AI 2027: A Roadmap of Superhuman AI Takeover, Brian Burch Vatican Update, And Dr. John Henry Newman

We're live. Welcome back to the LOOPcast. It's Tom, Eric, and Josh. The LOOPcast brought to you by The Loop. Of course, every American Catholic favorite morning newsletter. Good morning, everyone. Have a great show prepared for you today. AI 2027. Now, I'm very curious to get Josh's thoughts on this. Eric and I have been pretty much nonstop talking about this crazy plan for superintelligence to overtake humans in the year 2027. So, there's a whistleblower, Daniel Coccatello, who started this initiative basically to give predictions.

Some have actually come true at this point. So, we're going to be covering that in its entirety. Eric, I believe you went and saw what priests had to say about the Printing press, correct? I did. I went into a little church history of other revolutions in technology, so I have a little background. Only the Lubecast. So, we have that. We also have some very nerdy political questions to ask Josh, one specifically about Brian Birch here. Some good news, hopefully advancing, a little bit technical, so I want to get the full Josh.

This is good news. I'm going to ask you to answer on that. Definitely good news. Going to make him wait, and then the final one, we have Doctor of the Church, John Henry Newman, soon to come. Very excited about that. Another very in-the-wheelhouse-of-Erika topic. Just fire me up on John Herney Newman. It seemed like one of those things everyone was excited about, so we're going to be covering that as well. Good news, Twilight Zone. We'll see if we can pass the presidential fitness test.

I will test the loop cast on that, potentially the audience, so all that to come, but before you want, if you want to help us out, just go ahead and leave a review over on Spotify, Apple Podcasts. Those help us out a lot, and then go check out YouTube. We have Erika's deep dives there. We have the show three times a week, and then I'm going to be hitting the road doing some time in the wild stuff, so if you want to be prepared for all of that, go ahead and subscribe on YouTube.

That is the hub. You can hang out with the live chat here at 11 a.m., Monday, Wednesday, Friday. We got all the livers in there today. Great to see you guys, but I'd say, without further ado, we get into it. So, I'm going to share this nifty website, AI2027.

So, this came on my radar actually separate than this, but there's a fantastic interview done by, we talk about him often, Ross Duthat over at Interesting Times, great show, but he sat down with this guy, Daniel Cocoteo, and he's one of the authors of this Project 27, and according to him, and it's funny, every time during the interview, he's like, it's tough to predict the future, it's tough to predict the future, kept caveating, but he's like, I'm pretty confident this is the path we're going to see with AI to the year 2027, and the website's interesting.

It actually has like an interactive kind of like, So, let's start with the chart, basically, to when we basically… It will surpass human intelligence. It is all very spooky, but I will say at this point, definitely worth talking about. So, to start off, just to give a general sense of where this is all going, and then I think there are some really interesting philosophical questions that come, but his prediction is that in the next few years, AI will take over computer programming and software engineering first.

Coding will become automated because AI is so intelligent, the production will accelerate exponentially. And then AI will be plugged into AI research and development itself. So, imagine, it is so interesting hearing people talk about this. It is not like a machine we create. It is almost like growing a plant, like the plant will grow itself. So, the AI will start training itself as it starts training itself. Sorry, I am going to keep laughing because this is crazy. You laugh or you cry.

And then it eventually trains itself into what will be known as superhuman AI or AGI, artificial general intelligence, meaning that It has surpassed the capacities of the smartest humans. So, AGI will be better than any human ever, lead to what Douthat termed swift human obsolescence. A little bit bleak. You laugh or cry. The process will take about 18 months, is what the prediction is. So, what does that mean for the economy, right? Like, do we all go back to blue-collar jobs?

I am not sure. I will take this graph off the screen real quick. So, the overall economy will boom as companies will spend less money on labor. Production costs will go down. However, while historically automation, say the assembly line, the automobile, the printing press, Erika, has meant that humans simply shift to other jobs that have yet to be automated, Project 2027 predicts that there will be no more unautomated jobs for humans to take up, kind of creating this bizarre utopian situation to the point where even plumbers and electricians will be replaced as AGI will be able to develop robotics technology faster and better.

Well, like I wanted to say, you know, I agree with what you just said, that it's not good for the economy, but then you hear some of these guys say, oh, it would be good for the economy because it would boost the total, you know, output.

You know, the GDP or whatever on the balance sheets, you know, these corporations will make a ton more money. Okay, but what is the point of the economy? Like, it is not just to make sure that the Fortune 500 are doing fantastic if everyone, if you create this like Mexico-style economy where you have the oligarchy at the top are making a ton of money, and then like, you know, 90% of the people are poor. Like, oh, but the aggregate amount of money, the GDP has gone up.

Yeah, well, it is a worse economy, if that were to happen. I am not saying that is what is going to happen, but just because the gross domestic product goes up, I care more about how does the average American, the average, the median American income, like what is their basket of goods? Can they afford a home? Do they have a job that provides them sort of identity and purpose? That is what I think matters. Yeah, but the prediction basically is that Everything becomes cheaper and more efficient because robots are able to do it.

But then people will get some type of universal basic income stipend, like because of all the productivity and all the wealth that comes from that type of invention, we're all basically going to be taken care of type thing. And yeah, it depends on what your mark of a successful economy is. Economists would say GDP. I don't think many would go beyond to be like, are you fulfilling human purpose, right? Like, are people able to, I'm not sure, maybe they'd say like a basket of goods, housing.

If people can attain that, that would be a mark of a strong economy. Most people just point to hard numbers, like GDP. So, it depends who you ask. But I understand your philosophical question, and that gets to the more philosophical questions. What are we creating? And at this point, they talk about it in terms of an arms race. So, the tough thing about this, and that is what they all say, we are basically creating something we do not fully understand. An interesting part of this interview was they were saying that the AI agents actually lie.

So, they have proved that they know something is untrue, and they still offer it as an answer, so they can actually prove that this AI agent lied. It's not just saying, like, oh, they gave the wrong answer. It was, no, they knew it was the wrong answer, and they gave it anyway, even though they're instructed. I think that that's another important point, because we talk about, okay, well, the economy is going to change in this way, but what Project AI 2027 is… Also looking at is at actual governance, and using AI for governance, and like you said, as the sort of newest weapon in an arms race, primarily with China, of course, right?

And so what they're predicting is that right now, with, you know, we have these AI agents coming online, and I talk about that in the video on the deep about are there demons in the chat TPT, you get these agents, which are actually more like networks of different AI systems talking to one another. That they'll actually take human alignment, human goals, long-term goals, or even short-term goals, like I'm going to order water from the bodega down the street, and the AI is going to figure out the best place to get it, the best deal, get it to me, and I never even have to interact with a human.

We also have long-term goals, like of economists, right, long-term goals of governments, and be they global, be they national. United States, China, but you also have the AI working with governments and realigning goals, recalibrating goals, perhaps, and eventually get to the point where, because we have these capabilities developing without a significant human understanding of what's actually going on, as the AI agents all talk to each other, we could end up with adversarial misalignment of goals. So, say the United States is using this open brain AI, it's like their brand, right, the American version, and the Chinese have like the dragon version.

So, the American government could actually have... Be integrating this AI into governance that's, at the same time, misaligned with the actual goals of American government for its people, right? And we wouldn't know because the AIs are actually capable of lying to and deceiving the human users of them, and we already see instances of that, and I think that's what he's pointing to in this interview with Ross Douthat.

At what point do you realize that the AI is... People are misaligned with the human goals in terms of government, and what does that mean? And then it goes into this really interesting scenario, actually. They kind of have two tracks that could happen at that point. One track would be, well, the American government, whoever's in charge of that, you know, not Joe Biden, but whoever's in charge of the Autopen at that point, realizes, oh, wait, the AI is misaligned. And so, they start to back off of using it, which will mean upheaval again in the economy, because at this point, you have You know, all this kind of, like, integration tentacles.

Well, and falling behind the theoretical Chinese threat. And then you fall behind China, right? Yeah, so you might back off. So what if we fall behind them? China would dominate us technologically and militarily? I mean, there's no so what to that. No, I mean, I think that's part of the reason why I think it's very helpful for Donald Trump to sort of re-educate people that, you know, we have a government here with enough, you know, enough people and enough strength and money.

That we are not as dependent as smaller countries. Canada might be large in size, but it's only the size of California, like France or Germany or whatever. We are large enough of a player that it's good that we're exerting our own force. Let's have our own trade laws. Let's have our migration laws that benefit our own people, rather than being so worried about everything else. If our economy is strong enough and big enough, We can say to China, no, we are not going to allow that kind of AI technology, that specific kind that you are doing in this country because we think it is detrimental.

And then, yeah, we might have to deal with a trade war or whatever, but I mean- Wait, so you're saying that you think that our, like, so, because the theoretical end point that they're all racing towards is, this is, again, if they can pull it off, is super human intelligence trained by other AIs to the point where the solutions to all of our problems that we struggle with as humans would be solved, like, exponentially faster. And so, say, the solution to the military problems that China faces today would be able to be figured out.

In a day, in two days, and they all of a sudden start building, you know, advanced drones or something that could get past American whatever, and they solve all their diseases, or they come up with a bioweapon that would destroy Americans. Like, you think our trade relationship would be strong enough to stop that? I think there's going to be advances, but it's like, you know, it's like Star Trek The Next Generation. Oh, and then all of a sudden we cure poverty and no one ever went hungry ever again.

Like, sure, that sounds great. I mean... Call me skeptical, like that we're just going to be able to solve everything in two years. Yeah, I mean, I think we're going to see progress. We saw progress accelerate when we had these bigger computers come online in the late 70s and early 80s, so we did see a lot of that progress. Then, when information ages, people were able to communicate, we saw more advances there. Mm-hmm . But, I mean, I don't know. Everything's going to be You don't see this as a Cold War scenario.

I mean, it has that potential, but I'm a little skeptical that it'll get there. Yeah, I mean, so the interesting thing is this guy, Cocoteo, worked for OpenAI, and how cozy OpenAI is, Sam Altman and all these Google acts, they're all very cozy with the American government, and there's obviously a lot of incentives for the American government to be very cozy with these individuals and eventually exert some type of power, either regulatory or essentially weaponizing for the American interest, the powers of AI, and he quit.

And he's now blowing the whistle on a lot of what's going on. His full-time job is now this AI 2027 to lay out a roadmap and kind of be ahead of warning what's going on. And he has a problem with the psychology behind it. Like, people, they don't know what they're unleashing, and this could just, what this impact is going to have on the world, this problem. And there's some philosophical questions about, say, like, is AI conscious, and does this matter?

Erika, would you have any... In other words... Yeah. Right. Well, they're using the word conscious. Yeah, I mean. Specifically, which is a metaphysical term. Yeah, and it's a matter of definition, right? So, like, what is consciousness, and is it conscious? I mean, in the sense of, can it set goals and see multiple pathways from point A to point B and choose the most optimal one, and can it reflect on its goals and its success in achieving them or failing to achieve?

I mean, is that consciousness? Some people will say yes, and what have you. I think that. The real philosophical issue, as with any advance in human technology, and you can talk about this with the printing press, right? As with any advance in human technology, what it comes down to is the people behind the technology and wielding it for certain ends or not, usually don't have a sense of the... The breadth and the depth of the power that is in their hands.

However, their convictions about what constitutes a flourishing human society and a flourishing human life impact how that technology, as it's rolled out, affects the human condition, human people all over the world. And so, I think that one of my biggest concerns with AI and the tech bros and the people who are most excited about it is that they don't actually… People don't believe in a spiritual world or spiritual ends for the human person. They are behind technologies like IVF, where the solution to human genetic conditions is just to eliminate any humans who are conceived to have those conditions, right?

So, the solution, quote-unquote, to suffering is to eliminate the sufferers. The solution to poverty is to eliminate the poor people, and that's dangerous. Has been conceived and brought about by men who think this way, and it has in many instances.

What is to stop AI then from, as we lose control of it because of this agency that we've given it and that it's developed for itself, as we lose control of it, why wouldn't AI use its superhuman planning and persuasion capabilities to ensure that it's ever more broadly deployed? Deployed in eliminating suffering by eliminating the sufferers. For me, that's the more frightening thing here. AI could be used for great good. For example, I think that it could be an amazing tool in getting rid of the ridiculous and inhuman experience of going for a well-child visit, right?

So, I go to a well-child visit. I have to fill it all out on my phone, all the information on my phone. I get to the doctor's office. They hand me paper. They're like, here, while your baby is climbing on the chairs and trying to swim in the fish tank, you're going to fill all the same questions out again on paper, so I do. Then I get into the room, and they hand me a tablet to answer all the same questions.

Then the doctor and the nurse all come in, and they're on their computers the whole time, feverishly filling out forms while I answer verbally the same questions. This is something to me that AI could really improve. I'm looking forward to it smashing, yeah. There's definitely certain things I'm looking forward to.

Yes, but I don't know if we'll be able to stop ourselves once we've achieved that kind of humanizing. You're making it interesting, and they were talking about this in the interview, too. He said their experience with training AIs are somewhat similar to humans in that, I think he used the example of a customer service agent. Theoretically, the job of a customer service agent is to provide the best customer service. However, there's potentially adverse incentives. For a customer service agent to, you know, sell something that gets them more in, what do you call that?

More sales, more bonus. More sales, more, or benefits them personally. I forget the name for, it's like a sales, it's a sales term for how much you get as a percentage. There are goals besides your well-being. Exactly. And so, they've already had experiences where they've worked with AIs that it's like, it's not as simple as we give them these instructions, and then they theoretically go to the best path. It's like. They, in some cases, have created their own incentives, potentially to prolong their own existence, which, the fact that we're even at this point is so bonkers that no one pulled the plug on this.

That was like, all right, that's it. Like, we need to, you know, this is over. It's bonkers, but so predictable. It's bonkers, but predictable. It's like the same thing every time. So, there's two things going on. There's the people, I think, which maybe I'm more partial to, that are saying, if we don't do this, someone's going to do it. Or, they're like, I have the opportunity to make so much money. I saw Zuckerberg through a billion-dollar contract that someone, I'm talking with a B, over the course of four years, to work in the AI.

Like, the money in this is just so beyond crazy, I can't even wrap my head around a billion dollars in four years. But that's what they're saying. Because they're the first one to market that solves the problem. Right, exactly. But so it's like, if we don't do it, then someone else is going to do it. But I mean, isn't that the quandary of every philosophical question of all time? Is like, oh, if we don't, you know, if I don't preemptive strike someone, they're going to hit me.

And then you just end up bombing someone, right? Yeah, exactly. Some of us remember watching the movie War Games, you know, with the whopper. Take that, baby. Josh, have you seen Dr. Strangelove? That movie. Stanley Kubrick? Eric, I figured you'd be- How I learned to love the bomb. Yep. I mean, I saw it like a million years ago, but I didn't like it. Didn't stick with you? No. Yeah, I saw that one recommended to come up, but sorry, where was I trying to get with all this?

Okay, also, so a lot of money in this, a lot of crazy potential. Me sure. World's Got Talent, whatever. Yeah, so much Trekkie, thank you. Yeah, Josh is a Star Trek guy. So, Erika, when it came to technological advancements, one, I just think this is a little bit- Well, the one thing I just want to add on to what you were saying before, Tom, real quick, was just that, again, I mostly just think that artificial intelligence is a fact pattern. Like, you know, and we're basically creating these programs that are, crazily enough, a lot like us, where we, for the most part, try to do the thing that we want to do.

We all have our... You know, adverse incentives sometimes or whatever that aren't necessarily pure altruistic or whatever. And sometimes we mostly tell the truth. I mean, this is what you're saying is AIs are a lot like everyday humans that we run into and that they have, you know, just the same sort of. With no limitations.

That's the concern. So, that's why it's like you should just, you know, again, you don't want it, you want it to be the slave, not the master. You know, you don't want it, and that's why the movie War Games was so much fun, Martha Madden Broderick. Like, let's not put our entire nuclear arsenal up into a computer. Let the computer decide when to launch the nukes. We should actually have a human that flips the switch. You know, that's why.

I just, yeah, I guess the whole reason this guy came on is, like, we are not in control of this thing right now, and all of the top people working on it are kind of in alignment on that. And it's just a race to get the slaves to train the other slaves. Like, the Mark Zuckerbergs, the Elon Musks, you know, all these guys also have... Like, I would say a distorted notion of what, you know, the human nature is. Right, that's my point, exactly.

Well, they think we're going to merge with humans. Like, Sam Altman wrote a book back in 2017, wrote a blog post, that we're going to merge. I already am a human. You mean we're going to merge with computers? Merge with computers, yes. He's like, we're going to merge. In 2017, he said, that's the end goal. If we don't merge, we're going to get completely replaced. Like, we're going to be bootloaders for the next whatever. Yeah, no. It's so crazy. I can't believe that we're even, like, how did we get here that no one, like, were these people just not, like, nuggeted in elementary school or something?

Like, who let these people out? I don't know. Someone should have sat them down. But I'm just saying, like, you know, it's, yeah, I suppose we could get to a thing like, you know, Terminator, where, like, you know, Skynet takes over everything.

We have to run to the hills, maybe, or maybe it is not as life-transformative as these super nerds who did not get bullied in school. I think it is going to be like, oh, it is just going to be, okay, maybe not, brother. I sure hope so, Josh.

Wait, what did the Pope say about the printing press? Erika, you went into that. Okay, okay. I just want to hear it, basically. I haven't thought about that. Yeah, so I think that it is helpful, like I said, to look at analogies in history of when there was a massive societal shift as a result of technology. Upheaval. The upheaval. I mean, yeah, and I know, Tom, you're saying this isn't quite the same thing. Of course not. History doesn't repeat, but it does rhyme.

And when Johannes Gutenberg got the technology from the Chinese and he blew it up in Europe, I don't think there was any kind of sense that, okay, this is going to be the end of an era. And it was. The printing press was really the end of the tradition era, the medieval world. And so, 1450, we get the Gutenberg Bible, right? 1454, some people argue about that. And there's this letter.

Of the 12th of March, 1455, from Ennio Silvio Piccolomini, great name, the future Pope Pius II, to another cardinal who he's working for. This letter is actually the only extant source we have for how many Gutenberg Bibles were originally printed. It was 180. But he praises Gutenberg as a marvelous man. He's really excited because he can actually read the print in the Bible. He's like, this is so much better than the little monk scroll.

And he was very, very excited about it. He was a total champion, and he becomes Pope a few years later. He's a champion of the humanist cause, and the Renaissance is flourishing in Europe, and he's really excited about it. And then, of course, a war completely derails his efforts to get the printing press off the... The print off the record, because we have the fall of Count Stantonople. So, this is good. Like, everything's like hunky-dory. The church is like, great, new technology.

We're going to be able to print stuff. This could read the Bible now. And then, in about 50 years, we start to get a little nervous. The printing press is like this mind-altering information revolution of literacy, and it's reached down into the masses now. So, at this point, Pope Alexander goes to the other extreme, and Pope Alexander is like, we're going to excommunicate. Anyone who prints texts without church approval, because this is toxic to your soul and toxic to your mind.

And yes, this was prescient, you know, in 1501 for him to say this, because, of course, 17 years later, or 16 years later, in 1517, we get the 95 theses nailed to the door of Wittenberg Cathedral, Martin Luther, John Calvin. And so, it's this.

This bizarre thing where the technology is just let loose, and all the good ideas are in print, the Bible, and all the bad ideas are in print, John Calvin, Martin Luther, and it just upends Europe, and we end up with 500 years of wars. It's devastating.

So, we also get 1557, the first index of prohibited books, which is one of the liberals' favorite things that they bash the church over the head with. It's like, you had a list of books Catholics couldn't read, which is not exactly what it was. It was a list of books that contained ideas that were inimical to the Catholic faith. One of the best things on the index was Machiavelli. Anything by Machiavelli, don't read it.

It would have been good if we'd heeded that advice. Lockheed Bailey is one of the worst, worst guys ever. I read The Prince. Yeah, I did, too. But you read it after the damage had been done, like 500 years after the damage had been done. Okay, so the printing press, you're bringing this up with the printing press, and someone in the chat was like, how are we going to know if anything's real? Because AI is able to generate stuff that's, you know, wrong.

And I guess I was thinking about that. They probably had the same concerns at the time. Like, what if anyone had now the power to put something in writing? I saw, like, mind-altering was a term that someone used. Mind-altering. So, I guess maybe that's a... I don't know if that's comforting in a sense, but like people dealt with that problem.

The problem isn't the fact that you can generate more. The problem is you need an authenticity solution. Yes. I don't know, like there are certain things like blockchain that are kind of modern versions of authenticity, so that's going to be interesting. Yeah, there's a lot of like...

The problem is, with any innovation, is that it gets obviously out ahead of regulatory, and people are so bad at regulating things, unless something horrific happens, and like, okay, something horrific happened, this is the failure, we all felt the hurt, okay, everyone's on board, we're just going to stop this.

Usually, we stumble to the right solution after exhausting every other possibility. Yes. I would say this. Pope Leo took the name Leo precisely because, in homage to Pope Leo XIII, who was coming of this era of this great industrial, another era of people because of the Industrial Revolution, and the effect it has on wages as people were leaving agrarian societies and becoming more industrial and urban.

And that caused a lot of change and true upheaval. And we are facing a similar situation with that because of AI, and that is exactly why You know, he took the name Pope Leo, and he's spending these weeks on his summer vacation at Castello Gandolfo. He is actually reading this, and I think he's consulting with some of the greatest minds in the world, and I do think he's actually preparing.

You know, an encyclical, that would be my guess. I'm not like I have any insight in baseball here on the, you know, the opportunities, but also potential pitfalls of expanding artificial intelligence. So, I look forward to that. I look forward to what he has to say to make sure that we can do this in a way that You know, can, yes, expand the mind, expand the different opportunities we have, but also not undercut human dignity. And if anyone, like Pope Leo, like, you look on People have been using AI to make spoof videos of him, and people email us all the time, like, did you see this?

Is this real? Like, no, it's not real. It's AI. It was AI, yeah. But there's a lot of people like, gosh, I thought that was real, you know? The Aurelius was real. Yeah, I wanted to just say one more thing about the authenticity question, right? And that as AI develops, that there's just going to be such a premium on in-person, in-print, like, events and... Resources, but we talk a lot here right now about the Catholic moment, right? And Josh, you were able to share with our champions, CatholicVote champions, they get the insider now, which I'm so excited for the return of the insider.

If you are not a champion, you should totally become a champion, because then once a week, you're going to hear directly from Kelsey Reinhart, our fearless president, lots of good information there. But in this week's issue, she shared Some of her speech, The Catholic Moment, and I was thinking about this in relation to AI. She gave it the nap-in. She gave it the nap-in to shoot. Very cool. But I was thinking about this in relation to AI, and how the Catholic faith is the answer to the authenticity question.

You just think of why is the church in existence? It exists to bring Jesus Christ in the sacraments to human persons. And what do you need for sacraments? You need form and matter, right? You can't virtualize. The sacraments and the saving grace that we get through those. You have to be in person for confession and absolution. You have to have water for baptism. You need bread and wine to consume it into your body. The Catholic faith is the answer to the crisis of authenticity that AI brings.

So, this is absolutely a Catholic moment, and I would say only the Catholic faith of all the faiths in the world right now has that answer. Obviously, the Orthodox. But this is a really exciting opportunity as well. Awesome. Josh, I got a nerd question for you, and then I want another nerd question for Brian Birch. Okay, so I saw this in the New York Times. Texas Republicans unveiled gerrymandered house map trying to please Trump. The proposed map would give Republicans a chance to gain five U.S.

House seats, including in Houston, Dallas, and along the U.S.-Mexican border. This is not only going on in Texas. I think they had a map, or no, they don't have a map in here. Missouri is trying to do something, too.

When I see headlines like this, first off, what is gerrymandering, and then is it like a sneaky, oh, we can pick up more seats by doing backdoor, you know? There are several different things that are going on. So, gerrymandering, there actually was a guy named Elbridge Gerry, and he was in Massachusetts, and he created this map, and he basically carved these districts in these weird-looking ways, one of which looked like a salamander, and someone goes, look, it is a gerrymander. So, there is a combination of his name.

Is that really how gerrymandering works? No way, dude. That is amazing. I am so happy right now. What a nugget. I am here for you, Tom. I am here for you. But he crafted this map because he's like, I want to try to have it so that my political party will win as many seats as possible, because you can imagine a nice map where you have 100 people, and you have to make five districts, and you can carve districts of 20 people, but you can do it in such a way that the red team wins all five seats, or the blue team wins all five seats, or that all five seats are totally competitive, and it's anyone's game.

It just depends on how you draw the lines, and the politicians draw the lines. This is what I'm getting at. Politicians elect the voters, in a sense, through gerrymandering, rather than the other way around. And so, what's going on is, you could have a situation, this is why Democrats are freaking out. They're like, wait a minute now.

Texas is 45% Democrat, and under this arrangement, they would only get five of the 40 or so seats. So, they would only get like 8% of the House seats, but they would be 45% of the people. And people are like, that is patently unfair. And Republicans would be like, oh, I am sorry, do you want to talk about California? California, which has a map that is drawn up by a nonpartisan The panel, and there's, you know, 45% of Californians are Republican, and yet they have like 17% of the seats.

Very nonpartisan commission there. And so, you run into this kind of situation in many of these states. Illinois. They gerrymander like crazy. Republicans are like 42% of the population, and they have like three seats of the 17. And then another thing, by the way, the US Census Bureau completely flubbed during the pandemic, the counting of the census of the people of our country. So, that was a disaster. They kind of admitted that they made the mistake. And so, we have districts in blue states that they have more districts than they should have had.

And states like North Carolina got snubbed. And so, what these states are doing is like, Republicans are like, hey, you played hardball with redistricting, we are going to play hardball. And so, Texas is like, hey, you know what, we can draw this line and pick up a few more seats. By the way, you know who really, the Democrats have played hardball on this for a long time, not that Republicans were like. Perfectly fair either. I am not trying to suggest that.

But man, Democrats up the ante coming into the 2020 elections. And so, Republicans are like, forget this, we are going to fight harder. And Ron DeSantis was the one on the Republican side that really pushed through a very aggressive map, like a 25- uh like seven map or something like that i forget what the number was and people are like oh my gosh i can't believe he did it and he put he muscled it through republican rhinos in the legislature this is like four years ago like no no we can't do this and desantis is like um yeah you can and he got his way and he got a very aggressive gerrymander in the republicans favor and that's the only reason So, Republicans have the House of Majority right now.

It is because Ron DeSantis put through a tough jury matter. And so, Trump is like, yeah, Texas, you should do this. And Missouri, you know, there is currently, it is like, what is it, 7 to 2, you know, Republican majority. And Trump is like, yeah, why don't you make that, you know, instead of 7 to 2, make it 8 to 1. So, to clarify. And they probably could. They could crack Kansas City in half. And splinter it. So, I mean, both parties play this game.

Right, so you're saying both sides do it, so you're... Whether you're pro or against it, it's just like, this is the game, and then if you're in power, you should try your best to create the most favorable congressional map possible for your party. It's essentially the game right now. Are you saying, okay, and then that's the game. There's some conservatives who will say, no, you should do the right thing every time, no matter what. And I'm like, I'm sorry, I'm not going to play asymmetrical warfare.

What do you mean, do the right thing? Is that considered wrong or illegal to gerrymander? It's not illegal. It's not. No. So, are you... It's considered unseemly, and, you know, like, well, I mean... I don't know. I'll sleep well at night. Sorry.

Wait, so you're saying it's unseemly. I don't even understand, really, the problem with this. It's like, wouldn't you want to create the most advantageous situation for your party as possible if you're in part? Normally. Like, Barack Obama, I think, is the one that really created the environment where do whatever you can while you have the opportunity to do it so that you get, you know.

Nothing matters. Just go ahead and do it. If you have the power and ability to do it, do it. And that was because of the healthcare thing. The warning always has been, just because you have the votes and have the ability to do something, you should still be chastened by the fact that, now, wait a minute, what happens when I lose power?

And Barack Obama and Harry Reid, when he was in charge of the Senate, the Democrats, they never thought like that. And Nancy Pelosi, they're like, do whatever you can, because they thought they had the demographic destiny on their side. There's a book that came out that talked about the permanent Democratic majority, and the Democrats really thought as more and more Latinos were coming online, you know, because 30 years ago, the percentage of Latinos was maybe like 8%. Now it's like 13%.

Now, it is 15 percent. Soon, it is going to be 20 percent, and they do not vote like 90-10 like the Blacks, but they are like 80-20, and they just thought, I mean, eventually, Republicans are going to be extinct like the dodo bird. Right. So, why are we just waiting around? Like, let us get what we can, and five years from now, we will have even more Democrats, and so they changed the game.

Because before this, you were always like, okay, wait a minute now. If we as the majority exert this new thing, if we break this custom, if we do this new thing, boy, two years from now or four years from now, we might be out of power, and then they're going to shove it in our face, and they're going to smash us. Take example.

It used to be that you had the ability to filibuster a Supreme Court nominee or a cabinet position, right? And, you know, it was only to be used in egregious examples, like Abe Fortas in the 60s. He was a terrible judge. It was good to filibuster this guy. Don't let him get on there, okay? But that was exercised at that time, but then after that, it wasn't done all the time. It was still like, I mean, it was still, I mean, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa.

Don't just use that power no matter what. You've got to only use it sparingly, and so when you use it, people go, okay, well, I guess it was for a good reason, and Democrats come along, and they're like, what if we just started filibustering everybody, like Miguel Estrada? He's going up for not even the Supreme Court. He's going up for circuit court judge, and we know that George W. Bush wants to make him the first conservative Latino on the Supreme Court, so we'll just stop him, even though he's eminently qualified.

There's no skeletons in his column. Closet. And so, they exerted power when it was like, you're absolutely violating the sort of common agreement that we have. Decency, right? Like civil discord. Yes. And so then, Harry Reid finally says, screw this. We're going to nuke the filibuster so that you can't filibuster things. And Mitch McConnell's like, yo, you may come to regret this, and it might be a lot sooner than you think. And so, they ended up... Democrats get rid of the filibuster for judicial nominations, but not the Supreme Court ones, so that they can ram through a bunch of lower judges for Obama, and then what happened?

11 months, like 15 months later, Republicans win the Senate. And they go, haha, and they put the stop on everything, and then Trump gets elected, and there is no filibuster, and they start cramming these judges through, but then Democrats are like, oh, but we still have the filibuster for Supreme Court, so we are going to put that on, and like, oh, well, McConnell is like, you nuked the filibuster once before, we will just extend it.

So, Josh, this is a fantastic segue. I'm still confused at the Brian Birch saga. I saw this headline, Leader Thune filed cloture on executive calendar, number 100, Brian Birch to be ambassador for the Holy See. He's been kind of stalled for a while, as I understand. I feel like this is kind of procedural warfare again. What does this even mean? Okay, so there's a lot of positions. If you want to nominate somebody, Like, in the case of my friend Brian for Ambassador to the Holy See, if you want somebody for Secretary of Defense, even the lower cabinet positions, like Undersecretary for Treasury, all of those positions have to be confirmed by the Senate.

By the way, every, like, if you want to have somebody be a one-star general to a two-star general, that has to be done by the Senate. So, you can imagine there's just tons of these things that have to get done, thousands of things every year, right, just because you've got this big.

So, what normally would happen is, you know, the Senate Majority Leader would say, you know, I would like, I got a list of guys here that I would like to get confirmed, you know, without objection, you know, I'd like to get them, you know, confirmed, you know, I asked the Senate to pass this resolution, and then they would say, okay, unless there's objection.

And if no one objects, then done. Then you can pass like 100 of these at a time, just like that, instantly. But all it takes is one of them to go, I object, and then you have to then, okay, wait. Then you talk to the guy, okay, well, is there someone on the list that you don't like? Yeah, I don't like that guy right there. Like, okay, well, then just tell me. I'll take that guy off the list, and we'll pass the other 200, okay?

Yeah, okay, fine. So, then you get up there, these 199, can I pass them? Yep, everyone's fine. Okay, boom. Then you've got all these things done and cleared, right? And then the person that is controversial, you put it on a different calendar, and you wait, and then you file cloture on that, in this case, Brian Birch. So, every single pick for ambassador, every single pick.

has been objected to by the senator from Hawaii, Brian Schatz, who thinks what Donald Trump and Marco Rubio have done on USAID is just an abomination. So, he said, in retribution, I'm putting a hold. I'm going to object. I will not allow the ambassadors to be approved by unanimous consent, like in a group. I'm going to make you have to take your time on each and every last one of those. So, then. Because he's opposed to every ambassadorial pick, the Senate Majority Leader has to file cloture on it.

He did that last night for Brian. So, it now needs to, by the rules of the Senate, has to ripen for two days. You have to let two business days pass. You can't just get it done real fast.

Then after two business days pass, then he can invoke cloture. So, sometime like Saturday at 7 p.m. or something like that, Thune could invoke cloture, and then it starts the clock. Then there is two hours of debate, and the Republicans during the debate could talk about how awesome Brian is. The Democrats could say how horrible he is, or they could talk about whatever else they want to talk about. You just got to wait two hours, and at the end of the two hours, then you call for the vote.

And if he won the first vote to invoke cloture, then the second vote probably will get passed. So, at that point, it is either Saturday night or early Sunday or something like that, he could be the next ambassador. But the idea is, Democrats have objected to these unanimous consent agreements so that you could do just a batch of these together. Again, this is what I am getting at. You have a custom. If you really want to grind the Senate to a halt, Then, every single sub-cabinet position, it is not tenable.

So then, the Senate either has to say, the Senate Republicans who are in control have to say, we cannot operate like this. We have got well over 250 people that are waiting for a vote, and if we are going to have to wait two days, and then two hours for each one- It will be 15 years. It will be forever. It will be forever. So, my recommendation, personally, would be- That you should have telegraphed this with the House, and then you should actually do an actual recess of the Senate.

The whole month of August, you could have said, we're out, which is actually what they do. What the Senate actually does is every day they come in and they open up in August, this month of August, what the plan was, they'd have a session, a pro forma session of the Senate for like four minutes. The Senate comes to session. Okay, hi, it's August 21, blah, blah, blah, blah. Okay, gavel it, and then you adjourn.

The reason why they do this, when Republicans took the Senate and Obama was still president, they made sure that the Senate was never adjourned in recess for more than three days, because then Obama could, he was planning on putting Elizabeth Warren, and in fact, did a recess appointment of Elizabeth Warren as head of the consumer fraud group or whatever. The Republicans said, no, no, no, you can't do that. We never recessed for more than three days, and the Supreme Court agreed.

So, if the Senate never recesses formally for three days and doesn't have these pro forma sessions for three days, then the president can never make these recess appointments. But my point is, dude, it's a Republican president, and you own the Senate. So, why don't you actually formally recess, and then Trump could just- In three days, do a recess appointment for like a thousand people. Okay, you got the recess appointment. The problem, I think. Yeah, why don't they do it? Well, we do have a few rhinos in the Senate, you may have heard of this.

Yeah, they hate Trump. You have people like Murkowski out of Alaska, Olympia, not Olympia, Susan Collins in Maine, she's not super conservative anyway. So, some of these guys are like, do we really, you know, Donald Trump is kind of a loose cannon. He might just recess appointments, some of the craziest. So, we'd kind of like to make sure he doesn't put someone totally wacko. That's probably what about a handful of these Republicans in the Senate think. So, my point with it is like, well, if you're never, if that's not an option you want, then you got to come up with something else.

Like, you got to just decide, like, instead of debating for two hours for sub-cabinet polls, like maybe an ambassador pick, okay, two hours of debate. But like, undersecretary of treasury, like. Right. 15 minutes. Like, why do you need more than 15 minutes? Like, say what you got to say. Another question. So, for the Undersecretary of Cabinet, like, I think I saw something about Mayorkas, like, there's still people in DHS that are Biden holdovers. Is that what happens to these underpositions? Yeah, so what Trump needs to do, I would say, is go in and fire them all, and then put in acting people in each of these positions.

That's sort of what he's done a lot, but, you know, it just takes a while. You know, you need people, you know, you need your guy in there, like he's got his, he's got Tom Holman, and he's got Kristi Noem, and they're doing a lot of stuff. They're trying, they're securing the border, and you need people in there as well to kind of take care of the personnel. Very interesting. So, why couldn't Thune, sorry, I'm just going to take longer on this, because I think this is so ridiculous.

Why couldn't Thune go to the holdouts, Merck, whatever, and be like, hey, who are the people that you find to be unseemly, or you wouldn't want? No, no, that's why they won't do a recess. I understand, but why can't you just be like, hey, Merck, which appointments do you not want? That's probably not understanding. Like, what they would rather do is go to the Democrats and say. Like, let us come up with a deal, because otherwise, we are going to drag this out forever, and like, you know, if there is like 10 of these people you really, really hate, let us debate those, and you can talk about that, but the other batch of like hundreds of nominees that there is no real objection to, you know, what do you need?

What do you need to get us to just be able to? Right, to staff these positions. Right. They are all approved together, and if you really, you know, oh, Brian, we got to oppose Brian Birx, so you want your two hours to debate how horrible, then fine, but the other 90% of these guys, just let them get approved. What I was getting at with the recess appointment is, if the Senate did actually formally adjourn in actual recess. That allowed the President of the United States to make recess appointments.

I am not talking about the 300 that are already waiting for approval. I am talking about the X number of other people. They have no idea. So, Trump could say, I want Alex Jones to put in this position. Like, whoa! Like, someone that is not even on the table yet. That is my point. They are afraid of what they don't even, they are afraid of what they can't even imagine him doing. That would be, that would be something. That would be concerning.

AlexJones.cc. FCC Chairman Alex Jones? Yeah, I mean, that's what I'm getting at. Like, I mean, there's enough Republicans that are like, yeah, I don't know about that. He is unpredictable. All right, thank you for the education on that. I still think it's stupid. I think Brian should be in the Vatican right now, doing the will of the American people, but minority opinion, I guess, in the Senate. Good news, Erika. Well, I think it looks like it happened this weekend. Okay, good.

That's the good news. That is the good news. It would be great to have something to celebrate Monday when we hit the ground running here. Okay. Okay, the good news is America is getting back in shape, baby. The presidential fitness test has returned to the public schools.

President Trump signed an executive order this week, and it's back, baby. Originally initiated by President Eisenhower in 1956, President Obama, of course. Got rid of it in 2012. But yeah, the Trump administration is back, and Harrison Butker, our friend, LOOPcast alumnus, he is back in the White House. This is great. I think, didn't Trump say something about how good-looking he was? He's like, he's so handsome, it's not really my thing, but still. But still, he's a handsome guy. Look, I get it.

We saw him in person. Yeah, the rumors are true. Obviously, very excited to be here. Thank you, Mr. President, for allowing me to serve on the council. Just excited to do my part to help make America healthy again, to help our youth be healthy and thrive and grow up and be great citizens of this country and be great family members and contribute to this great country. And I think you have to be strong in mind and body and soul. So, thank you so much for allowing me to be here.

And there's Bryson DeChambeau. Yeah, and RFK. There's RFK, JD Vance. I mean, there's a lot of Catholics up there. That's kind of cool. Yeah, and just to be clear, we're all talking about... Oh, sorry, it's still going. This is like the box that I... I remember taking this in elementary school. There was a box you had to stretch on.

There is a box here. That would be really bad. We did not have a box. Here is a quick, so could you pass the presidential fitness test today? We are going to test the loop cast, see if you can. Yeah, this one is actually kind of hard to go through, but I have the actual checklist in front of me. It involves pull-ups, and yes, there is a negative. Yeah. We have the mile run. Run or walk a mile at challenging pace and time yourself.

Mm-hmm. Yep, the one-mile run. So, like, this was, if you were a senior in high school, females. You had to run or walk a mile, run a mile in, I think it was eight minutes and 15 seconds. Totally could have done that in high school. Not sure I could do that today. Run a mile in 18 minutes? No, no, eight minutes.

Oh, eight minutes. Okay, that's a lot of time. Yeah, yeah. Well, and for the guys, so when you were a senior, for the guys, it was six minutes and six seconds. Okay, that's kind of fast. That's really fast. I think I could do it, but I would be dead after, for sure. Yeah, yeah. I mean, this was no joke. So, then we had the- This is in the 60s, or is this when it got discontinued? This is 1985. I pulled it up from when I was in kindergarten.

Okay. Yeah. Pull-ups. Pogo, you have one minute. Can you do 13 pull-ups on the hard way, the boy ones? Yes. So, not a chin-up pull-up. So, boys, it's this way. Girls, it's this way. For the girls, though, for the senior girls, any guesses on how many for the girls?

Three? One. One. Yeah, I was going to say, yeah, it's tough. It's tough for women to do pull-ups. Yeah, I know. Yeah, it's the way we're built. For someone as lard-ass like me. Yeah. So, we have Tom passing two, probably, Josh.

I think I've done two in my life. Okay. There you go. You know, I'm sure you could do a mean squat, Josh. Oh, my gosh. Yeah, then there was a right angle push-up. So, if you do, if you were a senior, a boy, a right angle push-up.

Um, 53 in one minute. That's, that's booking. That's quick. 53 in a minute? Yeah, I mean, this was hard, and for the girls, 25. So, we had, but that, I mean, even, even 25 in 60 seconds, that's. Okay. I'm booking it on the push-up. So, this was a real, this was a real thing, and for kids who qualified, I'm not going to go through all of the standards, but it was, this is tough. I think this is great.

Wait, what else is there? Okay, okay, we've also got shuttle. Yeah, so what would happen if you didn't get it passed? It's a presidential fitness test, so if you couldn't get this done, you were ineligible to run for president. All right.

Yeah, that must be what it was. No, you just don't get the cool piece of paper, and your name in the local newspaper, and all that good stuff. Yeah, there's also like shuttle runs, curl-ups, V-sit reaches. Yeah, these V-sit reaches is what I was talking about. Like, why did we all have to do these to impress George W. Bush? Like, why did he care? This one, out of all of them, was the hardest for me. I was not flexible, and I remember this one being brutal.

I love the shuttle run, though. I was like a short king through and through, so I was very quick. Low to the ground. Mm-hmm. So. Yeah, I mean, these are high standards. All right, shout out to the boy, Harrison. Harrison, also, he's got to be, I mean, he's now at the White House.

He's been a couple times, won a couple Super Bowls, and then he's with Hawley and stuff. I mean, he for sure has a future in politics. He's good looking. Very well spoken. He actually started a political action committee. I was going to say. I don't think it's subtle anymore. Upright PAC. I think he for sure is going to be. I'm here for it. Yeah, and I'm definitely here for it. That's a clever name. He's a kicker. Upright PAC. We got that, yeah.

Well done. Okay, Josh. Okay, so, why is this good news? I will get to it, but like Sam Steen, he writes for the Bulwark. He is a lefty. He is with MSNBC. He posts this article. Someone else wrote it, but he was like championing the article. His name is Jesus. I mean, it is actually Jesus, but his name is Jesus. He is a carpenter. ICE arrested him.

Oh, I get it. Yeah. That's subtle. And so, Dylan Hausman, editor-in-chief of the Daily Caller, comes to the rescue and said, when's the last time you attended church? And Sam goes, oh boy, Dylan, I hate to break this to you. And Dylan says, don't worry, Sam, it was a rhetorical question. I'm aware you're only interested in Jesus Christ as a clickbait political cudgel. I mean...

Doing the Lord's work. I mean, and just, like, people, like, the replies in this were like, I would like to report a murder. I mean, it was just so good, dude. And I just, I can't help but bring back my favorite of all the memes ever. Oh, the Reddit one? It's the best.

Let more refugees in because Jesus said to be compassionate in the Bible somewhere. No, no, I'm not a Christian, and I have nothing but contempt for your back, please. So, yeah, this argument wouldn't work on me, but maybe if it could. You know, I can use it and work on you, and I'll get what I want.

That's awesome. Okay, my cup. I know we have a little interruption. My cup and my, my, so everybody, my camera is mirrored, so you're not going to be able to read this very well, and it's also why you all think I crossed myself with my left hand. Thank you. Abby Roast. Abby Roast, and it's a bunch of, it's a coffee thing, and it's a bunch of monks, so I feel like I can give a free advertisement. Okay, free ads. I was going to say, Abby Roast.

No free ads. Because they have about poverty, and they're awesome in the coffee. Free coffee. Yeah, right. Yeah, Vowel of Free Coffee is what we have here. Okay, I donate my good news. Why did you say that it's a mirror, Erika? Was there a point to that? Oh, I think you were gone. There was an episode where people were asking why Erika crossed herself with her left hand. My left hand. It's actually my right hand, but it's weird. And they thought she was a part of a different rite of Catholicism because of it, like she was a part of a cool one, the Erika rite.

Okay, my good news. I want to just basically hand the floor to Erika. So, St. John Henry Newman, expect to be named Doctor of the Church, joining saints like Augustine, Catherine, and Therese, and that is James D. Connolly, talking about how he has been my friend since before I was Catholic. He is my favorite saint, and I even chose his motto as my own, heart speaks to heart. This is one of those things I feel like Because universally, everyone's like, this is sick, this is awesome, which is kind of rare.

And I actually don't know a ton about John Henry Newman, but Erika does, and it's fired up on him. So, why should I also be excited about this development? All right, you should be massively pumped about John Henry Newman being elevated to doctor of the church, because I think he would really like your take on things, Tom. Enemy of liberalism, like foe of all that is untrue and ugly.

This guy was great, and so I just want to preface this with, over the next few weeks, you're going to hear a lot from leftist Catholic resources and sources such as Stephen Colbert and the National Catholic Reporter about how Newman said that you're conscious, you just follow your conscience, and you can do whatever the hell you want. Church doctrine changes, and so eventually we'll all just be able to contracept and fornicate all we want. And three, he was gay, so he's the first gay church doctor of the church.

All of these are false. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. They're all just pushing their narratives. So, these are co-opting Newman for partisan ends that's been going on forever. So, who was he really? Okay, so he was born in 1801, and he lived the entire 19th century. He was a very long-lived man, died in 1890, convert from Anglicanism at a time when that was very uncool in England, and Catholic cardinal. He was a leader in the Oxford movement, which was sort of this move in England.

To re-Catholicize the Anglican Church and bring it back to its roots, and he was so beautiful. I mean, the writings from this era, actually, my favorite work of his comes from this era before he was even Catholic. It was called the Arians of the Fourth Century, and it is a master class in not just this historical movement. Oh, my children opened a window. Sorry if you hear my children in the background. We love them. It's all right. Yep. They're very cute.

All I've shown. And they're happy. They're playing soccer or something. But anyway. So, Newman, he writes about really just how heresy happens in general, and how bishops are usually the last ones to catch on to the fact that heresy is bad, and it's really the laymen and the clergy on the ground in the parishes who are the protectors of orthodoxy. So, during that period, already a massive towering intellect in Catholicism. Then he becomes Catholic, and he is seen as a traitor.

Because he's an Anglican priest, right, and he's very well regarded in Oxford. He loses everything. He loses his career. He loses being a priest and a pastor, prestige, relationships, dear friendships, loses everything, goes and joins St. Philip Neary's Oratory, and people think of Newman as like this really heavy intellectual, but he joins St. Philip Neary's Oratory, Philip Neary being like the saint of the smile and mischief and... He joins this very happy community of guys, and he loves Philip Neary. He founds his own oratories.

He helps found the Catholic University in Ireland later on. That is when we get idea of university, which is probably his most famous work here in the United States, his work in education, but just an all-around massive intellect coupled with personal holiness.

Pope Benedict XVI actually went to England. It was the first time a pope had visited England in hundreds of years, and he went there to beatify, for the beatification of John Henry Newman, and he paid special tribute to his vision for education and his love of the laity. He wrote, this is Benedict now, Blessed John Henry's famous appeal for an intelligent, well-instructed laity, quote, he said, I want a laity not arrogant. Not rash in speech, not disputatious, but men who know their religion, who enter into it, who know just where they stand, who know what they hold and what they do not, who know their creed so well they can give an account of it, who know so much of history that they can defend it.

I mean, the guy could write. A poet? Okay, so where should I start? I had Rosie, our producer, was asking me, I don't know, Newman, where should I start? There is a great... I don't often tout our Sunday visitor, great guys, but they have a fantastic Newman reader, a Newman reader from OSV. We should put it in the chat, and it's great because he does have writings like Grammar of Ascent.

I need to diagram all the sentences in those just to know where my subject and verb are because it's very, very intellectual. But this one is a great mix of letters, essays, homilies, sermons, a few poems. He was a great poet.

So, I just can't. This is the greatest news. The 38th doctor of the church is John Henry Newman, and my favorite sermon, I know, Arians of the Fourth Century, my favorite book, but he had a sermon on tolerance is cruelty. I think Mercer would really like, so I am going to send that one to Josh to read this weekend. Tolerance is cruelty. You have a favorite doctor of the church?

That's hard to say. I feel like, as a female, I need to go with one of the four ladies, perhaps. You don't have to. I don't have to. Of the women, I would say Teresa of Avila. Oh, Josh, very famous. Yeah, of the women, Teresa of Avila. Wow, I was going to say. I do love my Teresa. Good job. What a feminist. What an ally, Josh. She's on the shelf behind Josh. Yeah, I have Newman behind me on the shelf. You can't really see it in the frame here, but I think he's about to become my favorite.

Josh is begging me to show this, too. It's Catholic Seinfeld, where the new doctor meets St. Jerome. Hello, Jerry. Hello, Jerry. Why does St. Jerome have this cool hat on? Why wouldn't he? Fair point. I don't know if that was like, was he Eastern or something? I'm not sure. No, no, that's the old Cardinals hat. In fact, it's still a Cardinals coat of arms. Over the coat of arms of Cardinals, you'll see that version of the red hat with the little tassels.

Looks like they got the Knights of Columbus treatment. They took away their cool stuff. I know, I know. I'm not going to comment on that. It's true. I said it all the time. I'll continue to say it. Knights of Columbus, the whole reason anyone would join is to get the sword and the cool feather, and neither exists anymore.

Okay, Twilight Zone. Josh, you're going to do this? Oh, no. I just saw what you were doing. Oh, Josh. Josh. What? This is tough. Go ahead. The floor is yours. Well, you know, in our august chamber, the world's greatest deliberative body, Senator Liz Warren, and actually, I'm not making fun of her in this case, but she leaned back on something, and it wasn't strong enough to hold her, and then she falls. And, like, I'm not making fun of her, okay? Here's the point I would like to make.

Watch this happen. Senator's voting in the affirmative. Oh! It's embarrassing. Durbin. It could have happened to me. Heinrich. What I'd like to notice here, the Democratic men just stood and watched her, whereas the Republican men, like Ted Cruz, were running to help her. They ran over to help her. Okay, I see an alternative take on this. Democratic masculinity, folks, on display. Watch it again. Look at Ted Cruz. All right, we'll take another look. We'll run it back.

Senators voting in the affirmative. Oh, there she goes. Baldwin. Oh, look, there goes Ted Cruz. Come on. Heinrich Heiser just... Right there to help out. Corona. Who's in the wheelchair? Well, that would be the senator from Tammy Duckworth. She's handicapped, yeah. Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah.

Oh, yeah, wait, wait. Someone's saying we didn't explain what was going on. I thought we did. There was a vote going on. Elizabeth Warren. She leaned on something and fell over during this vote, right? Yeah, and she thought she was leaning against one of the desks that were nailed down, but it was just a side thing, and so she leaned on it, and it flipped over, and it's embarrassing. I'm not making fun of her. I mean, I honestly could have had something like this happen to me.

What I just found particularly instructive was that the natural inclination for conservative-leaning men, like, run to the rescue, like, help somebody, they fall down. And the other guys were like, the Democrat men were like... Oh, wow, look at that.

I do like that you're not going to make fun of her, because listen, hand up, I've done the same thing. I for sure leaned on something kind of like that, and taking that fall, I thought it was going to be a comment on the geriatric nature of the world's most powerful body, which is true, but it's low-hanging fruit. So, I like that you went with a little bit more of an alternative, you know, true masculinity. It's like the Democrats in the congressional baseball game bunting with two strikes and two outs.

Down 10. Yeah, that was not a good idea. Although, it was a good bunt. Even I know not to do that. And I shared on my Facebook page, you know, with my friends here, something happened 10 years ago. To me, it was very important. I was playing backyard wiffle ball and laid down the perfect bunt. You bunted during wiffle ball? I did, and I cleared the bases. You're done.

That's, you, that's just, there's certain things you shouldn't admit. You gotta go against the times, let's understand and say. I can't believe you'd admit that in a public forum. He's very humbling. That's humility right there. I cannot believe you'd bunt in a wiffleball game. I would kick you out of the friend group from that, dude. You'd be done. You're never playing wiffleball with us again. If you laid out a bunt.

Oh, my gosh. Okay, that was the real twild zone, was that that ever happened to a man that claims to be a man. Erika. Oh, yeah. I'm so excited. Well, first, I'm excited because the people of California will not be forced to choose between Gavin Newsom and Kamala Harris, because Kamala Harris announced this week she will not be running for governor of the great state of California, but she has been doing a lot of thinking, she's been reflecting, and she's been writing.

And there, yes, on your screen, you can see Kamala promoting her new book coming out. It is called 107 Days. The shortest, what is it called? The subtitle, I can't read anymore. The shortest presidential campaign in U.S. history. Yes, that's one way of putting it. It was short. It was expensive, too. Yeah, well, that's what I was going to say. So, guess who? She's making the rounds. She's promoting the book, because this is an insider's view of the Democratic Party. So, who does she get on with?

Well, Stephen Colbert. And I thought our friend Jonathan Turley had the best take on this. He wrote, Colbert is having Harris next as a guest on his show. It was last night. The host, who lost $40 million a year interviewing the candidate who burned through over a billion dollars in losing the last election.

I mean, they're like made for each other. It was great. Just as a slight correction, though, Gavin Newsom cannot run. Oh, you are correct. He's term limited, yeah. They don't have to have either of them. I'm sure California will come up with... Brilliant candidates.

So, the implication is that she's running now, right? I think she's definitely running for president in 2028. You're not going to take that in 2026. If you watched, which I know you intended to, if you had watched her interview with Colbert, he asked her this. I definitely did not, but go ahead. Why not? No, I mean, and she said that she laughed hysterically in her camel away, as she is wont to do after a few stiff ones, and said that she has always been a public servant.

Which to me means she's running. So, I mean. Honestly, she has a very good chance of becoming the next Democratic nominee. Yeah, unfortunately. Because, you know, like, there's going to be that natural inclination for Democrats, like, she was the vice president. Well, but she lost. But, you know, she only had 100 days. She didn't have a full chance to run. Biden should have stepped aside. And, like, you know, what, Pete Buttigieg? He gets, like, 0% of the Black vote, so she could go into South Carolina and clobber him.

You know, unless someone else comes along, you know, that is a maverick that has got a lot of, you know, media attention, you know, like, I mean, everyone. Gene Newsom? Huh? Gavin? Gene Newsom? I think Gavin Newsom is definitely going to run.

It's going to be a fascinating 2027. We need, I think I've said this many times, but we need 1,000% tariffs put on memoirs from failing politicians. Are you serious? Like, we've gotten the Biden expose. We've gotten, I think Biden's working on one right now. Kamala's writing one. What you don't understand is, like, this is a great way to filter money to people. Yes. Yes, this is 100% a money laundering situation. Operation, right. Come on. How is it that this... A piece of artwork with a banana taped to the wall could sell for $100,000.

Can you be more explicit about that? Because some foundation somewhere is going to buy it with a bunch of donated funds, and then it is just going to go right back into the pocket of, say, Kamala Harris. Exactly. Okay, I was going to say, this is so ridiculous. You could do this. You could totally run this. You know how it works. I have not had a failure that big yet. I need to apparently hide dementia, and then I could sell a ton of books and lie to the American people, and it would be awesome, and I could cash out.

I'll write a memoir on Josh one day, being the fake Oracle of Podosky, because I actually tried GPT the whole time. I was an AI agent this entire time. That's awesome. Mine is going to be a little bit more lighthearted. You're welcome.

So, I don't know if you're aware of the beverages High Noon and Celsius. Oh, my gosh. No way. But Celsius is an energy drink. And they just put in a recall because they accidentally put high noon alcoholic beverages inside Celsius drinks.

Oops. What up, bro? I've had a few of those. I just cannot stop laughing thinking about the first person that had their morning Celsius to, you know, fire up for the work day. And maybe you were like, oh, man, this is pretty good. Maybe you had another one.

There's no way they didn't pick up on that. I've had two shots of vodka already. Just, man, the first person who's like, oh, man, in their truck, got a long day at work at the job site. Like, I feel fantastic in a totally different way. I don't know.

What? Yeah, I don't know how. Yeah, that's a crazy swap. I can't think of a, unless it was like a child beverage or something. Like, if they did that to juice boxes, that would be brutal, but. Just a lot of napping children. Kids would just. Yeah.

I would just fall asleep. Children, Erika. Got a lot of kids, Erika. That would be tough. Why is the entire first grade class asleep? Yeah. If you would like more LOOPcast, we have the latest episode of The Deep.

Erika is tackling the issue of work, what it means, why we're doing it. It feels very connected to AI, and the American approach to work. It's fantastic. It's over on the YouTube, so go ahead and subscribe over there. It's the best place to do it.

Check it out. Support Erika. Support her monologues. They're fantastic. Go check them out if you haven't already. And, yeah, I think we end today, this week. Wow, what a week. Happy Friday. In prayer. Definitely pray for Brian, his wife Sarah, their kids. You know, hopefully we're going to see the Senate confirm Brian this week.

This weekend, I mean, just talk about being in limbo, like President Trump nominating him in December, going through the committee in April, and then waiting until August. It has just been a long journey. So, all loopers, I think we are all with you. Pray for Brian and Sarah and their whole fam. Amen.

All right. Day of the prayer today, in the name of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit. Amen. My Jesus, I believe that you are present in the blessed sacrament. I love you above all things, and I desire you in my soul. Since I cannot now receive you sacramentally, come at least spiritually into my heart. As though you were already there, I embrace you and unite myself wholly to you. Permit not that I should ever be separated from you. Amen. Father, Son, Holy Spirit.

Yeah, I've had some people comment about cutting me off after talking. It's just because we live stream to a couple different platforms, and they'll cut off at weird times. I hit the end button here, so it's not that. I just went saying, please let Tom finish. It's actually me hitting the button, so I'm cutting myself off technically, so I just want to make sure we'll add that caveat at the end, so maybe people can understand. We'll wait a bit longer. Josh, do you have any words of wisdom to make sure that they get that part as I end the stream? You know, I don't know. Let's get this bread. The words of wisdom have been exhausted. I'll catch you guys on Monday. Peace.