Matt (00:01.24)
Hi everybody and welcome to The Latter Day Lens. I'm your host Matt. With me today is Sean and we have a new guest host. His name is Graham. Graham, welcome. I've never met you before.

Graham Mitchell (00:12.307)
Matt, I haven't met you. It's great to be with you guys. I do know Sean, though.

Shawn (00:16.545)
Yeah, this.

Matt (00:16.552)
And do you love Sean as much as he loves himself?

Graham Mitchell (00:20.183)
know what? Sean does love himself, but there's a lot to love there. He's an amazing person.

Shawn (00:20.981)
What the?

Matt (00:22.318)
Ha

Yeah, yeah, he's good.

Shawn (00:25.377)
But, man, I thought you were gonna say how much you love me. That's ridiculous, come on.

Matt (00:30.376)
Sean, I love you too, but do you love you more than I love you? I think- okay. You do. Sean, you have a very high opinion of yourself. You hold yourself in-

Shawn (00:33.9)
I don't think so.

Shawn (00:39.258)
What the crap? I think you're confusing me with Sam.

Matt (00:42.832)
okay, all right. Well, if that's true, Sean, I love you so much. Like on a scale of one to 10, I've got a 10 for love for you, super high.

Shawn (00:50.189)
Despite how I behaved in the MTC trying to trying to guilt you into actually doing something obedient or not screwing around despite that

Matt (01:00.204)
Sean, I have known you for so long. I literally have zero memories of you in the MTC. My first impression, I have no recollection of my first impression of you. It's just like, just feel like I've known you forever.

Shawn (01:05.132)
Hahaha

Shawn (01:08.737)
Hehehehe

Good. So you're indifferent. That's even worse. That's even worse. But this is like two worlds colliding. Graham's a close friend of mine and amazing dude. And I'm a little not nervous, but, and not even ready, but I've got two government just gurus here, right? Matt, you're a political science professor. Graham, you're a, what are you, Graham? Give us some little history on you.

Matt (01:13.898)
hahahaha

Graham Mitchell (01:33.285)
Well, I'm a city manager, so I've worked for a bunch of cities throughout the state of California and I have a degree in public administration.

Matt (01:41.858)
Wow, we train students to do that. We tell them someday if you work hard, you can be a city manager. And they don't always think of that as like super high, like great job, but it really is a great job. it's, yeah.

Graham Mitchell (01:54.577)
It's a cool job. mean, you are the CEO of a city. So you get to do a little bit of everything and be involved with every aspect of a community.

Matt (01:58.242)
Yeah.

Matt (02:04.975)
I'm excited for your perspective, Graham. I suspect you're not...

Shawn (02:07.063)
Graham, would want you CEO of my city, of my business. Shoot, dude, of my family. You are CEO of the steak. Like, I would want you CEO of anything,

Matt (02:13.454)
Okay, you want him to be the CEO of your family? Like what role does that leave for you, Sean?

Shawn (02:19.245)
Yeah!

I just do whatever Graham says and I would trust that it would be amazing.

Matt (02:24.532)
wow, wow, that's great. I don't know if Graham's up for that, but that's a very interesting. All right, we'll go to the mailbag. So one listener writes, amen to Matt's statement on this last episode, politicians should be held to a higher standard. Given this is the latter day lens, I'm surprised you guys didn't discuss whether or not the church engages in propaganda. For example, what about the I'm a Mormon campaign and the I'm a Mormon movie? I don't remember that movie. Are these propaganda?

Graham Mitchell (02:26.929)
Wow. No, not at all.

Matt (02:54.05)
Forgive us lay people who are not political scholars for struggling with the definition of propaganda. On another note, do you think there are misconceptions about the definition of propaganda? If so, do you think these misconceptions could be the direct result of propaganda about the definition of propaganda?

Shawn (03:11.457)
Now it was interesting last week when you threw out like at the end, kind of out of frustration, you threw out a political scientist definition of propaganda. And I think we were both surprised like, that's how you define it. So I think there is some ambiguity on what does propaganda mean, but I wouldn't say me coming from the marketing side. I wouldn't say that, that the campaign, the I'm a Mormon campaign was propaganda. I mean, if prop propaganda, I'd say like it's, information that's meant, I guess biased. I guess I'm a Mormon campaign would be a little biased.

But it's meant to be misleading in nature or used to promote like a particular political view or point of view in a way that can sometimes be misleading. I'm a Mormon campaign was simply real people talking about what they believed it meant to be back then a Mormon. So I think that was propaganda.

Matt (03:56.489)
they're still Mormons, Sean. They didn't leave the church just because they were talking about, I'm a Mormon.

Shawn (04:00.961)
Yeah, but they changed the definition.

Matt (04:03.683)
I see. Is that propaganda where you can't say the word Mormon anymore, Sean? Is that propaganda? okay. It feels like messaging. And what is...

Shawn (04:08.941)
No, that's not propaganda. That's a brand name change. What do you think, Grant? Grant, what do you think?

Graham Mitchell (04:17.989)
Well, about propaganda, mean, it's really, in my mind, it's about manipulation, right? Because you can use data to manipulate. And it's one thing from a brand to use it for Coca-Cola, for example. But it's another for government, because there's an expectation that government is unbiased and fair and shouldn't be using the data to skew what they want to get done. So that's kind of my perception on it.

Shawn (04:19.191)
Yeah.

Matt (04:39.552)
Yeah. So propaganda for you, Graham, is only governments do propaganda.

Graham Mitchell (04:46.071)
governments or maybe even movements. You could say a movement.

Matt (04:49.162)
Mm-hmm. Things that are supposed to be trustworthy can engage in propaganda, but maybe we don't expect Coca-Cola to be like a truthful organization. And so they couldn't engage in propaganda because we expect them to be a little deceptive in the way they say things.

Graham Mitchell (05:06.481)
That's correct. In fact, if they're not, they're not doing their job. It's like, you know, you're not trying if you're not cheating, that kind of concept.

Shawn (05:11.991)
Okay, I like this. I figured that when I had two government buddies, two government buddies against the capitalists, I figured there'd be some lines drawn. And I think a line was just drawn. Because I'm pretty sure you two government guys just said free market is just accepted that you're going to be dishonest and it's going to be coercion and it's going to be trickery. Is that kind of what I'm hearing from the two of you?

Matt (05:34.414)
No, I think we were talking about organizations rather than systems of economic systems.

Shawn (05:40.811)
Yeah, like an economic system like capitalism, maybe?

Matt (05:44.6)
For example, you could have a capitalist doctor, right? You could have a medical physician who's maybe competing against another doctor for your business, but they're in a position of trust. And so you would expect that person not to lie to you just to get your business because your relationship with them is based on trust. You choose that person.

Shawn (05:53.367)
Yeah.

Shawn (05:57.941)
Why,

you're going to say that the healthcare field in capitalism is expected to be honest. That's what you just said? Is that what just said?

Matt (06:10.508)
I'm saying a medical doctor, we would expect to be that way. I would hope that a drug manufacturer would be that way.

Shawn (06:13.697)
But that's, but that's not true at all. That's the opposite. So drug manufacturers all the time are manipulating information and data and engaging in, I guess you would call it, I don't know what you'd call it. Maybe propaganda, right? In order. Okay. Propaganda. And doctors do the same thing all day long. They know that, okay, if I'm being pitched by these pharma companies on certain drugs and sure, I'm going to believe them, but they know that there's money to be made. So they're using drugs.

Matt (06:26.582)
I would call that propaganda.

Matt (06:40.878)
My doctor would never do that. My doctor only cares about me and doesn't care. I can't even imagine my doctor getting a kickback from a pharmaceutical company. You need to find a doctor you can trust, and then you wouldn't feel the same way.

Shawn (06:44.141)
You

Shawn (06:55.777)
there's legal ways to do kickflips.

Matt (06:58.67)
Oh, I mean, I don't know, but I think we've talked about propaganda way too long, but it was fascinating. I just liked that the leader said that, or the listener said that I was right. And so that's why I read that email. Yeah. Okay, we'll go to the first topic. In the United States, people often get away with murder. The clearance rate, the share of cases that result in an arrest or are otherwise solved was 58 % in 2023.

Shawn (07:03.148)
Okay.

Shawn (07:07.711)
that's right.

Matt (07:28.43)
That's the latest year that we have FBI data for. In other words, a murderer's chance of getting caught within a year essentially comes down to a coin flip. For other crimes, clearance rates are even lower. Only 8 % of car thefts result in an arrest. Compared with its peer countries, the United States does unusually poor in solving murders. The murder clearance rates of other rich nations, including Australia, Britain, and Germany hover in the 70s, 80s, and even 90%.

the US incarcerates more people than almost any other country in the world. So this is the question. Is it time for us to find a better way to deter crime?

Shawn (08:06.893)
So I was joking earlier about the two government buddies because I really do respect the two of you and love that you have expertise in these fields. This is a baffling, baffling question to me or the stats. So I'm now looking to you, my government experts to explain this to me.

Matt (08:22.072)
Well, no, I'm asking you. You can go first though, Sean, even without expertise, you can tell me. If we're not solving crimes, then maybe we should stop putting people in jail because that's not working.

Shawn (08:34.305)
But it's interesting. You've mentioned a number of times, Matt, that I think what you believe is that the purpose for punishment to crime is to deter crime. It's not for some just recompense. It's not for that individual to, I guess, not atone for, but pay for their wrongdoing. And therefore it's kind of a corrective, I guess, effort.

and then they can enter back into society clean and new and fresh. You don't see it that way. It seems like based on what I've heard you say is punishment should be a deterrent to crime. That should be the purpose of it. And if that's true, then I would say, wow, I need to view punishment a lot differently. Like you've often said it should be more harsh in certain cases because it would be a deterrent. Is that my reading you right? Or is that wrong?

Matt (09:25.038)
I don't, no, I don't think that's why we, put people in jail. I don't think that's the reason for jail is to punish people or deter crime. I don't think either one of those.

Shawn (09:35.309)
To deter. To pun. I'm wondering if you believe that the punishments and putting people in jail is meant to be primarily a deterrent for future crime.

Matt (09:45.174)
I think that's what Americans think that it is.

Shawn (09:48.871)
Yeah, I don't know. I don't know. mean, Graham, what do you think? I don't know. This is a confusing one.

Graham Mitchell (09:52.773)
I don't think if you change the sentencing on a crime, that changes a criminal's thought process of, I commit this crime or not commit this crime? Because I'm to do six months in jail or a year in jail, right? I don't think that goes to their mindset. So I think it really is a matter of, one, getting bad people off the street. And maybe there is a bit of an atonement aspect to that, too.

Matt (10:07.436)
Right.

Matt (10:20.044)
I think this is more what I actually think, Sean. I think that the criminal justice system in the United States was created the way it is now as a way to get free and cheap labor to do things that need to be done in a community. So when slavery ended after the Civil War, you just round up people and call them criminals and then they work for you as slaves in the South. But even more recently than that, you've got chain gangs and things like that that are building roads, building railroads.

Shawn (10:35.244)
Huh.

Matt (10:49.25)
doing all kinds of community cleanup work. This is like as recently as like the 1960s, 1970s. And I think in addition to that, the purpose of like crime is to remove legal status from individuals so that they don't have the same rights as other people have. So I do think that maybe we think that it's to deter crime, but I don't think that that's the actual purpose of it. And I think that the fact that we're not arresting or solving crime suggests that like,

Shawn (11:04.429)
Can I ask you questions?

Matt (11:15.714)
We don't really have a criminal justice system that's trying to protect people from bad actors. We have other like motivations going on in the criminal justice system.

Shawn (11:24.843)
Let me ask questions about that though. So who's driving that? If today it's the same motive as a slave holder, which is I want free labor, who's making that decision? Who's driving that? You believe that cities, okay, Graham is a city in a county.

Matt (11:34.926)
Well, that would be cities and counties. There'll be.

Graham Mitchell (11:39.249)
It's a really bad business model, I can tell you that. The cost to produce a widget, whether it be a license plate or to clean up a mile of road, it's a lot easier, a lot cheaper way to get that done than through incarceration, that's for sure.

Matt (11:56.824)
Today, I agree with you that that's how it is today because we've had all of these like cases that go through the courts that say you can't treat criminals this way. But this is like the last 50 years it's been this way. we've got this like this cultural, I don't know, just we're just used to the idea of you broke some law, you should go away to jail for a while. And we've not really sat down as a society and said, let's rethink this and reconsider like how could we actually solve this problem?

Graham Mitchell (12:08.667)
Certainly.

Matt (12:25.698)
because we're so used to the way it's been done for the last 150 years.

Shawn (12:29.869)
such as laziness.

Matt (12:32.334)
Well, Sean, what if I came to you and I said, you know, there's a lot of crime going on in California lately. Let's do something other than put them in jail. You would not be in favor of that, right? And in fact, when California

Shawn (12:43.117)
I would like to hear what your alternative is.

Matt (12:46.488)
Well, California has done various things that they've tried in different municipalities. And the net result is crime has increased in these municipalities. And people say, see, it doesn't work. Put them in jail.

Shawn (12:56.513)
Yeah, Oregon did the same thing, right? When it came to drug, yeah.

Matt (13:00.034)
Yeah. So maybe they say, let's decriminalize drug or drugs or something like that. but often when a community says we're going to try and find a different way to solve this, the news media starts to highlight increases in crime. And then Americans responses, see, we just need to start throwing these people in jail and getting rid of them because they don't highlight the fact that all these other crimes are going unsolved. So maybe there are more like petty thefts and things like that. Right? I hear all the time about

movie stars in California getting robbed, or I hear about looters in Los Angeles stealing things they shouldn't steal. But nobody talks about how like 92 % of car thefts are gonna go unsolved. And that's like just a fact of life, because it's not newsworthy.

Shawn (13:42.487)
So what is your suggestion, Matt? So I'm hearing two messages from you. One, you're saying, think, wait, are you saying that prison and that punishment is the right kind of deterrent and we're just not executing it well? Is that what you're saying?

Matt (13:56.374)
No, I don't think the prison is an effective deterrent at all. An effective deterrent to crime? have to, it's before the crime begins. I think what Graham was hinting at earlier was that a person who's deciding whether or not to commit a crime isn't thinking about the punishment that they might get if they commit the crime. So you have to start way before they ever get to the situation where they consider committing a crime. You have to like.

Shawn (13:59.499)
Okay, so what is?

Matt (14:21.518)
You have to like invest in society. You have to invest in people. You have to invest in education and communities.

Shawn (14:24.269)
So I have a good buddy who served his mission in Japan. And he always tells me about how crime in Japan, at least reported crime, is extremely low, like the polar opposite of America. And the reasons he gives, being there in the culture, is there's kind of a cultural obedience that exists that was kind of created out of force. And so the society is very, very obse-

obedient to laws like loitering or you know small things like littering and Right, but my buddy I think he explains it as if it's like almost a forced obedience not a chosen obedience and so and so you lose the the isn't the flip side of that you lose a lot of freedoms in Japan and it's a little bit scary to live there

Matt (14:59.95)
Yeah, they don't spit on the sidewalks.

Matt (15:09.699)
Right?

Shawn (15:20.235)
because there are some really harsh punishments that happen when you do those things. So I don't know, you're saying that culture has to change, but don't you have to start giving up a lot of freedoms if you're gonna change the culture in a way that would scare people enough to not commit crimes?

Matt (15:34.37)
I think that you're thinking of it wrong if you're thinking of it in terms of scaring people. If you ask yourself the question, why do you not steal things from your neighbor? It has nothing to do with the crime, like the punishment that might come to you if you do that. It has to do with the way that you were raised, the way that you think about your neighbor, the way that you think about property and ownership and all of those sorts of things. And what we're just doing a bad job of in the United States is in some communities, we're doing a terrible job of creating those sort of social norms in those communities that deters crime.

Shawn (16:05.109)
Okay, so the answer is missionary work. You're saying we have to get a moral culture, a culture that's more moral.

Matt (16:11.182)
Yeah, I don't think it's missionary work necessarily. I think you can invest in education. Like when we say the only thing a school is good for is to prepare you for a career, then we strip out of education all of those things that you put into like developing a person that helped them to be a better person.

Shawn (16:24.053)
Okay, now we're getting to it. Graham, what do you think? I think what I'm hearing you saying is we want government to start teaching morals. I don't like that. I don't like that at all. That scares the heck out of me. I don't think that's a good idea.

Graham Mitchell (16:28.688)
Yeah,

Graham Mitchell (16:37.167)
I think it's more about the fabric of a community and connectiveness. Let's use a really low level crime, a crime that many, maybe you have both committed, and that's the crime of littering. It's shocking when I go to Utah or Arizona, where some people may say it's an oppressive, moralistic society, but I don't see litter.

in the roadway. But when you come to California, it doesn't matter what city you're in, you could be in the nicest community in California. You're going to see litter all over the place. And I just wonder how much of that is, are we just dirty people in California or do we just lack that connectivity through our sort of that social fabric? So.

Shawn (17:03.661)
Mmm.

Shawn (17:16.621)
You

Matt (17:23.352)
Well, yeah, and I saw a story recently in Paris. They have a terrible time getting men to not urinate on the sidewalks. They put free urinals places. They'll do all kinds of things to try to get people to not urinate in public. And the thing that they found that actually works is if you paint a really beautiful mural with people looking at you, then it makes people not urinate on those walls because they think somebody staring at them or just creates this like perception. But all of the like things they tried of like

free toilets or signs that shame you or fining you. None of those things work. But like, you just have to find a way to create in society this norm that says we don't pee in public, right? Or we don't throw our litter where we throw like, yeah, you just have to, so maybe it doesn't have to be government, but there does have to be like a community has to decide that they care about it and they have to decide that they want to change it. But

Graham Mitchell (18:14.927)
I'm going use that mural idea for homelessness, by the way.

Matt (18:17.934)
What I learned they do in Las Vegas for homelessness is they blast music loud on the sidewalks and they point the speakers right at the sidewalks and then they keep the lights on really, really bright. Does it work? Yeah.

Shawn (18:18.327)
hahahaha

Graham Mitchell (18:29.617)
We do music as well. Yeah. In fact, 7-Eleven did a lot of research on this. And if you go to 7-Eleven, sometimes they play classical music, specifically Baroque classical music. has the most influence on making people flee. So it's kind of interesting.

Matt (18:47.352)
Wow. But see, a really simple solution like that, Sean, is so much less expensive than prison, right? It's so much cheaper than rounding those, the homeless people up and saying, you violated a loitering law, let's put you in jail. Like, jail just doesn't work. I just think we need to rethink it. And then once we agree to rethink it, we'll find lots of good solutions. That's what I think.

Shawn (19:07.265)
Has history teaching us of any good solutions?

Matt (19:11.278)
I don't it's not really my my area of expertise. I really have no idea. Yeah

Shawn (19:15.085)
Okay, gotcha. right. Okay. Your point here is just jail bad.

Matt (19:21.198)
Why do we incarcerate more people than anybody else on earth? Like the only one higher than us, think El Salvador is higher than us, maybe Honduras. But like we incarcerate so many people. I don't understand it. And when people say, let's cut the cost of government, it's so expensive. I think, why do we want to pay to have people sit in a jail cell and just rot their lives away doing nothing? Why would we think that that's a wise investment for our society? I think we should start there.

Shawn (19:30.711)
Okay, that's fascinating.

Shawn (19:47.553)
Okay, yeah, you're giving me lots to think about. Both of you get points.

Matt (19:51.98)
Okay, thanks Sean. Okay, here's the next topic. So for the last three years, dozens of women and men have been attending dirty, licious dance fitness classes at the Provo Rec Center. Do you guys have dirty, licious dance in your communities?

Shawn (19:53.357)
You

Graham Mitchell (20:08.015)
We don't, but I think we can make money off of that.

Shawn (20:10.285)
Is that like a parks and rec? Department?

Matt (20:10.294)
Yeah.

Graham Mitchell (20:14.011)
Sounds like it.

Matt (20:14.21)
Yeah, like you can, yeah, you like pay a little bit of money and you can go dance part of this program. Well, last month, the city unexpectedly shut down the program. They said that the program was inappropriate and didn't align with the city's values, moral standards or policies. But it's been around for three years. So Sean likes to talk about local government is better than federal government. So my question is, does this show that local control can actually reduce liberty, Sean? Is local control

scriptural principle or is it just your political preference?

Shawn (20:44.781)
Well, I think there's a problem with the premise of the question because government like a government program, a parks and rec program isn't a question of liberty or not. no, I does not. Like I can't go to my parks and rec and go, I would like to you to hire me to do a gambling club. And I want you to use all your resources to promote my gambling club. And I want to use your facility.

Matt (20:57.592)
Sure it is.

Matt (21:09.772)
Why can't you do that? Why?

Shawn (21:12.331)
Because I don't have a right to do that. The government, you tell me Graham, like the government has its own set of, like you who run the government have your own laws and codes and rules and you have standards. And so you can write, is that not true, Graham? Or, should I have a right to come and force you guys to let me use everything that the government has?

Graham Mitchell (21:27.152)
Yes.

Graham Mitchell (21:31.415)
I think there's a couple things going on. think this is the most fascinating story I think that we're going to talk about today, not because of the scandalousness of it, but this is where local government and sort of mirroring the values of the community really come together. First thought I had was, if it's being run through a recreation program, there usually is some level of subsidy that's occurring. There's no way government always gets 100 % cost recovery.

Shawn (21:39.629)
you

Matt (21:55.938)
Mm-hmm.

Graham Mitchell (22:00.561)
Dirtylicious Dance Studio is getting really free rent or reduced rent to a certain degree. And so to me, I'm not a fan of that. And if it's such a popular place, you go rent your own studio and bring in all the money you want and no one can say anything about it. So that's kind of my first take. The second is this. We live in a society and I like to, I don't have a better term for it yet. This is what I'm working with, but this is the working title.

It's called the Karenification of Government. Everyone has their local little thing that they're upset about. And everyone that wants smaller government, they still want their government to solve their little problem. I'll give you an example of something just that happened today. A resident reached out to a council member, and a lot of times, landscapers will put their business card in a little Ziploc bag and some rocks in it and throw it at the end of the driveway.

Shawn (22:32.916)
No.

Shawn (22:42.973)
Ahahaha!

All right.

Graham Mitchell (22:57.947)
This guy is so incensed that once a month he's got to pick up someone's business card from the end of his driveway. He wants the city to regulate this. this is again, that carinification. I think we're getting into a little bit of carinification what's going on in Provo. Someone was upset by it. Enough people were upset by it. Now council members have to listen to the people upset about it. And so it's whoever's allowed us gets the rule.

Shawn (23:03.842)
Hahaha

You

Shawn (23:24.988)
interesting.

Matt (23:25.198)
But they are subsidizing other fitness classes, right? There's probably going to be like a pickleball thing going on. There's probably...

Graham Mitchell (23:30.147)
Yeah, and probably some volleyball. Yeah, of course. Yep.

Matt (23:33.134)
So that's where I think it reduces liberty is because some programs get the benefit of the city government. They get the subsidies and other programs don't, right? So Sean could say, my gambling isn't going to get the benefit of the city government. And I say, well, why not? Like you should be able to do that. If that's, if the whole idea is recreation and wholesome activities and well, no, I like the cities.

Shawn (23:49.473)
Really?

where, so you do have a standard. just, no, no, no, you just set a standard and in Provo City, this dirty list just didn't meet that standard. So you draw a line somewhere.

Matt (24:05.742)
I draw, well that's my point is that in local government that line gets drawn by people that don't, like you could be a minority in your town and so your view of like what's right and wrong might differ from the majority of your city, but your view might align with that of the state or a broader community. And so you're gonna face more discrimination on a local level because you might not fit in with the norms of that society, right?

So Dirtylicious might, if you do like a public opinion, a survey of Americans and say, hey, is this stuff not nasty? Most Americans might say, no, that's totally fine. But it just so happens that Improvo, they don't think it's fine. And so you're not allowed to partake in the city resources or the tax dollars that everybody else does because your community thinks what you're doing is bad, even when other people might not.

Shawn (24:55.923)
But I really like that variety. I like that local smaller governments are able to better reflect what the community's standards are because then we have more choices in America. If I don't like that in Provo, good, I'll move to Salt Lake.

Matt (25:09.944)
But you can't, not everybody can move, Sean. Some people are stuck. No, they can't. Sean, not, not.

Shawn (25:12.673)
Yes they can. Yes they can. Stop, stop treating, don't treat people like they're dumb and they can't move. That's ridiculous.

Matt (25:19.566)
It's not a matter of intelligence whether or not you can move to another place, Sean. It's a very, right? You have to have help, you have to have assistance. I don't know anybody who's ever just moved on their own. You have to have some kind of support to move to another place. And by the way, there's no guarantee that you just move and it gets better to that other place.

Shawn (25:34.829)
Okay, okay. Matt, many times have you moved in the last 10 years?

Matt (25:40.248)
four times.

Shawn (25:41.696)
so you're just better than these people that are stuck in Provo, Utah, and they can't move. Come on!

Matt (25:44.545)
No, I have a support system. I have a ward that helps me move things. Sometimes my job helps me move. I have resources that help me move and I've done it a number of times so I can figure it out. There are a lot of people, Sean, that have never even traveled an hour away from their home and your solution to them is just move to another place where they're gonna accept you.

Shawn (26:01.261)
I think you need to choose to have more faith in people that they have the ability to, but that's why I like local government is because now we have variety and option, right? I'm not stuck into one homogenous society that has for today, they've set a level of standards that I do or don't agree with. And I'm stuck wherever I go. I like that local government has the ability. I don't think, mean, Graham, do you think that the role of, you know much better about government than I do.

Is it role of local government to provide dance classes or gambling clubs? Is that a role of government?

Graham Mitchell (26:37.245)
It's not a core mission, but there is a goal, a community goal to provide wholesome activities for people to participate, healthy activities, and this would be part of that overall mission. But yeah, it's not public safety, it's not roads, it's not sewer and water, but these are nice things that communities provide. So I totally get the value of the dance class, and I'm ambivalent about whether it should, pro or should or shouldn't do it, but I understand why they would.

because you get the right number of people upset, those are the people that vote for you as a council member. So I understand why you would be upset about that.

Matt (27:12.142)
Graham's very practical about this, but Sean, what I wanna know is, is this a scriptural principle or is this just your preference? Do you have any scriptures that help you justify local control?

Shawn (27:14.295)
Yeah. Yeah.

Shawn (27:20.717)
Man, sure, I'll try DNC. I'll try. You're not gonna like it. It's DNC 137.3. It's not great. We believe...

Matt (27:29.166)
I've never heard any verses from this scripture. What, from 137 did you say?

Shawn (27:32.397)
This. Okay. What's the point of that comment? Are you negating the Section 137? Uh huh. Uh huh.

Matt (27:38.434)
No, no, just, no, I just, it's your favorite section. It's your favorite section because it talks about property and the way you like it and.

Shawn (27:44.951)
Does this mean that's your least favorite section?

Matt (27:47.69)
No, it's fine. There's a lot of stuff about government. I just like that you chose like when a handful of men got together in Kirtland and said, let's make a statement about government that later on gets canonized like that. That's your go-to statement. But I want to hear it. Go ahead.

Shawn (28:01.517)
It's canonized. How are you degrading? It's canonized scripture.

Matt (28:06.252)
Song of Solomon is canonized, Sean. I'm not a huge fan of Song of Solomon.

Shawn (28:12.206)
We won't go there because I'm about to ask if you disagree with 137.

Matt (28:15.694)
No, no, I love the Doctrine and Covenants.

Shawn (28:17.869)
That's what I'm trying to get you to Okay, we believe that all governments necessarily require civil officers and magistrates, okay, to enforce laws. And I think what I'm hearing here, not only to enforce laws, but to provide community.

Matt (28:31.01)
You don't get to read, just read the scripture Sean. You read it and let's see. Let's see if it says anything about local control.

Shawn (28:39.2)
to enforce the law and that some and that as that such as will administer the law on equity and justice should be sought for and upheld by the voice of the people of a republic. So whether it's your local of a republic or the will of the sovereign.

Matt (28:41.198)
Ha

Matt (28:48.686)
Does this say Republic?

Matt (28:53.889)
Okay.

Shawn (28:55.415)
So I'll try to apply it here. I mean, the voice of the people in Provo outweighed the voice of the 10 people who wanted to do Dirtylicious Dance. And so they're right. The government's right to say, you don't have a right to do whatever you want in the city government. don't need to provide you with all these opportunities and possibilities. But I like what Graham said. If there's such a demand for it, go start your business. Thrive. Like, I love that.

Matt (29:19.278)
I really appreciate what you did, Sean, because there are a lot of our listeners who think that local control is some kind of divine principle. And I appreciate that you've illustrated for all of us that there's no divine principle about local control. It's just a preference. It's just a preference.

Shawn (29:29.229)
Yeah. I like, I would actually agree with you on that. Yeah. I don't, didn't, I couldn't find, I looked, I couldn't find anything for local government, but it is better.

Matt (29:36.93)
Okay.

Matt (29:42.542)
haha

Graham Mitchell (29:43.931)
But I think there is a scripture that plays here and whether the council or the city government and provo hears of this or not, I don't know because I don't know that government. But as we know in Paul, and we use this phrase in the Articles of Faith, if there's anything virtuous, lovely or good report, we seek after these things. So the converse would be if there's anything immoral, hateful, disgraceful or shameful, we should avoid these things. That's probably a good role for government. If something's immoral, if it promotes hate,

Shawn (30:02.861)
Hmm.

Graham Mitchell (30:12.537)
If it degrades people or it's shameful, we should avoid those things. So I could see them using that lens in judging the dance class. And again, never having been to the dance class, I don't know how dirty-licious it really is. But that could be the barometer of making that decision.

Matt (30:28.814)
You

Matt (30:34.266)
The only context I have for Dirtylicious in my head is dirty sodas that they do in Utah sometimes. So I just have in my head that maybe they're mixing sodas in a way that was inappropriate, but I don't know. I have no idea. The story didn't tell us what they did and the city was never specific, so.

Shawn (30:39.789)
You

Shawn (30:45.399)
Ha ha.

Shawn (30:50.271)
Interesting great great points. Okay good. Well Matt Matt guess what Graham gets the points because he used the scripture a latter-day lens

Matt (30:52.705)
Okay,

I was gonna give Graham the points for that too. Yeah, that was good. Yeah, you can cash them in someday, Graham. They're super valuable. Okay, topic three. Trump administration officials have vowed to hold companies accountable for employing people who are in the country illegally, no matter which industry they're in or how big or small they might be. But the Department of Homeland Security's enforcement operations have overwhelmingly focused on arresting workers rather than punishing employers.

Graham Mitchell (30:57.371)
Yay.

Graham Mitchell (31:01.617)
Okay.

Matt (31:24.166)
Is the Trump administration taking the wrong approach to this problem? Undocumented migrants may be breaking the law when they work, but employers who hire them are also breaking the law.

Shawn (31:35.501)
Yeah, I'm really curious Graham's opinion on this because I think Matt, you and I are going to agree.

Graham Mitchell (31:39.973)
Well, I mean, I know that the federal government is going after employers. mean, we had a raid just right outside of our city limits of a manufacturer and several people were detained and deported, but the federal government's going after the business pretty aggressively. So they're going after the business. It's not just the workers. At least that's my experience in the little window that I have to this.

Matt (31:57.518)
So it's not just the workers, it's the people that employ the workers.

Shawn (32:03.573)
like like, Graham, they may be litigating the the company itself and saying, look, you

Graham Mitchell (32:08.433)
These people are being prosecuted, yes.

Shawn (32:11.393)
Wow, fascinating.

Matt (32:12.878)
That's not the stuff that I see on the news. So that's good to hear, right? I see on the news, they go to like a Home Depot and round up all the people outside the Home Depot. And then they never like follow up on like, where were those people gonna go work that day? Is it propaganda? Is propaganda put out by the Department of Homeland Security? It's like, I mean, yeah, I don't know. So Sean, you agree that's the way to do it? Go after employers rather than the workers? Or do you say let's go after both of them?

Shawn (32:26.957)
It's propaganda man, it's

Graham Mitchell (32:32.913)
Hmm

Shawn (32:33.591)
hahahaha

Shawn (32:43.497)
I actually say, don't go after neither of them. Don't leave them alone. And here's why. Here's why. If, if the government failed, if our government failed and in basically invited you all in and invited you to work and, and never enforced any laws with employers hiring these people. If, if, if you once let them all in and then all of a sudden the next day you change your mind, start from scratch, start enforcing the border so that you can kind of control the ins and outs, but don't punish people for letting them first come and work.

and don't punish employers for letting them hire you for 20 years. And then all of a sudden change your mind and decide to start implementing it. I like what Reagan did. Wasn't he the Mr. Yeah, you failed. You let them in. Let them be here.

Matt (33:23.179)
Amnesty for everyone.

Matt (33:28.11)
So I have a funny story from college. When I was in college, I worked at this place called the haunted forest. And we were like, we would scare people. And one of my friends that was working with us, he was from Mexico. like they didn't, they didn't, before they hired us, they didn't get all of our like social security numbers and all of that stuff. It was just at the end of the season, it was payday. And so we would have to show them our social security number and then they would take out the taxes and give us whatever. So my friend goes in and he's like, they're like, what's your social security number? And he's like, I'm from Mexico.

And they all just sort of look at each other and just slide them some cash and they're like, good enough. And I, I think there's a lot of that that happens in the United States. People know if you're an employer and you hire a U S citizen or somebody who's legally allowed to work in the United States, there are taxes you have to pay on the salary that you pay them. And I think that there are a lot of employers that don't want to pay those taxes and they don't want to maybe pay minimum wage or something like that. And so they

Shawn (34:01.325)
Hahaha!

Shawn (34:23.053)
Yeah, of course.

Matt (34:24.546)
they cheat the system. They hire people that they know are undocumented. And I don't blame an undocumented worker for going and taking whatever job they can find. But I think that if you go after the employers that are hiring undocumented people, then when they get here and see there are no jobs, they'll say, I'll just go home again. So if it's really that big of a problem that they're stealing jobs from other people, you could just go after employers and then that solves that problem right away.

Shawn (34:46.957)
I can see that. I can see that. can definitely see that. But I still think that both the employer and the employee who's undocumented, they were allowed to pursue this relationship. Our government for many years has allowed that to happen. So why punish them all of a sudden?

Matt (35:01.112)
Well...

I don't think our government has never said it's okay to break the law in hiring practices.

Shawn (35:09.495)
They've said that it's okay in action for many, many years. They know, they know absolutely that the workforce is made up of X percent of undocumented immigrants. And they know that X percent is being hired by companies. They know that. They didn't do anything about it for so long. So to me, sure, I like your plan, Matt. Like from now on, the border.

Matt (35:11.96)
by not enforcing the law? Hmm.

Shawn (35:33.225)
And when it happens from now on, be consistent with it. But every administration is going to waffle and go back and forth and not do it based on political reasons. And so I just don't think it's fair.

Matt (35:43.822)
Okay, I'll give you the points Sean. Okay, last topic. You persuaded me. wait, you agreed with me. Okay.

Shawn (35:48.749)
Thanks.

Matt (36:00.846)
So I think I've mentioned before that I made a really bad investment one time. The company that makes Roundup purchased Monsanto. So Monsanto and Bayer merged and I was like, this is the best investment ever. And I bought a whole bunch of their stock. And then right after that, there was a lawsuit because Roundup causes cancer. And now they had to pay like a billion dollars and that stock's not worth anything. But I'm still holding onto it. But after this next story, maybe.

Maybe I'll get rid of it for sure. So glyphosate, that was the ingredient that Roundup was using that we said was bad and causing cancer and all of that stuff. So they've replaced that ingredient in Roundup with another thing called diquat, which is actually more toxic and it can kill gut bacteria and damage organs in many ways. It's widely employed in the United States as a weed killer in vineyards and orchards.

And it also happens to be banned in the UK, the EU and China. But the United States will not ban that herbicide for whatever reason. I don't know what it is. But that's just a lead up to the big question. So many people agree that the proper role of government is to provide roads, national defense and a free market is one of the roles of government to ban products that contain harmful chemicals. If a government knows that a substance will harm their citizens,

Do they have a moral obligation to at least warn their citizens about its potential harm? Now Sean, before you talk about the invisible hand and how the market's gonna fix that somehow, it doesn't apply in this situation, right? Because you don't have a choice if your neighbor is using some herbicide and it's gonna give you cancer, it's like a downstream effect, right? You don't know that such and such farm

Shawn (37:37.259)
Hahaha

Shawn (37:43.105)
Why?

Matt (37:58.122)
used this chemical as an herbicide and when you ate their apple, you were getting this long-term illness that you didn't really know at the time. So it's not an invisible hand because it's like a downstream effect of the exchange that happens, not a direct effect.

Shawn (38:12.843)
Well, the sad thing about the invisible hand is there's going to be real life consequences. People will suffer, but I think no, there's no way around it. There's no way around it. No, as it as.

Matt (38:17.934)
That is The sad thing about the invisible hand is some people are gonna get cancer and die and not really know why

Shawn (38:26.411)
Yeah, but the government is not the solution. They're not going to like prevent people getting cancer and dying. They're not if they don't know everything and they don't know everything. They don't know.

Matt (38:33.582)
Sean, if you're the king of a country and you know that this herbicide is going to cause cancer, do you have a moral obligation to do something about it?

Shawn (38:37.367)
They don't know. They didn't know.

Shawn (38:43.878)
sure, but they won't know. They didn't know. They didn't know. They only knew when people started getting cancer. So government wouldn't have solved this, not one bit.

Matt (38:53.208)
Well, it's still happening in the United States right now. We still have this chemical.

Shawn (38:55.873)
Yeah, but watch this. Watch the invisible hand in action. You ready? $11 billion has been paid out to settlements and verdicts. 100,000 cases. Okay, that's fact number one. Fact number two, there are lots of, now note this word, Matt, local governments who have decided to ban Roundup because of the fallout.

Matt (38:59.96)
Okay, tell me.

Matt (39:10.094)
Mm-hmm.

Shawn (39:22.527)
It's not the mostly the residential use, not the commercial use quite yet. And it's not a national ban yet, but there is a lot of local governments who have banned it as a result, as a response. No, no, no, that's not. the well, it is in effect because the society, the local society is demanding it. Yeah, because they see that the transaction is not benefiting them and has hurt them. So, yeah, they're demanding it. But here's the better point. The ongoing litigation is such a financial impact on Bayer.

Matt (39:32.02)
And that's the invisible hand?

Shawn (39:52.631)
that there is talk of bankruptcy for Monsanto. that, but I know, sorry, sorry. I'm very sorry. But that's the point is they're going to get shut down and there will be no more roundup. That's the invisible hand in action. If it's a harmful, poisonous product and we were, we were coerced or tricked or lied to, they got a business and there's lots of pain and suffering that they're going to have to deal with. So that's the invisible hand in action.

Matt (39:54.968)
No, don't say that. That's my stock.

Matt (40:20.662)
Okay, but Sean, in this particular case, the chemical that they got sued for, they no longer use that chemical. They switch to another one that's worse. And people don't know that it's worse yet.

Shawn (40:28.545)
Yeah, but I know, but I didn't know they do know it's worse. I've done the research. There's ongoing litigations for the new product as well. And that is what's leading to the

Matt (40:36.28)
But Roundup is on the shelf at my hardware store with no warning, no anything that by the way, this is worse.

Shawn (40:40.333)
Yeah, I know. Yeah, I know. But but maybe in two years from now they will be completely dead because of the litigation.

Matt (40:48.098)
That's not helpful. What do you say, Graham?

Shawn (40:51.277)
What is?

Graham Mitchell (40:52.687)
Well, I I got to say I do lean pretty hard libertarian on a lot of issues. So I like the market making decisions rather than us making decisions or the government making regulatory decisions. However, in this case, I can see the value of government stepping in or at least somehow notifying people of the impacts of the substance. that's kind of, I guess, where I'm landing.

is there is a role for government at some point. But I also buy into the idea that at some point financially it's not going to be possible for these companies to survive if they're continually paying out lawsuits. But in the meantime, how many people have died?

Matt (41:38.328)
Yeah, it's weird to me because since I live in Idaho, see a lot of farmers care a lot about what herbicides they're allowed to use. so regulators will say this pesticide is not allowed anymore. And they'll take, they'll start these like campaigns. They'll put up billboards. They'll take out radio ads, television ads, all about things like let farmers be farmers, right? And so it becomes a political process where consumers really don't have good information. There's no way.

for me to sort out, like, is this the pesticide that's helpful for society or is this not? And I think it's wisest if we can just trust regulators who have specialized information. They know about it.

Shawn (42:16.597)
Wow, Matt, Matt, would you be satisfied with this answer in response to what you just said? If I could trust that government a would be competent enough, you just said trust regulators. That's ridiculous, man. Like we don't trust anybody enough to be 100 % accurate with things. And I we've talked for ad nauseum on this podcast about examples of government being efficient and effective and then so many of inefficiencies and ineffectiveness. So

Matt (42:31.992)
What? What?

Shawn (42:45.567)
If I could completely trust the government to be really effective at always knowing which of the products I'm using has poison in it or is bad for me, if I could trust that, which there's no way to trust that, then okay, maybe I'd give into your argument. number two, actually just give me a response to that.

Matt (43:01.836)
My response to that is the reason you trust businesses with the invisible hand, the reason you say, the reason you say we should have let the invisible hand regulate things is because a business faces an existential threat if they get it wrong. A regulator does too, Sean. If a regulator gets it wrong, they lose their job. If they get it wrong multiple times, they lose their job and can never find another job. So the same invisible hand that governs business transactions or the free market also

Shawn (43:05.268)
I don't trust him. I trust the invisible hand.

Shawn (43:14.561)
Yep, that's right.

Matt (43:29.75)
makes regulators want to get it right.

Shawn (43:32.141)
I don't think so, man. Like there's also all kinds of data out there about the COVID response. Not a lot of.

Matt (43:38.156)
What did you have? What do you not like about the COVID response? No, you just brought it up. What was bad about... What about the COVID response? Did regulators get wrong?

Shawn (43:41.053)
Let's not get we won't get into that. Maybe bring that up as another topic. okay

Shawn (43:50.017)
The fact that they shut down kids that go into school for two years, maybe there was some wisdom to a little bit of that, but at the extreme, like for California, what they did, there's so many kids suffering right now because of that, still suffering, so much suffering.

Matt (44:02.466)
And are those people that shut it down for too long, are they still in their positions of power? that didn't happen where I live. Everybody who got it wrong got kicked out of law. They voted them out as fast as they can. Well, that means that there is broad public support for that decision, even if it was a bad decision, right? The fact that they still have their jobs.

Shawn (44:06.785)
They sure are. Absolutely they are.

What happened?

Shawn (44:16.669)
interesting.

Shawn (44:25.422)
Or there's just a small group of people in charge who control and protect their jobs and can decide what they want.

Graham Mitchell (44:32.485)
or really good propaganda.

Matt (44:32.75)
But yeah, well, I think Sean, what I would argue in this particular case is your distinction between business and government. The idea that a regulator will never get it right and more trust that the free market will get it right is a distinction that you don't need to make. Like we can just say government should keep people safe. Government should, like if they know something is bad, then they should do what they can to keep it out of the hands of bad people.

Shawn (44:34.103)
Yeah, there you go.

Shawn (44:45.801)
No. No, no, no, I didn't s-

Shawn (44:59.179)
I would, I would, I would agree with you if we could trust government more than we could trust the invisible hand, but I just don't think we can. People are people in government are just as tempted.

Matt (45:10.36)
How do you trust an invisible hand that you can't even see, that you've never ever interacted with? Like, it's just a mythology, this invisible hand.

Shawn (45:16.781)
Ha ha ha ha ha.

It's the idea, Matt, that if I provide value to you, you will love me and provide value back. If I harm you and course you, you will not provide value back. There's just a natural order. It's cause and effect. It's to every blessing or what is it to every law? There's a fixed blessing and a punishment. It's law. It's principle.

Matt (45:39.31)
But can you also accept that there are things about which the public can't possibly be expected to be informed and that it's good to have people who know about it, who care about the public good, making decisions for the public when they don't really know what's good or bad?

Shawn (45:55.965)
Yes, but I don't think that a group of men and women who have political power are any more competent or able to make, you know, get, I don't know. just don't, I don't think we can put a ton of trust in, in you act as if they're saviors. They're all knowing, never make mistakes, saviors of the world. I just don't see government that way. I mean, unless it's Graham, if Graham was there, if Graham was making these decisions, I literally would absolutely be like, yes, okay. No roundup for me.

Matt (46:15.95)
I don't think of him as savior. Right.

Shawn (46:23.937)
So, but I can't trust that everyone's a Gram in government. Help me with that, Gram, should I?

Matt (46:23.97)
Well, why not assume that they're all just like Graham? Why not assume that?

Shawn (46:33.389)
What?

Graham Mitchell (46:33.435)
Well, first of all, the fact that one of these companies, by the way, has gave almost half a million dollars in donations to senators in the United States government makes me nervous. So maybe you can't trust the regulators all the time because there is some bias that's going to always occur because of that. that is my concern. But I think we need more Ralph Naters of the world that go out there and are willing to

Shawn (46:45.196)
Wow.

Matt (46:57.581)
Yeah?

Graham Mitchell (47:03.281)
advocate for things that are harmful. But the problem is that everything's gotten political, right? Everything's so politicized, it's hard for one side or the other side to trust what they hear depending on who that voice is. So that's the challenge that we have in our society today.

Matt (47:22.274)
Right, it's what Sean's saying, that people don't trust government regulators anymore. They don't trust, there's really nobody left that they trust. Sean, just, you need to trust experts, Sean. We love you. We'll look out for you. We won't take kickbacks, even in a legal way. There's good people, find the good people, put them in office, and then you don't have to worry anymore. That's the idea.

Shawn (47:31.319)
But I do love, uh-huh, go ahead.

Hahaha!

Shawn (47:45.421)
I mean, I would 100 % agree with you again, if you and Graham were running things and everyone is like you and Graham, I really honestly would go to your side, Matt. But I just think you guys are an exception. You guys are a minority. But I could be wrong. I teach me. I could be wrong.

Matt (48:01.824)
No, it's just a question of trust, right? I can't defend every regulator, but I do listen to some of them. And there's sometimes that I'm like, yeah, this person, it's true. There's sometimes I listen to a regulator and I'm like, I don't think this person is really looking out for our best interest. Sometimes I listen to the head of the justice department or the head of the FBI and I say, I'm not sure that they're interested in keeping me safe from crime.

Shawn (48:22.295)
But there's also this, there's also this Matt, like what if you and your wife invent some amazing, I don't know, something, whatever, something, and you go out and people love it and they're selling it. And all of a sudden some government official comes to you and says, hey man, we're taking this away from you. And you're like, why? Well, because we think that it's bad for people. What if it pans out to not be bad for people and this guy's ruined your, not only taking away your liberties and your rights, your freedoms, but they've just destroyed your business. That's a common thing too.

But that's...

Graham Mitchell (48:52.335)
No, but there's a due process, Sean. mean, can't a regular, one single regulator just can't come in and say, those snow cones are bad, right? So that's Matt's fictitious business, snow cones. Exactly. So there, I mean, there is a process and that's why some things take so long to deregulate or to regulate, to decommission because there is a lot that goes behind it. So some people get frustrated with that, but that is the beauty is there is a

Matt (49:03.404)
Yeah, I invented them.

Shawn (49:03.646)
nice, well done, good idea, good idea.

Graham Mitchell (49:22.107)
process. And then if that fails, you always have the courts as well. That's another backstop to overreaching government.

Shawn (49:30.637)
Okay, that's probably the best argument I've heard.

Matt (49:32.856)
The other thing I would say, Sean, is a lot of my students go, like their dream is to work in government someday. And none of them that I've ever met are doing it because they just want to like control other people or make bad decisions. The people who choose public service are doing it because they care about the greater good of society. And so I think we should default towards trusting them because I know plenty of business students who their goal is to make money at whatever cost.

Shawn (49:36.61)
Yes.

Shawn (49:46.669)
Yeah, I don't believe that.

Matt (50:00.94)
And I don't know any people that have gone into government that tell me that that's their motivation. So if I have to choose, trust the business person or trust the government regulator, I choose to trust the government people because in my experience, they're more trustworthy.

Shawn (50:13.101)
That's very articulate, Matt, but I'm so sorry. Graham's argument of you've got people who are flawed and maybe sometimes corrupt, sometimes good, but you have a process that helps clean, that helps filter and, and, and, mitigate against the corruption and the flaws. Man, that's, I trust that that's, that's, that's an interesting thing I need to think about. I'm ignorant. think Graham, of us are ignorant about those processes.

I mean, I'm getting permits now for an extension to my home and I just look at the process and go bloated. Absolutely irrelevant. Like this is waste of time and money. This is crazy that it takes 12 months for a little room addition and all the things you make us do. So a lot of us get a little bit like, no, actually I don't think I can trust your processes either.

Graham Mitchell (51:02.309)
Yeah, I buy that. And in California, I mean, just so you know, I'm going to advocate for local governments in California. Half the things that are ridiculous that we're making you do, that's a mandate from the state of California. So you can thank your state for that.

Shawn (51:09.453)
Yes.

Shawn (51:16.577)
Well said. Okay, good.

Matt (51:17.56)
Hey, that's great. I feel like that's an endorsement of why we shouldn't have local control of things. The state of California is protecting Sean from his overly libertarian city government.

Shawn (51:21.813)
No, that is an endorsement for Y.

Matt (51:30.158)
You know the reason everybody wants to move to California Sean it's all of those regulations those regulations just draw people to the state. They're like I feel safe

Shawn (51:38.849)
Matt, there are more people in the last two years leaving California and exiting like a mass exodus of California. So all these people you're talking about, they don't exist.

Matt (51:48.152)
They're immigrants. We talked about this before. They're immigrants.

Shawn (51:51.192)
that's right.

Graham Mitchell (51:51.657)
You know what's interesting? Year after year, our 911 calls go up, especially for fire paramedic services. The last two years, they've actually dropped or stayed the same. And we're scratching our heads. What's going on? Are people healthier? And we do really think there's been people left the state. And you base your calls on per capita. And if there's less per capita, if there's less capita, then there's less calls. Pretty interesting.

Shawn (52:11.724)
Wow.

Matt (52:18.858)
I know this isn't what you intended to imply from that Graham, but sometimes I listen to the crazy 911 calls about like, hey, they won't give me my chicken nuggets or something like that. And so what I heard you say is the people leaving California are the people that were abusing the 911 system. That's in my head, that's who's moving to Idaho from California, the 911. That's awesome.

Graham Mitchell (52:38.033)
I hope so because we get those calls all the time. I didn't like the way they gave me my change at the drive-thru. I need a police officer.

Shawn (52:39.539)
Yeah, love you.

That would be great.

Matt (52:45.774)
That's awesome. Hey, we're gonna end on that. Thanks so much you guys. It's been a lot of fun and listener. We'll talk to you again next week

Shawn (52:48.086)
You