America's Allies Are Making Backup Plans

You're listening to American Power. I'm your host Nat Towson.

“Stand up comedian, speech writer, other kind of writer, and”

most likely to elicit skeptical follow-up questions, podcast host.

With me as always is my panel of experts our expert on foreign policy and

the military Chad Scott Chad, how's it going? >> That's going really great. Glad to be back home after being in Portland had a fun time. Looking forward to this episode getting into it. >> Welcome back and joining us.

As always, our expert on energy of all forms, you know, is Mr. Global Matt Randolph, Matt, how's it going? >> Great, how are you? >> I am good, I'm surviving the end of a heat wave here in New York. If my lights get dimmer.

That's because there's still a little bit of stress on our grid over here. However, I am lucky enough as of Monday, July 6th, we're recording in the evening of Monday, July 6th. As of this point, I have not had my power turned off by anyone other than my landlord who decided to do construction on the building at the

height of the heat wave. >> Great.

“>> So all things considered I'm one of the lucky ones.”

Yeah, our heat wave is just starting.

It's like 97 or it's like 96 right now here. >> No, that's early day stuff. >> Yeah, so we were doing 104, 105 up here at one point. >> That'll be next month. It gets that way in August, yeah.

>> Yeah, we were cooking. I was going to say, I was going to say we were cooking, you know, frying eggs on the concrete, but this is kind of my part of Brooklyn. We were doing frittadas on the concrete with like a little

fennel in Fontina. >> We have our host, do you feel on the side? >> Four casted temperatures of over 120 degrees, but it is two weeks out before that supposed to happen. So maybe it doesn't happen.

But that is what a lot of models are saying today in the moment of Texas. >> Yeah.

“>> Two whole weeks to evolve a new body that isn't killed by”

that temperature. It's probably fine. The human brain will die at that temperature, but you've got a couple weeks to figure that whole thing out. Well, it's been a big week for America celebrating our

250th birthday, or noticing that it was our 250th birthday, depending on how you spent the weekend. As I mentioned, many of us spent it with a culturally and politically appropriate strain on the grid, trying to not make things any hotter by eating cold lunch.

So I hope you all enjoyed the 102nd anniversary of the Caesar salad, which was invented on July 4th. By an Italian-American man named Caesar in Mexico City. And it more importantly can be produced without turning on the oven.

And that's how I spent my July 4th. >> Wow. >> So I was hoping we could talk a little bit about what's been going on in the non-Sesquiescentennial? >> Yeah.

>> By Sesquiescentennial? >> Yeah. >> Non-county fair-related news. Big week in the world. A lot's going on.

We have a NATO summit coming up. The straight-of-war moves has sort of opened and not opened. And relations between the US and Israel seem to be increasingly strained. And I was hoping that we could start with a little bit of it

update on Iran. We actually haven't talked about the situation there in the podcast in a couple of episodes in depth. Chad, could you tell me what's going on right now? Is the straight open has trade resumed?

What's the status of US Iran relations? >> Well, a good portion of what's happening right now is surrounding rhetoric on who's winning the MOU fight here. The quote unquote deal that's supposed to be happening. That's not really happening.

And when it comes to the straight-of-war moves, it's kind of open. They're allowing some ships to move through on the United Arab Emirates/Mani side of the straight. But also the Iranians are charging tolls and fees

still going through their side of the straight. And that still is the status quo. Despite what the MOU said. And as such since we last talked about this, the Iranians have struck at least one ship moving through the straight.

We're not back to the status quo and we never will get there.

The Iranians have not moved the minds that they supposedly have placed into the straight-of-war moves. And largely this is because we're seeing an Iran continue to realize that this is really a shield for them. The straight-of-war moves is their nuclear option so to speak

while they don't have a nuclear weapon. I want to point out though that it is only temporary. There are other countries whether Saudi Arabia or the United Arab Emirates.

develop infrastructure that is going to bypass the straight-of-war moves.

That's already starting to move. I heard the Saudis and maybe Matt has more insight on this. But the Saudis are trying to build pipelines to get to the Red Sea direct. They're expanding it.

They already have one. But they're trying to expand it. And then the situation with the United Arab Emirates, they're building both rail lines to move fertilizer around the straight-of-war moves.

And they're going to start a pipeline system to get around it. So there's a real concern here that over the next five years, Iran is going to use the straight-of-war moves as a shield, not to elicit some form of concessions out of governments. But to defend themselves as they get to what is still their primary goal

in their defense. And that's trying to develop a nuclear weapon. And because of that, with the straight-of-war moves, they're on a timeline. They're on a timeline where, over the next two years,

“they will try, I think I believe they're going to try to break out as fast as they can,”

and dare other countries to do something about it, using the straight-of-war moves as they're shielded. And they're going to try to move towards a nuclear weapon. And they calculate that the Israelis are going to be held on a leash by the United States because Donald Trump has stated quite often

that the straight-of-war moves is his primary focus now.

He will mention in tweets the nuclear issue saying they will never have a nuclear weapon.

But I truly believe in his mind. He is starting to think that the straight-of-war moves is the more important thing, and he'll take his eye off the ball when it comes to nuclear weapons. And I get why Iran would be doing this if we can bypass the straight in five years. They're defenseless at that point, and they'll look at a country like North Korea

or even an Israel or a Russia who haven't nuclear weapons and watch them go, they are doing whatever they want. You can see that North Korea is a constant thorn in the side of everyone. No one's stopping them because they have a nuclear weapon. No one's really stopping Israel because they have a nuclear weapon.

No one's stopping Russia. And so obviously Iran's even though the straight-of-war moves is effective, that's still a goal for them, and I think that's where they're moving forward on that. And so with this timeline, they need to essentially need to use this while it's still valuable to them, in order to, as you're saying, sort of trade it in for the more ongoing massive trump card or bargaining chip.

I always feel weird saying trump cards are not so weird.

The massive bargaining chip, it's still not quite the same function as the problem. I'll come up with a better, Chris, edited a later future me who is good at metaphors. Potentially 10 years down the line. I'm not saying it's going to happen later in this recording. But the point being, so they're trading it in ideally, they're going to try to find a way to get some,

you know, some in the accord, like some nuclear development, like get these sanctions removed, get nuclear development going. Within the timeline, while the straightforward move is still as valuable in the region as it is right now.

“Yeah, so they've actually said it over lately, that's what they're going to do.”

This fund, this $300 billion fund, the unfreezing of assets, which are Iranian assets, to be fair. That money, the 12 billion in unfrozen assets, and the 300 billion in the Iranians, and the Islamic Republic have come out and said, "We are going to use this to build weapons before we build an infrastructure. We go down the road of infrastructure replenishment and rebuild." So the German administration knows this is happening.

But the fact is, they know that the state of Hormuz is going to be the election pressure point. And even though it's open, and we've seen the gas or the oil prices drop, the gas is just not reflecting. I mean, Matt, do you have any thoughts on that at all? Yeah. So the straits about, I don't know, 35% open, and we're not seeing incoming traffic build to a point yet to increase that, right?

So in order for it to be fully open, you need enough ships coming back in, right? There's that numbers, the numbers aren't there yet, so I think there's about. Last I saw 40 ships a day coming back in.

“There was, I think, 140, 150 pre-war in and out.”

But now the thing about gas prices is, gas prices actually rose today by 8 to 12 cents a gallon, depending on what market. I'm talking about wholesale prices rose today when oil fell. Part of that is because Ukraine hit Russia's largest refinery in Omsk, am I saying that right, Jed?

And so the gas prices are actually reflecting what the oil market should be showing us.

“But without the manipulation, you would see oil would be about $90 a barrel.”

So a lot of people are celebrating $70 a oil, but they're paying for $90 gas. And like, they're not connecting those dots. And this is the normal, you know, they say gas prices go up like a rocket and drop like a feather. This is not that, this is not that phenomenon, which is a real phenomenon. But this is, you can't manipulate gasoline markets like you can't oil, because oil is easily replaced. We have a ton of refining capacity.

Dad, we have historically low inventories of gasoline during a historically high period of demand in the middle of summer in 2026. Gas prices are not going to improve anytime soon, regardless of what oil does.

“These are two distinctly different markets.”

And historically, yes, gas prices always follow oil prices.

They are completely disconnected right now. So an increase in supply and oil would not result in a decrease in the gas prices, because refining is the choke point right now. So it does to a point, because oil is, you know, about half the price of a gallon of gas, but once it gets to that point, it doesn't do it anymore, right? So, you know, gas did fall, gas has fallen by what's 60, 70 cents a gallon on a national average in the United States. Based on the price of oil right now, gas should be at least 50 cents a gallon cheaper on a national average.

And it looks like it's about to start climbing again. And the gap, so this is something that's never happened, I don't know if you're familiar with the 321 crack spread.

3 barrels, so the 321 crack spread is basically an indicator of the profit margin of refiner's.

Oil is so cheap, but gas is still so expensive. They're making, they're printing money right now, the refiner's are because they're getting $90 oil for 70 bucks. The 321 crack spread states that 3 barrels of oil create 2 barrels of gasoline and 1 barrel of diesel. The crack spread is currently almost the same price as a barrel of oil. So, what that means is refiner's are almost doubling their profit for every barrel of oil they buy.

So, they're buying a barrel of oil for $70 and they're making $130 on a $70 barrel of oil, so they're profiting over $60 on a $70 dollar.

Now, multiply that times 19 million barrels a day.

That's what refiner's are making right now, because gas markets are still so high and oil is artificially cheap. So, but we've lost, refining capacity around the world, rush is lost. I think nearly 40% of theirs at this time and then plus what we lost in the Iran war. So, gas isn't going to get any better any time soon and demand continues to climb. And a lot of that demand climbing is because the oil markets were manipulated.

So, we didn't let gas prices get high enough during this war to create demand destruction.

“And that's what I was warning about a couple of years ago, you have to let the market basically implode on itself in order for those prices to fall.”

They get way too high, the cure for high prices is high prices. When you stop those high prices from happening, what you end up with is moderately high prices for a much, much longer period of time. So, we didn't get to $5 gas, but we are going to pay 50 cents a gallon more than we should for gas for an extended period of time. And over the long run, we're going to end up spending more money on gas when we would have if we would have just let it hit $5 a gallon. That's how this works. That's why manipulating markets does not work. It fails every time.

So, gas prices aren't going to fall no matter how many investigations they do. It was funny because Trump is demanding DOJ investigations three years after the Republican Party unanimously voted not to pass price gouging laws. He's up there screaming about price gouging, and I'm like, hey, you guys voted unanimously to not pass that. So, he went from blaming the oil companies to blaming the retailers to demanding the DOJ, and now they're like, okay, we didn't know how this works. And they're asking the states to investigate price gouging individually, and nothing's going to come of that either.

And so, have we seen the worst of the, I mean, usually we're not going to hit $5 a dollar.

Sorry, we're not going to hit $5 a gallon. That's national average we're talking about. We've certainly seen $5 a gallon in some markets in the US at this point.

“I think we've seen $6 premium even at some points.”

But I don't know exactly what that word diesel price is peaked, but yeah, even without that average. How, I mean, I guess this obviously depends on whether there's any resolution to the situation in Iran, but like, how per longer these are these increases, and have we even seen the full effect of it. Yeah, you know, the, this massive shift to the oil market obviously things changed as a result of rushes on going aggression in Ukraine, this war, you know, it's been going for a while, but you know, the recently hitting the refineries is it's not happening evenly right like it's obviously changing the market.

But ultimately the conflict in Iran is so recent, like you're describing this sort of evening out, it's not going to hit $5.

“But have we even experienced the full extent of, you know, the initial effects of delaying all this all this oil shipping, or are we are we still experiencing downstream effects from the original closure of the straight and foremost.”

Or still experiencing everything, oil prices are not indicative or representative of anything that's physically happening in the world that it's a complete total manipulation. And with oil at $70, we still have SPRs around the world dumping oil onto the global market. That's never happened, that's not a thing, you don't, you don't use your emergency oil reserves when oil $70. But so the reason oil is 70 dollars is not because of the fundamentals of the market. When those SPRs all stop doing that, that's going to have to come from commercial inventories.

The question now that no one can answer is is the market going to wake up to the fundamentals or not. And nobody can answer that because we've literally never seen this happen before we've never seen a market so blatantly manipulated and so oversold and undervalued that like nobody knows what a lot of people are still predicting a hundred and fifty dollar oil.

“I just quit predicting oil prices like I went back to my old predictions of gas prices from a few months ago and I'm like look what I was saying back then is holding because gas prices are actually representative of the market oil prices aren't.”

So who knows what's going to happen? People are almost 70% of the capital that was in the market that oil market is gone. Basically everyone quit investing. I understand that when

a billion dollar bet is made in the oil market for to short oil 15 minutes before an announcement is made and whoever did that makes hundreds of millions of dollars in 20 minutes.

That they were stealing from other investors using insider trading. So traders all over the world said I'm out and they just completely left the oil market. So there's nobody there to buy paper oil futures anymore because they can't predict the whims of the president. That's not a normal market so everyone just left like learned and who knows when they will come back or if they will come back. So trying to predict what oil prices are going to do is impossible. When you can't predict what side of the bed Donald Trump's going to wake up on but we can predict gas prices we can do that.

It's a little bit different than normal but I would expect gas prices you know even if oil stays where it is gas prices will stay where they are like it's it's we're not going to see this fall like a feather effect. It's going to be more like I don't know what falls a lot slower than a feather but whatever that is is what it's going to be is what I'm saying. Again, Chris, if you could just cut in a really good metaphor later, we would really appreciate that falls like a feather on the moon falls like a feather on a moon.

But I can tell you this if those you know if Jeff Curry is right he's one of the world's leading experts if he's right about oil prices going back to 130 and Dan Dickers as 140 if those guys are right gas prices are going to. We can explode like crazy like so but I'm not convinced you can't convince me that those oil prices will go back up like that because Donald Trump is setting there with his phone and his billionaire buddies on the line ready to manipulate it back now so I'm not making that prediction it's impossible to predict.

Competitive with the renewable energy industry, but haven't US oil prices or even gas prices always been somewhat manipulated like the oil market in the US what what is Trump doing that's so much more drastic than what previous presidents are doing it like direct coordination with.

“Oil companies to a degree that we've never seen before or what's so different in this presidency.”

The insider trading like hey I'm about to make an announcement you know place a hundred or billion dollars short on oil like that's never happened before he's just like literally communicating with them. Like like yeah when when someone gets on their computer at at five forty five in the morning and bets a billion dollars on oil to fall and eight minutes later the president makes an announcement like people don't trade make billion dollar trades at five forty five in the morning.

Like that's nothing. So it's obviously manipulated everyone knows it they say they're investigating it trying to find out who did it that's a lie.

It takes you all of about fourteen seconds to figure out who made a trade in the United States everything is tracked and documented there's a.

“Cheney custody all of it like so for them to act like they're trying to figure out who did it that's ridiculous like one phone call they know who did it now you know historically we're talking about market manipulation they're talking about all back.”

You know but all peck is the swing producer all peck controls so much of the world so oil that they can do that now is that market manipulation. They're trying to make the most money off of oil that is not some other than Donald Trump asking them to increase production to lower oil prices. They did it so they could regain market share but you know is that market manipulation I don't call that market manipulation. Like I call placing an eight hundred million dollar oil bit at five forty five in the morning market manipulation you know what I mean that's to me that's natural trading they're doing what's best for them.

But it does move markets because they control so much of the market so. But we're not we're not going to with everything happening in Russia and another thing to think about the oil that was coming through the straight of hormones you know pre war is a middle sour type of oil that creates generates the most diesel and jet fuel production right that oil is essential to diesel production and we're looking at. A diesel inventories and diesel supplies and tying that to Russia and their 40% of refined like are we going to have a global diesel shortage is the question that's being asked.

I can't answer that yet but it is a question a lot of people are talking about because the oil that comes from that part of the world.

And it was gone so we'll have to see what happens there seems like a good time to ask about what we can expect from this upcoming NATO summit which is having an happening at a pretty crucial time.

And global politics Chad could you for the listeners explain what exactly what the summit is what's about to happen.

“Yeah for sure I think a big part of the summit is going to focus on what is essentially the Trump administration caused riffs between countries not just and I'm not just talking about NATO but also Israel and I can get to that in a minute but.”

One of my thoughts on what's going to happen is I think Europe is finally getting the capacity where they're going to start doubling down on rearament this is going to be a major discussion. Now the United States is not going to be completely excluded here because even today the major arms producer is the United States so what's likely going to happen is they're going to start building their own arsenals for sure.

But they're still they're kind of in their infancy even in the post-World War II era they've had this long but they've always just relied on the US that's going to continue.

But they're going to rearm at a greater rate so they don't have to necessarily rely on the US in the future in the interim they will though still over land the US. That means that NATO is going to become more European. The United States has always been kind of this umbrella of we are the end all be all of NATO the the parts of NATO that Europe provide is proximity to the potential enemy which is Russia so they have basing rights and things like that.

I also think that the US nuclear deterrent will still remain intact though I do know that France is bolstering their nuclear arsenal so that may come up as well.

“I believe that Europe is going to continue taking the lead on Ukraine's the Trump administration is supposed to be meeting with Zelensky.”

I do think that every time that Trump meets with Zelensky we do seem to get a little bit better of an outcome than when we saw that argument in the Oval Office last year. But I don't think that we're going to see any kind of major moves currently the United States does provide intelligence which is quite indispensable for them right now. Which is why the Ukrainians haven't completely just washed their hands at the United States and the United States does provide weapons to Ukraine but it's through the European purchases.

So we're not giving them it as a aid it's through we're selling it to European countries who then they decide to give it to Ukraine and I do think that there's going to be disagreements but I don't think this is there's going to be a major fracture. I saw that Pete Hegseth was kind of prepping to talk about drawdowns of more troops from Europe and then he was promptly cut off and said that's not happening and then he heardly corrected himself and said actually no we're going to continue to evaluate troop drawdowns and what that sounds like to me is the grownups in the administration including Rubio and that's hard to say that he's the grownup in the administration probably told Hegseth to shut the fuck up because this is not helpful.

It comes to dealing with Russia and then finally Poland will become one of NATO's central military powers.

They are going to be probably the second or third most powerful NATO country outside of the US and the reason I say second or third is because I'm counting Ukraine as probably a top two European power but the only reason they are is because 40% of their budget is going to to the war they're at war. The power is is present and and they are actually exercising it. The next one is Turkey and it's just because they're size they're just a massive military the second largest military in NATO behind the United States.

“So I do think that Poland is rising pretty heavily in that regard but nonetheless I think Iran is going to come up.”

The rift that we are having between countries including Israel is going to come up but in the end I think.

The summit probably will be in that benefit because Russia is going to leave the summit in our worst strategic not that they're a part of NATO but the views and agreements on what to do about Russia are going to be worse for Russia in the end. I have a question that relates to something that you said earlier and I apologize if this is something of a tangent or non-secreter but assuming that we have free and fair elections in twenty twenty nine. To what degree do other countries within NATO and even Iran strategy revolve around the idea that there could be a succession of power in the US in that like.

Obviously we understand Trump to be both political leader but also an emotional person and I have to imagine there's some analysis in that in to other leaders but.

“It just gave me just give me a little bit pause just to think of when you're talking about you know Iran the straightaway moves is not going to be as big of a bargaining chip in five years and.”

And the country is building out there nuclear armament so that the US nuclear deterrent isn't the. The stop gap against Russia against other countries developing nuclear weapons. To what extent do power negotiations like this have to factor in the instability within the within the US executive branch like how does that I mean I know you're talking you're talking about. The changing messaging which that that kind of hairpin turn seems a little uncommon so I if an understanding you correctly you're saying.

There was clearly like a he was spoken to there was clearly like a changing of course there. To what degree do these do these other nations have to focus on our instability in in planning and negotiating with the US. Well unfortunately for those nations is pretty heavily because at least in the near term there is. No one else that can project power globally like the United States the the fact of the matter for Russia is. We are very fortunate that Ukraine was able to do what they have done so far to weaken Russia that being said Russia still maintains.

A very big bite they can go after other countries like Poland, Estonia and the Baltics like a lot via Lithuania it would be extraordinarily foolish but. They they still have the capability and when I talk about Russia I'm also ignoring China who is obviously a major becoming a major player as well so the United States.

Anywhere in the world we want and sustain them and sustain the fight necessary.

Many other countries are going to rely on this not just NATO it's going to be the Japan, South Korea, Taiwan etc. And of course they have to factor in the calculus and right now what I'm seeing in all these partnerships is not necessarily a backtracking of we need to get out of this it's just confusion. Because the United States has been pretty much a very stable partner in a lot of these whether it was a Republican or a Democrat in office whether it was Georgia be Bush and then the transition to Obama NATO really didn't see a big difference yeah.

We had the whole like. And he'll America and Merkel and Germany got hurt got the what was it the air pot or the iPod or whatever that had Obama's thing songs on so there's a little faux pas but there was never a question of the alliance.

“Greenland threats changed everything and I think it was more of a they're now concerned and not a sur that the United States really will attack something like a Greenland but that we just won't be there anymore.”

And that is of a concern that I have and every American should be concerned about that because what that does is when the United States isn't on the global stage being the balance or being the stabilizer. Other countries have to find alternative ways to secure themselves and as I was kind of talking about earlier in the episode fastest way to do that is a nuclear weapon so we're going to see proliferation and we're going to see countries that aren't like Iran where it's it's kind of difficult for them.

It's not really that hard for Japan to develop a nuclear weapon it's not hard for Taiwan, South Korea, Poland, Turkey.

These are countries that have held back on their nuclear aspirations because they felt that they were under the security of the US nuclear umbrella and as as things start to roll down. A hill with the trumpet administration those are the questions that are being asked and so they do have to factor it into that I I'm still somewhat optimistic that a lot of what we're seeing come out of the trumpet administration is now being gated even Rubio. Again, I'm sadly calling the adult in the room here he is he is having to reframe Trump speech and reassure and that tells me that he has been given the leeway to do that or he just feels he has enough political capital to burn when it comes to Trump because Trump needs I mean he does like 30 jobs right now so I mean he's running like USAID state.

He's doing negotiation so it's it's just one of those things where yes, they have to be concerned about the future of the United States. But I think it's a concern that they can manage and still maintain a relationship with the US because we've we've had been flowed on isolation isn't before this isn't the first time we did it in before World War One and so.

History repeating itself sure but again you don't want to and this is just a comment for the European countries and Canada and all of our allies.

“You don't want to make a mistake of putting all of your eggs in the US basket perhaps yes you should be arming yourselves and developing partnerships within yourselves like a Franco German Polish partnership for instance.”

You know what directly in the camera what you said but Franco team a frinker and Japan building. Yeah, that's not because they don't have a nuke is because they promise not to right I don't mean to be culturally insensitive but Nintendo could build a nuke at this point. Well, there's problems with they do there's there's some a lot of the proliferation discussions surrounding nuclear development are based on automatic trigger sanctions. So they don't and it's not just from the US it's for every one of the sanction other countries who are.

Signers of the non-proliferation treaty and so because of that a lot of countries avoid that that being said nothing is more important to a country than its own security. So they may start making that calculation where we need a nuclear weapon because our security matters more than sanctions from the US or European Union and that's that was a calculation is real made they made a calculation that we will eat. We will eat sanctions that were that technically are still in place. But they just are living with that we just don't talk about them.

They will operate around them, but and they developed nuclear weapon they said they didn't but we know and so as we just have some previous episodes. Yeah, so air quotes do not have a nuclear weapon.

“Yeah, so it is something that the other countries need to be concerned about do I think it's the end of the the Western order now.”

I don't, but I do I think that there's going to be more room for other countries to grow such as Germany who I will not get a nuclear weapon. I just know they won't that that's not in their DNA and not at least not anymore, but.

You know, and these reals and other one like that.

And Greenland the the threatening of Greenland was really the most I only asked because I feel like a lot of.

“You know, obviously it seemed like an incredibly irresponsible threat to make, but it also I think.”

To a lot of the public seemed like Trump's typical bluster of I'm going to say something extreme for two weeks to dominate the 24 hour news cycle and overwhelm everyone. Was that taken really seriously in the international community as in like you said you don't think it's actually going to do it, but it's it's signaled a.

Instability or a fickleness to the administration that didn't exist there or unpredictability that didn't exist in previous administrations.

I don't know about what do you think that with the was it was it just an Epstein thing was it an Epstein distractions that was a lot of a lot of it. I mean, there's a serious backing to that. I mean, you got any thoughts on that because then I can I have my thoughts, but I'm just wondering if that's in the strategy I'm asking the other did the international community really take that that's serious. Yes, they did okay. Listen, they take everything he says seriously because he's that unpredictable and but that's just my opinion.

The Greenland thing was just another business opportunity for Donald Trump and his first administration one of his I can't remember the guys name, but he was trying to get him to get Greenland in his first administration because he wanted access to all these rare earth minerals and whatever else they think is there. I honestly believe that the whole Greenland thing was another grift. He can talk about national security and Russia. I come up with whatever excuse. I honestly believe he thought it was something he could pull off.

I think he thought he could intimidate Denmark into basically giving us Greenland.

But at the end of the day, had we somehow gotten to manage Greenland.

“The Trump sons would have had their names all over whatever corporations would be there looting that country of whatever national resources it has and that's what I think it was about.”

And I think they know that I think our allies know that and I think that's why they took it seriously as well. Yeah, I mean, I would say that it definitely was taken seriously. It was serious enough that they deployed troops. So it was not. And you have to understand this. It's so unbelievably frustrating because these are countries that went to war with us Afghanistan. These are countries that per capita like as in our allies. Yeah, our allies are syntax. They went to war alongside us.

Yeah, with they went. Yeah, exactly. Yeah, thanks. You know, I think it's clear as to what you're saying. But yeah, because we're not at war with them. We were at war alongside them. Yeah, well, they've helped us immensely and it was such a slap in the face.

“But they, you have to take it seriously because if you don't, that's when Trump opportunistically will, will pounce on that.”

And he, he loved to talk about, well, he's not the only president that has went up. Well, here. Yeah, Harry Truman went and offered to buy Greenland. Denmark said no. And the United States was like, all right, cool. I mean, we just wouldn't wonder if you guys want it. But Trump is going further with it with actual pain on on NATO, whether it's troops or troops reductions or stopping the deals for equipment and weapons, which he's doing with Taiwan as well. It's just a, he wants this personal pet project of Greenland. But I also agree, it was a grift and a distraction in my opinion, but it's a distraction that, no matter what, you got to take it seriously because we all thought that things like Venezuela was going to be a distraction.

Right, they actually executed that that operation and same thing with Iran. So I had to answer my own question a little bit. It being a grift like doesn't make it less plausible and it be, I mean, I wouldn't even make it more, it makes it more plausible, right? Yeah, because there's an actual reason to do it other than, I mean, he does things for two reasons, despite and money, right? I think those are the main. He feels wounded or has to get back at someone or just shameless profit. And, you know, not to go too constantly into the school yard psychology, but like, it is a little bit of the like, ha ha, you thought I was going to hit you.

I was like, well, yeah, you do have to take the bully seriously when they lift their fist up because they do punch you some of the time. And like, it's that same, you know, threat, not a threat threat, not a threat. Like, I'm saying it being like, in my secure place as an American citizen being like, oh, yeah, he says that stuff all the time. He doesn't mean it. And like, yeah, if you're from a country that has less than one tenth of the nukes, we have or no nukes.

I don't think anything he does is like thoroughly a distraction. I mean, to say that it fits into his general strategy since the beginning of his, not even beginning of his first trip since his 2015 campaign, which is to overwhelmed the news cycle with real and fake news, like real threats fake threats. It's a very Russian strategy, but like enough real things to keep you alert to make all the fake threats seem threatening. So I, I, I'm never want to say this is a distraction from the X scene files, although it

does seem that the mainstream media has largely moved on from that story, but I think rather than anything being a distraction, I think it remains his strategy to make a constant spectrum of real and real to fake announcements.

And, you know, I'm just used to processing it as an American citizen who is not about to be, you know, invaded.

I mean, I will, I, he, it's just whatever he can get for himself. That's what it is. He doesn't care on the international stage about partnerships. He doesn't care about alliances as long as he can get something personally across the board for his own feather in his cap.

“And he did this, he's doing the same thing to Israel. That's why there's this, this rift between the US and Israel right now.”

What's going on there? Could you expound on that a little bit? Yeah, because he's he's doing some pretty interesting things considering a good chunk of his base. Absolutely support Israel, but it is, it's shifting. Maga is shifting there, but the, there's conversations going on to kind of set the stage here a little bit. Israel and the United States have fundamentally different wishes for how this war and Iran ends. Israel wants a complete destruction of the Islamic Republic. Ideally, a break apart of Iran into tribal feudings, so that they're not a regional counter to Israel.

And basically, allowing Israel to work freely with their Arab partners, such as Saudi Arabia, the United Emirates, etc.

To build a Middle East that is something that Israel is more reflective of what Israel wants. They want Iran completely removed from the equation similar to how Syria was with their civil wars.

“Donald Trump just wants this war over, and he doesn't, he doesn't really care how he gets there.”

So he's trying to get to a deal that is objectively bad for the Israelis. It is as bad as the deal is for the US, it is exponentially worse for the Israelis. And the thing about the Israelis is they don't want any deal ever between the US and Iran, because it legitimizes the Islamic Republic. And this happened with the JCPO, Obama, when he was pushing out his deal, the Republicans invited Netanyahu to speak at Congress. And he absolutely shredded Obama in front of Congress, which is, that it usually is the purview of the president to invite a foreign leader that was unheard of.

That was the first that had been a problem, and it was inappropriate for the Republican Congress to actually do that quite frankly.

But Donald Trump is no different. He's had conversations where he's told Netanyahu, "I'm the boss." He's, and it's public. So he is really people are hearing this. He's saying things like, like, "Explosive, laden, die of tribes about the Israelis attacking Lebanon, and it's fucking his deal up." And he said, "You're fucking crazy. If it wasn't for you, you would be in prison." He's telling Netanyahu this, "He may not be wrong, honestly."

It was about to say extremely rare broken clocks syndrome, but when he's right, he's right on that. And he's like, "Yeah, dude, you're very lucky to have that backing. You shouldn't." But honestly, that sounds like a normal conversation with anybody in his administration. Oh, yeah. But it wasn't for me. You'd be in fucking prison.

Yeah, you're lucky enough to be in prison. The fact that he's a Republican.

“You're lucky I regained power. That's why the Justice Department doesn't work right now.”

All these people who should be in prison are not, or who would normally have been in prison. Well, also, I want to add to what you're saying, Chad, which is on top of that, Iran knows there's this ticking clock, right, to make a bad for Trump deal. Because, as you said, their major bargaining chip, the straight of hormones, is not going to be... It's decaying, and it's value. And the fucking worst negotiator in the world isn't necessarily going to be our president in two to three years.

So they have to get a very bad for the US and bad for Israel deal, advocate faster. So Trump is stuck in the middle, it has like all his extra motivation to make a deal that's terrible for Israel, which, you know, in this particular case, I can't say I'm opposed to with a completely trying to transform the region in the way that they are. But I don't see how that necessarily leads to an end in hostilities or anything.

Yeah, I mean, it's basically just we're going to watch as Israel's... Netanyahu's in a position where he can't give on his side, because he has an election coming in October. Trump can't give on his side, because even though it's his not his own election,

the midterms are critical for his future aspirations of whatever he wants to do.

So these are two countries that can't really move. And because of that, Israel is becoming more belligerent. We heard national security minister Ben Gavier. On TV, talk about how we need to reject what Trump is saying, reject this deal, and we're going to start hitting houses in southern Lebanon.

We need to remove the... Not... Not... Hasblah, not the terrorist. We need to remove the residents of southern Lebanon on a sovereign country. Another country. Yeah, and there's not two years ago to be complete. No, there's no reporting on it.

And the thing is, is Trump enjoys like a 90% approval rating in Israel. So they're fine with all of this.

“And you have to understand that even though I say there's a rift that this rift is taking place,”

it always goes back to money. There are massive contracts with Rathion, Palantir that have been negotiated over the last couple of years. This is a country that gets the F-35. There's just not going to be a lot of movements.

We talk about the rift. It's likely a real rift. It's not just... I don't think it's... Some people have been talking about how it's going to be this top cover to give Trump some cover because he's taking heat for supporting Israel.

I think there is a real personal beef right now between him because Netanyahu is doing things that hurts Trump's deal. But if we let's expand out three years from now, I don't care who is president at that point. I don't care who's in Congress.

Israel is still going to be considered our top ally in the region. And whether it's Democrat Republican, we may see Democrats. Like lament what Israel is doing. And they will come out. But I guarantee the laws and the deals.

Including a law that states...

“Israel will never be the weakest country in the Middle East.”

The U.S. has a law that states,

we will continue to arm Israel to make sure they are the most powerful

no matter what in that region. And those are going to law that says that. Yes, there's a law that specifically states... I can't remember what it's called. It's not the parody law.

But it's some sort of... Yeah, not the Google editor. Editor's find a better expert than me in the future. But the... Yeah, it's an actual law.

Yeah, it's an actual law in the books that tells us that... It states that the United States has a requirement to continue to ensure that Israel is the most powerful country that they cannot be destroyed, taken over. And I just don't see those going away.

Will there be public falling out? Is this going to be bad for Netanyahu? Yeah, probably. He's actually pulling badly right now. He probably will lose the election.

He probably will be investigated and thrown in prison. And Israel for all his corruption. If not, handed over to the International Criminal Court, because there's a warrant out frame on over there too. So, I'd love to see exactly...

I don't think that will happen, because that's a dangerous precedent for Israel. But nonetheless, he's not in good position. And this is why... Yeah, because... Yeah, and I think there's a good...

There's a good reason why Netanyahu is saying... I don't care what Trump says. I'm continuing this war. I'm going to continue hitting a Lebanon. I'm going to continue striking Iran as I see fit.

And I'm just going to tell Trump to pound sand. Just deal with it. And it's going to be a problem for this deal that we just can't bring across the finish line. And it is interesting, because...

You're going to see...

“I think in these midterms, you're going to see support for Israel as a larger issue that”

is in the American electoral politics, basically ever.

And I'm very curious as to whether... You know, we've got a time... We've got a... We have several years before this, but is the presidential election... Like, are the Democrats going to put up an anti-BDS candidate?

I mean, AOC being the big obvious answer, but someone who's come out against support for Israel, prior to running for president, are the Democrats going to run a campaign that even hinges on that? I don't think it'll go that far.

To be completely honest, because I don't think the party has the courage, and I think it's transforming, but not fast, not that fast. But I think it'll be interesting to see, whereas that was once an unquestionable position for both parties, like you're saying, will that law continue quite likely?

But will the midterms make that issue... Will the midterms threaten the security of that certain?

Sorry, guys. Throw it, it's going.

It'll be interesting to see if the midterms...

No, I just wanted to say, it'll be interesting to see if the midterms... like change the certainty of that position in America, because it's usually so stable. Mad, do you want to go on that one? I have no idea. So, here's the thing.

“What I think about is, like, you're not allowed to be anti-Israel in this country.”

Like, it's a huge stigma. You're immediately labeled a racist. Like, and it seems like it doesn't matter what Israel does. If you talk about it, you're anti-Semitic. So, trying to figure out how that will play itself out across the country.

I feel like I agree with that, that there's sort of a shift... I don't even want to say anti-Israel. I would say anti-Israel's behavior. But I personally... I don't understand how we get so embedded with a country where they have so much power over us.

There's probably a lot of stuff we don't know that Israel knows about people in our government that they use over them who knows. But that makes it difficult. And there's a lot of money involved in supporting Israel. So, I think we'll see him.

“Well, and I think Matt is largely right in that regard to that.”

First off, I think Democrats will move in a more of an anti-Israel stance.

However, watch the Republicans too, because you're going to see Marjorie Taylor Greene and Thomas Massey. The countries that were the true American first arm, they're standing up and being actually more vocal. Where is the Democrats are sitting back going? I have some scar tissue about coming out as anti-Israel and problematic with APAC and things like that. Thomas Massey and Marjor Taylor Greene and some of those original MAGA American first that have been burned by Trump who have been primary.

They anti-globalists. Yeah, they're not. Exactly. The anti-globalists and they're not gone. They're still very much in the lexicon.

They're very much out there and they're campaigning again. And I think they're going to start seeing a split in this MAGA.

“And you have to understand, like, Israel, yes, there is powerful lobbies, but Israel has also embedded itself into our society.”

So you have a Democrat like Adam Smith who has -- he's out of C-Tech who has contracts with things like Boeing. Well, Israel has contracts for Boeing and suddenly Israel pulls their funding from Boeing. That means jobs are lost in Adam Smith's district. Is that an optimal situation to be in where we are beholden to Israel? Because they provide American jobs.

Unfortunately, that was a function of the system that we developed. Where we want all these partners, whether it's Israel, whether it's France, whether it's Canada, doesn't matter. And we generated jobs and then suddenly one of them went rogue and started just scorched Earth against Gaza. It becomes problematic because, let's be honest, the average voter is going to worry more about losing their job than what Israel's doing.

And that's what's going to be the problem is if these Democrats or Republicans come out forcefully saying,

"I'm going to bring in Israel," and Israel's like, "Oh, yeah, we're going to just go ahead and cut this F-35 deal off." And Lockheed loses however many thousands of jobs are palentier or any of these things. That's where these -- that's unfortunately a bug in our system that they can exploit and everyone exploits that. And so those kind of answer Matt's question though, as to how do we get here where they continue to exist? Yeah, exactly. I'm going to have how we get here about how do they continue to wield that much power when it seems relatively infinitesimal compared to US power.

But it's so interrelated from a business standpoint. And I also want to be like 100% clear for our listeners that opposing our support of Israel isn't being anti-Israeli. Right, we're not talking about the people of Israel. Many friends of mine, and even if I didn't have friends from Israel, I would recognize them as people. But as you say with any country, I'm not anti-Iranian people.

I do also not support the Iranian government, but I think that argument is starting that any criticism of Israel -- The classic rhetoric around it is it's anti-Semitic to criticize Israel, and also it's a complicated situation that you don't understand. And I think both of those talking points are kind of dissolving right now. And you know, the situation you're describing is very real. It's not optimal, but it's very real. In terms of like how the Democrats are interrelated with their support for Israel right now.

And I will say this until I'm blue in the face, but not everyone is making the clarification that I'm making,

The Democrats in ignoring the actions of the state of Israel have allowed criticism of Israel to come from anti-Semites,

which not only justifies that bullshit fake talking point that any criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic, because they go, oh yeah, look at these Israel -- Israel -- Israel critics who are openly anti-Semitic. They're not even hiding it. I mean, the MAGA anti-Israel movement is openly anti-Semitic. Anything on you encounter on, you know, social media, for example, at rallies, they will tell you it's, you know, encoded or non-coded language that Jews are the problem that's just international conspiracy blah blah blah.

“You know, this is all -- this is Henry Ford bullshit. This goes back decades if not centuries, right?”

Like this is like, you know, oh, like drawings on the wall of people with horns, you know, this is pre-technology anti-Semitism bullshit. Like that exists, but I'm just saying that's the level that we got scooped by because Democrats were so afraid, or that they got scooped by,

I'm not taking credit for the Democratic National Convention, but they got so afraid to be critical of Israel

that the only people with a microphone willing to be critical of Israel were conspiracy theorists anti-Semites, like Marjorie Taylor Greene, Jewish Space Laser's lady has a better Israel policy than Chuck Schumer. And that's embarrassing, you know, and it's not a better policy, but she had more willingness to criticize the state. Democrats have destabilized their own part, you know,

“so terrified of this left-list insurgency, which we can talk about. I think it's very funny to watch, you know,”

people who got Bill Clinton elected talk about how this is going to destroy the party. Maybe, maybe, maybe your take isn't that relevant these days, guys, but but all of this, like the destabilizing from within the party around Israel really comes from that inability to criticize it before that narrative was co-opted by conspiracy theorists, and that's going to be really, really hard to disentangle at this point. We have to, we have to face it forward by being, you know, good faith in our policy towards Israel from now on,

but they've already let conspiracy theorists take the wheel, and I think that's, that was like a huge mistake on the part of the Democrats. Yeah, for sure. I think for me, like, if you have mass graves of people, a lot of them being children with hands tied behind their backs, like your race religion, ethnicity, how you look, how tall you are, what you smell like, none of that matters to me. Like you have mass graves of people with hands tied behind their back. I could care less, if what your religion is, what your skin color is, none of that matters.

It's the fact that you have mass graves of people with hands tied behind their back. Yeah, that's doctors executed. Yeah, you know, like American journalists, American journalists, journalists, journalists of any ethnicity or, or origin aid workers, you know, just constantly, like so many stories about murdered aid workers and journalists that, you know, we've lost track. They don't even make headlines anymore. Just like, "Oh, yeah, of course they did." Yeah, because they were eight workers in Gaza.

“And I just, the one thing I will say is, I think there's a more moderate push to not say what their anti-Israel, but just a question.”

What exactly is going on? Cause 38% of Republicans are according to a Pew study are wanting a different direction with Israel.

They're not saying, "Hey, let's abandon Israel so that they have to be a 10 million person population dealing with a half a billion potential adversaries in Persians and Arabs."

And that's not even going to happen. They have allies in the region as well. It's just, there's now even Republicans to the highest level they've ever been at 38% that's really high actually saying, "We need to reevaluate exactly what our weapons are doing in Israeli hands." And make sure that they're still secure as a country. And a lot of this is, I think, unfortunately, but also somewhat fortunately that we have for a generation we had this, it was almost a, I don't know what to call it, like, we felt bad for the Holocaust. That's making us sound flippin' and unserious, but we maybe you have a better word for it.

But I would say we were reckoning the legacy of the Holocaust. And so we just felt like we had to ensure Israel's survival. And just as a, to make sure that that continued. And unfortunately, I believe Israel specifically in the Netanyahu and Ben Gavir era, they have taken our wish to ensure the survival of Israel and the post Holocaust era, and they've decided to, essentially, roll with it in a way that we are now questioning, not only the legality but the morality of what's going on. And I think that moving forward, we're going to see more bipartisan support.

I think it's going to come from a Republican side of the Republican and Democrat party that is just humanitarian. And it may be few and far between in a Republican side, but there are still those there that are like, hey, it's just like Russia. They shouldn't be killing civilians.

“They shouldn't be trying to raise cities to the ground. And I think going forward, we're going to see more of a bipartisan effort to not abandon Israel,”

but to rain in, or at least maybe start questioning what exactly is going on there Netanyahu, what exactly mean Ben Gavir when you say you want to drive people out of their homes, not has blood. But there are Lebanese people from their homes in their own country. That's hugely unacceptable. And Republicans have said that. You can't do that. So I think again, we probably won't see it in the midterms as a lightning rod scenario, but I think over time as Israel conducts this effort to, unfortunately, completely destroy Gaza as well as southern Lebanon as well as engulf the West Bank.

I think the American public is going to start pushing back whether you're right or left at this point. Yeah, and just to expand on something you said there, the recent Ben Gavir quote was, for every tier of and Israeli mother, a thousand Lebanese mothers must weep all of Lebanon must burn. That's so clear who we're dealing with. And there's really just, it's really impossible for people not impossible, but it's becoming harder and harder for people to deny it. And I do want to take just to note on one thing that you said, which is, I know you didn't quite mean it this way, but you said, you know, when that government suddenly, you know, goes crazy and Gaza or whatever, or goes all out and Gaza like you said.

Yeah, they went scorched earth two and a half years ago, but their policies in Gaza, it's been in apartheid state for decades. It was been really a popular talk about this in American politics for all the reasons we're talking about, but they've been restricting aid. Israel's been restricting aid to Gaza, reflecting food. It's a spin a second class society for decades. The people of Gaza cannot travel freely. They are not entitled to the same rights as Israeli citizens.

They are in an open air prison. They have been for similar with the West Bank. Like all the, it's been a second class society for a very long time.

And so like Israel has been committing war crimes in Gaza since long before what we have been calling a war, which is not a war. But this so-called war in Gaza. So I'm not trying to like shut you down, but no, you're admitting, it's like the narrative is shifted because it's become so undeniable. They're literally bulldozing towns in Lebanon. They are literally scorching the earth in Gaza. You know, the imagery, and you know, again, it's similar to police violence in America. It didn't start in 2014.

“That was when everyone got access to fun to cameras that could reliably record video, right?”

Like this didn't start on October 7th or October 8th. This is the most major thing that's happened in an era of, you know, constant connectivity.

And people have been shouting since from Gaza with their cell phones for a long time, but I think it hit this, you know, hit this critical mass where it penetrated the media atmosphere.

And it penetrated the social media atmosphere in a way that mainstream media couldn't put a clamp down on as hard as they tried. And you know, I'm not going to be someone to be like, only listen to podcasts. And I still think that we, I think that a lot of a lot of podcasting has shown us the need for gatekeepers and traditional journalism in certain contexts. But I think you've seen this huge, and this is statistical. You've seen a huge decrease in faith in mainstream journalism in America and also a huge decrease in the overall approval of our support for Israel,

“of the actions of the Israeli government among Americans and especially Democrats. I think 8 out of 10 Democrats disapproves of Israel at this point, like, you got to listen to the electorate at some point.”

My last thought on this is Israel has gone down a path that has put them saying things at the bad guy would say. I and when Ben Gavier was saying what you were saying, but not just what they're saying, but what they're doing like so Ben Gavier is their, he's their national defense minister like at the highest level. And he is a part of the, the, I don't know what I'm going to say, I think it's Ott's Mayahudit party, which is Jewish power party, and it's a co-honest party that they don't want Arabs that live in Israel to be able to vote and would prefer that they just be completely ejected from their country.

We're not overtly saying that, which would have never happened in prior administrations. They would have never been prior administrations would have completely

vilified Israel for those types of policies, but as we see here in the US, we're coming to the same thing with our own ice raids and things like that. So Israel's given a bit of a leash to be subjectively awful in those terms for that is the imperial boomerang listeners, the way that we treat with the way that we allow our allies to treat their civilians is the way we will eventually treat our own civilians.

Chad, would you like to get us started? Sure, I can go ahead and start us off since mine is kind of a bummer, but it's also a good news story because

“did you know that across the the Americas, South America, et cetera, female general mutilation is still a thing. It's still a thing across all of the countries in Latin America except for one now.”

Colombia has been the first country in Latin America to pass a loss specifically banning female general mutilation. And I always talked to my wife about how I have a very visceral reaction to

the, um, harming those people that have been friendly, this may sound somewhat patriarchal, but as a man, I'm a defender of women and children and I want to make sure that they have safe places and safe spaces and that their bodily autonomy is maintained and they, and that's a part of that. I mean, we talk, we we in a United States talk about abortion, but bodily autonomy for women and places like South America, includes female general mutilation. Unbelievably wild to me, that in the year 2026, where the internet exists in all of these countries, including cell phone, that women, and especially children.

As as adult and teenagers still, a general mutilation is allowed in many of those countries and people associated with places like Africa or the Middle East, but I was frankly surprised to learn that Colombia is now the only Latin American country.

It's now completely illegal to do that. And I think it's a good news story that Colombia is doing that. Obviously, it's not great that they're the only ones. So I just wanted to highlight that.

“I don't need to go down the rabbit hole of what that is. If you need to go ahead and Google, it's pretty atrocious and according to UNICEF, some 230 million women and girls around the world undergo some form of general mutilation.”

Millions more risk every year. So if we could take one more country off the board, I think that's good news. And ideally, you know, that's reproducible in the region to inspire. Well, that's what I want to say. I don't think it's, I think you're, you know, right to be sensitive about this. I don't think it's patriarchal to recognize that patriarchy exists and to want to, I understand what you're saying, protective impulse of women feels could feel condescending, but like.

Yeah. No, you're talking for the cause of equality and for people's this, it's not patriarchal to recognize that one population is more vulnerable than another and to want to equalize that.

I think that's, you know. I have two daughters of being with your power as a patriarch. Yeah, I have two daughters of wife and a mother. I mean, that would be atrocious. No, of course, but I understand that what you're saying in terms of that conflict, like, but you know, you're totally right to recognize like.

“This is a kind of issue where I think we might walk comfortably through the world, not even knowing that this is a risk that people experience, not really knowing that this is a practice that people.”

This institutionalized in some places, so I think it's, you know, I think it's smart to not only recognize your position of safety, but also go, "Oh, wow, part of my position of safety is to not even have to know about that." Yeah, and frankly, I'm fully believe that this is one of those things that even though it is to absolutely dealing with a woman's body. Nothing's going to change unless the men stand up and do something and say, "This is a lot of power structure." Yeah, so unless men come out and say, "Hey, what we're doing to women is wrong," other men are just going to keep doing it, because women are going to be unfortunately placed in that less or status that we continue to see even in this country.

So I just, until men, not only, as we've probably seen in Columbia, but in other South American countries, African countries, the United States, start saying, "What is happening to women is wrong?" I just, unfortunately, don't think it's going to change. There's just a lot of terrible men will just keep discounting the feelings of women and that is something that, frankly, needs to change. And I would even say, in some ways, especially in this country. Obviously, we don't have certain practices like that, but we do have a rapist president.

So we're not, we're not exactly more evolved than these countries, we are just sort of differently patriarchal. Matt, what is the least worst part of your week? The three blind mice, the three blind mice, see how they run, they're not running into the wall anymore, because researchers at Duke University have been able to generate lab-grown retinal cells and restore their vision.

It's like the biggest thing, so it's lab-grown retinal tissue and cells that they inject and it repairs whatever's messed up in there and restore your vision.

“That's what it did to the three blind mice, probably more than three blind mice that probably tried it on 7 or 8, maybe 10, who knows.”

But really good news for the blind people and bad news for the walking stick business, apparently. So we'll see what happens, but that's my good news. That's very cool. I'm hoping they can pivot to jousting equipment or something, you know.

I'm sure the PVC piping types can the industry will survive.

That's great news. I imagine being that mouse lost your sight. I was assuming they were born blind, and they freaked out when they could see it. I was like, "What's up with that?" It's not that I'm not smart. I wasn't really paying attention. I'm looking at my phone. I turn here. That happens to me in the west village of Manhattan and I grew up there. I'm pretty intelligent. These mice might just have other shit going on.

It's like a poem in his head or something, replaying an argument that he had in the cage. I'm predicting AI is going to cure paralysis in the next six months. You're going to say they love an animal related, because I was thinking of this and Barnacle. They've met two of your two focuses have met finally. It seems like there's a ton of news that's just flooding us about these medical research breaks throughs.

It seems I don't know if you'll ever pay attention to that, but I'm getting maybe it's my algorithm.

It's bombarding me with it, and it was always happening.

I feel like a lot of research for blindness popping up until recently. I mean, you do work glasses. Matt. I do normally work glasses. The YouTube viewers probably so confused, but yeah, for distance. Here's the least worst part of my week, least worst part of my week.

“We had a big electoral windfall here in New York, and some of the question was, will this be a flash in the pan?”

Or, according to other people, will this completely stabilize the democratic party? Last Tuesday, we saw another leftist and surgeon win in Colorado. That carous unceded a 30 year incumbent who had passed, I think, in that time, two bills, and I understand the number of bills. This is a misnomer, often leveraged against active politicians. But what really excited me about this, this is not, you know, I don't work for her campaign.

Maybe that carous is a DSA member, but more specifically, the reason I'm bringing this up is because this is another candidate who ran on among many other issues. Public power utilities, and has a Green New Deal climate platform very well defined, but specifically not even in the climate part of the platform, but just as a separate policy on the website. And as part of the campaign ran on putting, putting utilities, not exclusively power utilities, but in utilities in the hands of the people.

“And I think that's really exciting to see, as we said with the Clara Valdez campaign, really exciting to see the idea of public utilities, of federal utilities, federally owned utilities, of state owned utilities, becoming more.”

You know, obviously, obviously, Israel is this major issue as we're talking about that is really shifting within the democratic party. But you're also seeing the sort of solutions focused approach towards energy and climate change a little bit more quietly. I think people are still a little cautious about running on the climate, but we're seeing more people learning to run on energy from the also very legitable, sorry, also very legitimate affordability and renewability angle.

I think it's really cool to see that people are openly running on that stuff, and it's great to know that there are going to be more people in Congress who support, you know, a Green New Deal and publicly own utilities, which we have discussed at great length of this podcast.

And that is the least worst part of my week.

“Yeah, I have a theory on some of this stuff because we are seeing these democratic socialists that are winning, but I don't necessarily think it's that they are being socialist that is what's driving this, I think they're running campaigns.”

I don't want on affordability, like you just said, but to where they're just like, I'm going to do some shit, like I'm not going to just sit there and you say yeah the two bills and I get that a lot of people's co-sponsors, so they're not technically the bills. But I'm seeing this youth uprise, this youth almost bigger of candidates, and people are starting to attach to that, like this guy is going to do something, this girl is going to do something, and we're going to get somewhere, whether it's affordability or whatever, it does, I don't mean, I think that what people are thirsty for on the left, because the last time we felt that was Obama was this youthful, like, let's get, we're going to get in there and get some stuff done.

And it's unfortunate because Biden did a lot of good with his acts, he just didn't have that youthful vigor and that excitement and experience that you see it with mom donnie jumping in a pool and just being a cool guy and we're starting to see that. Come out of these current candidates, whether it's in New York or Colorado and I just, I'm happy to see that it's this, hey, policies aside, yes, we're trying to get to affordability and they feel that the democratic socialism platform is the best way to do that.

“Is it this point, but nonetheless, we're just going to do some stuff to make sure, I mean, we're going to do things, it's not going to be the status quo of bullshit and that's why I think you see the Chuck Schumers and the.”

Um, whatever the speaker's name is not speaking of the Jeffrey, I came Jeffries, I think they're on the outs because they're very much of the hunting puppy years left, like, yeah, so yeah, I think I do I there's this excitement, it's almost like. The world cup in politics or the next one in politics, there's just a excitement that's happening among the democratic party with this youthful uprising because people are just fucking sick of boomers running shit apparently because it's like. So yeah, so I just, I agree with you, I agree with you to like two certain point, I do think it is policy based, I think the thing that people are excited about is like, Paul, these campaigns are not just exciting and promising, you know, youthful energy, I mean, you know, people still love Bernie Sanders because he's policy, but you know, like all the people who loved keros and who like bomb Donnie are Sanders supporters, I mean not one to one, but like.

I'm not saying that like we want more boomers and power, but I think the thing is like these are people who have the energy to pursue an issues based campaign, like it's not just about energy, it's about running on, you know, housing, healthcare, a food affordability, good education, you know, taxing the rich, all this stuff that like. These are like easy majority support issues, you know, these are just these things that like the majority of Americans support not just the majority of Democrats, like, you know, is a publicly owned utility and that's maybe a policy that doesn't have a majority support because there's lack of education around it, but is like energy affordability, a.

“The issue you can easily win on absolutely and like, you know, maybe things like transit or the climate are like policy that gets like caught up in the walkingness of it, but I think what's great, what you're seeing is it.”

It's not just people running on like that we got to try something like get the old guard out of here, it's people running on like very specific issues and delivering, you know, I mean, like the mom Donnie campaign had a lot of campaign promises, they had a lot on their policy, but the three that they led with were ones that they.

That had a very clear plan and figured they could knock out, you know, we got six of these guys on the rent guidelines board are up for our upper, you know, are their terms are up.

I'm going to replace them with people who are sympathetic to the idea of a rent freeze and then deliver the rent freeze and then they did they did exactly that and you know, was there a chance it wouldn't happen of course, but I think you're seeing. People responding, you know, like you're saying they get it's the world cup of politics, it's the next winning of politics people are going, oh, like I can be a participant like I can actually like because I think, you know, so for so long the Democrats strategy has been to just tell people that their expectations of government are unrealistic.

I think of we're supposed to be the party of big government, like then why is the policy to tell people that we can't provide for them, right, like that's that's that's basically Republican talking point, right, like there's a reason to make their government small.

And I totally agree with you, I think there's a real change happening. I don't think these policies are drastically far left. These are, you know, these are like FDR build things and give everyone a job and food. Yeah, well, I was like yeah, about a center right by global standards on some issues like these are not crazy, you know, again, like I think it's like just abandoning the fear of talking about these issues that are like common sense in so many ways even even when it comes down to Israel where it's like, it got so far that like the common sense answer is like, yeah, the thing I've been seeing on my phone for three years is what's going on and what's working is people who are saying like, yeah, you're you're not crazy.

“I'm not coming in with the energy of you're not being realistic, you're not educated enough. So I find that exciting.”

Matt, we're getting any, you get any Democrats elected in Oklahoma.

I have a stat of the week, but I did attend to my first political thing the other day.

Oh, cool. It was, I was asked to go and I agreed to go. It was like a meet and greet Q&A type thing for the Democratic nominee for governor of Oklahoma or named Cindy Munson. I was, I did show up 45 minutes late and I did sort of make a scene. So, but very, very nice woman.

“It was a little uncomfortable. So it was in this little store, right? And there's like a hundred people packed in this little store and the thing is politicians never come to where I live because we're out in the sticks.”

So when I walk in to this little tiny store, 45 minutes late, she had just finished her speech.

Some like 90 year old lady screams, "Look, it's Mr. Global." And like standing, standing in the station when I walk in. Oh, and this woman who's running for governor, like I felt like I did something wrong because I like stole her spotlight. So I apologize to her when it was over. I'm so sorry for that. I got hung up. I was supposed to be here on time. But anyway, that doesn't matter. Very lovely woman. The stat of the week, which is the much, much more important thing.

Heat wave, PJM interconnect, right? Grid serves upper Midwest, mid Atlantic East Coast. During the heat wave, wholesale electricity prices increased by 1,500%.

Related to wholesale electricity costs on a kilowatt hour basis of over 50 cents up to a dollar, a kilowatt hour, which is crazy. A dollar 50 a kilowatt hour in Delaware.

“A $1,500 of megawatt hour. That's how much wholesale electricity prices increased during the peak demand.”

PJM has 7% renewable energy feeding it. Texas or Caught. 40% renewable energy, same temperatures. The prices stayed flat and did not increase a bit. Two and a half cents a kilowatt hour in Texas in a hundred degree weather up to a dollar 50 a kilowatt hour in Delaware with a hundred degree weather. And the main difference, there is some congestion differences there, you know, traffic. But the amount of renewable energy in Texas during that hottest part of the day, almost 100% of all the electricity is when solar embattories.

And during the hottest part of the day on PJM, it's 95% natural gas and coal. So, and some nuclear. That's the difference right there between a significant presence of renewable power mixed with other types of power and almost no renewable power on PJM. The hell's up at the northeast. They're not. It's like the reddest state has the most renewable power. I mean, I mean, two and a half cents electricity. Yeah, I mean, Texas has an independent energy grid. So it's a little bit of a different situation.

But we passed a law saying that we'd be at 70% renewable energy. This was the CLCPA. This was passed a few years back earlier in this decade saying that we'd be at 70% renewable by 2030. And then the bill that was supposed to, or the bill that outlined how to do so with, well, with Union Labor, for example, was the bill publicer and it was act, which should took us almost four years to get past after the CLCPA. And which involved, you know, electing eco-socialists to the electorate, all these protests. This massive meetings with unions, all these things, they passed that bill in 2023.

And most recently, our governor, Hockel, who is, you know, a real conservative in the Democratic Party, has come out and said that first bill. We won't be meeting that goal. The CLCPA. There's no way that we can do that.

“So she's taking even steps back from the original, oh, the bill public renewables act as to aggressive. She literally appointed this guy Justin Driscoll, who is a Republican fossil fuel lawyer to lead our public power utility.”

So that's kind of the answer to the question is that, like, here in my totally blue state, allegedly our, our Democrats are the ones actively fighting not like, not like actively fighting us passing these laws. actively fighting the will of the people Kathy Hockel signed that bill. That didn't go through, the bill public renewables act passed in the budget. Okay, so that didn't, that didn't even go to a vote in the assembly. She signed that bill and she's the one saying it's not possible. So, like, these are within her administration. So that's the answer to your question is that, like, unfortunately, New York has conservatives in the Democratic Party who are anti-renewable energy.

“That's a, that's a hell of a style of the day there, man, because I mean, shit, you're looking at the three of us Idaho, Texas, two huge renewable energy, no granted dams are counted as renewable in my state.”

So we have, like, we're in a heat wave. I'm not going to really, my bill will go up like 30 bucks, but, and then you have very blue in New York, we're not that, and it's like, no green energy is thus, that blows me away. I didn't know that. It's not that we have no green energy. It's that our billed out has not even, like, remotely on pace with our needs and our, you know, promises, basically, and also our grid is, like, drastically overdue for upgrades. There's an enormous amount of stranded renewable energy on that PJM interconnect where it's built and ready to go, but it's in the queue, which basically means it's waiting in line to get connected to the grid, and PJM is slow walking the hell out of that. So that's a big part of the problem.

There's a ton of renewables there. It just has to get connected to the grid.

Yeah, I do hope that people now seeing kind of send completely shut off our electricity to entire neighborhoods, and not only that, but just like the rolling brownouts throughout the city and, like, you know, hey, am I putting too much, well, I need the air conditioner to survive the heat wave, but I don't want to put too much stress on the grid and blow fuse in my building or lead to our entire neighborhood getting shut off because it's too much use of the grid. Meanwhile, a billionaires having her wedding in our centralized basketball stadium, and I recognize, by the way, that the center of Manhattan and Times Square and all that is on a different sector of the grid than the neighborhoods that we're getting shut off.

I know that, but the fact that we can run the center of business and we are turning off energy to poor neighbor, it's still not good to waste energy in the middle of an energy crisis, regardless of whether that's directly related.

The reason that that's happening in poor neighborhoods is not because of a wedding or Times Square or any of those things.

It's because they haven't invested in the area where those people live and they have invested in the grid where Times Square and all this businesses are. So, yeah, New York's, you know, we have one of the, one of the better eco-socialist energy movements we have past the nation's largest Green New Deal bill, but we are fighting a real battle here internally.

For example, if you electing people does not get shit done.

Yeah, and this is at the state level, I mean, you know, our mayors and eco-socialists, he was part of writing that bill when he was in the assembly, but unfortunately there's that choke point of, you know, for any bills to pass, they have to go through the speaker for each body, right, the state senate and the assembly. So you can bribe those people, you bribe the head of the energy committee, you bribe the governor. It's not that many bribes. Well, thanks so much for joining us once again. You've been listening to or watching American Power from Findout Media for Chad Scott and Matt Randolph.

“I'm Nat Towson and always remember power corrupts, but American power corrupts.”

American Lee, 250, baby.