Season 12, Episode Eleven September 21, 2024

SPEAKER_01 0:00

This is the listening tube.

SPEAKER_00 0:08

Hello. Thank you for putting your ear to the listening tube. I'm your host, Bob Woodley.

SPEAKER_02 0:15

Is the worst thing to happen to old people?

SPEAKER_00 0:17

Share thelisteningtube.com with ten of your friends. On this episode, I'll have a conversation with Crom Carmichael, podcast host and founder of Giants of Political Thought. But first.

SPEAKER_01 0:34

Not the headlines.

SPEAKER_00 0:37

I've noticed a couple of articles recently about something called fawning. It seems to be some type of behavior afflicting today's teenagers. One of the stories I saw had a headline that said, Teens who practice fawning aren't just being polite. Why parents should intervene. It was in Parents Magazine, and I found it on Yahoo News. Written by Sherry Gordon, CLC, whatever that stands for, the article provided some key takeaways, including the fact that fawning could easily be mistaken for an easy-going and polite demeanor, but teens who exhibit these types of behaviors often struggle to express their own needs. And experts say that fawning is a stress response that some teens use to appease the people around them. And teens who exhibit fawning behaviors have a deep desire for approval, but they might feel overwhelmed or invisible behind the scenes. So fawning could easily be mistaken for an easy-going and polite demeanor. Well, that's obviously a sign of a severe mental illness. Hey mom, what's for dinner? Pork chops? Okay. What's wrong with you, boy? Oh my goodness. My kid says thank you, and please. When will this madness end? We didn't raise him to be polite. Where did we go wrong as parents? He'll never survive in the real world. Now he's going to live with us forever. They're labeling a desire to create harmony with the people around you, a stress response, as if you have some kind of emotional flaw if you don't assert yourself onto others. That you have a mental disorder if you're not confrontational. That feeling overwhelmed or invisible isn't a normal part of growing up. Here's the thing there's nothing wrong with you. You don't have to be confrontational. There's nothing wrong with being easygoing. No, I'm not a doctor, so don't take medical advice from me. But as far as I can tell, this is a solution looking for a problem. And the problem doesn't exist. At least it's not fawning. There's nothing wrong with wanting to make other people happy. That's not a mental disorder that needs to be intercepted by parents before it becomes a bigger problem. What's gonna happen? Your kid's gonna grow up and make millions of people happy? Better nip that in the bud. Here are some signs parents should look out for if they suspect their child may be a fauner. Apologizing for everything. Well, if you're walking around apologizing for everything, then you've already failed as a people pleaser. You suck at it. Just go ahead and be yourself. Engaging in excessive people pleasing. Yeah. See above. But for the record, I'm a fauner. You know why? Because I don't give a crap. You want to drive? Okay. You don't want to drive? Fine. I'll drive. It's okay to go with the flow. There's nothing wrong with you. But psychologists are describing the symptoms as something that needs to be treated. It doesn't. To fawn over someone is to deeply admire them in a worship kind of way. The way teenage girls reacted to the Beatles, or later Duran Duran. The way guys react to well, cars and motorcycles, but also humans, I'm sure. Wait. No, no, guitars aren't human. Anyway, a lot of people are fawning over Jimmy Kimmel right now. Mostly people who didn't give a damn about him until his show was indefinitely suspended by the ABC network. There seems to be a lot of blame to go around and a lot of misconceptions as to what led to the suspension. Clearly, it was something Kimmel said. Otherwise, there wouldn't be anything here to talk about. But what's been peddled in the media is that he made a joke about Donald Trump or Charlie Kirk, and the chairman of the SEC didn't like it, so he pressured the network to take down the show. That's not at all what happened. First of all, what Kimmel said is irrelevant. Not in the sense that this wouldn't have happened if he had said something else, but in the sense that it didn't have to be about Donald Trump or MAGA or Charlie Kirk. It could have been anything. But he said something that prompted two of the largest owners of television stations in the country to refuse to continue to air the show. Next star and Sinclair, both owners of multiple television stations that are ABC affiliates and regularly broadcast ABC network programming, as well as their own, informed ABC that they felt the opinions expressed on the Kimmel show by its host was not the kind of programming that a majority of their viewers felt comfortable with. When these two media companies did what they did, then ABC had a decision to make. They opted to side with Nextar and Sinclair and sent Jimmy home before he could record another show. In the interim, FCC Chairman Brandon Carr made a comment that many blame for the suspension of the show, but the decision had already been made. Besides, since when does the media care about what the FCC says anyway? As it turns out, maybe they should. You see, broadcast networks like ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox all have a license to do so from the FCC. So do all legally operating AM and FM radio stations. Any broadcast station, be it audio only or both audio and video, have an obligation to operate in the public interest. If they fail to do so, the license to operate can be revoked. That obligation to operate in the public interest has been ignored for decades. Why? Because cable television was invented. Cable television stations, as well as satellite radio stations, don't have to comply with the same rules and regulations as the FCC licensed stations. That's why Howard Stern left Celestial Radio to satellite, so he could use profanity and not get fined or fired for it. When I started out as a disc jockey, you would get fired for saying hell or damn on the air. But when cable TV came along, they had no such rules. And to be fair to the broadcast networks, the rules stopped being enforced to a large degree. So while only really crazy shit was found on the cable channels for a while, it eventually migrated its way into broadcast programming as well. Somewhere along the line, the stipulation that FCC licensed broadcast stations operate in the public interest became an afterthought, used only when absolutely necessary. Broadcast stations with FCC licenses need to be held to a higher standard. MSNBC, CNN, Fox News, and Newsmax can say whatever they want you to believe. But NBC, CBS, ABC, and Fox must live up to a higher standard or risk being accused of not operating in the public interest. I'm not saying that they don't, but clearly the Jimmy Kimmel comment brought that requirement into question. It's the FCC's job to look into it. But from my point of view, the FCC didn't have to exert any pressure for the TV station owners and the ABC Network and the Disney Parent Company to pull the Kimmel show. I think they just got tired of watching a pussy snivelling crybaby instead of the funny guy they thought they were hiring. As you may recall, Jimmy Kimmel and Adam Carolla did a show together called The Man Show. It had some very funny bits. I enjoyed it. Every episode ended with video of women in bikinis jumping on trampolines. You can't buy that kind of entertainment. Well, I guess you can, but I know my wife wouldn't let me. As it turns out, Jimmy Kimmel also did Blackface on that program as a mimic of a well-known professional basketball player. What I remember from those parodies is not that Jimmy was covered in brown makeup, but that, whether it was natural or manufactured, they did a really good job of recreating the shape of the person's head. I thought that was what made him more recognizable as the person he was imitating than the shade of his skin. Either way, it was still funny, and also something we could all agree to call acting. You know, dressing up and pretending to be something you are not. The point is, there are people who are dressing up this whole Jimmy Kimmel thing into something other than what it is. It was a business decision, not an FCC decision, not a Trump administration decision, not a turning point USA decision. It was a decision made among three distinct media companies who felt it was in the best interest of their businesses.

SPEAKER_01 11:48

The listening tube will return at the speed of sound. Send email to thelisteningtube at outlook.com.

SPEAKER_00 12:09

So much that he started a website to do it. He also has a podcast that passes on the wisdom of old people to young people. You should have seen us in the green room comparing hairlines. Crom Carmichael is the founder of Giants of Political Thought and host of a podcast called From Our Generation. Crom spent some time in the listening tube from his home in Central Tennessee. Now, Mr. Carmichael, I get the impression you've accumulated a bit of wisdom over the years. Okay. If you and I got in an elevator together and you felt inspired to share a word of advice with a stranger, what would you tell me? Wow.

SPEAKER_02 13:00

Wow. Well, I'm gonna I that's a that's an interesting question. I think it would depend a lot on your age. And um uh the uh I think given the circumstances as they are right now, I think the the the uh the single biggest deficit uh we have as a as a population is that uh we do not understand the founding of our country and the principles that it was based on, and and and so far it hasn't negatively affected us uh too much. But there's there's uh the uh the opportunity to uh prosperity is not a given. And and our country is the most prosperous, not only in the world, but in the history of the world, and there are reasons for that. Uh that that go back to the the nature of uh the relationship between the the people, the citizens, and the government, how we how we initially viewed the government versus any other country in the history of the world prior to us and even today, and which is what makes us which is what makes us unique in all of world history. That's quite a while. I would encourage anybody who who uh to to go back and and really study the Declaration of Independence. I would encourage them to read the Articles of Confederation and understand what they were and why they were insufficient, but what they were intended to be at the time they were passed, then I would study the Constitution, I would study the Bill of Rights, and I'd study the Federalist Papers. And um, and I think that I think that and then have a discussion about that. Um I I what I liken it to if I talk to younger people, I say, I say, if you think of how if you're going to form a government, it it would be like it would be like if if a group of people, let's say there were 10 people, and they found a board game uh that was uh designed to be played by 10 people and nobody had ever played the game or heard of it before, and they bought the game, the first thing they would do is they would read the rules of the game, and then and they and then they would then they would recognize at the outset that somebody at the end of the game is going to win, and other people won't, but but the enjoyment of the game should be satisfactory. And and that doesn't mean in our society that's that people who win necessarily win at the expense of those who don't, but everybody has an equal opportunity. The other thing that we did as a country in our constitution is we're the first country in the history of the world that said that it is that one of the roles of government is to protect intellectual property of an individual. That's in uh Article 2, Section 8 of our Constitution. So people who write something and have a copyright, or people who invent something and have a patent, they then have the right to exploit that create that creativity on their own for a period of time. And that is the that is probably the most important single thing uh to lead to our long-term prosperity in uh in our constitution.

SPEAKER_00 16:24

A lot of these documents of which you speak, the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, the Declaration of Independence, that sounds like stuff you and I learned in school. When did we stop teaching that? Um Is it is it because all those documents are in cursive writing and nobody knows how to read cursive writing anymore?

SPEAKER_02 16:47

Well, I I think you can find reprints that are in type. I think that's possible. But um, but I think that I think starting about 40 years ago, maybe sometime around the time of Ronald Reagan, I think there was actually a concerted effort uh by the by the uh schools that are run by the government to stop teaching uh our Constitution, stop teaching our declaration of independence. I think that government employee unions, uh you know, government employee unions' business model is to grow government and to grow the number of government employees. That's how they increase their power, that's how they increase their revenue, is adding people. Uh, and I used to teach a class in high school. I would start with one person on an island working 16 hours a day, seven days a week to survive. And I call that the lowest standard of living a human being could possibly have. Anything below that was uh led to death. Then I took 10 people and put them on exactly that same island, and I and then we went through a process where we recognized that if 10 people figure out that if they cooperate with each other, they can benefit each other. It's called self-interest. And then over time, they would divide the duties, which we call division of labor, they would divide those duties and they would and they would then become more productive, meaning that instead of working 16 hours a day, seven days a week to survive, they might be working 12 hours a day, six days a week. And so now they're now they are by definition, they are more prosperous because they're producing more in less time. But then let's say at that point that one of those 10 people says, I think that we need to have a government, and I will volunteer, be the one person who is the full-time government, and I will not rule you, I will serve you. And everybody, all the other the other nine people said, Okay, well, I agree that you'll serve us, but the problem is if they have to think the other nine have to think about is if one person stops producing and becomes the government, the other nine people have to produce what that person is no longer producing. So, in order to have a government, instead of working 12 hours a day, now they have to work 14 hours a day to pay for the government. And all I do is point out that while societies need to have some government to do certain things, we need to be very careful as to what those certain things are because government inherently is not number one, inherently costs money, and government is inherently, by its nature, inefficient. So those would be the things that I would like to share with with uh with people that over the years, my that's my observation.

SPEAKER_00 19:42

Now, you have studied all of these documents, and you have a website called uh Giants of Political Thought, where you make these documents available. Um is the wisdom you gained from studying these documents more or less valuable than the wisdom you gained through your own experiences?

SPEAKER_02 20:06

Yeah, I I love that question. I'm gonna give you a very quick answer. In 1979, I was 31 years old. I was uh I had bought into a sporting goods business about about two years before that. And I was very fortunate in that my partner in the sporting goods business was well known, he was well known in the industry. And at that time, Converse Athletic Shoes was a very big deal. And Converse decided that instead of having a national distributor, Wilson Sporting Goods, they would they would have regional distributors, and we were invited to become a regional distributor. And so, uh, and which was a tremendous business, it was a great opportunity, and we located that business in Columbus, Ohio, and I ran that business, and everything that we did was in $4 million increments. We had $4 million of inventory, we had $4 million of receivables, we had $4 million of payables, and we had four million dollars of bank debt. And in 1979, interest rates were 18%. So you can imagine $4 million of bank debt at 18% is very expensive. Except converse, every 90 days during that inflationary period, they would raise the price of their product three or four percent. Every 90 days, our inventory went up in value three to four percent. And uh so that paid for the interest. But it seemed weird. And I read a brochure about a conference in New Orleans called the International Conference on Monetary Reform. And it said said, if I'll come to this conference, I will learn from experts what the future holds. And I said, Well, gee, that sounds like a good idea. I'd like to I'd like to know what the future holds. And so so I attended this conference, and uh the first speaker got up and said, We're going to have hyperinflation. Here's why, and here's what you should do. And I go, Man, that is a compelling argument. I better prepare. And the next speaker got up and said, We're going to have massive deflation. And here's why, and here's what you should do. And I said, Oh, that is a compelling argument. I better prepare. And then the third one got up and said, We're not going to have this, we're not going to have that. We're going to return to the norm. Here's why and here's what you should do. And I said, Wow, what a compelling argument. I better prepare. At the end of all that, uh, Kathy, uh, who I who who later became my wife, and we've been happily married for 37 years, she said, Well, baby doll, what'd you learn from all those speakers? I said, Well, I learned that I am profoundly ignorant. And she said, Oh no, you're smart. And I said, Well, that's debatable, but whether I'm ignorant is not. And she said, Well, why do you say that? And I said, Well, I've just heard three different scenarios of the future that vary tremendously. Logic tells me that one of those three is going to be more accurate than the other two, and I don't have a clue which one that might be. That is the definition of ignorance. And uh, I mean, and if that hadn't happened to me in three days, if I hadn't been hit with that in three days, I don't believe I would have had that profound experience. And so I became a student of economics over those next five years, and I studied many of their newsletters. I spent more money on their newsletters a year than I spent going to Vanderbilt uh per year, because back in those days, going to Vanderbilt was $4,500, and I was spending $6,000 on subscriptions. And I was reading every one of them. And there was one guy named Alex Paris who had a boutique uh boutique investment bank called Barrett called Barrington Research in Barrington, Illinois, and he did a wonderful job of explaining what would happen, and he was right. And I called him, told him, so I've been reading your newsletter for five years, and and uh and you've been absolutely correct on on how the kind of what would happen. And I said, I'd like to come see you because I'd like to better understand how you came to think the way that you think. He understood what I wanted, said I could come up at 3 30 anytime, so because that was after the market closed. And he spent three hours with me and uh gave me a bunch of books to read. Um, and but he said he said he asked me, he said, if you ever read the Declaration of Independence, I said, Yeah, he said, Well study it. He said, Have you ever read the Federalist Paper? I said, Well, one or two. He said, Read them all. And uh, but then he also said, Here are some here's some books on economics that you should read. And he said, and the books you're gonna read on economics apply to a lot more than economics, because economics is really nothing more or less than understanding how human beings will adjust to policy changes. So he said, so if you understand that, if you can then see what policy changes are voted on, then you can predict what will happen, and you can predict it uh within a within a close enough margin to be able to make decisions. And uh and he said, what you have to do is you also have to recognize that there's certain underlying values and principles that that uh that support a society that grows. The giants of political thought goes back 500 years, and some of the thinkers that we cover are not people who I think are good thinkers, but every one of them is an influential thinker. So we cover Karl Marx and the Communist Manifesto. I don't agree with Karl Marx, but if you want to understand Marxism, you need to study it. And so we cover Karl Marx, we cover Rousseau, who was the father of the French Revolution, and uh, and you know, Thomas Jefferson, for example, believed that the French Revolution was a good idea. But what Thomas Jefferson didn't understand was that the people of France knew what they were against, but the people of France didn't know what they were for. And that's that's the unique part about the American Revolution was our revolution not only we knew what we were against, but we knew what we were for. And so most revolutions in the history of the world end up where the people are worse off overthrowing the government that they have because they end up getting tricked by by people who don't know how to govern and who don't know how to uh generate, create uh uh circumstances for prosperity. I think understanding the arguments about government are very important to have a to have a country where where people share a set of ideas.

SPEAKER_00 26:37

No, Trump, you and I are older than most people. With which of the masters of political thought do you think young people should be reacquainted?

SPEAKER_02 26:50

I would encourage people to read Thomas Jefferson's original draft of the Declaration of Independence. You can find it online because in the original draft of the Declaration of Independence, he addresses the issue of slavery in that original draft, but that got that got thrown out of the final draft. The final draft was edited a number of times, and most of what Thomas Jefferson wanted remained, but not not the issue of slavery. And then the and then the Articles of Confederation came along after the war. So I would say Thomas Jefferson, to answer your question, I would say Thomas Jefferson uh from a from a from a purely uh political standpoint. And and there are books on Thomas Jefferson, there are books of quotes of Thomas Jefferson, and because I just think he was uh he was I mean he wrote the Declaration of Independence at age 33, which is just incredible to me that he was he could think that deeply at that age.

SPEAKER_00 27:51

Of all the uh I guess semi-modern political philosophers, I've always found Alexis de Tocqueville to be the most insightful. Now I love that. This Frenchman warned about how despotism could infiltrate the American system of government. And and now socialism is gaining popularity in America. People are calling the current president of the United States uh a Nazi. Was De Tokyville correct in his assessment of how American democracy might come to an end? And are we seeing that take shape now?

SPEAKER_02 28:31

Well, um De Tocqueville, I I love you bringing him up. I'm gonna bring up one other. If I was going to recommend a book for somebody, a single book for somebody to read that would that would launch them to read other books, it would be it would be The Law by Frederick Bastiat. I don't know if you've ever read that. It's a very thin book. It's not many words, but um, but it if you really it it's not one you sit and read quickly. Every paragraph has a certain denseness to it and meaning. But De Tokville would fall into that category of thinkers. And he wrote a book about 40 years after the French Revolution, where he explained uh what caused the French Revolution. There's a book called Citizen that's about a thousand pages long, and it is a book that is about the French Revolution, written as if it were a journalist, merely reporting on what was happening, but not why it was happening. And I read that book first, and at the end of that book, I asked my, I said, how can people, how can people do this? Then I found de Tocqueville's book, which was a much shorter book that explained why the French Revolution happened. And so let me start with De Tocqueville's book. He said that what happened in France for 50 years before the French Revolution was France developed a two-tiered justice system. Over a period of decades, uh the people became more and more distressed and riled up, and there was a significant difference in the living standards between the king and the court and everybody else, and that was because the king liked it that way and kept it that way. You didn't have the freedom to do to improve your lot in life under that, under the French king for about 50 years. And it might have even been before then, but he was focused on the 50 years. And uh, and so the French Revolution happened, they overthrew the government, they beheaded the king, and here's an interesting thing. They beheaded the king and the queen, and when they did that, they literally beheaded the executive branch of government. So now there was no executive branch of government, but there was this legislative body that the king, the king allowed to exist, but then he could tell them that they that they had to quit and go home, so he could control the legislature. So when he died, uh when he was killed, assassin, I mean he was essentially tried and and beheaded, the legislature now was the government. Well, you can imagine looking at our own legislature, in the absence of leadership, can you imagine that our Congress could come up with good policies and agree with each other? And the French, the French legislature just got worse and worse and worse. And then they started literally fighting each other on the floor of the, I mean, you know, in the legislature, which resulted in over 20,000 deaths by guillotine. Every single leader in the revolution was eventually beheaded by the mob.

SPEAKER_00 31:44

Now, let's talk about your podcast a little bit. Uh it's called From Our Generation. I'm assuming that's the baby boomer generation.

SPEAKER_02 31:52

Yes. Okay. Yeah, and my cast, Mike, please, go ahead. Go ahead.

SPEAKER_00 31:57

I too am a baby boomer, uh, all, but I came at the tail end of it. So I might be a little less groovy than you, but maybe a little more hip. Okay. All right. Judging from the title, am I correct in assuming your podcast is aimed at younger generations of people?

SPEAKER_02 32:18

Yeah, it is. And um, and and what we try to do is we try to talk about current events and then relate them to historical ideas. And I don't know if we're particularly effective at it, but that's what we that's what we try to do. And uh there are lots of current events, obviously, to talk about. We are in very strange times. We have uh I I think we're in a more divided society from a body politic than than than any time in my lifetime. Now, that's not necessary to say any time since the history of the country because the Civil War was a was a very divided period. Um but uh but our politics is very, very divided. And um uh and so what I try to do is we Mike Hassel and I, what we do is we try to talk about current events, but we also talk about it in context. Well we talk a lot about our constitution, and we talk a lot about the Declaration of Independence, and it's important. We talk a lot about uh words like culture, and uh when we try to define words very carefully, like culture is a word that we define as a set of values that a society has in common that defines its culture. If you have multicultures, you have multiple sets of values. One could argue that that the difference between Israel and and the Palestinians is a is an extreme example of multiculturalism. When you have extreme examples, two sides cannot coexist. When you have extreme examples, and you brought up that socialism is on the rise. Well, socialism uh cannot create prosperity, it cannot. Because prosperity, and this is where you get into the wealth of nations and Adam Smith, innovation, uh you never know where innovation is going to come from, and you never know what the innovation is going to be. And uh, because if you did, then it wouldn't be an innovation, it would be an improvement of something we already know about. But a true innovation, like the internal combustion engine, it allowed us to move from at best uh having a plow behind a horse, well, and then we ended up with tractors. So we moved from a society where 95% of the population was in the business of growing or distributing food to now it's less than 5% of the population is in the business of growing and distributing food. And that's because of the internal combustion engine. And then you have electricity, and and then all these different all these different businesses and ideas and improvements and innovations were discovered, discovered, or created once electricity existed. The internet is another one. Uh, and the most current one, of course, is artificial intelligence. And and so I I watch what's happening with artificial intelligence every week. Now I'm learning about a whole nother area that where artificial intelligence is going to affect it in in ways that are very disruptive, but also in ways that create productivity, tremendous gains in productivity. So we're in uh we're in we're in very and then and then politically you've got Mamdani, who, I mean, when he was interviewed, he said that nobody should have private property, that the government, and these are his words, the government should own the means of production. Well, that's right in the communist manifesto. So he's not just a socialist. And by the way, Karl Marx was a socialist before he was a communist. So socialism and communism, they're they're part of the same family. They're not there, there's very little that separates them.

SPEAKER_00 36:17

No, neither one of us would have a podcast today if we were still relying on our wax cylinders and our Edison gramophones. So but here's what I see in today's technology, Crum. Back in our day, new products were developed to make our lives easier and less complicated so that we had more free time to spend with ourselves and our families. Right. Today's products are more complicated and made to occupy more of our time and keep us from spending time with our families and other people. You know, it used to be here's a machine that peels an apple for me. Now it's here's a machine that I need two dozen passwords to operate efficiently, it takes up way too much of my time. Am I wrong in that assessment?

SPEAKER_02 37:06

Well, you're what I think what you're referring to is the amount of time that people spend on social media that that is a waste of time. So, for example, let's make the assumption that if a person who is who's concerned about the news spends an hour a day going and gathering news, that's and and and let's just assume for purpose discussion that that is a productive use of that hour. If somebody spends five hours on social media watching what their friends say to each other and and and spends no time gathering actual news, I have I have uh then that's a waste of time. Yes. I have I have college-age grandchildren, and I ask them, How do you get your news? And by the way, these are wonderful people in their early 20s. And and I said, How do you get your news? Because I go to particular news sites to get news, they get their news from news feeds. Yep. So their news feeds feeds them based on what they click on and look at, they just get more of the same news. Yes, and so my my granddaughter, back when you had uh a number of college girls were were murdered and other girls were raped and all these. She read those stories and she clicked on them and read them in detail. And she told me, she said, uh, she said, Grandad, I'm getting I my news feed now is just filled with subjects of murder and rape. She said, I don't even want to watch the news. I said, Well, how do you fix that? And I don't know the answer to that because I don't have a news feed. I don't have a Facebook account, an Instagram account, a TikTok account, but I do recognize that all of those are things that other people have, and especially younger people uh with Instagram and TikTok and then influencers that uh that they quote follow, and much of the information that's put out is inaccurate information. I'm gonna say that you have a filter, so if you read a story that makes no sense to you, you go, that doesn't make any sense. But a lot of people who don't have a filter, who don't have enough basic knowledge, they read something and they're oh my gosh, I never I didn't know that. And then now now they believe it. Yes, that's a core problem, but also an opportunity. And um, I appreciate our time together and wish we had more, but I understand the limitations.

SPEAKER_00 39:33

I wish we had more time too, crom. It was a pleasure speaking with you. Be sure to find Crom's Giants of Political Thought for access to all kinds of historic literature and the From Our Generation podcast. Thanks to Crom Carmichael for spending some time in the listening tube. The listening tube is written and produced by yours truly, copyright 2025. Thank you for putting your ear to the listening tube. Be sure to follow the listening tube at thelisteningtube.com. I'm your host, Bob Woodley, for Thou at Infinitum.