04-11-25 - *FULL SHOW* Bennet's In; Cool Job; Now THAT's Complicated; Withhold This

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
We got a couple of interesting guests, a lot of
interesting topics. Congressman Jeff Crank is going to join the
show in half an hour or so, so we'll start
with one of the headlines here and you heard Pat
Wood are talking about it right now, and we might
come back to this a little bit later in the show.

Speaker 2 (00:13):
After our own.

Speaker 1 (00:16):
Rob Dawson from the KAA Newsdesk goes to the Michael
Bennett event a little bit later.

Speaker 2 (00:21):
But it's going to be.

Speaker 1 (00:22):
Somewhat anticlimactic because yesterday it was announced that Michael Bennett
is going to make an announcement today and people are
thinking it probably means he's going to run for governor.
And then over the course of this morning, there are
all these news stories, including and not just news stories,
there's a video from Michael Bennett like I'm running for governor.
Actually I just embedded that on my blog in case

(00:43):
you want to see it. I didn't watch it, but
in any case, Michael Bennett is running for governor. All
that news is kind of out already, so I have
a feeling the official announcement this morning that he's running
is going to be somewhat of an anti climax. I'm
not going to talk about it very much right now.
I'll just say two points and then we'll come back
to it later in the show. One is I suspect

(01:05):
that if Michael Bennett is running, he is running, that
no other big name is going to get into the
race most likely, And I suspect that, Or how about
this if you had put this question to me before
we knew that he was running, ross, what would happen
if Michael Bennett decided to run for governor? My answer

(01:28):
to you, without hesitation, would be, then Michael Bennett will
be governor.

Speaker 2 (01:33):
That's what I think.

Speaker 1 (01:34):
So, and I don't know that there's that much difference
in policy between Michael Bennett and whoever else would.

Speaker 2 (01:39):
Be running on the Democratic side for governor.

Speaker 1 (01:41):
So they're all kind of center left or maybe a
little bit more left than that, especially with Jenna Griswold
not running for governor. The craziest person is actually not
running for governor. So then the question for me, the
most interesting question for me is who will be the
next Senator? And I'm unclear. I think Jared Polus will

(02:03):
appoint the next senator. I don't think Michael Bennett, even
if he becomes governor. I think Jared Polus will end
up appointing the next Senator between the time of the
election and the time of the swearing in of the
next governor. So I think Polus will appoint somebody, I guess.
Mike Dino was on Colorado's Morning News this morning saying
he thought it would be a woman. I don't know

(02:26):
what woman that would be, other than Britney Peterson. And
I had Britney Peterson on the show for the first
time ever just this week, just two days ago.

Speaker 2 (02:35):
And I just you know, she seems like a nice enough.

Speaker 1 (02:39):
Person, and she certainly believes what what you need to
be what you.

Speaker 2 (02:43):
Need to believe to be a Democrat these days.

Speaker 1 (02:45):
But I, I don't know, it's very hard for me
to picture her as a senator.

Speaker 2 (02:50):
Not impossible, you know.

Speaker 1 (02:51):
But anyway, Okay, I'll come back to that. I'll come
back to this a little bit later on. So I
mentioned to you the other day that Governor Polus received
ninety five thousand signed petitions and mostly you know, electronics,
you collect them online. It's not actually ninety five thousand
pieces of paper, but you know, ninety five thousand signatures

(03:13):
one way or another opposing Senate Bill three. And what
I told you on the show is that he won't
care and that he is going to sign Senate Bill three.
And yesterday he did sign Senate Bill three, with these
sort of giddy, happy, clownish democrats standing around him who
have never held a gun in their lives, most of them,

(03:34):
and just the word firearm or pistol or rifle or
gun scares the Bejesus out of them.

Speaker 2 (03:41):
But Governor Polus signed as.

Speaker 1 (03:43):
The Colorado Sun put it one of the most restrictive
gun regulations ever adopted in this state.

Speaker 2 (03:50):
It's not just one of the most, I think it's
the most. And it.

Speaker 1 (03:56):
Applies to a certain category of firearm, although just how
broadly it app may end up being tested in court.
It clearly applies to almost all semi automatic rifles, any
rifle with a detachable magazine, which is most of the
most popular rifles sold these days, except for very high

(04:20):
accuracy rifles that you might use for hunting, right.

Speaker 2 (04:23):
The AR fifteen kind of stuff.

Speaker 1 (04:25):
Yes, people do hunt with them, but they are not
really as accurate at distance as a single shot bolt
action rifle would be. In any case, the most popular
rifles the AR fifteens, the AK forty sevens, and other
such things will now be heavily restricted. I think you
know the details of this already, but the short version

(04:47):
is that we're going to just ban them now. What
they're saying is, if you take the proper classes, you
can get permission to buy one the sheriff, your county sheriff.
Actually it has to give you permission to take the class,
and the sheriff can deny that permission if he believes,

(05:07):
based on your past behavior, that you might be up
to no good. So that'll be an interesting thing too.
So anyway that we're going to just ban it now.
It does actually ban the manufacture of this stuff in Colorado.
I have not looked into whether it means that an
individual cannot buy parts with which you can build your

(05:29):
own semi automatic rifle with a detachable magazine. I have
built one. In fact, it's one of my favorite guns
to shoot. It's incredibly good. My home built AR fifteen,
it's fabulous. I don't know, and I will research whether
this law would restrict my ability to build that myself.
And I will just say for the record, I will

(05:51):
say this in public. If the law says that I
cannot build my own AR fifteen typele with a detachable magazine,
I almost certainly will be breaking that law. I don't
have plans to go build one right now, but I
have a lot of the parts already.

Speaker 2 (06:10):
I built one already. It's really fun.

Speaker 1 (06:14):
And if I decide I want to build another one,
I promise you I will build it no matter what
this law says. Again, I'm not planning on doing that
right now, but the law won't stop me. Governor Polus
signed this thing, and I will say here, I believe
that Governor Polus really believes that forcing people to take

(06:37):
gun safety classes is a great thing, a useful thing,
a valuable thing. And you know what, I think that
taking a gun safety class is a great idea. I
don't think it should be forced on you by the
government as a condition of exercising a constitutional right. I

(06:59):
think if you're to have a firearm, it's a decent
idea to know what to do with it, to know
how to use it. I think everybody who owns a
gun should have a little bit of basic instruction. Unless
you grew up with a parent who was very expert
in guns and who trained you from the time you
were young and you really know what you're doing, because
there are a lot of people who know what they're
doing without ever actually having had to take a class.

(07:21):
But if you're a suburban person who never owned a
gun before, or maybe you had one when you were young, it.

Speaker 2 (07:26):
Makes sense take a class.

Speaker 1 (07:27):
That's not the same as saying it's okay to force
you to take it. But I believe that Governor Polis
believes it's such a manifestly enormous good for people to
take classes that he's willing to force them to do it,
and he believes it doesn't violate the Second Amendment. I
think he's wrong about both of those things. That said,
if you were to ask me to bet on how
this thing ends up in court, it will go to court.

(07:50):
I think it's fifty to fifty at best that a
federal court overturns it. I think the best we could
hope for actually is that is that, let's say, the
Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals where this thing would go,
overturns it, and then the Supreme Court refuses to hear it,
leaving the leaving the Appeals Court opinion in place. I
think that's the best possible outcome, but we'll see. I

(08:11):
really like PS Audio. It's a they're based in Boulder.
I've been up there. I've been to their listening room. Anyway,
Jim just got some new speakers. He has been texting
me about it over the past couple of days, and
he just texted me a moment ago saying, Ross, I'm
listening to you on my new speakers instead of listening
to music. I guess I'm committed to your talk show.

Speaker 3 (08:28):
Now.

Speaker 1 (08:29):
I will say that, even though I have a very lovely,
rich voice talk radio, your speakers are overkill in terms
of quality for talk radio. But I appreciate it, and
you should keep listening for sure. Let me, you know what,
let me just take a couple minutes on some listener texts. Right,

(08:54):
could Jared poll Us select himself for the US Senate?

Speaker 2 (08:57):
Yes, he could. I think he won't.

Speaker 1 (09:00):
I think Governor Polis has no interest in ever being
a legislator again, I think he likes being an executive.
And although he has never said he's running for president,
and he made very clear when I asked him a
couple of years back, or actually now a year ago,
are you running for president?

Speaker 2 (09:15):
And he said.

Speaker 1 (09:16):
The short version is he said not while my kids
are young. Right, So he didn't say never, but he
said not while I have young kids.

Speaker 2 (09:23):
So you know, I don't know what young.

Speaker 1 (09:26):
Means to him, but I wouldn't rule out Jared Polus
running for president in twenty twenty eight. I don't know,
but I don't think he would. I don't think he
would want to be a senator. I think you could say,
do you want this job right now? You can just
go become a senator right now. I think he'd say no.
I think he doesn't. I think he doesn't want it.

Speaker 2 (09:45):
Senator. What about Senator to Get.

Speaker 1 (09:48):
The reason I think no for Senator to get is
that Senator to Get is kind of old. Let me
look up how old she is, Diana to Get age
sixty seven.

Speaker 2 (10:01):
All right, that's not that old.

Speaker 1 (10:03):
But just like with Supreme Court nominations, typically if a
governor who's not going to be governor forever is going
to appoint someone to the Senate unless there's a very
specific reason to do something different. Generally, these people are
going to want to appoint someone who's.

Speaker 2 (10:23):
Gonna be there a while. Right.

Speaker 1 (10:24):
That's why you don't have presidents appointing sixty five year
olds to the Supreme Court. They want someone who's you know,
they're gonna look for a fifty five year old or
a fifty year old. They're gonna look for someone who's
going to be there thirty years, not ten years, because
they want to have that ongoing influence, right that feel

(10:47):
like they left their mark.

Speaker 2 (10:49):
Ross.

Speaker 1 (10:49):
Is there a list of band guns from Senate Bill three?
I'm curious about the rugrim Many fourteen. There is not
a list of banned guns because the list would be
too long. And I'm not saying that out of sarcasm.
The list would simply be too long. You just have
to read the characteristics and it is so broad. Like

(11:09):
I said, basically, any rifle with a with a magazine,
with a detachable magazine is basically going to be de banned.
And on the pistol side, it's gonna be tricky because
they're talking about gas powered cycling, and there's some argument
that most pistols are you know, more like spring powered,

(11:30):
but still it does use the gas.

Speaker 2 (11:32):
So I bet you that there will be.

Speaker 1 (11:34):
People on the anti gun side who sue to say
that the law actually blocks a lot more pistols than
the drafters of the law have claimed. When does the
law go into effect? August of twenty twenty six. August
of twenty twenty six is when that goes When that

(11:56):
goes into effect?

Speaker 2 (11:58):
H what else? What else? Do want it? Ross? It
sounds like you're defending Polis.

Speaker 3 (12:02):
I'm not.

Speaker 1 (12:02):
I'm not sure. Oh as far as like why he
signed the thing. No, I'm not defending Polis. I'm explaining Polis.
And there's a very big difference, and I wish, I
wish more people would be very clear about that. Right,
just because I come out and say this is why
Polus did this thing and that thing doesn't mean I'm
in favor of it. In fact, given that you know

(12:24):
that Polus and I are friends, it might be reasonable
for you to suspect that Polis and I have talked
about this privately. And it might also be reasonable for
you to suspect that I'm not going to disclose any
important details in my private conversations on the air. But
when I say to you that Polus really believes that

(12:45):
having people take gun safety classes is a good idea,
well you might wonder why I'm so confident in saying that.
And then you might take a guess as to why. Oh,
here's another thing it's important to note. Actually, we just
mentioned this quickly, and we're gonna have Jeff Crank on
the show in the next segment of the show. This
does not have any impact at all. This particular law

(13:10):
does not have any impact at all on guns that
are already owned. So, for example, if you already owned
one of these guns that are you know, halfway banned,
you do not need to go do all the things
that you would be required to do to buy one

(13:31):
in order to maintain ownership of one. It is fully
grandfathered in. Again, I am not sure about the Mini fourteen.
It might depend on how they say the Mini fourteen operates.
I'll have to research that a little bit more. But anyway, Oh,
is there a provision about handing down my guns to
family That's a good question.

Speaker 2 (13:52):
I don't know.

Speaker 1 (13:54):
I mean, in the worst case, your family members would
have to take this, you know, take.

Speaker 2 (14:02):
These classes. But one thing you might look into.

Speaker 1 (14:05):
You might talk with a Second Amendment lawyer and look
into getting a firearms trust and perhaps you can put
your firearms in a trust.

Speaker 2 (14:12):
This is what I do with my suppressors.

Speaker 1 (14:14):
But you could potentially put your firearms in a trust
with family members in such a way that when you
pass away, the stuff automatically goes and they will already
have been beneficially owners and none of this stuff will matter.

Speaker 2 (14:28):
I am not an expert on that.

Speaker 1 (14:30):
I will, by the way, try to find out an
answer on the Rugrim Mini fifteen just because I'm interested.
We'll be back with Jeff Crank and other stuff. Keep
it here on KOA. I actually went to the Avs
game last night. I didn't realize it was the last
home game of the season. It was the last home
game of the season for the Abs, and they most
of their big stars didn't play or didn't play much.
Cal mccarr played a fair bit and we lost four

(14:51):
to one. But it was still really fun, really fun
to go to the game. And I'm looking forward to
a great playoffs for the Avalanche.

Speaker 2 (14:59):
Oh, let me ask you a quot question. Dragon sent
me a story.

Speaker 1 (15:02):
And uh, and I'm gonna ask Shannon this question, and
I'm gonna ask you this question and then I'll kind
of share your answers over the course of the show.

Speaker 2 (15:10):
But there was this there was this piece in the
New York Post.

Speaker 1 (15:13):
I think it was about a phone battery panic number
and basically, what is what at what percentage phone of
your phone battery? Do you start feeling nervous like, oh
I better get this on a charger, like you get nervous,
what what is that number for you? And the second
because they did a whole poll on this, and the

(15:33):
secondary question that came up is are you the kind
of person who in your battery display, like how much
battery is left? Do you just show the bar or
does it also show the number so you know exactly
to the percent how much battery you have left? So
for for me, my my phone battery panic number, Actually,

(15:57):
I'm not even gonna tell you yet because I don't
want to buyas your response, I want you to text
me at five six six nine zero and tell me
your phone battery panic number. You know the number at
which you start thinking, oh, I better really get this
on a charger.

Speaker 2 (16:09):
I would like to know that from you.

Speaker 1 (16:13):
So I'm gonna mention one other thing and then we're
gonna get to my guest.

Speaker 2 (16:17):
And I'm not gonna do this in detail.

Speaker 1 (16:19):
Mostly I just want to I just want to point
you to the blog.

Speaker 2 (16:22):
I'll just share a little brief bit of this.

Speaker 1 (16:24):
A listener had sent me a note a week and
a half or so ago about a story that I
didn't see, and it's about a watch. It's about a wristwatch,
and the headline this is from CNN, but a lot
of places have the story World's most complicated wristwatch unveiled.
It's a one of a kind watch made by Vacheron Constantine.

Speaker 2 (16:44):
That's the company, that's not the person who made it.

Speaker 1 (16:45):
I'm sure Vacheron was a was an actual person, or
maybe that's two people's names, but that's an old company.

Speaker 2 (16:51):
So they're long dead.

Speaker 1 (16:52):
One watchmaker made this over the course of eight years.
It has fifteen one and twenty one separate components, and
on the watch face it shows you the regular time
this sidereal time, which is the Earth spinning on its axis.

(17:12):
It shows you the solar day, which is adjusted for
the Earth's elliptical orbit. It tells you the Sun's position, height, trajectory,
and angle. It tells you just an insane number of things.
This watch face tells you, and it's basically a normal
size watch.

Speaker 2 (17:30):
Just a little bit a little bit.

Speaker 1 (17:33):
It tells you when certain stars will be visible from Earth.
This is just one of the most incredible engineering feats
of all time. There's only one apparently, there is no
price on it, and I've posted an article about it
and the link at the watchmaker's website.

Speaker 2 (17:52):
Actually I posted two articles about it.

Speaker 1 (17:54):
So if you're into watches at all, or just a
nerd who loves incredible engineer, just go over to my
blog at Rosscominsky dot com and take a look at
this piece. All right, let's do something very different. I
am very pleased to welcome back to the show tall Jeff,

(18:14):
Jeff Senior, Jeff the Great, whichever he's going by today.

Speaker 2 (18:21):
That is, of course, Jeff Crank, who.

Speaker 1 (18:24):
Represents Colorado's fifth congressional district in Congress republican friend of
mine for twenty years and constantly making jokes about the
other Jeff being Jeff heard in Congress. Jeff Crank, welcome back.
It's good to talk to you, and thanks for doing
this on short notice.

Speaker 4 (18:39):
Well, thanks, Ross, I appreciate it. First of all, that
watch sounds like something that the federal government might have
made if they only needed a watch that told time.

Speaker 1 (18:49):
Heck, just so you know, right, that's right, eight years,
probably probably ten million dollars in development costs and all
you needed was a seventeen dollars digital time X.

Speaker 3 (19:03):
That's all I need to say.

Speaker 2 (19:05):
That's really funny. That is okay.

Speaker 1 (19:08):
So I want to talk to you a little bit
about the federal budget. And you know, there have been
other things going on in the news that have been
taking up a lot of the oxygen. But in the
long run, right, there's all this terrast stuff going on
that'll sort itself out one way or another. In the
long run, this country faces no bigger problem than our
federal debt. So you guys just voted to not on

(19:29):
a budget, but to sort of begin the process of
doing a budget or something like that.

Speaker 2 (19:34):
Could you please explain that.

Speaker 4 (19:36):
Yeah, so, you know, to get started on this whole
reconciliation process, the President calls it the one big beautiful bill.
To get started on that, we've got to have a
budget resolution that gives instructions to each of the committees
and says, you know, the Ways and Means Committee needs
to go find this amount of savings or spending. You know,

(19:58):
the Commerce a Minie Energy and Commerce Committee needs to
go find you know, eight hundred million dollars in savings
that sort of thing. But this is what that resolution does.
So it really starts the Congress doing its work to
try and figure out where we're going to go find
the savings in government. And so the House passed its

(20:21):
version of this, you know, I guess about a month
ago or more, and the Senate, typical Senate kind of
sat and didn't do much. And you know, they and
I give them this, they were, you know, doing confirmations
and things like that, but you know, you've got to
be able to walk in chew gum at the same time.
And so the Senate just really didn't push the reconciliation process.

(20:43):
And then sort of at the very end, they said, well,
we want all the tax cuts, but we don't really
want the spending cuts. And so they.

Speaker 3 (20:49):
Put about four billion.

Speaker 4 (20:52):
Dollars of spending cuts in the budget over ten years.
So that's like four billion out of eighty six trillion
dollars of spending over the next ten years. They only
wanted to cut four billion, which we spend essentially in
less than a day in the United States. So they

(21:14):
came in with no cuts. The House bill had over
a trillion in cuts, and so we've got to figure
that out. But we can't start figuring that out until
we start working on the process. And so that's what
this budget resolution does is get us going to start
looking for those cuts and getting a budget resolution bill

(21:34):
on the floor.

Speaker 3 (21:36):
By by May sometime. We've got to get this done.

Speaker 1 (21:39):
So give me a little behind the scenes here, you know.
So I want folks to understand the inner game of
politics a little bit. So the Freedom Caucus, by the way,
are you a member or no?

Speaker 4 (21:50):
I'm not a member of the Freedom Caucus.

Speaker 1 (21:51):
Okay, So the Freedom Caucus has a bunch of you know,
hardcore conservatives, fiscal conservatives, which Jeff is, by the way,
a fiscal conservative. Weather or not he's a member of
the Freedom Caucus. Jeff is a legit fiscal conservative, which
is part of the reason I supported him so strongly
for Congress. So there are a bunch of fiscal conservatives
who rightly have some concerns about whether the Senate will

(22:16):
be aggressive enough in cutting spending. And it seemed like
about twenty fifteen to twenty of those people were saying
they were going to vote vote no on this thing,
even though this isn't the actual budget. It's just a
thing to start the process, and then it sounded kind
of like Donald Trump made some phone calls and it
only ended up with two votes against. I think I

(22:37):
guessing one of them was Massy. I don't know the other,
but you know, can you tell me what it was?

Speaker 2 (22:42):
What? And I'm guessing you weren't one of those ones
who said that you were going to vote against it.

Speaker 4 (22:47):
Well, I wasn't one that said I would vote against it,
but I certainly shared the same concerns.

Speaker 2 (22:52):
Yeah, me too.

Speaker 4 (22:52):
Most of us shared that, Like if you're a deficit
hawk and I'm a deficit.

Speaker 2 (22:56):
Hawk, yep, right, I mean me too.

Speaker 3 (22:59):
You've got to be.

Speaker 4 (23:00):
And so I looked at it as and I basically said, look,
all vote for the bill to get us started on
the process. But I've made it very clear to the leadership.
I'm not voting for a bill that doesn't reduce the
deficit in some way over the next ten years. So
if they come back and we're spending more.

Speaker 3 (23:19):
I I just can't.

Speaker 4 (23:20):
I can't do that, right, So I'm where they are.

Speaker 3 (23:24):
We've got to do a better job.

Speaker 4 (23:26):
And you know, I think the disagreement was many people.

Speaker 3 (23:29):
There thought, well, if we don't do it now.

Speaker 4 (23:32):
We have no leverage with the Senate. I just said, look,
we got to get the process started. The House bill
A was a pretty good bill. Let's let's get this
thing going. And again, if it doesn't have enough spending
cuts in it, at the end of the day, I'm
not going to support it.

Speaker 1 (23:48):
So even though you haven't been in Congress very long,
you've been around long enough. And by the way, for
folks who don't know, Jeff Crank is actually a talk
show host for quite some time and down in Colorado spring, So, Jeff,
you are well aware that a lot of budget gimmicks
are played. And one thing that kind of caused the
hair on my neck to stand up a little bit
was when you said cutting the budget deficit over a decade.

Speaker 2 (24:11):
And I don't mean that was tricky wording by you.

Speaker 1 (24:14):
I'm just I want to I want to make sure
you and I are on the same page and find
out how you're thinking about the fact that a lot
of times these guys will go through and say, you know,
we're gonna spend a bunch of money in years one
through five, but we promised we're gonna cut the deficit
in years six through ten, so they'll give you a
ten year plan that looks like it cuts the deficit,
but it doesn't actually do anything right away. And I

(24:36):
assume you are not going to let them. If it
were up to you, at least you would not let
them get away with that.

Speaker 4 (24:41):
No, that's right. I mean, look, we have to look
at this, and you know, the last is lying about
what's being considered. I mean, they're thrown it out there
that you know, there's going to be cuts to Medicare
and Medicaid and Social Security and all of these things.
And you know, first and foremost President Trump has said
he won't mess with doing anything with Social Security or Medicare,

(25:03):
so that's off the table, which makes it kind of
hard honestly if you're not finding savings there. And by
the way, savings don't mean cuts, right, you can run
something more efficiently without even cutting services.

Speaker 3 (25:16):
But leave that aed as it may.

Speaker 4 (25:18):
The President's already said we're not gonna he's not going
to touch Medicare or Social Security. So the left is
lying about that, But they're also lying about the cuts
to Medicaid that are coming. These are waste, fraud and abuse.
There are things like you know, putting in work requirements,
and if you're going to get free health care from
the federal government, you should work if you're able bodied.

(25:39):
It isn't if you're not able bodied, then there won't
be a work requirement. But that's just a common sense
solution getting people who are illegal illegally. Here in the
state of Colorado, you can be on Medicaid for up
to ninety days without proof of citizenship.

Speaker 3 (25:57):
Shouldn't we close that loop?

Speaker 4 (25:58):
Popo's people are stealing benefits from people who actually are
deserving of Medicaid benefits. So you know, those are the
kind of reforms that we're talking about doing. They're going
to be upfront in the bill. They're going to start immediately,
and we have to get that now. Is it, at
the end of the day going to be what I
would do? No, I want the Federal Department of Education gone.

(26:21):
I've sponsored legislation to eliminated I've sponsored legislation to completely
eliminate the ATF. I want to get rid of the
National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for
Democracy and the Department of Commerce and all kinds of things.
But it's not going to be that because I don't
think we've got the votes to get that right now.

(26:42):
But it's got to be some spending cuts, and we've
got to start moving the spending curve downward here for
the federal government. And it can't be, as you say,
loaded in the out years so that we can come
back in two years and change it. All right, we
have to do it. We have to do it now.

Speaker 1 (27:00):
So I agree with everything you said, but I'd like
to add a question.

Speaker 2 (27:03):
So I think again, you've you know.

Speaker 1 (27:07):
These issues because of what you used to do and
how and how involved you've been in all this stuff,
much much better than your average freshman member of Congress.

Speaker 2 (27:16):
And you know that. It's like the.

Speaker 1 (27:20):
Perhaps apocryphal statement from Willie Sutton about why he robbed
banks because that's where the money is. If you really
want to save the federal budget, you're going to have
to go after entitlements, right And I don't mean destroy
them or privatize Social Security, even though I would privatize
Social Security. But you're going to have to do something now.
Trump doesn't seem to have any interest in that. Do

(27:41):
you think there's anything that can be done? Nibbling around
the edge. Is you did mention a couple of things
with medicaid do you think there's anything more that can
be done to get to really where the money is.

Speaker 4 (27:54):
Well? And I mean you talked about it, but I mean,
are we good? The question is are we going to
save those programs because they're going bankrupt? Yeah, right, And
that's the thing that nobody wants to talk about. Social
Security will be insolvent in you know, not very many
years if we don't make changes to the program itself.

(28:15):
That doesn't mean that we're you know, taking away people's
social security or whatever. The problem is it's been so
politicized every time somebody tries to do the right thing
and make Social Security solvent. You know, you have someone
on the left, particularly running ads in that they're throwing
gram off the cliffs, right, And so we've got to

(28:36):
get to those savings, and we're not going to get
to them right now because the President said in reconciliation, well,
in the reconciliation process, by the way, you can't touch
social Security by law. So we can't do anything with
regard to Social Security in reconciliation. But I would hope
that we would look at ways to find savings. And

(28:56):
that means waste, fraud, and abuse number one, And it
I mean doing things like changing retirement age for future recipient.

Speaker 2 (29:04):
Hello lujah.

Speaker 3 (29:05):
Yeah, that will make.

Speaker 4 (29:06):
It more a solvent down the road. And we've got
to do those things or else we're gonna you know,
we're gonna have to do them at some point. The
question is are we going to do them now when
it's less painful, or are we going to wait until
we're at the edge of that Fisco cliff and we
have to do it then because it's going to be
much more painful.

Speaker 1 (29:25):
Well, you know what Congress normally does, right, And I mean,
this is not my idea, but it seems like such
an easy idea. Raise the retirement age by one month
every year for I don't know, twenty four, thirty six
years or two months. Raise the retirement age by by
two months every year for a while. And it's very general,

(29:50):
it's very gradual. It won't make an important impact on anybody.
And you can save those programs with little things like that.
Switch gears with you, Jeff, And we just have a
couple of minutes left together. So this morning, the consumer
sentiment numbers came out from the University of Michigan. They
are the second it's the second lowest reading on consumer

(30:13):
sentiment since nineteen fifty two, and this is people are
very and the highest inflation expectations by the public in
a long time. This, of course is coming from tariffs
and trade war and stuff. And I'm not going to
ask you to comment on what you think about all
that in a direct way. But little Jeff Junior, Jeff

(30:38):
the other Jeff has been pretty aggressively on record, did
an interview with The Washington Post that I just saw
working on a bipartisan basis, although it's not a very
large group at this point, on something that might bring
the tariff power back to Congress, where the Constitution says
it is.

Speaker 2 (30:56):
Anyway, how do you feel about that?

Speaker 4 (31:00):
Well, I mean, let me talk just generally about the
whole tariff situation. I mean, I think you know me
well enough to know we've known each other long enough
to know. Look, I believe tariffs are tax increases, right
because ultimately it is the American consumer who pays the tariff,
and so you know, overall, I'm not a tariff guy. Now,

(31:20):
has this president been pretty adept at using the threat
of tariffs to get people to come in and negotiate
a better either trade agreement or immigration deal. You know,
we saw it when it was a Columbia that wouldn't take,
you know, take citizens back who were here illegally, and
he said, okay, well we'll just slap a two hundred

(31:41):
percent tariff on you and we'll see how that feels.
And like the next day they were having flights coming in.
I think to use it like that, it's not that
you know, that's probably pretty good, right, And I think
the president when he does it that way, I don't
have a problem with using the threat of tariffs. It's

(32:03):
a tool that the president can use, and to be honest,
he can't use it if everybody knows that it's a blufs, right,
And I think that's kind of been the secret to
Donald Trump, as people don't think he's bussing on this stuff.
And so the fact that he did what he did
the other day proves that he's not bluffing. But to
leave tariffs in place are a tax increase on the

(32:25):
on the American people. So there you go. So that's
what I think now talking about the Article one stuff. Look,
there's all kinds of areas, whether it is tariffs, whether
it is the bureaucracy it's these rules, the rulemaking authority.
Congress has done a terrible job of keeping its authority,

(32:46):
and at the same time Article two powers of the
president have expanded, and the president's been been great. Not
this president. I'm saying all presidents over the last fifty
years have expanded their power, their Article I powers and
gone out and created a very powerful executive branch. So

(33:07):
I think Congress does have to go back and pull
some of that power back. And you know, there are
ways we're doing that right now. We're pulling back with
some of these cras that we're doing, where we're literally
going in with some of the things that Biden did.
We're doing resolutions that essentially disapprove of them, the rulemaking

(33:29):
that was done under the Biden administration, and we're pulling
that back to Congress passing the law, and then they
can't do it. Once the House and Senate pass it
by a fifty percent vote. By the way, we don't
need sixty votes in the Senate to do that, it
comes back to the Congress, we pass it, send it
to the President, and it is law, and they won't

(33:50):
be able to do it again as a as a bureaucracy.
So there's lots of things that we need to do.
Congress has been terrible about protecting its authority under the Constitution.
We need to do better.

Speaker 1 (34:02):
Jeff Crank represents Colorado's fifth congressional district includes Colorado Springs,
but a bunch of stuff around that as well. He
is a freshman Republican, though, as I said, since he's
been doing what he's been doing for these years, he
knows a lot more about Congress and the issues than
most freshmen do. Jeff Crank, thanks as always, Thanks for
your hard work, Thanks for keeping him honest.

Speaker 4 (34:23):
Thank you Ross. I appreciate all you do for Colorado.
We've got a lot of saving to do here in
Colorado with everything that's going on, So thanks for all
you're doing.

Speaker 2 (34:30):
Indeed, we do see you soon, my friend. All right,
all right, that's Congressman Jeff Crank.

Speaker 1 (34:34):
Will take a quick break. We'll be right back. All right,
it's time for will Now. You know, Chad, we got
about six minutes, six and a half. Well, I didn't
even ask you what the topic is today, So what
is it?

Speaker 5 (34:43):
Well, if you're not feeling good, and you're not feeling bad,
how are you feeling? Just kind of okay, yeah, okay,
you're feeling okay okay.

Speaker 2 (34:51):
So do you know where the term okay originated? The
okay corral? No?

Speaker 5 (34:57):
No, but we have somebody from me You're Alma mater
to thank for clarifying exactly how it originated, because there's
all kinds of different theories and rumors ranging from them
is because of popular army biscuit, a chalktaw chief named
old kia Cuk. But a guy named Alan Walker Reed,

(35:20):
who was a Columbia University English professor in the sixties,
tracked it down and figured it out. It all came
from a newspapers offhand quick.

Speaker 2 (35:30):
Back in eighteen thirty nine.

Speaker 5 (35:32):
Now, every generation has their own slang, their terms they use,
and at that time in history, they had misspellings of
common phrases like all correct was oll ko r r
ect things like that.

Speaker 2 (35:50):
That was like the hipway to say so.

Speaker 1 (35:52):
They were misspelling them intentionally. It was like their version
of a meme right yeah for like no use. They
they abbreviated ky ow was all right o L L
w rig ht uh huh and so. In a newspaper
article back in eighteen thirty nine in the Boston Morning Post,

(36:16):
they published a new news item using that term okay,
and it just kind of took off from there and
it was really popularized thanks to Martin van Buren, remember him,
President number eight. Yes, back in eighteen forty, he was
running against running for reelection against William Henry Harrison, and

(36:37):
so his group of you know, his campaign people, because
you know, back then people the presidents didn't even campaign
themselves in it, they decided and his name was Old Kinderhook,
which is okay because he's from Kinderhook, New York, right,
And between that and the newly popularized okay, his followers

(36:59):
started using that, and so it just became popular, you know,
part of the popular culture. And they but unfortunately, they
voters did not think that Van Buren was okay because
he lost.

Speaker 2 (37:14):
Was that was that? I mean?

Speaker 5 (37:16):
He won at some point he was running for reelection
okay to Harrison Harrison.

Speaker 6 (37:21):
Is it in.

Speaker 2 (37:22):
Harrison like like the guy who died really early in
office and then was replaced by someone else. I think
that sounds about right. I don't have my list of president.
That's kind of odd though that it's interesting that Martin
van Buren became known as okay.

Speaker 5 (37:36):
Yeah, because he was old because he was kinderhook and
that the two kind of tied the two things together. Yeah,
And of course over the years, like you mentioned the
Okay Corral, there was the member of the self help
book I'm okay your hookey yeah, and so those were
very popular. But they're also in other cultures the word

(37:57):
okay has a negative kind of tape, like what well in,
like in Kuwait and some Arab countries, you know, the
hand sign, the okay sign that means the evil eye
is used as a curse or a threat. And in
some Mediterranean countries Turkey, Tunisia, Greece, some parts of the
Middle East, it's kind of an insult, kind of the

(38:22):
bad term of your a jerk with.

Speaker 2 (38:25):
The hand signal or the or.

Speaker 5 (38:26):
Saying okay, saying okay, wow, you're you're just okay, I'm
just okay, it's okay. And to make it even more confusing,
some places have both the positive and negative connotation, so
you have to figure out how it's being used to
that particular particular thing. Like in France, the the okay

(38:47):
sentiment meaning positive was popular in the north of the country,
while the negative meaning as worthless remained in the south,
so you have to add, you know, context clues.

Speaker 2 (38:58):
So what's really very confusing when it went from oh,
period a K period to okay a y.

Speaker 5 (39:06):
Not exactly, but it has evolved to that and something
okay e y. There's there's lots of big O period,
big K, small O small, you know, there's all kinds
of different.

Speaker 2 (39:17):
Ways to do it.

Speaker 1 (39:18):
But yes, uh so when ched you have to write
a lot as part of your job. When you're going
to write okay, how do you write it? For news
reports and such?

Speaker 5 (39:27):
I always write okay a Y, And I think it's
the same amount a character because you have to type
the period.

Speaker 2 (39:33):
Yeah, yeah, I mean if you don't have to.

Speaker 1 (39:36):
But yeah, I think if I were writing it, I
might just write capital O, capital K without periods, even
though that does look like Oklahoma, but I probably I'm
thinking that's how I write it, capital O, capital K
with no punctuation.

Speaker 2 (39:52):
Text us in how do you write okay? Is it
oh period in fact? Okay or okay a y or
okay e y?

Speaker 1 (39:59):
Text us AD five six nine zero and get textus
okay text us okay and however you do that.

Speaker 2 (40:04):
And give us your favorite Martin van Buren an anecdote.

Speaker 1 (40:08):
All right, one quick thing before you go, and I'm
gonna ask both of you the question at the same time,
which doesn't relate to Chad's thing, which I'll come back
to in a second, but this relates to something that
Dragon had sent me by email. Chad, at what battery
percentage on your cell phone? Do you start to get
nervous and feel like, oh boy, I better put this
on a charger.

Speaker 5 (40:27):
Eighty WHOA seriously, Oh yeah, yes, that's very OCD it is.

Speaker 2 (40:33):
Yes, wow, Dragon, do you know your answer?

Speaker 7 (40:38):
I don't know if I've ever come across the low
enough percentage to where I freaked out.

Speaker 2 (40:42):
Because you just don't care that much even if the
battery dies.

Speaker 7 (40:45):
I've only really ever seen it get tin it's like
sixty oh.

Speaker 1 (40:48):
Because you're secretly just like Chad, but you're just not
admitting you costly.

Speaker 2 (40:55):
Oh my gosh.

Speaker 7 (40:56):
Well, that night when I go to bed, it's you're
hovering around fifty five.

Speaker 1 (41:00):
There's a lot of interesting stuff in your in your
in your okay report today, I mean it was about okay.

Speaker 2 (41:05):
They report itself was better.

Speaker 1 (41:06):
Than okay, And I'm trying to decide what was the
what was the most interesting, but as somebody who loves
world travel, although the Martin van Buren and the old
Kinderhook is fascinating, but for me, maybe it's the hand
signal being like a curse or a negative in those
in those foreign countries.

Speaker 2 (41:25):
And I gotta say, Chad, I did not know that. Well, okay, Ross,
now you know, fingers in the air.

Speaker 1 (41:31):
Everybody will be right back on KOA about this new
outrageous infringement on.

Speaker 2 (41:37):
The Second Amendment rights that governor just signed.

Speaker 1 (41:39):
And a listener had asked, is there a list of
all the band guns? And I said no, the list
would be too long. That's not sarcasm. It there is.
And listener Michael just sent this to me, a list
in the bill of firearms that you know might appear
borderline that are in fact.

Speaker 2 (41:59):
Not and by the bill.

Speaker 1 (42:01):
And one of them is a model that a listener
asked about before, which is a Ruger Mini fourteen. And
I'm not quite expert enough on guns to know what's
going on here, but what I suspect is that there
could be, you know, two different possible reasons for this.
One is maybe a collector's gun, but the other, and

(42:25):
again I have to I have to go read about it.
The other is maybe it's there are certain kinds of
guns where the cycling meaning ejecting the spent cartridge and
loading in the next cartridge potentially done by spring power
instead of gas, where that gun would then be not

(42:48):
banned by the bill. So I'm gonna have to read
a little bit more. But there certainly are there and
I'm not going to read this list. But it's not
a very long list. It's probably twenty or so rifles.

Speaker 2 (43:01):
So there you go. Now, what about okay dragon?

Speaker 1 (43:03):
Are you reading any of these listener texts about okay? Yeah?

Speaker 2 (43:06):
I just popped it up.

Speaker 7 (43:08):
I was a little shocked that there was another option
that we didn't even really contemplate, is just texting the
letter K. Yeah. I didn't even think about that. I
don't think I ever have. But there's a lot of
okay all across the board. But I was just surprised
as to how.

Speaker 2 (43:24):
Much ok so. I think.

Speaker 1 (43:27):
I think one of the things going on with that
is that texting has caused people to economize as best
they can.

Speaker 2 (43:36):
Right, and you think about things like.

Speaker 1 (43:38):
L l O L or b RB or WTF or
things like that, right where you're shorthand short.

Speaker 2 (43:46):
You're right, and so K is shorthand for okay. But
if you think about it in terms of speech, right,
if I were to come into you and say, dragon,
would you, you know, do a cartwheel?

Speaker 1 (44:00):
Because you haven't done one yet that we can video,
you might just say kay.

Speaker 2 (44:04):
You might say K.

Speaker 1 (44:05):
Right, So if somebody just typed K, you're gonna you're
gonna know.

Speaker 2 (44:10):
What it means. I do also enjoy this one. Oki
doki oki dokie. Yeah.

Speaker 1 (44:15):
I think the most common answer is capital O, capital K.

Speaker 2 (44:18):
Yes.

Speaker 1 (44:19):
I think that's the most common answer. And that's what
I'm doing as well. And then uh, and then in
Trump and Chad Bauer mentioned to me something on his
way out of the room that another listener sent in
by text.

Speaker 2 (44:31):
Ross.

Speaker 1 (44:31):
So apparently there's truth to the Seinfeld van Buren Boys episode.
And I don't remember that episode, but I'll have to
go watch it because anything referencing an execure president is
worth watching.

Speaker 2 (44:43):
Ross.

Speaker 1 (44:43):
You keep talking about rifles in the Gunman. Are pistols
not included? So I did mention this earlier, But that's okay.
If you just joining lately, you're right that I didn't
mention it just now, so it's unclear on pistols. And
then also it depends on what you're talking about pistol.
Right there are these firearms that are called AR pistols,
and they look like a small version of an AR

(45:05):
fifteen or an AK forty seven or something like that.
They look like the things that liberals who don't understand
guns call assault weapons, which basically means a black gun
that scares a liberal. That's what an assault weapon means.
But there are shorter versions of that.

Speaker 2 (45:22):
Some are called AR pistols, some are called short barreled rifles.

Speaker 1 (45:27):
I will not get into the distinctions between the two
of them. Basically, all of those would be banned by
this bill. And again banned is a relative term. In
this case, band means banned to manufacture them in the state,
and you cannot buy one without getting special permission that
you have to take twelve hours of training to get,

(45:49):
or it could be less than twelve hours if you
also take one hundred safety safety class. But to the
pistol thing, so separate from the AR pistol, what you
might call an ordinary pistol unclear right now. I imagine
some anti gun people are going to sue to say
that many ordinary pistols should be banned, even though the

(46:16):
drafters of the bill have claimed that they don't really
want to ban stuff other than the ar type pistols.
I have a feeling that people are going to sue
under that law to try to ban others.

Speaker 2 (46:30):
Listener says, how about koa backwards?

Speaker 1 (46:32):
That's a okay. Not everybody is a gun NERD So
let me just do this very very quickly, and then
we're gonna get.

Speaker 2 (46:38):
Onto some other things.

Speaker 1 (46:40):
Senate Bill three, which Governor Polus just signed despite getting
ninety five thousand petition signature, is urging him not to.
And I told you on the show that he would
not care at all about those. Senate Bill iree bans
the manufacture of and bans the purchase of unless you

(47:02):
get particular permission certain semi automatic firearms, including a semi
automatic rifle or a semi automatic shotgun with a detachable magazine,
or a gas operated semi automatic handgun with a detachable magazine.
And as I said that part gas operated semi automatic handgun,

(47:22):
somebody is going to sue saying that even you know,
a glock, for example, which probably most gun people would think.

Speaker 2 (47:29):
Of as spring operated.

Speaker 1 (47:30):
Somebody is gonna sue saying that's gas operated, and we'll
see what happens in a court of law. But what
I wanted to get to with you just briefly, just briefly,
what does the bill specifically exclude all right, firearms that
shoot twenty two or lower caliber rim fire ammo unless

(47:51):
the firearm has a separate upper and lower receiver. Suddenly,
if you have to put that twenty two together a
little bit different way, it's much more dangerous than twenty two.

Speaker 2 (48:00):
Right.

Speaker 1 (48:01):
It just shows you really how completely ignorant the people
are who wrote this, even though they're trying to write
something that makes it sound like what they want. A
firearm that's manually operated by bolt, pump, lever or slide
action of firearm that has a permanently fixed magazine that
cannot accept more than fifteen rounds of ammunition.

Speaker 2 (48:19):
A single or double action.

Speaker 1 (48:21):
Semi automatic handgun that uses recoil to cycle the action
of the handgun, and then a long list of guns.
And a listener had asked about the Ruger Mini fourteen,
and I was digging into this a little bit more,
and actually what is exempt from the ban is only
one particular version of the Ruger Mini fourteen and that
is called the Ruger Mini fourteen Ranch. And on the

(48:45):
web page for Ruger it says that this has a
Grand style action with a breech bolt locking system, a
fixed piston gas system, YadA, YadA, YadA. So it must
be the particular action of that gun, that verse version
of the gun with the Grand style action that makes
it excluded. What else is excluded a firearm that has

(49:06):
been made permanently inoperable or an antique.

Speaker 2 (49:10):
So I'm gonna.

Speaker 1 (49:11):
Stop there, but there's a lot of detail here. There's
a lot of detail here, and we will see how
it plays out over time. It's a shame, but not
a surprise that Governor pollis signed that bill. So let
me go back to the question I asked you before,
and maybe we'll get some answers from the text.

Speaker 2 (49:26):
Line as well.

Speaker 1 (49:27):
That is, what is your battery panic number? At what
percentage on your cell phone battery your smartphone battery? Do
you get panicky and say, oh my gosh, I gotta
get this on a charger right away? Okay, that's my
question for you. Okay, Okay. He's one of my very

(49:52):
favorite characters. In all of television. What a strange dude
he is.

Speaker 7 (49:58):
No, I found out because you would ask me to
pull see if I could find a good yeah from
the interwebsite.

Speaker 3 (50:05):
Right.

Speaker 7 (50:05):
Sure, if there's a okay song, right, but you can't
play it, not because a copywriter or anything, right because
it's from South Park.

Speaker 2 (50:16):
Uh huh.

Speaker 7 (50:16):
I think you can put those the two and two together.
South Park and not very radio friendly. Not radio friendly.

Speaker 1 (50:22):
Okay, okay, I think all of us listening right now,
I don't want to say we should do this for
the rest of the day, but how about you think
we can make this work Dragon for the rest of
the hour, You and I and everybody listening to the
show right now, we'll find some reason to say okay whenever,

(50:44):
whenever you can possibly fit it into a sentence. You
don't have to play the recording like like Dragon does.

Speaker 2 (50:50):
You can You could just you could just say it okay, Okay, okay.

Speaker 1 (50:55):
Okay, let's just make our Friday a little bit silly.
Oh well, I didn't ask you, Dragon, Did you do
your own name that tune song?

Speaker 2 (51:05):
I did not. Okay, so I have it. I have one.

Speaker 1 (51:08):
I actually haven't copied it over to where it needs
to be. But I haven't named that tune song for
about an hour from now, and I'm gonna come back
to the battery panic thing for a minute. Okay, Okay, Uh,
this was this article really annoyed me.

Speaker 2 (51:22):
Not the article, but what I learned. Ninety two percent.
Oh my gosh, here's bad, as Chad Pauer, What is
it for me?

Speaker 6 (51:29):
For me?

Speaker 1 (51:30):
I will say, I'll give my answer now and then
we'll keep more more listener input coming in on this
question of what battery percentage makes you panic? Uh, I'll
say eighteen something.

Speaker 7 (51:45):
Like that, yeah, even though I've never made it that far,
but I always say somewhere around in the twenty.

Speaker 1 (51:50):
So I will say eighteen. And I'm gonna come back
to this story a little bit later on. But you
might not be surprised to know that there is a
correlation of sorts between the age of the person answering
this question and the answer.

Speaker 2 (52:06):
Okay, okay, So.

Speaker 1 (52:09):
Headline from coloradopolitics dot com. Colorado settles lawsuit with CPW
commissioners over open meetings law violations.

Speaker 2 (52:17):
So what this is about? There were a couple.

Speaker 1 (52:20):
Members of the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission and their
names are Jack Murphy and Jessica Bowleiu. I'm not sure
how she pronounces her last name. If you were French,
you'd pronounce it bow lea b e a u l
i e u, But I don't know how she pronounces
her last name. In any case, these people have, as

(52:42):
far as I can tell, no business being on the
Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission. They are aggressively anti hunting,
and these two coordinated with each other, in violation of
open meetings rules to coordinate about writing an op ad
supporting a ballot measure to ban hunting of of mountain

(53:07):
lions and links, which is already banned to hunt and
bobcats and such, you know, cat essentially cats.

Speaker 2 (53:13):
The measure failed at the ballot. By the way, the
measure failed.

Speaker 1 (53:17):
So two things I wanted you to know about from
this article just kind of remarkable, actually, So one of
these people, and let me just dig through the article
to find exactly what I'm looking for. One of these people,
Jessica Bowley you or however you however you pronounced her name,

(53:39):
Let me just find this thing, because this is going
to be pretty pretty shocking. Here we go, the current commissioners,
dubbed anti hunting by pro hunting group. We are Jessica
BOWLEYU or however you pronounce it. Was confirmed by the
state Senate last year despite an unfavorable recommendation by the Senate.

Speaker 2 (54:04):
Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee.

Speaker 1 (54:06):
So democrats thought this person is so nuts and so
unqualified that they gave her an unfavorable recommendation, and yet
she ended up being confirmed.

Speaker 2 (54:16):
Anyway, Now, check this out.

Speaker 1 (54:19):
She was selected to represent the state's forty two state
parks and outdoor recreation despite admitting listen to this now,
that she had never visited any state park that is
outside of the Denver metro area and had never purchased

(54:39):
a state park pass. Oh my gosh, this person is
on the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission.

Speaker 2 (54:50):
Isn't this nuts? Absolutely nuts?

Speaker 1 (54:54):
So basically, they coordinated in violation of the law, and
one of them knew one of them had the the
other one had gotten in trouble previous times, more than
once for violating the open meetings laws, and yet he
did it again. Why are these people allowed to be
in these positions?

Speaker 2 (55:13):
Now?

Speaker 1 (55:15):
A group kind of putting a lot of pressure on
here on these guys is called the Sportsman's Alliance Foundation,
and they actually and another group called Safari Club International,
and they sued Colorado in court in Denver for violating
this open meetings law. And what we learned today is
that Colorado Parks and Wildlife ended up settling. I guess

(55:38):
officially maybe they settled with the state, but in any case,
they did settle. They basically admitted it, and I don't
think they had to give up any money, but they
had to say, you know, we'll do this training in
that training and try to make sure that it doesn't
happen again. So the other thing that I wanted to
share with you, though, so not only did these two
violate the open meetings law to write this opinion piece

(56:00):
in which they argued in favor of a ballot measure
that then failed, but I just want to share a
little bit more with you from this piece at coloradopolitics
dot com. And that is the other reason that they
sold that I'm sorry that they sued in addition to
violating the open meetings law, Okay, is because the article

(56:24):
that they wrote in support of the ballot measure had
so many lies. Okay, Dragon, you find with all this okay.
Colorado Parks and Wildlife, through a spokesman, said, after the
opinion piece was published, CPW immediately started getting emails from

(56:46):
the public stating that these two must have met in
private to develop the op ed, in violation of open
meetings law.

Speaker 2 (56:54):
Then they went on to say, someone's claiming something else.
Hold on, wait, I gotta find this thing. I gotta
find this particularly here.

Speaker 1 (57:00):
According to the statement, the commissioners claimed that hunters could
use drones, but regulations explicitly prohibit using drones, so that
wasn't true.

Speaker 2 (57:09):
Okay.

Speaker 1 (57:11):
They contended that mountain lion hunts guarantee success at one
hundred percent, when the actual success rate on a mountain
lion hunt is closer to twenty percent.

Speaker 2 (57:21):
Okay.

Speaker 1 (57:22):
The statement falsely claimed that wildcats are quote not involved
in any human conflict, when the Colorado Parks and Wildlife
website itself has numerous press releases to the contrary, including
a twenty twenty three attack by a mountain lion.

Speaker 2 (57:37):
On a young girl in Greeley. Quote.

Speaker 1 (57:39):
The irony is that all these false statements were made
while simultaneously declaring that the commissioners quote are held to
a higher standard of science not mere opinion and conjecture.

Speaker 2 (57:53):
The statement added, Okay, oh.

Speaker 1 (57:57):
My gosh, so these two dillweeds in Colorado Parks and
Wildlife Commission broke the law by meeting in violation of
open meetings open meetings law and then posted an op
ed ran an op ed that they're claiming somebody else wrote,
but I don't believe them.

Speaker 2 (58:17):
That is full of untruths.

Speaker 1 (58:19):
Trying to get people to vote for a ballot measure
that failed. Anyway, that has to be one of the
greatest fails of all time. Well maybe not of all time,
but that's a big one. That's a big one. And
yet these people are still around, still being just you know,

(58:40):
when I was in Russia scuba diving about twenty years ago,
we were talking with some of these Russians.

Speaker 2 (58:45):
We had a translator. They didn't speak much English and
I didn't speak any Russian. But they had this.

Speaker 1 (58:51):
Great concept and I don't remember who we were talking about,
but they had this great line. They said, oh, yeah,
that person's an oxygen thief. It's such a good line.
And these people who are on the car, not all
of them, these two people who were talking about who
are on the parks and Wildlife Commission. They are truly
oxygen thieves. Yes, yes, here's a little bit of good news.

Speaker 7 (59:15):
Real quick, Ross, Do you see that the text line
is very disappointed in you. Uh oh, what about your
battery percentage? You said eighteen percent?

Speaker 2 (59:23):
Oh yeah, it's not a prime number, right, they're pissed, Yeah, seventeen.

Speaker 1 (59:29):
Can I amend? Can I extend? Can I extend and
amend my remarks? And can I please switch to seventeen?

Speaker 2 (59:36):
Is that? Do I have permission? Very disappointed?

Speaker 1 (59:41):
I'm disappointed in myself. I'm disappointed in myself. I'm sorry.
I'm sorry I let you down. You know what, Before
I get to this other story, dragon, what are we
getting here from listeners? In terms of this this question
what battery percentage makes them a little bit panicky?

Speaker 7 (59:55):
There were so many texts about them being irritated with
you saying eighteen is not a prime number.

Speaker 3 (01:00:00):
I'm so sorry.

Speaker 7 (01:00:01):
There's one couple of people who said zero. When my
phone gets to zero, I know it needs charging. Until
then I throw caution into the wind.

Speaker 1 (01:00:10):
Okay, so my problem with zero, and again I apologize profusely.
Oh my god, Look how many texts there are told you, oh,
my gosh, Okay, so many people are properly, properly upset
with me. I'm I sincerely, I deeply apologize for using

(01:00:35):
a number that's not a prime not a prime number.
I mean, eighteen is better than sixteen, but it's still
not prime. I should have said seventeen or nineteen. So
I deeply, deeply apologize for that. Now here's the other thing.
One of the things that forces people to have to
buy new phones, which are expensive these days, is bad

(01:00:57):
charging etiquette, bad charging hygiene, and that what I mean
by that is when you let your battery run all
the way down all the time and then charge it,
your battery is not gonna last you as long, right,
It's gonna ask last some number of months less, and
you will be forced to buy another phone. Apparently this

(01:01:18):
can happen also if you charge the battery all the
way full, like from ninety to one hundred, over and over,
like if you let the battery go down like Chad
Bauer he says, he puts it he gets nervous at eighty.
If you let it go down to eighty and then
charge it all the way up to one hundred again,
especially if you're not using some process that has this

(01:01:39):
kind of smart charging that does it in a very
disciplined kind of way. You will also lower your battery
life that way. So generally you don't want to let
it go much below twenty. And it's okay to charge
it all the way, but generally you don't want to
charge it all the way from only being a little

(01:02:00):
bit down from all the way, right, You don't want
to repeatedly charge from eighty to one hundred or from
ninety to one hundred.

Speaker 2 (01:02:05):
Right, fifty to one hundred is fine.

Speaker 1 (01:02:07):
And normally, if you've got a very smart smartphone, the
last bit it's going to do in a way that
maximizes your battery Lifekai prime numbers are comfortable, are comfortable
for Ross, So why would he be prime number fraudster?
Oh my gosh, I feel like I just I feel

(01:02:28):
like a complete failure.

Speaker 2 (01:02:30):
I feel like a complete failure. Oh my gosh. Should
I leave? Do you want to do the rest of
the show? Dragon? Okay? All right?

Speaker 1 (01:02:47):
I mentioned also, and I think this won't surprise you,
that there is a correlation between the age of and
this is on average, of course, but the age of
the person who has asked this question and the answer right.
So gen Z starts to worry about phone battery at
forty four percent, millennials forty three percent according to this study,

(01:03:09):
gen X thirty eight percent, Boomers thirty four percent. So
the younger you are, the more the more easily you
get panicked about your phone battery dying. And that makes
perfect sense to me. I would have predicted that correlation.

Speaker 7 (01:03:23):
I don't know if I believe that correlation though, because
I've got two millennial yeah ten Z kids. I know
that twenty and twenty twenty one and twenty five. Yeah,
and they are always constantly hovering in the teens whenever
I see them, really Yeah, they come to my house
and they're like, hey, uh, do you have a charger available?

Speaker 1 (01:03:44):
Yeah, But that doesn't mean they weren't nervous about it
mach earlier, just undisciplined about charging. Now here's the other
thing in this battery charging article. And I'll ask you
this one as well, Drag and so. On iPhones for sure,
and I don't know the Android phones because I don't
have one, But on iPhones, there's a setting where you
can toggle this little thing and up in the battery indicator,

(01:04:05):
it will show you in numbers the actual percentage you
have left, or you can just see the green battery
with a steadily decreasing amount of green to get down to,
you know, to where the battery is empty.

Speaker 2 (01:04:15):
Right now, mind showing ninety seven?

Speaker 1 (01:04:17):
Right, So my question for you, and here's here's mine, Dragon,
My mind is showing a battery with no number in it. Oh,
so my question for wild Man for listeners is do
you show the actual battery percentage or do you just
show you know, the battery icon that empties over time?

(01:04:38):
And let's see, and I have only the battery, not
the number, right, And this says if you have only
the battery level visible and.

Speaker 2 (01:04:46):
Kai, you're in the minority.

Speaker 1 (01:04:48):
Thirty nine percent of Americans opt to judge their level.

Speaker 2 (01:04:52):
Of juice on the bar alone.

Speaker 1 (01:04:54):
Sixty one percent have the numerical percentage displayed to know
the precise amount of batter remaining that they have left.

Speaker 2 (01:05:03):
Were you going to say something, Dragon, It's.

Speaker 7 (01:05:06):
Something along the lines of the iPhones that you and
I have. They have a power save mode once you
hit twenty percent. Yes, so it will help you out
at that point, right.

Speaker 1 (01:05:15):
And actually, if you really want to save battery, like
you know you're going to be away from a charger
for a long time. For example, if I'm gonna go
to a Broncos game, right and I know I'm going
to be there for a long time, and I'll probably
be using the phone. So what you can do is
go in and turn on low power mode. In an iPhone,
you can go on turn on low power mode, and
it'll do things like not check for new emails until

(01:05:37):
you open the email and go to look and it
really does save a lot of batteries. So that's a
pretty good thing. All right, I promised you this story.
Let me just share this very very quickly.

Speaker 2 (01:05:46):
Yes, So.

Speaker 1 (01:05:48):
Back at Stanford University, when was this June of last year,
a bunch of terrorist supporters and anti Semites took over
a building at Stanford, a building that included the university
president's office, and they were shouting stuff like Palestine will

(01:06:12):
be free and we will free Palestine.

Speaker 2 (01:06:14):
We know you just ate CH's we know.

Speaker 1 (01:06:16):
Anyway, So what they did in addition to sort of
taking over the building, they spray painted a bunch of stuff.
They broke windows, they broke furniture, they disabled security cameras,
they spray painted building and According to the Associated Press,
damages have been estimated in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Cell Phones belonging to those arrested people showed communications about

(01:06:39):
the planning of the operation, including a quote do it
yourself occupation guide. In any case, I just wanted you
to know there was some good news here. A dozen
of these dillweeds have been arrested and charged with felonies
in Santa Clara County District Court. The AG's office there
has charged a dozen people with felony vandalism and felony

(01:07:02):
conspiracy to trespass. And I think that is fabulous news.
I said we were going to stop that at the
end of the last hour, Okay, but I lied.

Speaker 2 (01:07:12):
Well, you you may have stopped that, but I may
not have.

Speaker 1 (01:07:16):
I just want to make one thing clear that I
think shouldn't even need to be said, because it's just
so beyond obvious. But if you text into the show
and ask us to stop doing something that we've been
doing all day, given what you understand about my personality

(01:07:39):
and dragons, what do you actually think is going to happen?

Speaker 2 (01:07:44):
All right, let's do something completely different, Okay.

Speaker 1 (01:07:47):
So I don't even I don't even remember just how
this came up, but oh, I remember we were talking
about toilet paper. We're talking about toilet paper, and listener
Jim sent me a picture of a late eighteen hundreds
illustration for a patent for a toilet paper roll. And
then Jim said, I'm a patent illustrator and I've been

(01:08:11):
doing this for many years. And I said that sounds
like a fascinating job. Would you be willing to tell
us a little bit about it on the show? And
he said yes, so Jim joins us.

Speaker 6 (01:08:21):
Now, Hi, Jim, Hey, how you doing ross?

Speaker 2 (01:08:24):
Really good? I'm fascinated by your job. So first of all,
tell us did you train as an artist?

Speaker 6 (01:08:34):
What a drafts person with electrical and mechanical background and
stuff like that, and it's kind of a mix between
that and illustration and artist.

Speaker 1 (01:08:47):
Okay, so what was the first patent you ever illustrated?

Speaker 2 (01:08:51):
And then and then what exactly I mean? I think
it's I think it's sort.

Speaker 1 (01:08:57):
Of defined in the words, But just tell us a
little bit about what a patent illustration is in the
sense of what exactly it's.

Speaker 2 (01:09:04):
Supposed to show? Are these like the exploded views you
see in the manuals to a degree.

Speaker 6 (01:09:10):
It is essentially I don't remember what I drew for
the first time because it was like forty five years ago,
but it was put four Bell Labs in New Jersey.
And basically, a person has an idea of a night
for an invention, and they go to an attorney, generally
a patent attorney, and then the patent attorney comes up

(01:09:33):
with some ideas of what kind of figures illustrations that
they need to describe the invention, and so then they
give that to an illustrator and sometimes we have sketches
to start with, or sometimes we even have cat drawings,
and then we can start the illustration and show several

(01:09:53):
different figures around five sheets or so of what the
invention is, sometimes cross sectional views, sometimes just nice pictures,
and sometimes it's humans. Sometimes it's you know, it could
be anything that we have to draw, and then we
have numbers on it to describe certain parts of it.
And those reference numbers are what the attorney gives to

(01:10:17):
us to help them describe in a specification for an illustration.

Speaker 2 (01:10:20):
That makes sense.

Speaker 1 (01:10:21):
And I'll note for listeners, if you're a nerd like
I am, you know this already, but back in the day,
Bell Labs was one of the most fascinating inventive places ever,
right the ideas, the electronic the stuff they were coming
up at with at Bell Labs was was revolutionary and fascinating.

(01:10:45):
So one of the things I wonder about Jim with
your job is how how much do you have to
know about the thing that you're drawing and how do
you learn it?

Speaker 6 (01:11:01):
That's a pretty good question. It's a good idea to
have a background to be able to understand how things
kind of work, and so you have to have a
mechanical background to do that. And a lot of times
the drawings that you get from the inventors are pretty
self describable. I mean, you can understand them. But a

(01:11:24):
lot of times I don't even know what the pattern is.
I mean, I can look at the specification now if
I want. Because I work for a law firm and
the attorney's work, I work with the attorneys on that,
but I mean they're doing the description stuff. I need
to know more detail. I can read what they've written.

Speaker 1 (01:11:40):
Can you ever talk to the inventor and ask them
to explain it to you?

Speaker 6 (01:11:45):
Rarely the attorneys know all that information already.

Speaker 3 (01:11:49):
Point where I'm at now.

Speaker 6 (01:11:50):
Years ago, when I was on my own after the labs.
Then I had to talk with several attorneys and it
was very difficult because they don't understand a lot of
them don't understand the whole process of FI own battens.
So they asked me to do a lot of things
that I would suggest that they're not doing. I'm on
an attorney, but I would just try to describe to

(01:12:10):
them things that are important, things that are not important
used for the drawings.

Speaker 1 (01:12:14):
Is there anything that sticks out in your mind as
the most difficult patent illustration you've ever done?

Speaker 6 (01:12:23):
Difficult wise, Yes, there was a game years and years
ago before I worked at this law firm.

Speaker 1 (01:12:30):
It was a.

Speaker 6 (01:12:32):
Puzzle and it was like a series of line of
wires that were all mixed up together and it was
like as big as a hand. But there are two
pieces and they were intertwined with each other, and there's
a way somehow that you could rotate this so that
it would unlock from each other, so you have two
pieces and it looked like a hand mixer or something

(01:12:56):
like that. I forget what you call those wist yeah,
with but there's a lot more of those wires, and
so all I had was a picture that the attorney
gave to me, not the model itself. And then I
had to draw or what they call a design case.
The design case is not a utility case. The design

(01:13:17):
case you get a pattern on what it looks like
utility cases on what it does. So this was a
design case, so I had to draw correct And so
basically with the design case, you have to draw a
perspective view or two, and then all the orthographic views,
which is the front, right, left, top, bottom of whatever.
So I'm drawing this and I'm realizing I have no

(01:13:38):
idea how to really draw this and draw all the
views that will look good. And it took me hours
and hours and hours, and the attorney finally said, after
I gave it to him, he said, is this correct?
And I said, tell you what you show me where
I'm wrong, and I'll correct it. So you know, that
was really complicated, really hard to do. But I've never

(01:14:01):
done anything back to the attorney on that, so I
assume it was.

Speaker 2 (01:14:04):
Okay.

Speaker 1 (01:14:04):
We're just about out of time. I'll ask you a
slightly personal question. Can can you make a decent living
as a patent illustrator.

Speaker 3 (01:14:14):
Yes, I'm working for a law firm.

Speaker 6 (01:14:16):
Where I have time off and benefits.

Speaker 4 (01:14:18):
It's great.

Speaker 6 (01:14:19):
I was on my own for a while and I
add up to thirteen employees way back when. Wow, and yeah,
we do pretty good. I mean there are some people
who are just trast people and they can barely draw
anything by hand. So if you've got a real talent
to draw and know how to use a computer to
do that, then you could produce pretty quickly. And you
know I can draw. I draw thousands of sheets every year.

(01:14:43):
So yes, you can make a pretty good living doing that.
And it's a lot of fun. I mean, I love
doing it. When I retire, I still want to work
part time because I enjoy doing it. It's kind of
artistic for me. So I got a great job and
I love it.

Speaker 2 (01:14:57):
It sure does sound like a lot of fun.

Speaker 1 (01:14:59):
Jim Listener, Jim as a patent illustrator.

Speaker 2 (01:15:02):
Thanks so much for taking time with us, Jim.

Speaker 1 (01:15:05):
I really enjoyed the conversation and enjoyed.

Speaker 2 (01:15:08):
Learning what you do. Okay, a problem, all right? Thank you.

Speaker 1 (01:15:13):
You know one quick thing I want to probably do.
I had an idea that came to me when I
was talking with someone recently who is now retired and
doing really interesting things in retirement. And I think when
I'm in I know, we just talked with Jim, who
is doing this now as his job. But I want
to just throw something else out there to the universe
so that folks can email me and I can start

(01:15:33):
getting some stuff in Q. I want to do an
ongoing series on this show once a week. Probably talking
to someone doesn't necessarily have to be once a week,
but I'd like to do talking to someone who is
retired and is doing something really interesting and fun in retirement.

(01:15:54):
So if that's you or someone you know, shoot me
an email at Ross at KOA Denver dot comss at
Koadenver dot com and I'll get in touch with people
over time if if the story seems interesting enough to
have folks on the show. Michael Bennett, who has never
agreed to be on my radio show, I'm not going

(01:16:15):
to give up, I suppose, especially if he's going to
become governor, and it sure looks like at this point
looks like you will. I don't see who's going to
stop him. I actually have quite a bit to say
about that. And in order to be able to give
it the time that it deserves. We'll take a quick
break here, we'll come back. I'd like to know your
thoughts as well. Anything you're thinking about the announcement of
Michael Bennett running for governor, anything you want to.

Speaker 2 (01:16:36):
Say about that, Text me at five six.

Speaker 1 (01:16:38):
Sixty nine zero, and we'll continue with all this and
some other stuff right after these brief words. I think
I know what's going on here, but on the surface,
it doesn't seem like the brightest thing or like the.

Speaker 2 (01:16:53):
Like the most helpful thing for.

Speaker 1 (01:16:54):
Him to start a campaign for a state office by
essentially running against Donald Trump.

Speaker 2 (01:17:04):
It's a little weird, is that people.

Speaker 1 (01:17:07):
Let me just make a more macro point now, when
people look at their elected politicians, whether people think of
this overtly or not, they know that all politics is
local and even this is important even for federal members
of Congress. If you start appearing that your focus is

(01:17:30):
too national and not local enough, you get punished. This
is actually part of the reason that I believe that
Lauren Bobert would have lost the third Congressional District race
if she had stayed there. Thank goodness that she left
that district. She moved to the fourth congressional district, which she.

Speaker 2 (01:17:49):
Ended up winning.

Speaker 1 (01:17:50):
It's a more Republican district than the third, and by
leaving the third, the very very good Jeff Hurd was
able to win there and keep that seat in Republican's hands.
And I'm not a Republican, but the Amocrats scare them
of Jesus out of me, So I'm very glad that
Republicans are in the majority. But my point is, Lauren
Bolbert was going to lose that seat, and part of
it was because she was just, you know, she acted

(01:18:12):
a little too theatrical a lot of the times, and
she did stuff to kind.

Speaker 2 (01:18:16):
Of rub people the wrong way a bit.

Speaker 1 (01:18:18):
But but why It's because it seemed that so much
of her focus was national And when you're a member
of Congress, you know how you win is by doing
things locally and taking care of people in your district
in a way that they know you're taking care of them.
And I'll give you a perfect example of this. There

(01:18:40):
was a member of Congress who I didn't despise, but
I didn't like him. He was a consistent center left
to left wing voter at Pearl Mutter in the seventh
Congressional District, now I'm gonna say he's a bad guy,
sort of a conventional Democrat, and he he won that

(01:19:00):
seventh congressional district seat that Britney Peterson is in. Now
it's been redistricted a little bit. But anyway, here's the
thing with Pearl Mutter. He won easily, over and over
and over and over again, and he was almost never
in the national news. Was really rare that he was

(01:19:21):
part of a national news story. He kept his head down,
he did his job for his district. He made sure
his district knew that he was doing a good job
for his district. When people needed help with something, they
called his office. They got help, and that kind of
stuff gets out by word of mouth. Oh I needed
help with such and such a thing, and the congressman's

(01:19:41):
office helped me. You tell a friend, they weren't maybe
sure who to vote for, or they weren't maybe sure
if they were going to bother to vote. But now
they've got a story. You know ed Pearl Mutter helped
my friend. I'm gonna vote for him. And this is
why Lauren was in so much trouble because she spent
so much time talking about Donald Trump and Joe Biden

(01:20:01):
all this national stuff and it was pissing people off.
And now you've got Michael Bennett, you know, running for
governor saying this stuff.

Speaker 2 (01:20:11):
Doesn't believe in building up here, let me back that
public lands.

Speaker 7 (01:20:15):
But Donald Trump doesn't believe in building opportunities.

Speaker 2 (01:20:18):
He believes in taking a wrecking ball to our economy
and our democracy.

Speaker 1 (01:20:23):
All right, So again, I don't care whether you agree
or disagree with Michael Bennett.

Speaker 2 (01:20:27):
I'm just telling you that was the thing that struck me.

Speaker 1 (01:20:31):
Was even the mention of Donald Trump in an announcement
kicking off a campaign for governor, I think was not
very smart. I will also note I don't ever think
that Michael Bennett sounds very good, you know, I just
you know.

Speaker 2 (01:20:50):
He sounds a little like good.

Speaker 1 (01:20:52):
But also I noticed, and I'm not going to play
it again because I think it's a little bit hard
to tell on the radio, but toward the end of
the video there are.

Speaker 2 (01:21:02):
A couple of cuts, a couple of edits in the
middle of a one in the middle of a sentence
and one and it's not very good.

Speaker 1 (01:21:07):
It's not very professional. I don't know that most people
would notice it. I think I don't let me, let
me change it. I think most people would notice it.
I don't think most people care.

Speaker 7 (01:21:15):
I'd argue it. It's more or less the TikTok style.
Now there are many cuts and edits out there, even
in the middle of a set, even in the short videos. Yeah,
and because I did a.

Speaker 1 (01:21:24):
Thing like he said something and he maybe I'm guessing
in the original maybe he flubbed the last word and
they edited it and then added the last word of
the sentence on again.

Speaker 2 (01:21:33):
It just was odd. But I get your point. That's
kind of the editing stuff. I get your point.

Speaker 7 (01:21:37):
Text line. Would like to clarify it as mister Mackie,
not mister Garrett.

Speaker 1 (01:21:40):
Yeah, yeah, yeah, mister Mackie. Oh my, okay, okay, uh.
I do love mister Garrison too, uh missus Garrison.

Speaker 2 (01:21:53):
I don't know, trying to picture.

Speaker 7 (01:21:56):
Nope, same yep, uh huh what uh huh?

Speaker 2 (01:21:59):
Same? Oh missus Garrett? Right, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, he
is a very diverse wardrobe. Correct. Am I allowed to
say he?

Speaker 3 (01:22:09):
No?

Speaker 2 (01:22:09):
These days missus Garretson. They it's missus Garrison, is it they? Now? Anyway?

Speaker 1 (01:22:14):
All right, So let's talk about something else not simple, Yes,
a related thing to this a related thing, and that.

Speaker 2 (01:22:21):
Is Michael Bennett.

Speaker 1 (01:22:24):
If I had to bet on it, or if I
had delay the odds right now on who's going to
be the next governor of Colorado, I'd have to say
Michael Bennett eighty percent already, right If Jonah Goose, who
was probably going to get in if Bennett didn't, is
now endorsing Michael Bennett.

Speaker 2 (01:22:41):
So you've got Phil Wiser in.

Speaker 1 (01:22:43):
But Phil Wiser does not have Bennett's name, I d
or money, and I'll tell you what, I would not
be shocked. I have not spoken to Phil about this. Okay,
this is not any kind of inside information. I didn't
know that Bennett was gonna run until yesterday. Even there
had been rumored, we didn't know. So I have not

(01:23:04):
spoken to Phil about this. It would not surprise me
if Phil Wiser drops out, because.

Speaker 2 (01:23:11):
I think he knows.

Speaker 1 (01:23:13):
That his chances of beating Michael Bennett are so slim
that why waste his time and why try to raise
money from donors for something he probably can't accomplish. I
think part of the reason that Phil Wiser got into
the race, I mean, I think he thinks he could
be a fine governor but I also think part of
the reason he got in, probably again I have not
spoken to him about this, is that Jenna Griswold is

(01:23:38):
just an absolute disaster and should not hold any office
in this state. And at the time that Phil Wiser
jumped into the race, it was thought that Jenna Griswold
might jump into the race. So it wouldn't surprise me
at all if Phil gets out and intrepid Chad Bauer
showed me a note that was sent out today by

(01:24:00):
former Senator Ken Salazar, which I don't remember all the wording,
but basically it was it struck me as hey, I'm
still here, guys.

Speaker 2 (01:24:12):
Right, I'm not gonna run.

Speaker 1 (01:24:13):
It wasn't I am going to run, but it was
just sort of reminding people he's still there.

Speaker 2 (01:24:17):
I do not see.

Speaker 1 (01:24:19):
Any scenario other than some kind of insane scandal surrounding
Michael Bennett, and if there were such a thing to
be found, it probably would have been found already. I
don't see any scenario in which Michael Bennett, you know,
I don't see any probable scenario in which Michael Bennett
is not our next governor. So then, now, what Senator

(01:24:39):
Michael Bennett has two years left, and I presume that
it will be Governor Polas who picks the person to
hold that seat for the next two years.

Speaker 2 (01:24:48):
That's how it goes with the Senate.

Speaker 1 (01:24:49):
It doesn't go that way with the House, by the way,
but for the Senate, the governor will appoint the person
to fill out the term.

Speaker 2 (01:24:55):
Now, we had Mike Dino, who.

Speaker 1 (01:24:58):
Is frequently on the show with Dick Wats I'm the
sort of Democrat and Republican respectively, talking about their political opinions,
and Dino made a comment that I didn't hear, but
it was relayed to me that he would think that
the next Senator from Colorado will be a woman.

Speaker 2 (01:25:12):
Now, who are the women who.

Speaker 1 (01:25:13):
Could potentially be Democratic Senator from Colorado. You've got Diana
to get But I think she's even though she's not
very old, sixty seven, but I think that's probably too
old to be appointed to that job. As I mentioned,
I don't mean she couldn't do the job. I mean
that if you're going to appoint someone to a job
like that, you're probably at least one of the factors
is going to be I want to appoint someone who's

(01:25:33):
going to be there for a while so then you've
got Britney Peterson, who was on the show two days ago.
And although it was a fine conversation and she seems
like a lovely person, she is, in my opinion, of
very conventional. She's not center left, she's really left. And

(01:25:56):
I just despite I realize she's doing kind of what
it looks a little bit like leadership when it comes
to this thing about trying to get the proxy voting
done in Congress so that new moms or new dads,
or people who are quite ill who are members of
Congress might be able for a short.

Speaker 2 (01:26:11):
Period of time to vote remotely.

Speaker 1 (01:26:13):
And I know she's taking on that issue, but I
just simply don't see her as Senate material. That doesn't
mean she won't be nominated, right, it could easily happen.
There are people in the Senate who have no business
being there. Mazi Herono comes to mind, in particular, the
senator from uh Hawaii who was probably the dumbest member
of the Senate. And I'm not saying Britney Peterson is dumb.

(01:26:36):
I just don't. She just doesn't strike me as Senate material.
I have no idea whether Governor Polis has this idea
in his head that he wants to appoint a woman
just to appoint a woman.

Speaker 2 (01:26:48):
I don't know.

Speaker 1 (01:26:49):
I would think that the obvious pick for the Senate
seat would be Jonah Goose if you wanted it.

Speaker 2 (01:26:57):
I don't know Jonah Goose. I've never met him. I've
never talked to him.

Speaker 1 (01:27:01):
I would like to meet him, and I would like
to talk to him, but I never have. And to me,
he's the obvious choice because this is a guy who
can be in the Senate for a long time, and
he's quite a young member of Congress. I'm not sure
how many terms he's been in three or four. I

(01:27:21):
think not that many, and he's already moved way up
in leadership in the House. He's very well respected, he's
very well spoken, he's smart. I don't agree with him
on a lot of things, but I don't know. I
don't know people. I don't know anybody who says he's
a bad guy, and that goes some way as well.

Speaker 2 (01:27:43):
So I have no idea how this is going to
play out.

Speaker 1 (01:27:45):
But anyway, my point is, I think the question of
who's going to be our next senator is actually a
little bit more interesting than who's going to be our
next governor. And then all of that said, I don't
really know how much difference it makes anyway, in the
sense that are there really gonna be important policy differences
between Michael Bennett and Phil Wiser? Probably not very big

(01:28:07):
policy differences. Are there really going to be important policy
differences between you know, Britney Petterson and and Philny Goose
and whoever in Dianady Yet probably not very big, Probably
not very big. Probably wouldn't surprise me if the Goose
would be the most rational of the three, But again
I don't know him, so that will be for me,
I think the interesting thing to watch.

Speaker 7 (01:28:30):
Let me share this other story with you quickly. I'll
jump back to a text here. Okay, yeah, you're looking
for that. Yeah, Texters have explained to us that is
now mister Garrison again. So we went from mister Garrett,
which one, to missus Garrison, back to mister Garrison. And
apparently there's a a funny episode where he found his

(01:28:52):
and had them reattached. Oh, so it is back to
mister Garrison.

Speaker 2 (01:28:58):
You know that there's a there's a somewhat well known
song about somebody who keeps it in a in a drawer.

Speaker 1 (01:29:05):
In a box detachable. I'm gonna do this story very quickly,
and then we're gonna do Name that tune. A rod
is coming in prepared to play Name that tune, So
headline from the Associated Press. Major nations agree on first
ever global fee on greenhouse gases with planned the targets shipping.
So they're going to oppose a minimum fee of one

(01:29:27):
hundred dollars on every ton of greenhouse gases emitted by
ships above certain thresholds, which is basically the first global
greenhouse gas emissions tax, first global carbon tax. This is
so stupid, it's gonna raise the price of everything.

Speaker 2 (01:29:45):
And I'm gonna throw out two things for you here
real quick.

Speaker 1 (01:29:47):
First, Donald Trump should find a way so the United
States is not going along with this. Obviously the Trump
Biden administration would have. Trump administration won't. The Trump administration
should find a way to make some kind of if
you will, pardon the pun safe harbor provision for ships
and maybe get them reflagged American or something with some

(01:30:09):
legal protection to not.

Speaker 2 (01:30:11):
Pay these fees. Not pay these fees.

Speaker 1 (01:30:14):
The International Maritime Organization estimates around twelve billion dollars coming
in every year from these fees. So that's just twelve
billion dollars in the aggregate, and that might only be
a fraction of a penny per item given how much
shipping there is. But twelve billion, everything in the world
that travels by ship will be just a little bit
more expensive. The other thing I want to mention to

(01:30:35):
you is a lot of this is being pushed by
some of these low lying Pacific islands, and it's a
grift on their part. They want big company, big countries
to steal a bunch of money from the citizens of
those countries and give it to these low lying islands
based on their claim that climate change is swamping them with.

Speaker 2 (01:30:54):
Rising sea levels.

Speaker 1 (01:30:55):
In fact, this particular one that I just told you about,
this agreement with the maritime whatever, is being pushed by
an island shain called Tuvalu Tuva Lu, and they have
been saying for twenty five years that the climate change
is going to destroy their country.

Speaker 2 (01:31:12):
Because of sea level rise.

Speaker 1 (01:31:14):
And actually what's been happening is that waves hit the
shore of these islands. The waves wash more little bits
of sand and decomposed caral up onto the beach, and
actually most of the islands of Tuvalu have grown, have
grown in the last fifty years or so. They are

(01:31:36):
not sinking, They are actually getting bigger, and yet we
are all going to pay this stupid text. Hey folks,
if you're listening on the podcast right now, that's the
end of today's show.

Speaker 2 (01:31:46):
Thank you so much for listening. Don't forget.

Speaker 1 (01:31:49):
You can catch us every day on the podcast as
you are right now, on your smart speaker, on your
iHeartRadio app, even on the computer at Koa, Colorado, and
the good old fashioned way on your radio.

Speaker 2 (01:32:00):
Thanks so much for listening to the show.