Ep. #632: Esther Perel, Glenn Loury, Daniel Bessner

There's only one place where history, culture, and adventure meet on the National Mall.

Where museum days turn to electric lights,

where riverside sunrises glow and monuments shine in moonlight,

where there's something new for everyone to discover.

There's only one DC.

Visit Washington.org to plan your trip.

Honey punches of votes is the forma perfecta depending on the accounto familia.

Cono juelas crucientes and verdad qual nios les encantas.

Ademas delicios o trosos de granola nuces y fruta que todos vanadis frutad.

Honey punches votes para todos.

Tokal bener para sabermás.

Welcome to an HBO podcast from the HBO Late Night Series, Real Time with Bill Ma.

Start the clock.

Hey, everybody, thank you very much.

How you doing?

Thank you, people.

Thank you.

Sit down.

I know.

Thank you very much.

You're very kind.

All right.

What a show we have today.

Boy.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I know.

I know.

I know.

You love it, City.

I appreciate that very much.

You're obviously still very high from 420, which is

yesterday.

420 has become a national holiday, although I feel very sorry for my friends in the Red States where it's still not legal.

And now they all shot up the butt light, so fuck, they got nothing.

But I must say, my stoner friends, I love them, but 420, you know, it's also Hitler's birthday.

Only a stoner would do that.

I'm just saying.

That's why this year Kanye got extra high.

But the big news is Fox News this week.

I don't know if you've been following this.

They were going to be on trial with Dominion voting system.

Dominion are the people who count the votes with their

And of course Fox News was trying to sell their bullshit that Trump really won the election.

So they said, well,

Dominion was in on it.

So Dominion sued Fox News.

We were going to see the trot.

Fox News settled.

They have to pay Dominion $787 million.

Well,

this way they avoided a trial and the harrowing prospect of having to swear to tell the truth.

Because that's what this was really about.

And of course, they had them dead to rights because they had the texts

from the Fox News anchors.

On the air, the Fox News people were datowing the Trump line behind the scenes.

They knew it was bullshit, and they were saying it.

The last row is last week.

Tucker Carlson, some of his new texts came out.

He called Trump's lawyer, Sidney Powell, who he was having on a show, giving credibility to.

And the text, he says, she's a fucking bitch,

a psychopath, a liar, and a cunt.

And the Fox News spokesman said, well, they are cherry-picking those texts out of context.

I'm not making this up.

I just want to know, in what context is fucking bitch a compliment?

That's just my question.

So Fox News, today put out a statement after

this settlement was reached.

They said, this settlement reflects the continuing commitment of Fox News to the highest journalistic standards.

I got to say, you know which news outlets have, I think, even higher journalistic standards?

The ones who don't have to pay three-quarters of a billion dollars to win the fucking wire.

Okay, international news.

Now, the Ukraine war, this was interesting.

Russia, the Russian Air Force bombed the city of Belgograd, which is not unusual except it's in Russia.

They bombed their own city, yeah.

Putin put out a statement.

He said, we didn't mean to bomb you, we meant to rape you.

I mean, imagine bombing your own city.

It'd be like the governor of Florida attacking Disney World.

Oh, yes,

the presidential race is heating up for next time.

They say, this is a rumor, but they say it's pretty sure.

Biden will announce next week that he is officially running for president in 2024.

And

Jill Biden said today she can't wait to give him the big news.

So it looks like it's going to be Biden versus Trump again in 2024.

It's like making a sequel to Cats.

It'll be the first debate that's closed captioned for the participants.

So, and of course before the election even starts, Trump will be on trial like five or six more times.

This week, his rape trial, you know, he's got a rape trial.

This is the woman who said that he raped her in the dressing room at a department store.

And Trump has some shopping to do now because there's nothing more embarrassing than wearing the same outfit that you wore to your

porn star hush money arraignment that you wear to your rape trial.

You don't want to do that.

It's a fashion faux pas.

But I saw, this is an interesting phrase I've never seen before.

Indictment bounce.

He got an indictment bounce from being indicted and being arrested.

I'm not kidding.

You know, he's like a rapper.

When he's arrested, he gets street cred.

You know, he just

Republicans like it that he's a pimp.

They like it that he's got a side piece that he can pay off.

They wish they were banging porn stars.

Gay porn stars, but still.

All right, we got a great show.

We have Glenn Lowery and Daniel Vessner here.

Well, first up, she's a psychotherapist, author, and host of the Where Should We Begin podcast.

Astaire Perel is over here.

Hello.

Pleasure to meet you.

How are you doing?

Okay, you know, I've been anxious to talk to you for some time.

I thought, oh, you know, this will be a nice break.

The news is so depressing, and we'll just talk about sex and relationships.

But really, we have to talk about that.

That's a crisis, too.

Right?

There really is.

I mean, we're more connected than ever.

This is a point you make often.

And yet, there's a loneliness epidemic.

There's a lack of sex epidemic.

Now, I blame the phone for everything.

And until someone proves me wrong, I'm going to blame it for this.

Am I wrong about that?

No.

Actually, no.

There is a sense that modern loneliness actually masks itself as as hyperconnectivity.

So it's the phone, but it's also every other technology that we are communicating through.

It's that it's basically giving us a sense of what I have begun to call artificial intimacy.

It's distracted attention.

I talk to you even through the phone, exactly to the phone, and I say to you something really important and you go, uh-huh.

Uh-huh.

And I know that you're actually multitasking, that you're doing something else while you're talking to me.

And we have come to actually...

You know what?

Actually, talking on the phone?

Yes.

Because most people don't do that.

Not really.

That is true.

That is true, too.

That is true, too.

But we have a host of other technologies, right, that are accompanying us, not just the phone, that are all having this notion of being able to predict for us where we should go, what I should listen to, what I should watch, who I should date, where I should go to eat.

You know, it's assisted living, you know.

And why is that a problem?

Because each of these technologies that are supposed to help us become more connected are actually making us slightly socially more atrophied.

Right.

Yeah, I mean,

I get made fun of saying this, you know, that it was better because they're, oh boy, you thank, okay, boomer, things were always better in your day, but they fucking were.

It was better when you went to a bar.

As much of a pot shot that is, it's certainly better than the phone, because you cannot get a reading on someone over a screen.

Like, I never met you in person.

I'm getting more of a reading at you now.

I can see you.

I can see your eyes.

I can smell you.

I mean, it's all good.

But, you know, like in a bar, you

had a shock.

You have a shock memory, so it's actually a very important.

But it's not just the difference between virtual versus seeing.

It's that there is a a whole approach at this moment that is trying to kind of erase the bumps of life.

A technology that is meant to be polished, that is meant to be predictive, that is meant to kind of erase friction.

You're asking me about sex.

Any good sex therapist will tell you that friction is an essential part of sex.

I know I wanted to have you on this show.

Just give me important advice.

Well, let's talk about sex, because sex is down.

I mean, like, in the 90s, I think half of the people in this country were having sex on a weekly basis, mostly with Bill Clinton.

But now it's way below that level, especially among the young.

Sperm levels are way down.

I mean, that's something you can quantify scientifically on a blood test.

I mean, sperm levels are 50% lower than they were 50 years ago.

What's going on?

But sperm levels actually, but this began to be a research that was done in the 80s that started out in Scandinavia and that actually looked at the changes of diet, changes of environment.

So it's actually broader than just a social element.

What I think what I'm interested in is simply, you know,

there is a beautiful erotic equation that Jack Morin, a famous sexologist, came up with that said attraction plus obstacle equals desire.

Yes.

If you remove the obstacles, yeah you can clap.

But

what is every rom-com movie?

Obstacle.

Yes.

They meet and then the movie's over in 10 minutes.

No, obstacles.

But the plot is the obstacles.

The obstacle is what fuels the desire.

And this is part of sexuality as well.

And when I say erotic equation, I really don't just mean sex.

Look, people can have sex and feel nothing.

The erotic, no, you can.

Women have done it for centuries.

It's actually not the focus on doing it.

When you say people are having less sex, you kind of fall a little bit in the trap of sex as a performance thing, as something that you can measure that needs to be done.

But the m the essential piece is the erotic quality.

What does that mean?

Your experience of aliveness, of vitality, of curiosity, of imagination, of playfulness.

It's that that makes it interesting.

Otherwise, why bother?

I mean,

you're talking to someone who never got married for that very reason.

Like,

I don't know how you keep that going for 40 years.

Because you have a lot of obstacles.

But you're married for a long time, right?

I am.

And what are the obstacles that keep it so hot for you?

First of all, I would like to say that it's not because it's decades.

You know, longevity has not always been the only marker of success.

But what makes it it interesting is, I like to say it like that.

Many people today, especially in the West, are going to have two or three marriages or committed relationships.

Some of us are going to do it with the same person.

So I've been married a few times, but with the same person.

That keeps it interesting.

I mean.

Stop it.

It's a wonderful line and a great applause break.

What the fuck are you talking about?

What does that mean?

I mean, I...

Yeah, yeah, I like you.

What, you're a maiden one day, and then the next you're a pirate.

That's your imagination.

But no, look, the thing is, you're not the same person in your 20s as you are decades later.

So it's about renegotiating the relationship.

The structure changes, the interdependence changes.

What each of us wants to do separately that has to do with our own interests is, you know, it's the relationship is a living, breathing organism that you need to reinvent and infuse and that keeps it interesting.

Here's the thing.

I think that I would put it like that.

The majority of people end up thinking that their partner belongs to them.

And therefore, you don't put nearly that much creativity into the plot.

I like to think that your partner is on hold

on loan, sorry, and then sometimes you have an option to renew and once they never belong to you you actually remain curious and you don't just think that you already know everything what kills it is the loss of curiosity for the other person as a human being

well i mean

again

that sounds great in theory yes you know in theory you don't belong to me but if you fuck somebody else you kind of do

your ass belongs to me you know i mean you kind of can't have it both ways i I mean, either you belong to somebody or you don't belong to somebody.

And if you do, they get very mad.

You know, I mean, women have all these little rules about relationships, like, don't date other people.

Would you like my take on this?

You're sitting there, of course.

First of all, when I say belong, I don't, what I'm saying is that don't ever think that your partner is for granted.

They can at any moment disappear, leave, die, get sick.

So invest in it.

What often happens is I ask people, you know, I just did a big event, I said, how many of you bring the best of yourself to work and the leftovers home?

And a lot of people did that, you know?

So it's that what I mean that they don't belong to you, is that you can lose them.

And if you live with that awareness and that slight anxiety, you actually keep refueling it.

And

as far as women having all kinds of rules for infidelity and transgression, everybody does, every gender and everything in between.

So I think we are totally on the same page with the idea that

political correctness has been the enemy of good sex.

In my life, it's been the enemy also of comedy.

So I'm doubly fucked.

But

I'll wait to see where you go.

But honestly,

sex is not politically correct.

I mean, what turns people on

is not what you want to say to other people.

It's not what you want printed.

Someone wants to tell your mother.

But it is what it is.

That's what it is.

It's it nobody wants to hear in bed who's your co-equal partner

So

it's actually even more.

It's the very things that can can turn you on at night are the things that you will demonstrate against during the day.

And for that you have to understand the erotic mind.

It's a theater.

If you understand that sex is not politically correct mainly because it invites play,

pretend, make believe, then you understand that all fantasy of that sort is actually not meant to be true.

Nobody wants to be hurt in reality.

But some people enjoy being taken and ravished in the night.

Well, taken and ravished are different than hurt.

That's true.

That's the key.

I don't think, I mean, you know, this whole fantasy.

I never got onto that page.

I don't get that.

If you have to fantasize to me, it's already over.

Yeah.

I mean, I've heard many people say that.

Like, oh, yes, I make love to my wife, but I'm thinking about somebody else.

And they're not even ashamed of it.

To me, that's the sickest thing I've ever heard them say.

But that's a very narrow definition of fantasy.

Fantasy is not just about plots in your head.

Fantasy, you know.

But if you're really into somebody, why do you need to fantasize?

You're right there.

Because fantasy is not what you think about taking your mind elsewhere.

Fantasy is anything that brings poetry and imagination to the erotic.

It's about how you approach, it's what you say, it's the smells, it's the decor, it's everything that actually enriches the experience.

You know, you remind me of a patient I once met, and the woman was like, Yes.

Already.

Okay.

You're not reminding me of the patient.

The patient is.

But, you know, she was saying that he has all these fantasies, threesome, this and that.

And I would just like him to stroke my hair before he goes for my breasts.

Right.

And I just said, you know, but.

There you go.

Now we got it.

All right.

Make it interesting.

Oh, boy.

Don't just go like a friend.

This was very interesting.

Great to meet you.

All right.

Thank you, Estelle.

Let's meet our panel.

That was great.

That was a lot of fun.

See you soon.

Yes, I'll see you again.

Okay.

All right.

He is a professor of economics at Brown University who hosts the Glen Show podcast available on YouTube.

All podcast platforms are at GlenLowrySubstack.com.

Glenn Lowry is over here.

Professor.

And he is an associate professor of international studies at the University of Washington and co-host of the Foreign Affairs podcast, American Prestige, Daniel Bessner.

Daniel, two professors.

Wow.

All right, maybe you guys can help me figure out America since your professors profess me this.

So

I've always known in America that, you know, there are certain things that if you did, you'd get shot.

Or there'd be a likely chance of getting shot.

This week we found out we're going to add to that list, innocent mistakes.

Innocent mistakes.

And I love this.

It really goes across racial lines.

Everybody in America is shooting everybody else.

Poor Ralph Yarl, a young black man who was shot for ringing the wrong doorbell.

In upstate New York, Kevin Monaghan shot Kaitlyn Gillis for pulling in the wrong driveway.

In Elgin, Texas, Pedro Rodriguez shot two cheerleaders for getting in the wrong car.

And then a black man, Robert Singletary, shot a six-year-old and her father when their ball went in his yard.

And

what all these things have in common, the shooters themselves were in no danger.

We're at this place in America where a lot of the people want their stand their ground, and they also want to be armed at all times.

I don't see this coming out well.

Your thoughts.

I totally agree, Bill.

I think related to what you were just talking about, there's an alienation and loneliness and anger at the heart of American life right now.

Oh, let's get the professor back here.

I mean the

doctor back here.

No, I think that's absolutely true and I think it's been true for a few years.

There are no grand projects that people really believe in any longer.

If you think about the 1990s, you could think about the end of history.

If you think about the 2000s, you could think about the war on terror.

But today, what are the grand projects that people could really devote their lives to?

I don't think people really believe in

anything.

And that's why they're shooting each other?

Because all this,

whoa, I think this is a professor theory.

I mean, that seems erroneous.

Why don't we start with there are a lot of guns?

Yes.

There are a lot of guns.

But I'm not sure people are always using them this cavalierly, if that's a word.

Well, I think that's where the anger comes in, and the alienation.

So alienation plus guns.

Yes.

Okay.

I mean, maybe it has to do with the lockdowns, too.

People forgot how to relate to people.

Not that these things couldn't have happened at any other time in America.

It just seems like we're more violent than ever, and it seems to be about nothing.

I mean, you know, gangs always shot each other for nothing.

You dissed me.

You know, I mean, you read about what goes on in Chicago: those young men who kill each other at alarming rates.

And it's usually over nothing.

Disrespect.

Somebody said something on social media you didn't like.

Sometimes it's about turf, but sometimes it's about just trivial nonsense.

It seems like that's where we all are now.

Your ball rolled in my yard, you pulled in the wrong driveway.

What the fuck is my question?

A lot of angry people, a lot of weapons, the gloves coming off, a lot of alienation in society, a lot of partisan division, a lot of angry people.

But, I mean, we're just professors.

You expect us to have the answer to this?

And just given your examples, I would say the character of the shootings between what's going on in Chicago, where Glenn is from, and he could probably speak to that better than I, and the shootings shootings that you were talking about, the four shootings, are a bit of a different character.

In Chicago, I think it's more linked to social conditions, the socioeconomic conditions,

the disbelief that there's anywhere to go in terms of improving your lot in society.

And the four shootings that you talked about, I think, are so senseless.

You sound like the mayor, the new mayor.

Is he mayor or mayor-elect?

He's mayor-elect for a few days.

I think it's May.

Okay, this is Brandon Johnson, because they had like a little mini riot last weekend in Chicago

downtown, I mean in the loop.

And the mayor-elect said, I don't, of course, condone any of this, but then he said, it is not constructed to demonize youth who have otherwise been starved of opportunities in their own communities, which to some people sounded like he was excusing

horrific behavior.

It sounded like that because that's exactly what he was doing.

How can we avoid the values question here as well as the questions of structure and opportunity?

Taking a gun, going to a crowded gathering on a park, and firing basically at random in such a manner that you take another life, this is a horrific deed.

And I think the mayor's position, understandable given his politics, is inadequate to the moment.

If I were, quote, a law-abiding citizen living in Chicago watching on television that riot and the mayhem that ensued, I would be disappointed.

So you were for the other guy in the mayoral race there?

I don't live in Chicago anymore, haven't lived there since 1982.

So the other guy, Vallis, as I understand the other guy, more conservative Democrat,

you know.

Yeah, I probably would have voted for him if I had been a voter in Chicago.

So then my question is, even if you're going to admit that that's a terrible thing to do, when you're approaching it from the perspective of policy, it seems like you would have to attack it at the level of socioeconomics as opposed to culture.

Because I don't see how you would get the cultural change that I know you'd like without the redistribution of wealth and resources and things like that.

So how do they go together?

Well, there's such a thing as moral leadership.

There's such a thing as the person who's in charge, who's standing in front of the microphone on whom the cameras are trained, voicing truths about the way we should be living with each other.

And you don't have to have a policy to tell the truth about the way that we should be living with each other.

Yeah, I mean, that does.

Well, I don't know.

I've read that Chicago, which I'm always reading about with the crime, is only the 25th worst city, crime-wise, in this country.

It seems like crime is kind of out of control.

I was reading that in New York, a third of all the shoplifting cases are by 327 people in a city of 8 million

because they keep getting returned to the streets, which has to be terrible for the

morale of the cops that they keep arresting people on the same people.

It's Groundhog Day for them.

I mean, I know we have problems with the cops.

I've certainly not been shy about talking about them on this show, but

I don't understand how we're going to get this situation under control unless they feel like what they do has some meaning as opposed to just a turnstile.

Yeah, my friend Danny, I would call to his attention that that's policy too.

Whether or not the DA brings charges, whether or not there are enough cops on the street who feel free to be able to do their jobs is also policy.

So.

But when you're talking about that policy in the larger frame of the prison industrial complex, it seems to me that the high incarceration rates are

what you would want to attack at first

before you start talking about cop morality.

That I think that the whole structure is the issue as opposed to the individual level of the police officer.

And it's the shooter morality that I want to talk about.

Yeah, but then the question is the cause.

So there's the obvious cause of the individual pathology.

But then if you're looking at it in the context of a larger structure, I think that the conversation to have is first and foremost about the structure as opposed to the individual criminal.

Because

I think that the moral valence is clear.

It's terrible to commit a crime and it's terrible to hurt people.

But then the question is, what do you do from there?

But why isn't anyone ever talking to Chicago?

Like most of the shootings are young black men killing other young black men.

Is that not correct?

Yeah, that's correct.

Okay.

Much more than what the cops do.

Why doesn't anybody talk about that?

I mean, why aren't there

100 giant black celebrities who would have the respect of those people saying, what are you doing to yourselves?

Why are you killing each other?

This is a way to live.

This dishonors our community.

Come on.

We're better than this.

Right.

I feel like it's never addressed.

But I think also attacking the problem would involve some sort of, again, material redistribution.

So it's not an especial surprise that corporate media doesn't talk about an issue that would involve the people who run corporations and people who star on shows to give up their money.

So I think that's a good question.

Well, how would giving up, how would that actually change this?

Take me through how giving more money would change this, because we have spent trillions of dollars on the war on poverty.

Exactly.

So I'd be curious to hear what Glenn thinks about this, because the culture of poverty argument, as first articulated by Oscar Lewis, was the argument was specifically about it being caused by a capitalistic society that's alienated and individualistic and where certain people win and other people lose.

So I don't think just like if everyone in Chicago all of a sudden started studying for the SATs and got $1,600 tomorrow, that wouldn't necessarily change.

Just if we gave billions of dollars, I don't think it would necessarily change.

I think this is a generations-long project that involves really reforming the structure of American capitalist society, which I think has engendered a lot of the alienation and loneliness that we've been talking about this entire time.

Okay, but you didn't really follow the money for me.

In terms of what?

You take more money,

and then how does this change the behavior?

It's speculative.

And what I would want to observe is that any structural move that you want to make requires a majority of the people to get behind it, requires democratic politics to get behind it.

And in order to get a majority of the voters in Chicago or any place else to get behind anything that's going to cost them money, they have to feel safe.

They have to feel that the people who are in charge are on their side.

And that's why Mayor-elect Brandon Johnson needs to come and give speeches in which he says this is contemptible behavior.

We won't tolerate it in our city.

The reason we have cops is precisely in order to stop this from happening.

And if you do it on my watch, you're going to go to jail.

He needs to say that in order to get the white taxpayers in the city not to move out of the city and to get behind whatever structural program a clever man like Danny comes up with.

But I mean, okay, so I also read this week in the paper,

one in three children in America cannot read at a basic level of comprehension.

85% of black students lack proficiency in reading skills.

We already spend a lot of money on schools.

So are you going to keep telling me more money will fix this?

because I feel like this is much more connected to the problems of people who can't read.

Yes, they're going to have problems with gainful employment.

And it seems like, you know,

a lot of times the solutions that come from the left seem symbolic.

They don't seem like we're actually addressing what really needs to be done is get kids learning, get them reading, get them able to have a job.

I don't know how

early childhood education is a progressive policy that Danny and I, I assume, could agree would be a good thing.

Absolutely.

It starts before school, it starts at birth.

So that's one thing.

Parenting is another dimension of it.

Kids don't come into maturity all on their own.

They have to be nurtured by loving parents who invest in them and who tend to their needs and show them the way to go.

So I think structure and culture can be complementary factors in addressing this problem.

Why hasn't the money we spent, you know, it's like when I pay my taxes here in California, it's like, wow, 13% on top of federal taxes and the streets?

I have to watch them like a hawk because there's so many fucking potholes.

It's like, where did the money go?

Like, it doesn't seem like the money is getting to this problem if 85% of black students lack proficiency in reading skills.

So if you look at the issues of the return of phonics, you would see that these school districts have to bid on curriculums.

So when people bid on curriculums that wind up not working, they feel that they have to stay with them.

So what you do is when you're talking about throwing money at things, it's not just literally throwing money, it's also about within this the structure within which that money operates.

And so I think you also have to talk about that, the levels of inequality, the school systems, taxes linked to schools and things along those lines, in addition to just throwing money at the issue, which will never work because it's a surface solution to a much deeper problem.

Is part of the problem the fact that there really is

no penalty for not educating your children well anymore?

I mean, I mean...

The penalty is life, though.

Like you have a

penalty.

That's for the child is paying the penalty.

I'm talking about for the teachers and the parents who are

in charge of this system.

And I think the Democratic Party has to answer for partly that, partly that because, I mean, the Democratic Party is the teachers are the backbone of it, are they not?

Well, this is so controversial.

This is the argument for choice.

This is the argument for charter schools.

It threatens the teachers' unions, and they're against it, and the Democrats, therefore.

I mean, they kept the schools closed long after they should have.

It's not a panacea, but I would say let a thousand flowers bloom.

Let's encourage innovation.

If a system is failing,

big city public schools are failing to adequately educate the kids, then let's consider alternatives.

Let's open things up a little bit.

I'm a bit more skeptical of charter schools and school choice than Glenn, but I think you have to pay teachers what their labor is worth.

In Los Angeles, as far as I'm aware, teachers got a much overdue increase in their salaries, and we need to value that as absolutely creative.

What is the average salary of a teacher?

I don't recall, but it was something pretty low, isn't it, in the 30,000s or 40,000s, I think.

It's shit.

I'm not sure what did that much.

And I think we have to value that as a society.

And the fact that we pay teachers so low, it's considered feminized labor.

It's not valued at all.

There's no honor associated with it in a large society.

I would definitely make that bargain.

Pay them more and get more for your buck.

Pay them a lot more.

All right.

So

a little political news this week.

George Santos declared that he will be running again.

And

we got some of his new campaign posters for his upcoming campaign.

Would you like to see

Santos 24?

I can explain.

George Santos, I saved Radio Shack, I can save America.

Santos, weird but not Anthony Wiener weird.

Bring it on, fact checkers.

Santos, the pro-choice, pro-life candidate.

Santos, I've cured cancer before and I'll do it again.

I'll fight for you just like I fought in every American war.

I'm not only with Jesus, he's staying at my house.

Santos, together we can make dogs live forever.

What does that one mean?

And Santos, you've never met my girlfriend because she lives in Canada.

Okay.

So

now that we're talking about liars,

here's what Dominion said about the settlement in the Fox News case.

They said, it proves lies have consequences.

Not really.

It proves that lies have a large profit margin, doesn't it?

I mean,

it's not really a good outcome

because it's the Sackler family with opioids.

They knew they were selling something that was going to make people drug addicts, and they kept doing it because it's the cost of doing business.

You run a horror house, you got to buy some for breeze.

And

this looks like the same thing.

For $787 billion,

you can pay for the privilege of telling your audience what they want to hear, because that's basically what they're paying for, right?

Yeah.

Three-quarters of a billion dollars.

And I read in the newspaper this morning that people at Fox were delighted about the settlement because it keeps them out of court, keeps them out of having to testify.

But I mean, where did that money come from?

It came from the advertisers who pay.

And why did the advertisers pay?

Because the audiences tune in and it's a business plan and it's a cost of doing business.

And let's move on.

And people are uncomfortable when I make this argument, but it highlights the problems of a capitalist media.

That a media that is ultimately driven by profit is going to result in corporations and companies and channels like Fox News.

And I am, of course, I am not advocating for a totally government-run structure.

I don't think that works, but I think we in the United States fetishized private corporations, and one could argue that public information is a public good.

And that there needs to be more serious regulation.

There needs to be more serious involvement by the American public's representatives, and perhaps at some level the American public itself, because this is an inevitable result of a capitalist media.

You're going to get companies and corporations like Fox News.

You're going to get news organizations, and it does happen on the left, too, just not as badly.

But the problem with all media is their attitude toward their audience, which is you're the boss

because you're paying me.

So I'm going to do what you want.

If you want me to step on your neck, I'll step on your neck.

If you want me to tell you you're great, I'll do that.

You're the boss.

You paid me, and I'm going to tell you what you want to hear.

And that happens on the left.

It's just, again, not as virulent.

But that's really what's going on here.

You're totally right.

And that's because American capitalism is a consumer-centered capitalism.

And it has been from the 1960s.

It's not labor-centered, that's for sure.

It's not even corporation-centered in a lot of regards.

The primary freedom, the primary meaning of what it means to be an American is to consume.

We have the freedom to choose.

George W.

Bush, after 9-11, go shop.

You know, this is what it means to be an American.

So, again, this is a pathology at the center of American life.

And I don't think you're ever going to, you know, confront Fox News in a real way unless you confront what the actual problem is.

And this is its consumer-centered capitalism.

So

how do you get around the problem of the consumer is the boss without making the government the boss?

And when the government's the boss, how do you continue to have a free society at the end of the day?

I mean, aren't the Twitter files telling us that given the opportunity, the people in power will manipulate the news and what it is that we know about the facts in order to sustain their power and advance their interests.

That's absolutely true, but I think that's happening now to a large degree.

A lot of the newspapers, even great newspapers like the New York Times, look at what happened in the run-up to the Iraq War.

I mean,

these things are imbricated with one another.

So I don't think we could say we currently live in a society where the powerful aren't necessarily determined things, but now it's a 92-year-old billionaire.

This is somewhat complicated at Fox News by the fact that

Trump is going to be on their station again.

He hasn't hasn't for quite a while because they threw him under the bus.

They were for DeSantis.

They wanted to switch horses and their new horse died.

And so

the thing that they just paid $787 billion for,

which is for lying about the last election, now they're going to have to have the guy on who's going to be telling that lie on their airwaves every day.

How does that work?

Revealed preference, it's to make money and keep the channel going.

That's the most important thing.

The politics is secondary, ultimately.

The new media,

my podcast is at Substack, I have to say that.

We're capitalists over there.

We're independent on rails.

Trying to cover our costs and make a profit, but we're free from government control.

But Substack.

Let a thousand flowers blue.

Which is a communist phrase.

Okay.

They didn't get anything out of it.

You're right, I know.

That's Chairman Mao.

It's interesting that you would use that in support of a capitalist idea.

But Substack could cut everything off tomorrow.

And that's the big problem.

I know, we'd be very screwed.

But they could do it.

And so, again, there needs to be some sort of resolution.

Before I run out of time, and I have two professors here, I want to ask you guys what is going on at college.

Because we talk it about a lot here, but I haven't been on a college campus in quite some time.

It's just what I read.

But I do want to just ask you about certain statistics, because one thing that I think you might agree on is that there has been, and people may not be aware of, is that there has been a sea change at who is running the college.

It used to be the professors,

right?

And now it's administrators.

Some of the numbers I find mind-boggling.

Yale has 5,307

undergrads and 3,500 administrators.

Stanford has 10,896 managerial and professional staff.

These are not the professors.

10,000?

First of all, what do these people do?

What do the

3,500 and the 10,000 people do at Yale and Stanford?

I'd love to know.

Have at them, Dan.

Well, I think it's a very important issue.

So what's happened in the last generation or generation and a half, there's been a sea change, a transformation in the American university.

I would say a consumer-centered transformation where the student has effectively become the consumer.

And the college experience, quote unquote, has become the center of what college is about, as opposed to education.

And this has had a number of negative effects.

Perhaps most important, colleges now, many colleges, many universities are now run like businesses.

And I just want to get this statistic out because it's very crucial.

About 70% of professors are non-tenured track.

That means they are paid very low.

That means they don't have any job stability really oftentimes.

And that means they don't have any benefits.

And in the 1970s, that number was around reverse.

Roughly 70% to 75% of the professoriate were tenured.

So now when you run the college like a business, you basically move away from the educational purpose, which I think Lynn and I would agree is the purpose of college.

And I think, Bill, you oftentimes talk about, you know, college students shouting down speakers.

Things like that, I think, are profoundly connected to the college student being considered a consumer.

That they're there to have an experience and they pay a shit ton of money for it and they get an enormous debt for it.

So they're sure as hell going to have fun.

And I think if we want to...

And that's fun?

Shouting down speakers.

Oh, no, no, no.

It is for some people.

But I think that it's more about drinking and doing drugs and having sex, and it's less about education.

So I think if you wanted to, you know, change what you're talking about and for professors to have more of a role, you need to change what college actually is.

But what do these people do?

What are they doing?

I just want to know.

I read recently, like, the tech industry just had a big bloodbath and they fired up a whole bunch of people and then it came out, a lot of of them admitted they did nothing.

They weren't even pretending.

We didn't do anything.

They have meetings.

What do these people do?

They have meetings.

Meetings.

They write memos.

They oversee the enforcement of regulations.

Regulations?

They cultivate alumni for donors and they kowtow to their clients, the students, because as Danny says, it's a consumer-driven thing that's going on.

What they don't do is educate anybody.

They don't write any books.

They don't produce new knowledge.

But I just want to make a quick final point.

I think you see this in the larger American economy, the rise of so-called bullshit jobs,

where a lot of people are sitting at their desk all day being chained to the last tyranny in American life, the workplace, and not really producing much or doing much.

And so I think what you see in the university mirrors what's happening throughout the society as a whole.

All right, but not on this show.

We earn our pay.

All right.

Thank you guys.

It's time for Neural

Okay, Neural, now that McDonald says it's updating the Big Mac with the softer bun, they have to show me the pathetic fucker who can't bite through the one they have now.

The only thing softer than a Big Mac is taking nourishment through a tube.

You're making it softer.

If If it was any softer, it would be pudding.

And Ron DeSantis would eat it with his hands.

In honor of 420, new rule, Uber can't send me a driver named Bong.

Look, I only use Uber when I'm really high, and this is confusing.

My phone keeps saying bong is here and I'm thinking I know my bong is here.

Where the hell's the driver?

Meru, unless one of the ingredients in your life-changing recipe is LSD,

please stop telling me that some dish you made is going to change my life.

Really?

These 15-minute cabbage recipes are going to change my life?

If I'm eating that much cabbage, I think it already has because it

because it means I've lost all my money and I moved to Poland.

New rule, now that a bear in Canada broke into a truck and drank 69 cans of different sodas, but would not touch the diet soda.

Authorities must return this bear to America because he's obviously an American bear.

Well,

he won't drink diet soda.

He sleeps half the year, and he shows up at Walmart not wearing any pants.

Number 1, someone has to take Donald Trump aside and let him know that when he's dancing, he looks like he's jerking off two guys at once.

And Don, you're a Republican.

You only need to jerk off one guy.

And finally, New Rule, great news about a new award show.

Listen to this.

About a year and a half ago, I was asked to moderate a discussion at the home of a very prominent Hollywood producer.

And the attendees that night was a who's who of A-listers and stars.

If a bomb went off in that room, there'd be nothing on TV next year, but, well, let's just say it would be a great year for Kevin Sorbo.

I can't say exactly who was there, but if there really is a Jewish space laser, these guys have the codes.

Anyway, the subject we all wanted to talk about that night was cancel culture.

And it's funny, if this was 10 years ago, this group would have been talking about censorship from the right.

Back then it was the Jerry Falwells and Pat Robertsons, the Bill Bennetts and Rush Limbaughs who kept us up at night.

I mean, besides the cocaine.

Yeah, the book banners and boycotters then were Republicans, like the ones that got me fired after 9-11.

But that's in the past now.

And by the past, I mean Florida.

And of course, not just Florida.

Today's Republicans have shown that when it comes to canceling, they're still more than capable.

They canceled Colin Kaepernick for taking a knee, Liz Cheney for defying Trump, Kathy Griffin for performance art.

Just last week, the redneck royalty of the music world threw a hissy fit because they think Anheuser-Busch is turning their beer gay.

Fuck Anheuser-Busch.

But there's no getting around the fact that what was on the mind of the liberals that night in Brentwood, or wherever we may have been,

was that the most powerful witch hunters now were coming from Twitter, the Ivy League, and the progressive left.

J.K.

Rowling used to be a villain to the right because she wrote books about witchcraft.

Now she's a villain to the left because she has the crazy belief that there's more to being a woman than pronouns and lipstick.

So

that was the point of the evening.

How do we take a stand against cancel culture?

And I suggested, since we were mostly all in show business, that we start an award show to honor the brave people who have fought back.

Well,

I gotta tell you, the idea was met with great enthusiasm by everyone.

And in short order, different people were suggesting the ways that their varied talents could be put to use.

And then, of course, being Hollywood, nothing happened.

But it's still a good idea, so I'm going to do it right here, right now.

And not only that, we're going to do it every year.

Ladies and gentlemen, you know the Emmys, you know the Grammys, you know the Tonys.

Now say hello to the Cahonies.

Tonight, from Hollywood, the first annual Cahonies Awards.

Honoring outstanding achievement in growing a pair.

And now, here's your host, Bill Maher.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you and welcome to the Cahonies.

I'm your master of ceremonies and if you're triggered by the the word master, you're in the wrong room.

Tonight we present these solid brass balls

to the individuals and organizations who others have tried to silence and who answered, that's not a rule, fuck you.

Our first award goes to the president of my alma mater, Cornell University, Martha Pollack.

This month, students there demanded trigger warnings before all the lectures in case any of the adult subjects you specifically went to college to learn about came up.

And Martha said, yeah, no, we're not doing that.

She didn't cave in

or hire a new dean of sensitivity.

She just said, no, college is for introducing you to new ideas, not for kissing your ass and making you feel wonderful and always right.

You're thinking of brunch with your parents.

I'm just amazed at how this generation can simultaneously be too sensitive for anything distasteful and somehow also so into eating ass.

So, Cornell, I present you with these balls.

I sure could have used them when I was there.

Our next award goes to the place where many Cornell grads will be working next year, Trader Joe's.

Trader Joe's, who for years have been selling a line of ethnically themed products, trading

on the name Joe.

For example, they have Trader Jose's beer.

So, of course, one teenager on Twitter heard the word Jose and said it was racist and then there was a petition and then Trader Joe's management did the right thing.

They burnt down all their stores and killed themselves.

No, they didn't.

They said fuck off you oversensitive little shits.

Get a life and a sense of humor and released this statement.

We disagree that any of these labels are racist and we do not make decisions based on petitions.

You see how easy it is?

So to the home of the 19-cent banana, here, have some nuts.

This next cojoni goes to a man who's dear to my heart for standing up for stand-up.

When dozens of Netflix employees walked out over Dave Chappelle's reckless decision to perform comedy on his comedy special,

CEO Ted Sorandos could have pulled the special and replaced it with more episodes of Who Wants to Watch Koreans Get Killed.

But instead, he reminded his Netflix employees that comedy exists to push boundaries and told them if you'd find it hard to support our content breadth, Netflix may not be the best place for you.

So

for making the phrase, don't let the door hit you in the ass never sound better,

this is for you, Ted.

And you know

You know, when movie lovers get together these days, one phrase phrase that comes up a lot and always makes me sad is, yeah, you couldn't make that one today.

Top of that list is the great Tropic Thunder,

which the scolds have been after for years.

But in February, Ben Stiller tweeted, I make no apologies for Tropic Thunder.

It's always been a controversial movie since when we opened, proud of it and the work everyone did on it.

See, people, it's not that hard.

He said it, and he's still got a commercial.

And the lesson is, if you stand up to the mob for just a day or two, their shallow, impatient, immature, smartphone-driven, gerbil minds will forget about it and go on to the next nothing burger, and you, you still will have your cojones.

All right.

Thank you very much.

That's our show.

I'll be at the MGM National Harbor in D.C.

tomorrow night.

The Met in Philadelphia, June 3rd, and the MGM Grand in Vegas, June 16th, and 17th.

I want to thank Glenn Lowry, Jen Nilbuster, and Nespere.

Haro!

Now go watch Overtime on CNN tonight at 11:30 or catch us Saturday morning on YouTube.

Thank you, folks.

Catch all new episodes of Real Time with Bill Maher every Friday night at 10, or watch him anytime on HBO On Demand.

For more information, log on to HBO.com.