Generated with AI. There will be errors.
Ted Rall: Happy Sunday. I hope you are having a great weekend. You are watching the DMZ America podcast. I am editorial cartoonist Ted Rall, coming to you from the left.
Scott Stantis: I am editorial cartoonist Scott Stantis, coming to you from the right. We are here right now, right here in America. Our president has remarkably fat ankles.
Ted Rall: Do you know where your god is? I suppose that if you attended mass this morning, you do know where your god is. Perhaps you are still there. If you are one of those Protestants with your lengthy services, that is the worst thing about the Reformation. Today, we are going to discuss the Biden gate issue. Yes, it has evolved into an autopen controversy. We will address Russiagate next. Then we will talk about Stephen Colbert. Is it truly about money, or is it genuinely about politics? We are going to explore the budget cuts to NPR and PBS public broadcasting. That constitutes a full agenda. If you are watching on YouTube, or also if you are on Rumble, please feel free to contribute questions and comments, and we will attempt to respond to you. We can certainly display them on the screen on YouTube, and we can try to read them from Rumble. If you have a question that you want Scott, myself, or both of us to address, please feel free to ask. So, alright, let us begin with the autopen topic.
Scott Stantis: Oh my goodness, Ted, what a story. Ted, please go ahead.
Ted Rall: Well, basically, there is currently a partisan investigation underway, but there would not be any investigation at all if the Democrats were still in power. That is simply the nature of these matters. The party in power punishes the party that was previously in power for their past crimes. Since we do not have a divided government, that is what is occurring now. Anthony Bernal, deputy chief of staff under Biden, and Annie Tomasini, who were both part of what Jake Tapper’s book and other administration insiders called the Politburo under Biden, which is essentially a cabal of five to seven individuals—
Scott Stantis: White. They did not use the word in a positive sense.
Ted Rall: That is correct. These individuals surrounded the president, protected him, and covered for him. To some extent, they were running the United States of America on his behalf. Anyway, they all appeared before the House Oversight Committee, where they were questioned about Biden’s physical and mental health. Rather than answer any questions, the doctor, who is Biden’s physician and not considered a highly regarded doctor, first pleaded doctor-patient confidentiality. That is reasonably fair on its face, except that the former president could have chosen to allow the release of this information about himself. However, he decided not to do so. Then he also invoked the fifth amendment. Scott, the fifth amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects us from self-incrimination. If a police officer pulls you over and asks, “Hey, did you rob that bank?” you do not have to answer. The only exception is in an FBI federal investigation, where you could—
Scott Stantis: The fifth amendment. I am fairly certain you can plead the fifth there too, but you must explicitly state, “I plead the fifth.”
Ted Rall: Okay, I suppose so. Yes, you cannot just refuse to answer vaguely. With a police officer, you could refuse to answer and simply say, “Get lost.” But okay, let us proceed. There is no law against what these individuals are accused of doing. Right? I mean, these people were running interference, protecting the president, and concealing the fact that he was mentally ill, declining, demented—however you choose to describe it—and physically incapable.
Scott Stantis: All of the above.
Ted Rall: All of the above, which you and I have discussed since he was running for president in the primaries, both here on the podcast and elsewhere in our cartoons. We will not revisit the fact that we were repeatedly ridiculed, lambasted, marginalized, and otherwise treated poorly over this. We have forgiven all of you. If you hear a flamethrower, Joan, it is not mine. So yes, the point is that in your rearview mirror, flamethrowers in the mirror may be closer than they appear. So, I mean, there is no law, right? Do you think there is one? What are they afraid of? Are they merely contemptuous of the process, or do they genuinely believe they are in legal jeopardy?
Scott Stantis: You know, Ted, I must be honest. Perhaps on the next podcast, we should invite our friend Ricardo Aparicio, who is a lawyer. Although he is not technically an institutional lawyer, he is deeply interested in that field and has recently been admitted to the Supreme Court Bar. He is probably better equipped to handle the legal intricacies of this matter. Was there an existing law that they broke by committing what amounts to a coup d’etat? Did you see or hear about this? By the way, he did not say it in front of a camera, which is telling. Joe Biden, the former president of the United States—or so they tell him—did you hear his comment? He said, “I authorized all the signatures.” There are, like, what? How many of them? Thousands of—
Ted Rall: Them? There are 27,000.
Scott Stantis: Yes, that is nonsense. You have to call nonsense when it is nonsense, and that is the White House—
Ted Rall: Counsel’s office has ordered the National Archives to produce 27,000 documents signed by Biden, many of them by autopen. Previous presidents from both parties have used the autopen. Normally, correct me if I am wrong, Scott, but my understanding is that the typical use of this device is when the president is away from the White House or in a location where a document arrives and cannot be handled immediately. In many cases, a document can obviously be sent by email or fax to wherever the president is. However, in some instances, it cannot, or there is an urgent need to act quickly.
Scott Stantis: Or to a small extent. Let us say it is an orb, Ted, to be energetic. It could be a proclamation declaring, for example, National Asphalt Day. He does not need to sign it. He does not need to sign it. It is not important enough.
Ted Rall: It is not important enough. That is correct. So, basically, yes, good point. However, these documents are signed by a machine. If you do not know what an autopen is, it is essentially a device used back in the old days, before email, when you sent a letter to the White House and received a response from the president that was autopen-signed. For instance, the president and the first lady might write, “Thank you for your letter and your support. You are awesome, Joe Biden.” He obviously used this when he was in Delaware, calling to say, “Yes, go ahead and sign that for me.” However, it appears to have been used extensively—or I should say, it was used extensively. The numbers come from the House.
Scott Stantis: Well, well over 90% of all the documents were—
Ted Rall: Signed, including bills, policy statements, and executive orders.
Scott Stantis: Pardons. However, the most disturbing aspect is the pardons because there were a large number of them, and he did not sign many of them himself.
Ted Rall: Even by his own admission, he knew there was a category of people he approved for pardoning, but this is not a broad category. For example, when Jimmy Carter first became president in 1977, one of his initial acts was to pardon the Vietnam draft dodgers who had fled to Canada and other places. He issued a proclamation stating that they were all pardoned. If you avoided the Vietnam War, there was no problem. It was clearly defined, and there was no confusion about who was covered. That is not quite the case here. Basically, it reminds me of the Herb Block Foundation, a cartooning institution funded by the late cartoonist Herb Block. Herb was not very specific about defining the terms for the foundation’s end, which was funded with about $50 million. He simply said to do things that support cartooning, which he would have liked. That is subject to considerable interpretation. Similarly, Joe Biden was somewhat vague, saying to pardon people he would have wanted to see pardoned. That grants significant latitude regarding important matters that he delegated to his aides. Now, there is a question of whether these people should have been pardoned. Additionally, there is a constitutional question about whether these autopen-related, autopen-signed documents are valid. I have been researching this topic.
Scott Stantis: Oh, and what do you think? What is your conclusion?
Ted Rall: It appears that they are valid. It is not that they should not be; it does not make sense otherwise. Lawmakers do not always anticipate every scenario. If they had, we would not need to enact new laws.
Scott Stantis: You know—
Ted Rall: I think about the man in Germany who placed an advertisement on the internet saying, “Come to my house, and I will kill and eat you.” Even under German law, that action was not illegal at the time. Consequently, they had to pass a law. Oh, people do that? Okay, we will address it. Apparently, no one considered this possibility because it traces back to monarchy, where the king, the sovereign, signs a document, thereby giving it the power of law. Americans have inherited that system. Thus, when the president, governor, mayor, or other official signs a document, it becomes enforceable. The autopen was introduced and deemed enforceable by policymakers. The issue is that if it is executed with the will of the sovereign—in this case, the president—it is acceptable, I suppose. However, no one ever envisioned a situation like this, reminiscent of “Weekend at Bernie’s,” where the president is not fully competent. Then, aides like Ted and Scott might declare a national cartoonists’ day and plan to erect a giant statue of my cat, Clovis, on the Washington Mall.
Scott Stantis: That would be cool, but I understand.
Ted Rall: Just because. I mean, it seems that no one anticipated this could happen to anyone, but it appears to be what has occurred over the last four years.
Scott Stantis: Yes, clearly, that is what happened. You and I were complaining, protesting, and drawing about this very issue, asserting that it was a coup d’etat. This is the very definition of a coup d’etat, and they certainly carried it out. Now, documentation is emerging that Joe Biden did not know what he was signing, or that documents were signed on his behalf. They claim he always approved all the signings. However, the man did not even know that underwear goes under pants on some days—you could tell. So, do not tell me he was aware of every signature on every document. Granted, you and I both understand that this job involves sending letters back to schools or classes in Ohio, saying, “Hey, thank you for writing. I hope you continue to be interested in civics. Love, President Biden,” and it is signed. The children are thrilled, everyone is excited, but it is not his actual signature. I think it would be interesting. I wanted to backtrack on two points you mentioned. First and foremost, the hearings: you and I both called for them, but we also knew they would quickly devolve into the nonsense they have already become, which is highly partisan. It would have been wonderful if someone on the Republican side had said, “Can we act like adults for once and try?” Because this is too important to behave like fools. Well, no. So, the other thing—
Ted Rall: Is this administration doing that in any respect?
Scott Stantis: No, absolutely not. Not the administration, but this is Congress.
Ted Rall: It is the same thing now.
Scott Stantis: You are correct; it also involves the Justice Department. However, as you noted, have any laws been broken? Potentially, Biden invited someone over to kill and eat them. This feels somewhat similar.
Ted Rall: I mean, this should be illegal.
Scott Stantis: Oh, absolutely.
Ted Rall: Absolutely. It should be very illegal.
Scott Stantis: Well, you raised an important point. I intended to connect the dots you laid out, Ted. One aspect you mentioned at the start is that many of his aides, including his doctor—I am unsure—are involved. Is Jill part of the group pleading the fifth?
Ted Rall: She has not been implicated yet. I do not know if she has been subpoenaed or if she will be.
Scott Stantis: The fact is that they are pleading the fifth, and even liberal commentators are saying that it looks very bad when you consider that they claimed Joe Biden was fine, with good days and a few bad ones, but mostly good—which we all know is complete nonsense. If he cannot have a good day during a presidential debate, then he does not have any good days. That simply does not happen. However, pleading the fifth creates terrible optics. To your point, Ted, it also suggests that there may have been laws broken, and the attorneys for these individuals likely believe that some laws could lead to prosecution. Therefore, they plead the fifth to avoid false testimony, which is a prudent move. I just want to ride our bandwagon one last time. I am sure the listeners—both of them—of this podcast are tired of us boasting about being right, but we were correct about this. We were even more accurate than we initially thought, Ted.
Ted Rall: Yes, no, look. We smelled a rat. Little did we know how large it was, and it actually had many cousins. That was a big family. You know, rats do not travel alone. It is—
Scott Stantis: Go ahead. I apologize.
Ted Rall: It is bad. That is correct. So, basically, it seems that here—I am going to quote from the Washington Post. An anonymous Biden ally is how the person is described. They are explaining the Democratic stance. This Department of Justice is not normal. These times are not normal. Because of that, people will take different approaches. Some might speak to the committee. Others may invoke their fifth amendment rights. However, this does not change the fact that this investigation is not about oversight; it is about political retribution. So, they say the individuals pleading the fifth are concerned that they might walk into a trap, potentially leading to prosecution for something else. As we pointed out, there is nothing illegal, even if they are completely guilty of what we suspect. It ought to be, but it does not appear to be. I mean, it is not really a criminal issue. Right? It is a political issue.
Scott Stantis: It is now. Yes.
Ted Rall: But they installed a president knowing he was not fully competent, then kept him in office for four years as he deteriorated further, and even attempted to reelect him for another four years. That is what this is about. Really, you should not need a law to recognize that this is wrong. Right?
Scott Stantis: Well, concepts of right and wrong seem old-fashioned. You are such an old-fashioned person, Ted. I know. But also, I mean, okay, I am going to shift to another instance where we were correct, regarding Russiagate. You would think, as a conservative, I would be thrilled about this. In fact, full disclosure, I created several cartoons that supported the Russiagate probe and narrative. However, after conducting research and reading about it, I realized it was complete and utter nonsense. The Columbia Journalism Review, a highly respected journal chronicling journalism, published a lengthy article detailing how the New York Times knew the Russiagate story was nonsense yet continued to publish stories about it, and they still do. It is simply that we work with people—there are editorial cartoonists who still believe this story is absolutely true, and they consider us fools for thinking otherwise. Granted, we do not hate Donald Trump the way these cartoonists do, with a blind rage that I cannot fully explain. I do not like him. I dislike Donald Trump for numerous reasons. We could dedicate an entire podcast to that.
Ted Rall: Me too. Most of them do not involve policy.
Scott Stantis: Not all of them. I would say most. I think temperamentally, he is unsuitable for the job.
Ted Rall: Atrocious. Yes.
Scott Stantis: Yes. However, for me, the policies are more atrocious because he is not a conservative. That is a topic for another podcast. But regarding Russiagate now—have you read the story that has been emerging, the leaks coming out today? Are you sitting down, Ted?
Ted Rall: I am sitting down. You can see you already knew that.
Scott Stantis: I am not sure. I mean, okay, because I am looking right at you. Yes, I am not sure. Now, how do you refer to him? Is it Saint President Obama or President Saint Obama? I am trying to recall how your Democratic friends phrase it. Because the mainstream—
Ted Rall: Maybe Pope Obama. Pope—
Scott Stantis: Popeama. Pope, because the people who, you know, the mainstream—and yes, it sounds like heroin because it is—mainstream Democrats who adore Obama, well, it is turning out that the lawyerly, constitutionally expert former president helped push the Russiagate narrative. He was deeply involved and instructed his supporters to continue promoting what they all knew was nonsense. I mean, Jesus H. Christ, I cannot, for a moment, comprehend the audacity required, and it reveals their cynicism. You know, these people who love us like their own children, Ted, although they send our jobs overseas and do everything they can to harm us, they claim to love us. Ultimately, they knew the mainstream media would keep reporting a story they knew was false, and their followers would continue to believe it.
Ted Rall: I have many well-educated friends, better educated than either of us, who are quite—
Scott Stantis: A low bar for me.
Ted Rall: And for me. It is having a degree. Not anymore, I do not. Do not forget.
Scott Stantis: Oh, right. Your college is no longer accredited. I went—
Ted Rall: To Columbia University Beauty School. So that is correct. I am a high school graduate for now until they revoke that. You know that is coming next. Then I will eventually say, “Well, I am a proud graduate of Dwight L. Dwight L. Barnes Junior High School.”
Scott Stantis: Yes, until they take that away. Yes, and then it is the elementary school, which is Toller Elementary.
Ted Rall: First, they came for the bachelor’s degrees, then they—
Scott Stantis: I said nothing.
Ted Rall: So, then they came for the certificates. Anyway, yes, no. So, I think we need to recap what is happening here, right? Go ahead. Basically, Russiagate was the assertion that the Russian Federation, under President Vladimir Putin, influenced the American presidential election in 2016 in various ways, primarily by hacking into voting systems, but also by running ads on social media in favor of Trump against Hillary Clinton. That is the essence of it. Additionally, they allegedly tried to hack into the DNC servers and leaked all the DNC documents to WikiLeaks, which then posted them, creating a rift within the Democratic Party as Bernie Sanders’ supporters discovered the deceitful actions the DNC took to undermine Bernie Sanders. As it turns out, we now know that the CIA, at the time, when they assess their level of confidence—stating whether they have high confidence, no confidence, low confidence, or moderate confidence—reported no confidence in the Steele dossier. This dossier claimed, among other things, that Trump had a penchant for watching prostitutes urinate on a bed in front of him in Moscow. That was not true. That did not happen. Christopher Steele, who compiled the Steele dossier, stated that he had no confidence in the accuracy of this information. He was asked to conduct opposition research and gather every possible accusation against Donald Trump. Thus, he compiled them. This is not intelligence; it is merely a collection of potentially true or false negative claims about Donald Trump. Anyway, it turns out—what did the Russians actually do? There is no question that by the election, Putin preferred Trump to win, simply because he was terrified of Hillary Clinton. He believed, and it was the Kremlin’s assessment, that she was psychotic and intended to start World War III. There is an article in Foreign Policy magazine from 2016—not a left-wing publication—where they interviewed top Kremlin generals, and they said, “We are just scared of her. She speaks impulsively. We do not think she wants a working relationship with us. We think she wants to attack us.” So, Putin had his opinion. The question is, did he take action? There is no evidence whatsoever that he did.
Scott Stantis: Well, did they not spend $100,000 on—
Ted Rall: Yes, but okay. A company called the Internet Research Agency, a private entity that, as far as we know, had no connection whatsoever to the Russian government, right? They label it a Russian company, which is true. There are many—tens of thousands—of Russian companies not affiliated with the government. This was one of them. It is a clickbait farm. They published on Facebook a total of between $100,000 and $200,000 worth of ads in 2016, intended to generate clicks. Over 90% of them were unrelated to politics, such as cat videos or other trivial content. The tiny percentage that were political actually included more pro-Hillary ads than Trump ads. It was a minimal effort, like dipping a toe into the water. We are talking about a fraction of $100,000 in a $7 billion campaign. It had no impact. The intelligence community assessed that this minor activity had zero effect on the American presidential, state, or local elections. That is the truth and has always been the truth. However, Hillary and then Biden promoted this narrative for years, claiming Trump was a stooge of the Russian Federation. This drove the already somewhat unstable Donald Trump even more insane, as he tried to disprove a negative. He spent considerable time on this, becoming increasingly vengeful. Part of what we are witnessing now—I am not saying it is right, but it is understandable—is him seeking retribution against those who did this. It is still ongoing. Then we had a letter from 51 former intelligence officials who stated that it is their best judgment that this has all the hallmarks. Remember, this involved the Hunter Biden laptop. They said, “Hunter Biden—
Scott Stantis: Does the laptop exist? Remember that?
Ted Rall: Does not exist and has all the hallmarks of Russian disinformation. It was all fabricated by the FSB, the successor to the KGB, to make Trump look good and Biden look bad. That laptop contained thousands of files. It was 100% legitimate. We all know the Hunter Biden laptop was real. Everything on it was real. All the gross photos we saw were real. This has been an ongoing issue. Now the CIA has revisited this. They are not—really, the CIA is not a wholly owned subsidiary of the Trump administration. It is the deepest part of the deep state. They concluded, “No, there was never anything here.” I do not think it will make any difference. I do not think it will change any minds whatsoever.
Scott Stantis: The one thing that will change is that if this information about Obama is true—if he was one of the people behind the scenes pushing this narrative—it diminishes his image, I think, even further. In my opinion, he is already destined to be remembered as one of the best presidents. Do you not love hearing that? That is not true. He will go down as a fairly mediocre president. Obamacare was a significant achievement, but—
Ted Rall: That is it.
Scott Stantis: That is pretty much it. And I mean—
Ted Rall: Seriously, what else is there?
Scott Stantis: He kept us involved in two utterly foolish wars. He continued to sacrifice human lives because he did not want to be perceived as weak. Yes, but if he was involved in this in any way—if there is any smoking gun—I mean, let us face it. We are looking at media outlets reporting this, whether or not it is true. You and I both know this story could collapse very quickly. However, if it turns out to be true, his historical standing will decline even further. It will not improve; he will go from mediocre to terrible.
Ted Rall: Well, Obama is quite the character, is he not? Yes, he is somewhat like Madison.
Scott Stantis: He sank the Madison Monroe.
Ted Rall: He sank—he sank the knife into Joe Biden at the end, which, by the way, is commendable, but it should have happened long ago. And he—
Scott Stantis: Also, he sank the knife in 2016, Ted, when he chose Hillary over Joe Biden. Joe Biden had served as vice president—
Ted Rall: And that drove Joe Biden crazy.
Scott Stantis: Well, and why would it not? You are the vice president of the United States, and suddenly they say, “Joe, can you sit this one out?”
Ted Rall: Yes, let the ladies have their turn.
Scott Stantis: Yes, you know, Hillary, because you know what happens to people who cross Hillary.
Ted Rall: That is a good—
Scott Stantis: It would be a damn shame if you ended up on a park bench.
Ted Rall: With your brains blown out.
Scott Stantis: Yes, so okay. We have got—that is nonsense. We have got the conclusion of pleading the fifth for the Biden investigation. Again, I sincerely wish that a sober statesman—remember the Watergate hearings?—would emerge. The Republicans never complained about the hearings being unfair, even though they dragged on for a long time. They delved deeply into the information. They allowed witnesses to speak. They did not berate them. They did not mock them. They did not call them joyless. Those of us who—
Ted Rall: It was very civilized, actually.
Scott Stantis: Ted, what is the word I am looking for to describe guys like you and me who, during that summer of not love, would rush home to watch the hearings? Yes, that is it: dorks. So, we would rush home. I did. I know you did too. We hurried home to watch these hearings almost every day. They were very dry, and they were very serious. That is the key word here: serious. There are no serious people around anymore. Speaking of unserious people, I am eager to know—because you and I have not spoken since the news broke of Colbert being canceled by CBS—
Ted Rall: Right.
Scott Stantis: Now, CBS wants to provide a quick background. Colbert’s show is number one in its time slot. However, that does not seem to matter to broadcasters. A dear friend of ours, Ted Noser—she is one of my very good friends, Patty Vasquez—had an evening program on WGN Radio, the legendary radio station in Chicago, and it aired from 11 p.m. until 2 a.m. It was by far the number one show in that time slot. Ted, it was the only number one show they had. But if you asked management there—you know where this is heading—if you asked management there, well, when they were criticizing her for various reasons, you would say, “You know what? She is the number one show in her time slot.” They would respond, “Oh, well, that is because of that time slot.” And just going—
Ted Rall: Not that time slot. No.
Scott Stantis: Well, it does not matter. What are you talking about?
Ted Rall: Who cares? She is still—
Scott Stantis: On your only number one show you have.
Ted Rall: The only one. Yes, it is like when they fire the editorial cartoonist who is the only person to bring a newspaper a Pulitzer Prize, and they fire him anyway. When I was fired from KFI Radio, I had the top rating in my time slot, and they let me go. They fired me because they said that talk radio is inherently conservative, and liberals could not succeed. I argued, “But my time slot included conservatives, and I outperformed them.” Then they replaced me with a conservative, Marcia Clark, the O.J. prosecutor, who was as effective a radio host as she was a prosecutor. She performed much worse than I did. I think she had about one-sixth of my ratings. It was a steep decline. To their credit, they brought me back for a short while and admitted they were wrong, which was somewhat amusing. But, yes, that could happen. I investigated this. Their excuse at CBS, which is owned by Paramount—
Scott Stantis: They want to be owned by Paramount. There is a merger, right? The merger is pending.
Ted Rall: It is pending. The Trump administration must approve it. Trump obviously does not care for Stephen Colbert. So, the speculation here is that Paramount, which recently paid $16 million to Trump to settle a defamation lawsuit over a “60 Minutes” segment they almost certainly would have won if they had persisted, decided to surrender and essentially throw the case, much like the Chicago White Sox in 1919.
Scott Stantis: Yes, 1919. Wow. Oh my goodness, Ted, you have a sports metaphor coming.
Ted Rall: Thank you. Thank you. And—
Scott Stantis: Give that man a man card.
Ted Rall: So, anyway, they rolled over and gave him $16 million, which they did not need to do, because they want that merger to be approved by the FTC. That is what this is all about. Now, they might be considering further efforts to appease the FTC, similar to how Columbia University and other institutions, including major law firms like Paul Weiss, are aligning with Trump. They might think, “Okay, we will just get rid of Colbert at Trump’s request.” That is the speculation. On the other hand, late-night television is expensive. So—
Scott Stantis: That is strange because why?
Ted Rall: Well, apparently, first of all, it is a significant operation. I looked into this. A show like Colbert’s operates out of a large theater on Broadway. It employs over 200 people full-time. They have substantial costs. They must pay many salaries. They cover guest expenses. They build elaborate sets. All of this is expensive. Of course, a person like Colbert earns a substantial income.
Scott Stantis: So, he makes between $15 million and $20 million a year.
Ted Rall: Apparently, the show costs $60 million a year to produce but only generates $40 million in revenue. However, it has the highest ratings. So, basically, you could argue it is a loss leader. It may be that late-night television is no longer a viable format. I do not know.
Scott Stantis: That is what the decision-makers at CBS are claiming. You can kind of—
Ted Rall: They are eliminating the show entirely. It will not be Colbert. It is as if “The Late Show” is disappearing.
Scott Stantis: I think “The Late Show with Rall and Stantis” would be a success, and we would accept a fraction of what Colbert was paid—100% more. He takes a plane back to Chicago every night from New York City.
Ted Rall: Colbert? Okay, every night. That might explain some things. Have you heard about this new book on Condé Nast? Like, how they were—oh, I sent it to you.
Scott Stantis: Yes, please go ahead and tell our listeners.
Ted Rall: Well, basically, during their heyday, Condé Nast owned titles like Vanity Fair and Vogue. They lived an extravagantly depraved high life. If you watch The Devil Wears Prada, which is loosely based on Anna Wintour, the editor of Vogue, you get a slight taste of it, but that is nothing. They describe instances like the editor of Vanity Fair refusing to carry his briefcase from his chauffeur-driven car to the building lobby or back at the end of the day. They all flew first class constantly. Everything was utterly extravagant. They only ate—
Scott Stantis: Legendary lunches. Lunches with a bill that could reach $10,000. I am not kidding—or sadly, it is true.
Ted Rall: Yes, in the nineties. So, shockingly, they ran into financial trouble. Who could have predicted that? Anyway, that is somewhat like what Colbert is doing. He flies home to Chicago. I did not know he lived there. He did not either; he is a New Yorker.
Scott Stantis: Well, before his troubles, Bill Cosby would return to wherever he was performing. I saw him, as I mentioned, before his troubles, performing in Las Vegas. He flew back to Massachusetts every night.
Ted Rall: Wow, that is like Trump. Trump always wanted to be at Trump Tower until he faced legal issues in New York that made him consider the possibility of spending time in a cell at Rikers. So, he decided Mar-a-Lago was where he preferred to spend more time, and occasionally he visits the Bedminster Golf Club in New Jersey. But we—
Scott Stantis: I mean, Ted and I have no inside information on this. We have none, but we have observed media for decades. So, I can tell you this. I believe what happened to Stephen Colbert at CBS is likely a 50-50 combination. His show was extremely expensive, and late-night advertising, like all advertising for terrestrial television, is declining rapidly. People prefer to watch YouTube and stream—
Ted Rall: Yes, television profits for broadcast are down over 9% from last year, according to my research. And you—
Scott Stantis: You have to realize that this decline compounds year after year. So, Tim, do the math, folks. Combine that with the fact that the Trump administration must have disliked Colbert because “The Colbert Show” was essentially a liberal talking point. It drove me crazy, Ted, because I remember Johnny Carson. Again, I am an old man, but Carson’s political humor always mocked the person. You could never tell what Carson’s political stance was. He never attended fundraisers. He never declared himself a Republican or a Democrat.
Ted Rall: He was interviewed about that. You can see a clip floating around on social media now. He was asked, “What about your politics? Why do you never discuss politics on your show?” He replied, “I will never do that. I think it is bad entertainment.”
Scott Stantis: Well, my point is, why? Why would you risk that? Why would you alienate 50% of your audience? It made no sense to me. So, I—
Ted Rall: I do not think it makes sense either.
Scott Stantis: So, Colbert did do that. Every show included some content, literally a speech. And I think I—
Ted Rall: Do not really know what Letterman’s politics were.
Scott Stantis: No, well, yes, I do not know if he ever participated in political events. He did engage in some political activities, but they were mostly related to comedy and actors’ and comedians’ rights. I think the Colbert situation is a mix. CBS wants to consummate their merger; they want to unite with Paramount. Paramount desperately wants them. That is half of it, and it will need approval from the Trump Justice Department, particularly from the sharp-minded individual that is Bondi. Add to that the fact that hosting that show is extremely expensive. However, it seems to me that if Stephen Colbert truly cared about the working men and women of this world, he could take a 50% pay cut, and they could pay the staff a decent wage.
Ted Rall: Well, that would be—
Scott Stantis: And the show could continue.
Ted Rall: Well, right. You know, that is what Keanu Reeves does. Right? He does this discreetly, but in feature films, his rate is between $10 million and $20 million. However, he does not need or want that much money. So, he redistributes it somewhat evenly, giving more to the lowest-paid cast members, like key grips and others whose roles I do not understand. Basically, he lines their pockets. He only takes a small fraction, like $500,000, of what he is owed.
Scott Stantis: Wow, he just does not want it. It would unnecessarily complicate his life. He believes it is the right thing to do. And—
Scott Stantis: Yes, but he is a rarity. I mean, I think I told you this story. I was speaking with a friend’s child who interned at a large concert promoter’s company. He said they allowed him to sit in on a conference call negotiating a Bruce Springsteen concert. Bruce Springsteen was complaining that he needed an additional $200,000, even though he was already being paid a seven-figure sum to perform.
Ted Rall: Uh-huh.
Scott Stantis: He was already guaranteed seven figures. This was not his agent, Ted. This was Bruce Springsteen himself saying, “Bruce needs money.”
Ted Rall: Well, Bruce is a greedy individual. The problem here is that it contradicts his brand. If it were Kid Rock, who, granted, lacks the talent of Bruce Springsteen’s pinky finger but is a right-winger, going for the money would be fine. But the working-class man from Asbury Park, New Jersey, presents a bad image. Stephen Colbert, I think, made his reputation with The Colbert Report.
Scott Stantis: He—
Ted Rall: Did, where he mocked being a pompous, right-wing figure. I think he missed the joke. He believed the effect was to satirize the right. I think the effect was to satirize partisanship and always holding the same opinion regardless of the situation. To me, the satire applies almost equally to someone like Rachel Maddow, who consistently pushes the same talking points. So, when he moved to “The Late Show” and became the very type of hack he mocked on The Colbert Report, he lost me, and I assume he lost others too.
Scott Stantis: Yes, that is an excellent point. He lost 50%. There is—imagine me doing air quotes here, always effective on a podcast—a conservative late-night comedy show, and it is not by far the number one show in that slot.
Ted Rall: Yes, it is Gutfeld on Fox. Yes, and I must say, I find him to be a funny man. I watch the Fox show The Five at 5 p.m. Eastern time on Fox almost every day, and he is one of the highlights. However, I do not think his show is very good. No, I do not think humor works well when it is partisan.
Scott Stantis: No, it has to involve rolling your eyes and shrugging at everyone. It must target everybody, which is—
Ted Rall: By the way, if you consider the great humor from the heyday of television comedy, like Rowan & Martin’s Laugh-In, Hee Haw, The Carol Burnett Show, and then in films like Kentucky Fried Movie or with George Carlin, they mocked liberals and conservatives equally—
Scott Stantis: Mercilessly. Mercilessness is the key point. Another topic, speaking of a lack of humor, public broadcasting has just been gutted. Ted and I discussed this earlier today, or yesterday, actually. I mentioned that I have been advocating for defunding public broadcasting since I began cartooning in the late seventies. However, it is not for the reason you might think. I happen to enjoy a lot of public broadcasting, though not as much as I used to because of budget cuts and because I do not think they perform the job they once did. Nevertheless, I want their budgets to be cut and removed from the federal budget entirely because they have always been a target of Republican talking points. It seemed like an easy punching bag to me. If you truly believe that NPR and PBS should survive, let them survive on their own. It is interesting, Ted, where you are in New York City; the New York NPR station, as well as public broadcasting, receives about 2% or less of its budget from the federal government. So, you can eliminate 2%. You and I could both live with 2% less. We were not liking—
Ted Rall: It. It is no big deal.
Scott Stantis: Yes, but here in Alabama, for instance, the NPR station is losing 10% of its funding. That is a significant hit. Frankly, may I go off on a tangent and discuss things I have never spoken about publicly? Well, I do not care what you say today; I am doing it anyway. You will find this interesting.
Ted Rall: When have I ever stopped you? Who could stop you?
Scott Stantis: It is true. Who could? I am a force of nature. The NPR station here has very little, if any, public programming—local programming, rather. When I moved back here, my wife and I owned a house. My son is here. My grandson is here. That is why we moved back after my decade in Chicago. I approached the radio station and said, “Listen, I have an idea for a locally generated show. I will find people to underwrite it; you do not have to spend a single cent—back when they were still making cents. You just need to provide me with a place to do it and a studio with a producer.” They said no. To think—
Ted Rall: Say—
Scott Stantis: Free programming. What is that? No, they simply said, “No, we do not think that fits into our programming.” I responded, “You do not have any programming. How can it not fit into something that does not exist?” I was also considering creating a roundtable, like a weekly political show to discuss Alabama politics, all of it being—
Ted Rall: A very good idea.
Scott Stantis: Again, I know I could find people to underwrite it and make it worthwhile for me. They said no.
Ted Rall: Do you think it is because you are conservative?
Scott Stantis: Yes, because I have a record in the community from my work drawing for the Birmingham News for thirteen years, and I have a deep history of my politics, which I thought were fairly moderate, given where I lived. I mean, I targeted Republicans as much as I did Democrats. I approached WBHM because they had an opening—remember I mentioned this once, Ted? You may not recall. They had an opening for the morning news desk. You know, it would involve following NPR news with a three-minute slot for local news, where you might say, “Today, the Gulf of America has flooded halfway up the state of Alabama.” I knew I could do that. So, I approached the news director and asked, “I saw the job posting. Can you tell me more about it?” He literally said, “It is not for you.” I am just saying, here is someone with a fairly decent track record in journalism, Ted. I think we can acknowledge that about my career. Coming to public radio in central Alabama would probably be a good story for them, but they were not interested. Okay, but that is my rant. I am done.
Ted Rall: I am sorry. I think that is disgusting, and I do not believe a liberal would have been treated the same. I must be objective about that. That is Birmingham, right? I mean, if a Republican cannot get a fair shake in Birmingham, Alabama—literally the most conservative state in the union, well, perhaps Mississippi—
Scott Stantis: Yes, we are pretty much neck and neck. We are going to have Governor Tommy Tuberville, for heaven’s sake. I mean, come on. So, WBHM, the NPR station here in Birmingham, Alabama, is losing 10% of its funding. This hurts where these cuts are potentially—I would venture to use the word dangerous. There is a rural station. The most glaring and significant example is in central Alaska. It is the only broadcast entity in the entire region. So, if there is, let us say, an attack of ice monsters from the north, no one will know. But in all seriousness, when there is a serious event—like bears—yes, the bears will—oh my goodness—they are organized.
Ted Rall: Well, actually, bears are terrifying. So, yes.
Scott Stantis: Oh, polar bears, particularly, are—
Ted Rall: Yes, it is not like they are crazy. If you endanger their cubs, no. The males, the females, the cubs—they are hungry for you as a person, and they will eat you. It is not like a shark saying, “Oh, my mistake.” No, it is like, “No, you are food. You are good.”
Scott Stantis: A big piece of meat to polar bears, and it is the only thing they eat, by the way. They do not eat berries. So, that is 100%. That station I mentioned in central Alaska is 100% funded by the federal government. There are other stations in—
Ted Rall: The Plains states, right, where there are tornadoes. There are already major local news deserts in those states because, basically, when you count the radio stars, they literally have automated stations. You drive by and see an old-fashioned 1940s radio station, like “This is KAKAW, the voice of Piscataway or whatever.” It is in the middle of nowhere, with no one there. It is surrounded by a fence. It is all automated; someone checks it once a week to ensure the power is on, but no one is present.
Scott Stantis: And no rats have eaten through the power lines?
Ted Rall: Not yet. Exactly. Then a tornado comes through. There is no one there who knows about it and can report it on the air. NPR stations, in many cases, are the only game in town.
Scott Stantis: Yes, so this is why this is important and why I care. You know, and the other thing is—so are you—
Ted Rall: Are you? Let us get you on the record. Cuts, yay or nay?
Scott Stantis: I would say yay, but I would also be very interested in understanding the economics of public broadcasting because the umbrella company that owns or runs Sesame Street—the Children’s Television Workshop—brings in hundreds of millions of dollars in ancillary sales. When you see a child carrying an Elmo doll or a Big Bird lunchbox, all that money went somewhere. Where did it go, folks? Ted and I also noted—Ted, could you tell the listeners—you were on an NPR show in New York, The Midday Host. If you do not already know, if you cannot guess, they did not make a lot of money. They were not the morning show hosts, like the “Ted and Scott Morning Zoo,” who made a million each. Sometimes the afternoon drive-time host earned $900,000. But the NPR midday person—Ted Rall was on their show. Ted Rall, what was his name, and how much did he make?
Ted Rall: Brian Lehrer makes over $600,000 a year. Goodness. The thing is, I do not fault anyone for earning as much as they can, and he is a truly excellent host. However, honestly, Scott, you and I are as good as he is, and we do the same job for much less. It is like they are begging for donor money. That is the issue here. It is similar to when I was in Afghanistan and tried to check into a five-star hotel, which was booked by Doctors Without Borders. I thought, not without reservations, right? I met some of these people, and they said, “We are doing God’s work, helping people in a war zone.” I said, “God bless you, but you are using donor money. Cannot you stay at a three-star hotel? It is lovely, with air conditioning, Wi-Fi, good food, and comfort.” I am not saying they must live in squalor. I am not saying Brian should earn $20,000 a year. But come on, he makes more than the President of the United States. That is outrageous. It is funded by taxpayers and listeners. That is wrong.
Scott Stantis: To your point, Ted, this reflects my small-c conservative stance, and I am not wishy-washy. I wanted the funding to disappear, but they should have reviewed and said, “Okay, stations in places like Alaska, the Dakotas, Montana, and Wyoming—if they had said, ‘These will receive some funding until they can find another source,’ give it, say, two years. That is plenty of time to search and determine who else can support this. Can the state of Alaska fund the NPR station in central Alaska?” The same applies to the other regions I mentioned. That is what I would have done, but cutting the funding makes perfect sense. And—
Ted Rall: Although, I am just—but, Scott, all big countries have state media.
Scott Stantis: I know, and they are terrible. And I do not—oh—
Ted Rall: Really? Does the BBC suck?
Scott Stantis: Well, do you think it does? Do you think it—
Ted Rall: Do you think the Austrian Broadcasting Corporation sucks? Do you think the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation sucks? I do not.
Scott Stantis: Well, I would ask, is it biased? I mean, do you think—
Ted Rall: Yes, bias. Because human beings are running it. So, yes, it is definitely biased.
Scott Stantis: So, I think there is a definite bias in something state-run that defends the state.
Ted Rall: Right.
Scott Stantis: That is what I meant by state.
Ted Rall: Country, but I will—if you are going to be part—I mean, if we think we are involved in part of an international propaganda effort, I would rather be involved in a propaganda war than a hot war. They call this soft power, right? If Russia has RT and Sputnik, and England has the BBC, which—
Scott Stantis: Should be allowed on our channels, by the way.
Ted Rall: China has—what is it, CNCBTN? I forget the acronym, but they have their own English-language services. Shouldn’t the U.S. also have state media?
Scott Stantis: Well, this does not prevent it from existing. It just means American taxpayers do not have to pay for it, and it does not become a target.
Ted Rall: State media.
Scott Stantis: I am going to return to my original point, which is that this has been a target for Republicans for as long as I have been cartooning, so remove the target. That is all I am saying.
Ted Rall: Oh, I certainly think that, like you said, on the national level, I never understood why NPR stations allowed themselves to be a target for, you know, 1 or 2% of their budget. I would say, if someone tried to dictate what I draw, saying, “Ted, we are paying 2% of your salary,” I would—
Scott Stantis: Be—
Ted Rall: Like, “Forget it.” But I agree with that. However, I think we have a problem regarding rural access. Rural areas are very underserved. They do not have high-speed internet. They do not have—
Scott Stantis: Well, they are becoming news deserts. Their newspapers are folding.
Ted Rall: So, it is a great time to be a corrupt local politician in rural Oklahoma, you know?
Scott Stantis: Maybe we should consider moving to Oklahoma.
Ted Rall: That could be a job for us. Hey, corrupt politician, I could—we have studied corruption. We could do that.
Scott Stantis: Yes, we can do it. I do not know if there is any doubt we can do it.
Ted Rall: I mean, some of the least intelligent people who have ever lived do it.
Scott Stantis: Oh my goodness, they are idiots. One of my funniest conversations with my former boss at the Chicago Tribune occurred when I had just moved to Chicago. They had just indicted a local official—I think it was St. Clair County, but it could be another county here in Alabama. They were accused of stealing— are you sitting down, Ted?—$2,500 a month. They were convicted and went to jail. When I moved to Chicago, they caught a man—I forget his role, something like being in charge of sand or dirt in Cook County. He had embezzled $12 million, and they were not sure they would prosecute him. So, I asked my boss—
Ted Rall: You always want to steal money from private corporations. In many cases, they will not pursue you.
Scott Stantis: Is that right?
Ted Rall: Well, yes. Like, when I worked at the Japanese bank, the Industrial Bank of Japan Trust Company, from 1986 to 1990, there was a very quiet, very nice man who sat right behind my desk, about four feet away. One day, he was not at work. We wondered what happened to him. Within a few days, we learned that $10 million was missing from—
Scott Stantis: Oh my.
Ted Rall: The accounts. This was in 1988 or 1989, so it was real money, not like today when it buys an egg. So, he—
Scott Stantis: Had, like, three cups of Starbucks coffee.
Ted Rall: Maybe. Anyway, with our Zimbabwean dollars—
Scott Stantis: Without extra pumps. Yes.
Ted Rall: Yes, exactly. So, anyway, to make a long story short, the FBI came because he had written himself a check, cashed it, and disappeared. He had a wife and kids but did not involve them in the scam. So, the FBI interviewed us all about what we knew, which was truthfully nothing. I asked my boss what happened. He said, “They are going to let it go.” He added that the FBI said, “We can put this guy’s face on the front page of every paper in the world,” but the company in Tokyo said, “Let it go.” Because then the question becomes, “Can IBJ be trusted to keep your money safe if they are incompetent?” So, it is better to absorb the loss.
Scott Stantis: So, how much did you abscond with? I am just curious.
Ted Rall: I wish.
Scott Stantis: See, Ted? You disappoint me.
Ted Rall: Yes, I know. I am talented, but not in that way.
Scott Stantis: It sounds like me. So, anyway, with my story, I asked my boss, “What the hell is going on here? $10 million?” I mean, a person in Alabama was convicted for $2,500. He said, “Scott, up here, we are professionals. Welcome to the NBA.”
Ted Rall: I was like, and—
Scott Stantis: He was not wrong. He absolutely was not wrong.
Ted Rall: Yes, it is really funny. Back in the nineties, when I worked for alternative weeklies, I remember talking to some investigative reporters who would literally argue about which of their municipalities had the most corrupt politicians. It was like, “No, no, we have the best corrupt people.”
Scott Stantis: Oh, I used to have running gag arguments with my friend Marshall Ramsey, the editorial cartoonist in Jackson, Mississippi. We had a silly governor bingo game to see whose idiot—because he had one, I had one—would raise the level of idiocy. We—
Ted Rall: Let us have a—
Scott Stantis: Raise the level of idiocy. You draw an editorial moron. It was neck and neck.
Ted Rall: It is so challenging. Alright, well, I think we are complete here. Thank you, everyone, for tuning in. We have good viewership today. They are quiet, but they are out there. I see the numbers. Many people are watching and listening. That is wonderful. I guess most people are watching, according to the New York Times.
Scott Stantis: Oh my—
Ted Rall: Goodness. Podcasts today—like, three out of four people watch and do not listen.
Scott Stantis: Did you—but, Ted, in this—or they—
Ted Rall: Watch, or they watch but are really listening.
Scott Stantis: Ted, four—yes, that is like terrestrial radio used to be. You turned it on in the background. If you heard, “Mark, Ted Rall,” you would go—
Ted Rall: “Send asshole Ted Rall.”
Scott Stantis: Yes, but Ted sent an article stating that these podcasts, broadcast over YouTube and Rumble, are extremely popular. What stunned me most, Ted, is—we will end this on a note—we last about an hour.
Ted Rall: Yes.
Scott Stantis: These things are four and five hours long. Ted, I do not want to do anything I enjoy for five hours. No offense.
Ted Rall: Greed. Yes, if you and I can think of some. Yes, I do not want to make love for five hours. I do not want to drink for five hours. I do not want to watch TV for five hours. I do not want to pet my cat for five hours. Those are my favorite things. I do not want to talk to you for five hours. I do not want to do anything.
Scott Stantis: Yes, no. Like I said, no offense. I love you. I am not going to the beach—
Ted Rall: For five hours. Really?
Scott Stantis: That I could do. I suppose I could do that. Lying there, it gets—
Ted Rall: It gets hot, man.
Scott Stantis: Yes, it gets sandy. Yes, and the pelicans. Oh my goodness, the pelicans.
Ted Rall: Like, stop. And with that, alright, now it is time for our “Scott Seeing” segment of the show. Thank you, everyone, for tuning in. I am Ted Rall. That is Scott Stantis. Check us out at our respective places. You will see them scroll by. I am at rall.com. He is at gocomics.com/scottstantis, and off we go.
