Pressure Without an Order: Talarico, Jawboning & Readiness Theater

David (00:00) You know that thing where the boss never actually tells you to do something, but everyone in the room, somebody knows exactly what the boss wants. That gets much more interesting when the room is a television network, the boss is a government regulator, and the thing everyone suddenly decides not to do is put a political candidate on broadcast television. This week isn't really about whether somebody gave an order. It's about what happens when nobody has to. This is strengthenation. Let's go. David (01:09) All right, hey, we are back. Welcome. Shrink the nation. I'm David. I've over twenty years in military and I'm a board certified psychiatrist. I'm being accompanied by a large cup of coffee in a French Bulldog mug that has our guest, Amit, laughing his ass off, mainly because it looks exactly like my French Bulldog. Amit (01:27) Like your dog. David (01:29) including the wonky eyes. Rob (01:31) Hey, it's Rob. I'm on the road, so I've got hotel coffee this morning. and board certified psychiatrist, Amit (01:37) Let's stop. Rob (01:38) blah blah blah stuff I always say. Amit (01:40) Morning. I'm Amit. I'm also board certified psychiatrist over twenty years and I am glad to be back on the show. Thanks for having me. David (01:48) So This week has been a really interesting one. apparently the most dangerous place for James Telarica to appear is between a monologue and a commercial break. But what I'm talking about is back in February, Stephen Colbert had interviewed James Tallerico, and then the interview never aired on CBS, but eventually it aired on YouTube. Then more recently, Jimmy Kimmel interviewed James Tallerico, and again, the interview did not air on broadcast television, but did end up on there was some interesting things came out of that. Now there is a rule that the FCC has that equal opportunity be given to qualified candidates on programs. but the way that this was implemented in both cases is kind of different. So for Stephen Colbert on CBS at the time, he says that he was told by CBS's lawyers that he couldn't the episode because it would violate equal opportunity times for candidates and that he'd have to provide equal opportunity to a Republican candidate. But They dispute that characterization. So I don't know who's right. and then you have Jimmy Kimmel on ABC, who was also told he says that he can't air the interview. and there's a little bit of difference around that because CBS is now ideologically a little bit more right than ABC. and ABC seems to be agreeing with what Kimmel's saying more. So that's not really what we're here to talk about. but it does get us into a topic, which is so twice this year, one of the country's biggest late night hosts had interviewed the same Senate candidate and then twice the interview ended up online instead of on broadcast TV. before we say anything really nefarious happen, who the hell is James Tallarico? Somebody help me out. Rob (03:33) Yeah, Tallerico, he's the Senate candidate in Texas that's given Ken Paxton a serious run for his money. I mean, fundamentally, Paxton's theoretically at least a terrible candidate. he's plagued by lots of things, many Amit (03:45) Many schedules. Yeah. Rob (03:47) scandals, and for some reason Donald Trump keeps making fun of how he looks and how he dresses, which Yeah, we could talk about that for f yeah, Amit (03:54) the normal covers. Yeah. Rob (03:55) for at length, but this is a firmly and longstanding seat. has been controlled by Republicans for a very long time. And Taller Rico, by current numbers at least, is leading in that race. Amit (04:09) Yeah, I mean Calorico is only what eight years in political seat in Texas, local level, So in Paxton has been Rob (04:16) Something like that. Amit (04:17) in Texas for a long time and he keeps on winning the attorney general position, despite many efforts by Democrats to remove him. so it's an interesting matchup between someone who's really into well known by k Texas politics versus someone who's new but causing a lot of waves. so it is interesting that there's genuine fear that he is leading Paction by a few points in the polls and gathering a lot of national attention. Rob (04:41) He sure is. And a lot of money. And he's an interesting character. one, he's a uniquely talented politician. you don't see folks who can get the kind of interest, the kind of public goodwill the way he has. Plus, running as a Democrat, he's got an ability to bridge a gap when it comes, particularly to discussing religion, it would seem. his stances on most things are consistent with what you would expect for a Democrat or a left leaning Democrat even. but he does seem to stand across that religious divide and speak the right language it s is seemingly at least attracting some conservative voters. Amit (05:21) I think he's got the the values that a lot of Texans associate with. And so I think he's a more palatable candidate, for a lot of folks. And so there's certainly a small but sizable number of Republican voters who have said that they would support him, which is I think causing concerns in the Republican Party, because while Texas has voted overwhelmingly Republican in many past elections, depending on the voter turnout, because it's midterms, and then having some of your core base shift, does cause genuine concern David (05:49) No Amit (05:52) in the party that they need to be very proactive with this race. David (05:55) several of the things Ken Paxson had said about James Solerka to begin with, when he Amit (05:59) Okay. David (06:00) was first nominated by the Democratic Party, I think they had accused him of being a vegan. Rob (06:06) Yeah. David (06:06) which he is not. I mean it's just it was patently false, just not a real thing. Amit (06:10) That says so much about Texas David (06:12) yeah, he had to go on record defending himself. I eat barbecue all the time. Yeah, it's I't Rob (06:15) Right. Right. David (06:17) I think what's fascinating about James Tallerico is that he as Robbie said, he does he speaks to an audience that bridges a gap, but he does that through his religious perspective. he really frames everything from the perspective of his Presbyterian seminarian Role. Amit (06:33) That's attractive to a lot of his voters. David (06:35) if you're on the right, it's attractive to a lot of potentially their voters as well, using his religious framing to say, look, you and I share values. I just come to a different conclusion from my values. When I think about Jesus, I think about a guy who said, Take care of the weak and the poor and feed the hungry and all this and when they think about Jesus they're not saying that and so his message is very explicit. one of the first times I saw James Tallerico ever was a YouTube video of him debating on the Texas House floor the bill That they were trying to put the Ten Commandments into all schools. And he was debating this bill, not saying that he doesn't agree with the Ten Commandments, one of his arguments was: Can you tell me what day it is today? It's Saturday. can we all agree that this is indeed the Sabbath for a lot of religions? Yes. Can we please not debate today the pros and the cons of using the Ten Commandments when we're violating one of the Ten Commandments. and so it was a really fascinating viewpoint. so the question is, Is the person who rejects your values actually less threatening to an identity than somebody who says, those are my values too, and you're applying them? Rob (07:55) I don't know if it threatens it, but it certainly gives it makes it much more comfortable to shift. changing political opinion is one thing, but shifting something core like religious values. And as an interesting aside, something that maybe we should have a show on sometime, I find that distinction within Christianity as to whether the Old Testament seems to take precedence, which we often see in a more conservative population, versus the New Testament, taking care of the poor, love thy neighbor, kind of thing. that's not for this show, but I do find it fascinating that very often, like Ten Commandments, that's prototypical Old Testament stuff there. But changing your political view is challenging enough. Changing your world view, your core identity, your morals, that's almost impossible because that's kind of betraying your family and betraying your church. And he's giving them this escalator. they don't have to walk up the steps. They can just take one step and ride up them now. David (08:58) it's always interesting to see somebody who is very anti LGBTQ, but maybe they have somebody close to them that they like very much who is in that demographic and they're like, yeah, yeah, no, they're good. They're fine, they're great. because that person is humanized to them. at that point. to them, it's not, you're not LGBTQ, you're Amit (09:20) Yeah, yeah. David (09:20) Steve. And Steve's a great guy, man. He dresses well. He smells nice. He throws great parties. He's a really wonderful person. Tons of energy. maybe that's what's an interesting angle is does James Tallerico pose a threat in that he's able to live in that world and speak to it in a different way. or is the maybe the natural tendency of people to say, okay, well he's all right. But is he going to make Republicans Democrats, or is maybe he going to make some Republicans Amit (09:48) I think David (09:49) comfortable with voting for a Democrat? Amit (09:51) I think it's the latter. I think there's a lot of divide. and I think the biggest fear because it's a lot easier to do the latter, if you can say, hey, this guy represents my values or Republican values. Because I will say I've met a few people who certainly feel like the party that they traditionally follow has changed on them, And so their values have not necessarily changed, but the party's values may have. And so It's easy to find a candidate who you say, Hey, this person actually represents my values, which I view has r traditionally democratic or Republican, and then vote for them. Because it's a much easier shift than saying I'm switching parties completely because that becomes a pretty charged issue, I think, with your friends, your family and everybody. So, the latter is much, much easier to do, which I think makes it more threatening. And was gonna say that Dave, you mentioned, humanizing versus dehumanizing. And I think when the rhetoric is that the other party is evil or, there's this very real, you're risking your soul. I'm over dramatizing here, in voting for the other party. But when you see a candidate who you clearly see as, aligned with your own values, that removes that rhetoric, And that kinda allows you to say, maybe he's not that bad and maybe I do like what he's saying and so perhaps, he might be a good candidate. David (11:04) so shifting back to the FCC Rob (11:07) Yeah. David (11:08) to be fair. from what we can tell. The FCC did not tell CBS, did not tell ABC that you could not air this interview at all. you don't see that. So maybe nothing sinister happened. Maybe a lawyer looked at an FCC rule and said, Why create a regulatory headache when we can put the identical interview on YouTube? Amit (11:27) Fair. David (11:28) Behaviorally that's gets more interesting though, right? Not less. So Amit (11:32) Yeah, I mean it's sort of like negative reinforcement, In terms of complying with current policies and current views. You know that potentially something bad will happen, or you'll get a lawsuit, or you'll face penalties. So in order to avoid that negative stuff from happening, you comply with what the expectation is, You don't speed because you don't want a speeding ticket, that makes you comply with. the driving speed, especially when you know there's speed traps all over the place. So it's sort of that same anticipatory compliance because you want to make sure that why go to the hassle. you know you're gonna get suited you know you're gonna a letter so might as well just avoid all that and just follow through with what the legal recommendation is by your team, though that being said, I personally think that putting in These interviews and all this information on social media is probably the right move anyway, because you will get a lot more viewers, a lot more people actually engaged on that platform than people watching late night TV. I don't know how many of those people watching late night TV are actually from Texas where this actually applies in terms of actual action that can take place, But on social media you'll definitely get that. And certainly there's a hype too, So hey, we can't air this. So therefore we're gonna put this on YouTube. Whether or not that's true, I mean obviously if you didn't get a cease or desist letter, Or a warning, but making that claim makes it a lot more publicized as well. So that's actually some negatively portrayed, notoriety based interest in your segment. So I suspect that there'll probably be a lot more views on these YouTube videos than there would be otherwise. Rob (13:06) Well it reminds me of the Streisand effect. somebody had done something that was embarrassing to her. she ended up going some legal route in order to try to force them to stop this. And in the grand scheme, because she tried to squash it, it received 30 times the amount of attention that it actually probably would have otherwise. you end up actually drawing more attention to yourself when you're trying to fight something like this. The other thing this reminds me of is the power of leadership. and what I mean by that is that when you are a leader, you really have to be cautious with the words that you say. Because your subordinates are not necessarily going to draw a distinction between an order that you give and an offhand comment that you might later want more information or have wanted them to take action on. And I'll give an example. So some years ago, many years ago, in the dark days of COVID times, I commanded Urban Augmentation Military Task Force Amit (14:07) Yeah. Rob (14:08) they said Rob, go do that. All right. Salute sharply. Off I went. at any rate, it was a big deal. It was the first time the Army Reserve had mobilized massively in the span of days to support our civilian hospitals around the nation. So we pulled together tons of people put together these teams, sent these teams to hot spots around the nation to help out. And it got a lot of attention. we were visited by every level of leadership you can be visited by. and one of the people that visited us was a three star general. I'll leave names out, but a three-star general came and we were doing the requisite tour, you know, showing off what our soldiers were doings and all that. And the general in an offhand kind of way made mention of the fact that at some point early in their life, they had been like a nursing assistant at a nursing home. and made comment about concerns related to back injuries in my soldiers who were having to transfer patients. it was an offhand comment. However, I immediately thought, shit, this is gonna be a question that's gonna be asked of me later. So I whisper to my XO, hey. Go figure out what the average weight on our patients our patients are. Was that smart of me? Probably not, but I would rather have the information not need it than at the end when I'm tasked with answering a question, not have the information. So I kicked into gear this furious activity in which my exo pushes it off to someone else. Someone else pushes it off to 10 other people. They're running around trying to figure out what weights are. Turns out it was COVID times. We weren't weighing the patients. It wasn't what it wasn't we're what Amit (15:58) Yeah. Rob (15:59) we were concerned about. So now they're trying to weigh patients, trying to get an average, trying to figure this out for me. As it went down the line, the relevance and the significance expanded. All of a sudden it became this critical, absolutely, we've got to get this information for the boss because the boss is gonna need And it was a showstopper. I mean, the actual care of patients was put on hold so that they could figure out the average weight Amit (16:31) Mm-hmm. Rob (16:32) so that I might. possibly be able to tell this general, how we were mitigating back injury risk. Point being, when you're a leader, you really do have to ponder what kind of things you say, because the amplification increases each step down the line. And what we saw with the FCC, Brendan Carr, has made some statements that he's going to, you know, punish these people. He's gonna take them off the air. He's gonna pull their license. And that has amplified from a legal standpoint. And the lawyers now are making such a big deal out of it that if there is a question, we're not even airing it anymore. We're sending it straight over to YouTube. Amit (17:16) that's really interesting, Rob. I enjoyed that anecdote you had because I can definitely sympathize on my end from getting different taskers coming through. And I'm thinking, why is this important? And why is this due tomorrow? I need to stop seeing Rob (17:29) Exactly. Amit (17:30) patience and figure this out, So I can sympathize with that for sure. I think that's absolutely true. it brings up an interesting point as to issuing I don't want to say threats, but issuing statements that sound like policies when you don't have the power to actually enforce those policies or don't actually wanna go through pushing a policy, So if you say something and you have the power to potentially carry through with the threat or whatever the consequence is, Do you really need to then actually go through the policy part? Maybe not. David (17:59) Are you talking about Brendan Carr or Donald G. Edgar Trump? Amit (18:03) Well, I think it applies to a lot of leaders, I think carr Rob (18:06) Any leader. Amit (18:07) saying that, hey, you networks in anybody needs to have equal time, or we will review your rights and your network on the air. I think that becomes FCC policy to some speak, Even though the policy's not there. So And then obviously it applies to the national level 'cause we do see a lot of language being used about what might happen, which I think rightfully so influences people's behaviors. David (18:30) you've already brought up the idea of anticipatory compliance, which Amit (18:35) Yeah. David (18:35) is what we're seeing in these situations. and that does result in a chilling effect when the government is even suggesting that there will be ramifications for violating some rule. Whether there's that direct censorship or not saying you may not do whatever because that didn't exist in this circumstance. there was no you may not put James Tallerico on the air. the question though is was there any and this is a term that the Senate's using jaw boning where there's some informal pressure from the government or some kind of leverage over a private intermediary where there's some sort of attempt to affect free speech. So was there any job owning that went on? we've heard Brendan Carr, we've heard Donald Jumbotron Trump say that these things should be looked at. The FCC needs to take a look at pulling their licenses. So we've heard these things. from him. We've heard Brendan Carr talk about it. but we didn't hear, we haven't heard Brennan Carr say, I'm going to pull ABC's license if they aired James Tallerico's interview. what ends up happening when people begin inferring what authority wants primarily to avoid potential punishment? Amit (19:45) I mean, I I think it's a real thing, it hits home, Networks don't wanna waste money, time dealing with that, what they did was pretty clever. Hey, we know that we can still air this way and not deal with the flak. but it is a behavior change, Now you can argue about whether or not that's a good thing or they would have done better airing it on the TV. But they are complying. and I think you're gonna see that in many, many areas, but especially the press. there were actual directives from the White House, or for at least from Donald Trump recently saying, Hey, we're going to ban certain media organizations because they don't report fair. and so that's a real action, and the networks and the journalists really do need to be able to deal with them. David (20:28) there's rational thinking behind S compliance. Rob (20:31) Yes. David (20:31) it makes sense. Why would we air something that we've been warned about even if it's not specifically this thing? Why air it here when we can just take the easier path and put it onto YouTube and even potentially market said thing to gain the strisand effect by calling out what we believe is happening. but Rob (20:57) So yeah, a preference will become a rule when people begin believing that ignoring it will cost them. And that's what's happened. it was just a statement that now all of a sudden the potential cost, just isn't worth it. We can avoid this, we can shift it over to YouTube. Fine. Amit (21:16) I think the danger there is though, and when it comes in terms of that effect you're talking about, Dave, is where does it stop, there's gonna be shifting effects, Okay, what is considered, what's gonna be next? Can we air this or not? Right now, does it move on from hey, we're talking about political candidates to, anything inflammatory? Do we need to now shift it to a different media? because there's no clearly defined law. those shifts may happen and it's very easy to turn this into a broader and bigger issue. David (21:44) What's fascinating from thirty thousand foot perspective is that when you look ABC and CBS and how they went about shifting these interviews to YouTube, it looks like this was a voluntary rational decision on their part to just shift something over. But what we understand as psychiatrists is that the best behavioral control system isn't one where you have to continually punish people or systems for things. It's where everybody learns ahead of time what not to do. So from that angle saying, well, it looks like they chose to do this on their own. when maybe the reality is a little bit more fuzzy on well why, because they weren't doing this before. Something changed and now they're doing it. because it wasn't a direct order. The irony of it though is that I do have the numbers. An average show for Jimmy Kimmel would have picked up two point six million viewers. An average show for Stephen Colbert would have picked up 2.7 million viewers. If you look at the numbers on YouTube with just the ones that they posted of these interviews, James Tallerico pulled in 9.6 million views, just Stephen Colbert's version, and 12 million for Jimmy Kimmel's. So there were a lot more eyes on these episodes when they were aired just on YouTube. and for reference. I saw that when Stephen Colbert was on Jimmy Kimmel and they aired that interview, it was like 5.6 million views. And that was one of the higher ones that I saw. The other ones were sitting around a million views or maybe in the hundreds of thousands. So he got a huge boost by being shifted just to YouTube because they air all their interviews on YouTube. So they're always there. But way more people wanted to look at this thing. after it didn't air and I imagine I don't know that maybe he would have gotten a two point six million and then another Amit (23:40) Right then. Truck again. David (23:42) yeah. that's definitely a fascinating effect. but what you alluded to was about an actual order. so on Friday, Donald Jackboot Trump had bleated on Truth Social that he was going to ban CNN, MS Now, and political reporters from the White House because they were Quote unquote fake news. And I I think the initial reaction was this is just blustered. This is him just saying shit on social media. It's not in order, it doesn't mean anything. But then Saturday well Amit (24:13) But the boss spoke, so there's gonna be consequences. David (24:16) and yeah, and then Saturday morning when the CNN MS Now and political reporters showed up to work they weren't allowed in. So that's different. That's a different thing. Rob (24:25) Yeah. well, I think everyone most everyone has heard Charlie foxtrot, the clusterfuck. and that's a military term that's usually referring to field grade officers getting together and making something way more complicated than it needs to. So that's usually majors and lieutenant colonels who just so happen to have a cluster on their chest. That's their rank. David (24:48) we need to rename our show. Rob (24:49) Maybe. Maybe. David (24:50) Everybody, welcome to Charlie Foxtrot. Rob (24:52) Charlie Fox trot. David (24:54) we're gonna make things a lot more complicated than necessary for you for the next hour. Sit back and enjoy, please. Rob (24:59) Well, that may be our mission statement. Absolutely. Let's make things more complicated. there is another term though that is less well known, and that is the star cluster. and the star cluster is when a group of flag officers do something very similarly now I am not speaking ill of flag officers. I have been perpetually amazed by the quality of human beings, their intelligence, their skill just across the board. But they have so much power. in the military world, an offhand statement carries ramifications far, far beyond what they even intended by any stretch. and again, as I demonstrated, an offhand statement can end up being work stoppage. it can actually interfere with the mission. I was infinitely impressed by this one particular general who was very conscious of the fact his presence alone was going to impact mission accomplishment. and he wanted to come in the least impactful way that he was there to support. the military service members. his conscientiousness about that was infinitely impressive to me, because he avoided the star cluster. Amit (26:17) I will say that there's definitely ripples, when any senior executive or generals are coming by for a visit, your leadership makes sure that you're tracking. So everybody's on good behavior and here are potential questions that we get asked, Look that up. Rob (26:32) Absolutely. Yeah. David (26:34) it gives another perspective on the pucker factor. There's the one that makes you like clench up, and then there's the one that has everybody above you squeezing their lips together, ready to kiss. that's what I always thought about it as, because the second that a general would do anything, everyone was just ready to kiss some ass and say, my that tasted good, sir. Thank you so much for sharing your ass with me. Rob (26:56) Or ma'am. Amit (26:57) what's always interesting to me is that we know that all those questions are gonna get filtered, we need to make sure those questions go up to our leaders before you even ask them, Because they want to make sure they're prepared for any kind of fallout. So it's a very interesting game in terms of trying to do the right thing as a senior leader, but you're not gonna really get what you're asking for because it may look bad. David (27:16) You actually make a really good point I had a question for you guys and I think it actually lends itself to this, I'm gonna make things uncomfortable for us for a second. So we know how social media works. If we wanted more views, we could tell people things they already want to believe. Everybody has ADHD. Here's the one weird trick that cures depression. Your ex is a narcissist. Everything is trauma. Give people certainty, give them an identity, tell them the problem is somebody else's. Why don't we do that? Amit (27:48) I personally would say that it depends on what we want to do, we could have that identity. That could be our goal. But I don't think it is. the goal for me personally is I want to make sure that I'm being useful in a way that I find to actually be meaningful. And saying things or doing things where you're only gathering viewers because you're having inflammatory comments or you're Taking extreme positions or giving them what they want to hear, This is one quick solution, et cetera. I know that's not true, I don't want to be playing those games. Rob (28:17) Yeah. I gotta look at myself in the mirror and I gotta look at you, David, on the regular. And I don't wanna look at you and feel disappointed in you. Amit (28:25) Yeah. Rob (28:26) so y you know Amit (28:27) More so than I already am. Rob (28:28) y yeah, exactly. I mean it's already rough, but We would have to become the thing that we spend a majority of our show explaining. we know certainty cells and we know identity cells. we know telling people the problem is caused by the other tribe cells, but the minute we start to optimize for that, we stop examining human behavior and we start exploiting it. And I think when we initiated this concept, our goal was not to exploit it, it was to explain it. David (29:02) Okay. those are reasonable perspectives. But if doing that were to get us ten times, a hundred times, a thousand times the audience, and then we could expose a thousand times more people to better ideas, are we being too precious by refusing to play this game? Rob (29:21) Down that path be madness, my friend. Amit (29:23) Yeah. Yeah. I don't think you would get to that goal, So if you attract the audience who's interested in a certain message, that's what they're there for, I don't think shifting the message suddenly at a certain point is going to actually make the difference, it seems like it might be making, because then you'd lose that audience 'cause they're not there to actually hear about the topics that you really want to talk about because if they were, then they would have been there initially, Now I understand there's more hype, people know the show more, They might tune in more. There's more awareness. However, I think again, the hype goes down if you stop talking about the stuff that makes people interested, they're there for entertainment at that point. They're not really there for education. Rob (30:02) Yeah, and the moment you start manipulating the algorithm, fundamentally the algorithm starts manipulating you. And we've all seen this. We've w we've all seen these folks that Amit (30:10) The Abyss Rob (30:13) have some single success on, say, TikTok, on some topic that gets them attention. And then the next thing you know they've shifted their entire persona to that topic, to that thing. And it lasts for three or four or five TikTok videos. But then that gets old. And you're basically chasing an algorithm. We're not here to make people angry. We do, interestingly. Amit (30:40) Ha ha. Rob (30:41) but that's not our goal. we're here to make people thoughtful, and I think that's sort of what we're searching for. We're searching for an audience that wants to be thoughtful, not an audience that wants to be angry. David (30:52) there is something analogous here to I think the conversation we just had about when generals come in and they're there to solicit certain information, but then it gets so filtered that they never really get the true message. which I find interesting. But also the therapeutic alliance versus collusion. that we don't say things that we know people want to hear just because we know that they wanna hear it. But how do we know If we did start doing that. Amit (31:22) I think this is where you need a panel. One person can't do this alone. Rob (31:25) reframe your question for me there. Champ. David (31:28) So our audience probably does I would say probably does start skewing into the realm of well, we're the rational ones. We see through hypocrisy, institutions are failing, politicians are ridiculous, and that is what we're giving them in so many ways. So how do we know like that we're not pandering to something? Just in our way and saying, Well, we're above pandering because we're not pandering when maybe we are. Amit (31:54) I think you gotta have a viewpoint, Rob (31:56) well, through conversations like this, every week when we prepare for these things, these are the questions we're asking ourselves. is there an illusion that we are perfect? Fuck no. we would stop asking ourselves the questions, but the fact that we ask the question, that you're posing the question and we're thinking through the question, that's the best we can do. So when you're sitting with your patient. You're absolutely right. if your goal is to keep them in the seat, which is part of your goal, and I don't mean that from a financial standpoint. I mean you can't help somebody if they leave, if they don't come back, you cannot help them. So there is an element of meeting them where they are at that moment. and there is sometimes an element of gently supporting what their viewpoint is. Because they're not at a place where you can oppose it that aggressively. however, you have to also be internally consistent and intellectually honest about it. So, you know, if somebody is I don't know, hey, I'm I'm gonna leave and smoke a pound of meth, you don't have to agree with them. You also don't necessarily have to argue with them to the point or shame them to the point where they're not going to come back, because if they don't come back, you can't help them at all. so it's a work in progress constantly. And it reminds me actually of Schrdinger's cat, the general statement in this that once you measure something, once you actually look at something, you fundamentally change it So the generals come to gather information. Their presence changes the information that they're going to gather. That's just the nature of it. You have to be aware of that. You have to be thoughtful of it. You have to understand it. Amit (33:38) Yeah, I mean I I agree that talking about it, having multiple people, getting different views and perspectives is important. Now if all you're doing is similar minded people talking about similar things, then I think there is definitely a danger of just kind of going down this one path and not really considering the other side and the other perspectives that may be important to really be critical. of a situation because then it just turns into a we think this and that's it, However, I do think, David, that a lot of the information that you bring up here does have multiple angles and sides. And I think being able to discuss them as opposed to saying, nope, that's the wrong way, I think that's how you avoid going down that path of just having one singular message that doesn't change. And that's exactly what people are tuning in to hear is because they know what they're gonna get. and not get any condemnation of agreeing with that information or that viewpoint. David (34:31) I don't know that we can completely avoid pandering to some kind of audience. I guess maybe just the hope. And you know, hope is not a strategy, but is that we are attempting to be as open to conflicting ideas as possible, but we're not perfect as Rob s has so astutely pointed out, and never never will we be. Rob (34:50) And demonstrated. David (34:51) So and demonstrated Amit (34:52) Tips. David (34:53) a lot that Appalachian accent and vocabulary really Rob (34:54) I I I am so in Yeah. David (34:59) underscores that for us most of the time. Rob (35:01) I am so in to the concept of our lack of perfection that I make it a point to demonstrate it at every opportunity. Amit (35:10) On a daily basis. Rob (35:12) Exactly. Amit (35:12) This should be a T shirt slogan. Rob (35:13) Now, David, help me on a what otherwise felt like a non sequitur, because I think you're going someplace with this. David (35:21) when you talk about generals, you talk about larger institutions who just try to track down a message. it just got me thinking about the fact that we could be posting these videos that give people the feels that go with their vibe to get more popularity in that sense. But we don't. and maybe it's to our detriment, maybe it's because we're trying to be smarter than we are. but we stick to a formula that isn't going to be popular by a lot of people because people want to hear what they want to hear. And we're not necessarily telling everybody what they want to hear and sometimes making it uncomfortable to even be on the side that you're on. because we're gonna challenge even what maybe our own beliefs are. and so when you're talking about a general who comes in and anybody in the military has been there where it's well filter the questions up make sure that they're approved to even ask when the general came in saying, I want to find the problems, and the organization is saying, We're gonna hide all the fucking problems. The colonel better know about the fucking problems well before the general hears about the fucking problems. And Amit (36:26) Right. Absolutely. David (36:30) and we've all been on the ass reaming that occurred because the one private didn't get the message and then brought The problem straight to the general in front of the colonel, who was very embarrassed by it. and in my brain, which functions in a weird way anyway, I really kind of equated that to the filtering of a message, which is what we're doing in some ways, but maybe we're just not filtering it the right way to a mass audience. But I wondered what's the reasoning that you have for that? Because I know my thought process on it. and maybe I don't have the aspirations to be the next Ben Shapiro I want to calm things more than spice them up. and we're trying to get people who are maybe more enraged with something and bring them back to earth and the reality or at the very least understand the mechanisms behind them. it's gonna appeal to I think just a smaller audience. But hopefully over time that audience is like, hey, I feel better after I listen to these clowns. maybe other people will too, but they don't feel better because we just got told that nothing is your fault, and you're wonderful and you smell of rich mahogany and leather bound books. Amit (37:36) And Sandalwood. Rob (37:37) Sandalwood. David (37:37) And and say it'll work. Amit (37:38) I mean I I think this show's really not about making people feel good about themselves, That's not the point. it really is David (37:43) I never feel good about myself after a show. Amit (37:45) that's right. So, heap the misery onto others, Maybe that's the point. Rob (37:50) Yeah, I always walk away a little ashamed, questioning Amit (37:53) Mm-hmm. Rob (37:53) all my life decisions. What did I do? What did I do David (37:55) Well put your clothes on, Rob. I wish Amit (37:55) And your bourbon choice. Rob (37:58) to end up here now? I don't know. David (38:00) I just wish you would you would film whilst fully clothed, Rob, is all I ask, but that's a reason we can't post video. Amit (38:06) Maybe one day. Rob (38:04) Yeah. David (38:07) is that Rob (38:08) Yeah. David (38:08) Rob's got a full on fruit bowl for everybody. Amit (38:11) Fruit of the Lubad. Rob (38:12) you know, I f David (38:12) No, not fruit of the limb. Rob (38:14) I find I find my vocal cords work better when I'm not encumbered by clothing. David (38:19) you keep saying that, but I just wish you'd stop stroking your belly like that. Amit (38:22) Yeah. Rob (38:23) Staring at you. Intense eye contact people. David (38:26) Yeah. Yeah. you've got a pretty mouth, son. Rob (38:28) Uh-huh. David (38:29) Speaking of Rob's finely tuned in obviously unshaven abdomen lack of grooming aside, there was one story that I think is part of a much larger story. We could talk about it another time, but there was some noise for Pete Heggs' September thirtieth State of the Force address. Amit (38:46) Yeah. David (38:46) where commanders have been reportedly asked to nominate service members who meet demanding fitness and waist to height requirements in order to be present in the audience and even potentially work out with Papa Heggsith. Looking at Rob's physique has reminded me of this and I just want to talk just a couple of minutes. the interesting thing is that I don't know that Pete Hags has said, give me the best looking crop of dudes behind me, calendar ready. But certainly throughout his tenure as sec deaf, also authorized to be called Sec War, he's been really, really hot on hot dudes. Like he wants good looking soldiers and airmen and everything. so what the fuck, guys, what the fuck? Rob (39:31) part of it I believe is giving away his background in cable news, there's image that's important in that environment. Appearance is important. In fact appearance is often the most critical in that. it's what do you look like before what do you know? so I think that's part of it. I struggle with it because I honestly don't think it's a legitimate measurement of combat capability. I've not looked at a soldier and wondered whether they could be in a shirtless calendar as to whether they're capable of going to war and doing their job. that doesn't enter into it to me. in if we start filtering people based on that. David (40:10) Rob, it doesn't help if you lie to our audience. You know that you've definitely looked at soldiers and thought, I wonder if this guy could be on the calendar. In fact, you probably looked at soldiers and said, I think that guy that's January. Rob (40:21) That that was my secret nickname for people. Yeah. Hey June. David (40:24) Well, you keep showing me these calendars with signatures. Yeah, I've just I assumed you got them somehow. Rob (40:30) Well, what it really comes down to I and truthfully, I I mean there there is some reality to this. Being a military member, i there is a physicality to it. There is a requirement for a certain capability, physical capability. So physical fitness does matter. and it matters in lots of ways. Resilience actually. The mo more fit individuals tend to be actually more resilient, for lots of reasons, so physical fitness does matter. the question I have, I guess, is this selection of a specific group that look fit doesn't necessarily mean they are. it really doesn't. It just means that they hit a certain height to waist ratio mechanism that makes them look good in a tailored uniform. What's that really tell us about the force as a whole? Amit (41:14) let me deviate from this a little bit. So I think military and TV perception is like ninety nine percent of know what matters. and if you're highlighting your prowess or the military's prowess or your strength, I think it does make sense to put forth sort of the peak. No Having never been in that such peak physical performance in myself, despite that, I think being able to highlight, hey, this is what our soldier military looks like, I think it portrays some strength. It portrays something to the American people. I think it does send a very strong message. I don't think the point is to show that, hey, this means that we are, completely ready or that they meet all the other, requirements, because no one really cares about that, at least from the audience perspective, They want to see a show in the symbolism of hey, this is what America looks like, this is what our troops look like. I think that is the message that they want to send, which I think that's an appropriate message. But I agree. It does not address the fundamentals of, hey, is our military really ready? Can we fight wars? We have really perfectly healthy, great specimens of, military service members, but does that equate to us being able to defeat our enemies in a day? No. Rob (42:25) Unfortunately, to my knowledge and my understanding of history, we have never had an enemy that has allowed us to make war a shirtless calendar competition. That's unfortunate. But makes a legit point that you know in a society such as ours, the population's goodwill, their belief. in the military is important. And because of that, symbolism is important. so I was ready to argue this vehemently in one direction and admit punched me in the gut and made a good point that damn it, I had to revise. David (43:01) you can't argue that psychologically there is certainly a role in playing up to the strengths that you might have to say, let's select the fittest, best looking guys and set them behind in that stage. and that does send the message of look, we're ready. but there's a problem here. and that might even convince people, look, we look like we're doing great. But actual military readiness is logistics, it's training, it's munitions, it's the personnel, maintenance, strategy, morale, discipline, leadership, mission clarity, physical fitness plays a role. Readiness is hard to photograph. Abs really easy. so we could see psychologically why this is something that you would want to present. The problem is is it realistic and are you then projecting a false sense of what readiness truly exists? Because what we keep seeing is that the regional combatant commanders keep saying that we have degraded readiness due to this prolonged conflict that we're also simultaneously saying isn't a conflict. It's not a war. but we're trying to project this sense of being ready through the picture behind us. it's readiness theater. Rob (44:16) right now also there's an undercurrent of dishonesty there's enough information out in the public sphere saying, hey, our munitions are low, our interceptors are dangerously low, we may be compromised in certain ways. if this was a different time, I don't know if it would have happened. And truthfully, I suppose we've always done this to a degree, just not in this venue. I mean, you look at any Marine Corps commercial, it's always a good looking guy who's clearly, a jaw cut from granite. and you know frighten David (44:46) That's because all Marines look like that, Rob, don't be jealous. Rob (44:49) I know. so I I think that might create the dissonance here as it is it does feel timing wise. it is an overlay on an underpinning that is potentially compromised. David (45:02) leave it at that because we have more than a week before the state of force address we can always talk about this even further later but I just it was just Rob (45:08) Can. David (45:08) an interesting it was just an interesting thing I thought we should we should bring up a little bit. we have any prescriptions from Rob (45:14) I've got one. I've got one. So my prescription is that every state of the force address includes one exhausted staff sergeant with a coffee stain on his uniform who's allowed to interrupt and explain which equipment actually works. by all means, put the handsome troops up front. That's fine. but somewhere behind those cheekbones, somebody needs to know where the spare parts are. You're running the Department of Defense, Pete. You can't win a war by making the enemy feel bad about their summer body. Amit (45:44) Yeah. David (45:45) It's that's true. Amit (45:46) so speaking about the state of the forest address, I think you can do that certainly in your household as well, State of the household. So every time questions come up that are uncomfortable, or looking at your finances, I think you should just rob, maybe you can do this at home, just take off your top and then s get down on the floor and start doing some push ups and opportunity to clear Clearly in peak performance, so we're good. Rob (46:09) You know, you say that as if I'm not already doing that. Come on. David (46:13) Yeah. Rob (46:14) you just described Tuesday morning for me, right there. Amit (46:17) Yeah. The family meetings. Rob (46:20) Just an average day. David (46:21) All right. So my prescription is for job owning. So no Amit (46:26) Yeah. David (46:26) more hints. No more you know what happens if. State the rule, own the consequences, let the courts review it. Here we go. Rob (46:33) Simple. Easy. Amit (46:34) you're talking about job wanting, you need to have the actual, earpod. David (46:38) If you're gonna job own, It needs to be Amit (46:39) Bear a job one. David (46:41) on the phone. your phone needs to be clipped to your belt. all right. I think that's it. thank you so much for sticking around, everybody. like, subscribe, follow, do all the social media things. We've got our website, shrinkthenation.com. Check that out. And that's it. So I think I'm gonna queue up this music. And we are out.