Okay, let's unpack this. Welcome to the Deep
Dive. Hello. Today, we're taking that stack of
sources you sent over, articles, notes, research,
and really digging in. Yeah, pulling out the
important bits, the surprising stuff. Exactly.
Think of us as guides, helping you cut through
the noise, you know? Get informed fast. And the
stack is, well... It's quite a mix. It really
is. International events, some pretty intense
politics here in the US, reflections on culture,
even a night out at the theater. Right. Seems
disconnected maybe at first glance. But when
you start pulling the threads, the sources, they
offer some fascinating insights how different
things kind of reflect similar dynamics. And
that's our mission today, right? Connect those
dots for you. Find those aha moments in the material.
So today, that means wrestling with these confusing
reports out of Los Angeles. Yeah. Exploring different
ways power gets projected symbols. Performance,
one source calls it military theater. Interesting
term. We'll touch on some complex international
stuff too, but through a very specific political
lens from the sources. And then switch gears
completely. Celebrate some cultural giants. dissect
some political spectacle moments? It's a lot,
but it's all there in the material you shared.
Definitely. So let's jump in. Where do we start?
Let's start with Los Angeles. The sources you've
got make it really clear. Reports of unrest,
yes, but also just wildly different stories about
what's actually going on. Right. Conflicting
narratives. Exactly. And what's interesting is
how the sources immediately bring in history
to frame this confusion. Like the Watts riots.
Precisely. 1965 Watts riots. reminding us how
hard it is, notoriously difficult, to get a clear
picture of chaos, even decades later. They use
that classic example from Watts, who threw the
first punch. Black witnesses said police, police
said the crowd. Almost 60 years on, we still
don't really know for sure. And they apply that
directly to LA now. The sources basically say,
based on what's available right now, Nobody,
not us, not the politicians mentioned, can say
exactly what's happening everywhere. Too many
unknowns. Too many different accounts. Exactly.
And the sources highlight specific things that
really show this uncertainty. OK, like what?
Well, first, that ICE incident in Boyle Heights
on Wednesday. Oh, yeah. The sources describe
that. Unmarked SUVs, ramming a car, tear gas.
Right. pulling the driver out, speeding off.
The government says, you know, they were arresting
someone with a felony warrant, used force, because
he resisted. But the sources raise a ton of questions.
A ton. Was the warrant valid? What about the
child in the car? Why the long chase? Where is
the warrant? Why did they flee the scene? And
the LAPD is investigating it. As possible. Assault
with a deadly weapon, according to the material.
Yeah, shows the uncertainty right there. And
that wasn't the only incident mentioned. No,
just the next day, Thursday, you have the Alex
Padilla incident. Senator Padilla, right? Showed
up at a DHS press conference. Yeah, and gets
manhandled, handcuffed by federal agents. The
government story. He didn't ID himself, seemed
like a threat. But Padilla and witnesses say
otherwise. Completely. Said he did identify himself,
was just asking questions, wasn't threatening,
and he wasn't charged with anything. So these
examples, they just highlight how much is actually
unclear right now. Exactly. And that ambiguity,
that vacuum. Yeah. Well, the sources say it's
getting filled. Filled with spin, exaggeration,
and what they bluntly call outright lies. OK,
so why? Why the different narratives, the sources
dig into that. They do. They break down the motivations
for the right. The Trump administration, allies
and media, the base, the goal seems pretty clear
from the sources. Paint immigrants negatively,
make protests look awful to justify using more
force like the National Guard. Exactly. Or even
the military. Then you look at the left, California,
L .A. leaders, their allies, media, their base.
Their goal is also clear. Downplay the unrest.
Frame Trump is this crazy pants dictator overstepping.
And boost their own profiles in the process.
Seems like it, yeah. And then there's the media
piece, both traditional and social. What's their
angle according to the sources? Beyond specific
political leanings. There's just this powerful
bias toward shock value, sensationalism. And
social media just pours gasoline on that fire.
Totally. Algorithms reward the sensational or
things that just confirm what you already believe.
So the sources argue that two of the three main
players here, right, and the media's tendency
towards sensationalism actually benefit from
making LA look bad. That's the assessment in
the material, yeah. They suggest the deck is
kind of stacked against a more measured view.
Okay, so if the deck is stacked, and it's hard
to know what's really happening, how do you even
start to make sense of it? The sources offer
a way. They do. They suggest using the tools
a historian might use, even now as the first
draft of history is being written. Interesting.
So applying those tools to the Trump administration's
narrative about L .A., what do the sources uncover?
OK, let's break it down like the sources do.
First, patterns of behavior. OK. The sources
point out this administration, it has a pattern,
arresting or nearly arresting officials, a judge,
a congresswoman, a mayor, now a U .S. senator.
So the sources are saying it's not just coincidence.
They suggest it looks like a pattern of targeting
political opponents. as this the interpretation
presented. Okay, what else? Second, fantastic
tales and outright lies. The sources note the
embrace of conspiracy theories, like protesters
being paid crisis actors. Hasn't that claim been
made before? Many times, yeah. And the sources
stress zero proof offered then, zero proof offered
now, which suggests maybe a pattern of dishonesty.
And beyond conspiracies, just lies. Outright,
easily disprovable ones, according to the sources.
lying about when the guard was deployed and taking
credit for it, claiming the LAPD chief advised
deploying the guard when the chief explicitly
said protests were nowhere near that level. And
the sources pose a key question for you, the
listener. At what point do you just dismiss a
narrative when so much of it is demonstrably
false? That's a fair question. What's the third
tool? Words versus actions. The rhetoric, the
sources say, targets criminals, but the actions.
especially IC's actions. They hit what the sources
call low -hanging fruit. They cite your reader
JW's account, legal immigrants applying for citizenship
getting targeted, or undocumented day laborers
at Home Depot people described in the material
as overwhelmingly law -abiding, even critical
to the economy. So a disconnect between who they
say they're after and who they actually go after.
A clear disconnect, yeah. Yeah. That's what the
sources highlight. Okay, fourth. Let's look at
real evidence. The sources acknowledge sure bad
things have happened burned cars looting one
of your questions mentioned that right, but they
argue It's really hard to quantify who's doing
it and even if it's hundreds or maybe a thousand
people in a city of four million It's a tiny
fraction and they had that comparison the Lakers
championship comparison Yeah They say the current
riots as some call them are actually more tame
than the chaos you often see after a Lakers win
And we have lots of history with Lakers wins
to compare it to. That's a useful perspective.
OK, number five. Linked to that fake evidence.
This is crucial. Your sources show a lot of the
proof of chaos flying around social media is
just fake. Like a specific example. Yeah, they
give concrete ones. A video of wrecked LAPD cars
on X. from 2020 George Floyd protests, a TikTok
video of marchers telling ICE to leave, actually
LAFC soccer fans from weeks ago. Wow. And the
insight here from the sources is powerful. If
your story is actually true, you shouldn't need
fake evidence to back it up. Makes sense. What's
sixth? Eyewitness accounts. The sources share
multiple accounts and they're pretty consistent
from people actually in LA. Like who? The electoral
vote staffers who live there say, you know, the
city isn't some kind of hellscape. Your reader,
J .H., went downtown Saturday night Sunday morning
after Trump announced the guard, described it
as calm, saw only minor CHP action later. And
Jimmy Kimmel. Yeah, and Angelina. Showtaped nearby,
said the riots were overblown, showed how calm
it was outside his studio, noted a big Disney
premiere went ahead nearby. Even Schwarzenegger
agreed. Arnold Schwarzenegger, yeah. Republican
also lives there. He agreed with Kimmel, said
the riots were exaggerated. The point the sources
make is you have diverse observers on the ground
seeing something much calmer than the official
narrative. OK, seventh point. Look at outside
views. The sources bring in this former Canadian
MP, Charlie Angus. What did he say? Held a press
conference, strongly denounced Trump's actions,
called it full on police state tyranny, a threat
to the rule of law. The sources note that generally
non -American observers seem to agree the administration
looks like it's pushing towards authoritarianism.
OK, eighth. Draw the comparison again. Back to
Watt 65, LA Riots 92. Those events, your sources
remind you, had a massive, visible impact. Right.
Observers on the ground now, the ones we just
mentioned, they would see major signs if things
were similar. The sources indicate they just
aren't seeing that kind of evidence. Okay. And
the last point. This one sounds important. It
seems pretty damning, yeah. When someone tells
you who they are, believe them. What does that
refer to? The source is, quote, DHS Secretary
Kristi Noem directly. Saying the administration's
goal isn't just safety. It's to liberate this
city from the socialists and the burdensome leadership
put in place by the governor and mayor. Wow.
So not just about law and order. Exactly. The
sources argue this quote reveals the real agenda
might be political, trying to depose elected
leaders, not just about public safety. So pulling
all that together, the sources conclusion on
the L .A. narrative from the administration is?
Based on all this, they conclude it's largely
dishonest and inaccurate. They do add the caveat,
you know, things are unfolding. Maybe they have
Los Angeles colored glasses. But the evidence
they present overwhelmingly points away from
the administration's claims. OK, that's a detailed
breakdown. What about the political side? The
sources mentioned Jonathan Last, the bulwark.
Yeah, his points introduce what your sources
call the protest dilemma for Democrats, which
is basically how do they push back against what
they see as government overreach? tyranny even,
without looking like they're okay with or enabling
law breaking by some protesters. A tricky line
to walk. Very. And the sources list five general
points about protesting. It's powerful. Not all
protests work. You can't always tell which will
beforehand. Regions can use protests as a foil
and the catches go on forever. Do the sources
give any context for this dilemma? They give
crucial historical context. Polls back in the
early 60s. Most people thought the civil rights
protests actually hurt the cause. Really? But
history sees it differently now. Completely differently.
History judged them necessary and right. The
sources connect this to current polling on L
.A. What does that show? Republicans and Democrats
are split, obviously, but independence. They're
significantly underwater on the Trump administration's
actions. One poll cited, Washington Post, has
him 15 points underwater with independence on
this. That's significant. And they mentioned
Democratic focus groups from this week, framing
things as defending lawbreaking loses support,
but framing it as pushing back against government
overreach. That gains support. So the insight
is Democrats see the challenge, but maybe start
from a better public opinion spot than the civil
rights movement did. That seems to be the takeaway
from the sources. Yeah. Okay. Legally speaking,
what happens next? There was a court ruling?
Yes. Judge Charles Breyer ruled against the administration.
Your sources highlight his main points. The right
to protest isn't wiped out because of a few bad
actors. And this idea that protests can instantly
become a rebellion, he called that untenable.
dangerous. And his conclusion? The key takeaway
from the sources. He ruled Trump's actions were
illegal, exceeded authority, violated the 10th
Amendment, ordered the Guard Control back to
the governor immediately. But that got put on
hold. Right. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
stated they'll hear the case Tuesday. Given the
Ninth Circuit's reputation and what the sources
see as weaknesses in the Trump case, they expect
another loss for the administration there. Then
it potentially goes to the Supreme Court if they
decide to take it up, or they might just avoid
it. We'll see. OK. That really covers the LA
situation from the sources. Let's shift now.
You mentioned military theater. There's more
to that. Yeah. Another aspect the sources discuss,
it's about using the military as a symbol. beyond
just deployments on the ground. How so? Your
sources give us history lesson number two. The
presidential salute. Presidents are civilians,
right? Military must salute them. But traditionally,
presidents did not return the salute. Washington,
Eisenhower. They upheld this to keep that civilian
military line really clear, bright red. But that
changed. It did. Ronald Reagan broke with tradition.
One veteran quoted in your sources puts it bluntly
says Reagan loved the military like a budding
fascist would bit harsh Maybe but strong words.
Yeah. Anyway on advice from a ring commandant
Reagan started returning salutes Presidents have
done it ever since partly because of media pressure
especially on Democrats not wanting to look disrespectful.
And the sources see other examples of this line
blurring. They mentioned George W. Bush's mission
accomplished moment on the USS Abraham Lincoln
is a big one. Right. So the point here is the
core insight from your sources is that Donald
Trump seems to want to go way beyond just blurring
that line. They say he wants to obliterate it,
turn the military into a what do they call it?
Personal goon squad, praetorian guard or status
symbol. Strong language again. How do they support
that? They detail that speech Trump gave at Fort
Bragg, now Fort Liberty. He used soldiers in
uniform as a backdrop, which is already, you
know, questionable. But it was worse than just
a backdrop. According to the sources, yes. As
Trump made political attacks, anti -immigrant
stuff, slurs against Biden, calling L .A. protesters
animals, these soldiers were hooting, cheering
him on. That doesn't sound typical. Not at all.
The sources suspected right away these weren't
just random soldiers because most military folks
take being apolitical very seriously. Now were
they right? Seems so. Your sources skate personnel
screened and selected these soldiers, instructed
them when to cheer, even gave them talking points.
Talking points? Like what? Like Trump isn't fat
and Biden isn't the sharpest bulb. Can you believe
that? Wow. Plus, Maggie Gear vendors were apparently
on the military posts during the speech. Clear
violation. An investigation started. So the sources
suggest this wasn't just optics. It was like
a staged political rally using troops. Unbelievable.
And the sources mentioned some gaffes from that
speech, too. Bonus schadenfreude, they called
it. Yeah, they couldn't resist. Trump said if
the US hadn't won WWI, Americans might speak
German and Japanese. Seemed unaware Japan was
an ally in WWI. Oops. Big whoops. And then the
other one. while insulting Biden's intelligence.
The sharpest bulb. Exactly. Never the sharpest
bulb. Obvious mixed metaphor, right? Sharpest
knife to a brightest bulb. Funny on its own.
Yeah. But your sources found something deeper.
They connected back to Biff Tannen from Back
to the Future. The bully character. Who the sources
know was widely seen as based on Trump. And in
the movie, Biff, being not too bright, mixes
metaphors too. Make like a tree and get out of
here. Ugh. So the sources point out Trump's sharpest
bulb gaffe. It's like life imitating art. A verbal
mistake revealing a lack of smarts, just like
the one written for the character based on him.
That's a pretty amazing detail the sources dug
up. Okay, so that covers that part of military
theater. There's a part three, parades. Right,
military theater part three, parades. And this
brings history lesson number three. The founding
fathers, your sources emphasize, were really
wary of militarism and pageantry. Kings and emperors
use that stuff. They deeply disapproved of big
military parades Okay, so what kind of military
parades have we had your sources outline three
types? One is mixed participation like inaugurations
the Rose Parade where military units are just
part of a bigger thing Got it. Second is drill
presentations like the Marines at their barracks
precision stuff Okay, and the third the rarest
is large -scale processions purely military big
scale any famous examples the most famous according
to your sources, the grand review of the armies.
May 1865, Washington, D .C. After the Civil War.
Exactly. A hundred and sixty five thousand Union
soldiers marched over two days, purposed with
celebration, reward the troops, say goodbye.
And your sources note Confederates were forbidden,
a point they cheekily suggest Trump wouldn't
like. Any others? Yeah, smaller victory parades
after WWII, the Gulf War, a fundraising parade
during WWII, but much smaller scale, maybe 8
,000 to 20 ,000 troops. OK, so how does the planned
Trump parade this weekend fit in? Its stated
size is about 6 ,000 soldiers. And the historical
justification, your sources say you have to kind
of squint to see it. How so? It's supposedly
commemorating the Army's 250th birthday. This
Saturday, June 14th, 2025. Wait, the Army's 250th.
Isn't that later? Way later. The actual 250th
birthday is June 3rd, 2034. 2034, so nine years
off. Exactly. Which strongly suggests to your
sources the White House picked this date for
reasons other than historical accuracy. What
do the sources say about how it might go? Well,
potential disappointment for Trump seems possible.
There's like a 60 % chance of rain forecast.
Yeah. DC hotel reservations are apparently low.
And they mentioned Craigslist ads. Yeah, ads
looking for seed fillers. The sources suggest
they might even be real, given the potentially
low interest in bad weather. And the protesters.
Trump probably wants a confrontation. That's
the speculation, yeah. Yeah. That the birthday
present he really wants is a chance to crack
down, but he might not get it. Why not? The No
Kings protest groups, according to the sources,
are telling people not to go to DC. Instead,
go to protests planned in other cities. Avoid
giving him the confrontation he might want. Interesting
strategy. Did the sources ask for feedback? Yeah,
they invited readers to send in reports or photos
from either the DC parade or the No Kings protests
elsewhere. Okay, let's shift gears completely
now. The sources also covered a major international
event. Right. Israel's missile attack on Iran.
happened Thursday. What were the reported details?
Stated target was Iran's nuclear program, which
is reportedly near weapons capability. Casualties
included two high -ranking Iranian generals and
two nuclear scientists. That sounds serious.
What do the sources say about the implications?
War strategy. This is where your sources are
very careful. They explicitly say they are not
foreign policy experts. Okay. They don't claim
to know if this leads to a bigger war or why
Netanyahu chose this moment. They actually point
you, the listener, to other outlets for that
kind of analysis. Foreign policy, Heretz, Al
Jazeera. So what do they focus on? Only the American
politics angle, specifically Donald Trump's connection.
How does he connect? Well, reminder. He tore
up the Iran nuclear deal Obama made failed to
get the easiest pie better deal He promised his
team did try diplomacy recently the sources note.
Okay, but crucially your sources state Trump
tried hard to talk Netanyahu out of this specific
attack wanted to let diplomacy work But Netanyahu
ignored him ignored him interesting. Yeah, and
your sources draw parallel to Russia Ukraine
Trump promised peace day one didn't happen. He's
kind of flopped around sometimes supporting Zelensky,
sometimes not. And the connection is his whole
Putin whisperer idea proved false, just like
his relationship with Netanyahu seems to be.
According to the sources, it's a friendship only
when the other guy needs something from Trump,
not the other way around. Hmm. Did the sources
comment on Trump's first term foreign policy
overall? Briefly. They note he didn't have any
major new crises blow up on his watch, but they
admit they aren't sure why. Was it his actions?
Was it his unpredictable nature scaring people
off? Or just luck? Hard to say. So looking forward,
what's the implication highlighted in the sources?
It's pretty stark. Trump 2 .0 could also avoid
major setbacks. Maybe even see progress like
with the Abraham Accords momentum or Russia,
Ukraine, Israel, Iran, Israel, Palestine, something
else. Could just explode and the sources offer
a really pointed conclusion here What is it if
Iran does become a nuclear power in the next
say three years? Your sources argue it is entirely
on the current president's plate because of the
choices he made specifically tearing up that
nuclear deal Wow Okay, that's heavy stuff. Let's
shift tone again now. The sources had sections
on culture and commentary too, right? Freud and
Freud and Schadenfreude. That's right. Joy from
others' happiness and pleasure from others' misfortune.
Let's start with the joy. The Freud and Freud.
What was that about? Music. And cultural change
in the 1960s, focusing on two giants who just
passed away, both at age 82. Sly Stone and Brian
Wilson. Okay, Sly Stone. Sly and the Family Stone.
Yep. Your sources highlight his song, Everyday
People. Groundbreaking stuff. First song ever
to hit number one on both the soul charts and
the main pop charts, the Hot 100. That's huge.
And they note he was one of the first black artists,
right alongside James Brown, to really confront
racism directly in his music. Okay. And Brian
Wilson, Beach Boys, obviously. Right. Started
out more bubblegum pop, the sources mention,
but then he heard the Beatles' Rubber Soul. And
that inspired him. Massively. Led him to create
what your sources call his magnum opus. the album
Pet Sounds in 1966. Classics on there. God only
knows. Sleep John B. Absolutely. And the sources
point out Pet Sounds, it was way ahead of its
time in sound production. It directly inspired
Paul McCartney, led to revolver Sweet Pepper.
Wow. And the sources clarify something about
Good Vibrations. Yeah, common mistake. Apparently
even chatbots get it wrong sometimes. Good Vibrations
was a huge hit single around that time, but it
was not on the Pet Sounds album. Good clarification.
So, Sly Stone, Brian Wilson. Did the sources
see similarities between them? They did. Both
incredibly gifted songwriters, obviously. Both
studio wizards. They used the recording studio
like an instrument itself, much like the Beatles
did. OK. And the sources note, both played a
role in introducing mind -altering substances
into music and the wider culture back then. But
they also had struggles, downfalls. Yeah, the
sources detail that too. The drugs, they seemed
to worsen underlying psychological issues for
both of them. Which affected their careers. Seems
so. Their most significant groundbreaking work
was concentrated in relatively short bursts.
Wilson, mainly. 1960 to 66. Stone, more like
67 to 73. And the sources reflect on that. Yeah,
they note that back then, they probably got less
help than they might today. More stigma around
drugs. Mental health treatment wasn't as advanced,
and they posed this really poignant question.
Which is? One wonders what the world lost as
a result. Hmm. Powerful thought. And they both
passed this week. Both at 82, yeah. The source
has mentioned Slystone's passing seemed a bit
quieter, maybe because his music's more of an
acquired taste, or maybe just because he died
first in the week. But regardless. The conclusion
is? They're both giants. True giants. And the
world will not see their like again. That's how
the sources put it. A fitting tribute. Okay,
now for the flip side. The Schadenfreude section.
Pleasure from misfortune. Right, and your sources
say the Schadenfreude was, quote, thick at the
Kennedy Center on Wednesday night. The Kennedy
Center in D .C. What happened? Well, first some
context from the sources. Trump avoided the Kennedy
Center during his first term, knew he wasn't
exactly welcome there. He's tried to kind of
remake it since changing management, canceling
some programs like drag shows. But the sources
say, quote, it's not working out very well for
him. OK, so what was the event Wednesday? Trump,
Melania, JD Vance, the VP candidate and his wife,
Usher Vance. They all went to see Les Miserables.
Les Miserables, OK. How did that go? Not great,
according to the sources description. They report
many, many boos when the Trumps arrived. Said
the boos were louder than the cheers by a lot.
Ouch. What about the performance? Apparently
most of the regular cast refused to perform for
him. So understudies had to go on. That's what
the sources state. And they add the understudies
pointedly addressed several songs directly to
Trump. Wow. Any other details? Sources mentioned
photos showed Melania looking really unhappy,
quote, like she'd prefer to be anywhere else.
They described her look as, well, miserable,
made a joke about the photo caption. Also noted
Trump's tux didn't seem to fit right. And maybe
pointedly, since Trump had canceled drag shows
there, a group of drag queens showed up in the
audience for the performance. OK, that's quite
a scene. What about the reaction online? The
sources say Trump got dragged mercilessly on
social media. Why? Mostly for the irony, the
apparent cluelessness, as they put it, of attending
a play that's literally about fighting against
an oppressive government. Yeah, the optics aren't
great there. What about J .D. Vance? He got mocked,
too, for what the sources called lame jokes,
trying to pretend he didn't know the difference
between Les Miz and Sweeney Todd. The speculation
mentioned was that he knows perfectly well and
probably secretly loves musical theater. Oh,
OK. Any final jab from the sources on this? It's
just one. They note the next big show coming
to the Kennedy Center is The Lion King, which
is about an evil king who betrayed his people.
And given Trump went to Les Mis, the sources
imply maybe he'll show up for Lion King, too.
Possibly just as blissfully unaware of the potential
parallels. Oh my, well that certainly covers
the schadenfreude. Wow, what a journey through
these sources. Really is quite the range, isn't
it? From the fog of current events in LA trying
to dissect narratives. To the history and symbolism
of military theater. Complex international stuff
seen through that specific political lens. And
then wrapping up with music giants and uh...
political awkwardness at the theater. It really
drives home the value of digging into the material
you gather, doesn't it? You find these specifics,
the context, connections you'd definitely miss
otherwise. Absolutely. It's about looking closer,
asking questions. So as we wrap up, any final
thought for our listener to chew on based on
all this? Well, building on what your sources
discussed, maybe think about all these different
kinds of theater we touched on. Military displays,
political rallies, actual stage plays. Okay.
How are these different stages used? by different
actors. Do you project power? Maybe you control
a narrative? Or even just comment on society?
Does recognizing these performances help you
make better sense of the messages flying around?
That's one angle. Is there another? Or maybe
think about L .A. The difficulty your sources
highlighted in knowing what really happened.
Conflicting accounts, motivated sources, maybe
even fake evidence. How do you personally navigate
that kind of information mess. How do you try
to figure out what's closest to the truth for
yourself? Those are really powerful questions
to think about. Well, thank you again for providing
such rich source material for this deep dive.
Yeah, fascinating stuff. Keep exploring. Keep
digging deeper into the information that's out
there. Absolutely. Until next time.