Welcome to the deep dive. So today we're jumping
into, well, kind of a whirlwind tour. There's
some really fascinating headlines. Some are perhaps
a bit head scratching, too. Our mission really
is to uncover those underlying currents, maybe
some surprising connections, those aha moments
you might miss just. you know, glancing at the
news. We've got quite a range today. We're talking
global politics, economic shifts, the future
of political parties, even some eye -opening
government spending and, well, a pretty sobering
look at education. Exactly. And we'll try to
distill what's actually significant here. Connect
those seemingly separate events and explain why
they should matter to you. It's all about encouraging
that critical thinking, isn't it? Because the
world rarely gives simple answers. Often the
real insights are beneath the surface. OK, let's
dive right in then. First up, a story that almost
feels like royal drama. Donald Trump's recent
trip to England. King Charles III apparently
put on quite the show, loads of pageantry at
Windsor Castle. Right, the Windsor visit. Yeah,
and the thinking is Prime Minister Keir Starmer
probably asked for it. you know, to make Trump
feel like a king for a day. We're talking cavalry,
those big furry hats, red carpets, gilded rooms,
the works, grandeur central. Now, Trump seemed
to enjoy it, but he did have a couple of, let's
say, royal no -nos, stepped ahead of the king
once or twice. Oh, how did that go down? Well,
Charles was pretty smooth about it, recovered
gracefully, apparently avoided the kind of awkwardness
we saw with Queen Elizabeth back in 2019. Ah,
right. And Windsor itself is interesting. Location
-wise. How so? Well, it's not right in central
London. It's about 25 miles west, smaller town.
Yeah. But for ceremony, for history, it's got
that weight. Maybe more visually impressive inside
than, say, Buckingham Palace for this kind of
thing. Makes sense. Keep the pomp, but maybe
slightly removed from the main London buzz. Exactly.
Allows for the display, but maybe contains the
political noise a little. Speaking of noise,
while the king was pulling out all the stops
inside, things were different outside Windsor.
And definitely in central London, thousands protesting.
Banners like, no to racism, no to Trump. Yeah,
so reports about that. And it got even more direct.
Someone projected images of Trump and Epstein
onto Windsor Castle itself. Led to four arrests,
actually. Wow. But what's interesting is, compared
to some other places, the UK still has pretty
broad free speech protections, right? Generally,
yes. Yeah. More leeway than some might expect.
Like Channel 4 running a five -hour special just
cataloging Trump's statements they called untruthful.
Five hours. Their content chief even hoped Trump
might watch them after dinner. That's quite a
statement from a broadcaster. Definitely. OK,
so let's shift from London to a domestic story.
Another kind of drama, maybe call it wrong think
in the crosshairs, this time involving Jimmy
Kimmel. So Monday night, Kimmel's monologue,
he talks about the arrest of Tyler Robinson for
Charlie Kirk's murder. And he says something
like, we hit some new lows with those aligned
with the Mad J movement desperately trying to
characterize this kid as anything other than
one of them and doing everything they can to
score political points. Right. I remember the
commentary. It wasn't really about Kirk himself,
but the reaction to the person arrested. Exactly.
But the reaction to Kimmel's words was immediate.
And pretty forceful. Yeah, what happened there?
Because it seemed very fast. Well, the Trump
-appointed FCC chair, Brendan Carr, gave an interview.
And he hinted pretty strongly that the FCC might
look into suspending ABC's broadcast license.
Seriously? Over a monologue comment? Apparently.
And that just sent Disney, you know, ABC's parent
company and their partners into a complete spin.
I bet. License suspension is huge. So huge that
the decision to suspend Kimmel came down incredibly
fast. Like, he reportedly got the news while
they were finalizing that night's monologue.
Guests already in the studio. Wow. That is astonishingly
quick. It really is. It feels like maybe a mix
of things. You know, traditional media profits
aren't what they were. That's certainly a factor
for network. Plus maybe just not wanting to risk
offending, uh, MAGA world. We saw Stephen Colbert
lose his late night job, too. Is this just the
new reality for late night? Draw the wrong kind
of fire and you're out. It does raise a fascinating
point about maybe unintended consequences. How
so? Well, OK, network constraints are tightening.
Late night ratings generally are down. But look
at podcasting. It's absolutely booming. Kimmel,
Colbert, they're perfect for podcasts, maybe
even together. Huh. Never thought of that. And
suddenly, they could have a much larger audience,
totally uncensored, no network worries. They
could become like a huge voice on the left. Kind
of a Joe Rogan effect, but from a different angle.
So trying to shut them down on TV might just
give them a bigger platform elsewhere. It's possible.
Attempts to suppress something can sometimes
just amplify it, you know. It's happened before.
That's a really sharp point. And it wasn't just
Kimmel feeling the heat, right? The president
also designated Antifa a major terrorist organization.
Right. That designation happened, too. Though,
legally speaking, for a domestic group, it doesn't
carry the same weight or trigger the same actions
as it does for foreign terrorist organizations.
Oh, OK. So it's more symbolic, perhaps? Largely,
yes. The legal tools are mostly geared towards
those aiding foreign designated groups. Got it.
OK, with all that political maneuvering in mind,
let's switch gears a bit. Let's look at the economy.
The Federal Reserve made a pretty big move yesterday.
They did. The Open Market Committee cut interest
rates. Quarter of a percent. First cut this year,
right? First one this year, yeah. But it's a
risky move. Why is that? Isn't cutting rates
usually seen as good for the economy? Stimulating
things? It can be, but the risk is inflation.
Remember August, inflation came in at 2 .9%.
That's already above the Fed's 2 % target. Cutting
rates now could easily push inflation back over
3%. And Fed Chair Powell himself made a kind
of unusual comment. What was that? About the
labor market. He noted fewer jobs, yeah, but
also fewer people looking for work, partly because
of deportations. That's a situation the Fed hasn't
really faced before. Huh. So fewer workers available
might keep wages high, even if job growth slows.
Exactly. It complicates the inflation picture.
So Powell hinted more cuts might come. But you
have to wonder, will inflation just surge again?
That's the big tension, isn't it? Politics versus
economics. Presidents always want lower rates,
especially before an election. Always. But if
Powell cuts too much and inflation takes off,
that could actually hurt the Republicans next
year. Precisely. It's a tough balancing act.
Ideally, the Fed makes decisions independent
of politics. But is that ever truly possible?
The pressure must be immense. What should a president
do? Just completely leave Powell alone. Seems
unlikely. Historically, a truly hands -off approach
is rare when the economy feels shaky or an election
looms. Short -term political gain often clashes
with long -term stability. It's almost inevitable.
OK, let's transition from the Fed to the future
of the Republican Party itself. We're looking
at some insights from Jim Van De Hei and Mike
Allen, political veterans. Right. What have they
seen? Their big takeaway is this goal of MAGU
integration. Basically, how to turn Trump voters,
especially younger ones, maybe not traditional
Republicans, into loyal registered party members.
They pointed to JD Vance hosting the Charlie
Kirk Show's Memorial Edition as a very visible
first step in that process. Interesting. So it's
about solidifying that base beyond just Trump
himself. And Vance is key there. Seems like it.
He's positioned as maybe the 2028 heir apparent.
He's using his RNC finance chair job. to connect
with donors. But he could face headwinds, right?
If the economy sours, his stay the course message
might be tough against an outsider, maybe Governor
Kemp or a young kid. Good point. And others are
maneuvering, too. Marco Rubio, as Secretary of
State, he's very active, probably eyeing the
VP slot for 2028. And Suzy Wiles is still seen
as the key power broker behind the scenes. Very
savvy. Donald Trump Jr. backs Vance, too, apparently,
though, how much real influence he has across
the party. That's debatable sometimes. True.
But here's a really interesting shift Van De
Hei and Alan point out. podcasts. They say podcasts
are becoming the center of political gravity.
That makes sense. Traditional media keep shrinking.
Podcasts are huge, especially with younger men
who maybe don't watch cable news or read papers
much. Exactly. So their argument is any candidate
who really connects with the big podcasters,
they've got a massive advantage. It's a whole
new battleground. And how does the Man .G .A.
movement adapt? Vance seems to be trying to be
even more combative, right? Yeah, trying to out
-Trump Trump. they put it, calling to root out
liberals celebrating Charlie's murder, even though
there aren't many actual high profile examples
of that happening. So does that work? Or does
the base see it as maybe inauthentic? They say
the base is pretty good at sniffing out phonies.
It's a risk. Trying too hard. It is. OK, shifting
over to the Democrat side. Campaign infrastructure.
Act blue is making a big move. Ah, act blue.
The donation platform, what are they doing? They've
been huge, right? Making it super easy to donate
online, especially for smaller campaigns. One
click. Incredibly effective, yeah. Especially
for grassroots fundraising. Well now they've
bought a company called Impactive. Impactive,
what do they do? They provide tools for things
like canvassing, phone banking, voter outreach.
So ActBlue is basically becoming a one -stop
shop now. Ah, I see. Combining the fund -raising
ease with the organizing tools. That's a smart
move, especially for those smaller and medium
-sized campaigns. Gives them access to more sophisticated
stuff. Exactly. But now, politically, what's
happening? Donald Trump is going after ActBlue.
Hard. Really? On what grounds? He's claiming
without evidence, mind you, that they aren't
doing enough to stop straw man. donations, illegal
foreign money disguised as small domestic donations.
Strong donations. OK. That's a serious allegation,
but often hard to prove on a large scale. Is
there evidence of a major problem? Seems similar
to the non -citizen voting claims the scale appears
tiny, but it's being framed as a huge issue.
He's trying to make it seem like an epidemic.
It's interesting he's targeting Act Blue specifically.
Yeah. What about Win Red? The Republican equivalent.
Good question. They're not getting the same heat.
And there's a key difference, right? ActBlue
is a nonprofit. Very efficient. WinRed is a for
-profit company. Takes a bigger cut. That is
a significant difference in their models. Might
explain the focus. OK, let's talk big money.
Record breaking money. North Carolina. Yes. The
Senate race. 2026. Roy Cooper versus Michael
Watley. It's predicted to be the first billion
dollar Senate race ever. A billion. With a B.
That's just... Staggering. More than double the
current record. Why so much? Well, North Carolina
is just absolutely crucial. It's a key swing
state. Both parties need it for Senate control.
Simple as that. And the candidates. You've got
Cooper, the Democrat, who's a known quantity.
Very popular former governor, won statewide six
times. Kind of folksy and low -key. Yeah. Very
strong candidate profile. And Whatley. Republican.
He's a strong fundraiser. He was RNC chair. But
he's never actually run for public office before.
That raises what the pros call candidate quality
questions, especially in a race this massive.
So experience versus fundraising muscle. In a
state where control of the Senate could hang
in the balance, billions will flow. No doubt
about it. Every dollar will be spent. Okay, another
indicator, maybe a tea leaf for predicting who
controls the House next. retirements. Ah, yes.
The retirement watch. How's it looking? Well,
the thinking is, House members hate being in
the minority. No power. So if they think their
party's going to lose control, they often just
retire or run for something else. Makes sense.
Why stick around if you're going to be on the
sideline? So what are the numbers? Right now,
it's 16 Republicans retiring and 12 Democrats.
That's a net difference of R minus four. And
historically, what does that suggest? There's
a clear pattern. A strong negative correlation.
The more Republicans who retire, generally, the
worse the Republicans do in the election. Kind
of a self -fulfilling prophecy, too, right? Experience
incumbents giving up seats makes them harder
to hold. Exactly. So based on these numbers,
some analysts are predicting Democrats could
pick up maybe 20 seats. That would be a big shift.
20 seats. Yeah, that would definitely flip control.
Retirements are a key signal. OK, let's pivot
to something less visible, maybe, but hugely
impactful. Government spending. Or maybe government
waste. I have to ask, where are the watchdogs
when you need them? What's caught your eye? Get
this. Congress, over the last four years, has
put over a hundred billion dollars towards weapon
systems that the Pentagon itself did not ask
for. Doesn't need, doesn't even want. A hundred
billion? Wow, that's... That's textbook government
waste, isn't it? How does that happen? Seems
like it's often these recalcitrant Congress critters,
as one report put it, demanding contracts for
their districts or maybe for donors in exchange
for votes on other bills. Earmarks, essentially,
but maybe hidden, appearing magically in the
dark of night in spending bills. That's the accusation.
Provisions just appear, bypassing the normal
defense reviews. And it's still happening. Apparently.
For 2026, there's $52 billion in these program
increases over what the Pentagon actually requested.
Gabe Murphy from Taxpayers for Common Sense is
warning that the lack of transparency, the anonymous
direction of funds just invites abuse. It's pretty
concerning. What percentage of these add ons
did the Pentagon actually say they needed? even
if unfunded. Get this, 75 % of the proposals
for 2026 were not requested by the Pentagon at
all. And only about 3 % were things that were
actually on the Pentagon's own list of unfunded
priorities, stuff they genuinely need, but couldn't
fit in the main budget. So not only is it wasting
money, it could actually be hurting military
readiness, diverting funds and resources from
what the military actually says it needs to buy
or maintain. Precisely. And there are concrete
examples. Senator Susan Collins in Maine proudly
announced $283 million for Pratt & Whitney jet
engines the Pentagon doesn't need. Pratt & Whitney
is a campaign contributor, by the way. Any others?
Boeing. Getting $360 million for Apache helicopters,
the Army explicitly said it does not want. It's
not just small change. No, those are huge sums.
It paints a picture of priorities being driven
by politics and parochial interests, not necessarily
defense needs. Seems that way. Okay, finally,
let's turn to something really alarming. Education.
A new report paints a frankly stark picture of
American high schools. Consider this stat. One
third of high school seniors cannot calculate
a 10 % discount on an $80 shirt. One third, that's,
wow, that's basic arithmetic. Fifth grade level,
maybe? Exactly. It suggests fundamental concepts
just aren't sticking. Where is this data from?
It's from the NAEP, the National Assessment Education
Progress. They basically gave American students
a D grade overall. A D grade. Matthew Soldner
at the National Center for Educational Statistics
called it a stark decline and the Secretary of
Education Linda McMahon went further a devastating
trend and an economic emergency an economic emergency
That's strong language. What else did the report
find? Well, that one third of seniors failing
to reach the basic level in reading, that means
they struggle with simple inferences from text,
just understanding the straightforward meaning.
So basic comprehension is an issue for a huge
chunk of students. And math is even worse. Forty
five percent are below basic. They can't do things
like figure out gas need for a road trip or adjust
recipe measurements, everyday stuff. These aren't
abstract skills. These are functional life skills.
How do we stack? internationally. Not great.
The PSA 2025 results put the U .S. at hashtag
18, way behind many Asian nations, even behind
Canada. Number 18. So it raises that question,
right? How does the U .S. stay competitive? How
do we out innovate if our kids are struggling
with reading and basic math compared to other
developed nations? It's a critical question.
And educators always talk about third grade being
that key point, you know, where kids shift from
learning to read to reading to learn. Right.
That transition is fundamental. How are we doing
there? Well, the 2024 report card showed 40 %
of fourth graders were below basic in reading.
40%. They're already behind the curve right as
they need those skills most. That has long -term
consequences. You see colleges complaining they
have to do remedial teaching. Even good colleges,
yeah. Students arrive unprepared. And think about
vocational training, too. Modern equipment? complex
manuals. If you can't read and comprehend well,
it's a huge barrier. It really doesn't bode well
for the economy in the 21st century, does it?
Not at all. What a journey today, huh? We went
from royal pageantry and protests to the Fed's
tightrope walk, political party strategies, campaign
tech, billion dollar races, and Pentagon spending.
and ended up with some really sobering stats
about our schools. It's a lot to take in. It
really is. But it shows how interconnected everything
is, doesn't it? Global stuff, the economy, politics,
even basic education, it all weaves together
to shape where we're heading. Absolutely. So
as you... Our listeners reflect on all these
different pieces we've unpacked today. Here's
maybe a final thought to chew on. Given that
shift, we talked about podcasts becoming these
major centers for political conversation and
also considering the challenges in critical thinking
and basic skills highlighted by those education
numbers. What role do you think informed, engaged
listeners like yourself actually play in shaping
that political landscape and in demanding accountability
for our collective future?