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.
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 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?
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."
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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 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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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 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.
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
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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'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.
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
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.
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)
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.