The Ricochet Podcast - Podcasters of the Caribbean

Episode Date: December 5, 2025

Two thirds of the earth is covered by water and the other third is covered by our intrepid trio of Steve Hayward, Charles C.W. Cooke and James Lileks.We start the week in Minnesota where federal officials believe over $1B of taxpayer money was lost in multiple instances of fraud. Then we run the gamut of the J6 Bomber arrest, the Pentagon's actions in the Caribbean, Texas redistricting and the eye-popping price Netflix is spending to acquire Warner Bros.-Discovery.Finally, we ask you to contribute to a GoFundMe project for our old friend Jon Gabriel who announced earlier this week that he's battling "The Big C."

And now a look at the forecast. We're seeing lots of wind, plenty of sunshine to come, and a long-term outlook that's bright for Ireland. At Airgrid, our forecast is for a sustainable energy future. We're upgrading the electricity grid so every home, business and community can benefit. We're powering up Ireland. Learn more at airgrid.i. If you love amazing Christmas value, you love Aldi's board beer, quality-assured, fresh whole Irish turkeys from 899, in store from December 20th, ready to crown the Christmas table.

Our fest of frozen party food, including southern fried chicken bites, 12 duck spring rolls, and a vegan party selection, all at just $1.99. That'll get you in the party mood. If you love Christmas, you love Aldi, while stocks last. Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country. Mr. Gorbachev tear down this wall. It's the Rikoshae podcast with Stephen Hayward and Charles C.W. Cook. I'm James Lylex, and today we're going to talk about everything from the Caribbean to cable TV.

So let's have ourselves a podcast. President Trump and Secretary Hegset have made it clear that presidentially designated narco-terrorist groups are subject to lethal targeting in accordance with the laws of war. Secretary Hegseth authorized Admiral Bradley to conduct these kinetic strikes. Admiral Bradley worked well within his authority and the law, directing the engagement to ensure the boat was destroyed and the threat to the United States of America was eliminated. Welcome, everybody. It's the Rickettsay podcast, episode number 767.

You love it as a plane. You'll adore it as a podcast, and you can join us at ricochet.com. Well, you can be part of the most stimulating conversations and community on the web, period. I'm James Lillick's here in cold and snowy Minnesota, where it's instantly Christmassy. And Stephen Hayward joins us from somewhere, some book-lined place and Charles C.W. Cook in, I imagine, Florida, which probably, I don't know, the temp's dipping down into the lower 70s or something. I don't want to hear about it. I hate you. Brutal. Gentlemen, how are you today? I'm good.

I'm warm. Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much. warm warm it was one below yesterday as i was walking the dog and the dog did not want to have any of it frankly so the thing where the dog does his business against a tree and you hear a snapping sound because his stream is frozen and he ties to disengage but enough of that i live here by choice and so do a whole lot of other people including tim waltz who's our governor do you guys find it interesting somehow that all of the things that are being said now about minnesota by everyone from the new york times christopher ruffo to the president himself

didn't seem to come up very much when he was a vice-presidential candidate. Why was that? Well, I hope you're not suggesting, James, that the American media is in some way biased toward one of the major political parties and, say, suppresses or refuses

to cover stories that it thinks might hurt that party. No, I wouldn't say anything. That's treason. That's calumny, that I will not hear of such words spoken against my former profession. but it might actually be something that people consider and suspect. Stephen, we keep being told that this story has being told. Everyone's been talking about the fraud.

The fraud is vetted. The fraud was baked into the cake. Everyone knew about it. Did you? Well, I did only because, you know, my former writing partner, Powerline, Scott Johnson has been reporting on this for several years, even attending most of the trials in the courtroom, which, you know, not many other reporters are doing.

I put this in a larger context. The latest issue of the New York Review of Books just landed in my mailbox. Now, I read it so you don't have to, and it's good opposition research. And the lead review is of Camilla Harris's 107 days book, and it's absolutely savage. And this is not the first review from the left, trashing Harris. And I think Waltz is now fair game, too. I think Democrats want to demonize Biden, Harris, and Waltz. for, you know, their obvious mediocrity and worse.

So it's to put them behind us. And so now it's open season on them because it's safe for them to do so. And maybe they think necessary. What are the exact criticisms and remarks that they have to say about Harris? Are they critiquing the book for being banal and obvious and boring and unburdened by what was? Or are they actually going after the individual herself as being an insufficiently marvelous inspirational? Well, they don't say that directly, but that's certainly hinted at, and that she lacked courage, certainly, to push out Biden earlier, along with the rest of the party leadership.

By the way, it's a very broad gauge indictment of the sort of upper reaches of the Democratic Party, which, as I say, these days I like to read the left attacking Democrats with a bowl of popcorn handy because it's fun. I'm a mean person, so. This is all, however, water under the bridge. Tim Walts isn't running for vice president again. eyes will shift from Minnesota or has the president's remarks on the Somali community here actually I don't know let a fire or rekindled a fire under the whole immigration, assimilation, et cetera,

debate, Charles, or is this just going to be something that is waved away, placed in context of previous waves of immigration, no reason to question our gorgeous mosaic, et cetera, et cetera, which is my suspicion that it will all be generally forgotten here, except here in Minnesota, where I think Wals is going to have a little bit more difficulty than he thought. Yeah, he'll be savaged by Czech's notes, Mike Lindell. Right, which is not going to happen. The GOP in Minnesota consistently puts up the strangest, oddest and most ineffective candidate. It's been a long time since they put up somebody who I think could even make a bit of a

hint of an inroad into Minnesota. I mean, Minneapolis, the metro area, solidly blue. No blue, very blue. But beyond that, the outstained, well, we'll see. Once again, yes, Minnesota, the focus of the world, and I hate it. I hate it. I think that they will try and sweep it under the rug. I think they are trying.

One of the things that I have found the most annoying about this is that while many of the Democrats who have criticized Trump's rhetoric have a point at the edge, that is to say, I don't want to hear a president describing people as garbage. And he has painted too broad a brush. I have heard none of them lead with, this is a disgrace and a disservice to the taxpayers of Minnesota, and we're going to prosecute it because it's wrong. It's all.

Yeah, I mean, there's 77 people that they prosecuted. But what I'm saying is that it is all pushback against Trump. And that's only part of the story. they will not acknowledge Tina Smith, is that her name? Yeah. And Amy Klobuchar and Tim Walsh. They won't come out and say, yeah, this is really bad. And it is really bad.

And the other part of it is they've adopted a standard here that they don't adopt in any other circumstance. So I obviously don't follow this as closely as you do, James, because I don't live in Minnesota. but whenever I hear this general topic discussed I hear this phrase the Somali community and they always talk about it as if it is uniform it is a thing to which politicians can ascribe other things or from which they can deduce things the Somali community how dare you etc but now they're all atomized

individuals you can't possibly generalize right we can't refer to the Samar community, that's an attack on the American ideal. Well, okay, I'm open to that. I'm an individualist, but pick one. Don't in one circumstance say, the Somali community thinks, we must do this for the Somali. And then in the other circumstance, say, well, you can't refer to this as a Somali fraud ring, which it is. That's very annoying to me. Yes. Well, we'll go back. Go on. So I think there's a second subtext at work here. Then one reason they don't call it out, Charles, I think, is at some point in the last 15 years, I think it actually dates back to the aftermath of the financial crisis in 2008. The left decided that all these social welfare

programs were Ayrsat's redistribution of wealth. And they severed the link between, you know, what we used to call either deserving poor or, you know, people who were, you know, genuinely needed government assistance, which Democrats used to pay lip service to at least, and sometimes actually took action like Bill Clinton 30 years ago with welfare reform. And, You started seeing after the great financial crisis that the number of people on disability doubled. They weren't that many more disabled, but this is a welfare program that people could apply to and we'd give them out. And we learned here during the government shutdown, I thought it kept up with these things, but I was shocked to learn that there are 42 million Americans on SNAP, which we used to call food stamps. And by the way, maybe the fact that it's now a card that you get.

And so you look like the next person with a credit card of the checkout line, instead of having to pull out those stamps out of your wallet, which, you know, the ever-sensitive leftist and social workers said stigmatize people who are on food stamps, right? Well, you know, we have extraordinary numbers of people on all these different public assistance programs. And I think for a lot of people on the left, you say fraud, and they don't think of it that way, because I think this is long overdue redistribution of wealth. It's not as direct as we might like with a wealth tax and all the rest or, you know, an official universal basic income. But it's a rough substitute and they're all for it. And that's why, they're uninterested in policing fraud. By the way, Minnesota is not the only state.

We have a similar scale out in California going back several years now. Unemployment claims during COVID and other COVID programs were massively oversubscribed in a fraudulent way that even some of the state auditors have flagged. And nothing's happened to anyone. There's been no accountability for it. Part of it maybe in the back of their heads, I think you're thinking you're right that it's redistribution and that's necessary good eat the rich kill the billionaires that's part of it a little bit more in the forefront is the idea that we should not be too questioning of the people who are doing this and these organizations because that would seem to be i don't know that would have a racialist aspect to it so they're they're kind of squeamish

about that but the thing that strikes me over and over and over again is that minnesota has been eating its seed corn for so long. We've been throwing it in the microwave and dousing it with butter, forgetting that what this state had ever since, well, trace it back however long you wish, but it's got that Scandinavian Nordic social welfare model where everybody contributes a high amount and is guaranteed of a sane, civil, sensible run society because there's high social trust, there's cohesion, there's cultural cohesion. We're all part of it. That completely breaks down when you introduce into it people who just simply do not share that particular mindset it just it does and you you can't say that we we need cultural diversity on one hand

and then on the other hand to say oh but the other diverse cultures will regard this fountain of money this corneocopy of cash the same way that the the other previous minnesota do because they won't that's just not the basic culture from which they come so yeah Yeah. And it won't change. It simply won't change because of the monolithic nature of the DFL and the people who will vote for it no matter what, because to vote for an R is to be Oswald Mosley. Yeah. Well, you mentioned a disability. One of the things that I found interesting this week is not just the people who claim disability in order to get a government benefits, but a study that showed that on several major prestigious U.S. campus, 20, 30, 40 percent at Stanford, I think, of the students regard themselves as some form. of disabled. And here it's a completely different thing. Here it is the, you know, the disabilities are more neurological in form, more psychological or gender related to the rest of it. And they're ending up having to craft these innumerable compensations and accommodations for people who

basically are fine. But it's a badge now of your specialist to have one of these diverse, to have a disability. It's a, it's, it actually elevates you to some to a more exalted status and between that and the government largest for claiming yourself to be so is not good anyway that's can I give a slightly more cynical take on that I would love it I'm not exactly sure I've been all rainbows and unicorns and happy pink pastels but go ahead no well I think that part of this as you say is that people want the badge because they think that it puts them in the special category but I think a lot of it stems from the left's inability to understand the immutability of human nature, it's good, old-fashioned

advantage-seeking. It's people who are often from good and wealthy families who have high IQs, who are in no way the types for which these programs or dispensations were set up, recognizing that their faculty and the bureaucracy around them are weak and pliable and that if they say a bunch of magic words, then they can eke out a little more space between them and the next guy and come out with better job prospects and higher salary. I think it is the same sort of human conduct, we would have expected 2,000 years ago and 10,000 years ago. Right. If these things existed, there's probably a Sumerian, you know, stone on which somebody has hammered some hieroglyphs about how they have a broken leg and therefore are entitled

to a crutch that the state should provide. I'm Greg Carumbus. Join Jim Garrity of National Review and me each weekday for the three martini lunch podcast. We'll give you the good, bad, and crazy news of the day. and lots of laughs too. Find us right here on the RICOchet Audio Network at ricochet.com or wherever you get your podcasts. Looking for the right buyer for your business, start your next chapter in confidence

with a successful Irish entrepreneur who's ready to invest. At SME Nextchapter.com, we understand succession is not just a sale. It's about protecting your customers, your staff, and your legacy. If you are an SME with a strong management team, a genuine minimum abitda of one million euro or more,

or an advisor ready for a private check, Please get in touch. Begin your next chapter at SME Nextchapter.com. A confidential conversation you can trust. Well, let's move on to something a little bit happier and stranger. The J6 bomber, all of a sudden, all of a sudden they got the guy. All of, none of that happened. Do you think that a fire was lit under some agencies or some new information suddenly surfaced?

and is he who we thought he would be? First of all, I think there is a legitimate question of why the FBI wasn't actively pursuing this case under Biden. I mean, they were saying at the time that we think this is a side show. It was, you know, a hoax. It was not serious. And it turned out that it was. And apparently the investigation involved a lot of that old-fashioned deep digging that the FBI can do what. I mean, they place something like 200,000 transactions to trace the,

to try and ferret out this guy, you know, buying the parts to make these bombs. This guy wasn't like a unabomber who made his own screws, if you remember the way that guy made his bombs way back when. And so you wonder why that didn't happen. And I hope somebody asked that question of the previous FBI regime. But then the guy looks like, and it's early yet, but he looks like he's kind of a nut. He's saying, I thought the election was stolen. And so he's going to plant bombs outside both the RNC and DNC.

it's a bit strange. I think we're going to find this guy as a nutcase. Yeah. And not part of a conspiracy. I'll put it that way. But not an insub. I mean, but not, you know, a nutcase that he thought odd things, but not an insane man.

Because if you can do all these things, you get undetected. I reserve insanity for the people who are running naked with long hair through Times Square, screaming about the demons that are clawing at them. I mean, I don't say a guy who believes peculiar things is mad. He's just, well, when I say nuttka,

I didn't necessarily mean that in the usual psychological sense, but he's one of these persons who has odd, contradictory, and unconventional views that don't make rational sense to a normal person. Charles, do you agree,

or did you think that he has been looking over his shoulder all of these years, wondering why these guys aren't coming for him, or what? Well, I assume he's been doing that. I do think it's possible to be crazy and then to latch on

to political messages that you didn't rationally arrive at. And I often tried to draw that distinction when talking about people who commit crimes. There's the sort of person who says, well, I'm being controlled by my toaster. And then there's a sort of person who is crazy and then reads in the newspaper that a boat sank and becomes obsessed with that and decides that he did it. And, you know, he's not a maritime expert. You wouldn't blame people who are interested in boats. It just so happened that he came across that as an explanation.

I don't think we know enough about this guy to know whether he was either of those or the third category, which is a sane of evil political actor who concluded that the election had been stolen and they tried to blow up the government. And there are people in that category. There are people of that. You're right. The early 20th century in the 60s and 70s abound with completely rational people who believed evil things, who were content to bomb away, the people who bombed the, you know, the capital back of the days, they're not nuts, they're not crazy, they just believe this is the most efficacious way

to make their point. I mean, you mentioned the Unabomber, for instance of his case. Yeah, he was rational. And, you know, the distinction you would draw maybe is between the man who attacked the Navy yard 10 years ago who thought that he was being controlled through the walls of his apartment by the government crazy and the man who killed charlie kirk who i think was a political actor who decided to advance his political agenda with a murder and i just don't know enough about this guy yet to decide which one he was well we'll find out elsewhere around the planet uh we're having a big

debate about whether Pete Hick-Seth should go because they're being, they're, they're double-tapping the guys who are bringing the drugs in. And as we're informed, Venezuela is not bringing an awful lot of fentanyl in. These guys are probably bringing in something else like cocaine. It's one of those issues that had it been Obama, I tend to believe that we would be talking about the bold and decisive potus steps that were being taken to keep Americans safe and healthy. but we're having a big debate about these guys because the New York Times I think ran a story about one of the other boats

and took a look at the guys who were on it and you know they weren't really cartel guys they were just you know they loved soccer they went to church and the rest of it and just happened to find themselves in this boat bringing drugs into the country Charles I know that you are a stickler for such things that even though something

we may say good good blow them up that you are one of the types who will you know defer and demure so deferred demure away well it's because i love them i love pedro i love pedro the cocaine trafficker i hate the u.s i hate it's a military i want heavier and pedro to succeed and to bring in as many dangerous and perhaps fatal drugs as they can and that's as i've learned this week james the only reason that anyone could possibly have any objections to this action

no look I object to this for a couple of reasons one there is no congressional authorization for this action there's none there's no declaration of war there's no authorization for the use of military force there's not even a statute that in some tangential way provides the executive branch with the capacity to preemptively kill those it suspects suspects not proved suspects of drug running I object to it because while this is not always the case, those boats do not pose a threat to the U.S. military, thankfully. The U.S. military is extremely competent and powerful and is entirely capable of stopping, boarding and searching these boats without opening fire first. If those boats open fire on the U.S. military, then blow them out of the water. But that isn't the case. This is not a threat. And I object to it because we are seeing the abuse of language here from the apologists. in a way that usually and rightly upsets conservatives. We're seeing those drug traffickers described as terrorists.

We're seeing cocaine described as chemical weapons. These things are not true. So I am not, all jokes to the contrary, a fan of drug traffickers, but I don't think that's the material question here. I think the question here is under what circumstances are we going out into the Caribbean? in and opening fire without questions, I have a big problem with it. Yeah. And to me, the question of the double tap and Pete Higgs's role, which I am skeptical of

the post reporting, which I think was largely superseded by the Times' reporting, is secondary. It's important because it's now been raised, but it's secondary to the material point here, which is, sorry, at what point did we get involved in this and on whose authority? Well, Stephen, can you tell us the fig leaf of authority? under which this is being conducted? Well, yeah, so I disagree to a large extent, but not completely with Charlie's point of view. By the way, about the double tap, has anyone seemed to notice what happened by focusing in on the second strike? The objection up until now has been the first strike for some of the reasons Charlie and others make,

but suddenly this is given, oh, it's almost as though the premise here is, oh, the first strike, I guess, is okay, but not a second one. I think it's kind of a, you almost wonder if Trump thought of that on purpose. I think that here's where I differ with Charlie. I do think that it is within the commander-in-chief's powers to order these strikes with the military. I do think more should be done to justify it, though. That's where we agree. I did check with our pal John U.

Because it's easier than doing the research myself. When President Jefferson sent out the Marines to go after the Barbary pirates in 1803, there was no direct congressional authorization. They did, however, make an appropriation or some resolution to say the Marines can go on a training exercise, which isn't exactly what they did, but it's better than nothing. So I think the larger context here, and here's where I think I probably am closer to Charlie's view is, you know, we have the slow tillow down in Venezuela. We don't need all those boats to chase these drug runners. It's pretty clear that we are trying to affect regime change in

Venezuela, although we don't want to say that directly because that phrase is toxic. And by the way, I think I've said this before, if I haven't, I'll just say it again. I'm convinced that Venezuela is a dedicated enemy of our country and has been collaborating closely with the Iranians, among others, probably the Chinese, and who knows who else. In other words, I suspect if we knew all the facts, there would be a reasonable cause of belly on our part. However, we aren't being told these facts. We're not being given a case.

And, you know, once again, my mind runs back to 1983 when out of the blue, we invaded Grenada to rescue some American students, the medical school, and essentially get rid of the crazy regime that was further to the radical communist side than the existing communist. It was a confused scene, right? However, what people should know is, remember, because I do, is in March of that year, the grenade invasion was October. In March of that year, Ronald Reagan gave a Oval Office Address. Presidents don't seem to make those anymore, talking entirely about Central America. It was actually his first major speech about Central America, and he was laying out the case of why we need to contain Nicaragua.

But along the way, he said, you know, it turns out that the Cubans are building this huge military installation at Grenada. What are they doing that for? It can't be any good. So Reagan had told us ahead of time what the reasons were for for watching out for Grenada. And if you remembered that when the invasion happened, it made some sense. So we're not getting an explanation for what we're trying to do in Venezuela, and I think that is a mistake. Agreed. But to the two points that Charles made, I want to know whether or not these ships have sailed and sunk. The first is finding some sort of congressional action that justifies these things. We like to think that the president goes to the houses of Congress, makes the point, makes the point to the American people. There's a vote. That seems to be the way we think things ought to be, but they aren't, especially when it comes to things like budgets. We don't sit down to discuss individual items in the budget. We just pass, yay or nay, a blob. which, again, is not how we think things should be.

And when it comes to the language, I agree with Charles. They're not terrorists. They're bad guys, but they're not terrorists in the sense of people who are trying to use violence to achieve a political means. And if you want to recatocrize fentanyl and cocaine as chemical warfare, it's not because that denudes the original items of their power. But at the same time, what people will tell idealists like Charles is that if we don't start using their tactics, then we're never going to win, that the time for holding fast to these ideals is gone because we have to do things.

Things must be done. So you're quibbling over little things like language when they're quibbling, when they're trying to make the country and the people's safe and healthy. I just don't think anyone who advances that argument would be very pleased with it if it came at them at 100 miles an hour

after they'd been arrested and accused of a crime. Of course not. that's the whole, you know, these are the new rules. You're not going to like them, but everybody always thinks that. But again, they will say, and I'm not making this argument because I don't agree with it. I'm just phrasing it. They will say that we are in this mess precisely because we refused to fight in the same way that the other side did. And I find it hilarious that the Democrats believe that they're out of power because they didn't get as nasty and, you know, as the reply.

Each side seems to accuse themselves, accuse their own side of not being as bad as the other guys. But you know you've heard this on the right from time to time. It's the people who stand there with their principles who get mauled every time and the end result is the end of a society that allows them to have their principles. Right. It's just a little bit odd, isn't it? That argument in the realm of foreign policy

is coming from the people who said that they were America first non-interventionists and being thrown at people such as myself who were accused falsely for the record of being neocon adventurists. I mean, I'm the guy who, as a matter of record, I've written about this, has been uncomfortable on constitutional grounds with the bombing of the Iranian nuclear facilities, with Trump's bombing of Syria in 2017, with Barack Obama's attempted military action in Syria in 2013, in which he cancelled, with the invasion of Libya in 2010. So I'm not what some people assume I am, some sort of foreign interventionist gung-ho type. But I'm nevertheless accused of it of people who say, listen, we have to deal with things at home.

We can't go running around the world playing policemen. And now I'm the naive. I know you're not accusing me this to James. I'm just saying I have been told this. I'm now the naive John Lennon imagined singing pacifist who doesn't understand. stand the imperative that is the United States policing its waters. I find this bizarre. Honestly, I can't quite believe that this has happened given the rhetoric of the last decade. It is. Stephen, let's put it this way. While people like to say good, good, drug boats blown up

stuff that's bad doesn't get to our shores. Good. It may not be a lot, but it's a start and somebody's doing something. And we always like to see something. being done. But if we really wanted to do something about this, there's two things that we have to address, and that is supply and demand. We don't like to talk about demand a lot, because demand puts the onus on the people in America who are taking it. They're not all helpless.

There's nobody coming from Venezuela and prying their mouth open and shoving down a pill and then using a plunger to make sure it's absorbed in their stomach. There isn't. But by the same token, most of it doesn't come from Venezuela. I think that's why a lot of people are surprised. Really? Is drug boats out of Venezuela? Because it's

Mexico, because it's coming through Canada, because it's coming from precursor plants that Chinese provided precursor chemicals. There are other places to start, and maybe we're kind of wondering why. Or, and not necessarily contradicted my first point, do you think that there actually is a lot of stuff going on that we just don't hear about because the seals don't issue an after action report after they've taken out a cartel lab in a Mexican jungle? Well, I mean, in a case of Venezuela, I started wondering about them more than 15 years ago when you started having direct flights from Tehran to Caracas. And you don't need direct flights for people to coordinate their oil output as part of the whole OPEC drama that happens every year. I think this was,

and there have been other periodic reports here and there of Venezuelan support for, or a conduit loss and some of the other bad actors in the world. And I think they're all four, I mean, yeah, the dimensions of where the drugs come from and who's using them and what's the most effective way to reduce it, I don't know what the answers to those are. We've talked about drug treatment and stuff forever. And I was skeptical about the war on drugs for a long time. But I'm now not so sure seeing the results of legalized marijuana that the idea of legalizing hard drugs is such a good idea anymore. Our libertarian friends still think so very much. But I don't know. I think it has a salutary effect if If what I'm saying is correct, I think there would be a salutary effect if Venezuela were halted and turned around. Yeah, we'd like to see them better. I just find a damned audit. I was in Boston over the last week for Thanksgiving. And what do you see in Boston in the skyline?

A big sign for Sitco. Citgo is owned by Venezuela. I didn't know that. Yeah. Yeah, it's a bit complex. They're, I mean, they're headquartered in Houston, but they are owned by the, by petroleum of Venezuela, you know, and so, so yes, it's a state-owned, it's a state-owned company, which is just bizarre.

Yeah, well, I remember just briefly, I mean, the Biden administration relaxed sanctions against Venezuela and Venezuelan oil in return for a Venezuelan predge that they would have an honest and free and fair election that they would follow. And they didn't. And to my knowledge, the Biden administration did not put the sanctions back on. I'm not sure the Trump administration has entirely done. so either. I think we've made some exemptions. I think it's for Chevron to work on some oil projects in Venezuela, in part because Chevron has a, or maybe Exxon, has a big commitment

to the new oil fields in Guyana, which apparently Venezuela covets. And that's an interesting little subtext going on too. Can I ask one more question on this topic? If we put aside my constitutional objections and assume we would need a congressional vote to satisfy the rules and so forth. Is there a case for the United States more generally getting involved within its sphere, a la the Monroe doctrine, that is consistent with a fear of foreign interventionism? In other words, is it reasonable to say we don't want the United States going into the Middle East or Vietnam?

It's too far away. It ends in disaster. But, yeah, if Mexico or Venezuela, or Cuba become a problem, we're going to take them out. Is that a strand of thought that could come back from the early 19th century?

Well, early 90s. Yeah, we're 1980s or 19. Well, actually, that's kind of when it started to change a bit, James. Ronald Reagan's views on this evolved and we're quite curious by the time he left office. Because, you know, the great story on the left was that we, what was it, Guatemala,

we invaded to bail out the United Fruit Company or something. And that whole old story persists. But by the time you got to the end of Reagan's last term, there was the big agitation to invade Panama because Manuel Noriega was implicated in the drug trade and money laundering and all kinds of terrible things. And he was waving around a machete on television. He had the complexion of a pineapple.

He was a weird guy. He was waving around a machete. Right. But they all, you know, the whole national defense establishment came to Reagan and said, We've got to invade Panama, take this guy out. He's a bad guy. And Reagan said, no, I'm not going to do that. I don't want to do that.

Reagan was really quite force-averse on optional things like in Panama. And he wrote in his diary, he says, you know, my travels in Latin America, which were extensive during his two terms, and really have made me sympathize with the view that we, Northern Yankees, have been too aggressive in overseeing their countries and that we should take a lighter approach to Latin America. Right. What was you wrong? Right? No, I don't think he was wrong.

I do think, I guess, sorry, I'm being around about. I think the creative answer to your question, Charlie, is we ought to conceive of something that I'm not, these examples are going to be bad ones for a lot of listeners. We ought to have something that resembles, well, we have the organization of American states. I'm not sure that we're really a part of that. But I think something that's like NATO or like the European Union, but not Bruselized, would be the way to go forward with Latin America. Yeah. There are two things to remember about that time. One is Gene Kirkpatrick saying that there is a distinction between totalitarianism and authoritarianism. And she had a point. And people made fun of her at the time and talked about how this was a distinction without a difference. It was just used to justify. But totalitarian states do not evolve. They crack and sunder and fall apart. Authoritarian states under her view do have the potential to evolve in something more civil and more, you know, less onerous to the people. And the other, many of them became democratic in the 80s, too, right?

Right. And the other was the Brezhnev doctrine, which says that any state that went communist, you know, there's no going back from that. So you combine those two things and you combine Soviet aggression, aggression, yes, diplomatic, military, sneaky, whatever, in the, in Central America, in the 80s and the fact that the Cold War was still going on, you can well understand why the United States had a keen eye on the composition of the government's there because you had Cuba, Nicaragua Falls, El Salvador falls, and the rest of it. It means you have

to get him there with a lot of unsavory characters that, you know, that Oliver Stone doesn't like. But the alternative is to cede the entire lake to, you know, to the Russians in that case. Now that just seems absurd because, as we all know,

they were weak. Gorby was going to come along. He was, Gorby loved peace. He wanted nothing more than, you know, all that BS. But at the time, it was, I keenly remember these things occupying the American psyche for the entirety of the 80s. It was a big deal. So for Charles to say

the 19th, you know, should we get back to the 19th century idea? I mean, no to me. That's, that's my 20s right there. He's caring what goes on there. Now, do we really care whether or not Daniel Ortega is in charge at this moment at Nicaragua, which still to this moment, day, pains

me. Amazing. Probably not. Probably not. Should we worry that much about, you know, should we look at El Salvador as an example, perhaps, that the other states can follow if they want to, you know, reclaim their streets and the safety of their people? Yes, but do we invade if El Salvador's president goes, falls to a military coup?

No, it's not the same because we're not dealing with the Ruskis. And China is much better at just sort of getting what they want with a little money in Belt and Road and getting people on the hook for that. So that's what I have to say about that. I plead extreme youth and beauty for my ignorance. Well, I was there, young men. I was there and I remember.

Well, my favorite joke from that time, James, was from M. Stanton Evans, who said, the Falklands lore between Britain and Argentina, it was really difficult for conservatives because on the one hand, we like imperialism. But on the other hand, we like military. dictatorship. So it's hard to choose. No, no, we didn't. All I know is it made Elvis Costello

very sad, and he wrote a lamenting song about that. Hi, this is Anne Coulter. Welcome to my RICOchet podcast. Anne Coulter, every week on RICOchet, your home to center-right conversation. Hey, that was pretty good. all right well let's step away from the lake in our backyard and go to something else that's like a texas there's scotis has given a green light of that texas redistribution map and we know that gerrymandering and redistribution is a big thing right now because various states are either depending on whether you like california or texas control and drive out the opposition or create uh things that allow diversity to flourish etc etc etc i have not i know virtually nothing about this. So I'm going to throw it out to you guys who no doubt have been absorbing its details keenly and can tell us all what to think. What do I think about this? Well, two quick thoughts. One is, I think I said this before, that gerrymandering was never a scandal

or a threat to democracy until Republicans got good at it. Then suddenly the media and everybody fell into line. But I do think what this Supreme Court order means is that the Voting Rights Act case that was argued a couple months ago has been decided. I mean, the justices always vote on a case the same week they hear them. They can change votes later, but usually not. And so my guess is is that the lower court ruling that struck down the Texas attempted map redrawing was going to fall prey to the Voting Rights Act case, which we probably won't get the opinion on for several months yet because I think the liberal dissenters is probably a six three vote, is my guess, and the liberal dissenters are going to want to scream from the rooftops about how this is all

terrible because it's attacking fundamental voting rights. So I think that's the hint that I take from how quickly the court moved on this. Charles, I'm going to ask you to combine two things. One, your thoughts on redistricting and two, your thoughts on warm sheets. And I'm going to get to you about that in just a second because I have to tell you something, folks. We are coming up to, you know, I think the holidays is what they call them, Christmas or something like that. I hear the songs in the mall. It's December.

We all know what it is. And, you know, Thanksgiving is a little past us now. You're probably relaxing, but you're gearing up because it's going to be a month of doing stuff, the hustle, the bustle. And in all of the time you had ahead of you, you think, what do you look forward to the most? Well, it's the parties. It's the family. It's the friends. But it's also those moments where you can just slow down and not do anything and take a breather, cozy up and just be present in the moment.

Oh, and speaking of presence, he said, with a segue that Rob Long would have stepped on years ago, ask yourself, who's on your Christmas list this year? And who on your shopping list deserves a gift that helps them relax? Now, whether you're a parent, you're a partner, or even if you're doing a little shopping for yourself like me, because I'm in the Sheets Market, there's no going wrong with cozy Earth's luxurious bedding. Cozy Earth's loungewear, or cozy Earth's pajamas.

And no, you can't wear them on the plane. You'll want to, though, because they're that soft. Maybe you'd like to hear from someone who can tell you a little bit more about redistricting and the Cozy Earth experience. That would be Charles, and I'm going to give him a break here. And he doesn't really have to combine the two topics because I know he'd rather tell you about how great these sheets are, Charles. They are great.

They're great. They're breathable. They're comfortable. They are up to my wife's exacting standards, which is very important. They can be slept in and are slept in in the cook household all year round, although, of course, only by people who live in the cook household. So don't show up trying to get into those sheets. You won't be allowed to.

you want to though because they are fantastic sheets that we have enjoyed in the enormous amount of time we spend the sleep which when you think about it is actually kind of alarming yeah well i wish i had a more enormous time i'm uh you know i'm going to get these sheets for the next bed and one of the great things about it uh is the deal you got and when i say deal i you know get this rest assured that knowing cozy earth comes with a hundred nights sleep trial and a 10 year warranty out to tell you how good these things are and how much they stand behind them and how much they know you're going to love them. And now you're going to get them cheaper. Give the gift of everyday luxury this holiday season. Head to cozy earth.com and use the coupon code

ricochet for up to 40% off. I'm not lying. RICOchet code, 40% off. Just be sure to place your order by December 12th and that'll guarantee that it gets there by Christmas. If you're listening to this a little bit later, don't worry. The coupon code ricochet still works. year round for 20% off. And if you get that post-purchase survey, be sure you mentioned that you heard about it right here at Ricochet. Act now before the 12th for 40% off.

That's fantastic. Give the gift of comfort that lasts beyond the holidays and carries into a cozy new year. And we thank Cozy Earth for sponsoring this, the Rikosha podcast. And now that I've completed the endorsement, I wanted to say, and if you come to the cook household

and attempt to sleep in their great sheets, you will be shot. quite possibly so well here's something that charles i know is not in your wheelhouse necessarily but i'm going to ask you about it has to do with media consolidation netflix set to buy warner brothers and discovery which i find very strange because it's the channel that i don't watch and a credit card that i've never had but for some reason discovery and warner brothers are worth 72 billion dollars. That's a lot of money.

And it feels like one of those end of a boom things where companies are changing hands for tons of money. Like when Warner Brothers bought AOL or AOL bought Warner Brothers and they moved into the Twin Towers in Columbus Circle and a new era had begun. And then of course, two years later, they're trying to unwind the deal and everybody's lost something. I don't get it.

I do not understand, but a lot of people are saying that this is a nailed, no, the last nail in the cable TV coffin. So where do you guys, are you bothered by additional media consolidation and what do you think the media landscape is going to look like cable-wise? Is this the end? And are we happy about that or not? Well, I will agree with you that I'm not an expert in this. I am somebody who cut the cord when I moved to Florida in 2017

and I'm not actually saving any money from this anymore. Really? Yeah. Really? Did it somehow work out that by piling all those streaming services on top of the things, you ended up paying just what you had before, in addition to paying for a service that gives you the broadcast channels and the local news and all the other stuff you don't want?

Really? I think I may be paying more. Now, at one level, I'm okay with this because I don't have. to run coaxial cable around my house and have those big bulky boxes and i do like the way my network works and so forth but it clearly has not continued as a cost-saving proposition it seems to me that there is at some point going to be a burst bubble and a few of these are going to disappear or they're all going to get merged into one but the federal government's going to have a problem with that. I'm not quite sure that that's the implication of this deal, though, because Warner

Brothers and Netflix are different entities. Now, you will know about this. I'm given to understand that there's some Supreme Court case from the 40s that means that studios can't own movie theaters, or it has to all be separated, which was very interesting to me, because when I was growing up in Cambridge, England, the movie theater there was the Warner Brothers multiplex. Now, they showed movies from all the studios, but it was owned by Warner Brothers. And I think it then got sold to Universal. So that's how it changed hands in the way amusement parks do.

And that's not allowed here. So there's a factor here that is obviously at some point going to have to be reconsidered by the Supreme Court and or by Congress, which is that the rules that were set up in the 40s don't seem to properly tally with the way that the industry is now working, where the delivery mechanisms and the production mechanisms are getting closer and closer together by definition, but I don't know enough about that. Well, this is why we need E.J. Hill and Gary McVeigh, two of our extremely savvy guys when it comes to the history of the industries

to weigh into the comments and believe me, those guys are good and they'll give us what for. It is funny though when you consider about it is that they can't own movie theaters anymore but if our house is now the movie theater then are what are our obligations as movie theater owners at home?

Should I be wearing an usher uniform because I'm sort of the height that you would expect that to be? Do I get the little cap? Dad. Should I, before a movie, somehow apply a little light adhesive to the floor so that my, you know, my feet stick to it like they do in the old multiplex days? I don't know. If I'm in the theater, well, Stephen, I don't know what configuration you have. I know America is desperately knowing wishes to know if you have still the cable and the rest of it. But Charles right. I mean, getting rid of the coax, great. When I got rid of my satellite, great. Five years before I thought, look at me. I've getting my entertainment beamed clear and crisp from space and then five or six years later that's like you're still

getting your TV from space man I mean the shift of that paradigm was just stunning and I was so happy to get rid of cable with a plethora of channels that I don't use and be able to select these bespoke little services but the end result of this is that I have no idea where anything is that show

that I watched what was it on that series that my wife was watching did it work it it And it's not because I'm old and I can't figure out where it is. I can't hear people talking. It's just because it did not turn out to be the sort of thing that saved us money and made our lives easier. As a matter of fact, I think a lot of people sort of feel about old cable television the way people in their 60s and 70s in Russia feel about the Soviet Union. It had its problems, but it was good and was strong.

Well, I think I can channel Rob Long here a bit because he used to talk a lot. about how all these big tie-ups promise these great synergies, that wonderful buzzword from the management consultants, and how they always then were disintegrized a few years later. So you mentioned AOL Time Warner. Paramount had a couple of different tie-ups that have recently been unwound. And I'm wondering about this one. I think maybe it's the case that Netflix is simply, by the way, Netflix stock has just roared the last couple of years. I mean, way beyond what I think you might have expected. And it's hard to imagine that trajectory continuing. Maybe they have more capital or access to capital than they know what to do with.

I don't know what the rationale for this is. It surprises me that you'd want to have more of these mergers. But speaking of being so old, James, I can remember, I guess it now is 30 years ago when the big issue was, we need to regulate cable television because they're exploiting us. And, of course, we passed, I think it was in 1992. We passed a new cable regulation bill, after which cable rates went up, predictably, right? Because that's what often happens with that kind of government regulation. now is there anybody saying, gosh, the regulators have got to crack down on these cable companies.

No, any minute now, I expect President Trump to say we need to subsidize the cable companies to keep them from going broke, probably not, literally. But you see the problem here is, yeah, no, I'm with Charles. I cut my court a long time also, and I think I probably spend about the same. The big opening here for me, for cable television, if they want to stay in the game, is to unbundle everything. I mean, the problem with cable is they have so many must-carry rules. and I'm not sure if those are industry rules, broadcast network rules, or actually government

rules, I'm completely ignorant about all of that. But I think cable could lure a lot of people back if they said, okay, what channels do you want? Here's what we'll charge you for them. I think the one problem with that, as far as I can see, again, not an expert, is that the thing that people actually want to watch is sports. And they don't really want to watch anything else. And so all of the other things that are on cable news, including, say, MSBC, now, MS now, is cross-subsidized by sports. And if you get rid of the bundling, which I'm in favor of too, all of those other channels go away, right?

Because if all you want to see NFL, Major League Baseball and hockey, well, then you would just buy that and kaboom. true but the number of shows and channels out there devoted to the murder of young of the murder of wives is uh is far greater than you imagine i mean if you if you put together a package that is the hallmark channel and the uh the murder victim of the week stuff dateline style believe me there's as many people who want to watch that is want to watch the NBA the last thing i'll say about that is this when they talk about Warner brothers they're saying well Warner brothers it's got all this great IP you've got all this great IP people are talking to, they got Harry Potter, they got Batman and the rest of it. I don't want any more of the IP. I'm tired of all of it. And the idea that we're going to continue to exploit these things to take these limping lame horses out in the back and beat them some more and extract even more out of the Potterverse and the DCverse and Batman, endless iterations of that. I'm tired of a lot of it. And I wish we could just upend the etch of sketch, start over and sort of invent a popular culture out of our imaginations in the moment.

Just a thought, I know. Well, the other great news, well, I'm sure it's great. The other news was great, but this is great, is that in a stunning blow to climate change and a sure sign that the planet is doomed and the seas will soon rise, polar bears will be snorkeling. The president said, no electric, forget about it. We're going gas.

Gas cars are great. Gas cars are good. How do you guys feel about that? I am a firm believer in the power and the superiority of the internal combustion engine, and I love it, even though the electrics can be cool. But, yeah, go gas. Well, James, I think what should appeal to you is that it may bring back car design to when you actually can make cars.

Right. That's exactly what I'm getting to. You know the point. Yeah, right. You make it. No, you make it. Go ahead. Well, the reason all cars look alike these days, they're all clear shop, a teardrop shape

and rounded off is because they have to make them those shapes to, meet the fuel economy rules. That's the only way they can do it. And so, you know, I wasn't always a fan of the old boxy volvos, but I was glad you had that option for a car. I like cars that have angles and edges to them. I don't like the roundanness of everything. It annoys me. So let the designers now make cars that look great and let people decide if they want to lose a mile of gas mileage in return for a car whose style they like. And I believe we are speaking to a man who has a golf cart with tail fins on it, does he not? Do you not? Absolutely. You know, the way that New York Times has reported on this is really annoying

because it has made it look as if Donald Trump has put his thumb on the scales in favor of gas cars. And what Trump has actually done is repudiated Biden's attempt bypassing Congress to make it impossible for car manufacturers to economically produce gasoline cars and has removed a lot of mandates that make cars artificially expensive and cause all of the design issues that Stephen mentioned. So what Trump has done is the opposite of this, and it's especially annoying given that when Biden put out that rule, the New York Times insisted till it was blue in the face, that it was just a guideline.

And anyone who said, this is a flagrant attempt to put the federal government's thumb on the scales, the New York Times would say, no, no, no, no, no, it's just a suggestion. and yet Trump undoes the suggestion via the same means, which is totally legitimate, and the Times says, oh, look at him in the pocket of big oil. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. What he has done there is say, do what you want. This is the market working.

This is not the government working. I think it's great. I also think it's going to go some way critical, though I have been of him, on this question, to alleviating some of the concerns around affordability, because the combination of cash for clunkers and some of these mandates meant that both the second and new car market, second-hand, a new car market, were artificially expensive, and that's been really bad for people. Yes, putting the thumb on the scale, taking the thumb off the scale somehow equates to putting the thumb on the scale. It's like the spokesman for oligarchical,

you know, collectivism, O'Brien in 1984 is saying to Winston, imagine a boot lifting from a human face for it. Yeah. Before we go, old friend of the show, John Gabriel, old friend of ricochet one of the finest writers out there in the internet funny guy king of stuff if you've been around ricochet you know uh how much we love john uh john's uh having issues and there's a post up at ricochet that talks about it in his usual inimitable style and uh he could use some scratch he's got a go fund me going there's a goal he's getting there but uh we love him and we want him to be healthy and around forever and if we can do something about that let's do something about that.

So what can I say? Ricochet is the kind of place where people join and yeah, it costs a little bit here and there, but you join a community and you are able to comment, which gives you, as Rob said, skin in the game, it doesn't mean it's one of those cesspools of people just yelling and screaming at each other. It means that there's places real people with real names that you kind of feel like you know because you do. And we want to help out John.

So we just add that, you know, I've never met John in person, but I do. feel like I know him for a couple of reasons. One, we've done a couple of podcasts together, and we've been reading each other for years. And second, and this is a special bond he and I have that we've talked about, you know, online, is we are co-religionist to a somewhat rare sect in America. We're both Eastern Orthodox. And, you know, we meet in a phone booth. That's not quite that small a subsect. But the point is, you know, so this has struck me a little bit close to home. Right.

So Rickusay is the Orthodox and the Lutheran dais here and the atheist on the other side. We contain multitudes. Oh, that's wrong. No, that's Whitman, isn't it? About the containing multitudes of things? I think so. Or am I thinking the demon who says, my name is Legion? Well, come to ricochet yourself and find out.

We want to thank you for listening to this. We want you to give us five stars at Apple Podcast. We want to thank Cozy Earth for sponsoring this podcast as well. You can do your life so much better if you avail yourself with their fine goods. And we want to remind you that ricochet is there 24-7. And Charles is actually one of the men who make sure that it is because he's not just a podcast host. He's not a great writer himself in National Review, but he is the man who at this moment is probably thinking about a way that he can improve the cabling at his home, you know, the way he's got it. I mean, I don't know if you're a cat-six or a cat-seven man or if you've made that upgrade.

But Charles, what version of ricochet are we on at the moment? Well, we're on the same one as we were before. I think it's 4.14.14 and then it recurs forever. But this is because we're dealing with some tweaks at the moment. And the next version will have fewer numbers with the dots and a bigger number. Not the first number, but the second number will be bigger. But the second number. And eventually the first number will change too.

But in the meantime, always behind the scenes, always under the hood, making sure that your experience is better, non-glitchy, fun. But what counts, of course, is the content. Go there, read it, enjoy. Gentlemen, it's been a pleasure. Enjoy the rest of your time, and we will take this up again on a day

that I hope is not as snowy as this one, but it might be. It's Minnesota. I knew what I was getting into. Bye-bye. Ricochet. Join the Conversation. Join the conversation. Thank you.