KXEL Presents: The Jacobsen Group Podcast – September 27, 2025

Who used all the Wi-Fi?

Ah, apartment life.

Bad Wi-Fi, mystery laundry piles, and a roommate who says, I'll Venmo you.

Maybe 2027 deserves an upgrade.

Coming August 2027, Four Lakes Properties introduces the brand new Union Station Apartments.

Furnished, in-unit washer and dryer.

Internet included.

A great central downtown location.

One to five bedroom apartments.

And no double occupancy fees.

That's less adulting and more actually enjoying where you live.

Union Station Apartments.

Now leasing from Four Lakes Properties.

Wait, we have a washer and dryer in the apartment?

apartment?

Who used all the Wi-Fi?

Ah, apartment life.

Bad Wi-Fi, mystery laundry piles, and a roommate who says, I'll Venmo you.

Maybe 2027 deserves an upgrade.

Coming August 2027, Four Lakes Properties introduces the brand new Union Station Apartments.

Furnished, in-unit washer and dryer, internet included, a great central downtown location, one to five bedroom apartments, and no double occupancy fees.

That's less adulting and more actually enjoying where you live.

Union Station Apartments, now leasing from Four Lakes Properties.

Wait, we have a washer and dryer in the apartment?

If

you're enjoying this KXEL podcast, then we invite you to listen to KXEL's great programming in real time too.

You can hear us on the radio statewide at AM 1540 and in the Cedar Valley at FM 100.5.

We stream live on the web, not only through KXEL.com, but also through our free KXEL mobile app.

and Alexa knows how to find us too.

It's where Iowa comes to talk.

News Talk 1540 KXEL.

Good morning on the Jacobson Group here on KXEL, 1540, 100.5 FM.

You can listen live and also go to the podcast, the Jacobson Group, kxel.com, slash Jacobson, J-A-C-O-B-S-E-N.

We're gonna have a wonderful show today.

We're gonna talk about free market enterprise economy.

And at the midpoint, some great entrepreneurs here in eastern Iowa.

That's the T's, guys.

And we thank our...

General sponsors as well, Jim and Cindy Jandron, who helped run that great enterprise Midwest Renewable Energy LLC out of South Eastern Nebraska.

Ethanol Renewable fuels energy for a strong America.

It's lean, it's clean, and it's green, as well as Jim and Cindy Jandron and their largesse of charity in helping fund a life.

Runners, liferunners.org.

Go to liferunners.org and order your t-shirt to run and walk for a life like the loving gracious Debra Jacobson does.

You know, it's also very healthy, guys.

If you walk 10,000 steps a day, you reduce your cardio risks by an incredible percentage, but also running and walking for life.

This group builds a culture of life helping.

expectant mothers and their babies along the way to birth and then after they're born.

LifeRunners.org, go to that website, Dr. Pat Castle, runs this wonderful operation and a lot of young college kids part of this too, young and old running together alike.

So we're going to have the great free marketers from out of you and the Gortney Institute on then Barbara Hames Bryant from the Hames Homes people.

And then part two of Gortney.

Guys, we are making free market enterprise great again.

And don't go away.

We'll be right back.

Economics is a study of human choice in the world we live.

Faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.

By investigating faith in economics, we can learn how they lead to human flourishing.

This is the Faith in Economics podcast, a presentation of the Gorton Institute at Ottawa University.

Hi, and welcome to our show.

I'm Justin Clark, the Menard Family Professor of Philosophy and Ethics.

I'm joined by Russ McCullough, the Wayne Angel Distinguished Chair of Economics, the founder of the Gartney Institute, and Peter Jacobson, the Gartney Professor of Economic Education.

All right.

Well, it was a sad day for our country when we have gunfire, and it seems like there's been a lot of this lately in various ways.

Dr. Jacobson, you wanted to talk about the recent Charlie Kirk assassin.

Yeah, so Charlie Kirk, founder of Turning Point USA, pretty

a popular overall political commentator.

I mean, one of the, I'd say better known in the country was assassinated.

Gosh, that was two days ago.

So that's when we're talking.

Tyler Robinson has been arrested and as the shooter, we know very little about that.

From what I've seen, the biggest motive evidence is that apparently there are things engraved on the bullets and most of them were calling Charlie Kirk a fasc essentially.

And so left wing.

ideology.

And that story has, it's been reported by like a sheriff's office, it is in like official news outlets, but it's still early enough that I'm not hanging my hat on that particular piece of information.

So I don't think we know much about who it was at this point, but I think in general, conversation can kind of turn towards how we operate in a society that seems to be ramping up in terms of political violence.

So we had this being the recent example.

In Minnesota, you had two Democratic legislators, or maybe one, and her husband or something.

I can't remember exactly how it happened.

Who were assassinated?

And then you had two attempts on Trump.

And we've had, you know, several school shootings that apparently have, you know, political motives based on the information that we have.

And so I guess today, my thought is, like, how do we as a country operate as a boss?

And I'll start with...

my information.

It's really easy to get kind of hot about what happened with Charlie Kirk, especially because the young guy, very successful, two kids and wife, they were all there when this happened.

The video is very graphic.

It was a very up close video.

And if you're on social media consistently, you've seen it by now.

I don't recommend you.

If you haven't seen it, please don't watch it.

but the point is it's really easy to get uh to overreact and i i don't mean in terms of emotionally i think it's appropriate to react extremely here but what you what needs to be avoided is the sort of reaction that does more harm than good and so i've seen a lot of like calls for like response or violence like oh this needs to happen to some of therapy like that sort of thing i've seen people say

This is obviously not the right way to go about things.

The easy way to think about it is like if a Fed who didn't like you wanted you to do it, you probably shouldn't do it, right?

That's the way to think about these things.

So my general feeling about the Kirk thing, he was killed because of what he believed.

It seems and the other side of it is it seems like the source of things Kirk believes in our ideas that are currently like that.

That's kind of the second piece of the puzzle here.

Nobody was bothered about.

Charlie Kirk in 2012 through 2016 won Barack Obama's right.

Like people would maybe make fun of him, but he wasn't like a, you know, scorned figure in the same way because his ideas at the time were very unpopular.

They really not out that.

not within the norm and I think now a lot of Charlie Kirk's ideas are winning and I think that that makes people very upset and that's their response and so when you're winning a game the I have a friend who posted this on Twitter when you were winning the game you don't knock over the chessboard right the person who knocks over the chessboard is the person and so that's kind of my general thought in terms of response now there are things you can do think that

People should get involved politically who haven't before.

I think it's time to like for those people who have thought like, you know, being involved in local politics is beneath you and beneath your time.

That's not true.

It's just not like Kirk succeeded by being grassroots.

He started on college campuses and spread out that way.

He talked to the people that conservative politicians were too busy to talk to young people.

made a pretty significant difference that way.

So that's my general thoughts on it.

Obviously a massive tragedy.

Everybody who's celebrating, I don't think those people can be trusted.

If you have a friend who is like laughing or joking about this, I'd say that that person probably shouldn't be someone you consider a friend anymore.

And that's true.

That's true of the Minnesota, you know, shooting too.

I'm not making this exclusive to Kirk, but I think, you know, it's not appropriate to blame all Democrats or all leftists here because not all Democrats or all leftists want this sort of thing to happen.

The appropriate response.

though is to say, okay, the people who are going to celebrate this, cheer it on on social media, laugh about it.

Those people I actually do think deserve a little bit of blame because they're contributing to this culture that sees political violence as not only a viable option, but a praise for the option.

So to me, though, obviously the shooter and those people are the true villains here.

You should be very careful to make sure that you don't extend the villain to like, you know, your Democrat aunt who is actually really sad that it happens, but just like, you know, moderately in politics.

I hope I don't have rose-colored glasses, but I would hope the vast...

Yeah, I hope so too.

The only thing that makes me a little concerned is the pull of young people after Luigi Mangione, which is another kind of tangential example of this, who like, it was something like the 20 and 50% of young people said it was justified.

It's

like, that's a

lot, actually.

Like even if it's the point.

Of young people.

Yeah, yeah, of young people, right?

And you know, young people are young people.

But young people are also sometimes the people who are doing this, so.

Yeah, I think the Luigi's very rough.

Yeah.

I think more relevant Democratic lawmaker one because, well, in particular, Charlie Kirk wasn't Charlie Kirk was a private citizen.

Right.

Um, and one of the things that I think is really that gets totally washed out in Charlie Kirk was moderate.

Yes.

Uh,

this was not Nick Fuenton or so much.

All right.

Charlie Kirk, essentially defend very moderate.

Yeah.

2008 GOP value.

Yeah.

Actually, I would even say 20.

20 GOP, but like you couldn't find any major difference between Charlie Kirk and George W. Bush.

Yeah, even Mitt Romney.

And he got a lot of guff that actually from other people on the right.

Yeah, I actually reflected after he died.

I probably never spoke very kindly of Charlie Kirk.

I wasn't outright.

Charlie Kirk sucks, but when he came up with conversation, that would be my exact comment.

He's like, eh, he's kind of squishy, moderate.

Like he does the campus thing, like whatever.

Turns out to have been a much more of a hero than I'll ever have been.

But yeah, you're right.

If anything, Charlie was criticized for being pretty middle of the road for a year.

Yeah.

And if you listen to the people who talk to, I'd invite any to go hour long saying he's very respectful to the people that he's arguing with, often in a, what?

Often especially when he's not big and letting people talk he actually was very big one of the very first people to Platform a lot of detransitioners people who transitioned and they thought that we're talking

gender

now transition and if you talk to a lot of them They would say things like he was he really like he let me tell my story in a way that was sending or Accusing me of being an idiot or thing and I'd invite you just to look at the way he interacted.

I think it's it's interesting

a big big guy was like six foot five and he kind of had that unanimous goofy yeah come here buddy let me give you a hug demeanor that i think a lot of do that but he was goofy he was funny south park made fun of him when south park made fun of him he said it was funny this is the wrong if if you're this was a huge loss or leaning

A huge mistake who thought that he missed or something like that, he wasn't.

But Peter said, I've noticed a lot of calls or, okay, Charlie Kirk was a moderate, he killed it.

It seems very unclear how good faith discussion on college going forward.

Not even because of the fact that people will self-sense a shot.

There's also the issue that college campuses are not going to allow the kind of events that Charlie Kirk held anymore because they're going to require an amount of security that's going to be prohibitively costly.

And so,

I would suspect these events just not to take place.

And one thing Charlie Kirk said when people asked him, why are you doing these events?

Listen to what he said.

He said, well, we need to talk about this as people, person to person, because when the talking stopped, bad things.

So I think a bad.

So I didn't really know Charlie Kirk that well, knew of him, but I was surprised when it happened.

I'm 54 and a friend my age said he watched some of his short videos like another friend that's about 10 years younger than me knew of him.

So I had a number of people that knew of him.

better.

I did not see the video short nor do I want to of him getting hit.

But what I'm hearing you guys say is that if you are

a friend of free speech, and you are a champion of civil discourse, then you should have been a Charlie Kirk.

Is that what I'm going to say, regardless?

I mean, I think it's possible for someone who is on the political left, but it's like a moderate liberal to have not agreed with the things that are like, like actually a really, a really good example of someone who I think properly responded on the left was the founder of the young Turks, Cenk Ugar Uyghur, I can't say his last name, but he's a pretty radical left.

I mean, he's like a socialist.

Thanks, Democratic.

establishment's a bunch of moderates.

He's probably right on all that, by the way.

Not being a socialist, but I'm thinking the left is really squishy into the party.

But he came out and basically said, there's no reason for this.

Like, this is unacceptable on the left.

You know, if you're not in favor of peace, then you shouldn't be a member of the left.

And I hope that he's right, that the left's values are incompatible with violence.

I don't know if I agree with his claim there, but I do appreciate that he didn't qualify.

What has really bothered me is a lot of people who have come out and have, like, qualified with, I don't like Charlie Kirk very much.

He shouldn't have been shot, but I don't like him.

I think that's the inappropriate response.

I think that what you're signaling is you're more upset about Charlie Kirk than that he got shot.

I think the right response was like Cenk, who came out and said, this absolutely can't happen.

There's no excuse for it.

We should never do it.

But I do think, Russ, to your point, that the people who are generally

fans of free speech, open discourse and that sort of thing, did get along with Charlie Kirk for this.

And Cenk did get along with

Charlie

Kirk.

Like they knew each other.

I don't know that they were best friends.

Actually, there's a video of Charlie Kirk yelling at him in the crowd.

Charlie Kirk, Cenk says, what's your salary?

And Charlie Kirk, so I'm a capitalist, Cenk.

I live out my values.

What about you?

So it's like, you know, they weren't like best friends, but they were able to like get along in the cordial sense.

So yeah, Charlie's death was a major blow to civil discourse in our country.

as I think the best way to put it.

And

of course, deteriorator.

Yeah.

And I think a step in the direction of people shooting instead of talking, right?

That was the Charlie Kirk point is that, you know, when we stop talking, the follow-up to that, he didn't say these exact words, but when people stop talking, people start shooting

is the

next part of that line.

And I think that's correct.

And to be very clear, I'm not advocating for that.

I said at the very beginning of the podcast, the right response to this is not violent.

Huge mistake.

It's not something Charlie Kirk would have wanted.

A, it's also not something that's very smart.

B,

And so the right response is not violent, but the more you clamp down on speech and the more you scare people out of talking, the more people start talking by other means, right?

Yeah, so I very scary results, I think could come about because of this.

Well, there's such great videos from the 70s and even the 80s where you had civil discourse going like what Charlie Kirk was trying to do.

And so unfortunate that we are where it's hard to imagine how we turned it back.

And I hope that some of these people, it's a pathway that's better.

that one other thing that we'll cut to a break here, so maybe this will be kind of a cliffhanger.

He was really a straight influencer, correct?

He never ran for office, never just, but he probably was a member of college group of Republicans or whatever it was.

But the reason I bring that up is that these other examples we had have usually been people in office or ran for office and here you got a guy that's just promoting his values.

And so it's especially somebody felt like they were in the right to need to take this

guy out because he's a big influencer on people.

That's a kind of a change in narrative compared to I'm against a politician because they're supporting these policies.

It's just it's a subtle change, but it's an important one.

I think

that we're kind of opening up target.

Maybe we can head that direction in the second half.

We'll be

back.

but they intersect in ways that are important to understand both individually and for your community.

If you find philosophy fascinating but want to make sure that your study of the subject is practical, if you enjoy economic analysis but want to see how economic laws interact with more principles, if you are interested in politics but want to explore how economic and ethical realities constrain our political choices, you should consider the PPE program at Ottawa University.

This spring, Ottawa University is organizing a PPE league competition for politics, philosophy, and economics.

Students in this competition will compete leveraging the ideas of philosophy, politics, and economics in various events.

If you're a professor or an advisor of college students and you're interested in your school competing in PPE League this spring, contact Peter, Justin, or Russ today.

By 2030, the Gortney Institute will be known for its alumni, supporters, and participants who incorporate economic understanding with their faith in their careers, vocations, communities, and personal lives.

We have some great programming going on for high school students.

We have an online microeconomics class.

Yes, you can earn college credit for $200 by taking an online class.

It's affordable, flexible, layered with support.

Our new online micro is optimized for you.

If you'd like to consider some events for your high school students or that class, please contact Justin, Peter or Russ today.

All right, so we're back continuing on the degradation of things and maybe cultural norms on how best handled things.

Of course, political violence has been around, I suppose, but we've definitely seemed to be taking the worst here.

So Justin, you had some more to?

Yeah, so Jacobin Magazine is a left-wing intellectual magazine, pretty openly social.

Here's Jacobin's editor.

Charlie Kirk has never received a warm welcome.

It doesn't matter now.

The assassination of Kirk is a tragedy.

Morally, it's unjustifiable.

Politically, it is a cause for a larger spiral into political violence.

And that's their opening paragraph.

And I think that's a good risk.

And that's a true risk.

But one thing I want to point out is when you spend years calling your political opposition fascist, not somebody who listens might be confused.

and might actually read what you're saying, literally.

We've talked about this before when we talk about, you know, larping into like, it's politics where, oh, you know, I'm just saying it's stuff.

Well, even if you don't, if somebody who reads you.

believes it, then that can lead to really violent action.

Secondly, Jacobin Magazine is called Jacobin Magazine.

Who were the Jacobins?

They

were the Jacobinism is the name for the most radical left, most violent thing of the French Revolution, which put Robespierre in power.

They were the ones running the guillotine, the great terror of the French Revolution.

Look, I don't know what else to say here other than it seems like if you're calling yourself Jacobins, by the way, New Young Turks too, like Young Turks, the name itself is named after a really violent organization.

If we're playing the game where we're larping is really as extreme as that's not the way to dial down the temperature, it just isn't.

And so while I

I applaud the content, correct.

And I also think correct, a dysentical violence, a tragedy left.

I don't know if any of you have heard this before, but I've heard that the left has a kind of knob of violence, which they can turn up again.

And there are times when it gets turned up a little bit.

There, you know, Schumer or whoever will say, go, all right, go, ask these people in the streets or whatever.

It goes up significantly at some points.

The George Floyd riots were turned up significant, but Larry, somebody on Twitter said, the left has a knob, the right has a switch, and that switch goes from do nothing to all out war.

And I think it's very dangerous.

And I've seen people throw their switch in the wake of the Charlie Kirk assassination, and that's really day two.

So yeah, just to put that,

yeah, I think.

Justin, I think you're right about that, that these organizations are very comfortable with claiming the mantle of revolutionary and these violent organizations, and maybe they shouldn't be so comfortable doing that.

It seems like, to their credit,

They don't actually support that, at least in the United States right now.

For the Jacobin, and the Young Turks, I can't speak to... I mean, there were some other organizations that had some bad things to say.

There was

a guy on MSNBC who got fired, doused or whatever his name is, because he immediately came out and said, oh, what do you expect?

Basically, I'm paraphrasing what he said, but he essentially blames Charlie.

I have no idea.

Things have gotten wonky.

So I guess the where to go from here is the valuable thing for me, which is that, you know, the response, you know, if this is something that bothers you a lot, which I think if you're a normal person with a family, it probably should.

If you're someone on the right and assuming this is politically motivated, which again, the early evidence seems to indicate yes, based on some of the statements that were found and all that.

If you're on the right and you want to do something in response, you know, the right thing to do is to start doing the sorts of things Charlie did.

Now, that doesn't necessarily mean walking up to a college campus and talking, but it means like getting involved at grassroots levels, like trying to push the country in a more sane direction.

That was his mission, succeeded at that mission, and that's still available to everybody wants to.

If you're on the political left and you're thrown off by what happened and you think it was horrible, I think the best thing to do is just to

not be friendly to rhetoric that paints somebody like Charlie Kirk's fashion, which is simply isn't a liberal Democrat, at least in the technical sense of his political affiliation, not liberal Democrat in the left wing sense, but in the sense of he believes that people should have liberty about the same that the founding fathers did.

So sometimes people will be like, oh, he has these really extreme views on LGBT issues.

So it's like, okay, if you don't want to call the founders of the country liberals, then I guess you don't have to call Charlie liberals either.

Then liberalism started about 20 years ago, if you think that, so it's kind of like a silly way to go.

democracy that is Charlie Kirk believed in the democratic process and voting.

And so what was he politically?

He was a liberal Democrat.

Now he was a conservative liberal Democrat, but nonetheless, he's not a fascist or anything like it.

So it's time to stop using and utilizing this rhetoric.

It's time to stop pretending like it's okay.

And like it's just a game to call people fascist because some people internalize this and take it seriously.

And the broader population, uh, saying those things over and over normalizes it in the brain of the people who are more extreme.

Uh, so that's, that's kind of my

my takeaway is if you're upset by this channel your anger into something productive, you know, start going to school board meets your local government.

and start, you know, getting involved.

Well, I want to remind the listeners that the Gorton Institute is apolitic.

We don't take a stance.

We don't support individual politicians or either of the parties.

And so I hope that what you're listening to today is a recap of things that could be done better and ways to engage with each other and civil discourse and free speech.

Peter, I'm glad you brought up that it's kind of like what Charlie was doing.

So it's kind of scary to think that if we were to sit here and dream up of like, how can we make the world a better place?

And we come up with, we should have

more Charlie Kirk's out there that engage in civil discourse and and yet now we have a significant turret to that that if I if I get good enough at what I do there's a target sad so I guess we brought up the universities probably being reluctant to hold types of events like that now and other

asked.

It's just, it's a little depressing.

So I don't know if what we're saying today will make a hill of beans.

I'd like to think it is making people think twice about supporting a negative rhetoric and otherwise just to have clear principles, right?

There's a lack of principled action, a little knee jerk and going with the winds.

We're always going to have radical people out of this.

So that's the part that's troublesome is that, like I said, I believe most of the Democrats would implore that

action so we're always going to have people on some sort of extreme if we're really

I think it's really you know so one is show

people, maybe even you know politically that you're a human being.

I think you should like the way you live your life should be a good advertiser.

You are a good person, even though dignity and respect becomes harder and becomes easier for some of the people who I thought weren't.

Maybe I have a lot nominally on the other side, but actually agree with much more than.

Well, and as a believer in Christ, it's a little easier for me to have freedom as I kind of hung my hat on some of the stuff we do at the Institute in terms of promoting freedom, maybe in other countries where there's a corruption or other things when I went to.

who was in Bobway and gave a talk.

There was government officials that came and kind of snooped around.

And I just decided a while back, if I go this way, I go.

And so I hope other people, especially Christians, can have the long view in mind that.

I'm going to be okay.

Whether my life is taken short or whether I live into my 80s or 90, I'm going to be okay.

There's a lot of freedom.

I hope that people will be willing to engage civilly like it appears Charlie did not be afraid of the content could fall.

All right.

Well, I didn't think I was going to have the final last word there, but that looks like a good spot to wrap.

So this has been a production of the Gordony Institute here at Ottawa University.

I'd like to thank you all for listening.

Five Star Rating helps other people find us.

pass along to friends and family and hope our country can turn the corner and have less of these deaths.

But it doesn't seem like we're on a good path now.

But do what you can.

Do what you can in your circle.

I think Peter's advice with looking local and starting there and not being big picture control more of what's immediately around you.

That's where you're the biggest.

Other than that, be fruitful multiply.

Thanks.

Ah,

apartment life.

Bad Wi-Fi, mystery laundry piles, and a roommate who says, I'll Venmo you.

Maybe 2027 deserves an upgrade.

Coming August 2027, Four Lakes Properties introduces the brand new Union Station Apartments, furnished in-unit washer and dryer.

Internet included a great central downtown location, one to five bedroom apartments, and no double occupancy fees.

That's less adulting and more actually enjoying where you live.

Union Station Apartments, now leasing from Four Lakes Properties.

Wait, we have a washer and dryer in the apartment?

If you're enjoying this KXEL podcast, then we invite you to listen to KXEL's great programming in real time too.

You can hear us on the radio, statewide at AM1540 and in the Cedar Valley at FM100.5.

We stream live on the web, not only through KXEL.com, but also through our free KXEL mobile app.

And Alexa knows how to find us too.

It's where Iowa comes to talk News Talk 1540 KXEL.

Well,

it's another great Saturday and the Hawkeyes are looking to

Get back-to-back wins here, and I'll tell you who's a back-to-back winner, generation after generation.

The folks at Hames Homes, and we're so honored to have Curtis Hames back with us today as we alternate our quarterback rotation between Barbara Hames Bryant and Curtis.

Curtis, welcome back.

You're an all-American in your own right.

Well, that's very kind.

I'll accept that high praise.

Thank you for having me.

You know, whenever I drive by there, I don't know.

Which one is my favorite?

You've got a Summit View and a Grand View community.

These are manufactured homes that are beautiful, affordable, and safe and aesthetic.

Talk about the two big neighborhoods, so to speak, Curtis.

We're all one Haines community on the southwest side of Cedar Rapids, and we're divided a little bit with a little farmland in between.

Both communities hold about 450 homes and we're nearly 2% of Cedar Rapids.

Whether you live in Summit View or Grand View, you'll have the one point of contact for ownership, for sales and service.

We're all under the Hames umbrella.

So Summit View and Grand View, all part of the Hames team.

And what a magnificent family.

I've known these folks for well over half a century.

They're family friends with my

parents and the generations continue of this outstanding stewardship as a calling to be able to bring to such a great community as Eastern Iowa safe, affordable and beautiful homes.

I'm going to tell you how to drive through or take a

virtual tour here at the end of this.

But Curtis, I'm going to talk about the safety and affordability.

Let's hit the safe communities and the financing options.

This really makes you guys an incredibly viable option here and now for for a living space for a family home.

Well, we're touching on what I think are our two highest, highest accolades.

The first is being a safe

planned community.

We are planned.

We're a managed community.

We have a background check for all of our homeowners.

We don't have any rentals out here.

We don't have any subleasing.

What we do is we want to have a planned, safe community for homeowners.

And what that means is everyone has a background check.

Everybody who moves in is going to check in and we know who lives here.

For everybody's safety and convenience, we have

For everybody's convenience, there's a small sticker on the exterior of people's vehicles.

And that's to make sure that we know who's coming and going.

And we're a planned, safe, secure community.

We work hand in hand with the Cedar Rapids Police Department.

So there's nothing untoward or any problems here.

It's very unlikely that we would have an incident.

But if there were, we have a 24-hour relationship with our team, the staffing.

We work in conjunction with the Cedar Rapids Police.

a safe, clean, planned, well-maintained community.

Indeed, indeed.

And continue because I know the financing rates are lowering as smidgen and will continue to do so.

So it's a good time to talk about financing.

We couldn't be more excited about that.

We're hopefully the good news from the Fed.

We'll trickle down into

what our banks are seeing.

But what we do here in the sales department is myself and Clint, my brother-in-law, it's a family affair here.

But what we do is we look at an individual, we take their application for financing, and we look at their income, their down payment, and their credit.

And what we do, rather than focusing on sales, what our emphasis is to be a liaison to ensure

that our buyers get the best interest rates, the most affordable and high quality insurance because we know every little bit helps.

And finding the best scenarios and allowing to do a compare and contrast and let the banks fight for the buyer's business is our goal.

We want to make sure that you're getting the most affordable, highest quality product at the lowest payments because no one wins a medal by paying extra interest to the bank.

We want to have

high quality lenders fighting for the buyer's

business.

Curtis Haymes saying it perfectly.

Well-named after the Scion, the founder, the co-founder, along with his wife Norma, the late great Curtis Haymes.

And go to this website.

It's a wonderful website.

H-A-M-E-S-H-O-M-E-S dot com.

HaymesHomes.com.

You can read the multi-part series.

You belong in a Haymes home for downsizers, for young families and first time buyers.

as well as for condo shoppers and owners and their recent article on understanding manufactured home titles in Iowa.

I've given the address for that wonderful compendium of data and testimonials and offerings on the website, Curtis.

But how do they drive by and how they telephone you guys and get on Facebook to also find you.

We want to keep it really simple.

We want everybody to be able to reach us online in person.

That's the website.

That's our Facebook page.

Very, very accessible.

Put it in your Google, put it in your Bing, ask G's, whatever search engine you like using.

We love, love, love seeing people in person.

That's our preference.

We want to meet you.

We want you to come in.

We want people to see our high quality communities.

We're on the corner of Stony Point and West Post Road on the southwest side of Cedar Rapids.

We love to work by appointment.

We want to make sure we're available for you.

So please call ahead 319-377-48

And

guys, you'll even see his handsome photo of the great sales team there.

on that website.

Curtis always a joy.

How about those Hawks?

Kirk Farrens.

I've only had two Iowa football coaches from the end of my high school years.

Curtis and I'm almost 65 years old.

What a tenure.

Fry and Farrens and now Kirk as the leading all-time Big Ten winning coach in football.

Well here at Haymes Homes we're definitely definitely understand the benefit of continuity and staying with consistent leadership

throughout the year.

So that's something that we admire.

And that's something that we're trying to emulate here in our ownership group.

Indeed.

And guys, the Hames-Holmes communities are very nearby Kinnick Stadium, you know, your 15, 20 minute drive.

So those of you that live and work in Iowa City, Coralville,

Tiffin, all those areas.

It's very viable there.

You're close to the airport.

All sorts of retail along with that pastoral rural setting in the background.

Curtis, always a joy to visit with you, my friend.

Very good.

Thank you very much.

Go Hawks.

Go Hawks.

Hames Homes.

The Homes people.

We will be back after this.

Who used all the Wi-Fi?

Ah, apartment life.

Bad Wi-Fi, mystery laundry piles, and a roommate who says, I'll Venmo you.

Maybe 2027 deserves an upgrade.

Coming August 2027, Four Lakes Properties introduces the brand new Union Station Apartments.

Furnished, in-unit washer and dryer, internet included, a great central downtown location, one to five bedroom apartments, and no double occupancy fees.

That's less adulting and more actually enjoying where you live.

Union Station Apartments, now leasing from Four Lakes Properties.

Wait, we have a washer and dryer in the apartment?

This

is the Faith in Economics Podcast, a presentation of the Gortney Institute at Ottawa University.

Welcome to our show today.

My name is Peter Jacobson.

I'm the Gortney Professor of Economic Education and Research here with the Gortney Institute.

Joining us we have Russ McCullough, the Wayne Angel Chair of Economics, and the founder of the Gortney Institute, as well as Justin Clark, the Minority Family Professor of Philosophy and Ethics.

All right, so Dr. Clark is going to lead us through some laws of politics by a guy named Robert Conquest, which makes me think right away, Jeepers, if we're gonna...

conquest politics.

Are these the laws, uh, President Trump?

He's in the conquest, it seems like.

Is that what he's following?

I don't, I'm not sure where Justin's going to take us, but Dr. Clark, take it away.

Thank you, Russ.

So Robert Conquest was a Anglo-American Sovietologist during the middle to end of the 20th century.

He wrote a couple really influential books about like the purges under Stalin and the transformation of the Soviet Union from

Stone's essential gulag to the kind of liberalization-ish under Khrushchev.

And he was also involved in like, intelligent circles.

I think he was a member of MI6.

Like, I could be wrong.

But he was involved in British intelligence and he was also very plugged into the American anti-communist agenda as well.

And he's probably most famous for his three laws of politics and...

I think they're really interesting and they get quoted often, so I think it'd be fun to talk about them.

So I'm going to run through all three of them.

There are sentences long.

The first is, everyone is conservative about what he knows best.

The second is, any organization not explicitly right-wing sooner or later becomes left-wing.

And the third is the simplest way to explain the behavior of any bureaucratic organization is to assume that it is controlled by a cabal of its enemies.

And listeners, I mean, we just recorded a podcast on the Cracker Barrel changing its logo.

and it blew up in its face of investors.

And a lot of people ask questions like, how could they have done this?

And one answer is like, well, Cracker Barrel is a large bureaucratic organization.

The best way to explain this behavior is to assume it's run by people who want to destroy Cracker Barrel.

So Conquest is, his claim is that this is true for all large bureaucratic organizations and for the other ones as well.

So I'm wondering if is there

any of these that jump out at you or that you'd like to talk

about?

I mean, the first one I'd like to hear you explain a little bit more.

So you're conservative with the things you know or how was it phrased?

But everyone is conservative about

what he knows best.

And conservative in what sense?

Well, conservative, if we look at like what it means, it usually means deference to history or deference to some kind of established norms, a reluctance to change.

and especially to change for change's sake, a kind of aversion to novelty in favor of established norms.

Yeah, let's talk about number one.

I think that it's true.

I'll begin with that, because of course, all these are subject to debate.

So we could talk about whether or not these are right.

I think number one is true.

I think we can observationally see a lot of these.

And so, you know, you don't see many really fiscally liberal economists, right?

This is a good example of that.

And so you do get professional economists who have kind of crazy or new opinions.

Like you get the MMT crowd, for

example.

But people at Harvard, Yale, MIT, even though they are like politically left-wing, these economists do not embrace like MMT as a theory, right?

And so we can ask, well, why would that be?

Like, MMT is maybe like the most left-wing...

I'll take my stab and then you tell me if I'm right.

Basically, you can kind of...

unlimitedly print money to do what you want to do because it won't have

consequences.

Yeah, reasons, right?

I think it's actually conceptually a little incoherent, but I think you've gotten what basically the gist of it.

Okay.

And so, you know, it's very left-wing view in terms of like policy, economic policy, and yet these left-wing economists, you know, a lot of these economists being registered Democrats, whether it's like, you know, Cass Sunstein, like Obama's chief economist, like he recently came out and said, I think the libertarians have something on economics, right?

And so like he's

not embracing like this economic craziness, even though he's institutionally very left-wing.

And so we can see this all over the place.

I'm trying to think of other versions of economists, Justin.

I think a good example is like

English professors, professors of literature.

They're conservative a lot, much more conservative about

Literature, right?

Politically, very radical.

We should overthrow, you know, let's destroy the economy.

Let's start.

Let's start from scratch.

Let's invent political economy from scratch.

And if that if you know, for instance, you go.

Let's just throw out poetry.

Let's start out, you know, you do find some literature professors who are like, what's great is slam poetry or whatever.

But most literature professors have a deep respect for the literary canon.

Yeah, I think you could see the same thing with environmentalism.

When you get right wing environmentalists, it's the people who are really interested in the environment.

So like a lot of times if you hear like someone talking about preserving like forests, it's like hunters, right?

And so like they're

The right-wing environmentalists tend to be people who are expert in environmentalism.

And conservative environmentalism actually would be to like maintain force and stuff like that, even though the left generally is maybe more favorable historically recently.

But regardless, so I think this is true.

And I think the answer to why is kind of similar or along the lines of what Justin mentioned.

And in fact, I think in order to explain it, we don't have to go much further than GK Chesterton's fence.

Chesterton was a

British Catholic lay theologian slash writer is how I would put him.

So he talked a lot about theology.

He wrote a lot about theology and politics and other things.

And one of the propositions that he developed, so he's not, this isn't totally original to him in the sense that like it's been recognized for a long time.

But if there's a fence, you should figure out what the fence is for before you tear it down, right?

And so, you know, the idea is like,

the if the fence is serving some function it would be improved it to tear it down and so why wouldn't you try to figure out what functions it's serving and so it could be the case simply that people who are experts have studied what the fence is for right or at least they're still not certain that the fence is useless right

And so it's really easy to come upon something that you've never seen before, and if you don't see the immediate use, get rid of it.

But if you do the historical research, if you get familiar with the field, then maybe the fence becomes valuable and you start to recognize how the fence has been valuable over time.

Apply that to any topic.

Why is it valuable that our Federal Reserve be governed by a rule rather than just print whatever amount of money helps the economy be best?

I'm putting air quotes around that at the time.

Uh, and it's, you know, because we look historically at when the Fed has been untethered by rules and it's like, basically everybody agrees at the very least that the Federal Reserve worsened the Great Depression.

Not everybody believes they caused the Great Depression, but everybody believes at least that the Federal Reserve worsened the Great Depression.

And why?

They were just kind of ad hoc, right?

And because they were ad hoc about things, some people think they were too slow, some people think they were too proactive.

So there's some fight about this.

But in response to that now, we have a federal reserve system that is based mostly on rules.

We're targeting something, right?

And the rule changes over time, and maybe we don't target it perfectly.

But even the most liberal economist, well, not the most, but even the median liberal economist says, we should probably have a federal reserve that's governed by rules rather than, like,

what one guy wants to do.

So I'll kick it off.

And remain independent.

Yeah,

which

is also a

little bit.

Well, I think it's an interesting corollary of the first law because I think everyone, I think you guys are right on the money that the reason people are conservative about what they know best is that knowing something best involves coming to understand the historical tradition of the thing that you know the best.

And you might disagree with portions of it, but it's very hard to know something best and

think everything about the tradition is wrong.

And there's

complexity and details that take time to know it, and once you've done that, then you have a better appreciation for being conservative about it.

Well, exactly.

But the corollary of this is that revolutionaries, by definition then, almost always don't know what they're trying to revolutionize.

They're amateurs.

Amateurs, yeah.

Don't know the complexity, don't know the history, yeah.

the desire to overturn the game board or, you know, overturn the apple cart, it's evidence, not proof, but evidence that maybe you don't understand what you're trying to do.

Yeah, I think that's a good point.

And actually, maybe this wouldn't stand up scrutiny if you thought about it much, but you think about the revolutions that have historically been considered successful.

It's like the American Revolution.

Why would that be?

Well,

There wasn't actually a big precedent for America having British rule, right?

So maybe the American Revolution was so successful because it was one of the few revolutions where the people on the ground actually did know more than like the authorities who were being revolted against.

Whereas the French Revolution, you know, there's mixed opinion on it, but out of all of the Western revolutions, it's probably the one that comes under the most scrutiny, maybe that of Russia, but it comes out under scrutiny because it went totally crazy.

Like they started killing, you know, random people, members of clergy, you know, they're just chopping off people's heads left and right, you know, tearing down, you know, buildings, burning things.

I think it's not a totally crazy thing to say.

The French Revolution got out of hands and that would fit this pattern of

Well, who are the revolutionaries in that case?

Probably actually the people who knew a lot less about France than the aristocracy at the time.

That doesn't mean that it couldn't have been justified by some other margin, but I think maybe the success or failure of revolutions might have something to do with this fact that if you're in a situation where the revolutionaries are totally amateurs, you're more likely to be a failed revolution.

Yeah, so Peter's making the bold claim that the reign of terror

was out of hand.

I've tried to be modest and I'm actually much more extreme, just like the French are.

But I'm trying to be more modest.

And does that relate to law number two then?

Let's move on.

Yeah, let's move on to law number two.

Law number two, again, is any organization not explicitly right-wing sooner or later becomes left-wing.

Not explicitly, right?

It's hard to argue with that, at least in the American context.

I'd be interested to hear what people in other places in Western Europe think, but my mind immediately goes to American Christianity and mainline Protestantism.

And it's true that from the 70s to the 90s, almost every mainline Protestant denomination liberalized in a very extreme way.

Actually, I would say

more extremely liberal than most people are currently comfortable with.

And so, you know, almost every one of these denominations liberalized on having women pastors, right?

It's a very common thing to happen.

You're actually starting to see people draw away from that a little bit.

A lot of these...

institutions liberalized on things like gay marriage, right?

And so that was a very common feature.

And what's funny is those organizations maybe in some ways were explicitly conservative, but not politically explicitly conservative, right?

And so this is one example of the liberalization, but universities is actually the classic example, right?

Compare, you know, the political ideology of people at Harvard, MIT, Yale, you know, 100 years ago to now.

I mean, it's not, there's no comparison really.

I don't.

I think, yeah, I mean, I think this law is stated even more weakly than it could be.

I think you could, you could just say, I mean, it doesn't say only organizations that are not explicitly right-wing sooner or later become left-wing, but I mean, it just seems like most organizations, this happens to most organizations, even ones that are explicitly right-wing.

You can look at, for instance, like the Cato Institute.

A lot of people think the Cato Institute has moved

Leftward over the last 50 years or yeah, so I think it just holds generally.

Yeah, so there's two questions then well I have one question and then there I also have an observation so to give evidence for the law like you look at the place like Hillsdale, right?

Hillsdale is a university that remains relatively conservative and what's true about Hillsdale?

It explicitly says that it's conservative, right?

Same with like a college like Grove City College.

So what are the major conservative universities right now?

what's all the universities that declare themselves to be conservative.

I think that's true with respect to churches to a large degree, too.

You know, what institutions in Christianity didn't liberalize at least as much.

Well, the Catholic Church, right?

Yeah, the Church

of Missouri, San Uden, yeah, some of them were formal ones.

And so what is unique about the Catholic Church is that they give weight to

historical precedent, right?

And, you know, this could be true or false, whether or not they should is a different question.

But as a matter of fact, historical precedent has a weight in the Roman Catholic Church that it doesn't have in most main line Protestant churches, or probably any.

Like, I think it's actually safe to say, with the exception of maybe some weird high church Anglicans, like Roman Catholics' view, church history is being more authoritative than any other Christian group.

And it's, again, like, whether you think that that's good or bad,

it does seem to be the case that because of that, Catholicism did not liberalize in the same way as these other, you know, mainline Protestant organizations.

Now some of them have swung back, other things like that, but that's my observation with respect to that.

Then the question is, why?

Why wouldn't organizations get more conservative over time instead?

Or stay the same?

I think this observation is generally true, but the question is, why is it true?

Yeah, that looks like a good question.

Good cliffhanger to bring us into break.

And I'm kind of struggling a little bit with the size of government.

If it gets bigger, is that all just part of it?

Moving that direction or not, it seems to play a role somehow in there.

So we'll try to unpack that right after

break.

PPE, which stands for philosophy, politics, and economics.

Each of these three fields is interesting in their own right, but they intersect in ways that are important to understand, both individually and for your community.

If you find philosophy fascinating but want to make sure that your study of the subject is practical, if you enjoy economic analysis but want to see how economic laws interact with moral principles, if you are interested in politics but want to explore how economic and ethical realities constrain our political choices,

you should consider the PPE program at Ottawa University.

The Gordon Institute at Ottawa University is the best place in the Midwest for free enterprise education and its contribution to human flourishing, faith, and economics in action.

We have some great high school student programs like PPE Fest.

This is an event where students get to listen to some world-renowned speakers and then participate in competition geared around philosophy, politics, and economics.

Our everyday economics program is just a half day on a Saturday, and we will have an integrated discussion about common sense economics.

We have a college credit microeconomics course that runs every eight weeks.

Your high school student can earn college credit for the special price of $200.

If you know some students interested in programs like these, contact Peter, Justin, or Russ today.

So we're back and Peter, you want to try to answer your own question?

You kind of teed something up for us on whether they had right at all or not circumstances.

Yeah.

So again, the second law for listeners is that an organization that's not explicitly conservative will become liberal over time or something like that.

Justin will correct me on the particulars.

But then the question is why?

Like, why wouldn't it be the case that an organization that doesn't explicitly declare itself to be liberal will become conservative over time?

Or, you know, why don't organizations just stay the exact same?

I think it must have something to... Well, the first and second law could be connected.

This is kind of a stretch, I think, to be totally honest with you, but this is my best stab, is that, like, if the first law is true, that people who are most experienced in something will be conservative about it.

What that means is, if you add someone who's new,

And if new people on average are less experienced than old people, what that means is as you replace the status quo, necessarily you're on average going to get more liberal people because they're less knowledgeable than the people with the more experience, right?

So every time you had a new person, if the first law is true, that new person is less conservative about the topic because they know less about it.

And if you start adding those people at a quick enough rate, not only do they start moving the average, but they also get involved in the choosing of other people, right?

And so the inexperienced people then began to pick even more liberal people than the experienced people pick, and not liberal by the nature of just politics, but because of experience.

And so there's a sense in which the first law maybe leads to the second law.

I don't know exactly, though.

Like, I'm not sure if I'm satisfied with that explanation.

It's just the best thing I could come up with on the fly.

So I'm reminded of Mansur Olson's book, The Rise and Decline of Nations, and...

in that he talked about the I love this phrase the sclerosis of collective action and so the idea is that organizations kind of start small and I think to law number one you could have maybe be more conservative maybe not explicitly stated you know but but it's a smaller venture and whoever the starters are and then

as the organization, whether it's nonprofit or for-profit, starts to grow, then we start to see more what economists call rent-seeking.

So you're kind of trying to fight for your own territory, your own turf, a little bit more infighting, maybe come up with transfers from one department to the next of wealth.

And it ends up heading, I think, left.

Mansur Olson didn't explicitly say that, but he kind of hinted at it.

through the way he describes it.

And I think maybe Hayek with road to surf them is kind of on that path too that as you leave things be and head that direction that you're on the road to the left as we're in the context that we're talking about.

out here.

He was fearful of socialism writing that back and I believe 1946 after World War II and so he wanted to give people a warning that even in our conservative quote unquote economy things could head that direction in a different way.

So I think two and three are related to each other and so two again is any organization not explicitly right-wing sooner or later becomes left-wing and three is

The simplest way to explain the behavior of any bureaucratic organization is to assume that it is controlled by a cabal of its enemies.

And I think Russ brought up like the growth of government.

And a way to think about this might be like some government bureaucracies.

And it seems like every time the United States declares war on some concept like terrorism or poverty or like those wars go poorly.

The Department of Education was established when?

70s something?

Yeah, I think

so.

It

was in the 70s along with Fair Department.

And test scores have gone down since the Department of Education was established.

It seems like the war on poverty has largely failed.

The war on drugs largely failed.

You know, drugs win drug war, right?

And so it does seem like three is

seems like it has at least some truth to it, that once we get all these people together to solve this problem, the problem gets worse.

And that's

weird.

Because it's

job security, maybe, in some cases.

If their problem goes away, then my job goes away.

And so that could be part of it at all.

Yeah, but that seems to attribute

Malice in a sense where maybe

I

think it's a little

more innocent than that looking for problems and finding problems as part of what they do

Yeah, if if they had solved the problem then it wouldn't exist anymore That doesn't mean that that's why that they recognize that and that's why it still exists But it might just be the case given one right one says that everyone's conservative about what they know best

If organizations, as they bureaucratize, get more liberal or more left-leaning, and if that v1 means that they are going to be less effective at solving the problem that they're going to.

that they're aiming to solve, then it means that the organizations are going to grow and the problems are going to get worse.

And by definition, then, it's going to attract people who want to solve those kinds of societal problems.

Yeah.

And the adverse selection.

Largely, want to solve or say, what I want to do with my life is solve the problem of poverty or whatever.

That just does appeal more to somebody with a left-ish political.

Yeah.

So I wanted to make it, I want to distinguish something here because

when a new first of the third law I think like that's funny but clearly not true like that was my reaction but I think if we distinguish some things then maybe we can also talk about it being true in a sense so it's definitely funny to think of an organization trying to destroy itself and also like you do have the cracker barrel moments where it's like man it seems like you're really trying to destroy yourself that's weird but also like that you know economic theory tends to say that like the purpose of organizations especially non-martial

organizations actually of which corporate boards sort of are they're not totally but they sort of are the purpose of non-market organizations is to sustain themselves over time and I think that's true and so like I can't on one hand say organizations are trying to destroy themselves and also say organizations are trying to sustain themselves over time like those things conflict but here's the way where we can marry those two insights

which is that I think that the purpose of a bureaucratic organization is to allow the people to continue to be in the bureaucratic position year over year.

In other words, the purpose of the CDC to some extent is to make sure the people who are employed at the CDC or who want to be employed at the CDC and the people who are currently employed like will be employed in the future.

And so the CDC wants the CDC to exist.

In other words,

I

don't expect the CDC to cure disease because that's not evolutionarily a good thing for the CDC.

That doesn't mean I think they're actively trying to subvert it intentionally, but

I

don't think like it's compatible with evolutionary theory that they would be successful at destroying it.

But I actually think that that's compatible with the idea that organizations are self-destructive in the sense that they're self-destructive to like the original goal or something like that, right?

And so it's not that the CDC is trying to disband.

It's that the CDC, again, whether the individuals know it or not, are trying to be unsuccessful, right?

Which is sort of like saying you are run by your own worst enemies, right?

And so it's totally compatible with economic theory to say a bureaucracy that's in jobs to solve homelessness will not solve homelessness and continue to persist, right?

Like this is just a matter of fact.

So what I would expect

is that the organizations that are bureaucracies that are meant to solve homelessness won't do that.

And so in one sense, we could say that that's not a cabal of your enemies trying to destroy themselves because like they're trying to persist.

But in another sense, like in so far as the founding of the organization was about solving the homelessness problem, yeah, it is kind of like a cabal of your enemies controlling you.

So I think it's totally weirdly, it's totally compatible with the idea that the purpose of organizations is to survive.

And yet it's your own worst enemy is trying to destroy you.

Yeah, I think that's the way to read enemy.

Yeah, you stated it is the enemy of the stated purpose of your bureaucratic notion.

So I think the value of the market really comes into play here.

And I think this is what gives the market organizations an advantage that no other organization has, which is what I was alluding to a second ago, which is that there is, I think, a pressure to continue to persist over time in non-market organizations.

But it's not always

good for something to persist.

Like we want problems to get solved.

And if a problem gets solved, an organization dedicated to solving the problem should close, right?

Like this is pretty straightforward.

In the world, we want things to disband when they are no longer functional, right?

Like that's exactly how things should be.

And yet we have these bureaucratic forces trying to stop that from happening.

So this is the value of the market is when a business starts to try to prevent itself from solving problems.

In other words, you know, satisfying customers, for example, there's pressure from outside competitors, both business competitors, but also potential buyers to basically put that company in the grave, right?

And so this is the value of the market is losses signal to everybody, competitors, customers, potential buyers of the capital that the current way of doing things is not working.

And so it doesn't matter how hard the bureaucracy is trying to destroy itself from a mission perspective.

If it succeeds at doing it in the market, then what's going to happen is it's going to be purchased by someone who won't do that and turn around or the customers are going to stop going there and it's going to die.

So this self-sabotaging from a mission perspective motive that bureaucracies have cannot exist in markets.

It's almost like an evolution that supersedes the evolution from a market perspective.

Another way of putting this might be like

a market institution, the problem that it's trying to solve results in the continuation of the organization.

Yeah.

Right?

Yeah.

If my problem is giving people cheeseburgers, if that's the problem I'm trying to solve, then the more cheeseburgers I give people, the better my institution can survive into the future.

If my problem is to end homelessness, then to the extent that I end homelessness, I know you'll no longer have a bureaucratic future.

Right.

Yeah.

So yeah, once again, competition is the secret sauce.

So I think what we're setting up is what conservatives, maybe in one sense or the other, I'm not sure if it fits into this discussion, but would suggest having to tackle homelessness, it would be better to have many institutions, nonprofit institutions that are

competing for donation dollars to help solve that problem as opposed to having a government bureaucracy tackle it from the top down.

All right, well, this has been a production of the Gorton Institute here at Ottawa University.

I'd like to thank you all for listening.

Five Star Rating helps other people find us.

Otherwise, please pass this along to people that might like to take a listen.

Other than that, be fruitful and multiply.

Thanks.

you

Thanks again, guys!

Tell your friends about the podcast, kxel.com slash Jacobson, J-A-C-O-B-S-E-N.

In the meantime, listen to all the wisdom of Jeff Stein during his weekday news and commentary, and folks, always remember and never forget to be safe, be smart, be good, be strong, love Jesus Christ, and God bless us.

everyone till we meet again have a great weekend and bye

bye

All the Wi-Fi!

Ah, apartment life.

Bad Wi-Fi, mystery laundry piles, and a roommate who says, I'll Venmo you.

Maybe 2027 deserves an upgrade.

Coming August 2027, Four Lakes Properties introduces the brand new Union Station Apartments.

Furnished, in-unit washer and dryer, internet included, a great central downtown location, one to five bedroom apartments, and no double occupancy fees.

That's less adulting and more actually enjoying where you live.

Union Station Apartments, now leasing from Four Lakes Properties.

Wait, we have a washer and dryer in the apartment?