertainment, politics, lots of politics, lots of each other's throats in a kind and gentle fashion. But I thought the post was interesting because it brought up ideas of comportment and dress and the rest of it.

If you spend your life on BuzzFeed, of course you believe that essentially going out in nothing but a thong and sunglasses is empowering. And then there's the other side that says that everybody should be clad from toe to crown in black fabric. Somewhere in the middle there is a discussion about how we comport ourselves in public, which is what this got to be. I feel bad when I go downtown, for example, dressed just in a Speedo. That's me. I like to actually... Yeah, I think other people feel the same way when they see that.

I'm not so sure about that, Rob. I mean, I'm not so sure. Keeping it pretty much together for my age. Plus, let us not forget the canary yellow muscle shirt can we please forget the canary um but i like to go downtown in a canary yellow tie and just sort of pop and dread and look like i belong to an adult society and that's one of the things i wonder about the loss of the office and the depletion of downtown populations is whether or not as a society we i mean we we've been casual for years, right? And now we're going to get to the point where people know we're, we're tie sales are going to plummet 60% because nobody has to, it's horrifying. It's,

I mean, now, if you think that, that to dress as you want and to be as casual as you want at all times is a, is a liberating thing that's fabulous. I don't know that that's a good thing. When you put on a suit, you become, or you should, the man who's wearing the suit. When you put on a tie, I stand a little straighter. I feel a little more grown up, which is preposterous to say at my age, but there you have it. What do you guys think? May I frame the question this way to Brother Rob?

Brooks Brothers has gone out of business good thing or bad well you know i'm a free marketeer so i feel like it's a good thing they they didn't do they didn't keep their eye on the ball they didn't do what they should be doing they didn't they got a little too big a little too broad a little too wide um look the the business itself has gone out of business, but the brand remains. So if somebody can pull it together and start selling what people want to buy, they may do pretty well. Look, J-Press, which is a much smaller rival, but basically the same kind of traditional men's clothing.

Three times as expensive. Yeah, well, okay. But so basically the same kind of, you know, traditional men's clothing. Yeah, well, OK, but it's just not. Well, yes, I would say that that's true. But that is also part of the problem with Brooks Brothers, which is that by by getting into outlet malls and things like that, it kind of lost its way as the idea that if you're wearing a Brooks Brothers suit, you are projecting sobriety and power and competence. So in general, I would say these things are good. Disruption's good. Somebody will figure it out. The question is do people still need to wear a suit?

And if they don't need to wear a suit, what do you wear to convey all the things that a suit used to convey? People still need to do that. So the question is, what do you do? What do you wear? I don't see that many ties anymore. I didn't see many ties around Midtown. But every now and then, people will wear a suit. I know bankers and lawyers and friends of mine who would wear a suit twice a week, maybe twice a week.

And then once and twice a week, what they would call business casual, which is just a blazer. So wait a minute. You're telling me that even on the southern end of Manhattan Island, even in the financial district, people are these days, people only wear suits a couple times a week and they often go – and go tireless often? Tireless often and then maybe a suit twice a week if they have a reason to. Yeah, it became a much more – and that hurt men in a lot of ways because then like now men have to like think about what they wear and what the appropriateness of their dress has been, whereas before it was just like, well, you just wear a suit. You're fine. And places like Brooks Brothers tried to capitalize on on that but they went a little too far they got a little too over their skis okay so so the the dressing is disappearing even in the financial district and what puzzles me is that my friend rob long does not rail against that as

another sign of the decline of the west you You sound perfectly comfortable about the whole thing. I'm stunned as well. Yeah, because here's why. I don't wear one. So it seems to me like a pure hypocrisy if I said to people, well, I know I produce sitcoms, so I basically wear a polo shirt every day. But you, you over there, you should wear a suit. No, that's not fair. But I also feel like there's been this bizarre inflation in what people will, what men certainly will pay for a suit, which is strange.

You know, if you walk through fancy departments like Bergdorf Goodman, the suits are beautiful. They're from Italy. And they're like $6,000 to $8,000. Yeah, that's ridiculous. And that seems like if you if i bought that suit i would not be wearing it every day that's for sure no and again i lament this from a theoretical standpoint uh like rob i don't wear a suit very often and it would be it's hypocritical for me to point around and say all of you people in positions of power you should

be wearing suits so i can tell who you are and they should be good suits. Me? Yeah. When I put on a suit, I reach in the pocket and there's a 50-50 shot that there's going to be a funeral notice or a wedding something because that's the last thing that I did. But at the same time, the idea, I mean, the last suit that I got, I went to Macy's and I bought it and I had them chalk me up. And there's something comfortably ancient about buying a suit and having some guy who's got a tape around his neck and a piece of chalk working that little magic and doing what he's doing. Yes, yes. It's something about being a man in the West in the 19th century, the 20th century, in the 21st century. It's something enduring. The tie is enduring. The collar may go up and down and around and curves, but the collar is enduring. There are elements of these costumes that speak of a time and a culture and a series of values.

Broadly defined, I mean, Lord knows it's really broadly defined, but still, that was us. And I'm not sure what comes along next it seems entirely possible that the silver jumpsuit that we always see in the 1950s movies of people in the field maybe that's just going to be it that it's it's that in it won't be silver it'll be green and it'll be that green screen color so that when people go on zoom they can then digitally add whatever clothing or pattern they want. And so it's just green screen jumpsuits for all in the 24th century. But, you know, I have two fantasies. Next time I have a show on the air and it's doing well, I'm going to do this thing I've always wanted to do, and that's to go to Anderson Shep in london and have oh absolutely and

expensive as hell but like they just they look great and they and they do all that stuff from the beginning i mean they measure everything your fingers they look at your ass you kind of watch you where they do all sorts of stuff this is wait a minute they don't measure your fingers yeah they measure everything they get it all like they're just trying to figure out. Because all that proportion, like fine tailoring is really just about proportion. It's not about, it's really not about the individual things. It's about how it all works together. That's what I've been told by fine tailors. But there's a guy in Gowanus in Brooklyn.

His name is Sean Crowley. And I can say it because I know he will never listen to this because he's big liberal um but he runs a thing called crowley vintage and he worked for raff lauren for a long time he's this genius men's clothing vintage guy and he just is fantastic and he has a big collection of stuff some of it's not for sale a lot of it's you know a lot of it's from england a lot of these old savile rose suits that he gets, and he kind of repairs them. And I go over there every now and then, and it's been closed for a while, but I become friendly with him. And he'll show you a blazer, and he'll say something like, look at those buttonholes. Those are hand-done buttonholes.

Or he had a whole series of 1950s-style sort of Hawaiian shirts, and you can look at the buttons. The buttons are coconut. And all those little details um they're really kind of great and i i hope it isn't so much what you wear i think for me it's just that i just hope that it'll still have the evidence of the human hand that somebody some artisan did this and it and it's pretty spectacular um i did that's that's what i hope we don't lose because those people are pretty amazing. On the other hand, I don't want to be in a position where I'm sitting up in some

garret with Julia after we've had some proper coffee, and she has a shirt for me, and she says, look at these buttons. They're coconut. It's hand-sewn. Signs of a bygone world, signs of something that we've lost forever that you look back with nostalgia and amazement that never existed in the first place. On the other other hand i look at those people who obsess over over all hawaiian shirts and say oh please it's just a shirt i i i like this now is that we now have the title for the second volume of rob's memoirs the midlife volume of rob's memoirs coconut buttons coconut buttons yeah that sounds like my, I should say, that was my stage name for 20 years.

I was going to say that. Coconut Buttons opened for Sinatra Sands in 61. Sure. I was back when you had to tell jokes and play. You couldn't just... Louis Prima's band was doing the backup. I know. It was a great act. The grass skirt,

the whole bit. Oh, yeah. Worst mob name ever, by the way. What are you going to do? One more question for you guys, but first I want to note this. This podcast was... We're not done. I just got to say this because if I say it and we're done, you go

and you don't listen. So listen. The Bradley Foundation, that's B-R-A-D-L-E-Y Foundation, CarShield, and ExpressVPN. If you support them, you don't listen. So listen, the Bradley Foundation, that's B-R-A-D-L-E-Y Foundation, CarShield, and ExpressVPN. If you support them, you support us, and you get lots of neat stuff. You're going to be smarter. Your car is going to be safe, and your internet browsing is going to be hidden. What more do you want from us? So if you could please, what more?

I know what you want. You want me to not ask you to go to Apple and give us five stars, okay? I'm not going to ask you to go to Apple and give us five stars, which would just, of course, you know, make the show more popular and make more people come to Rickshay and give us money. So, so we last longer. I ain't going to do that this time. One last thing, guys, um, HBO max has now added a proper social context intro to blazing saddle so that people who watch this completely absurd, ridiculous and delightful American movie are not horrified by, by attitudes that they they find offensive um do you think this will solve everything i mean i know senator harris's uh vp pick this week solved like 97 of it is this the last three percent that's going to be solved

that's it that's just another corp that isn't there for viewers it's there for hbo and they some executive some little mid-level executives who we've got a problem with this and this gets them off the hook that's it's like tevi it's like the what you were discussing with tevi troy a moment ago artists protest but they take all the money all the same from the contract right this is just one more little ridiculous semi-cynical little ploy by a large corporation. That's all. Rob, you're next. I mean, Rob is next. No, Rob is next because, cheers, what's the theme song? A place where everybody knows your name? Well, hey, what if you've transitioned in the intervening years? The name that they know, they're dead naming you. So we

can't exactly say with any certainty that they do indeed know your name rob right that's true um i would just say that blazing saddles is a unique trouble a unique problem for blazing saddles because the n-word is so prominent in it there's no way to cut it there's no way to cut around it the the movie exists for the n-word and the n-word exists for the movie um and unfortunately it's funny um and so they had they're in a terrible position because they just don't know what to do like if it's funny like i guess we have to use it but um i would be interested to know what the what the context how you would contextualize that word written by Mel Brooks and on screen with Cleavon Little, who played the African-American lead in that movie. To me, it's like, well, that's the problem, and I'm not sure this is going to solve it.

I don't think that you're – I don't know. I don't think that in the contemporary society you're allowed to contextualize that word i just i feel like this what what what they're trying to do is they're trying not to lose glazing saddles because it's funny and it's beloved and people like it and um it's it's one thing to cancel somebody that you know nobody cares about it's another thing to cancel something that people really do think is still funny um and pay for it they want the revenue yeah well in the future it'll be difficult to um well right now there's lots of physical copies of that movie people have the dvd they still have the vhs they have it on their computer but eventually

they won't eventually it will only exist as a non-corporeal thing and they don't actually have to get rid of it. They can just sort of lose access to it. I'm sorry, your connection was dropped. I'm sorry, we're having trouble accessing that library right now. Choose something else. I mean, the ease with which a whole bunch of things can be just sort of shuffled off to the margins, the dusty corners and the attics of the libraries is quite easy. Somebody pointed out yesterday that the only way you can get a copy of Apocalypto by Mel Gibson is on one of the obscure little streaming systems it hasn't been released it's again it's just languished and you know why because because it's the most mel gibson email gibson movie ever i'm not talking the guns blazing

cop shows it's it's it's quite a piece of work if you've seen it and contain some inconvenient assertions well enough of contains some inconvenient assertions. Well, enough of our own inconvenient assertions. I said, you know, I only decided to end the show after we've extended our running time by at least seven minutes. I'd like to thank everybody who's listened. I think Peter and Rob is ever for showing up. It's great. It's a joy to talk to you guys.

And we'll see everyone in the comments at Ricochet 4.0. James, I think Coconut Buttons needs music as performed on a ukulele. Could you handle that? I will. My daughter's got a ukulele. Next week, fellas. Next week, boys. Next week.

Boom, boom. I don't know. We'll be right back. Ricochet. Join the conversation. Thank you.