The Young Turks - Dictionary Dunce

Episode Date: July 12, 2023

Sen. Tommy Tuberville refuses to agree white nationalists are racist. SAG-AFTRA prepares for a possible strike as contract talks continue. Bank of America accused of opening fake accounts and charging illegal junk fees. Facing an "emergency," DC prepares to pass a new crime bill. Nebraska mom pleads guilty to giving abortion pills to her teen daughter. HOSTS: Cenk Uygur (@CenkUygur) & Ana Kasparian (@AnaKasparian) SUBSCRIBE on YOUTUBE: ☞ https://www.youtube.com/user/theyoungturks FACEBOOK: ☞ https://www.facebook.com/theyoungturks TWITTER: ☞ https://www.twitter.com/theyoungturks INSTAGRAM: ☞ https://www.instagram.com/theyoungturks TIKTOK: ☞ https://www.tiktok.com/@theyoungturks 👕 Merch: https://shoptyt.com Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

You're listening to The Young Turks, the online news show. Make sure to follow and rate our show with not one, not two, not three, not four, but five stars. You're awesome. Thank you. All right, well, welcome to the young Turks. Jane Cougar, Anna Kusaring with you guys, amazing news today. Oh man, the Republicans got Joe Biden, they've got an informant. Oops. So you guys are going to love that story. Okay, and then we have corporate criminality. We have Washington changing their crime bills. We've got so many amazing stories.

And should we be inspecting the private dating lives of celebrities? That's also later in the program and one question that tons of people are talking about in America. So the whole range for you guys, Casper. Well, we begin with some spicy and inaccurate takes from a United States senator. So let's go to Tommy Tuberville. White nationalist is someone who believes that the white race is superior to other races. Well, that's some people's opinion. And I don't think, I mean, a lot.

Pardon? What's your opinion? Here we have a situation in which a United States Senator Tommy Tuberville is pretending as if he is completely unaware of what the phrase. white nationalist truly entails. Don't believe me? Well, just keep watching. My opinion of a white nationalist, if somebody wants to call them white nationalists, to me, is an American. It's an American. Now, if that white nationalist is a racist, I'm totally against anything that they want to do, because I am 110% against racism. But I want somebody that's in

our military, that's strong, that believes in this country. That's an American that will fight along anybody, whether it's a man or woman, black or white, red, it doesn't make any difference. Now we're going to get to more of this exchange. It's important to understand the context. And I think that there might be a framing issue that he's trying to engage in here. That just completely backfired and he completely bombed on. I'll get to that in a moment as well. But what is the context? Well, apparently, the interview resurrected another controversy for this first time senator, who had been in the news for basically stalling scores of senior military nominations, or he was complaining about that, in an attempt to stop a Defense Department

policy that helps ensure access to abortions for service members and their families. Now, Collins wanted to get some clarification on some other comments that he had made earlier on the same topic about white nationalism. So, for instance, in a May interview with a local public radio station in Alabama, Tupperville, a former football coach, criticized defense secretary Lloyd Austin for his efforts to get out the white extremists, the white nationalists from the military. Tupperville said it was part of an effort to politicize the armed services and accused Pentagon leaders of ruining our military and driving away supporters of former President Donald Trump. So before I get to more of this exchange, Jank, what are your thoughts

on Tuberville and other elected Republican lawmakers just having this knee-jerk reaction to Lloyd Austin trying to ensure that there aren't like extremists within their ranks. Yeah, so there's two really interesting things that come out of this. One is why Tuberville is trying to have it both ways. And the second is that we never define any terms. And so that's why he gets to do this wordplay. We'll come back to the words. First on Tuberville.

So the reason why he's trying to say, well, I'm my. a horror 10% guest race. He said later in that interview that he had to deal with, I mean, work with African Americans on the college teams that he coached. It was like, okay, yeah, show me your hand. Go ahead. Anyways, so he wants to be able to say, I'm a guest racist, but I'm for white nationalists. Because he thinks, not us, he thinks a big chunk of his voters are white nationalists. That's why you try to parse these words. There is one other possibility that he just doesn't know the English language. Right.

Like he's never heard the term phrase white nationalist, even though he's been in the news for months and months and months about the same term that he's so incompetent and lazy. He never even bothered at looking it up. He didn't ask any of his staffers. Hey guys, what do people mean by white nationalists? Why are people so upset about it? Either he's so uncaring and dumb that he didn't ask that. Or he knows, but he wants to say, no, white national is good, good, good, right?

I mean, media don't pick on me. I'm against racist. So, okay, my take, and this is me playing devil's advocate. I don't know if this is true, but you'll hear more of the exchange and you'll get a sense of why I think this is what he was trying to do in his framing and it ended up, he ended up bombing, it backfired. I think what he was trying to communicate here is, listen, our political opponents like to label everyone they disagree with as white supremacists, white nationalists, racist, and he's trying to make an argument that these people who are being targeted, who tend to be Trump supporters, are not racist.

Like, that's what I think he's trying to communicate here, but he's doing it in a super weird and it was a failed attempt to say the least, if that's what he's trying to do here. Because, like, pick up on some of the specific phrases he uses, especially in this next clip. Yeah, I'm not discounting that he's an idiot, but let's watch the clip and look at it. together. For those who are watching, if they haven't heard your remarks, this is what you said. Do you believe they should allow white nationalists in the military? Well, they call them that. I call them Americans. Do you want to explain those comments, Senator? Yeah, first of all, I'm totally against any type of racism, okay? I was a football coach for 40 years, and I dealt and had an opportunity

to be around more minorities than anybody up here on this hill. But when our military has been attacked, was being attacked after 9-11, after January 6th, and that was my first day on the Senate floor, I thought it was, I thought it was outrageous of what senators from the Democratic side, Chuck Schumer was set on the floor that night, calling out people, calling people, calling people racist calling people nationalist, white nationalist, white nationalist is just another word that they want to use other than racism. I'm totally against anything to do with racism. But the thing about being a white nationalist is just a cover word for the Democrats now where they can use it to try to make people mad across the country identity politics. Okay, so that was the part of the

interview that made me think that he is attempting to inartfully accuse Democrats of label people who in his mind are not racist as white nationalists, and he refuses to call them racist. That is what it appears to be. I don't know for sure if that's what he's attempting to do. And if that is what he's attempting to do, it was a failed attempt. Yeah. So that's the generous way of looking at it. The ungenerous way of looking at it is he's trying to appeal to a white nationalist while pretending to be a gas racist. Right. And that's definitely a possibility. Yeah. So both are relatively, you can assign different percentages to those possibilities. But all All of that gets to the core of no one ever defines anything, right?

So we talk about this all the time in the context of socialism. People will say that, you know, Fidel Castro and Bernie Sanders and Finland are all socialist and then they'll compare them to Stalin. Wait, what, right? So, and nobody ever, ever defines. So in the case of racism and white nationalism, white nationalism is by definition racism. It's the idea of that whites should control the nation, they should be supreme, and and superior to others.

Let me give you two different sources that give you the definition, okay? So look, both of these are from the Columbia Journalism Review, but one of these specifically cites Merriam-Webster. So first one, graphic three. White Nationalists generally wants a nation of white people, whether that means creating a separate nation of just white people or pushing those who are not white

out of their current nation, Depends on which branch of white nationalism is talking. And then the same piece for the Columbia Journalism Review notes that as Merriam-Webster explains, white nationalist is defined as one of a group of militant whites who espouse white supremacy and advocate enforced racial segregation, while white supremacist is a person who believes that the white race is inherently superior to other races, and that white people should have control over people of other races. Now with that said, he's a United States senator in a country that is obviously, you know,

in some areas of the country concerned about racism, concerned about white supremacy. He's very well aware of that. So he should be informed on what the actual definition of white nationalism is. So like the whole, oh, he doesn't know what he's talking about. I'm not buying that at all. Either he is engaging in language that's meant to appeal to what he believes is a base of racist voters, or he's trying to make a critical comment about Democrats labeling people who he does not believe are racist as racist. Yeah, so guys, white nationalists is at the top of the racist hierarchy because they're saying,

look, we don't even want to be around blacks, people, Latinos, Asians, well, none of them, okay? We want our own nation, and we think we're definitely superior, okay? So now then you go down that gradation to white supremacist and racist, and there's all different types of racist than white supremacist. And this is what the media never talks about, Democratic Party and Republican Party, right? So for example, when Republicans say racist, and he says, oh, 10010, I guess, race, what he means is, no, I don't want to lynch black people and I don't want to, you know, have discriminated against. I mean like outrageous ways where we say, okay, just because you're black, you're going to have less rights than us. That's like an extremist version of racism, right?

And that's how Republicans view it. Now, Democrats go, well, that's the incorrect way of viewing it, but they never acknowledge that that is how Republicans viewed. I think Republicans are wrong too, right? But we have to understand each other, right? So meanwhile, when Democrats say racist, they mean a whole range of things, right? So they mean, well, you could, like, for example, our criminal justice system is racist, and here's a good example of it.

White people and black people smoke marijuana at the same rate, but black people are arrested at 370% higher than whites, right, even though it's the same crime. So you can argue that that is a form of racism, and I would argue that, right? But Republicans don't think that at all. They're like, what? That's, no. And so they have a much higher bar, conveniently so for what they think. is racist. So when they keep saying we're not racist, they keep saying, like, I don't want

someone like to be my slave or something. They have an extreme bar for racism. Meanwhile, some Democrats now have an extremely low bar for what's racist. Like if you're against affirmative action, which 55% of the country agree with the Supreme Court decision, they say, oh, that's it, you're definitely racist. You could have a debate about affirmative action, but they say, no, 55% of the country is racist, and some might even say white supremacist, I don't know. So now given that gigantic range for the word racist, do you understand why we're constantly having these debates, conversations, misunderstandings on media and in politics? You see what I'm saying?

So in this case, so what does that come out on Tuberville? I think Tuberville would meet a lot of my definition for racist. based on his policies that have an incredibly disparate effect between blacks, whites, and other races, right? Which policies, though? So it depends. So for example, what I argue my book, Justice is coming is so Republicans say, well, we don't want black people being arrested almost four times as much as white people for the same crime. Well, then are you doing anything about it?

If you go and ask Republicans to change that, will they change that? My guess is Tommy Tupperville, we're just doing absolutely nothing to change that and doesn't want to change that. So that's this very simple example, but I can give you many, many others, right? But, but Anna's right, we do have to be specific, right? What is it about their policies that we don't agree with? Why do we think it has a racial effect? And is that racist or not so that we can begin to understand each other?

I want to also just address the reality of certain extremist beliefs being some portion of our institution. So, for instance, there was a study done by the Center for Strategic International Studies. They found that 6.4% of all domestic terror incidents in 2020 involved active duty or reserve personnel, more than quadrupling the tally from the previous year, hate groups actively target troops to become recruits while encouraging their own extremists to join the military rank. So when we talk about Lloyd Austin, who, to be quite frank with you all, I don't have much love for. very hawkish in foreign policy, has close ties to defense contractors, not one of my favorite people on the planet.

But when he, I think, legitimately brings up a concern about, you know, this form of extremism being represented in some portion of the armed services, it is a legitimate concern that Tommy Tuberville should be able to give an honest and frank response to. And instead of doing that, you know, he gives this weird wishy-washy answer. And then later on, when reporters catch up with him to just ask him to elaborate again and clarify his remarks, he begins by attempting to double down. So let's watch that. Blaine, why you continue to insist that white nationalists are American.

Listen, I'm totally against racism. And if Democrats want to say that white nationals are racist, I'm totally against that too. But that's not a democratic definition. The definition of a white nationalist is someone. Well, that's your definition. My definition is racism, bad. The definition, the definition, the definition is that the belief that the right race is superior to all are the races.

Totally out of question. So do you believe that white nationalists are racist? Yes, if that's what race is, yes. Thank you. Okay, but white nationalism literally by definition espouses racism. It believes in a white nation, okay, so, okay, there's that. And then final thing I'll say about this. This whole debacle reminded me of something that transpired a few years ago, back in 2019,

when former representative, although he was a congressman at the time, Steve King made this comment. White nationalist, white supremacist, Western civilization, how did that language become offensive? Why did I sit in classes teaching me about the merits of our history and our civilization? He was censured as a result of that, kicked out of congressional committees as a result of that statement, which he gave in the context of a New York Times interview. So the idea that the Republican Party is unaware of what that word means is laughable to me. I would be shocked if Tommy Tuberville had no idea what that word means. Yeah, that's why I'm saying that my guess is that he's trying to make sure he doesn't offend

a lot of his voters who he thinks are why. white nationalist, and that's why he's trying to parse these words. Okay, now look, super important couple of things. First of all, Rachel Scott was that reporter. Thank you from ABC News. Great job by Rachel Scott, trying to actually clarify the meeting as we've been asking people to do 100 times. Number two, McConnell put a lot of pressure on Tuberville, and that's partly why he backpedaled at the very end there, because soon if he keeps going, everybody's going to think the Republican Party is the white nationalist party, which a ton of people already do. So, which brings me back to how all this started.

So if you ask Republicans, was anybody on January 6th white nationals, I think a lot of them would answer, no, all those folks were just good Republicans, and some of them went too far, some of them will acknowledge, right? But were they white nationals, they'll say no. I think if you ask a lot of Democrats, they'll say all of them are. They'll say all of them are. That's an inaccurate description. They were lied to and genuinely thought the election was stolen from Donald Trump, and that is unhinged to say the least.

But to paint them all as white nationalists, I think, would be- That's exactly where I was going. So which is, look, I'm not saying all Democrats do that by a long shot, we don't do that, and we're definitely left wing, right? But a lot of them goes, they're all white nationalists. And then they say, everybody that attended the speech is guilty in white nationalists. Now, first of a lot of people attend the speech and then did not raid the Capitol. So that's a giant distinction. Second of all among the people who raid the capital, they're all guilty because they committed a crime and they should go to jail.

Okay, having said that, were they all avowed white nationalists? How would you know that? You don't know that? Now, for Republicans, you think there was no white nationalists there? No, no, we know specifically that there's group X, Y, Z, et cetera. Yeah, all those militia members. Yeah, that espoused white nationalists there. So were there white nationals there?

Of course, of course there was. It's empirical, and some of them have admitted it in court, right? So there's no question about that. But guys, you need accuracy. You can't just all be like, everybody's a white nationalist, nobody's a white nationalist, right? So which brings us to the final thing, which is where all of this started, what should the military do, right? That's where this controversy began. So the correct answer is, no, we're not going to use the Democrats definition of white nationals,

which is all MAGA guys, right? And sorry, I know, that's not all Democrats. but some Democrats feel that way, right? We cannot use that definition. That definition is crazy, okay? Because if you eliminate all Republicans from the military, it's not going to work out well, right? But if you say the military should not investigate

if someone's a white nationalist, you're nuts. Of course the military should investigate that and kick them out. Agreed. They don't even believe in this country. They want a separate white country. Are you insane? Why would we have them in our military? How are they supposed to serve alongside service members who are black,

Latino, Asian, from all different walks of life. I mean, they have to work together. I mean, it's absurd to believe that it's okay for that kind of ideology to stand within the armed services. Yeah, and so look, right wingers, can I get you to acknowledge that? Or are you still like, like if you say, no, look, we're not looking for anybody's definition of racism or even white supremacy. But no, specifically white nationalists who want a separate white country and think

white people are superior and they have an ideology and they're in a group, et cetera. You really think we shouldn't kick those guys out of our military? Do you get that that sounds nuts? Like just as long as we're clear about what we're talking about. No, of course they don't belong in the U.S. military. All right, we're going to take a brief break. But when we come back, we've got a lot more news for you, including an update on what's happening in the entertainment industry and yet another potential strike that could take place beginning

tomorrow. all right back on young turks jenanna with you guys and croaker 47 gifted five young tourist memberships on youtube we appreciate it you guys can all join by hitting the join button below the video on youtube or t yt.com slash join you know that caspar All right, let's get to a potential strike that could be happening tomorrow. Where do we want? Where do we want it? Hollywood is on the brink of a shutdown.

With signs at the ready, members of the Screen Actors Guild could soon join striking members of the Writers Guild on picket lines. SAG's current contract with studios expires at midnight Wednesday. That's right. members of the Screen Actors Guild could be hitting the picket line as soon as tomorrow if their union and the major studios fail to agree to a new contract. Now, much like their fellow colleagues in the Writers Guild of America, the actors are concerned about the impact of AI technology. One of the hardest parts of getting older is feeling like something's off in

your body, but not knowing exactly what. It's not just aging. It's often your hormones, too. When they fall out of balance, everything feels off. But here's the good news. This doesn't have to be the story of your next chapter. Hormone Harmony by Happy Mammoth is an herbal formula made with science-backed ingredients, designed to fine-tune your hormones by balancing estrogen, testosterone, progesterone, and even stress hormones like cortisol. It helps with common issues such as hot flashes, poor sleep, low energy, bloating, and more.

With over 40,000 reviews and a bottle sold every 24 seconds, the results speak for themselves. A survey found 86% of women lost weight, 77% saw an improved mood, and 100% felt like themselves again. Start your next chapter feeling balanced and in control. For a limited time, get 15% off your entire first order at happy mammoth.com with code next chapter at checkout. Visit happy mammoth.com today and get your old self back naturally. And what it might do to their jobs, but there are other issues at hand, including how streaming has already impacted. their livelihoods and their ability to make money. So the streaming services, as you all know,

have been producing a lot more content, which I think some would assume would lead to more opportunities and more money, but that has not been the case because streaming services do not pay out as much as residuals do. So for more on that, why don't we go to More Perfect Union, which did excellent coverage on this issue. Let's watch. So a residual is something when the show rear somewhere,

or get sold to another outlet, we get a check. Sometimes those checks are pretty good, maybe you get $1,000 one day in the mail that you weren't expecting. Sometimes those checks are literally one cent. Biggest thing I was in, I was on a show on Netflix called Bonding. My show was originally like an independent series

and then Netflix bought it and put it on their platform, which was amazing. And it, more people, People saw it than I ever anticipated, like millions and millions of people. The way the contracts were set up because the budget was so low was that there was no residuals involved in it. As residuals are going down and as these shows are being pulled off platforms or not aired, actors aren't receiving any residuals from them, which leads them to not be able to often make their health insurance. So the issue with residuals was also brought up among those in the Writers Guild of America. I do think it's a legitimate concern.

I just don't know what the solution is for it, right? Because the landscape is completely different. Streaming has disrupted the way we consume our media. And it really depends on how much revenue they're making. Now, if you look at the amount of money or profits, I should say, some of the executives at these studios are breaking in, gives you a sense of how some of that wealth could certainly be shared. But I don't know if it's the amount necessary to make up for how much they're losing now that residuals are becoming obsolete.

Yeah, so this is a difficult question. But I think that there's some rational answers here. So first off, you know, is it right to strike? Well, it depends. Of course it depends, right? And we're all amped up against giant corporate power. So we want to encourage folks to take power back, right, employees to take power back. And so, but does it matter if it's the context, like are they making money or are they not

making money? Are they a big company or are they a small company, et cetera, right? So in this case, we have a conundrum because they're giant companies, but they're actually not making money. And so, well, that makes it more difficult. So if you say, all right, now I want to add a ton of cost to your business that are already is not profitable, well, okay, then if they sink, nobody makes money, right? So that's why it's a little bit complicated. Does that mean I don't support the potential strike? No, that doesn't

mean that at all. In fact, I do, okay? But so these are not, but when Netflix says, look, I'm not making money yet. For a very long time, Amazon didn't make money. And that's because people were piling in knowing that they would eventually have a near monopoly and make trillions of dollars, which did happen, right? And so if at the time Amazon wasn't making money, they're like, oh, golly, gee, we're just a small to midsize company and we're losing money. Well, that's true in a lot of cases, but not in Amazon's case. They were a giant company, right? That was planning to make all these billions of dollars, and they did, right? So how do you solve that problem? It's mainly a timing problem, right? And I would solve it with some sort of

percentage, kind of like the way the sports leagues do, right? So, okay, we don't know how much the Grizzlies are going to make and the Lakers are going to make and the Spurs are going to make, but we allot a certain percentage of our revenue to the players. Most of the sports leagues do this. Right. Right. So instead of doing residuals, which made kind of bit made sense in the old days, right? Now they just, it's antiquated, right? So when the studios say that, I don't think they're lying about that. And we can see in their public records that they're not lying that they're losing money for the moment being. But that is not the whole picture. Right. Right. So now, okay, you want me to not get residuals while you're losing money.

Okay, but am I sharing in the upside when you do make money? Okay. So I think that's the way to resolve this. I don't know if they're going in that direction, but that's what I would encourage. Well, one of the other sticking points I want to get to, because I think this is a more fascinating angle to the contract negotiations is the topic of AI, right? So the writers are concerned about how AI might be used to replace them. And the actors, believe it or not, are concerned about the exact same. thing because there is this effort to use their likeness in films, in TV shows, using AI without the actor or actress even having to do anything, right? Like they want some of the big names to kind of sign off on it.

So the studios can use their likeness. They'll get a check because their likeness is being used. But that does have an impact on some of the smaller name entertainers, smaller name actors and actresses, because if they don't already have a big name and they're not giving an opportunity to really show their skill and their acting chops, well, they're not going to get the opportunity to sign off on these contracts where studios get to use their likeness and they make money that way, right? It's really a short-sighted way of doing things. They see this, which is why they want the union to address it. And so SAG AFRA has long been working to promote state laws that

safeguard a person's right of publicity so they can't, for instance, be used to promote a product they didn't agree to. We are also working with lawmakers on legislation to protect voice and likeness on a federal level. So that's something that the national executive director and chief negotiator for SAG AFR is saying, we are promoting stronger federal copyright protections for humans. We believe using copyrighted works to train generative AI is infringement. And that AI created work cannot be copyrighted. And this is really the area where it appears, based on what the union is saying, that these studios are not really willing to negotiate on good faith.

They're basically saying, like, listen, we're willing to have discussions about this. Like, we'll meet with you guys regularly about what we're doing with AI, what we plan to do with AI. But that's not anywhere close to what the actors want addressed here. Yeah, so look, whether we like it or not, I understand. I understand the inevitability of business. And so AI is going to take over a ton of different job categories. So, but that also depends on your category.

So is it mainly a mechanical job in which gives lots of trouble? Is it mainly like online research job? AI's got it, it's over, okay? And you can say, oh no, I don't like it, et cetera, but it is what it is, and that's the direction they're going to go. When it gets into entertainment, well, I have a couple of different different takes on that. Number one is at some point the studios are going to try like AI with people that are, you know, they like not the big names, not actors and they got permission to use their likeness, but they're going to try and like a full boat AI and then they're going to see if it works. And then the market's going to decide. If we all hate it, nobody's going to watch it. They're not going to make money and they're going to go away from it. If people kind of like it, they're going to do a lot more because they're going to make a profit. Okay. Well, so that's just a reality and we don't like that, but that is a reality. Well, interesting that you bring that up

because the new Indiana Jones film apparently does rely on AI. So Indiana Jones and the deal of destiny recently released in theaters features an extended flashback sequence of a de-aged Harrison Ford. And they did that using artificial intelligence. The film bombed in the box office. Nah, that was way more complicated. It did great international. I saw, saw it. The whole time you're looking at Harrison Ford, you're like, I know it's AI. I know it's super distracting. But it does kind of work. Like if you didn't know it, you'd like, if you had no idea who Harrison Ford was and you're watching the movie, you might think that that's what he actually looks like. It's like a younger version of him. So, but that gets into

the third and final category, which is somebody gives you permission. Harrison Ford's getting paid a gazillion dollars to do that movie. He says, yeah, make a younger version of me for the early part of the scenes, I don't have any problem with that. And so if somebody's paying you for your likeness, that's between them and you, and I have nothing to do with it. So that's, so it depends with AI on how you view it. Guys, you want, we want to push back and try to protect the humans. Of course, right? But some fights will win and some fights will be harder. I'm just, that's what I'm telling you in this regard. And the final thing I'll mention is, while it appears that this strike among those in the Screen Actors Guild is very close to happening.

This could happen tomorrow. There are some optics issues with union leadership, okay? So apparently the president of SAG, a friend Drescher, I didn't even know she was the president of SAG. Yeah. Basically says, like, look, we're making great progress on these negotiations. Now, the rank and file would say otherwise, but nonetheless, she's arguing, no, no, no, we are making some progress.

Don't worry. Now, turns out that she's been in Italy because Kim Kardashian posted a photo of the two of them on Sunday. I want to show that photo to you. And apparently they were at the Dulce and Gabana. Yeah, Dolce and Gabana fashion show in Italy. And here's what the union had to say in response to the members who were less than happy to see that photo. Sagafra said Dresher was working as a brand ambassador. for Dolcei and Gabana on location in Italy, and her commitment was fully known to the negotiating committee. She has been in negotiations every day, either in person or via video conference, President Dresher is managing a physically demanding schedule across three time zones, overseeing negotiations, and working on location daily, as well as managing her parents' needs in Florida. She's returning to the states and will be on the ground in L.A. tomorrow, and will continue to chair our negotiations. So look, I agree that it looks bad optically. I don't know if, you know, what the SAG after statement indicates is full of lies. I'll give her the benefit

of the doubt. I do believe that you can be in one place at a different country and still engage in these negotiations through teleconferencing or whatever. Yeah, I have no idea if she's actually brand ambassador and is getting paid to do that and that's part of her contract. And hence, She has no choice. It's possible, and it's possible that it's BS. So it is what it is. That's the statement. But more importantly, to the core issue, I know a couple of actors, and they are not

pleased with how Fran Drescher is handling these negotiations. You can say it's anecdotal, but they seem to think that other actors are also greatly dissatisfied. And for a while, Fran Drescher, this is a fact. Fran Dresher said that the negotiations were going really well and very productive. Yeah, but it does not appear to be. be the case. Yeah, there was a massive pushback from that publicly where people were like, no, they're not. I don't know what you're talking about and I don't know why you're saying that.

Look, if she's the president of the union, not a good look to play patty cakes and pretend like things are going great when they're not. At the same time, I don't know what she's supposed to say that would have been better, right? Like, oh, things are terrible. We're not making any headway, no progress at all. You know what I'm saying? I feel like she just kind of gave a throwaway statement of like, yeah, we're making progress. I do. Look, these things are always hard, right? And first of all, whenever you're a public figure and it's such a high impact situation with a lot of lives on the line, you're going to get criticism from a lot of different ends.

So that doesn't necessarily mean you're doing it poorly, but sometimes it does. Yeah, right? And so, and in this case, people are definitely dissatisfied with how it's going, but obviously we'll see how it ends. And that's when knock on wood for everybody involved, that it does end well, obviously. But if it doesn't, then, of course, there's going to be more questions. And to people's point about being dissatisfied with her, there's a general feeling of by a lot of union members and a lot of different unions, not just sagging after.

The union leadership often makes pretty cozy deals over the last 10, 20, 30 years with management. And people are starting to get really dissatisfied with it. Yeah, that's definitely true. And that was just very clear in the negotiations that were taking place between the rail workers' unions and the rail workers. companies. So that might be the case here. Clearly the rank and file are not happy with Fran Dresser, so we'll keep updating you on the stories. We learn more details. For now, we're gonna take a break. When we come back, Bank of America, in some trouble, but are they? That and more coming up.

All right, back on T.Y.T. Shank and Anna with you guys. And also primal science who just joined. We appreciate you. Casper. Let's talk a little bit about Bank of America engaging in bad behavior because it pays to do so. So Bank of America has been ordered to pay out $250 million after federal regulators found that they were engaging in some bad behavior, basically exploiting their own customers. The bank had engaged in illegal behavior that violated the consumer financial protection laws since 2012. So the CFPB director, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Director, Rohing Chopra, said this in a statement. Bank of America wrongfully withheld credit card

rewards double dipped on fees and opened accounts without consent. These practices are illegal and undermine customer trust. The CFPB will be putting an end to these practices across the banking system. Now keep in mind that the CFPB held Wells Fargo accountable after it was discovered that that bank was opening accounts for their customers without their consent. So Bank of America was certainly privy to the fines that Wells Fargo paid. They're privy to the consequences that might arise from their behavior, but they did it anyway. And we'll get to why they did it anyway in just a moment.

But first, more details. The CFPB and the office of the controller of the currency found that the bank, which normally charge customers $35 if their transaction was declined due to insufficient funds, allowed those fees to be repeatedly charged for the same transaction, resulting in customers being charged tens of millions of dollars in fees on resubmitted transactions, according to the OCC. So just to elaborate on that a little further, basically what would happen is, let's say the account owner doesn't have enough funds for the transaction, and then the vendor keeps running their card or running their account to try to make a payment.

Every time they do that, the account owner would be charged $35 by Bank of America. And they are not supposed to be doing that. Okay, so let me give you more. The OCC said in a statement, the bank's disclosures did not clearly explain that multiple fees could result from the same transaction. Additionally, customers had no ability to know when or if a merchant would resubmit a transaction to the bank for payment and therefore could not reasonably, avoid the assessment of multiple fees for the same transaction.

And so there's a lot more detail I want to get to, Jank. What are your thoughts on this so far? I think this is a super important story for a number of reasons. First, you know, media and just conventional wisdom, mythology, which usually comes from media, is that the bigger the businesses, the more legitimate they are and the more credible they are. No, it turns out there's criminals running these giant businesses. because number one, you're withholding credit card rewards.

That is a very active, purposeful decision by executives. We said we would give them rewards. Do not give it to them. Rob them. Number two, double dipping on fees. A very active purposeful decision. I'm, hey, charge them twice, even though we shouldn't. That's theft.

You're just literally taking their money. You're depositing your money in a bank. that at this point has admitted they're criminals, their thieves, okay? What is double dipping? Oh, they say, oh, you're double dipping. Okay. No, no, that's theft. What do you mean you charge me twice when I wasn't supposed to be charged twice? So you wanted to rob me of that second charge. Third thing, open to accounts without consent. Over the top purposeful. Credit card accounts. Credit card accounts. Yeah, well, I didn't ask for a credit card. You're going to open it for me and then charge me? No, no, but think about how sick this is, okay?

because they would open credit cards on behalf of their customers without their consent, and they would run their credit. Every time there's, like someone does a hard check on your credit, your credit score goes down. It impacts your credit score. And this bank was doing this on behalf of these customers without their consent. Their credit was harmed in the process of doing this. Yeah. So did anybody go to jail?

No, of course not. Of course not. Of course not. Now, guys, think about this. And this is a fact, and it's amazing, if a bank accidentally overpays you, sends you money that you don't, it's that's not yours. And you do not return it, you will go to prison. But wait a minute, I didn't even do anything wrong. And sometimes you don't even know that you got money from the bank that you didn't know. Or different company, et cetera. They pay you money that you don't, that's not yours. and if you don't actively return it, you go to prison. Now, what kind of justice is this?

So meanwhile, they rob millions of their customers. They're like actively, make a decision. Hey, Bob, in middle management, I need you to go rob all those people. Susie in middle management, go rob those people. Nobody goes to person. Nobody even, it's not even considered. None of the stories talk about like, oh, by the way, this is not a little bit of theft, right? Oh my God, hey, that guy in the street stole 20 bucks, you know.

I mean, look, the George Ford was killed over a potential $20 counterfeit bill. $20 and he was killed. These guys are stealing hundreds of millions of dollars. And then they return a small portion of their proceeds. And that's why they do it. That's why they do it, right? Because they've made the calculation. I mean, this keeps happening with these banks.

Again, Wells Fargo did this not too long ago, right? Again, opening up accounts on behalf of individuals who did not consent to it, who did not want it. Bank of America is doing the same thing because the calculation is, look, we're going to make a lot more money than we're going to lose in the fees and fines that we're going to have to pay the federal government once we get caught. Just to give you an idea, their net profit in 22 alone was $27.5 billion. dollars. Bank of America's profits, not revenue profits in 2022 alone, $27.5 billion, billion with a B. So the $150 million fine that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is now forcing Bank of America to pay as a result of this illegal behavior is nothing. It's a drop in the bucket. It's a rounding error for them, guys. It's a freaking joke on all the rest of us.

So the individual gets screwed, big media tells you big business is so credible and wonderful when in reality they're the biggest crooks in America. And then finally, the giant disparity between how big business is treated and small business is treated. If a small business person, a plumber, a dentist, overcharged, double dipped, created false accounts and stole your money, they're also going to jail. It's a giant problem in their business is going to get shut down. But when Bank of America does it and Wells Fargo does it, oh, you stole a little bit of the, you stole a ton of money?

Why don't you give back 20% keep to 80%? And by the way, the next time, steal again and again and again. Why? Because you all bribed politicians. They all give them campaign contributions. That's why. It's, although the last set of criminals are the politicians who pocket those campaign contributions and go, I don't see any criminality.

And I just want to say one other thing, because why? Well, I definitely have my criticisms toward Senator Elizabeth Warren, and I think those criticisms are warranted, prior to her pushing for the formation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, there was no government agency really looking out for ordinary Americans who were getting ripped off by these banks. Okay, so after the economic collapse of 2008, she just kept hounding the Obama administration, hounding, hounding, until they finally agreed, they finally conceded to her, and formed. the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Listen, I want to see far more protections for ordinary people, but I'm happy that there's at least something. There's at least a government agency that's investigating the behavior of these banks, how they rip off ordinary people, and they're trying to get some money back to these people who are ripped off. It's better than nothing, but it's just a start. We need way more in order to ensure that these bank executives don't get away with continuously engaging in this criminal behavior, and then just getting a slap on the wrist,

just a fine, that really doesn't hurt their bottom line at the end of the day. Yeah, so I wrote about this in my book, Justice is Coming, and Barney Franken, honestly, Barack Obama, shamelessly took credit for the Consumer Financial Production Bureau when they were fighting it behind the scenes the entire time. And Elizabeth Warren, I thought, was made terrible decisions in the 2016 and 2020 elections, but Anna has 100% right, credit where credit is due. Without her, this Bureau would not exist and we would not have at least recovered several hundred million dollars in this case and many other cases for the American people. So great credit to her.

All right, let's move on to honestly a shocking story out of D.C. This morning with rising crime, a concern across the country, city lawmakers in Washington, D.C. are set to vote on what's being called an emergency public safety bill to address soaring crime rates. In a shocking development, just four months after they actually voted to weaken some of the public safety laws in Washington, D.C. The same D.C. council members are now pushing an emergency public safety bill to address a sharp increase in violent crime. Now, the emergency legislation came after a violent long weekend in the district with four fatal shootings on the July 4th holiday alone. Nine people were wounded by gunfire at a single July 4th celebration in Northeast D.C. The youngest victim was just 10 years old.

Police say all are expected to survive the shooting. Now, the council member who is really pushing this emergency legislation, her name is Brooke Pinto. She chairs the council's judiciary and public safety committee, and she told reporters this. Quote, we are in a state of emergency right now. And like in any emergency, we have to act like it, and we have to act urgently as a government to address the problem that we're seeing. Now, how bad is the crime in Washington, D.C.? Well, let's take a look at the next video, and then I'll give you more details. Violent crimes in D.C. are up 33% in the last year. Murders are up 17%. When we have members of our community being shot and killed at rates that we haven't seen for 20 years, that's an emergency, period.

The emergency bill would make it harder to release suspects accused of a violent crime before trial, whether they're an adult or juvenile, and whether or not they are armed. Supporters point to this statistic, saying right now, a typical murder suspect in D.C. has already been arrested 11 times for previous. crimes. I think that we're going to be safer because people who are committing violent crime won't be on the street to commit more violent crime. The bill would also create a new criminal offense called endangerment with a firearm, making it a felony to fire a gun in public, and it would increase the penalties for illegal gun possession. Now, if you look at these specific statistics and the specific crimes, there is, in fact, evidence indicating that there is a sharp increase in some of these violent crimes.

So let's take a look at the data that was put out, comparing 2022 to 2023. And remember, we're not even halfway done with the year yet, right? So you can see that homicides did in fact increase 17%. Sex abuse increased 35% compared to 2022. Robbery increased 52% compared to last year. And overall, violent crime has increased or jumped 33%. compared to 2022. And then there are the, what's described as nonviolent crimes.

That has also experienced a sharp incline or increase, I should say, compared to 2022. And so council member Pinto told reporters that within the first three months of 2023, the city had over 100 cases where people were charged with a crime of violence, released pretrial and recommitted another violent offense. I should note that they did bail reform in D.C. in 1990, so it's not that they had actually succeeded in weakening public safety laws in D.C. because four months ago when they tried to pass legislation that some described as weakening public safety laws, Congress got involved and scrapped it. And so they haven't really done anything, you know, that could be

pinned on loosening laws or being laxed about criminal justice. But in this case, they're seeing a sharp increase and they think that they need to respond to it. Now, I want to give you one quote, Jank, and then I'll go to you. So four months ago, as I mentioned, they wanted to do criminal justice reform in D.C. Congress squashed it. So at the time, there was a particular council member who was furious about that. But here's what he's saying today. Council chairman, Phil Mendelson reversed an earlier assessment he gave Congress during testimony at a March hearing about D.C.'s public safety. Criminals, he said, on Monday, can get away with murder in this city. Wow. Well, that is an abrupt change of mind. And that happens, by the way. You know why

that happens sometimes? Facts when you see crime running out of control, and it's not anecdotal, and you see it in the numbers, and car thefts are up 117 percent, and robberies are up to. 52% and homicides are way up, et cetera, well, you go, okay, then I guess I've got to change my opinion based on the facts. By the way, that's the way it's supposed to be. You're not supposed to change the facts based on your opinions. You're supposed to change your opinions based on the facts. So credit to Phil Mendelson for doing that then. So now, what changed? Well, that's a bit of a mystery. There's one answer as to what changed, and that's the number cops. We'll come back to that in a second. But the laws didn't change much, as Anna pointed out.

One changed in 1990. The other laws are from 1901, right? So just be careful about like, no, there wasn't some sort of like the right wing will say, oh, you see criminal justice for them, but they didn't do criminal justice reform here. Now, on the other hand, they have decided we got to keep more people in pretrial detention. And so some on the left will be very upset. And that will be, they are very upset about that. And a lot of the activists in Washington are upset about that. But one of the reasons they're doing that is they're adjusting the facts. And that fact that we showed you there is a critical one. They're, that people are come back and doing 11 extra crimes when they are released. Why? Because this is a giant thing that was

underestimated, honestly, by our side, including me, okay? Which is that the number, generally the number one issue in crime is repeat offenders and they do an enormous percentage of the crime and so when you don't have pretrial detention there's good reasons to get rid of pretrial detention for lower level crimes but there's a second problem that that creates which I'll tell you in a second but when you get rid of pretrial detention for too many crimes a lot of serious crimes are committed they go right back on the street and and they don't think Oh, well, I'm going to come and have to serve me justice six months from now when the trial happens.

They think, oh, I got out of jail for doing this crime. It's totally okay. You think, oh, people don't really think that way. No, maybe you don't think that way, but these repeat offenders definitely think that way. And they show it, right? And then finally, in terms of the issues, misdemeanors, a lot of the misdemeanors shouldn't be misdemeanors. So now the- Yeah, they're violent crimes.

Because they're violent crimes. Like strangulation. Exactly what-strangulation is a violent. act, you're putting your hands on someone, you're putting your hands around someone's neck. Look, that's what they did in California, right? So when there was a ballot initiative in order to make some, or push for reforms in regard to nonviolent crimes, I voted in favor of that. But then they decided to reclassify all sorts of violent crimes, including human trafficking, including strangulation and domestic violence as nonviolent crimes.

Yeah, it makes no sense. That's insane. So look, by the way, that's not the left's fault in its entirety. Some activists unfortunately do think that that's rational. But the majority- Let's strangle you and let's see how you feel about it. I would venture to say you would think that's a violent act and you would feel threatened by the violent act and you would want to keep that person away from you and the general

public so they don't harm others. But the great majority of Democrats and the left do not share that opinion. And when they see how this has been carried out in some places, and they see crime rising, they go, no, no, no, no, no, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. No, strangulation should not be a misdemeanor, right? Some of these super serious crimes, and each jurisdiction differs. California, New York, D.C., they all have slightly different laws and slightly different classifications for misdemeanors and felonies.

But in a lot of these major cities, tons of things that you would never think is a misdemeanor, you would think it's a felony because it's so violent, are misdemeanors. And when those people were starting to get a lot less sentences and they're not being held pre-trial and they're committing crimes over and over again, that's part of what piled up. And then Democratic voters were like, no, no. In Portland, they're like gone, San Francisco, no, thank you to these kind of laws, et cetera. And it's not, it happened in New York and now in D.C. And D.C. is a little bit different situation as we explained here. But basically the voters are telling their Democratic councilman and mayor, turn.

turn around, turn around, crime is too high. Yeah, and look, I want to tell you more of what they're trying to do. So the mayor of D.C. Muriel Bowser had a proposal, and apparently the proposal led to some backlash among activists. And so what Pinto decided to do was pursue an emergency bill. And emergency bills pass differently in the council, okay? So they don't need to basically go through the vote two times. They're far less obstacles. They do a one-time vote, and the nine council members vote on it once, and if it passes, right? So that's the emergency bill. And what Pinto did here was do away with some of the more contentious or controversial elements of Mayor

Bowser's proposal. And so I want to tell you what Pinto's emergency bill entails. So the bill would still tilt, this is graphic eight, the law in favor of more pretrial detention for youth accused of dangerous or violent crimes, whether or not they were armed. But it keeps some exceptions for drug-related crimes and burglaries that don't involve real or imitation guns. It also strikes the particularly controversial Bowser proposal that would allow judges to detain kids for their own protection regardless of whether they presented a danger to the public. I can't even believe that Bowser proposed that. I'm very happy to see that Pinto took that out of the emergency bill. So that's a Democratic mayor that proposed something so draconian that other Democrats and

the people on the left were like, no, no, no, too much. Right. Too much. And we agree. It's too much. Okay. So you've got to find the right balance. I know extremists on both sides say, no, there should be no balance. There should only be radical options, right? No. The answer is in the balance, and your voters, your left-wing voters are telling you that. So the emergency bill would expand protections for children who have experienced child abuse and allow contractors and consultants who have, and allow contractors and consultants who have access to schools to be prosecuted for sexual abuse. I think everyone agrees that that's a good thing. Create a new offense for firing a gun in public.

I think everyone will agree that that's a good thing, right? Yeah, in the middle of a city, are you crazy? How is that not against the law? Make it easier for prosecutors to extradite people for misdemeanors and use GPS, I should say, data from ankle monitors to prove people's guilt in court. Add strangulation to the definition of a crime of violence in the D.C. Code, which I think makes a lot of sense. And finally, require the city's criminal justice coordinating council to publicly share more. data on the outcomes of diversion programs that offer services instead of traditional prosecution. I would absolutely love for them to do that. I think it's important for us to get

that data to see whether or not the diversion programs are being implemented properly, whether they're effective, whether if they are effective, they should be more widespread throughout the country. That data is important and I've been really really wanting to see that data for a while. So I love that that's part of this emergency bill as well. 100%. To me like that's almost the most important part. Because I don't know ahead of time if they're gonna work or not. I know ideologues on both sides are positive. They don't need any stinking data, right?

But for me, if the diversion programs are working, if different things we're trying other than policing is working, great. If it isn't working, oh well, okay, then we have to go to a different direction. If you believe in just orthodox ideology, you don't care about the facts. You go, no, this is what I want and I don't want to know whether it's working or not, right? Well, I do, sorry. And so sorry that I'm rational. So please tell us if these programs are working.

If they are, let's do more, if they're not, let's do less. And finally, look, even if this emergency bill passes, there's one major problem in D.C., and this problem is shared among many big cities across the country. There's a pretty severe shortage of police, and Bowser is kind of panicking about it. They're offering $20,000 bonuses to new police recruits. Now 25,000, they cranked it up. Yeah, so they're having difficulty attracting people to work as cops. And it's following, you know, what happened in 2020, people know how unpopular it is to be a police officer.

And so there were a lot of early retirements following the 2020 protests. And then after that, it was just difficult to get new recruits. The size of the D.C. police force has shrunk to a half century low as officers leave faster than they can be replaced. Despite some hiring in the past year, the force has just over 3,350 sworn officers at the end of March, a net loss of about 450 over the past three years. Police Chief Robert Conti said he expected the size of the force could fall to about 3,130 by the end of fiscal year 2024. So that is a problem, and what they're doing now is having these cops work mandatory overtime shifts, I don't know, that's not a system that's going to work out so well,

in my opinion. And we overpay when they do overtime. So look, guys, this one's also nuanced. So for the guys taking early retirements, actually I'm happy about that. Now there's less cops on the street, but these are the guys who are the most, the biggest belly acres about, now I've got to follow the constitution. Now I can't beat people up. Now I have to do my job. I'm retiring early. I don't like it. Good. I want you to do. retirely. Go, go, go, go, go. But we have to replace them. Okay. So now if you did a program where you said, all right, we're going to cut the number of cops we have. And Washington did stop spending on hiring new cops. You have to have an alternative. And then you have to tell

us that the alternative work, right? But right now, I don't, just see an alternative in Washington and just stopping the money to the cops without saying, okay, let's redirect the money to X, Y, or see, right? Well, that's a terrible plan. And so now a lot of the council members are saying, and it's not definitive, but it's an important data point. Look, here's when we had more cops and we had less crime. Here's now when we have less cops and we have more crime. But that's not surprising. If you don't do the alternative, yeah, of course you're going to get these results. Like there is no fantasy land where there's less law enforcement, less social services, less everything and somehow you have less crime. That's not a thing, right? So give me an alternative

and for God's sake, test it and give us data back on it. Otherwise, go hire some cops and make sure they actually follow the law and do their job right. It's not too much to ask for. All right, we're going to take a quick break. When we come back for the second hour of the show, a pretty devastating story involving a mother in Nebraska who is now facing prison time for giving her daughter the abortion pill. But that story. story's got a massive twist don't miss it we'll be right back thanks for listening to the full episode of the young turks support our work listen ad free access members only bonus content and more by subscribing to apple podcasts at apple dot co slash t yt i'm your host jank huger and i'll see you

soon