This week on Blocked and Reported, Katie is joined by political commentator Ben Domenech to discuss what we can expect from the next Trump administration, the online right vs the establishment, the LA fires, and how an errant dick pic led to the rise of Andrew Breitbart, Steve Bannon, and brought us President Trump.
No, Billionaire Couple Does Not 'Own Most of California's Water' | Snopes.com
Climate Change A Factor In Unprecedented LA Fires
The Weekend Interview With Andrew Breitbart: Taking On the 'Democrat-Media Complex' - WSJ
When the news about the lesbian fire chief started being circulated online it made me realize how out of touch republican dudes were who supposedly loved cops and firefighters. From 2017-2020 I had a sales job with state entities, cities, and counties as my territory and got to know quite a few women at PDs and FDs. If there was a woman in either of those groups who was over 40, she was usually a lesbian and they all rocked. This wasn’t in some dark blue start either. This was in Utah.
Most of the scorn was directed at the deputy fire chief who made a promo video saying that any man who found himself in need of being carried out of a fire by her had "got himself into the wrong place". Such a vapid thing to say. Clearly she was promoted beyond her ability to comprehend her mission. A particularly sour message to hear after a deadly and devastating fire.
I mean, I thought the steelman of it would be “I’m no longer a frontline firefighter, I am management, if I am rescuing someone something has gone wrong” but she should have reassured the speaker that the active female firefighters are capable of doing that part of the job.
Also although for sure men are stronger than most women, most men or even male firefighters can’t just carry any dude by themselves. They are not all jacked and stronger than average men.
I’m positive there are already protocols in place for two people to carry larger individuals.
The quote was bad, and I’m sure she’s gotten in trouble for it. But it shouldn’t be extrapolated to how most female firefighters view things.
I'd have to see the context, but it at first blush, it sounds to me like it was just poor phrasing. People use colloquialisms like "got yourself into trouble" even in cases where the person isn't literally personally to blame for being in trouble. I agree that it's an inappropriate way to speak in that situation, but it still doesn't justify that blatant homophobia and demands for termination she's been targeted with.
I don't want to fall back on whataboutism, but look at some of the abhorrent shit other, even more powerful public representatives have gotten away with saying in response to tragedies. If we're looking to address the issue of inappropriate rhetoric, we've got a lot of work to do.
It was a promotional video for women in emergency services or something. Heavily edited, flashy kind of thing.
Seemed a weird thing to put in a promotional.
https://x.com/EndWokeness/status/1877458240050446339 (first version I could find searching around)
I have a family member who worked in public safety for many years on both the fire and police sides. She had to have had at least a dozen lesbian coworkers, and those were just the ones she personally knew about. Granted, this was in a very liberal area, but I imagine this is the case to varying degrees all over America. Gay people are more likely (but not guaranteed) to be gender non-conforming, so you're more likely to see them in professions dominated by the opposite sex. Getting upset that there are a punch of lesbians working in public safety is like getting angry that there are a bunch of gay men working as hairdressers. The world needs people in those occupations, and being gay doesn't impact their ability to perform the work, so who cares?
This is part of the problem with the left throwing words like "bigot" around too often was it doesn't apply. What we're seeing here is genuine bigotry, but labeling it as such is going to have next to zero impact because the accusations are overused now.
I feel like a "punch of lesbians" could be a great collective noun. Hope it catches on!
Let’s make a pact to start using it whenever we talk about lesbians in groups of four or more. I’m in.
Happily, I am actually a lesbian so I will definitely be using it!
I think people would make a lot less fun of lesbian firefighters if there was even the faintest expectation they were actually held to the same standards. When the left stops affirmative actioning the shit out of everything maybe the affirmative action hires won't be seen as substandard?
Just a thought!
Lesbians were common in public safety long before affirmative action was a thing. Again, this is like blaming the large number of gay male hairdressers on "affirmative action."
Except it’s really not. Because it has been a specific focus.
And as I said many places do indeed have different standards, and/or have lowered standards.
Police and fire departments do try to entice female applicants, but that's not entirely because of affirmative action (though it absolutely could be in part). You need to have at least a few female first responders to deal with situations involving female people who for any number of reasons would benefit from interfacing with female personnel. For instance, rape victims often feel more comfortable talking about their experiences with female officers. A drug-addicted woman may be more likely to accept help from a female paramedic or firefighter.
These institutions are never going to be 50/50 male-female, and I do think it's unfair that due to their scarcity, female applicants may have an easier path to hiring. But these professions do need at least SOME women due to the community interface component. Some day, maybe the cultural forces discouraging women from pursuing these careers will lessen, and there will be enough female applicants that scarcity no longer causes them to be given deferential treatment. Harassing the women working in the profession today and devaluing their achievements does not alleviate this problem, it arguably worsens it.
As a resident and taxpayers in L.A. County, I couldn't care less what version of genitals the leadership of the fire department has or prefers to engage with.
I also don't care if the face of whoever is tasked with getting both of us out of a burning building alive looks like mine, or if it looks like Angelina Jolie, or if it looks like the "Preadtor". Maybe if I'm in need of a social worker, I'd be co concerned that the person responding can understand my life experience, but I'm guessing that in 99% of cases whatever personal/emotional back-story is involved doesn't much alter a person's ability to function in heavy smoke, or high heat, or whether they're interested in not burning to death in the fire.
What I'm bothered by is the leadership of any "first responder" organization takes the stance that it's not their (or their organization's) job to be rescuing people from emergencies or that those in need of such assistance have failed in some basic responsibility to just not end up in such a situation.
Would anyone tolerate a Police Chief saying that their officers shouldn't be expected to intervene in violent crimes because someone being raped "got herself in the wrong place" if they need a cop to stop an attacker? Or maybe that hostages in a bank robbery "should have just used the ATM instead" and were at fault for simply conducting normal business in a place where they're at any risk of being present for a robbery?
Maybe the next time paramedics show up at a 911 call, they should wait for more appropriate replacements to get there if the person in need of medical assistance don't have the same "melanation level" or gender identity as the first medics to the scene? If a Latino medic were to administer narcan to an Asian overdose patient, does that create some kind of "problematic narriative"? Maybe all medics should refuse CPR a or defibrilation to a heart attack sufferer, since so much heart disease is actually the result of lifestyle choices, and that person must have "smoked or eaten their way into that situation?
If I am stuck in a burning building I do not want someone who looks like me to show up as my rescuer. What the hell is a smallish almost 60 year old lady going to do for me????
I'm a fairly big guy myself. I'm hoping for someone who looks like Carl Weathers in the 1980s if I'm not able to carry my own weight for whatever reason.
Honestly a lot of the FD in my tiny town looks like that… or the male equivalent!
It’s a mix of college students and slightly shlubby people over 50
I *think* the concern wasn't that a lesbian can't be an excellent fire chief. Of course she could. But that it was an affirmative action type thing. That she was picked because of her identity.
This is one of the problems with identity based hiring. It tarnishes the reputation of the people hired whether that is real or not.
Mayor Garcetti had the goal of 5% of LAFD being women by 2020. That goal was missed, but it almost certainly affected hiring. While women ARE required to meet the same minimum physical standards as men, the minimum standards are just that: minimum standards. Realistically, there were probably a lot of men who far exceed those standards getting turned a way as the department prioritized women.
I was making small talk with a young woman at an L.A. coffee shop during that era and she told me she was studying for her EMT exams as part of fire academy training. I told her it was admirable she was training to become a firefighter, because it's such a tough job and incredibly competitive to get a spot (the jobs are very sought-after there). She said something like, "Well, it's really hard if you're a guy because there are so many guys trying to become firefighters, but they're trying to hire more women and there are only a few of us, so it's a lot easier for us to get a spot."
Realistically, as the department tried to hit goals, hiring the best of the best may have sometimes come second to diversity priorities. I'm sure women LAFD face a certain amount of discrimination because they're seen as diversity hires, which is unfair and insulting for both them and their male colleagues.
I kept waiting for the host to point out that O’Keefe’s videos were deceptively edited and that he never actually showed up in the pimp outfit, but he never did. O’Keefe actually paid one of the ACORN employees in the video a six-figure settlement. Not that ACORN was pure or anything (one of their board members had embezzled a lot of money from them(, but it was massively out of context.
Hey Caleb, Ben here: I debated getting further into that and the Shirley Sherrod stuff, and also including the John Lewis Tea Party N word claims, but then everything just got too long, so I decided to just keep the focus on Breitbart-Weiner. The O'Keefe incident just needed mentioning because it was the first big thing.
Right but surely when Katie was like “he REALLY came dressed like that???” It would have been useful to correct her.
I considered being truthful but then decided to go with the lol-lie.
Sure.
Credible.
Katie says she can't stand Borat because it's inherently dishonest but somehow is less critical with O’Keefe?
Give her a break. She has just heard about this story. At the time even the NY Times assumed O'Keefe dressed like that when doing the interviews and later issued a correction
Don’t believe anyone has ‘just heard this story’. This story is OLD and BIG. Nobody is forgetting Weiner, Breitbart or ACORN.
I enjoyed the retelling but can’t pretend any of it was new (aside from Weiner being back)
I didn’t know much about the Acorn thing and remembered nothing at all about Breitbart. It was all new to me.
I was aghast at the Sabrina Carpenter stuff.
I've just heard it for the first time on this podcast, so maybe do believe it?
Okay, anyone who had even a vague interest in news and US politics in 2009 knows of it.
I mean I’m sure there are some people who’ve never heard of WW2 but that’s not a serious position to advocate. Hell even Jessie and Katie are talking about it’s perpetrator in the very prior podcast when they talk about the Laura Loomer back story. One week it’s ’oh Yeah, James O’Keefe’ next it’s ’I Can’t recall, tell me (a BS version of the story).
Nah. The ACORN story was the biggest story in politics for weeks so sure if you had no interest in the news you might not know it but otherwise I’m not buying it.
They've been very critical of O'Keefe on this podcast before. Also, this story is old enough to drive, some people don't know or remember the finer details.
It was 16 years ago. I remember it, but some people are young.
I remember this as well (although the damage had been done by the time it all rolled out), and O'Keefe did actually uncover some practices that were concerning even if Acorn wasn't as cartoonishly inept as his highjinks suggested it was.
Overall, despite this lapse, I thought this was a really excellent overview of a figure who is more influential in the current media landscape than anyone gives credit to. I really liked Ben Domenech's approach to all this contentious subject matter. He kept it appropriately light and he and Katie have an excellent rapport. Thought provoking and worthwhile---thanks!
Yeah I was pretty cheesed off about the ACORN bit. This generally decent nonprofit that helped a lot of poor people got its funding rug-pulled because some dickbag went in an talked about trafficking while the employees sorta nodded along waiting for him to leave so they could call the cops.
*takes a drag off cigarette* Breitbart…Now that’s a name I haven’t heard around these parts in some time…
I hope there is a good old-fashioned furry shit episode soon. I need a palate cleanser.
We need an update on what the ABDL community have been up to
*shudder*
Hopefully there will be some good TikTok freakouts to cover. Too bad Jeff Maurer’s presence was wasted on a recent episode, because he would be great for that.
If I were him I would never come back on the show.
Nooooo
I'm offended!
Just kidding haven't listened yet.
Also, FIRST!
This made me laugh.
Also, you seem so happy to be first that I’m happy for you.
You won, Jmac Teaching REAL HISTORY! (! Second exclamation point is mine)
Next time I’ll wait
Wait to be offended or first? Don’t - waiting really takes away from either claim.
It’s more related to my more recent post
I’m last, also offended, also haven’t listened.
Hey bro, level with me - are you Sam Harris?
I am Not Sam Harris
Great episode! I have to say it was refreshing to hear from a person with a different political perspective than the typical BARpod guest.
In particular, Ben’s characterization of Andrew Breitbart as a multifaceted human being whose death was truly mourned by people, rather than just a one-note villain, was interesting and appreciated. Most people are not literal monsters (except for maybe Matt Gaetz).
How do you have such a hot/powerful wife and accomplished/promising career and fuck up like Anthony Weiner did? Anyone who throws all that away isn't fit for office, no matter who you are or what party you belong to.
Also -- props to Ben for tangling it up in the comments! I think he's the most famous/connected person I've ever commented with besides my friend's nonbinary celebrity dog (shoutout to @BertieBarks)
I think it’s because he’s a Mets fan?
I often wonder about this same question, and the fact that I believe Huma Abedin to be way, WAY too smart for this even if I don’t agree with her per se - I guess it’s proof that it’s a real married and not a political one
Weiner was too full of himself. He thought he was God's gift to the world and could get away with anything
Seems like it works for some people...
She is pretty weird looking?
Gosh, I always feel shamefaced at my too-onlineness when BARPod covers events (in this case, the Breitbart and Weiner sagas) that I'm thoroughly familiar with.
Great guest episode. I'm glad Katie invited a conservative on.
But did you know about the Bannon connection and that Weiner was running for city council? Both of those were news to me.
Yes!
TLDR: US Geological Survey explains why controlled burns or chaparral clearing wouldn’t have solved the Palisade fires. The homes were the main source of fuel. The chaparral doesn’t recover quickly from controlled burns unlike prairie grasses. If you hurt the native chaparral then the weedy stuff grows which can be worse fire material.
In my experience US Geological Survey guys are pretty conservative no nonsense among all the agencies.
https://laist.com/news/climate-environment/fact-check-could-brush-clearance-have-prevented-the-palisades-fire
This was a great episode. Most people know all about the Weiner mayoral comeback/second round of scandals because of the documentary and his connection to the Hilary email stuff, but I had no idea about the Breitbart history or the Steve Bannon connection. Really good stuff! This entire saga should be made into a musical, starring Lin Manuel as Weiner himself. It would be like the anti-Hamilton.
Also, Katie thought the Weiner documentary was just "fine" ?? I gasped when she said that. Dude, it's one of the best political docs ever, and maybe even just documentaries in general. Katie, that's an embarrassing take, get it together, homie. I was honestly astonished the other day when Jesse said he had never seen it, especially as a New York City resident??... I think there's a reason that our fearless BARPod hosts are much better at talking about internet bullshit than politics and certain cultural issues. They're too busy scrolling Kiwi Farms!
Anyway, the combo of the access that the doc filmmakers had combined with how fortuitous it was that the second scandal happened, alongside the insanity of that McDonalds scene and others as well as the filmmakers' straightforward and bold presentation of the material... it's an amazing documentary. What's your fav documentary, Katie? Planet Earth 1?
Finally... Weiner is back for a city council run!? With his chances boosted because a felon is now president!? My god. He's the gift that keeps on giving.
As modern political docs go I think it's third or fourth: The War Room, A Perfect Candidate, and The Unknown Known.
Leave it to Ben to recommend a political doc that shares a name with Steve Bannon's podcast. Hehe jk, I actually haven't seen any of those so maybe I shouldn't give Katie and Jesse any crap. But I'm going to check them out! Thanks for the recs
As far as docs in general go I just can't stop loving Free Solo bc I'm a sucker for that majestic musical crescendo as Honnold summits El Cap in the most amazing athletic achievement of all time and smooches his hot girlfriend (who he had shit on for the entire rest of the movie)
Katie, you might want to look into the delta smelt and it's profound affects on California water politics before saying it has "fuck all to do with the water situation in California." Swing and a miss on that take.
He who delta smelta?
Indeed, was a silly comment, and really made it seem like they don’t care to understand the facts.
Okay: What are all y'all's favorite conspiracy theories?
The one that comes to mind quickest for me is that Meghan Markle faked the pregnancies of her two children.
That the “magic bullet” from the JFK assassination was accidentally fired by a secret service agent in the car behind the Kennedys’ because the secret service agents had been partying the night before and he was hungover.
I absolutely ascribe to this theory. It's the classic example of something so horrible it had to be covered up for morale.
I got this one from LPOTL and believe it fully. The many claims of people smelling gunpowder at ground level is what sells it for me
Judging from the recent SS fuckups... yeah I could see it.
There is so much more to the JFK story (all of it, not just the assassination) than has been told ...
Michael Jordan played baseball for two years because he was shadow banned from the NBA due to his gambling.
That’s the mild version, the extreme version is that his father was murdered over his gambling debts.
I agree with this.
I knew you must be a primo! 😂
I mean it's possible!
The Queen 100% did have Princess Diana killed
Tell me more!!
https://youtu.be/b4meFC1ee7Q very funny sketch about how silly this idea is
LOVE me some Mitchell and Webb
Harry and Meghan Markle moved to the states because he knew the Queen Grandma would make it happen to her just like his mom!
And Harry is not even Charles's son--another conspiracy theory, and very believable. There was some redhead guy Diana hung out with a lot. So even more reason to "remove" them.
My favorite conspiracy theory, though, is that Barbara Bush (the elder) was the daughter of Aliester Crowley. Anyone who says that concept started as an April Fool's joke is just trying to throw you off the scent.
James Hewitt! Unfortunately Diana didn't meet him until 1986 and Harry was born in 1984. But the red hair does keep the rumour mill chugging along.
Until you see pictures of Prince Philip when he was younger and see where the genes came from. although we could start a new theory that Philip directly contributed those genes.
😲😲😲☠️☠️☠️🪦🪦🪦
"Epstein didn't kill himself"
The Kennedy one below is my favorite “classic” one, my bf reminded me last night how much I love the “Avril Lavigne died and was replaced by a body double in 2003” theory.
That one is insane! 😆
UFO stuff.
I go with the classics.
👽🛸
That Stevie Wonder isn’t really blind.
Lately he's been looking in the mirror!
I’m still a big fan of the OG conspiracy theory of the Illuminati running the world. I was really into that whole “shadow government” schtick back in the 90’s (Behold a Pale Horse was the shit) whilst in my long haired hippie phase. That is until I realized that it was all DEEPLY antisemitic.
When the online nutjobs repurposed that entire narrative into the QAnon fantasy I got a really big kick out of it. There was a 2hr long video on YouTube called the Coming Storm that was around in 2020 that basically laid out the whole Q story and it was the funniest thing ever since it was just the original Illuminati story retold by moving the goalposts from the 9/11 end of the world story to the Covid end of the world story. The cope 🤌
The conspiracy theories people come up with, and the threads they follow to make them seem possible, are fascinating!
I'm not convinced Jim Morrison died at the time he supposedly died.
😮 what do you think happened to him?!
He faked his death, of course! There's a biography that makes an excellent case for this.
Since then he may well have died of the things rock stars die of, idk.
First read this as much more disturbing than it is. Probably cause I’m sick and sleepy right now
Why, though?
The one I’ve heard was that she didn’t want to bother being pregnant and “ruining” her body so she used surrogates. (I’m not a believer, just a reporter)
I mean ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0a2-ORxIzs 😂
I gotta say that I'm not convinced by the mobility examples. I remained pretty flexible throughout both of my pregnancies, and while I would never have worn stiletto heels like MM*, it's actually easier to get into a deep squat with your heels up. It's hard for me to weigh in on the out-of-context photos.
*I'm a boring person who almost never wears makeup and likes to be comfortable.
And she's a yoga person so I'd expect her to retain some agility during pregnancy.
late to the party here, but agree with you and other commenters, I don't find it convincing at all. This woman claims you shouldn't be able to cross and uncross your legs when you're 6 months pregnant? Are you kidding?
Ditto. I was that mobile through pregnancy. I could somewhat easily squat down up until birth, and when I was 39 weeks surprised a nurse by deep squatting to pick up a pen I dropped. So that doesn't persuade me at all
😳
This is why it's my favorite conspiracy theory! 😂
Why did she fake them? Good question. Pregnancy is inconvenient?
Water fluoridation in the U.S. was primarily established as a way for fertilizer producers to dispose of toxic byproducts scrubbed from their smokestacks.
The fluoride in your water is not the same thing as the fluoride in your toothpaste. See: "Toxic Treatment: Fluoride's Transformation from Industrial Waste to Public Health Miracle" on Ohio State's history blog.
😳
Elon deliberately tanked Twitter to save us all from cancel culture.
I’m just here to applaud Ben’s opening statement about how Jesse understands online conservatives but not real life conservatives at all.
Carlos Danger! I had completely forgotten that incredible choice by Anthony Weiner. So good.
Great episode. If only Blocked and Reported had been around at the time of the Anthony Weiner scandal, that would've been a very fun time.
I really enjoyed going back to the Breitbart era, Ben is a very personable guest host.
I can’t believe I forgot about Carlos Danger, only to be reminded with a mouth full of Listerine.
I thought this was a really good guest episode.
There is a Dem bench, and I think gov of Colorado Jared Polis is gonna be a big part of it. Moderate, Gay, legit business owner, tech-adjacent but not too much, no big scandal/gaffe history.
I like him. So do smart political types I know.
I think he's too sensible to be President, but maybe he'll be in the Cabinet of some future Democratic POTUS, after Vance's second term, of course.
Wes Moore is also very talented.
My limited impression of Moore is an empty suit Obama but I am willing to be persuaded otherwise.
It's more about vibes to me. Moore does a weekly sportstalk appearance on DC's big radio station and can comfortably talk like a Barstool host at length. Polis, while very sharp, is at his base level a tech nerd. If you want to get bros back, Moore could be a path.
I’d love to see Fetterman become more prominent in the party.
I think he would have to start wearing suits though. Or at least long pants.
In CO we need to remove term limits on the governor's office, because I fear who we will elect after he finishes this term.
In the Senate alone, I think Mark Kelly and Michael Bennet could easily beat basically any Republican candidate if they wanted to run and could get through the primaries. And I think Andy Kim, Cory Booker, Warnock, Ossof, and Gallego also seem competitive against a replacement level Republican though some are a bit untested (and I'm not sure if America is ready for a president from New Jersey). The problem is getting any of these folks enough primary momentum to beat whoever inherits the banner of the left flank of the party, which still seems to have the most energy in spite of the minor right wing cultural moment we're experiencing
He’s too young by about 20 years.
He'd be older than Obama was in 2008 if Polis was elected in 2028. I sadly don't see him winning a Dem primary because he's kind of libertarian coded but he's at a perfectly reasonable age
Katie has mentioned a few times that Trump is right about raking the forest and she’s annoyed at dems for making fun of him for it.
My memory was that Trump made a bizarre claim about how Finland took care of their forests and that California should do similar things and he said the president of Finland told him all this. The president of Finland had zero memory of the conversation and Finns on social media made fun of Trump about it: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-46256296
Of course forest management is important but I doubt that Trump has anything of value to add to the discussion.
I do think some people allow themselves to be negatively polarized against good things just because Trump says he's for it so it's worth it to have neutral voices give him "credit where due" on some occasions but thankfully I don't think anyone has come out in opposition to clearing underbrush. So yeah, I agree that we don't really need to give Trump any props for this one, especially since, as far as I'm aware, he didn't allocate any additional funding for controlled burns, etc.
Katie lumps environmentalists in with team blue when she says all they talk about is climate change while all the right talks about is forest raking.
Mega oversimplication. Environmental organizations that actually do land management which includes fire work (controlled burns to reduce fuel, and other practices), are often externally considered to be left-leaning orgs based on who supports them and who’s working there. That's not wrong but also a simplification. Anyway, those guys attempt to close a major gap between government and landowners when it comes to fire prevention practices that affect entire communities and landscapes and they absolutely are doing the pragmatic shit like "raking," and are advocating for it.
To what end does this observation matter, idk, but I don't like to hear her saying “environmentalists” when she means do-nothing wangs with no actual knowledge squawking around on Bluesky or X.
Agree- the shouty environments online won the battle sadly. So many people doing regular jobs taking care of all the water management, reforestation, native chaparral etc.. restoration, air quality management, and no one hears about it.
They haven't won the battle, unless you mean the battle for the attention of people like Katie.
It's hard to socialize with residents that prescribed fire is a good thing. They hate it on principle, because they don't be knowing.
This is something that people not in the field will never know. You're obviously around or aware in a way that is beyond the regular dickass looking at X.
Unfortunately that's very few people!
The modern environmentalist movement seems to have gone off the rails. I don't think they actually want a solution to global warming like nuclear. They want to punish people for their sins against Mother Earth and basically deindustrialize the globe.
There is that but it's not typical in real orgs doing real work. Honestly most of the fire guys are probably Trump. But it doesn't mean big land orgs aren't doing the pragmatic work that saves entire towns and lives. All the little turd orgs that don't agree with practical land management don't get any meaningful money anyway.
I don’t know many years ago when I worked at a real org doing real work and real lobbying…that was exactly what they stood for. Rabidly anti nuclear and even anti hydro.
I really recommend watching Errol Morris documentary American Dharma on Steve Bannon. There have been so many pieces done on what really motivates Trump supporters, and Bannon's discussion of "weaponizing" the Breitbart comments section was a real eye-opener for me back in 2018.
Also in terms of BARpod subjects, Morris talked back in 2018 after his movie came out that the New Yorker fest canceling its interview with Bannon torpedoed his doc. He didn't have the language for it back then, but what Morris recognized was that journalists had moved into activist mode and had started to introduce the idea that some people (Bannon) could not be "platformed," and the New Yorker editor had backed out under the threat of being "canceled."
Ben Domenench: negging the nagging Meghan into bed. He called his future wife fat in print. Tulsi Gabbard as friend, proving libertarianism is not just stupid but dangerous. Lie about Putin, Lie about Assad and say that America is actually the worst of the three. Libertarian at home, non-interventionist abroad, proving that wherever you go, you can take the callous arsehole with you. Thanks Katie for spending my primo money on getting this wanker on.
Holy fucking shit, primos are so sensitive these days. Just chill out and enjoy the show, even if you don't agree? I'm as leftist as they come, hailing from Portland, Oregawn, and I thought this episode was great and that the guest was a fantastic storyteller/presenter. Try to open your mind a little bit
Yes! He is a really
Gifted storyteller.
I slipped on the ice yesterday and broke my arm, wrist and finger. I curled up in bed and listened to the episode. It was wonderful to relax and be distracted from the pain.
No!! I’m so sorry :(. Wishing you a speedy recovery!
Thanks Blink! My cousins here are a great distraction.
Ugh I'm sorry. I just got out of urgent care due to a black ice incident also. Hope you feel better!
That's horrible, I'm worried to hear it. Hope you have a speedy recovery. At least you're in the right profession when something like that happens.
Agreed on the greatness of the episode. And I'm thinking maybe it's all those holiday gifted subscriptions. People don't know how irreverent the show or their loved ones actually are!
I did *not* call my future wife and mother of my children fat, in print or otherwise, and I always thought she was hot even when I thought she was an irritating nepo baby.
She is great, and congrats on your good taste in spouses. :-)
To pick up just one of your examples, I don't think being friendly with Tulsi Gabbard is terribly libertarian. Reason (https://reason.com/2025/01/03/is-america-entering-her-kakistocracy-era/) and the more libertarian columnists at The Dispatch have all been extremely critical of Gabbard. Domenech's relationship with her is probably due to personal reasons.
I've always had the impression of Domenech as an elbow-thrower. IMHO that's a fine sort for Katie to have on. I don't need to agree with BARPod's guests, or the guests' kids' godparents, for that matter.
I don't like libertarians, and I definitely don't like Gabbard. Libertarians and Gabbard are both non-interventionist, which is stupid and dangerous, like Gabbard herself. I was pointing out the commonalities as a literary device.
This assumes that there's a single thing called "libertarians." The libertarians at Reason generally support our efforts to help Ukraine and many support NATO specifically because of the threat Putin poses.
To the contrary, many libertarians view military / national defense as one of if not the ONLY appropriate role of government.
Everything else from police to environmental protection should be up to private corporations but national defense should be run by the government.
Can you provide a link to a source for your statements about the guest and his wife? If not, then perhaps an apology to him?
Someone who goes by the name of “Mecca Allahzilla” claimed in a tweet: “Hey the Federalist's founder Ben Domenech married Meghan McCain after calling her fat and annoying so maybe they're onto something” in the course of a discussion among conservatives re: why “nice guys” get friend-zoned. (https://x.com/TheEpicDept/status/1349466967514755075) A Google search reveals no other reference to Domenech making insulting remarks about her appearance. This is very flimsy evidence.
Candace Owens, however, has really gone to town, calling McCain “clinically obese” & just being her usual rude asshole self. It seems like there is nothing Owens won’t say if she thinks it will get her some attention. Imagine what it would be like if she awakened some morning and suddenly had both a conscience and a sense of integrity, elements of personality that have always been foreign to her. How would she cope with the memory of being such a foul, disgusting presence in public life for so many years?
Also, if I looked like Candace Owens, I would try to remember not to throw stones when I live in a glass house. Meghan McCain has a really pretty face; Candace Owens, in comparison, looks like a rabid dog. It doesn’t matter if she has a small waist: the foaming at the mouth overrides that.
I find Candace Owens attractive. Physically anyway.
I imagine that’s no small part of her public success.
Well, that’s personal taste. I can understand feeling that way about a photo of her with her face at rest, but what happens when her physical features become animated is alarming.
I'm not a fan of this guy, but your comment about him calling his wife fat seems to be a pure fabrication.
https://toofab.com/2022/09/07/meghan-mccain-reacts-ben-domenech-tweet/
Great episode, great guest. Ben reminds me of a right-wing Jeff Maurer - similar intonations, similar sense of humor, similar ease with his co-host. Even the laugh sounded similar. Probably helps that I enjoy them both.
Agreed on all of this. Ben was great and I hope he makes a return appearance here. Even though I was paying attention to all of it at the time, hearing Ben's discussion of the Breitbart story from "inside" was really fascinating and I felt that despite one or two errors, this was a really enjoyable AND important Blocked and Reported episode.
My favorite butterfly effect is this:
If MTV had kept playing music, Trump would never have been president.
"In the videos, O'Keefe included lead-in segments in which he wore a fur coat, top hat, sunglasses, and wielded a cane, giving viewers and the media the impression that he had dressed that way when visiting the ACORN offices. His critics cite this as one of the ways he distorted the videos, since he actually dressed professionally during his ACORN visits, though he never revealed himself on camera in the ACORN offices."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACORN_2009_undercover_videos_controversy
This a good clarification, thanks for that. I mean it doesn't excuse the actions of the ACORN people but it least helps them make more sense
Wikipedia leans hard into 'don't believe your lyin ears'. The transcripts of those conversations are damming.
Great episode. Ben was a good guest!
Matt Gates had SO much more terrible work done to his face between when he left Congress and just started his new TV show. he looks rough! Though people on Twitter said also it doesn’t appear like he had anyone properly doing make up before he went on camera.
Dudes should never get facial work outside of medical issues, it's a road you have to stay on when you start and we look better with wrinkles anyway.
It's like he didn’t even go to a specialist for male facial work. He went to one of the bad ones that works on women in the Trump orbit..
Katie's talking point about raking the forest is not actually relevant when it comes to the LA fire or Coastal Southern California fires more broadly. This concepts applies to the western forests that are made up conifers, where prescribed burns and the clearing of debris helps reduce the ability of the fire to grow into larger crown fires, not the shrubby vegetation that makes up the Southern California coastal desert. When the Chapparal and Coastal Sage that make up the Southern California vegetation burn in a wildfire, they consume the entirety of the plants, not just the underlying leaf litter. Studies have shown little effect from prescribed burning in these landscapes. Additionally, these areas naturally burn on a scale of 20 to 60 years, not 7 to twelve years like pine forests. We have greatly altered this cycle by adding many various ignition sources on the environment. Also, increasing the number of disturbance on the landscape just opens the door for more invasives, potentially increasing the fuel load in terms of vegetation. Paul Hormick posted good article clearing some misconceptions with this fire.
https://open.substack.com/pub/greendispatch/p/clearing-up-misinformation-about?r=1dvvyx&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false
I think prescriptive burning, thinning and general forest clean up is applicable in the western conifer forests as a means mitigating wildfire risks near civilized areas. I can also be helpful for forest recovery in areas that have been impacted by logging and years of fire suppression. But I don't think natural disasters like wildfires are ever things that we can just engineer solutions for and I think often folks lean on engineering or management practices as way of avoiding facing the fact that we constantly gamble with these risks by where we choose to live. I don't say this as to blame individual homeowners. I completely get wanting to live in the hills, near the water and in fire prone wilderness. I think we should prepare to the best of our abilities for these unthinkable disasters, but we can only control these things so much. I am sure there will be a lot to learn from these fires, but I think it is too early to be throwing around blame. I also I don't think raking the forest would have done anything in this circumstance.
Too soon, dude. Too soon for this kind of realistic analysis. We need more time to process our political grievances.
It’s a fair point that there are different ecosystems to consider, but it does seem true that the chapparal builds up fuel over time and the longer it goes without burning, the more devastating the resulting fire will be, and over the scale of a few decades, it’s basically guaranteed to burn.
“Burn it out” on a regular basis does seem to at least be a plausible strategy for mitigating the scale of wildfires. Both the Eaton and Palisades fires were contained at least in part along scars from burns a decade or two old where the fuel was less dense.
This won’t necessarily result in a “natural” ecosystem in the hills around LA, but I think we have to pick one between “natural ecosystem” and “not losing thousands of structures to fire once a decade or so”.
Well to you first point, chaparral does not continually grow create more of a fuel load. It reaches peak height of about 8 feet and stays at that height.
I agree that this seems like a reasonable idea and we have implemented prescribed burns southern california since the 1950's and studied their effect. They have not shown to be effective based on the research. It is different landscape that doesn't build up field loads like other ecosystems that do benefit from prescribed burns. Also we have already altered the burn cycles in southern California inadvertently by adding lots of ignition sources, so it has actually burned more frequently then it would have historically. Additionally, Increasing disturbances opens the door invasive species to move in.
I do agree that there should not be developments that butt up against these fire prone wilderness. It is a recipe for these sorts of disasters. However, I am not convinced frequent burns to immediate surrounding landscape in order to maintain a fire scar is the best mitigation method to provide this sort of buffer zone.
This was such a good episode. Thank you.
I especially like the way you handled the fires in LA. I imagine people dealing with this horrible situation are in a different reality now.
I admit I sometimes listen to podcasts and get wound up when they discuss culpability, but deep down, I know it’s more about a dopamine kick for me rather than anything helpful for me (or humanity).
It sounds like there were many lives saved by quick thinking and heroic action on the ground. It sounds like the community is coming together in beautiful ways despite their incredible loss.
I do see an issue with leadership, of course. I have no idea how many hours these people - the fire chief, mayor and governor - are putting in to try and manage this thing. They must be exhausted, but it really doesn’t sound like there’s a strong, take charge type of person.
I don’t entirely blame them for that. I mean, they’re human… but the reality is that a lot of leaders survive because they are good at hiding or perhaps aren’t bright enough or too vapid to understand the problem entirely.
Those who are capable and knowledgeable are aware that the problem is too big for them alone to solve and know they will be hung out to dry. In a sense, they are to blame as well for not trying.
Question: do any of you know of good leaders to emulate? I’d be really grateful for any tips in this area.
As for the blaming the focus on DEI as a factor in mismanagement, it seems to be partly right. Whether DEI is right or wrong, people elevated it to a level of importance above all else - life or death - and hid behind it because some problems are just too hard to solve.
i’m sure there have been similar initiatives to DEI in the past, but it’s the one Im dealing with in a situation with a fraction of the complexity, consequence or culpability (didn’t do three “c”s on purpose). And I I’m obsessing about it at 7 am this Sunday morning.
There are only so many hours in a day, and time spent in meetings about DEI is time that is not spent doing the actual job.
To be honest, most of the time firefighters do nothing. Most of the time, there are not fires so there is definitely time to spend on other things such as this. I am not saying it is wise, I am just saying they have some time on their hands.
Lol Katie kinda stepped in it when she said Tulsi was in a cult. "Uhh, that's my child's godmother."
Eh, Ben was very gracious and Katie’s snappy follow-up joke made me laugh.
I enjoyed that though! I don’t fully disagree , Tulsi has made some interesting claims, and it helped me understand what Ben is personally steeped in.
She was right though.
MISTER WEINER WERE YOU FULLY ERECT
also it’s Benji Bronk, not Burke. Shame! Put some respect on Benji.
I misread my own notes, that's on me, sorry!
SHAME I SAY!!!
lol. I’m so happy he trashed gates. He’s always come across as a crybaby and a weirdo to me.
I had to bail on this one pretty early on. Sorry, Katie, it's not you, it's me. Well, it might be you, but I didn't listen long enough to really make that judgement fairly. I have been taking a break from all my political podcasts lately, and if I can't listen even to the people I like talk about politics right now (mostly the Bulwark family of podcasts), I really can't listen to Ben Domenech
He’s a marvelous storyteller; you might want to give it another try. I found it fascinating.
This was my least favorite episode in some time, and largely because Katie wasn't acting like a journalist. I appreciate B&R because, while of course they joke around and act like snarky GenXers, there is deep commitment to truth and accuracy and journalism. Jesse regularly does this when he deep fives into the trans health care for minors research, but they hit it at other times too. This episode was nearly the opposite of that approach.
Katie basically let very ideological guest set the narrative and didn't push back. In fact she often nodded along or said "uh huh" to assertions that were highly partisan and often inaccurate. Breitbart in general, and James O'Keefe in particular got caught multiple times manipulating facts or misportraying them, including around the original Acorn scandal, as a way to set a narrative. They were trying to be the right-wing version of Michael Moore (or maybe the Daily Show) but weren't as funny and often outright lied or made up facts. Even the best ones were manipulatively edited. Numerous investigations and lawsuits cleared ACORN of wrongdoing and found released videos to be "selective" and "deceptive." He got caught again regularly lying about the 2016 election and he often committed what would be called "entrapment" were he law enforcement. Dude is a con man of the lowest sort.
And Katie just nodded along with it as if this were legitimate ideological journalism.
I understand the problems on the left that B&R often points out, both in the culture and in places like journalism and academia. As they should. But do so in the pursuit of accuracy and Truth. Just "switching teams" and becoming a shill for right-wing BS is still BS.
Near the end Katie notes that Wiener just couldn't stay in Congress or win the NYC mayoral race because he had crossed too many lines of sexual probity with dick pics and minors. She doesn't seem to see how inaccurate her statement is on the surface. Matt Gaetz was reelected to the House and was recently nominated for AG. More to the point, Trump has been found guilty or caught on tape doing far more than Wiener, and he just got reelected to the Presidency.
Again, none of this excuses Wiener, or the other excesses that identitarian progressives and even the Dems have been guilty of. But to just give a pass to the BS of the right is just as odious. It's probably the worst journalism I've seen from Katie, whom I've generally been a long time fan of.
I understand that this episode was about the history of Brietbart and its media implications, and I appreciate that. But she let all the indoctrinating and partisan narrative shaping assertions go unchallenged despite them being so present throughout the episode. This guest should have been interviewed with challenging questions, not given a pass as a cohost.
My favorite conspiracy theory is that Justin Trudeau’s father is Fidel Castro. Apparently his parents were in the Caribbean at the appropriate time for conception, they had an open marriage, they loved Castro. And look at the photos! Not inconceivable!
"Most easily manipulated president..." - Biden doesn't even know what he's signing...
Probably, but he’s obviously being pushed around by a fairly tight inner circle which follows fairly coherent policy objectives. Trump meanwhile can go into a meeting with virtually anyone, up to and including Kim Jong Un, and come away thinking they’re a great guy with some great ideas. That ends up being a more… exciting ride.
Hard agree there. Biden hasn’t even honestly been presidenting for the last 4 years.
This was my favorite BarPod episode of all time!
I found it fascinating.
I've said this before, I'll say it again: the biggest obstacle for nuclear energy is the fact that we do not have a consistent, viable method to safely dispose of nuclear waste. Just once I'd like to hear Katie acknowledge this.
There are multiple safe, viable methods for disposing of nuclear waste, at use today and for decades around the world. The reason the US has limited access to them is that American politicians (the late unlamented Harry Reid foremost among them) made sure that that would be the case.
I've already written about Yucca Mountain before in BARpod discussions, so I'll just copy+paste that:
"[Big empty deserts theoretically being a good disposal location] was the impetus for placing a storage facility on Yucca Mountain in Nevada. The problem: Nevadans, including the Western Shoshone Nation, were not pleased that the nuclear waste was being stored in their state when they had no nuclear reactors themselves. That's the first upshot: the states in our 'big empty deserts' have few or no reactors, so the residents are understandably irritated that they have to store the eastern states' radioactive waste. That also means that the waste has to travel great distances from one side of the country to the other via train. Railways in the United States have fallen into disrepair and deregulation followed by a wave of austerity measures proposed by their CEOs. When trains derail more often now more then ever, and pass through many densely populated areas, that turns every mile you have to move the waste into a gamble. For that reason, waste depositories should be relatively close to the facilities, but not close enough that a disaster at the associated facility would cause issues at the depository."
Basically, no matter how you slice it, the waste will either be stored too close to human development for peoples' comfort, or so far away that transporting it presents a challenge in and of itself. In both cases, you also run up into political problems: the areas that need the most power are too densely populated for people to ever vote in favor of nearby waste storage, and the sparsely populated areas would have to agree to shoulder the burden of having waste in their jurisdiction while benefiting very little (if at all) from the power generated.
Yeah the people essentially claiming that nuclear is the silver bullet to achieving a carbon free energy system annoys me. There's trade offs for every energy source and nuclear is no different. I think it should be realistically considered as one of many methods that contribute to substantially reducing carbon emissions, but again I don't think nuclear alone is a realistic solution to reaching carbon neutral goals. Like you said the waste is challenge because it has to managed for essentially ever. Also it is immensely expensive to build and you need take special consideration as to where they're built. For instance probably don't want nuclear facilities in earthquake prone regions or hurricane prone regions.
I especially get annoyed with the narrative that the only reason we're not building nuclear and achieving a carbon free world is because of popular dissent amongst liberal environmentalist. It is a silly oversimplification. It makes sense that nuclear is getting looked from a new perspective as the climate crisis has become a growing concern, but like everything in energy production in needs to be looked in terms of trade offs and implemented when and where it makes sense.
And when something goes wrong, it REALLY goes wrong, as in Chernobyl. Human error is my biggest pause with nuclear.
Yes, this. A family member of mine died because of a nuclear accident caused by careless / apathetic managers.
Apparently it’s not actually cost effective compared to other green sources of power, either. It’s just really expensive To build and run these things!!
I was really surprised when I learned this. But it does help explain why there has not been a huge uptake of new nuclear. It’s not just confused environmentalists and NIMBYs getting in the way, it mostly isn’t worth it at current energy costs.
I'm fairly unconcerned about the waste, just unclear whether the cost-efficiency is actually favourable.
Part of the cost is onerous regulations that need to be updated or removed. Yes, nuclear safety but we have regulated it to death.
We have Yucca Mountain.
Also, we can reprocess the waste to get more fissile material out of it and reduce the amount.
Yes, that's not cheap but it can be done and would extend the amount of the nuclear fuel available.
I talked about Yucca mountain. Go look at the reply I wrote about it upthread.
I know and while I understand that people don't want a nuclear waste repository in their state it can still be used and probably should be.
That wasn't the only problem I touched on.
Good point. When I started hearing people revisiting the use of Nuclear power, 5 or 6 years ago, that little issue just “disappeared.” It was, and is, befuddling. Talk about “inconvenient truths.”
If Carlos Danger's felony didn't involve a minor (plus the whole toddler in bed next to him thing...) I would say he might even have a tiny, husband-bulge of a chance at city council, despite this being the third time he was caught. But yeah... not many people are very forgiving of sex crimes involving minors, no matter what party you belong to or what the president has done. At this point he just looks completely deranged, pathetic and gross.
When we talk about the Democrats not having a good bench, this was a big part of that, first Anthony Weiner was dead and then Elliott Spitzer the New York State Attorney General, who was a big up-and-coming player, was also out because he was caught with a prostitute after being big and into prosecuting people for prostitution.
(I think I have the right order in who was first).
Remember when Roger Stone tried to plant a story that the weird tawdry thing about Spitzer turned out to be he kept his socks on during sex?
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/eliot-spitzer-kept-on-bla_n_92946
Haven’t finished it yet, but glad this is a Katie episode tbh
I was glad it was a Katie episode... until she didn't give Weiner the praise that documentary deserves. How sad.
I’m looking forward to listening and it will be interesting to see if some people are able to actually criticize conservatives without talking about Democrats, but I’m not sure if that is able to happen
I recall Jon Stewart raking his friend Anthony Weiner over the coals when Weiner was still pretending his account had been hacked. The Daily Show exposed me to that underwear-clothed Weiner pic. So—there were non conservatives who didn’t fall for Weiner’s line at the time.
I thought the first half was not great, but the second part was a lot better. Was interesting to learn about Andrew Breitbart's development in connection with the Wiener saga. I think I just wish there more funny accents in this episode. Guess I know where I stand in the inevitable Barpod CIVIL WAR.
LOVED THIS EPISODE! I used to listen to Ben when he did the Federalist podcast and was so happy to learn that he is a huge BAR pod fan!
WHO FUNDS BLOCKED AND REPORTED
The DEEP STATE
Unless you banned people totally from packing big homes in these hilly wooded areas there was nothing anyone could do to stop them burning.
The crazy winds were blowing burning materials for miles so there is no way to contain the fires as they spread on the ground and via the air.
Imagine trying to use a hose to dose a fire tearing down a steep hill in the bone dry forest being blown by 50 mph winds.
Very rural Southern Californian here - SDGE spent 2 years burying our power lines in a huge swath of San Diego back country and it's really paid off this wind season
Yeah, my (admittedly amateur) understanding is that every acre of the chaparral landscape in the LA hills is basically designed to burn every 20-30 years or so (both the Palisades and Eaton fires only really stopped when they ran into more recent burn scars). This is true whether there is climate change or not, and firestorms don’t give a shit if there is a 5 million dollar house in their way. Combine that with Santa Ana winds, also a fact of life since time immemorial, and the place is an inevitable tinderbox.
The only real options to avoid massive losses to fire every decade or two are a) don’t build there or b) aggressively thin and prescribed burn the hills out while their fuels are still green enough to result in a controllable fire. A won’t happen because “location location location” makes the land too valuable, and B is blocked by ostensible environmentalists.
Are there any examples of environmentalist groups opposing controlled burns and other forest management tactics? It really sounds like something that is either made up or grossly exaggerated by opponents.
https://www.newsweek.com/controlled-burns-california-forest-management-los-angeles-fires-2012492#:~:text=The%20reason%20California%20hasn't,More%20David%20Swanson/Getty%20Images
It takes literally years to get controlled burns approved and the planning and permitting process consumes 40% of the Forest Service’s annual budget.
https://www.thecentersquare.com/california/article_1503a696-d44e-11ef-b47a-d33f63461d1d.amp.html
Upgrades to electrical transmission infrastructure halted to avoid damage to a shrub. Aging power infrastructure has been blamed for multiple wildfires in CA in recent years.
I don't see anything in either of those two articles about environmentalists or environmental groups opposing controlled burns and forest management.
I do notice that Newsweek article's author extensively quotes the Chamber of Progress and Property and Environment Research Center, which are both libertarian anti-regulation groups. The other article is about a Republican congressman lashing out at some bureau of government that was already in the right's crosshairs because their commissioners made negative comments about Elon Musk, which, again, doesn't have much to do with, say, the Sierra Club or randos online.
If your stance is that environmentalists have nothing to do with environmental law (note that my original post said nothing about “environmental groups”), and if you are going to engage in the genetic fallacy rather than providing any contrary evidence, I don’t think we are going to have a productive conversation.
Contrary evidence to what? *You* made the claim that "environmentalists" are against controlled burns, and when asked for proof you shared irrelevant complaints about government regulations being made by groups which exist to attack government regulations.
If environmentalist groups are primarily responsible for the shape of environmental law, then surely some of them have made their feelings on the matter of controlled burns public.
I did find this journal article after some googling which says that controlled burns have been used since the 1960s, so it's not like this practice is anything new which people are still coming to grips with:
https://fireecology.springeropen.com/articles/10.4996/fireecology.0302003
The environmental concerns mentioned are potential harm to endangered species, and the danger of clearing space for invasive plant species which are better adapted for fire conditions. The political impediment, and this is likely far more pertinent, are burns becoming impossible in some areas because of suburban colonization, and also citizens being upset when national parks are made ugly by charred areas.
If you want to crow over imaginary internet points because you think “environmental groups” (a word you put in my mouth, by which you seem only to mean NGOs) are massively distinct from “environmental regulations” and government environmental agencies, great. Either way, the fact remains that it’s extremely onerous to use controlled burns as a management tool due to red tape, and you’ve still not provided any counter evidence to that. That is hardly “irrelevant”.
Here’s an article from the Ecological Society of America detailing multiple challenges to using prescribed burns, which it considers “underutilized”: https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/fee.2687
Here’s the Sierra Club position on prescribed burns: https://www.sierraclub.org/prescribed-burning-public-lands#:~:text=The%20Sierra%20Club%20supports%20the,wildfire%20safety%20buffer%20for%20communities.
Now, on the one hand they say they support them in principle, but the list of caveats (unless you’re Indigenous) is so long that it comes off pretty NIMBY. It’s mostly a list of reasons they think prescribed burns are misused. They certainly don’t indicate any opposition to the existing red tape for implementing burns. Most relevant to this discussion, they declare that there is already “too much fire in the system” for Southern California chaparral, i.e. they are opposed to prescribed burns in the LA area.
Thanks for providing evidence that "environmentalists", however loosely you define the word, do support the use of fire in resource management, and that the real impediments to greater and more effective use of this technique all involve money and concerns about bad PR should the burn be botched and end up endangering communities.
My understanding is that B is blocked by home owners and HOAs as much as “environmentalists”. Or at least both. No one wants to live somewhere with forest fire smoke blotting out the sun three months of the year which is what would be required to keep the landscape in its natural and more predictably (instead of catastrophically) burning state.
NIMBYs in general, sure, but how do the HOAs play in? Most of the relevant land is publicly owned.
Hmm maybe it’s indirectly through voting and lobbying. Do HoAs lobby?
I long for the good old days when Katie and Jesse talked about internet bullshit...
I listened to this to the end but can't really say I enjoyed it. Katie's waffling on many topics is just not as fun without Jesse calling her out on it.
I really enjoyed this episode, and I hope Ben comes back for another ep! I really like when the pod has interesting people I disagree with on, not only does it help me broaden my perspective, but it also makes me think about my own media literacy and what things I'm personally glossing over or letting people I agree with get away with glossing over in narratives. This isn't a criticism or an accusation of bad faith -- it's human and you have limited time, so you make those choices on the fly and they're not always what I would do in the same situation (ie the ACORN thing discussed below). Which is interesting!
If I could make a story suggestion for next time (because I think you're the right guy for the job):
A story I don't see told very often, if at all, is that of the Free Republic forums, which were a force to be reckoned with in the early-mid 2000s. I was on the other side (Laissez Faire subforum on Something Awful), but god there is a lot of Freeper lore and I would love to hear more about them from a sympathetic (or at least not hostile) person. To me it feels like the right wing bullshit industrial complex has just recreated FR on twitter, much like the woke industrial complex's Bluesky is basically Tumblr circa 2012. What's old is new again, again.
Hey now you're giving fentanyl addicted hobos a bad name
I dunno, I guess I just find the whole "advocating for war criminals" thing more disqualifying for Hegseth than his drinking. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/02/opinion/trump-hegseth-military-morality.html?unlocked_article_code=1.rE4.9iI1.jRY4Y-3-nz3j&smid=url-share
I am torn, they are both pretty bad. There is also his running 2 small organizations rather ineffectively. We have the trifecta of UNQUALIFIED!
I love Katie’s categories of butch lesbian, witchy lesbian, and straight lesbian. 😂 Are there any more categories?
Tennis lesbian
Redneck lesbian
Oh, I think I know the redneck lesbian! I grew up with a few. Mullet, weather-beaten skin, piercing eyes, smokes, flannels with the sleeves cut off, has spent a night in jail, owns a very big dog.
Black sneakers, brags that she wore jeans to her mom's funeral.
Katie’s take on climate change is spot on.
Not to mention that Santa Ana winds are driven by high pressure COLD air mass over Great Basin. Warming should decrease this phenomenon:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016GL067887
According to this, CC not primary driver of chaparral fires:
https://knowablemagazine.org/content/article/living-world/2023/controlled-burns-california-wildfire
Probably Multiple confounding variables. CC probably part of it. Need multi pronged approaches with short and long term perspectives.
Just saying “climate change” is the modern version of “the gods are mad at us, repent”.
Having gone to an evangelical Christian high school in the 90’s, the resemblance between them and the modern progressive left is uncanny.
I 100% agree that climate change fanatics (whom I would distinguish from people who are just normally concerned about climate change, like most of us) are obsessed in a religious way with the idea that humans are being punished by nature for theirs sins.
So I’m actually sort of happy to have immigration enforcement when it comes to forcing businesses to not just blatantly break the law by hiring people illegally. But why is Trump just targeting specific blue cities and not the red states and cities that are doing this at much higher volume?
Great episode.
Where are the funny voices ?
There’s no pleasing you people
- Definitely not Katie
Was Brad Polumbo not a big-C Conservative?
Brad Polumbo describes himself as a center right fiscal conservative small l libertarian I believe.
There but for an errant dick pic go I...
Good episode, but the idea that Breitbart would have been anything but Trump’s biggest fan is comical. Creating a circus and owning the libs was Breitbart’s entire thing. It’s not like he some Ryan/Romney style policy opinions. Trump is the apotheosis of everything he stood for, and he would have reveled in lib-owning becoming the primary Republican platform.
I never fail to be baffled by the claims 2024 was a resounding victory for Republicans. They did way better in 2016, and Democrats did WAY better in 2008. Trump won the national vote by 1.5%, which is less than any other president since GWB, and Republicans even lost a seat in the House. Democrats have a lot more power at the state level than they did in 2016, and much better prospects of retaking the House.
A victory? Sure. Resounding? Not even close.
Marvelous episode - more conservative guests, please!
What happened to the AI cover pictures for the episodes?? I miss them
What's a NAPCON?
This guy uses too many abbreviations
(To sound cool?
and it's annoying.....
I think he's talking about NatCons (Nationalist Conservatives). Not libertarians (generally socially permissive, into low taxes and open trade), but socially conservative people more interested in mercantilist (protectionist) trade policies.
Thanks Bryan!
They have big conferences and such, it's their preferred acronym like neocon. Should've explained though.
I think he might just be more informed than you and you're projecting lol
I agree - I grew up in a conservative family, listen to some right leaning podcasts, etc and had no idea what a “Nat con” was supposed to be either.
I generally enjoyed the episode, but didn't see an Andrew Breitbart hagiography coming. I am not at all familiar with Ben D. Even though I don't follow conservative media, like Breitbart, I was like Katie's colleague and just had a spontaneous moment of elation at the unexpected news of Breitbart's death (it happened with Rush Limbaugh too). I am not proud of this. I did not know him personally and I am sure he had his positives, but his impact on the public discussion was not one of them. I am not about to dig into why I felt so negatively about him, but I am pretty sure there are loads of slander and lies about the left.
`I am sure he had his positives'
I believe Andrew Sullivan mentioned him being a fan of the `Pet Shop Boys' so there's that!
I like Ben's hypothesis: Trump has no (or little) ideology. He wants to be liked. He can't run again, so his goal will be to end his presidency with high popularity ratings, presumably so as to give Biden a death-bed middle finger. Which.... all means that he may govern more to the middle and not pursue unpopular ideas, such as banning gay marriage, or eliminating the ACA
The wind turbine scene from Landman begins with a character looking at a wind turbine and asking “What is that?”
It’s a profoundly stupid scene in the Sheridan oeuvre that is a compilation of profoundly stupid scenes.
https://youtu.be/oKVNFqqzvP4?si=VJMVsKVaZR4Wtj5S
I adored Weiner until he exposed his Weiner. I certainly did not rush to defend him and was disgusted by those who did. If anything, I thought anyone stupid enough to send dick pics through Twitter had no business being a Congressman.
This all makes me feel very old.
I’d kind of lost the bubble on these sorts of things when I left talk radio in 2005.
The OKeefe/Giles bit, then Wiener stuff was mildest attention on things like Red Eye.
But it all did show that the most tawdry stories of Washington were actually true. It’s why people might have actually believed there was a sex dungeon inside Comet Ping Pong.
Meanwhile, the Silent Generation/Early Boomers wouldn’t quit. (Full disclosure — I’m the son of two of them…..mom is in a home, dad’s in ANC….I’m late Gen X….)
The younger people coming up tend to be incredibly nutty.
Think the climate change regs are okay, but you need to have time limits, and quantifiable measures of performance. If we do X, it’s gonna cost Y, and will have this effect. When that doesnt happen, you roll it all back.
Ben Domenech says thinking that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone is a "conspiracy theory." Does he even know what the word "conspiracy" means, let alone anything about the facts of the case?
It's a joke.
Lol are you insane? Or are you joking? Ben was clearly making a joke...
🤙
Enjoyed this Episode… tie to follow Ben again on Twitter!
I’m very late on this one, but I enjoyed this guest and show! Please have him on again.
Regarding James O'Keefe, while this was his first national story, he'd been doing videos like in college. Here's him getting Rutgers to ban Lucky Charms for "offensive portrayal of the Irish":
https://x.com/JamesOKeefeIII/status/1636730829819740160/mediaViewer?currentTweet=1636730829819740160¤tTweetUser=JamesOKeefeIII
About 1:30 into this, Katie is completely gassed. She goes monosyllabic. Maybe she knew it was almost over and hit the vape deeply.
Waldorf school alumni, I know three Sages… nailed it!
I’ve been a subscriber for a long time and I’ve never commented before no matter how many times I get frustrated by Katie.
But I just have to say something about her completely dismissing Yasha Levine‘s work documenting the pistachio billionaires as sort of an exemplar of the water rights and usage problems in California. He literally wrote the book on it. When you guys completely dismiss lefties who know what they’re talking about, who do research and who can substantiate their claims it really makes you look bad. If you had watched the Pistachio Wars documentary and wanted to rebut points made in it or dispute their claims, fine. But to just dismiss him as a Twitter communist because you don’t know anything about his work is kind of pathetic.
I never know if I can trust what you’re saying or not about lefties who are more than just wacky baristas because you are so likely to just spout off knowing nothing about them or their work.
Huh apparently Megan McCain's husband is a hoot.
I'll take Jesse's accents over Ben Bemenech's giggling over his own jokes. Maybe he should have written down what he wanted to say, too. I turned it off during the last segment; felt like I was listening to a fifth grade boy telling fart jokes. I love the irreverent nature of the podcast, but Giggle Boy Ben was too much.
Thanks for responding. I'm embarrassed
My daughter watched The Nightmare Before Christmas on repeat when she was 3/4 years old. She wanted to be Princess Sally.
The hottest year on "record"....how far back do those go?
Obviously in geologic time it’s not much. The ice caps were fully melted when dinosaurs roamed the earth. That was much hotter than today. But it’s way hotter than it should be in our currently geological climate era.
I had assumed 1800’s ish with mercury thermometers but maybe 1680 in England. https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/faq/why-does-the-temperature-record-shown-on-your-vital-signs-page-begin-at-1880/
Oops I mean 1880 is the official start explained in the NASA link:
“Three of the world’s most complete temperature tracking records, maintained by NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Climactic Data Center and the UK Meteorological Office’s Hadley Centre, begin in 1880. The oldest continuous temperature record is the Central England Temperature Data Series, which began in 1659, and the Hadley Centre has some measurements beginning in 1850, but there are too few data before 1880 for scientists to estimate average temperatures for the entire planet. To compensate for the lack of direct temperature data, scientists rely on reconstructed data from proxy records, such as tree rings, pollen counts, and ice cores. Because these proxy records differ fundamentally from direct measurements, scientists typically do not include them on the same charts as the “instrumental record.” “
What are you implying here....?
Nothing to imply. Responding to the question of when official temperature records started.
I might have responded to the wrong person. This was intended for LCDR Fish and it was a rhetorical question. It is clear that he is implying that we should be skeptical of the data on climate science
So, what happened to the Federalist after Ben Left? They went from "c"onservative to just straight maga.
I thought the Wiener pics first get mass leaked when Andrew went on Opie and Anthony. Andrew had them on his phone, passed his phone to Anthony to see, and he held them up to the camera recording a livestream
What poll is the guest talking about at around 3:10?
A few days before the election J&K posted a poll on the substack about primos’ voting preference. IIRC something like 58% of respondents planned to vote for Harris, and only about 15% for Trump.
That joke was the one that made me switch off. I get that it's a joke but it just isn't very funny, since it plays into stereotypes of gays, while also doing the exact same thing that TRA's do. There's nothing about who someone fucks that makes them able to do a job. Most of the people upset at the Fire Chief weren't pissed about them being lesbians (though I am sure some were); they were angry because of the Fire Chief saying in a video that if a man was stuck in a fire, it was his fault for being there. Maybe it was meant to be funny (more likely) but it still comes off poorly. I'd rather see a fire chief, male or female say "You know what, I will carry that person out because I am trained to do that" end of story.
What is with all the sensitive listeners these days? Was there like a rush of new subscribers who didn't know what they were getting into? Chill the fuck out people.
Fwiw as a lesbian, it gave me a good laugh and made me feel good about being a dyke so milage may vary.
At what point does that part start?
Thanks
Made me excited to read The Hobbit to my kids one day!
Wtf are you talking about? This was a great episode. You were offended by some joke Katie made or what, I don't understand? And how could you even know if the guest host was interesting or not if you turned it off based on whatever joke you got sad about in the first half of the episode. Thanks for clarifying that it's OK if you're the only one who thinks this though, lol. I would have been concerned about your feelings otherwise... that was the worst "real talk" I've ever heard #dobetter
Thanks for replying the way you did. Really appreciate the "contribution." You added so much "value" with your response.
Make a valueless comment get a valueless reply, dems just the rules babe
"I switched to Rogan because Blocked and Reported was too intellectual"
What are you five?