Episode Transcript
[00:00:14] Speaker A: Hello.
Welcome to the Call It Like I See it podcast. I'm James Keys, and in this episode of Call It Like I See it, we're going to discuss the apparently escalating situation where we have Southern states such as Texas, Florida, Arizona, sending buses or even planes of migrants to northern cities like New York or Washington, Chicago, and doing so oftentimes unannounced. And possibly we're finding out without the informed consent of all or some of the people that are actually being moved.
And later on, we're going to weigh in on the firestorm that's going on in the NBA following the release of a damning report about the conduct of the owner of the Phoenix Suns, which led to his suspension for a year and a $10 million fine. And although that may seem like a lot, many people in and around the league felt like it wasn't enough. And so there's a lot of pushback.
Joining me today is a man who is known to kill him softly. Tunde. Ogonlana Tunde, are you ready to break down the score for the people?
[00:01:23] Speaker B: Always.
[00:01:24] Speaker A: All right. All right.
[00:01:25] Speaker B: Hopefully it's a winning score.
[00:01:27] Speaker A: All right. Now we're recording this on September 19, 2022. I want to get right to the discussion today. The bottom line is Republican governors in Southern states are sending buses, by and large, of migrants to northern cities. And in many cases, they're making a point to point out the politics or talk about the politics of the places where they're sending the people when they do it.
And many people are upset about this and some are questioning the legality of it. But in many respects, it seems like getting people upset about this is kind of the desired effect of why they're doing it. So, Tunde, what are your thoughts on what we're seeing right now as far as all this transporting of migrants from Southern states to northern cities?
[00:02:14] Speaker B: For me personally, I'm more saddened to see this kind of like, oh, this continued political posturing in this case by Republican governors. As you mentioned, there's times when Democrats do it. But in this, you know, let me see how to put it, I'll say this with a smile and laugh. I got some enlightenment recently from Fox News Channel. So I was watching Sean Hannity interview Senator Ted Cruz about this topic, and Sean Hannity asked him, would it be human trafficking if someone just picked up some migrants at the border and just kind of took him like out of state somewhere else? And Senator Cruz said, yes, that would qualify as human trafficking. Yeah. So it's just interesting to be enlightened by those.
[00:03:06] Speaker A: And in the same interview, he commended the Republican governors for doing this. Yeah, that's what I mean, that's interesting.
[00:03:12] Speaker B: That's what tells us it's political, right? It's just all over the place and then. But that's not. Neither here nor there. I think what's interesting, there's one other.
[00:03:20] Speaker A: Piece before you leave it just real quick. He also said that it's unlikely that the Garland Justice Department or whatever would do anything about it being illegal also, which subtly, really, it shows you the effect of a. If you're known as the law enforcement who doesn't enforce the law or that is kind of afraid to make stands, but go ahead. I don't wanna go down that road. But it was just interesting to me that he put that in there as well. You're not gonna get prosecuted for it, but it is against the law. And so I'm happy they're doing it. It's just a weird three things to put together for a long time.
[00:03:53] Speaker B: To me, it's more of a fascinating. Because I mean, think about the admission there. I mean, to admit that you're committing human trafficking, right? After all the stuff we hear about how bad human trafficking is. I mean, so I think this highlights specifically this topic, number one, is as old as human beings, right? This idea of migrants. Normally, migrants coming into a society are people that are coming from something apparently worse, right? Like, meaning you don't see a bunch of Americans migrating to China or Russia or Guatemala, right? We're pretty happy in our country. We're doing okay, and our country's pretty good. So normally throughout history, this large movements of humans is because something bad happens somewhere, whether natural disaster, whether war, famine, whatever.
So this is no different. But what is different is that we're alive and we get to see the sausage being made or be in the middle of tornado in real time. Because every other time that we've seen this kind of stuff is through the lens of history. And we get to say, oh, look at those people who didn't care about these poor people's issues, right? Just like we hear about refugees from the potato famine in Ireland in the 1800s or, you know, Eastern European Jews trying to get out of Eastern Europe before the Holocaust really got bad.
You hear these stories and you hear about one group of people who was trying to stop the immigrant from coming in from a bad area. And we tend to think, wow, how unjust for these people to have tried to stop these people from seeking freedom. But we're seeing it Here. And it's literally half of our country would say, oh, these people should. Maybe they shouldn't be allowed to come in our country without being vetted and without going through some kind of process. Right. But we should treat them humanely. If they show up here from a country like Venezuela, which is a disaster, other people will say, I don't want them anywhere near me. They're going to bring disease. Remember the thing with the leprosy on the caravan a few years ago? And they don't look at them as humans. It's the dehumanization of that group which allows people to treat them inhumanely. And I think we're watching this in real time in our own country, period. I don't see that. Think there's any other way to look at it?
[00:06:14] Speaker A: That's an interesting point because, yeah, if this is like, according to Ted Cruz, this is dictionary human trafficking, then most people would agree that human trafficking is inhumane.
[00:06:25] Speaker B: But if you don't look at them as humans, then that goes.
[00:06:29] Speaker A: Yeah, like you said, that goes.
[00:06:30] Speaker B: Trafficking 4,000 beagles from a pharmaceutical company. It's like, okay, I guess that just happens to me.
[00:06:35] Speaker A: I think it's a very multifaceted issue. I found it interesting that you said in this case it's the Republican governors doing something political. And oh, Democratic governors do that too. Because it's one of those things that fair minded people do is say, oh, I don't want you to think that because I'm calling somebody on their. That I don't call other people on their shit. But right now this is about the Republican governors. Like there's no, there's not a Democratic governor right now that's doing something equivalent. So I think we can focus on what they're doing without trying to do some equivocation. Now, from my standpoint, the thing is, I think this is a real issue and I don't think it's fair or even an American kind of approach to have only the Southern. These southern states, I would say border states. But Florida doesn't really have a land border at least. I mean, it has a lot of, you know, seaports and everything. Like that doesn't have a land border with somewhere else but Texas, Arizona, they shouldn't have to deal with this issue on their own. You know, like, I think as an American, like, that's something. And so the fact that they're the first place that people get to means they're dealing with the brunt of the initial phase of this issue. So big picture wise, there should be some national plan where we figure out, okay, well, all of these people come to Texas, not necessarily because they just are dying to be in Texas, but just because that's the border. You know, that's when they cross the border. That's where they are. And so they don't cross the border into Colorado. And so I think that what. What we're seeing here, though, isn't a request for assistant assistance. It's not saying, hey, you know, like, we shouldn't have to deal with all of this on our own, guys. You know, like, we should be distributing this load elsewhere. We need to figure out a way to deal with this where we're not the ones who are just. We have to absorb all this into our communities, and that's it. This seems like a move out of spite, whereas I would. I actually would be in support of if the conversation was, what can we do to help Texas out here, like, where we can distribute people around or whatever. And so from my standpoint, really what the problem is, is they're looking at an issue and rightfully saying, hey, we shouldn't be the only ones that have to deal with this. But then their approach isn't to take a collaborative approach with their countrymen. Their approach is to try to stick their thumb in somebody's eye and say, aha, I got to deal with something. Let me try to make you mad, too. And it's like, well, how are we supposed to build something here if that's. When faced with adversity? That's the reason. That's the kind of approach that they want to take. And so to me, it really illustrates. And then the fact that that kind of approach is supported, you know, by their. Whether it's half the country or 40% or whatever it is, by the people who they feel beholden to their constituents is something that. Yeah, you really stuck it to these other people who are our countrymen. And it's like, well, how about we just go and say, hey, what can we do to help them out? Or what can you help us out here? Like, this is something that is. It's a national issue. Immigration. It's something. It's the purview of the federal government. States don't have the authority to deal with immigration stuff, so let's deal with it nationally and not just make this Arizona.
[00:09:31] Speaker B: That would happen if you had people that actually cared about solving the problem and not doing all this political stuntism.
[00:09:37] Speaker A: Well, let me say this, though. There's one piece, and you're right.
There's one piece. I think that where there is a fundamental disagreement amongst people, some people think the way to solve the problem is to be more punitive towards people because that will serve as a deterrent. Other people think the way to solve the problem is to, and you, I know you're going to get into this today is to try to deal with the kind of push issues, the issues in the places where these people are coming from. And so they're not forced or they don't feel forced to come here to try to leave their own homes. And then other people are just looking at it from a humanity standpoint and actually aren't coming up with constructive ways to actually deal with the problem. So you're right. But also there it's not completely devoid, hey, let's treat these people poorly. Is not completely devoid of coming up with a solution. It's, it's just a solution that I find inhumane.
[00:10:22] Speaker B: Well, what I'm saying though is I think there's a couple pieces to unpack there. Number one is, and I wanna go back down this rabbit hole later in this discussion, but definitely we can't have this conversation without talking about the incompetence of the US Congress in solving this from, like you said, a federal legislative level. So to the defense of everybody, both Democrat and Republican governors and everyone, all that they're all just fighting and trying to figure out because they don't have direction from the top. You know, the federal government has not legislated anything serious about immigration for a very long, I think 96. So what we have is in this case specifically, nothing else I'm talking about in American politics or our system right now. But in immigration specifically in this conversation, we are a country that's a ship without a rudder. We're leaderless right now. And what we're seeing is this is now different states responding to this issue in different ways. And I think based on our comments here, clearly we don't seem to agree with the way that some Republican governors are handling this. But in the end, if there was leadership from the top, if there was federal legislation about this, we might not be here.
[00:11:36] Speaker A: But I don't have a problem with their sentiment. I just think that, like I said, the way that they're trying to act on that sentiment is one that sows division, one that looks at your fellow countrymen with contempt instead of looking to be collaborative. And so, like, because, you know, like I said, I think the reason they feel like they're in this corner is, has legitimacy to it.
[00:11:58] Speaker B: Yeah, no, I think look, this is an unfortunate example of just another victim in this long culture war that we have in our politics over the last 20 years or so. And my point is, is that immigration just being another topic that's put exactly like you said? Because I could think of what I'm thinking of now is the natural disasters. You know, it started a few years ago, right. California has forest fires and somehow, you know, people. People start making fun of California. I've never seen that before in the United States.
Certain. Certain states have natural disasters and it becomes the fault of the people in that state, whereas other states have natural disasters and they're asking for help. And so I think immigration is another one where it's become based on the red or blue and the heightened politics. Like you just said, this clearly was a political stunt so that these few governors who want to play this type of politics game of this stick it in my opponent's eye type of thing could get some bona fides with their bases. And, you know, like our governor here in Florida, Ron DeSantis, for him to not notify as a professional, you know, the governor of the other state and not to just have some sort of decorum and a formality in terms of I'm going to bus people that aren't even American citizens to your state and not to even let people know they're coming. That's where it becomes unprofessional, and that's where it appears to be just politics.
[00:13:27] Speaker A: Yeah, it's politics without trying to be kind of productive. And I want to distinguish, actually Texas and Florida, that's their M.O. right now, is to just have people show up. They don't want the people in New York or Chicago or D.C. to know that. That they're coming and when they're coming. Actually, Arizona is when the people they've been sending out, now it's a lower number, but they have been notifying, like, hey, here's the list of the people that's coming. Here's when it's going to arrive, yada, yada, yada. And so they actually, there is some level of coordination. Even if it was that, the reaction would be different, in my opinion. You know, like, it's something that. And because it allows the officials in the place that's getting these people to be ready for them. When the people from Florida arrived at Martha's Vineyard, nobody was there. Like, they had walked miles and stuff like that.
[00:14:11] Speaker B: Let me tell you, that interview between Hannity and Ted Cruz was actually very interesting and informative for me. Just to Watch it. Because you could see what were the things that were really being highlighted. It wasn't about the migrants themselves. It wasn't about the lack of inability for both Republicans and Democrats in Congress to solve the problem together. You know, all that. It was exactly what you're saying. The things that they really cared about talking about were the things that they perceived their audience that night on the show would give the audience glee from seeing their opponent, the quote, unquote, libs and the left and the Democrats be upset about cities. So the point is that, yeah, when that's your goal and not solving your problems, the goal, then it makes sense to send them without warning because it's going to upset the other side. Right now the interesting thing is the governor of Massachusetts is Republican. So that's the whole different conversation just makes it interesting.
[00:15:07] Speaker A: But no, no, for sure.
[00:15:08] Speaker B: But, but, but where I'm getting at is, so here's the interesting thing, because what I found, and I'll get back to that interview in a sec. But real quick, what I found, and I know we talked about this offline, which was interesting, the response of the majority of the cities or states that are receiving these people, besides the fact that like the mayor of Chicago was beefing, you know, on TV with the. Not mayor, sorry, the governor of Chicago. The mayor of Chicago, sorry, what mayor? Beefing with the governor of Texas.
She's upset about, like we talked about the logistics of it, the fact that it wasn't announced, all that. But no one in it seems like in Cape Cod, they were bringing out meals for these people. They were giving them places to stay and shower. It seems like the people receiving these people are not, they're not looking down of these, of the migrants as they're inhuman. They're not trying to be that punitive. They're just upset at the way this was handled, that no one was warned about these buses of people coming, but they're not complaining about the migrants themselves. Where I look at the complaint of the state sending them is of the migrants themselves. So I found that interesting. And so here's where I'm getting back to the interview. TED Cruz, I'm looking at, and this is a problem, too, the ecosystems, right? When I look at the news and I watch CBS at night or something normal news, they're showing all these people coming out in Cape Cod with food and with tables and trying to bring people to this church to go shower and have a place to sleep.
So what Ted Cruz was smiling about on the Hannity show was that he Said, oh, and they're so upset in Cape Cod about it as well.
That was the funny part. And then of course, they didn't show any of the video footage of the people in Cape Cod helping the migrants.
What they did is they didn't show any footage because there's no footage of people in kids shows.
[00:16:55] Speaker A: Yeah, the footage shows them helping. Yeah, so.
[00:16:57] Speaker B: So that's what I mean is that interview was all about trying to show the audience, hey, look at me, keep watching me or keep voting for me in Ted Cruz's example, because I'm upsetting the people you don't like.
[00:17:10] Speaker A: Yeah, I'm sticking to these people. That, that you.
[00:17:13] Speaker B: That was really the point of the whole interview. And that's my point, is that, wow, no wonder why our country screwed up, because we got senators out there that are more concern sticking it to the other side than solving a problem. And the disappointing thing about someone like Ted Cruz is here's a guy who is the son of immigrants from Cuba who specifically came to the United States to escape Fidel Castro and the persecution. So I don't know how Fidel Castro is much different than Maduro or Chavez in Venezuela, which creates the same conditions in their country.
[00:17:44] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:17:45] Speaker B: So, and that's to me, Ted Cruz personally is worse than most of the other guys because at least the other guys that may have more of a longer history of family in the United States don't have that living memory. Ted Cruz was taught by his parents who Fidel Castro was, and he also.
[00:18:01] Speaker A: Is in the body, the legislative body do something about this.
[00:18:05] Speaker B: He's a perfect example of someone who pulled the bridge up.
[00:18:08] Speaker A: But that goes to, though you're going back to this interview actually reveals kind of what it is. Basically the what they, the signal they think that their audience wants isn't one of solving the problem, it is one of sticking it to the other side. And so if they thought that appearing to the audience that they were working hard to try to solve the problem and that to me, like I look at this, if this was a protest where again, I would say the Arizona approach is a little different than the or is different fundamentally than the Texas and the Florida approach. If this is like, hey, I'm going to do this as a protest, I'm going to be very organized about it. I'm going to tell you who's coming, when they're coming. But you guys should be you. The rest of the United States should be helping us more. So I'm going to send people to you so you understand what we're going through. But again, it's not to stick it to you. It's my protest of Congress not passing legislation or like, I'm going to any senator that's not supporting some kind of immigration reform. I'm sending migrants to your state. So if it was something like that, like, I can get constructive disobedience, so to speak, constructive acts that are intended to create positive change. That's what this is. And that's what I think we have, that really has to be highlighted here, is this is not intended to be constructive, at least by and large, at least by Texas and by Florida. This is intended, as you said, to stick it to somebody. And, and again, when you, when they get out and talk about it, it's a. They talk about it. They, they give the message that they think their audience wants to hear, their voters want to hear. And their voters, apparently, based on the message they're giving, apparently want to hear not about how they're trying to solve a problem, but how they're trying to make the lives of other Americans who they consider their political opponents more difficult or less pleasant.
[00:19:51] Speaker B: Yeah.
[00:19:51] Speaker A: So.
[00:19:52] Speaker B: But that's accurate.
[00:19:53] Speaker A: Yeah. And that's kind of crazy. Like you said, it's hard to, it's hard to imagine how you move forward as a nation in that kind of environment where people, what they really want is to just make their fellow countrymen suffer.
But now we're seeing tensions are pretty high right now.
But I wanted to ask you from a historical lens, I know you're always very interested in the historical lens, as am I, but you'll be jumping into that. And I almost had to hold you off to not get into it too early today.
But do you think from our immigration standpoint, immigration issues, just looking back, are we in a particularly bad time that we're seeing all these high tensions, or is this kind of run of the mill? Or is this, you know, is this just one of those things where we just think about it more now? But it's not actually as bad as it.
[00:20:36] Speaker B: No, I think, I think it's interesting in preparing for today, it was just a good reminder of how polarizing the topic of immigration has been in our whole country's history. I'm sure every big nation has had this issues.
[00:20:48] Speaker A: Big, successful nation.
[00:20:50] Speaker B: Yeah.
Well, just anybody that's more successful than their neighbor, maybe, right?
[00:20:54] Speaker A: Yeah. Relative success. Yeah, Good point.
[00:20:56] Speaker B: I'm sure when, you know, Afghanistan started going sideways, you know, Iran and Pakistan had to deal with people coming over their borders, so. Because at some point, you know, some other place might be better than where you're at if it really goes bad. So.
But. But to your point, I mean, look, think about it. I mean, I know everyone kind of on the surface, intellectually understands that unless you're a Native American, somebody immigrated here from somewhere before you in your. In your family ancestry line. Now, it's interesting, because immigration.
[00:21:24] Speaker A: Voluntarily or involuntarily? Yeah. Unless you coming from somewhere else.
[00:21:28] Speaker B: Yeah. So, I mean, European Immigration started in 1607 with a colony in Jamestown, because Virginia became a colony of the British in 1603, and they first settled Jamestown in 1607. So if you want to start with that type of immigration, we can go back that far. Now, the interesting thing that a lot of Americans are ignorant about is everyone knows that Australia is the colony that was the penal colony for England, But Australia was discovered in 1798 and became a penal colony because Britain lost the United or, you know, the American colonies in 1776.
[00:22:05] Speaker A: Yeah, they weren't the first colony. Yeah, they weren't.
[00:22:08] Speaker B: We were the penal colony. And so if you look at early American history, even as early as the 1600s in the Northeast, that's what you had a lot of those issues, which was the English, who settled it out of their own merit, like that, came here as explorers and all that. They began to look down on the people that were being sent here as indentured servants or prisoners, you know, for the penal colony side of it. Because most indentured servants, the majority were white Europeans that were poor and couldn't make it in Europe and were indentured servants, came here to work and then were promised some sort of either freedom after a certain point here or to go back home with some money to Europe. And so that was the first divide, where you had people in cities in the American colonies starting to separate and say, hey, this second or third wave of English people, they gotta live over there. They're not as good as us. Cause, see, we came here, basically, you're.
[00:23:05] Speaker A: Saying that we've had an immigration problem since the second person showed up.
[00:23:10] Speaker B: Bro. Bro. Since the second person. So that was the first. And it's funny, because that started just between the English. And then you had the issues in the 1700s with the Scots Irish, because, remember, people bring their beefs. So you had. This was an English colony. So when the Scots and Irish who were looked down upon, especially the Irish, by the British, the Irish immigrants in the Northeast, like New York and Boston, also were looked down upon, and they were moved to ghettos and all that. And then in the 1700s, 16 to 1700s, you had more Dutch. 17, 1800s, you had the Germans. The Germans faced a lot of discrimination. And you think about areas of the country like the Appalachian Mountains and all that, that was where a lot of the Europeans who were not seen as worthy, in a sense, they were the ones pushed out of the north and sent to Appalachia and all that. And so you look just in the first hundred to two hundred years of the United States, you had all of this immigration just from Europe, and the Europeans were dehumanizing each other, you know, and then you had. Because Britain was Protestant, then they all hated the Catholics. So you had all that stuff going on early in American history. And then, you know, we'll pass it back. But then we got to get to the 1920s.
[00:24:30] Speaker A: Yeah, I mean, because I think the immigration issue is one, like America was set up in a way that almost created an environment to promote immigration, so to speak. Like so many when you had these other places, these. These places that. Where people had been settled for a really long time, societies were stratified pretty rigid. Religion was. Was like something that if. If you were in the right one, you were okay. If you weren't, you were in trouble. And so it became a haven. It was known around the world as a haven. Now, I think we had more European immigrants at the time because they were the ones that were on ships more than. Than everyone else at that time. But as you're going to get into it, as, you know, as that spread around, more people around the world came here because this was the place where class divisions weren't. Weren't so stratified like they were in Europe or in other places in the world, particularly when you go back, you know, hundreds of years, and also the religious piece. So it's almost been. America's almost always had this kind of thing where it's a place that, in the abstract, based on what it sells itself as, what it holds itself out as, would be very appealing to immigrants and has therefore had a lot of immigration. But at the same time, there's always been that resentment that has. The interesting part, I think about this, and I'm sure you'll get to this, is how that has driven politics in so many different ways throughout our history. And so we're not going to. Obviously, this isn't a history course. We're not going to get to everything. But what we're seeing now also is that we're seeing how the immigration, where it's, you Know, there's push and pull factors, things that make people, that push people out of where they are and then there's place, things that, that make a place appealing which are more considered like pole places, they pull people in. And so what I just talked about were the kind of pull factors that America. And then, you know, around the world different things end up pushing people out. But ultimately how that affects our political climate, it's had huge effects on political climate throughout, you know, the America, you know, post colony and you know, as, as a, as an actual, you know, nation that is, you know, on its own. So I mean, that's something that we're seeing now. And as you said, we get to live through and see how it affects our current political environment because that's really what it becomes in many respects. And unfortunately it gets divorced from the fact that these are real people.
[00:26:43] Speaker B: Yeah, well, the thing is very good that you put that that way because that actually helps me segue into this part of the conversation about the effects on the political discourse in this country. Because what I talked about earlier were the first two major waves of migration into the United States, or I would say before the formation of the United States, you know, from the early 1600s to the late 17 to about 1776 was the first wave because that's when we were a British colony. So again you had the indentured servants and kind of immigration happened under the lens of Great Britain. Right. And the British Crown then you had.
[00:27:23] Speaker A: And how they thought it served their interests.
[00:27:25] Speaker B: Correct, exactly. Because we didn't have. Yeah, exactly. We couldn't make our own laws like that. In the end we still had to defer to the crown and how they wanted their colony treated. Now then you had the second wave, which was like the 1776 to kind of that late 1800, like the next hundred years. And then what's interesting is again, new technologies changed a lot. So you're right, it was after 1880, that's when large steam powered ocean going ships replaced the sailing ships. That's when you could literally get across the Atlantic in like four or five days now, not three weeks, four weeks. So that really jumped it up. So it says, I mean, between a little bit prior to this. So between 1850 and 1930, there were five million Germans that migrated to the, to the U.S. wow. Between 1820, 1930, three and a half million British and four and a half million Irish entered America. And so what happened is after about 1900 is when he started seeing a lot more Jews from Eastern Europe, Italians, Greeks, Hungarians, Poles and more, what they call the Slavic languages, the Slavic Europeans. And so getting back to your politics, how does this affect discourse in this country? Most of those people came in through the northeast corridor, primarily New York, Ellis island, the famous place. Most of them then stayed in urban areas. You know, they might have moved to Detroit or Chicago. They might have moved a little south to Philly or.
[00:28:51] Speaker A: Because this was post industrial revolution.
[00:28:53] Speaker B: Correct. So that's where they had a lot to go, to cities. Exactly correct. And so what happens is, therein goes your politics.
[00:29:01] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:29:01] Speaker B: Because then by the 1920s or so, you had several things that you have today, large blocks of demographic changes, new technologies like cinema and radio that can really wow people, just like you have the Internet today and all that stuff and that, that can wow people and disrupt the narrative of the old guard. And what you had was this feeling from what they call the quote, unquote, that's why Gangs of New York, the film's very good, this cultural stuff. The Native Americans, what they called the native white Americans, which were people that could either trace their family roots off some ship from England directly, or maybe they were a third or fourth generation from Scandinavia or Norway or somewhere like that that immigrated at some point 100 or 200 years earlier to the, to the Americas. And so they started having the real beef with the people in the cities. And that's the first time in American political discourse that you saw people running for national office and state office talking about those city folk, you know, like, those aren't the real American. That's when he started hearing rhetoric like that in the twenties by, by people saying, those aren't the real Americans in the city. They're. They're dirtying our nation, all these immigrants from Eastern Europe. And so it's.
[00:30:19] Speaker A: Well, because that also coincided with when the transition, when most people lived in cities versus rural.
[00:30:26] Speaker B: Yeah.
[00:30:27] Speaker A: And so the character, very character of the nation changed where you had. It became less an agrarian and rural society and more of an urban industrial society as a whole. As, as, at least from a population standpoint, as we see now though, America, because of the way it's, it's political like the government is set up and the political institutions, land matters too. From the Senate standpoint, number of people don't matter. Each state has two representatives based on them being a state. And so the US has always balanced the two. And that type of thing, the electoral college, those are things specifically set up to make sure there's balance between the high population areas and the low population areas for better or worse. Whether you agree that that should be the case or not is up to you, but that's what it was set up as. And so, yeah, this has always, well, let me say this because of that, immigration will always have an outsized influence relative to other issues because oftentimes it is something that is really gets people fired up, particularly in places where, as we've pointed out even more recently, where what people know about immigration is what they hear about immigration. They don't know immigrants necessarily, but they hear about it and they can be told almost anything. And so ultimately you have people in places where immigration may not be something that affects their day to day life, but they are super passionate about immigration because, you know, they've been told, hey, these immigrants, they're dirtying our nation or they're doing this or they're bringing disease or whatever. And they take their word on what they heard, you know, from the media, in the media systems or whatever. So because of the balance, because it's not going to just be, well, New York City has all these people and so it's just going to out vote everybody. This balance means that this issue is always going to have a lot, a larger, you know, a very high salience in our political discourse. And that's what we're seeing now. That's why we're seeing. It's always one of the issues that can fire people. Up to this day, if you start talking about immigration, you can start getting people fired up.
[00:32:22] Speaker B: Yeah, well, that's the interesting thing to me because it's just fascinating. This is really part of just being human, right. That we have all these different parts of our kind of societies. Right. And there's always going to be that part of any society that has fear of something other or some outsider.
[00:32:41] Speaker A: Well, and there's always going to be a large number of people in any society that have fear of other or that, whether it's active or latent, it can be activated like that. We know that's just part of the human condition. Some people, that's my point, are wired. Yeah, yeah.
[00:32:53] Speaker B: And that's why I'm saying because in, in getting back, if you look, this is interesting that it was 100 years ago, you know, the early 1920s saw a lot of similar kind of feelings in this country. So there was a famous, he was an American lawyer, but also an author and a very kind of well known cultural influencer, I guess at the time. His name was Madison Grant and he had a famous quote. He wrote a book called the Passing of the Great race. I mean, this is early stuff. When you the idea of things like the replacement theory, which is a conspiracy theory right now, where certain people believe that there is a conspiracy to replace white Americans with a bunch of brown people and non white people somehow so that Democrats or liberals, white liberals, would have all of us brown people as their kind of stupid people that vote them into office and they can keep power somehow. That is, some people believe that this gentleman was talking that stuff 100 years ago. One of his quotes, after the passing of the Johnson Reid act in 1924, which was an immigration act signed by President Calvin Coolidge which reduced immigration from everywhere in the world except for northern Europe and actually banned all Asians. That's what I mean. Like President Trump's attempt at Immigration reform in 2017 is nothing new. That was just a reminder of what America was for most of its history prior to 1965. So what Madison Grant's quote was after the signing of that legislation in 1924, quote, America has closed the door just in time to prevent our Nordic population from being overrun by the lower races. End quote.
[00:34:38] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:34:38] Speaker B: And that reminded me of Tucker Carlson two years ago on TV saying, immigration just dirties America.
[00:34:45] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:34:45] Speaker B: So my point is, is that Tucker Carlson not saying nothing new. This guy, Madison Grant wasn't saying anything new. And guess who else was a big famous guy back then who was also a huge anti immigrant guy was Henry Ford.
[00:34:58] Speaker A: I didn't know if you're going to say Henry Ford, Father Coughlin.
[00:35:02] Speaker B: Well, what's interesting about Ford again, conspiracy theories. He was so anti Semitic. So this is. People don't know this about Henry Ford. He owned, he owned a newspaper called the Dearborn Register.
At this point, when he owned it, it was the second largest and most distributed paper in the United states. He had 91 letters in there over a series of time and the title was called the International Jewelry. And what he believed, he believed that Jews were involved with the assassination of Abraham Lincoln.
[00:35:33] Speaker A: And he also, like you put it to me, he's like on the conspiracy.
[00:35:36] Speaker B: Level, like Alex Jones.
[00:35:38] Speaker A: I thought you were even better before when you said he's on a conspiracy level. He's like Marjorie Taylor Greene.
[00:35:43] Speaker B: Yeah, yeah. Jewish.
[00:35:44] Speaker A: He would be talking about Jewish laces. Yeah. If he was alive now.
[00:35:47] Speaker B: And what's interesting is so number one, he had him translated into languages like German. So again, in the early 20s, this stuff was picked up by Adolf Hitler and Mein Kampf.
[00:35:59] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:35:59] Speaker B: So a lot of this was the eugenics mindset. But just to finish off he believed that the Jews instigated the Bolshevik revolution in Russia. And what he would. Propaganda he was putting out in his paper in the International Jew section of the Dearborn Register was that we should stop Jewish immigration completely because they're going to create a Bolshevik revolution in the United States.
[00:36:24] Speaker A: Yeah. Which is different than we listed industrialist. He was, you know, remember, against that.
[00:36:29] Speaker B: We need to ban all Muslims five years ago. So that's my point, is this always creeps up. That's kind of my bigger point.
[00:36:34] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:36:35] Speaker B: It's just that the enemies today aren't Eastern Europeans. They're South Americans and Muslims.
[00:36:41] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:36:41] Speaker B: But back then in 1924, they didn't restrict any immigration from South America. The enemies were Eastern Europeans. So that's all.
[00:36:48] Speaker A: Well, yeah, because it matters, you know, who is the. The enemy of the day, so to speak, who captures the imagination of the people. And I mean, I want to get out of this, but one thing I'll say though, is you raise a point.
[00:36:57] Speaker B: I could swim in here for a long time. Yeah.
[00:37:01] Speaker A: We started here if you have. It was up to you.
[00:37:05] Speaker B: But I'll be here four hours from now. It feels up to me, so I'll let you take back over.
[00:37:10] Speaker A: But one thing that you say often and when you talk about all that, it reminds me of this is the conflict that we have that's been ongoing in America always. It's Whether you talk Dr. King and his two competing ideologies, equality and supremacy in America, or as you put it, the question of how do you answer the question, is America a race or an idea? You know, is America about a race or is America about a constitution? And so ultimately we can see that, like the names we hear about when you're toeing through this history a lot of times are people that clearly believed that America is a race. And so defending America meant trying to make sure that the ratio of people was manipulated to preserve that race, whatever they consider that to be. And so ultimately, this issue, it's an evergreen issue. It's an issue that we see all the time. And the question I have for you as we. I'm going to get out of this, you know, and get to our second topic. But I do want to ask you before we get out of here, do you think, like, just on our modern world, this is issue that's going to be harder to deal with and what do you think dealing with this potentially looks like, you know, just as a nation?
[00:38:20] Speaker B: Yeah, I don't know. I think that. Look, this is interesting because we have a lot of things that we've never had before on the Earth. Number one, we've never had 8 billion humans share the earth at the same time.
[00:38:30] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:38:30] Speaker B: So naturally it's going to be, there's a lot more people with a lot less space to share. So I think some of these issues are going to be forced upon us whether we like it or not.
[00:38:39] Speaker A: Well, I think there's a lot more people, but I don't know that there's a lot less space. Just, just, just for clarity, there's still the same amount of space, more or less. And in fact there's probably more habitable space than there was at various times throughout history. Now, whether that is something that's sustainable.
[00:38:53] Speaker B: Hold on, there's more people, there's got to be less space. If the Earth hasn't grown, there's less space for us than, you know, we just shared.
[00:39:00] Speaker A: There's less space per person.
[00:39:02] Speaker B: That's my point. That's what I'm getting at. And so, and so, and you have things like, and whether you believe it's climate related or not, clearly the weather patterns are changing. So we're probably going to have more natural disasters that are going to send humans to migrate to other areas. Right. So I don't think this ends now. The other thing we have, which is interesting for the first time also in human history, along with the largest population in human history on the Earth, we also have the Internet, the ability to share information and see everything in real time.
I would say it seems that early in the infancy of this Internet thing, this information age, if we're in it a, you know, 20 years now or so, it hasn't gone too well.
But, but who knows where it ends up. And so I don't know what this means, James, like meaning because you're dealing with a couple different forces. One is, like we said, this is clearly something that's a pattern of human beings for every society in human history, which is the dislike of outside groups, period. And like we've talked about, as I.
[00:40:05] Speaker A: Mentioned, in many respects there are a lot of people that say that that's something that's kind, that's really in us, that's really wild in us.
[00:40:10] Speaker B: I was going, remember I told you and audience offline, James and I have a lot of nerd, nerdy conversations. So this was one that had nothing to do with this show. But I'm bringing it up. Remember when I told you about the thing I saw about the Serengeti, about the baboon, the baboon groups.
[00:40:22] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:40:23] Speaker B: And how one that came in like a war and totally attacked another group. That showed me, like you said. I said, man, if we wired since back in the apes to dislike outside groups from our own tribe, yeah, this is not something that we can fix. This is who we are as humanity. So when you mix that with more people, plus the ability to share information, I don't know what that means because I think the ability of the Internet to allow humans to communicate better across oceans and cultures may allow us to break down walls potentially, But I don't know because I have.
[00:40:58] Speaker A: But it also gives demagogues better tools.
[00:41:00] Speaker B: To turn each other. And so that's what I mean by this first 20 years. We haven't really seen how it shakes out yet. It could help or it could make it worse. I don't know.
[00:41:07] Speaker A: What I say is, and actually, I take a cue from the Ray Dalio piece that you turned me onto that we did a show on a couple weeks ago because as you've pointed out in several shows since then, it's called the Changing World Order. And so I think what we have to conceptualize here is what is today. And the constructs we have today aren't necessarily going to give us the tools that we need to solve a problem like this or to address a problem like this. And so. But there are things we can do. The issue that we have, as you going back to the beginning of the show, is that we don't have the will, at least collectively. Like, we have some people that have the will to try to address things, and they have ideas to try to address things, but we don't collectively have the will. We are possibly due to things, like you pointed out, social media, we're so easily distracted that we cannot deal with root causes of things at this point. So people that talk about, hey, let's go to these places where people are migrating from and let's try to make the societies there more stable so that they don't feel the need to risk their whole life and risk everything to try to just for a chance to get here, knowing that they might get turned away. Like, you have to understand how crazy it must be where you are for you to say, you know what? I'm leaving everything, just what I can carry, and I'm going someplace I've never been before. I don't know if when I get there, the people are going to welcome me or if they're going to try to shoot me like that. People are making that decision to try to come here. So clearly there's Something wrong with where they are. And so maybe if we can use our influence globally to try to do something there, that's not some idea I'm making up. My point is, my concern is that as with many things, a lot of times things have to get really bad for people to get the will to try to address them. And so I hope that the people with more foresight are able to get the attention of people before we have to go all the way down and end up in a changing world order because of something like this. And then we deal with it potentially in a much worse way, you know, like, because oftentimes the way people have dealt with these types of things in large societies dealt with a lot of death. And so we don't want that. So ideally, people who want compassion, want humanity, can't sit on the sidelines, you know, like, they got to pay, like, and put people in power that want to try to deal with problems from a root cause. And if that's how things we're going to approach this, then there is a way to deal with it. But again, it can't just be all deterrent. All deterrent is not gonna do it because clearly something's going on where people are coming from that there's no deterrent that's gonna get them to not try to come. Like, it's clearly that bad. So.
[00:43:33] Speaker B: Well, here's the thing too, that I think here's the problem, right? Going back to that interview we discussed with Hannity and Cruz was the fact that, like we said, it was more about. Let me just show my audience how bad the other side is instead of let's discuss how to. That there's an issue here that needs fixing, right?
[00:43:50] Speaker A: So the causes of the issue and what parts of what can we influence there? What can't.
[00:43:54] Speaker B: That's what I want to go to. Because if you look at the last, you know, 30 years, the lowest immigrant border crossing catches was during the eight years of the Obama administration. And I'm not saying that to kiss Obama's butt. I'm just saying that's the stats right now. The. The last.
So this year has been the largest number on record, which is 1.7 million. So that's got to be admitted under Biden's watch. Number that was close to that was the year 2000, 1.6 million. So it's been 21 years since. Since. Since that kind of number. Then it started falling under George W. Bush. The last time it saw a million people was in 2006.
Guess when it got close to a million. Again, 2019. But we don't know that because certain ecosystems will never report that.
You see what I'm saying?
[00:44:48] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:44:48] Speaker B: What happened prior to 2019, that's why it's not about kissing Obama's butt or bashing Trump specifically. Like you said, three countries, Cuba, Venezuela, Guatemala, had big issues and were disasters. And those people are coming up. That's why if you look at this last year's record numbers, it's not Mexicans, it's the most diverse group of people ever caught at the border. Remember all those Haitians at the border?
[00:45:12] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:45:13] Speaker B: It's that. It's that all these places are a mess and they're going to keep coming. Like you said, build a wall, whatever. They're going to keep coming. So if we should be thinking about how to use our soft power as a nation to help those countries get rid of their own issues, corruption and the drug dealing and the gangs, so that these people want to stay in their own countries.
[00:45:33] Speaker A: Yeah, yeah. Because I mean that addressing the demand, so to speak, is something that it's not some novel idea that you and I just came up with, like it's been done before. But right now, as you said, the systems where people are getting their information don't lead people to the conclusion that that's even really an option. It just becomes a political football. And this is just another one of the issues, at least in one instance, the instance you pointed out where governors, senators see this not as an issue where, hey, let's work together to solve a problem, but, hey, let me stick my thumb in somebody's eye and go tell my people that, that I stuck my thumb in their eyes. So they'll be very happy and they'll give me donations. So that is a problem, because you can't solve problems like that. So. But I want to get to the second issue today, or the second point, the second topic that we wanted to discuss a couple weeks ago. The NBA, well, the owner of the Phoenix Suns, which is an NBA team, and the owner has been under investigation. There were. There was a big report last year from ESPN, detailed 20 years of him just creating a hostile work environment. I mean, all this stuff, sexual harassment, racial stuff, just crazy, you know, like it was. It's just. And so there's this detail report the NFL does, or excuse me, the NBA does their own investigation, just released this big report, and they imposed discipline on him. And the discipline was. He was suspended for a year and fined $10 million, which in the abstract probably sounds like a lot because he's not a employee, so to speak. He is a. He is a owner. But I think he owns a controlling share. Whether it's a majority or not, I don't know for sure. But it's a controlling share of the Phoenix Suns. And so there was a very negative reaction to this from stars in the NBA, LeBron James, Chris Paul, from one of the minority owners. And minority owners, meaning they know they own a share that is not a controlling share.
Really negative reaction, saying, look, this guy, you know, like, you can't. That's. That's not enough for creating 20 years of a hostile place like this where people are breaking down, working there and stuff like this. And so it was something I wanted to discuss with you because I thought the issue of, like, forget about the basketball part of it, but just the issue of a owner of something or someone who owns a controlling amount of a business and him being the one that's a terror. Because the point raised by the minority owner of the Suns is like, any executive, Any. Any. Anyone in any business that did this would not be able to continue in a role where they are controlling the business. This guy's just getting suspended for a year, and then he's back in charge. And so what were your thoughts on how the NBA handled this? Because the NBA acknowledged, like, you can't just take somebody's property away because they're a jerk, you know, because they do all this mean stuff. And so what was your thought on how they handled it? And also just kind of the blowback, did you think things were appropriate? Misguided? What were your thoughts on it?
[00:48:19] Speaker B: I don't know. I mean, I don't know what to say about any of these kind of topics, to be honest with you. And I say that honestly, meaning clearly, you know. Yeah, I don't think it's good.
[00:48:28] Speaker A: Tune out once I heard that.
[00:48:29] Speaker B: No, no. I'm just saying that because, I mean, obviously, you know, having people work in a hostile environment, I'm sure is not welcome. I wouldn't want to work in an environment like that. I wouldn't want to own a business and treat people like that, all that. So from that standpoint, I, like, I get it. You know, it sucks. You know, the guy used the N word five times in 18 years. Big deal. You know, like, my point is, is that I don't know what to say about all that. Right. What I am saying is that it's interesting because you're right. Would another person be allowed to hold their business? Yeah, I mean, I guess it depends what industry. You're right. You own a little real estate company and there's a lot of little small business owners that are little dictators, you know, and that's, I think, is the.
[00:49:08] Speaker A: Issue is that if this was a corporate executive of a publicly traded company.
[00:49:13] Speaker B: Yeah, that's a different story. Maybe.
[00:49:14] Speaker A: But when. What happens when the person who's doing bad stuff actually is a controlling owner? Like, not just.
[00:49:21] Speaker B: I don't know. I mean, that's the point. Like, look, I'm thinking of. Okay, Harvey Weinstein obviously was taken out of his company, but he was found to commit crimes that were prosecuted by the law. So if this guy gets found to be a criminal, that's a different story. Right now, there doesn't seem to be anything criminal.
[00:49:39] Speaker A: Just seems like he's actually the criminal stuff. There is. There have been many attorneys that have weighed in and that from the report, the initial ESPN report and then also the report, there is definitely been word that there's culpability, particularly under, like, the discrimination statutes. But it's all statute of limitation stuff. Like all the stuff where he was in violation of the law.
[00:50:00] Speaker B: I mean, that's what I'm saying. Like that.
[00:50:01] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:50:02] Speaker B: All right, so that's, you know, how many people do we know that have, you know, they've outdone the statute and who knows what the reality is anymore? So that's life, man. I mean, I don't. I don't. Again, that's why I say. I don't really know how to respond to it because it just seems like one of these things that is not comfortable. You know, no one likes being around a dick. Right. To put it a better way. But then at the end of the day, in our country, private ownership, he owns something, a business. He's got employees they can leave if they want. You know, they can sue them if they want in real time and not. It was something so long ago that it's not a statute. You know, that it.
[00:50:36] Speaker A: You've waited too long for the court.
[00:50:37] Speaker B: Yeah, that's what I mean. So it's like those kind of arguments, right? Like, if you were harassed or you thought the guy was being racist and discriminating, then why don't you bring it up in a serious way to the NBA, HR or somewhere else? And that's all I'm saying is that's why I don't know how to address these things because everyone can be upset. But at the end of the day, and this is one of those weird things where sports leagues, it's a very unique thing, right? Like the commissioner of the league can't fire them. The owners. It's like a partnership. The 30 owners would have to. Or the other 29 would have to fire. They're probably not going to. It would.
[00:51:06] Speaker A: Well, because that would open them all up. Because he would sue them and then. And for him to be. Or forced to be sell, it would have to be. 75% of the NBA owners would have to vote.
[00:51:16] Speaker B: This is where to me the people gotta march with their feet. If they don't want to do it, just leave. Find a job at another league. Sorry, not league, but another team. Like have that kind of balls or stay one or the other.
[00:51:25] Speaker A: Well, or. I mean, ideally, you wouldn't want people to raise the complaint at a timely. In a timely fashion. I mean, I think that too. That comes back a lot of times when, you know, when it's like, okay, yeah, people did something, it's 15 years ago, it's five years ago, it's 10 years ago, you know, it's whatever. And so it's. It's difficult. As you said, it creates. Because there can be no legal culpability at that point because the law says you have to. If you want to raise a certain type of claim, you have to raise it within a certain amount of time. It creates that. Now, I think this is distinguishable though, from a. If somebody owns a construction business and it's just their business and they treat people poorly and stuff like that. This is different than anything like that because there is a collective aspect to the NBA because these things represent cities or states or whatever. I do think that there is an argument to hold this guy to a standard where he can be forced out. Donald Sterling, who was the owner of the Los Angeles Clippers, pressure was put on him when he was. Now he was caught on tape. That's always the.
[00:52:17] Speaker B: You told me that him and Ray Rice got the bad luck of being caught on tape.
[00:52:20] Speaker A: You caught on tape, they'll get you out the paint, you know, like that's for sure. When it's just he said, she said. Even if the she said is very, you know, like corroborated and everything, you need the tape. And so but even like if you look at. In the NFL, the Carolina Panthers, their owner was forced out recently for similar stuff like that. This sexual harassment stuff like that. And they forced him to sell. They didn't take the vote or anything like that, but they used internal pressure to be a look dude. And he was old too, though, so I mean, like that there's more to it than that. But it happens with these sports leagues where they say, look, there was, there's a stewardship involved here where you, you can't just. You, you could do that if you own some local construction company. And yeah, people can leave if they don't want to work for you or whatever, but when you're in a position like this and a pro life profile like this, there's a higher standard. And so I think there's an argument at least that more pressure should have been put on him internally to force them to sell. My personal take though, is that at minimum, I do think that now the NBA can, does have the power, the commissioner does have the power to just say, look, you can't be the head guy in charge anymore. You can still own your same percentage, but somebody else. And while he's suspended, they have to. They have an alternate person. They call them governors in the NBA. They got an alternate person who's going to run the show for a year. And in my opinion, that's what should have happened here is like, look, if you've demonstrated over that long and we've corroborated it with our own findings from a law firm we hired, we being the NBA, then you just can't be the top dog anymore. You can own it, you can make money on it, everything like that, but you can't be the head decision maker. And I think that would have been a fair way to go about it because again, it wasn't one incidence or something like that. It was something that was corroborated to the degree. And again, I don't think the N word stuff was the big stuff there. That might have been the stuff that got headlines, but there were numerous, numerous things of sexual harassment and just kind of crazy behavior. That is the type of thing that the NBA itself could say. We can't have somebody who's in a position of power representing us being like that.
[00:54:09] Speaker B: Yeah, yeah. No, that's why to me, that's why these type of topics, I, it is, I'm very neutral on them because like, I get it, you know, we all can be uncomfortable from something and not like the way a person behaves. But again, I don't know from a legal aspect on something like this, like you said, unless you, unless there's some sort of thing that can be a crime or some sort of, you know, violation of some law and it's not reported in a timely manner, then I don't know what you even.
[00:54:36] Speaker A: It's crimes though. It's still internal pressure that forces these guys out. It's not that the crime disqualifies you or whatever. It's like, all right, well then internal pressure. And actually, the Donald Sterling thing was a little different because actually his wife had him declared incompetent and then she sold the team out from under his. Under his. You know, under his nose.
[00:54:52] Speaker B: Well, like you said, he was older. And I think. Because it was caught on tape and the way. Because remember that. I think. I think this is where these dynamics just make it a bit more interesting.
[00:55:00] Speaker A: Which is there's more public pressure caught.
[00:55:02] Speaker B: On tape, but it's also about the optics of it, right? You've got a white billionaire owner of a team who is talking disparagingly about blacks and a league where 85% of the employees are black and where a lot of fans are black. So that's what makes it, again, messy, where it's like, okay, from a legal aspect, none of that means anything, right? But just from like you're saying about the league itself, the fact that, you know, the teams representing a city or something, it's more of a public thing.
[00:55:29] Speaker A: The mayor of Phoenix has come out and said this is unacceptable and stuff like that.
[00:55:33] Speaker B: So it just forces everyone to look at it different, and it just makes it interesting to me. But again, what do you do?
[00:55:39] Speaker A: I think the analog, though, is what the NFL did with the Carolina Panthers, where their owner, like I said, there were allegations that came out on this. The NFL kind of. They didn't go through the whole public. Oh, we'll do the investigation and all. Like, they kind of quietly investigated what happened. And then next thing you know, this guy's selling, and I mean, he's selling for billions of dollars, you know, so it's not like it's a true l. And so again, I'm not going. I'm not one to go as far as to say that you force people to sell property because they've behaved in ways that either are, you know, unmore immoral or even illegal, like, you know, property rights or property rights to some degree. But there is. The NBA has an interest here as well, you know, in terms of who represents them. And I think that they need to be very careful in terms of how they allow that to go, because they. Ownership is one thing. Ownership and being able to be the number one executive in the building are. Can be separated. You know, like, those aren't. Those don't have to go together from the NBA standpoint. So. But I think we can wrap from here man. It's interesting topic, though, because like I said, the issue of ownership overlaps in with, you know, behavior and who can hold you accountable if you're an owner. And most cases, like you pointed out, if you're a small business owner, there's not really many people that can hold you accountable. I mean, like, you, you can get sued, you know, the courts can, but people can't just show up and say, hey, you gotta go, you know, type of thing. But the NBA issue, and like the NFL has shown and the NBA has shown in the past, it's a little bit different as far as how, how much unilateral control you do have if you're an owner. So. But I think. But yeah, I think we can wrap from there. Subscribe to the podcast, rate it, review us, tell us what you think, and until next time, I'm James Keys T. Lana. All right, we'll talk to you next time.
