Full Episode - A Daring Rescue Can’t Distract From Disastrous Iran War + Trump’s Profanity Laced Easter Morning Message

looking for another job, and we were struggling. You know, my dad didn't leave us in the best financial situation, but he did make one purchase. He bought a life insurance policy. Wasn't a huge chunk of change, but it was enough when we found it. And when I say we found it, meaning we went through his desk and we found, oh, look at this, let's see if there's anything here. And it helped us out at a time

that we really needed it. And that's why I think it's important that if you can, especially if you have young children, if you can get life insurance, you should get it. Life is full of unexpected emergencies, unexpected things happen. It is an extra bit of security, something you can leave and help out at a time when you're not you're not there to help. So what does Ethos do well? Ethos makes getting life insurance fast and easy, and it's

one hundred percent online. You can get a quote in seconds, you can apply in minutes, and you can get same day coverage. They will find you the right fit. There's no medical exam. You just answer a few simple health

questions online. You can get up to three million dollars in coverage and some policies are as low as thirty dollars a month, and you'll get your lowest rate from their network of trusted carriers. So take ten minutes to get covered today with life insurance through Ethos. Get your free quote at ethos dot com slash chuck That is e t hos dot com slash chuck. Application times may vary and rates may vary. Hello, They're happy Monday. Happy Easter Monday for those of you'd celebrate. It is Easter

egg roll Day here in Washington. Normally in a tremendous event, with half the White House destroyed right with the East wing, it's a construction zone. I am a little curious how it goes today, whether they ended up limiting tickets. They didn't say, but it will be something that I am curious about a little bit for you know, never mind who's in the White House. The tradition itself is something

that many particularly locally. There's many people who love to go every year, who find a way to go every year. Sometimes I'm sorry that politics gets from the way of some fun traditions that people have, but there's no doubt politics is going to get in the way of that. So that is what it is. I want to give

you a few things that I'm doing this week. Yes it's called promotion, before we get to the meet and the heart of what I've got today, because boy do I have a lot today on the Iran War and where things are headed in a variety of methods here. But before we get to that. Number one, you know

about my new sports history podcast. With my partner Jaaatdande, both formerly a ESPN and The La Times, we launched a new sports history podcast called Dynastic where we look at the dynasties some of the all time sports dynasties, both in pro and college. Our first deep dive is the Los Angeles Dodgers. It is up now. Yes, we have snuck it into my audio feed. But you can subscribe directly wherever you get your podcasts or on YouTube to the Dynastic d y n A SDIC. Just look

up Dynastic, follow us on Dynastic on socials. Because I'm trying very hard, I am going to try to create a bright line. You will not see political commentary on the dynastics stuff, which you might see some sports commentary on this feed, but that's neither here nor there. But we also so once a month we do a deep dive and then at the two week mark of the month, we do a deep dive interview with some iconic member of that franchise. Well, the iconic member of the franchise

of the Dodgers, Jimi Hereen. Jimy Herene is the Hall of Fame Spanish language broadcaster of the La Dodgers. He basically was the Dodgers decided to have a Spanish language broadcast when they moved to La in nineteen fifty nine, and Jimi Herene was the voice of the Dodgers for many Spanish language fans for decades. So I mean, imagine you have Vince Scully and Jimi Heren. I mean it was literally two Hall of Famers that the Dodgers had.

He is tremendous. It's a tremendous interview. He's a JA has known him a long time and he's in his nineties,

but you would think he was in his sixties. He is just as excited about a baseball game today as I think he was back in the late fifties, early sixties. His stories are terrific. But we also feature greatest games, all this stuff. So anyway, that is hitting the feed on Tuesday, this interview with himI aren So, I want you to take a look at that. Also, as you know, the Chuck toodcasts been a big supporter of Local News Day. Well, guess what happens this Thursday. Thursday is the day, April ninth,

Local news Day. I will have another interview later this week in my feed featuring another prominent news organization that has gone the independent route. It's a legacy media company that is going new, going independent. It's about the Salt Lake Tribune. So we will you will hear that later this week, but again be aware of Local News Day. I hope at this point I've gotten many of you to find out who's doing local news in your neck

of the woods, and hopefully you've signed up and taken a look at least if it's a quality product. But take a look at the news organizations at the local news day website of who's participating, because it's a great way to find out if somebody in your neighborhood is participating, which also means they've been kind of vetted and we know that they're truly independent and they truly are with

journalistic standards. And then finally, on Thursday night, I'm going to be in Chicago at the University of Chicago or I'm going to be moderating a debate between Chris Christi and New York Times columnists David French. And the issue is on gambling. Has it become the new pornography? So Chris Christy is going to be essentially on the supportive side,

David French is going to be on the skeptical side. I am moderating with my own biases about it having to do I enjoy betting. I enjoyed lots of aspects of this. I have also expressed my reservations on certain aspects of how fast we've legalized and how we do it. Should we have more friction. So it's going to be a nuanced conversation. Because this is the University of Chicago. They don't expect a sort of he said, he said food fight, even though both Chris Christi David French are

certainly capable of participating in that kind of conversation. But

that's not what they want to have. It's not what I want to have, it's not what the University of Chicago wants to have. But it's going to be. You'll be able to see it, I hope eventually, courtesy of the University of Chicago. So if you want to check that out, we'll be doing that. I'll be doing that on Thursday. So I thought i'd let you know all of the various things we've got cooking here at the

world headquarters of the Chuck Podcast. And so, without further ado, let's get into the precarious moment we continue to live in in this Trump era. We're going to start today though with what is a sigh of relief that has turned pretty quickly into a cold sweat, because over the weekend, obviously, when most of you were getting ready if you celebrate Easter, preparing for Easter, the White House was in something close to paralysis. In fact, the lack of commentary by the

President himself led to all sorts of Twitter rumors and social media rumors because it was strange not to hear from the President. But there was a reason for this, because we had pilots that were shot down in Iran, and this was a potential nightmare for the United States.

An American F fifteen E Strike Eagle, one of the most advanced aircraft we have, was knocked out of the sky over Isfahan, Iran, and for a stretch of hours, perhaps it was longer, the scenario everyone feared was the one nobody wanted to say out loud, and American pilot captured and paraded through perhaps even paraded through the streets of Turan. I don't know if they would have parrated this person through the st the streets of Tehran, but

it would have been a huge psychological blow to the United States and a huge psychological help to the regime. So that is why I think you had a paralyzed White House where even the President knew how much he had at stake. But thankfully that didn't happen. Thank goodness for our special forces, how good they are, and they were able to extract both the pilot and the weapons expert eventually out, and the stories were hearing. I hope they're true. I'm sorry I have to say that, but

you and I both know that that's the case. You have to always take the stories you're getting directly from this administration with a grain of salt. But the heroism obviously, these special forces going in harm's way. Clearly this is

not a safe place to be, despite all of the bluster from Pete Haikseth earlier in the month, and I'm going to get to that, but we got a rescue, and it's extraordinary what the special ops folks did, and the President is celebrating it, and I think it's celebrating out of relief because this would have been a huge below. But here's the problem. We are now in a moment where the success of the rescue is being used to obscure the failure of the premise itself and in fact

be on the lookout. I'm not going to prejue. You never know what Trump's going to say at a one pm news conference, but he's going to have one later today. My guess is he wants to bask in the glow of this rescue mission and hope that it obfuscates the fact that did we mislead these pilots, let alone the public,

into how safe the skies were. But let's be very clear here, because if you have to rescue a pilot from Isfahan, then you were never operating in what Pete Haikseth boasted a couple of weeks ago, uncontested airspace. That's not interpretation, it's simply geography. Isfahan is deep inside Iran. This isn't a coastal town, which means one of two things is true. Either the battlefield is far more contested than the military leaders have told you the American taxpayers,

or we put American pilots in harm's way based on assumptions that weren't true. Is either outcome good. Either your government was lying to you or they were lying to themselves and put our pilots in harms way. This should be a huge concern, and we've seen this pattern before. We are very good at celebrating the moment of heroism, the rescue, the extraction, the comeback. We don't leave people behind for and this is good, this is who we are. But we are much worse at asking a harder question.

When these things happen, why did we need the rescue in the first place? Right, And a lot of times you will get it presidential administrations. When you start asking these questions, they will question your patriotism, They will question things like that. These are important questions we have to ask, because remember, it wasn't just the F fifteen that was

struck down and a black clowk that was hit. Iran also down an A ten attack aircraft on Friday, undercutting all of these claims by Trump and Hegseth and other officials that the US had unchecked dominance of this guise from over Iran. Now, the good news was the pilot of the A ten attack aircraft was able to essentially extract himself in friendly territory and ejected safely. So that's

the good news. But let's not pretend that things are going well in this war, because they're not. And that brings us to this man, to the man at the podium, the Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, pretty much the propaganda Pete as I've tried to nickname him, and I know that sounds snarky, but the guy doesn't appear to ever tell us the truth, and he has been caught with his pants down with this one. For the last month, we've been getting a very consistent message from heg Seth certainty.

Let me just walk through in a March fourth, Pete hagg Seth, the Secretary of Defense, complete control uncontested airspace March tenth, the Iranian Air Force is no more. We control their faith. Last week iron as toast, it's not even a fair fight. And as for the radar systems, one hundred percent annihilated. Okay, so let's ask the obvious question. If the airspace is uncontested, how do you lose a strike ego over Isfahan? If the radar is gone, how

do they get a lock on one of our advanced fighter jets. If it isn't a fair fight, why are we running rescue missions in the middle of Iran? Look, this isn't about rhetoric and for its own sake, this is about credibility in wartime. These guys are not telling us the truth. We just don't know what they're not telling us. But if they were telling us the truth, then we wouldn't have had what we had happen over

the weekend. Okay, they're not telling us the truth. Are they lying or are they withholding information that's something that an inspector general. We used to have this entity called the US Congress that would do things like this. I'm not sure. I think they've been totally castrated or neutered. I'm being a little obviously sarcastic here, but this is what their job should be in a moment like this, because if we don't have credibility in wartime, how the

hell are we going to win this thing? Because there's a huge credibility gap. Either the Secretary is being given

overly optimistic battle field assessments, or they're lying to the president to mislead him, or they're withholding obviously bad information from the president, which is also possible, or he's simply presenting him that way to the public intentionally lying. Either way, the story we're being told no longer matches the reality we're seeing, and historically that's when things start to drift. So while the Pentagon is trying to explain all this and wrap it up in heroism, and there is heroism

to go around for the special forces that had to be called in to do this, but it's nothing to celebrate that we put our pilots in harms way like this. Then, of course you had the president on social media on Easter morning. Easter Sunday morning, people are getting ready to go. You know, imagine some of the president's more religious supporters who just love the man, and they open up and they see that they see him say the following again, Easter Sunday morning, Tuesday will be power plant Day and

bridge Day all wrapped up in one. In Iran, there will be nothing like it. Three exclamation points. Then in open the fucking straight, you crazy bastards, or you'll be living in hell. Just watch Praise be to Allah. The American President of the United States uttered the following. Let me repeat what the American President of the United States

set open the fucking straight, you crazy bastards, or you'll be living in hell. Just watch Praise be to Allah. Is he mocking Islam with that last comment. I'm not Muslim. I will let others speak if they're offended or not. I know I have if I were saying that, I don't in that context. I don't think I would be honoring the Islamic any sort of Islamic traditions like this. I don't know whether he thought it was funny. Perhaps he thought it was funny again, all of this on

Easter morning, a very religious holiday to Christians, extraordinary important holiday. Look, as I taught my kids when they were young, they were like, so, asking me about Easter, and I said, well, I said, the easiest way is it's where Jews and Christians diverge. That's usually the polite way I say it. But all of this on Easter morning? Are there evangelicals left with any sort of moral or ethical code that

you can defend this? But hey, you can just do whatever you want with them, right, you just grab them by the huh oh right, same guy. Nothing's changed. One thing about Donald Trump is he's consistent. So he's threatening

what he called a power plant day, a bridge day now on its own. That kind of language is familiar. It's Trump, right, We've heard it before. But here's what's changed.

It's no longer landing as leverage. He thinks it's leverage because after three weeks of similar threats, the Strait of Hormuz is still constrained, the conflict is still extraordinarily active, and the underlying strategic position has not shifted one bit, which raises a more fundamental question what happens when escalation becomes repetitive, and repetition becomes background noise, because it's kind of already there, right, We're kind of used to him

these weirdly weakly escalations. By the way, he also he also claimed to Axios that there were talks going on with some with some key folks in the Iranian of who's alive in this Iranian government, of which Axios his own sources said, there's no, there's nothing that serious going on. But hey, it's Sunday that he said that. And what does he do on Sundays during the start of this war, tries to jaw bone down the price of oil in

time for the markets. I'm not sure the markets are listening to Donald Trump these days, but we shall see. But I don't think he's increasing the pressure he thinks he's doing. He's actually revealing the limits that we have right now. We have very few limits, I mean, the only thing that can be done. And he's very frustrated by this, which is why he used the F word.

He's frustrated because he has no choice if he wants this war to ever be seen as successful, if he wants to at all get his strategic goals, because if he walks away with the Iranians using the Straight of Hormuz as a toll road, then he actually set the entire world back with his decision and did nothing in return,

did not help the Iranian people nothing. So he knows he's probably going to have to order ground troops in order to secure the Straight of Horror moves to have any leverage over this over the Iranians, because right now he is none, and that's the problem. Now, this is where I want to tell you about an interview I did for Newsphere. Now, those of you, I hope that those of you, if you've liked what you've seen on what I've done with Newsphere. It's a standalone news app

of independent journalists from around the world. Every Sunday I have a new interview on there with a newsmaker or expert, and this week I sat down with Daniel Jurgen, sort of probably the world's foremost expert on energy markets. He's author the Pulitzer Prize win the Prize. I think I

promoted it before, but here it is. I know it's a very familiar book on my bookshelves's been there a long time, and I wanted to share with you some of the things he told me because I think it are important points here and why the president, why the straight of Horne moves is the whole ballgame. So I asked him how big is this? And he didn't hedge. He called it the biggest disruption in the history of world energy. Hardstop. This is bigger than nineteen seventy three,

bigger than nineteen seventy nine. So just let that sink in for a second. And if you know Daniel Jurgen, he is not He's not a guy who likes to live in likes to use hyperbolic vocabulary. It's just not him.

But those two crises were huge. They were the crises that reshaped the global economy, reshaped the American economy. It triggered recessions, stagflation, reowned and an American forum policy for generation. And what is Jurgen saying right now is all ready bigger. And here's the part that should make you really uneasy. This isn't some black Swan event that nobody saw coming. This is the scenario, the one policymakers have been gaming out for forty years. The nightmare scenario centered on the

strait of horror moves. It has always been about this. Daniel will tell you this, the narrow passageway that a huge percentage of the world's energypply has to pass through. And now it's not theoretical anymore. It's happening because what's changed isn't just conflict, it's control. There used to be a kind of uneasy system Iran oman the UAE managing traffic, keeping things moving, preventing catastrophe. Now you have Iran effectively saying we're in charge here. It's almost more important than

them developing a nuclear weapon. And once that becomes real, once that becomes the operating assumption of global markets, you're not dealing with the temporary disruption. You're dealing with a new reality and reversing that. Even Jurgen very carefully makes clear there it's not something you do easily, not without escalation. And here's where the story gets even bigger than oil, because we learned something during COVID and then again they're

in the Ukraine War. The global economy is far more interconnected than we like to admit, and it's far more

interconnected than it was during those crises in the seventies, which is why this is worse. You don't just get oil from the golf. You get fertilizer, You get helium, which is essential for semiconductors, for mir machines, for advanced manufacturing. How about Taiwan's chip industry. It depends on inputs coming through where that same region, right through the strait. So when that system gets disrupted, you don't just feel it at the gas pot. You're going to feel it everywhere.

And even if this stopped tomorrow, even if it froze right now, you're gonna says, you're still looking at the better part of a year just to get supply chains back to normal. So this is why I have been very declarative. These midterms are over. For the reports, books and Trump, they are over. There is no recovering from this. Economically, this is going to be a crappy economy for the

rest of the year at best. If he manages this and gets the straight open, maybe we don't get into a full fledged recession, but it is not going to be a popular economy. Inflation. Inflation. Inflation is coming. Let's soap, it does not stagflation. This episode of the Chuck Podcast is brought to you by Wild Grain. Wild Grain is

the first bake from frozen subscription box for sour dough breads, arteisonal pastries and fresh pastas, plus all the items conveniently baked in twenty five minutes or less. Unlike many store brought options, Wild Grain uses some simple ingredients you can pronounce and a slow fermentation process that can be a lot easier on your belly, little gut health there right, and richer in nutrients and oxidants. There's also no preservatives

and no shortcuts. The Wild Grain boxes are fully customizable. In addition to their variety box, they have a gluten free box, a vegan box, and a new protein box. I will tell you I have done the gluten free box. I have done it a second time. I have also used the code, the todcast code. If you use the promo code podcast at check out, you get thirty dollars off. I've already used it as a gift to somebody else who loves this bread. It is hard to find good

gluten free bread. It is fantastic. They give you step by step instructions. I really dig this. There is nothing

like having an artesian bakery in your freezer to chase away the winter chill. Now is the best time to stay in and enjoy some comforting homemade meals with Wildgrain. I obviously highly recommend it. It is worth giving Wildgreen to try. Right now, Wildgrain is offering my listeners thirty dollars off your first box plus free croissants for life. Come on when you go to wildgrain dot com slash

podcast to start your subscription today. That's thirty dollars off your first box and free croissants for life when you visit wildgrain dot com slash podcast, or simply use the promo code toodcast at checkout. This is a sponsor I absolutely embrace, so use that code. But sadly, back here in Washington, we have yet had a real public hearing

about this war, not one, not one. No full accounting to the American people, no sustained debate, just classified briefings in a skiff, and leadership basically saying trust us, and again,

who when have they told the truth? They have no track record of telling the truth, rankly about anything, including the president's wait and to height remember that it's not but Congress is doing nothing here and they're going to pay a price. There's no oversight. It's just pure avoidance because they're afraid of the questions that are going to get asked. And it's basically the Constitution the is streaming at them to do their effing job. Since we're dropping

the F word, we might as well say it. It's a dangerous mismatch that we're in right now, because the global system is already adjusting to this crisis, even if our political system isn't. And that brings me to another story that got overlooked over the weekend, And it's going to get really serious, and I think it shows the beginning of what is going to be more erosion of support for this war from the Republican side of the app Do you have a member of the president's own

party stepping in not to critique the messaging, but to challenge the structure of the war itself. Senator John Curtis, he's the Republican that replaced Mett Romney from Utah. Hit an obed in the Deseret News over the weekend and it is absolutely must read. Desert News is the news organization that is owned by the Church Litterday Saints and many Utah politicians. When they've got something to say to the public, they choose the Desert News to say it,

especially if they themselves are also Latter Day Saints. So Curtis starts with something very straightforward, right he talks about the numbers that are being asked. We got one point five trillion ask for the Pentagon budget, and we've heard that ask. Now, remember any when the initial budget asks

are made by administrations are always laughed at by Congress. So one point five is a goal, is a target number. But there is also a very specific ass of two hundred billion for a supplemental request in order to essentially replenish the cost of this war, because we've been averaging somewhere around a billion to two billion dollars a day somewhere in there. So we've already spent some thirty to thirty five billion dollars in this war. And that's probably

a conservative estimate. And it's going to force a question that Washington tries to avoid, what are we committing to with all this money? Because Curtis in his op ed, is invoking the War Powers Resolution Act of nineteen seventy three, which includes a sixty day clock. So this war, let's call the start February twenty eighth. We've had thirty one days of March. Today is April sixth. Let's give one day in the twenty eighth. That's thirty two. We'll add the six or in day thirty eight, so we had

twenty two days left on the sixty day clock. If

this is a real war, then John Curtis is saying he's not voting for any supplemental until there's a vote on this war, and it requires a real vote. It's an important number there. You subtract Curtis, you're already losing Rand Paul, you may lose Lisa Murkowski, you could lose Tom Tillis, you may gain Fetterman. There may be a couple of other Democrats on there. So's we'll see. But there's a lesson here from Vietnam, and that's what Curtis

is trying to warn folks about. This is where Curtis is being more historically grounded than most lawmakers in Washington. And I have to tell you I appreciate it. John Curtis might be the only Republican outside of Rand Paul, expressing the constitutional responsibility that Congress has here. Because Curtis is looking at Vietnam, not as an analogy, but as a warning. Vietnam didn't begin as a declared war. It began as a limited commitment advisors support containment, and then

it expanded, not because there was a single decisive vote, but because there was never a forcing mechanism to stop and ask do we want to keep going? So that's what this sixty day clock, right, that's seventy three. The War Powers Resolution Act was about avoiding another Vietnam, and that's what this sixty day clock is supposed to be. A forcing mechanism. And what Curtis is saying, I'm not

supporting any supplemental without a vote on this. But Curtis isn't just focused on authority, He's focused on conduct because while Congress is being asked to fund this war, the legal framework for how it's being fought is shifting in real time. The administration is leaning on the idea of

dual use infrastructure, basically attacking power plants and bridges and water systems. Many would say, isn't that a war crime because you're targeting civilians essentially, And what the Trump administration is looking for is lawyers to give them cover by saying, well, those systems also support military, so you can make them targets. But even under that theory, the law still requires proportionality. So to send them back to the quote Stone Age,

it's probably not proportionality. You don't destroy a civilian water system to eliminate a marginal military advantage. And that's where strategy crosses into something else. And then you layer on

top of that the rhetoric from Secretary Hegset who has also said lethality over legality not just a sound bite, it's a doctrine. He does not care about human rights, nor the rules, nor the Geneva courts. And it carries consequences because once legality becomes secondary, you're no longer just fighting a war. You're redefining the rules of it. And this is why Curtis matters, because he's connecting all of it, the cost, the authority, and the conduct, and he understands

something Washington often forgets in real time. When you move outside the rules, you don't just change the war, you change your position in the world. And we've done it. I see some on the right who are angry that our NATO allies haven't stepped up for us, that some of them have gone as far as to say, hey, you can't land your planes at the bases that are in our countries. Well, if you're angry about the behavior of our NATO allies, you should be angry at the

President of the United States, not at those allies. President the United States has treated them like shit. And apparently I need to use four letter words for people to understand what I'm saying. He's treated our allies terribly. He's berated them with tariffs, he has all done all of these things, and he says and then he wants just

to help. By the way, the United States has been not been a good partner for Ukraine, has done everything they can to help Russia in the war, everything they can to make Europe less safe, and he wonders why they're not standing by us in this those look I get. Some of my friends in the right are so focused on getting rid of this Iranian regime that they're angry that others don't see the threat the way they see it.

And I understand that, I understand your frustration. I'm not going to sit here and dismiss that frustration, but stop lashing out of our allies. You know who did this this, You're our commander in chief has been a terrible ally to Israel, has been a terrible ally to Europe, has been a terrible ally to the Golf State. He is

not a reliable ally to anybody, not to America's closest allies in Europe, not to Israel. He's doing Israel no favors here. He's doing the Golf States no favors here. He's potentially chasing them into China's arms. So realize why we're here. We're here because of his diplomatic mismanagement, his ridiculous rhetoric, and his appointment of some of the most unqualified people in the national security positions that we've ever had. That's why we're in this position. One person did this,

one individual put us in this position. Seventy five years of American leadership, popular and unpopular presidents, liberal and conservative presidents, moderates and non moderates have all made sure not to alienate American allies the way this man has, and he has put us all more. We are less safe today. And then they're lying to you all the time. They are not telling you the truth. So here we are. We had a rescue that we should absolutely celebrate, But

it exposed a reality we haven't fully reckoned with. We have a credibility gap between what we've been told and what's actually happening on the ground. We have rhetoric escalating without clear evidence that it's changing the outcome. And now we have a constitutional clock that's ticking because of that sixty day clock. It's not there radical it should be a forcing mechanism. Congress needs to get off its ass and do its fucking job. There. There's some presidential rhetoric

for you. And if the president wants to continue this war,

he has to going to have to go to Congress ask for permission if he wants all of this money, which he says he wants to take away from the social safety net. By the way, talk about more political problems for his party. He explicitly said last week that the Pentagon budget is priority over social security and medicare good luck. Anybody want to go to the campaign trail and back up that statement, Try it, trust me, just try it so we'll see. But he lost. This is

a huge look. John Curtis right, he's not He's I'm not a household name, but he's an independent Republican. He's an independent conservative. He's no Maga guy, and he's no sickaphan and apparently he's read the Constitution. All right, I wanted to do one more thing before we get to

my interview today, and the interview is Mike Pesca. You know him from the Just List. Some of you probably listen to his podcast fairly regularly. Mike, can I do this? We're now doing this fairly regularly. I think this is the third time he's been on this pod that I've been on his twice, and you know, it's sometimes less interview, more debate, more trying to spitball different issues. We talked

about the redistricting problems. We talk about a lot of that stuff, but we also get into what's wrong with NBA and the tanking issue as well. So it's a lively conversation. But before we get to that, amidst all this crisis that President Trump is introduced on himself and the world in our political system, he he issued a new executive order in college sports and I kind of wanted to just quickly go through it. You know, I'm

an obsessive college sports fan. I care about this issue a lot, and you know, the president his role in this has been unhelpful. I think probably you know, yes, he's got the power to convene, but he really wasted the time of that meeting a couple of weeks ago, where it was just there to you know, essentially, you know,

puff up his ego. Look at all the cool and famous people I got here, rather than actually trying to solve the problem or come up. But I thought I would go through it for those of you that care about this issue. Look guess what, I know some of you. If you don't care about college sports, you can you can fast forward through. But I just wanted to get into this for a few minutes. So the core thesis was this this executive order that he wrote over the weekend.

It has there are some things that have there is like that resemble teeth into this not quite teeth, but they resemble teeth. I'm going to get into it. So it's written to sound very muscular, but it is architecturally incredibly weak, and it kind of knows that the White House knows Congress is the only entity that can actually fix college sports, and they actually say so. It's buried

in the preamble of this executive order. Everything else in the Executive order is either delegation to agencies with limited authority, suggestions to the NCAA, or legal theories that may not even survive a court challenge. So, and he even says it right there in the document itself, the Congress is strongly encouraged to expeditiously pass legislation. Translation, I'm issuing a press release, but I'm not going to call it a press release. I'm going to call it an executive order.

So in the order itself, the whiteness is admitting it's

simply a placeholder. It's just a list of suggestions. But here's the one thing to understand about how this order is constructed. All right, it's a classic use of the bully pulpit plus federal procurement power two levers. A president actually does control layered over a sector where the president has almost no direct legislative authority. So once you see the architecture, then the whole document reads differently. So let me quickly follow through it. So here's what it actually does.

There's a federal contractor leverage that he is using as his authority. It's real, but it's extraordinary limited, and it's the orders. Really, it's the only credible threat in this executive order, and the mechinism actually has a specific name, suspension and disbarment, and it directs federal agencies to evaluate whether NCAA rule violations are serious enough to affect a

university's status as a responsible contractor or grantee. Translate, if they think you're abusing the NIL system and you're somehow taking money away from programs that might be giving getting government funding in order to pay for your football program, they could theoretically ban that university from receiving any federal research grants at all. Now would they actually do it? Would it up even survive court challenges if they attempted it?

But it is a This would really be a nuclear option, right,

This is the one power this order technically has That one would be shocked if he actually enacted it, because you'd be attacking a lot of state universities. And we know this. Nuclear options usually don't get used casually. But ask yourself, this is the Department of Energy going to shut down a billion dollar physics project because a booster overpaid for a quarterback. The threat of an audit or

a funding suspension is a real deterrent. Right. Universities hate it, but actual disbarmment is so disruptive to federal research relationships that it functions more as a sword to waive than a sword to swing. There's also a technical problem. The trigger requires violations of NCAA rules that are applicable, lawful, and operative. Well, given the courts, it basically struck down every NCAA rule there's ever been into football, then there's

really nothing for it. The universe of operative rules may be legally thin by the way this order technically becomes functional August first, twenty twenty six. So the government is threatening to enforce rules that are simultaneously being litigated into oblivion. And that's the one part of this order that had teeth okay. Also in here the twenty million dollar threshold definition.

Quietly important buried in the definition section is a provision that actually focuses the order's enforcement universe by limiting its scope to schools generating at least twenty milli million dollars annually in athletics revenue. So that means the order is targeting somewhere between one hundred and thirty and one hundred and fifty programs, essentially the Power four plus the group of it's the power four plus the group of five schools. You know, some not all group of five schools, but

I put Gonzaga in there. They don't a football program, but they would qualify on the athletic side, right, But it's schools like that, So it exempts basically every D two and D three program. It's meaningfully narrow, and it tells you where the White House actually intends to apply pressure, right, it's on the big schools. Now, there is another directive with the Federal Trade Commission, and it directs the FTC

to enforce existing statutes against bad actor agents. Now this look, I think everybody wants to see agents held to account, make sure they're following the law. The FTC already has its authority. They don't need a law to do it. It just redirects existing enforcement priority. So this is actionable, but it addresses agents at the margins about the systemic

NIL and revenue sharing problem. So if agents are taking too big a chunk of change from the NIL, that's bad, but it doesn't actually deal with the system itself. Then there's the Department of Justice challenge to state laws, and I think that directing the Attorney General to pursue actions against these state NIL laws using the commerce clause and

contracts clause. It's a legitimate theory of law. But some state laws, particularly those that apply only to insatee schools or discriminate against out of state transfer competition, may be genuinely vulnerable. But it's expensive litigation. Federal government has not been winning these cases very easily. They'd be suing Florida, Republican states, Florida, Texas, Tennessee, and they'll fight this. Do

we really think this administration is going to go after the state of Florida, the state of Texas. Ken Paxton still the Attorney general last time I checked. So look reporting acquirements. This matter of education shall consider requiring reporting on roster spots and athletic aid by gender. This is helpful if it allows Title nine enforcement to be used, and it could. It's important data to gather so that in itself, Look, more data is better than no data.

But everything else is wish casting zero enforcement right. This is the biggest tell in the document. Section four B is essentially a wish list sent to the nc double at it should, in its discretion adopt rules of eligibility, transfers, revenue sharing, nil and more. While the nc DOUABA is a private organization. The White House can't control anything it does. Every single item is aspirational that they list, and there's aspirational,

it's not mandatory. The word should appears where shell would appear if this had actual force, Right, should versus shell. That's a keyword there. If you see shell, that's enforceable. If you see should, it's just a suggestion. Now, this is handing the nc double life some political cover, right. The White House is handing the NCAA a document it can point to when implementing unpopular rules. Hey, we're not doing this because we want to. The federal government directed

us to do it, so that's the functional purpose. But this administration and the government is so unpopular. Do we think that this gives the NCAA the cover that the White House thinks it's giving them. There's a fraudulent nil definition. It's legally untested. It almost certainly will be challenged in court. The order tries to define paying above fair market value for nil services as fraud Well, who the hell decides what fair market value is the market? Who's deciding the market? Right?

This is it's a novel legal theory. But we don't really have any sort of enforcement mechanism here. Trust me, it would be litigated to death, and to its death. The revenue sharing prohibition legally circular. The order calls for prohibiting federal funds from being used for nil revenue sharing payments, but schools aren't currently using federal funds for that. But again, I think they're going to try to use fungible money.

And this where this is where I guess if he really wanted to be the college sports are and just start punishing certain schools, the problem is he would look like he's trying to essentially go back to the old system, which was actually more unfair to the players, more unfair to the schools, and only allowed about fifteen or twenty schools to do it. So bottom line, this executive order is a press release with an August first state stamp.

It has three legally credible mechanisms, federal contractor leverage, FDC, agent enforcement, and a DG challenge to certain state laws, but all three face meaningful legal and practical obstacles. None of them address the core structural problem. College football generates billions. The courts have said players deserve a share, and Congress has not passed a framework to govern any of it. What this order does most effectively is give the White

House a political talking point on college sports. That's it hands the NCAA a document to hide behind if they want to implement unpopular parts of this. But the order cannot restore the NCAA's enforcement authority, not grant anti trust immunity. It cannot settle the employee question. Only Congress can do those things. And the order admits it right there at

the top, if you know where to look. So that's your president trying to insert himself in a situation of which he has no controlling legal authority what so ever. But we always kind of knew that. Speaking of no controlling legal authority, the real question is does even have one to conduct the war he's doing in Iran that in twenty two days technically expires. All right with that, let's sneak in the break and my conversation with my friend Mike Pascot. This episode of the Check podcast is

brought to you by Soul. So if you love that end of the day unwined but hate the hangover, Soul's out of office is for you. These sparkling THHC. Drinks and gummies give you the same relaxed social feeling without the alcohol, without the calories, and without the crash. Soul is a wellness brand that believes feeling good should be fun and easy. Soul specializes in delicious hemp derived, THCHC, and CBD products designed to boost your mood and help

you unwind. They're best selling out of office gummies were designed to provide a mild, relaxing buzz, boost your mood, and enhance creativity and relaxation. With five different strengths, you can tailor the dose to fit your vibe. So also has a variety of products specifically designed to help you get a better night's rest, including their top selling Sleepy Gummies, a fan favorite for deep, restorous sleep.

percent off your entire order. Go to getsold dot com and use the word podcast that's getsold dot Com promo code podcast for thirty percent off. And yes, I too am a customer. Well, coming back for a return engagement

as we would like to do regularly. I think we're almost doing this quarterly. It's my my pal Mike Pesca of the Just List and all sorts of his his world. We were just talking about each other's each other's digital world, and we like to have our world's collide. Mike, It's good to see you.

were wrong. He just sort of admitted that they were it was no longer useful, and that in some ways it was probably hurting companies. He was he was pre right, Yes, yeah, exactly, you know the way somebody with a huge ego like his son.

some visibility into possible meltdowns. But also the Ft. There's an FT podcast, I know you like the Ft, and they were having a debate where I think they said, just financially good idea, but what you don't want to do is give Donald Trump any wins ever, And these were FT journalists right now, but they were embracing I guess their activism, which is once he comes up with a good idea, that's the most dangerous thing of all.

And I was contrasting that I did a thing on the Gist my show with The Dispatch where viewed Emily Auster, who was saying, you know, some of this maga stuff, not the vaccines, but the meat and the food pyramid, that is a good idea, And then she got blowback, how are you giving Trump credit? So even journalistically, it's interesting the Dispatch, you know, these former Republicans are maybe

still identified conservatives. They're saying, we have to be honest, and if we need to give Trump a win, we give him a win. And the Financial Times, which definitely sees himself outside the activism continuum, said no, we can never give Donald Trump a win.

look what we've turned into is I think both parties have become reactionary parties. Right, they don't really they define themselves right own the Libs and Trump resistance is really the same ideology, don't you think, yes?

I'm obsessed with the period between Jackson and lincol in American history because it was this we had technically eight presidents in twenty four years because of deaths, but it was really seven presidencies in twenty four years because you had the thirty one day president and each one of them and essentially it was like each president was elected

claiming they were going to solve it. They were going to bring the country together, they were going to quote solve this problem, right, but not necessarily solve the problem, meaning at that time it's slavery. But it would be

all these papering over ideas, right, So you had whether it was the Democrats nominating a Northern or at one point in Franklin Pierce or the joint Tickets.

party in the Republican Party. So it led me to think which party is going to be the Whigs because I'm convinced one of them is going away in the next decade or so out of frustration by their bye by like you can't you're not you're not accomplishing. You know, there's going to be a moment and I think, you know Trump won, everybody thought it'd be the Republicans. I'm not thinking, well, it could very easily be the Democrats, right because they're in some ways performing like the Whigs.

At the moment where there's a divide inside the party, do you go full resistance or do you try to persuade those you know, a few more from the other side to try to have a more durable majoritarianism. And I think that, you know, bottom line is we're not We're not done yet with this back and forth we had. We went through six presidencies between Jackson and Lincoln. Nobody

got re elected, no party got reelected. Right, it was just a series of this stuff, and we're we're in our third one right now, twenty eight get going to resolve this. So I think we will eventually resolve it. The question is how many people have to get hurt before we sober up?

you think you think ten to one with it. I don't know if they get the ten one ten one max. Yeah, but it could end up at nine two. So if you end up at nine two, you basically did all this work. You sort of peed away political capital of Barack Obama and Abigail Spamberger from one seat.

then you have more possibility. Would we be better off if a third of the Republican caucus were Don Bacon people, right? Or do you create a situation where no, you're just gonna have a whole bunch of James Comers, is that what you want? And then then there's no ability to sort of bridge any device, so that I actually think that that's the other part of this is that what do you what do you are we really gaining in this other than a fight bridge just you know, a

gavel And again I'm I'm this. Look, we've gone through this. Anytime you want to temporarily suspend anything because you think no, no, no, well, first of all, how often have parties you know who said no, no, no, we'll come back to this have actually come back to this.

own principles. And I don't know if they'll be punished by the voters for it, but they're showing themselves to be cynical. And it is I said, not a good look. Now, this was before I thought that they would win anyway. And in New York it doesn't really matter that My matter is a little bit. You know, Upstate New York elects Repubsi Valley.

Bradley Tusk, and he's tried to get essentially app voting, and I think that would be a real game changer if it could be done successfully. And he's convinced me it can be done, So I don't want to.

so it can be done. And once it's done and once it's easy, it takes primaries from something with eleven percent participation to you know, fifty, And I think that's a huge game changer and it's the number one reform

I think that really can change things.

of equal protection. And now they I don't think they're you know, I'm I am pretty I would just call it supportive of the folks over at open primaries, and I've like pushed this as as sort of I think there's a legal I think there's actually you can you can sue some of these states that have these that essentially bar independence and bar non registered voters from this. But looked all party primary, I mean, it is the

better answer. There's no you know. The fact is, think about the office that is the least partisan in America

these days, it's mayor. And a majority of mayors are elected in all party primaries, where the top two candidates usually they don't even put parties. A lot of them are none are you don't put your party, lay on the ballot and top two play. I mean. And the thing is is that I love to use the example of a congressman named Carlos Sumenez. He's a Republican congressman from Miami. When he was mayor of Miami Dade, I had no idea he was a conservative Republican because he

didn't govern that way. He governed the whole county. He was elected in a county wide vote. He never put his party. You knew he leaned right, okay, and let's just see you govern based on how the votes that get you in office. And then of course he got elected in a partisan Republican primary where the Republican primaries everything,

and he's voted a lot more. Conserve even even challenged that the elect didn't certify in January sixth, right, And I remember being surprised that he didn't because I knew what kind of Mary was. But I actually chalk it up to I always say this, our issue is incentives. There are bad people can do good things with good incentives, and good people can do bad things with bad incentives. And our primary system is mostly a bad incentive.

they have votre parities. Of course it's India. So I think in some of the cases, you know Nebraska, it's an imperative, it's the the In that case, the brand of the Democrats are so toxic that it makes sense to run as an independent, say with McMullen in Utah.

Not that he could win, but it makes sense to win to run that way. And I also think on the presidential level there's a real chance at a breakthrough of a third party candidate. I think it's so much harder at the state level. I kind of support it. I like experimentation and mixing up, but you know, just because of all the incentives and all the everything that's in place, it makes it hard. It would be easier with that jungle primarya I think first past, not first

past the post, but top two. Oh and one other thing I wanted to say, it's a light criticism. I think that the activists who were so behind ranked choice voting, they my rank choice of electoral reforms that would be way down the I'd more for it than against it,

But ninety something percent of the time it doesn't have a real impact. There is a certain percentage of the time where you could plausibly argue is the are the will of the people really being reflected? And they did put a lot of effort into that, as opposed to jungle primers, which I think would have helped things a lot more.

can explain the black box that is ranked choice voting. There is no way for me to be able to open up on election night. Okay, here's the initial run and you know, here's what we know about the second choices. There appears to be this case and it has more second choices of this, and you know, do I think we could get there with states and local officials getting better at figuring out how to report these things out? Yeah?

But are we better off not trying to have them do two or three different counts on election nine and just focus on the main thing being the main thing, the actual the first count and then you have a runoff, you know, I mean, look, I'm for Louisiana had the of all the jungle primary systems, it was Louisiana was my favorite jungle system because they did it where the all party primary actually was like in October or September, was late, and then top if nobody got fifty, top

two met in the general election itself. So that way

you had because the fear is that if you have a runoff after the general election, you get fewer, lesser turnout, and it's less well of the people. That's why the timing of the Louisiana system made the most sense of how he did it, and then you don't have to worry about rank choice voting, but you get all the but you get the you get exactly what rankd choice voting wants to deliver.

know they put this system in, you had a competitive two party system. Sure, you had the land Drew dynasty was that's right, And you also had you know, John Bell Edwards. By the way, Washington State, which has a version of this system too, also has had even though it's a very blue state, it's been a very competitive Republican party for some time up there because of this system. And so I just think it actually gives minority voices more of an opportunity to have to get their say.

And I look at Washington, Louisiana, who have Now you know, again, we're in this era where each party feels like they have to do everything they can to maximize their ability to win. In fact, so a buddy of mine who's a big consultant in California, I asked him, so, what's that What happens if the two Republicans end up in the top two and that's the general election, right, Steve

Hilt and Bianca? And he said Hilton would win, and in less than a year there'd be a recall and the top two and then the legislature would he and then there'd be a a ballot prop to get rid

of the all party primaries in California would return to this old system, basically eradicate all the Arnold Schwarzenegger election reforms within essentially eighteen months. Yes, if that is, if that's the scenario, and the way he at I said, you know what, he's probably right. There would probably be a successful recall. Hilton probably would get recalled pretty quickly.

And you know, you could just see that because we're so partisan right now, particularly out on the coasts, that would happen pretty quick.

I just think they'll tune in.

was in nineteen ninety one and called the seven Dwarfs. Yep, I remember that because none of them ever all that, none of the major Democrats that everybody thought were going to be the front runners. They thought, oh, Bush is unbeatable, I'm not running. I'm going to wait till ninety six. Right, you're Bill Bradley's you're out, Gorge, your dicktep parts, all these Jay Rockefeller, all these say I'm none. There were all these people that said I'm waiting, and you know,

so there were those that said, well, every nomination's worth having, so why not. And it does feel like the California right that the mayor of San Francis. I've talked to so many Democrats who are like, I wish the Mayor of San Francisco were running. Luriy or you have those in southern California. I wish Rick Caruso were running, but he's not. I've heard others say I wish Kamala Harris

are running. I wish Alex Padill were running. There's a lot of It is amazing when you look at the number of high profile people that don't want to lead the world's fourth largest economy. It's surprising how many people have taken a pass on that seat.

democratic cloth code. Yeah. I do think that it's going to shake out, and I think that one of them will leave, And I don't know if it'll be pressure or polling or Tom Steyer really thinks he's going to be governor.

I don't know if any of them would want Gavin's endorsement out.

bad program. Chris van Holland has a similar, smaller program, but a thing that has gain steam because we're told, and I think it's true that this is the affordability moment and election is There are different words for it,

surveillance pricing, predatory pricing, predictive pricing. This is the technology, very simple technology that you could change the price based on a lot of different things.

the childcare tax credit. Right, that is something that Vance and could get Trump to support. That a lot of a lot of sort of main you know, sort of the There was plenty of Republican opposition to it, right, But this is one of the areas where there is some there is some agreement between sort of one wing of the Democratic Party and one wing of the Republican Party. But to me, I think that's the hardest. I think that's the hardest thing. Forget what they're going to do

when in office. Do you want your bills signed by Donald Trump? And are you going to be comfortable if you pass things that Donald Trump likes?

being bipartisan will be rewarded. There's a bunch that, you know, Democrats tend to be more policy wonks. They actually are excited to get some things done. You add that all up. I think that the we need to do nothing to

make a point or to not give JD or Donald a win. I think that's a small caucus. Of course, you know, just a small faction can have devastating, outsized impacts.

crowd whatever it is. So I think we are absolutely going to see nothing get done if there's a democratic Now, some might argue that's what they want, right, just paralysis is better than giving anything.

to figure out what's happening. Why, I said, be prepared for lots of subpoenas, because because congressional democrats aren't going to be able to get these Trump officials to answer subpoenas, because they'll all hide behind executive privilege and finding out what these deals were that were cut with the administration and all this stuff. But the private sector doesn't get

to hide behind executive privilege. And I have a feeling that the most high profile impact of a democratic Congress is going to be that.

mean he did say that, or he allegedly or has been reported to have said that.

he told me. He says, well, I thank good. Now we were talking about AI regulation and I said why you're pro and he says, yes, and I want to see the states regulate. And he gave me an example. He goes, I'm a subscriber to the Washington Post and thanks to the law New York, you know, I really you know, which said that, you know this has been

done with surveillance pricing. You know essentially that he was being And that was his way of using an example why it's good if the state's way in and in one state law could actually help people living in other states. In one regulatory decision by New York to force disclosure on surveillance pricing at least gave a consumer in Oklahoma an opportunity to find out what this was all about.

Democrat from Oklahoma, maybe that time will come again. So the deal with surveillance pricing, which, depending on how much you like it or hate it, is called dynamic pricing. That seems good the stores, the retailers call it dynamic pricing.

No one likes that. That's pretty bad. But another aspect of dynamic pricing, and this made the front page of the New York Post, is Wendy's was charging more for Hamburgers at noon than they were at eleven. And I got to say, all this to me is is a discount for the eleven o'clock hamburg.

But this is what the circulars and discounts and even be longing to Sam's Club gives you. Right, different people have different things. The classic example that the retailers use is if the bananas are going bad, we could price them at ten cents a pound instead of thirty five cents a pound, and essentially we might even be taking a loss. But what we're really doing is incentivizing the shopper to take the bananas home with them instead of

us putting it in a compost team. So there's so much about dynamic pricing that's just modern and that actually just helps everyone and is being thought of as a boogeyman. And there are bills, literally bills in front of Congress that would eliminate the banana pricing scheme. And I identify this as though the outrageous examples concentrate the mind. I think that if you just publicize them, my libertarian instincts would say that the companies wouldn't want to be associated

with them. I think of it as so if affordability is the issue, it's very hard for Democrats not to jump on this trend. But are they really improving things for the media and voter and consumer.

you're putting your throwing into this bucket of what we're

going to call surveillance pricing or whatever. I think the where I the problem I have is what the airlines want to do, which is use the data, use the data that I have voluntarily given them against me to price some things right, And that is wait a minute, you know, so now it looks like now I'm almost regretting ever becoming a frequent flyer because I've given them so much information that you know, they now every time I book, they know certain things and I'm going to

get quoted a price. You know, they know where I'm They can look at my history to know how price sensitive I am on various things and various routes and how. And so the I think it's how the how the data you've handed over to them, if that's being used to inform your individual price. I think when you're saying floating price based on supply and demand, that seems very normal, fair part of the free market economy. When you're changing

price based on what you think an individual will do, that feels a little bit. That feels like you're bordering on discrimination.

seen as a boogeyman, and in this moment of affordability above all else, it's tantalizing to reach for. I also don't know do voters really reward you for these small, bore quality of life improvements. When Biden tried, and maybe this was messaging jump.

to be. That was the differentiator. Your local news operation was much more of a consumer advocate than and I think gutting and I've always said when we gutted local news,

we actually gutted the first line of trust defense, meaning because the local news operators were the consumer advocates finding out who was getting scammed and hey, there's some bad phone calls, right, Always Shasmer protection on you that it gave actually media a little bit more trust generally. So I agree it's not a single killer app issue. But I actually think anytime you're caught being a consumer advocate, you're gaining trust.

are we really paying attention to. Do you think there's going to be a ripoff talk, a shame on you talk? Do you think this is going to be a predatory pricing talk. I don't know that these are the issues that are grabbing our attention these days.

upset with the Democrats, and often is. If you hear three Democrats voted against the bill and she's off from one.

One is they're trying to improve ballot access for independent candidates. And you know, and that's a that's the thing you kind of have, that's almost like a that's the long game.

The short game is they're looking to do a better version of what problem Solvers and no Labels tried to do and didn't do it very well, which is create a caucus of independent thinkers whatever that is independent Dems, independent ours, independent independence right that collectively vote together on leadership elections and and become the folkrum like in the Senate if you just got you know, take Dan Osborne, right, the thing that's keeping him from winning that center race

is the fact that he you know, it's you know, it's he's going to be a vote for Schumer. He's going to be a vote for Democrats. So how does he convince the voters that he's not a vote for Schumer and then he's not a vote for Democrats? Right?

You know, if he's working with you know, if his answer is I'm going to work with Lisa, I'm going to Lisa Murkowski, and I'm going to you know, Bernie Sanders and Lisa Murkowski and Angus King and you know, and John Curtis in Utah, you know, you sort of and I'm you know, I'm going to try to forge an independ I refuse to have to pick between Donald

Trump and Chuck Schumer. You're not going to make me pick here, because I actually think my election is going to create an opening with to work with a whole bunch of independents and will make the two parties court us to decide who should get the majority. But until we have that breakthrough, that's what makes it I think tough in these independent Senate campaigns.

about the world.

the garden power. I'm really into this constitutional amendment that's been introduced in the House that gives Congress the ability to essentially overturn a presidential pardon using sort of but

realizing it has to be a constitutional amendment. And I actually think the parameters they created, which was it has to be a super majority to do it, and all this stuff feels very founding fatherlike, oh, sort of like okay, and the type of modernization that probably is necessary out of you know, for the life of me, I don't know why there's soul why an individual was given pardon power by a bunch of people who were afraid of a king. But needless to say that I did happen.

in the industrial right, the Industrial Revolution and the pushback on that. That's why we got direct election of senators when we suffrage the ability to tax rich aggressive. Right. So you know, do I think it's twenty twenty eight? No? But do I think remember all of those constitutional amendments that passed were like introduced twenty years earlier.

the NBA sucks? NBA regular season sucks, And it's like it like it always, just it's a stark reminder that, like the NBA has a massive regular season problem. I'll say this both as a fan of basketball and as a gambler. Okay, I enjoy gambling. I know that's not popular to say that, but.

what the data indicates generally it should match, right. And I don't know, but I think the NBA has a massive regular season problem. And I don't know how they should, how they're going to fix it, but I think they've got to fix it. I'm embarrassed about the Wizards, you know, but if they're not alone here with this tanking mess, but it really has made the NBA is useless to watch when a tanking team is playing anybody It doesn't matter if they're playing Wemby or if they're playing you know,

it is baseball. Yeah, think about baseball, baseball, whatever you think of baseball in September. Of the teams that are eliminated, those players try hard because.

by being selfish and trying to milk the fans. Long series where teams get to know each other and get to know each other's every move are amazing. They're great. So I'd rather have an NBA where people are trying, where teams are trying, than in NCAAA, which gins up this March Madness excitement because of the one and done nature of the tournament. In fact, I think the tournament itself is this great product, and people don't view NCAA basketball is this great product. They do a little bit lately.

People are interested in the fresh better.

gambling helps, and one and done. In Jacka's drama into it.

the tournament in the eighties. Four year point guards again have become important in the n club a. So I think that in that sense, let me throw an idea at you. It at the NBA. So look, I hear you on a seven game series. There's nothing like it for the NBA finals and for the conference finals. But you know, baseball would have a bigger problem about the Dodgers if it wasn't for the fact that they have a five game series in their playoffs.

I'm not a big fan of the play in as much. I get why they tried it, but instead of doing the play in, I'd rather see the five game first round series because it then makes the eighth seed and seven seed worth having as it is, and you might get more nine through twelve teams who are deciding do I tank or not. You're not beating Oh, you're not going to win a one You're not going to beat a one seed in a seven game series. It's happened

once or twice, but it mostly doesn't. But you could do it in a five game and then suddenly that's an incentive to get into the playoffs. Just like in baseball, the eighty eight win team that sneaks in with a great pitcher can knock off the one seed in a five game series because that picture can pay twice.

it would deprioritize the SATs. But I don't think that would be a fairer system. But what we want in sports is entertainment. So I definitely want to say this one thing. I have a solution, And I have a critique of something. You said you don't bet because you don't know if the teams are trying. That is true. I think you're probably over indexing for the Wizards, who are horrendous on this score, Absolutely shameful.

facial lacerations as he drives down the lane. There is a lot of effort and the way to stop the tanking. It's very interesting because they thought that, well, instead of

giving teams the guaranteed number one pick, we'll just give them the highest odds at the number one pick. And I think a behavioral economists will say that will never change behavior. If all you're doing is saying, well, do I have any chance of it? Is it a better chance than everyone else? I'm still going to do it. The downside of tanking, isn't that bad what you do. It's a fundamental change, But really, if you think about it, it's fine. It works. It solves a lot of problems.

Rotate the number one pick among all thirty two teams in the league, or we expand thirty five thirty eight. So that's fine. I mean, one year Oklahoma City will have it after winning the National Championship and one or the NBA Championship, and one year the Spurs will have it after being in last place, as they did when you know, when they picked David Robinson. So if you just do a rotation and then some modification, I don't think teams are jockeying so much to get the three

or four or five pick. I think it's a lot better than what we have now. You have to address tanking silver I think could lose a job over how bad the tanking issue has become.

I don't think that's worked right. I think we still we still have it, and part of the load management

gets it too. This is why I think tinkering with the playoffs, where you incentivize making the regular season matter more, you've got and I think ultimately, if the regular season matters more, you will over time have less handing. And I don't know how you do. When you allow twenty of the thirty teams to make the playoffs, have you made the regular season matter anymore?

just the defense that's being played to the eighties or nineties. I used to think, are they even really trying? And they weren't, and just go to a.

highest they could get was eleven. Yeah, so you know, that seemed like a pretty so that way you're not doing the process i e. The Sixers where you're tanking three years in a row or what the Astros did, right that was that was what happened in baseball. The Astros did a huge tank job in twenty ten, twenty eleven, twenty twelve, which got them to a corea Bregman, and you know, and then they ended up, you know, having this great run.

there going, oh, there's no urgency. And we're at the tail end of the season, right, We're at this and so you do have that, you know, there's a little bit of let's save people a little bit for the playoffs. So it is, and it's a if I'm the NBA, it's a bummer. You've got a whole bunch of people excited about basketball, they tune into the pros, and you're not giving them nearly the same urgency. And you know, I think it's a missed opportunity for the NBA as well.

games of the NBA season is always going to be boring. If there are more than fifty games in the NBA season. Hey, if you want to balm for all of this. WNBA they've gone to a forty four game season, but they have three game series and it's all tight and taut. And though again with the new deal, which I congratulate the players for, as more money comes into the league, they're going to want to if they can fill an arena, as they will, and that's what's going to happen with

the WNBA, and they will be grousing about this. We'll be saying, oh, the Links always get the number one pick.

tell you. So, we've had how to Emigrate as a throuble to the to Europe. We've had how to be a Ghostbuster. We're doing next week how to Talk to My Cats? Some good practical advice there. I do have cats, So tune into how to for you please clectic and practical pieces of advice, and i'd let you want to ask a question.

Nate silvers. Are you gonna call them silvers? You don't know whether an homage to Nate or homage to Adam, but you know, how many silvers do you have to participate in this draft? I didn't hate the idea of somebody who prefers auction over snake drafts and fantasy sports, but the tanking problem is just a real problem. And what's interesting is we go through this what's wrong with the NBA. It's always at this time of year, and it's all because of how great the NCAA tournament is

and how great especially if the basketball is really good, which this year it is, and we sit there and so anyway, I'm curious your tanking solutions. It's really it really bothers me. I want to be a good Wizards fan. I'm embarrassed. It bothers me. I don't like I don't like not competing for multiple years in a row, and they have not competed. Right, even when baseball teams tank, the on the field is an effort. That's what bothers. It's really gross. But anyway, you know, it is Monday,

so let's jump into the time machine. So let me

tell you this week was a doozy, right. This week in history, with the anniversaries they have in this coming seven day period, is one of those weeks that simply stops you when you actually look at it. April twelfth,

eighteen sixty one. The Battle of Fort Sumter. The Civil War begins. April ninth, eighteen sixty five. Surrender of Appomatics at the Appomatics Courthouse. The Civil War ends. April sixth, nineteen seventeen. US entry and too World War One, the United States enters its first global war. Just sit with that a second, right, This week alone two wars one week. One of those wars this week both its beginning and its end. Both fall within the same seven days fifty

four years apart. That's not something historian engineers. It's just the calendar being strange and almost poetic at the same time. But you know, history geeks and history in general loves weeks like this. They're clean markers, their dates. We can teach their moments, we can point to and say they're that's when it started, that's when it ended. But here's

what I keep coming back to. When I looked at this week and I thought about what should I do the deep dive on, what should I make the history lesson? And I thought, you know, we kind of knew we there may be something deeper here. We're really good at

marking the beginning of conflicts, and we're also good at marking the end of them. What we are almost never good at is resolving the argument that caused them. We stop fighting the actual war, but we don't don't resolve the argument itself, not slowing it down, not changing its shape, actually resolving the argument. And this week makes that uncomfortable

truth almost impossible to ignore. Because these two wars, in particular World War One in the Civil War, they both have end dates, but neither were resolved Let's start with the Civil War, because if you're looking for a clean ending in American history, it doesn't get any cleaner than appomatics. Right, Sometimes you just have to say it. Sometimes people will

reference or we're going to have an appomatics moment. Right, that's how that's how important this moment is in American history. April ninth, eighteen sixty five, Roberty Lee surrenders to Ulysses s. Grant's terms are notably generous. Lee's officers keep their side arms, his soldiers keep their horses. There's no triumphalism. There's almost a deliberate effort to make it feel like a closing. The fighting stops most immediately, the country begins telling itself

a story. The war is over the nation as whole. Let's move forward. But what exactly was resolved? Slavery, yes, formally abolished, but the argument underneath the war, the one

that made the war necessary in the first place. Who belongs in the country, on what terms, with what rights? Who gets to be an American? That did not end in eighteen sixty five. We did not resolve that argument. Three years later, the fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution put birthrights citizenship directly into the Constitution settles it supposedly, if you're born here, you're an American, full stop. Except

it wasn't full stop. Even with that language in the Constitution, Citizenship, its meaning, its application, its daily lived reality, has remained bitterly contested. On paper, black Americans were citizens. In practice, they were systematically denied what citizenship was supposed to guarantee for nearly a century, through law, through violence, through deliberate exclusion. And here's the part that should give us some pause,

that argument who gets to be an American? What birthright citizenship actually means? Who qualifies? It's not a historical debate, It's an active one right now. Just last week, right in front of it was argued in front of the Supreme Court. We didn't resolve the question at appomatics. We didn't resolve it with the fourteenth Amendment. We didn't resolve it with the court case that settled birthright citizenship. We

continue to relitigate it in different forms ever since. So the Civil War ended the argument that caused it did not. We just keep finding new occasions to happen. Guess what, that's not just an American problem. Now, take that same pattern and scale it globally. On April sixth, nineteen seventeen, the US formally enters World War One, the Great War, it was called at the time. Frame me is explicit make the world safe for democracy, hard stop. This was

supposed to be the war to end all wars. November eleventh,

nineteen eighteen, the war ends. Armistice Day, remember that celebration relief another clear clean marker, another date we can point to. We've now changed into Veterans Day, because it's not like that was a real peace day, was it. I actually think it's wrong to try to celebrate Armistic's Day if you ended up with another World war essentially some twenty years later, because the peace that followed wasn't resolution, it

was rearrangement. The Treaty of Versailles punishes Germany without stabilizing Europe, and across the broader conflict, empires collapsed, most consequentially the Ottoman Empire, which I had controlled much of the Middle East for centuries. And into that vacuum, some outsized powers, outside powers, primarily Britain and France, drew new borders. They created new states, assigned new rulers. You get a kingdom, You get a kingdom. Hey, we've decided this straight line

is a border. Let's paper over ethnic, religious, and national claims that had never actually been resolved. Well, guess what. Their maps didn't settle anything. They didn't settle those competing claims. They just drew lines through them and moved on. And this is what I want you to think about. We talk about the modern Middle East as though it's a series of separate crises, as though each conflict is its own thing, But it's not much of what we're navigating

in that region today. The instability, the competing claims, the borders that don't match the people living inside them. That is the direct, unresolved consequence of a map drawn in the aftermath of World War One, as I used to joke, by a couple of drunk Frenchmen and Brits. Maybe they weren't drunk, but I hope they were, because they made

so many mistakes that I'd like to chalk it up to their brains not fully functioning. But they were drawn by people who weren't from there, settling claims they didn't fully understand, and for interest that often had very little to do with the people actually living inside those manufactured lines. That's not ancient history, that's the architecture virtually every conflict the United States has been involved in over there for

the last half century. We ended World War One in nineteen eighteen, we declared another World War in nineteen thirty nine, and more than a century later, we are still dealing with what was left unresolved when the first one ended. The fighting stopped, the argument did not. This is the pattern I keep coming back to, not just in these two wars cross history again and again. We treat wars like chapters, beginning, middle, and an end. We closed the book.

We build the monuments in the holidays. But most wars

aren't chapters. They're arguments. And arguments don't end when the shooting stops. They end if they end when you actually attempt to resolve the thing that made people willing to fight in the first place, identity, power, belonging, who controls what, who counts as whom. That's a lot harder than winning. That requires the real diplomacy. It requires more than a surrender ceremony and generous terms. It requires a willingness to

actually finish what you started. That just keeps, not just stop fighting about it, and that willingness, historically speaking, is pretty rare. So that brings us back to this week. Fort Sumpner appomatics America entering World War One. They're some of the cleanest markers in history. Dates, we teach, moments, we commemorate stories with supposedly a satisfying shape of a beginning and an end. But what those dates don't tell you is that argument underneath them are still running. Who

gets to be an American is still being litigated, the consequences of the post World War One map still being lived today. We marked the endings, we celebrated them, we built monuments to them. What we didn't do, and what we almost never do, is finish the argument. And unfinished arguments don't disappear. They don't respect the calendar. They don't care about anniversaries. They just wait for the next occasion, for the next generation to pick up where the last

one left off. History gives us dates to remember, it almost never gives us the resolution we thought we earned.

goes first time writing, I was introduced to you by watching me the press as you help keep my wife and I stay sane during the chaos of Trump one point. Oh, well, thank you for saying that finding your podcast now is again helping me through the next level of chaos and Trump two point zero and your level headed analysis of

current events. Loving the time machine too. What are your thoughts on ranked choice voting. You've mentioned that electing independence could help our dysfunctional Congress. To me, voting for an independent risks throwing away your vote and allowing a candidate you oppose win. Ranked choice seems to be a way to safely take a chance on an independent, you prefer by choosing a traditional party candidate as a backup. And then he adds go Dodgers, Well, Tom, the theory of

ranked choice voting I like a lot. And why do I say it's a theory because of this idea of hey, when you're voting, rank them, And I accept the premise that maybe if we implemented it within ten years, everybody would get comfortable and then we'd be like, what's the big deal? That's also true, but getting from there to you know, basically, from point to point B. I think's

extraordinarily difficult. I think the challenge is, Look, what we're trying to do is solve for a problem, right, and problem one is primaries have way too much impact on our politics. It sort of independence don't really have much say, they're kind of underrepresented. They don't get to participate in these primaries. They don't get to have much choice into actually who shows up in the ballot. So, you know, ranked choice voting is a way to try to fix,

to try to improve. Essentially, we're not dealing with the core problem, which is primaries themselves, and instead rank choice voting sort of papers over it. My issue with rank choice voting is I think you have a hard time. I think it's too easy to exploit. It's too easy to make people think that you're messing around with the numbers. Right,

It's hard to follow the ballot all the way. Like I just think about what I did for over a decade on NBC, almost two decades, right, basically explaining returns as they came in, And you could explain the first count and you're like, all right, but it is hard to cleanly audit for the average American to consume cleanly audit that second choice, third choice, and all of that. It's doable. It's just you've got to rely on the government giving us more access to these ballots. You're going

to show a lot of the ballot itself. It's very difficult. Ideally, I'd like the what ranked choice vote voting gives us, but to just do it in stages. So I think the ideal system is a combination of California, Washington, and Louisiana. All three states have had jungle primaries. What do I mean by that? Everybody appears in the same primary ballot. Now they each resolve how and now Alaska's that way,

but with the rank choice voting. Right, So the idea is everybody votes, it's just round one of the general election, rather than call it prime. But it's sort of round one. It's the first round, and the top four advance. Right now, California has a top two, Washington has a top two, and one the top from each party meets. Louisiana was just top two generally, kind of like California, but some form of that. I think Alaska is top four and then they go to rank choice voting. So, however, you want to.

a better populoist right nationalists kind of same thing. So sort of nationalists, progressive right on and so those four flavors if you're looking for avatars, so Sanders on the left, Trump on the right, and then some combination of oh, let's say Jos Shapiro, Glenn Younkin, all right, or maybe it's maybe a better version of it is Josh Shapiro, Nikki Haley all right, how's that right? Sort of occupy. So there's your sort of avatars for the four and

then top two. You know, if somebody gets fifty out of that top four, they don't have to go to a runoff. But you sort of hold it right. We might have April, you know, sort of regional primaries throughout the month of April. Each week is a different region that votes, say October, you'd have the all four and if somebody got over fifty, This is the way Louisiana used to work. Somebody got over fifty, they didn't have to go to a runoff, they got they won the

election right there. But if you know, nobody got fifty, then the top two ended up in a runoff that was held on the November election day. So that, to me is my ideal. So what rank choice voting is

trying to accomplish I agree with. I think the execution of it though papers over the larger problem of the primaries themselves and the fact that all voters don't have a say it who gets to be who gets to represent you know, team A, Team B, TEAMC, and TMD in that sense, and all part putting and giving independence.

Right now, the state sanctioning a primary but then excluding certain residents because they've chosen not to become members of a private club feels like a violation of your constitutional rights. And I think, frankly some of these taxpayer funded primaries can be attacked on those grounds lack of equal protection. And I think you're seeing my friends over at the open primaries are trying to do. So that's where I come down on ranked choice voting. It's a solution to

the primary problem. If you're not going to fix the primary system, but if we can attack the root cause, which is how we do this primary system, then maybe ranked choice voting would be less necessary. Just my two cents, I think we're disagreeing on how to implement, not on the larger solution that.

George Mason's law school is in Arlington. It's not in fair fact, so I should know better on that. A lot about Georgetown's law school is not on the campus of Georgetown. It's actually in your Capitol Hill. So that is an error on me and I wish I do it. I appreciate the correction, so thanks George. Next question comes

from Patrick C. With your end of round snake draft picks I employ you to take. To take two questions from Patrick in Los Angeles, I'd enter the Chuck Tad two timers club and three way club. One. What current player or manager in the big three sports leagues would best transition into politics?

active on the left a little bit. I think he's I think if you told me in four years he's being recruited to run for governor of California or something like that, because their last it's been a debacle and the party's infighting, right like, I could see him transitioning to it. I saw a nice story about him writing a handwritten note to the manager of the Toronto Blue Jays just after they lost Game seven John Schnyder. Schnyder

shared the note. Curtdn't right. Schnyder shared the note. It was just a hand written note from courgasing how much he admired Schneider and how prepared his team was, and how just he knows it's painful that he'd been there, and it was just the type of thing that just to you know, he didn't that's something he didn't have to do. He didn't know, John Snyder. He might have been, as he admitted, he was rooting for the Dodgers, but

he admired how well Schneider was managing that game. Clearly he sort of was on top of things, had sort of gotten there was you know, look, let's be realistic, the Dodgers. The Dodgers won the World Series by a cleat if those of you that recalled that Game seven, but it was interesting the athletic story on that. Sin Kerr was asked about how he got how what inspired

him to do this? And he's done this six or seven times, not very often, and he didn't say which coaches he's sent it to but because he said he got a note out of the blue from Sean Payton after his first NBA Finals appearance, and he says he didn't know Sean Payton. This was now the coach of the Broncos, then was the coach of the Saints, and just sort of a similar message like merely impressed with

you know how you've transitioned to coaching, et cetera. And you know, I'm always I always admire people when they get when when they're doing something that they didn't They didn't do for public praise. They just did it because they wanted to make somebody they did un They literally followed the golden doing to others that you hope someone does unto you or maybe you passed it, you paid it forward because someone did it for you. So I'd probably put Steve Kerr in that in that first category.

I'm trying to think of a few others. Look, Bruce Burrow may end up running for office, and you know, I think he you know, I'm not. I'm not sure. Alabama is an odd place for him. I don't know if it. If I know he's he's he wouldn't be the first former Auburn coach to try to win state white office. But I do wonder if you have to have this othern accent to win state white office in Alabama,

that would be that That's my strong curiosity there. But you already have a guy like Bruce Pearl's thinking about it. And by the way, I know, like I said, if you follow Bruce Pearl on Twitter, you're at and you follow him for basketball, but you get his political stuff, you might say, oh, he seems to be decidedly on one side of the aisle. And I know it makes some people, you know, judge him just based on his politics, But I tell you, I really enjoyed his commentary, you know,

regardless of what his politics are on this front. And he's pretty pretty defensive of the state of Israel in general. But he clearly I think has the I think he's got the ambition, So I think he's somebody else I would I would throw into there, and I think they would both manage politics better than Tommy Tupperville. Put it this way, I've never had Tommy Tupperville on my calendar, and I still don't think he makes a really good politician.

I think he's burming that every day. And while I don't, well, I assume he does become governor, I have a feeling that ain't gonna go well. You know, he's not known as a hard worker, and I don't think he realizes big governors actually work. Being a senator ain't a real job.

Being a governor is a real job. So I'll be let's just say I'm not I'm I've set the bar pretty low for him there, and he's facing a pretty tough candidate for the Democrats and Doug Jones and who of course won that senate's special Senate election a few years back against Roy Moore. Topperville's no Roy Moore as far as the morality stuff is concerned. But I think I have a feeling that's going to be a close race. I think a lot of people are going to be

aware that Tommy ain't up to this job. He probably wins because that state's pretty conservative, but this is the whiff of one four year term, and I'll just leave it at that. As for your second one, look, that's the conversation I had with Thyke Friman. I mean, in well, that's an And as far as China, you're taking avantage

of this Trump term to get what they want. In my interview with Daniel Jurgen, I asked him if not the United States to secure the Strait. He basically said, there's only one other country that can, and that's China. And he says, look, he says, going back to Jimmy Carter, we basically have made a deal with the Golf States that we had them. We were their defense umbrella. And if we're not there to open up the straight and

we don't do it, they will turn to China. And China would love to have those golf States as their number one ally rather than right now, those Golf States they play us their eyes with bo but we're in the number one camp. China's decidedly number two. We do not want that to flip. And you're right, that is the price that would be. But they don't want to tank. Remember it's actually not in China's interest to tank the

American economy. The Chinese economy would tank if they tanked the American economy, so that actually is something they wouldn't want to do. But do they want more influence in the golf, Yes, they would want that. Next question comes from Johnny Goes. Hello from a two timer working towards five. Thanks for the Mattman interview. He will have my vote for governor. Much has been made about Congress since Operation Desert Storm relinquishing its authority to commit the country to

foreign wars is required by the Constitution. Has their inaction produced a precedent that would be difficult to overcome? What would be required for Congress to take this power back from the executive branch? John, it's sitting right there, hold a vote. I think they have. You know, the Constitution is pretty clear. But if they fail to the precedent they set is that they if they fail to attempt to use their power, then yes, what the what the

executive does? They can't They don't do anything about unless they deny him money. And I think that's the point of John Curtis's op ed saying, Hey, the clock is ticking and we're twenty two days away from the expiration of the sixty day clock. But this administration has a unitary view of the executive and every administration has. Every president since the passage of the War Powers Act has

at least abided by its rules. But most anybody that there are a lot of constitutional lawyers who believe that the War Powers Act does is not that does not have the constraints that the Act thinks it does. Ultimately, the real power Congress has is the purse. That's the power hard stop period and that they can use any time they want. None of this has been precedent per se,

because it's not as if. But I do think if if Congress is says, actually went to the courts and claimed that the President was violating the War Powers Act, I don't think they'd lose that court fight. I don't think the administration would want that court fight. But it may not be a slam dunk and we and it would be something that might get litigated for months while the administration just continues to opt to to conduct this war. All right. Last question comes from Natalie or Nathalie, an

expat nat in Skien, Norway. He says, Hey, Chuck, big Nuggets fan here, and while this was one of the best times to be a basketball fan, the Joker Wenby matchup the other night was a masterclass. Hey, I caught the last five minutes. I will thank Bill Simmonson a tweet who said, I hope you're catching this match up here at the end I was like, first of all, it took me three apps to go find the game. I first went to YouTube TV, not there. Then I

went and to my NBA app, Nope, Prime. Then I finally found it on Prime and caught the last minute and a half plus the overtime. I mean, just amazing, And it was a reminder the Nuggets can that was it's Wemby's league. Now we're just it's Wemby's world. We're just lucky to be want to be a part of it. So anyway, but I digress. Let me continue with your question. The stain on the NBA right now is tanking. So here's my question. Is relegation structurally possible in the NBA.

The idea of being the three lowest ranked teams dropped to the G League and have to earn promotion back it would make tanking suicidal overnight. But the G League isn't an independent division like the Championship the way the Championship League works over in Europe. It's a network of franchise owned affiliates, and relegated teams would likely hemorrhage broadcast revenue in ways that could make major market valuations impossible to sustate, has anyone actually modeled this or does the

franchise ownership structure make it a non starter? By definition? You just essentially and asking your question also made the essentially the rest of your question explains why it's never

going to happen. There's a chance that if you told me in thirty years that the European League and the North American NBA League were in the sort of original NBA in the European NBA were sort of on par leagues, could we see something that way where the punishment for tanking in the United States would being, No, you're stuck with an overseas. You're gonna be stuck with overseas. You're

still playing professionally. Maybe the revenues are somewhat equal, but you you know, your fan base isn't happy because you're playing all these European teams that nobody knows. Like. As the NBA develops a league in Africa, a league in Europe, plus expansion of the North American situation, I think you could eventually see a structure that does this, But not with the G League at the moment because of all the reasons. You just stay right now. But this making

things a gigantic problem. You know, do you expand rosters?

best of fives. Because look at the Dodgers, the big great evil Empire. The Dodgers have been denied the World Series essentially because of losing in the five game. They don't know, haven't lost in the seven games very often. But the Nats won the title in nineteen because they beat the Dodgers in a five game. Could they have beaten them in a seventh game a seven game series? I don't know. The Diamondbacks when they got to the World Series, they did it. They beat the Dodgers in

a five game. When the Philly got to the World Series, they beat the Padres who beat the Dodgers in a five game, you get the thing. So I kind of I wonder if you had the five game, if more teams would think, hey, I could win around in the playoffs and get to the second round. Would that discourage something? So I anyway, I think there's a few things to

try first on this tanking thing. But it's embarrassing, it's terrible. And again, I know we go through this. We beat up the NBA, and it's always right around n C double a time because those college players always try that. We that we know. All right, I got a few odds and ends in the sports world real quick. I went to the Nats home opener. Everything looked great except the makeup of the of the Nats bullpen and then some I am already lamenting the idea that we're going

to trade C. J. Abrams. I worry about that. I think that if you were, if you believe you're going to be a win in the next two to three years, you should keep c. J. Adams. If you've decided you're not going to be a winner for five years, then sure be my guest, trade him. So a trade of C. J. Adams will be more Another reminder that this team is not serious about trying to put a competitor on the field sooner rather than later, because I don't think you're

going to get from Abrams what you think. Look, if you get a haul that looks like the Hall you got for Sodo, sure do it. But that ain't gonna happen. And if you don't, don't trade him unless it's for that kind of hall, Just don't do it. I think Abrams, I think there's a I think he and Wood are collectively could be an interesting foundation. Speaking of what he's got a problem with his swing, he's clearly either the

word is out on it. I noticed that when he swings at the first pitch, he has better luck than when he takes pitches. The minute he starts taking pitches, it's almost inevitable that he's going to get strike out. Looking. But he seems to have an issue. We need. There needs to be some coaching there. There needs to be somebody there. Something's off there. Basically, he's not been the same since the home run, since participating in the home

run derby in the All Star Break. I mean, you look at it, it's a definitive line and he's beginning the season. The way he ended the season, it's a little bit of cause for concern. I'd like to know what the Nats are doing to help him and fix that. But I want to be mindful of another thing. The Dodgers are just like, right, the top three. First of all, right, there's nothing like the Nats home opener to be the elixir for the supposedly struggling top of the order of

the Gnats. Right. I was at the game that the number one guy in the batting order show Aotani Homer, the number two guy in the batting order Kyle Tucker Homer, the number three guy in the batting order Mookie Betts Hobert, and the number four guy Freddie Freeman said hey, I want a part of this. Will Smith seemed the only one that didn't get to go to the home run party. Andy Pie is wow. Right. The point is the Dodgers have such depth in that lineup. Task for Fernandez is

into the seventh hole. So I don't want to crush the Nats too much here. The Dodgers are essentially they're the number one team. There is no number two, right, I think that's it. There's nobody close to them that doesn't mean they can't lose a series. That doesn't mean they didn't come a cleat away from losing to the Blue Jays. But on paper, there's nobody close to them. Now.

They've got some starting pitching issues, but they had them last year and they will figure out how to you know, they'll just buy themselves another picture that I'm convinced of. We brought up the Wemby stuff that was unbelievable. Just it. It really was worthwh and I am looking forward. These NBA playoffs could be great, particularly in the West. It's sad about what's happened to the Lakers that a healthy Lakers inserted into this sort of three team juggernaut that

is the Thunder, the Spurs, and the Nuggets. It's a bummer, but those hamstring strains are tough. Are tough, so enjoy Lebron in the playoffs kind of by himself. I have a feeling we might see a game or two where Lebron just has a game one more reminder, forty one year old Lebron, and he'll will them to a sixth you know, to probably sneaking out a first round win and then probably inevitably running into one of the top

three Juggernauts and then it's over. But that's a bummer, and the only other people more bummed are the TV rights holders on that losing both Luke and Austin Reeves. That's a tough situation, all right. It was a long Monday episode. We got through a lot. There's a little something for everybody in here. I will see you in forty eight hours.