Hey, everybody, this is Chuck and uh surprise, you get a bonus episode this week and every Saturday moving forward with our s Y s K Selects episode. So what we decided to do was um to kind of you know, not everyone knows we have all these back episodes laying in wait to the tune of nine plus. So each week, UM, Josh will pick one, I'll pick one. We're gonna curate these. It might be Newsy, it might just be one of our favorites, and we're gonna publish them on Saturday. So if you if you haven't heard this one before, enjoy it. If you have, maybe listen again. Uh And this week I picked out Filibusters, especially because of kind of what's going on in this country right now with the looming nomination of uh Mr Gorsych to the Supreme Court and the threatened democratic filibuster. So if you don't know what filibusters are all about, give this episode to listen and everything will be a lot more clear and we hope you enjoy it. Welcome to Stuff you should know the house Stuff Works dot Com. Hey, and welcome to the podcast. I'm Josh Clark and with me is always at Charles Study, Chuck Bryant, and Jerry And that's the stuff you should know. I filibuster that you can't. I could talk for the next twenty four hours straight and not allow you to speak, and that would be filibuster in this podcast. Um, No, you'd actually be creating a podcast. Still, I guess we don't have any part elementary rules, So I mean, technically you could do that and it's a podcast. Still, upon reading this, it seems like the U. S. Government doesn't either, because one strategy is to just pick up your ball and go home. Yeah. I just sort of put the filibustering is, except you don't go home. No, you stand there and tell everybody else goes home. In the most classic example, which is what we're all about here at stuff you should know the classics, man, Um, Chuck. You know this year two thirteen, which is drawing to a close, Um, there were two very high profile filibusters. One was by Wendy Davis, member of the Texas State Senate, who filibustered against a proposed bill that would or a package of bills that would limit access to abortions. Did she actually do it like a solo filibuster? Yeah, the classic she had like on some snazzy pink magenta Mazzuno running shoes, back brace and I believe a catheter. Shut up. No, I'm not kidding, I'm I'm almost positive shad a catheter and spoke for eleven hours straight. Um. There was also another one by in September by U S. Senator from Texas Ted Cruz, one of the founding people of the Tea Party, or at least one of the most prominent members of the Tea Party, who was um filibustering against a continuing resolution to keep the government open, okay, or to reopen the government. He went solo as well he did. One was real. One was fake. What do you mean, Cruises was fake? It wasn't a real filibuster. It was basically stage dressing that looked like filibuster. But at its core, as we'll soon find out, it wasn't a filibuster because it was the result of a deal with Harry Reid that Ted Cruise would be allowed to speak for twenty one hours and then at the end of his twenty one hours, this vote would go on. The whole purpose of a filibuster is to prevent a vote from taking place. Not make a deal to speak for a certain amount of time. Uh, and then let the vote go through and then cruise even further wild people by voting in favor of the motion after he supposedly filibustered it. So we have one, very very real one Wendy Davis. She wasn't allowed to take a simple water, She had to stay on on topic, spoke NonStop for eleven hours, catheter the whole she had to stay on topic. Is that a new thing, Well, it isn't. It's a Texas state rule. And then Crews just basically spoke for twenty one hours, handed the lecture and over to I think Ram Paul. For a little while it was this kind of meandering or whatever. It looked like a filipbuster, but as we'll find out, it wasn't really, even though Davis was very much filibuster. So let's talk filibusters, man. Yeah, it's one of these. Well, I was about to say uniquely American, but it does happen and has happened in other countries. Actually dates back to ancient room, but it is uniquely American in the way that we do it and how it's abused. So, um, it's history does go back to ancient room. Cato the younger was a master of the filibuster. And this is back at a time when you actually could make pretty good use of the filibuster because the Senate rule was that all business had to be concluded by dusk. If it wasn't, sorry, it's off the table. So all you had to do a stand there technically for one day, and you could filibuster anything. It's pretty when you think about it. Yeah, and a lot of people, I think assume that it's like part of like the Constitution maybe nope, Or that the founding father said, hey, we need this rule the filibuster. Nope. Uh that perhaps it was um brought up by Superman and the guys at Clark Kent. Yes, okay, we get there something alright. So filibuster is an actual it's any sort of action that you can take to um block or delay action in the Senate House can't do it, Senate can, right, And it's it's it exists because there are rules. Yeah, it's a really it's an odd thing with an odd accidental history. Um. I guess first we should say that the name they believe comes from the Dutch word that means pirate, and as pirates take things hostage, filibustering can also be looked at its taking things off very much. So, I mean like a vote or a bill that wants to be introduced, confirmation or a nomination. Yeah, for a confirmation for a judge. Let's say, yeah, you're holding it hostage. Um. A lot of people think a filibuster is a good thing because it allows the minority, meaning the minority in the Senate to still have a voice and not just have to get run rush shot over by the majority. And the Senate has very has a long storied history of giving a tremendous amount of say and rights to the minority whichever whichever party that might be at any given time. Um. And so as a result, the filibuster was allowed to exist for a while ever since it was accidentally created. But initially the Senate and the House had a rule UM that prevented filibustering. Yeah, the previous question motion which required a majority vote, and it was not used though apparently ever so in eighteen o six they got rid of it. Yeah, the Senate did, and um kind of didn't realize what they had created was a bit of a loophole. And that now, if you wanted, you could get up and speak endlessly about something, and that's basically what it is. And Mr Smith goes to Washington. Jimmy Stewart did it and everyone loved it. But these days it's kind of a different story. Well, yeah, it's definitely lost a lot of its um substance to you know. Well, they didn't used to use it very much. No, And and that previous question motion, um, that's what it was called, right, Yeah, so that was basically like you could say, um, so is everybody ready for this guy to stop talking about this bill or can we be done with debate? And everybody says yeah, your nay? And then if it's yeah, then you just go on and and vote like it ends debate. But like you said, nobody was using it and so they just kind of threw it out because debate is Yeah, I guess it was Aaron Aaron Burr was saying, we need to simplify these rules. So the Senate did it. The House didn't, which is why you can't have a filibuster in the House because they never got rid of the previous question motion. But like you said, Jimmy Stewart did it. Everybody was just in awe of the idea of one all you need is one good senator and the rest of the Senate could be corrupt. But as long as you have Jimmy Stewart, one Jimmy Stewart in there. Yeah, and and a little bit of stamina, um, you the the truth justice in the American way can prevail. Um. And as you were saying, as a result, a lot of people think having a filibuster is a good thing because it prevents tyranny by the majority. Yeah. And in essence it is a good thing in a democracy. Um. And like I said, it wasn't used that much in the nineteenth century. The first one was not until eighteen thirty seven, and less than two dozen took place before the year nineteen hundred. Uh. In nineteen seventeen, things change with President Wilson got a little ticked off because there was a filibus for blocking a bill arming merchant ships in the Great War was being fought, and he said, we don't have time for this, so I'm gonna push to pass something called a culture rule, which means that we can cease this filibustering with the two thirds vote, right, And he didn't really have any say. I mean, the President is not the he's not involved in the Senate. That's the vice where he but he was. He was using all of his influence in public opinion against a quote a little group of willful men. Yeah. I mean he hated it, and he was a big champion of trying to limit it as much as possible. So the Senate passed this culture rule that said you can you can bring something to a vote with two thirds majority, which is sixty seven senators. That's right, that's still you know, that's a lot of people. That means that the will of the Senate, not just the majority. Uh, not just the majority party, I should say, but the actual Senate is like enough of this, Like, well, let's just we agree that we need to stop debating exactly. Uh. It has since been abused um or used depending on your viewpoint. UH. In the during the civil rights movement, racist senators used it to block all sorts of things, from anti lynching laws to civil rights UH bills and um successfully. Strom Thurman in n seven broke the record for speaking for twenty four hours and eighteen minutes. That's still the record straight. That's because no one else wants to do that, or has the stamina or the adult papers. We can't leave. We keep talking about that. We should explain you're not allowed to leave, even to pee. You have to keep talking. Well, that was the case until the seventies. Apparently, filibustering thanks to the um UH segregationists who are using it to prevent lynching, laws, to prevent the um UH, the Civil Rights Bill, UH, pretty much anything that had to do civil rights they were using the filibuster for. So by the time the seventies rolled around, the Senate passed a um A different rule that meant well, it said, if you want to bring a vote to cloture to end debate, no longer do you need sixty seven senators. You only need sixty, which is a little easier to get. But we're going to give the minority. Still. See, the Senate loves the minority, UM the ability to threaten a filibuster if they have forty one senators on board with that filipbuster, and you don't even have to stand up there anymore. Yeah, but you still can if you're a loan senator like it. It didn't eliminate the loan filibuster. Speaker, no because if you have forty or thirty nine or thirty eight, or it's just you, you're just that one person, then you have to stand up there still. But the idea that, um, if you had forty one senators who would, if called upon, would vote um against that clture, you don't have to talk, right because by definition, you have that filibuster power. And the whole idea of adding this rule was not just to kind of give a little back to the minority when you were taking it away by dropping it from a two thirds to three fifths majority for culture Um. They were also trying to make it so that the Senate business was more streamlined and efficient. But it had the unintended consequence of people saying like, oh, well, I'm I threatened filibuster. I'm gonna sit over here and I don't have to talk. I'm gonna threaten filibuster. So that means take this bill out of consideration and let's move on with the other business. And that's when bills just started getting blocked the left and right. Yeah yeah, um. And back to Thurman. Supposedly with the whole bathroom thing, he h took a steam bath to hydrate himself so he wouldn't have to peat. That's the story. I can imagine that would take for maybe ten twelve hours, but then twenty four hours he peat himself. You think, I'll bet it's just one of those untold stories of the Senate strom Thurm and Pete all over himself. Okay, so that's the simple filibuster, the one you don't see as much anymore because the one guy standing up. Yeah, now now it's more about, hey, we we can just threaten it and no one has to waste their time speaking and debating. But Chuck, it's also it does. It does keep you from wasting time. But because it's easy to do and because all you need are forty one senators, um, it's created a backlog. It's a really easy way for the minority to hold anything they want hostage, which is one reason why while a lot of people say it's a good thing to have a filibuster because it protects the minority from majority tyranny. Um, but having a filibuster means that really just a fairly small group of senators less than half can hold anything they want up and just that that one simple filibuster, the presence of it means that you can have any crazy nut who's a senator hold anything up that he wants as long as he's willing to stand there and talk. Ye. So there's some people who say we need to get rid of the filibuster. There's others who say, no, the filibuster has to exist. It's this accidental thing that the Framers didn't put in there, but it was a happy accident that it came about, and it proved it's worth as a as a part of democracy. Uh. Well, you mentioned earlier how who was who was the lady that Davis? Yeah, Wendy Davis who you said she had to stay on point because in Texas they say you have to stay on point. But federally there are no laws, specifically are rules that say you have to do so you just have to talk, which is fairly ridiculous. Uh in hughe p Long did such things as read Shakespeare and talk about cooking fried oysters site recipes and I'll bet you we Long had a pretty good fried oyster. Uh. It's just crazy. It's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. You know what, that you can say whatever you want. Yeah, that literally, that is what our government is doing they're up there talking about oyster recipes on the floor of the Senate to block a bill being introduced. Perhaps I've always equated filibusters with the senator standing up there reading from a phone book. I think that that was another common tactic too that Yeah, I don't know who did, but that's definitely been done USA, right, And yeah, I think it'should kind of should leave a it is, especially when it's not just at the very least, you should have to stand up there and debate your bill, debate your position and yes, and talk about what the issue is at hand. And if you're willing to do that, if you feel that passionate about that, then there's really not a lot of criticism that slong at you. But if you're staying out there talking oyster recipes, or in my opinion, if you're just saying they're in filibuster, that that that, to me is just that's hijacking. It is it's piracy. It is. Uh So that is not the only way you can waste time and block things from happening in Congress. Uh you can. There are all these little tactics that can be used. For instance, um, you can introduce a lot of amendments to a bill. UM, and instead of just saying waving the right and saying, you know what, we're introducing this amendment. Everyone knows it. We don't have to waste our time reading it, they can demand, well, I'm gonna introduce forty seven amendments to this bill, and we're gonna read each one in full. It's just a time wasting measure. You can also add on to that UM a roll call vote for each amendment, so you have an amendment read and then you have a role call taken for every senator to say whether they vote yeah your name for each amendment yeah, which would make it even more timely. Uh. Something called quorum calls. Apparently that UM ascertains a number of senators present. I don't know how that's different than a roll call. Role call is what what you're voting, like, like, how do you feel about this amendment? Are you present or not? Because you have to have a quorum. I can't remember how many makeup a quorum, but basically, like there has to be a certain amount of people present for Senate business to be conducted, So quorum would be to find out if there's enough people present and if you're just doing it delay time. They might be in their offices or whatever. They might be having dinner and they're still technically present. But if you call quorum call, then that means they have to come in and say present and then go back to dinner. Uh. There can be something called an anonymous hold, which allows someone to block a bill a man or woman in the Senate um when it requires unanimous consent in order to be voted on. But it's anonymous, which is kind of tricky because then you don't know who's holding up the gumming up the works, right, you know, then it turns into like a big game of clue. So, yeah, Harry read did it in the conservatory with the rope um. So filibuster reform surely something this weird and hanky should be looked at and reformed in order to retain the true spirit of of the filibuster. And over the years there's been a lot of talk about reform, a little bit of action about reform, but not a ton until recently. Uh. In the fifties there was but one filibuster procession, and in two thousand seven and two thousand eight there were one hundred and thirty nine threatened filibusters affecting seventy of major legislation in two thousands to seven two thousand, Right, is that amazing? Yeah, so it obviously got out of hand and people were abusing the power. I can't help but wonder also if the the concept that both groups are coming together to rule the country in a combined manner has become less and less of a concept over the last few decades as well. You know, is it? Is it? Or am I just like making that assumption and it's always been that way. There's always been that division. Is that the case or no? It seemed to be like my opinion is that it used to be checks and balances, and now it's not so much checks and balances as it in is just severe, severe digging in. It certainly seems that way, But maybe it was always like that. I don't know. I didn't grow up in the fifties. Yeah, I don't know either. They probably felt the same way that American people, did, you know, those jerks in Washington. You know, Oh, I'm sure they did. But I wonder if they had as much cause to say that as we do today. Like it the way it's always actually worse. I mean, the numbers would suggest that, you know. But is it just that the numbers are showing that people figure it out how to use a filibuster better than they knew before, smarter, or they're they're more depth at using it, or is government broken that much more to where there was one a year each year during the fifties and then there's a hundred and thirty nine a year in two thousand eight. Yeah, it seems broken to me, but I'm definitely indicates that to me too. Yeah, I'm fairly cynical about the state of modern politics, though I am too. And the thing that gets me the most about this is the idea that the government is broken because the two sides can't agree, even though really, if you get down to it, there's almost no distinction between Democrats and Republicans Ideologically here they're a little bit, but as definitely between liberals and conservatives, but between the Democrats and the Republicans, I feel there's almost no difference any long, like where the rubber meets the road, and not ideologically speaking, And so the idea that the government still can't function even when you have virtually one large mega party um is I don't understand it. I don't understand what's going on there. It's sad. It seems like it would be functioning in a really smooth manner and steamrolling over us. Silly boy. Uh So we've talked a lot about this weird process, UM, but we should talk about reform right after this message, right, okay, So back to it. We were talking before we went off on some of our personally thinking's about that it stinks now about reforming filibusters. But problems arise when you try to reform filibustering because that can be filibustered. Yeah, you know, yeah, if you have a proposals to reform filibustering, it's still a measure and you exactly. UM. So that this this whole talk of how to reform filibustering, some proposals came up in two thousand ten. UM. There were three good ones. One was, if you're filibustering, you can't threaten to filibuster any longer. You have to get up there and you have to talk play the part. That one that was shot down. Another one was that UM over the length of a filipbuster, the UM required number of senators to invoke clture just decreases, so a filibuster could only go on for so long before you get to like a simple majority. Now that was that was shot down. The third one you got that one. Yeah, it would have banned filibusters on motions bringing a bill to the floor, so you couldn't filibuster like maybe something to perform filibustering. None of those were passed. And the reason why, like you would think that one party would be like, well, we don't want filipbusters were in charge. They you have to remember that eventually you're not going to be in charge and you're gonna want a filibuster. Both parties filibuster. The Democrats filibuster Reagan's appointments and nominees in the eighties, just like the Republicans are filibustering Obama's right now. Yeah, I will say though, in fairness, it's record numbers now compared to even what Democrats did, And I'm not saying one is better than the other. No, No, it's much more highly evoked in recent years, and it's definitely been squarely on the shoulders of the Tea Party too. Yeah, it's been since the Tea Party started to get some um, some major seats for instance, I got a number for you. Uh. It used to be fairly rare to filibuster a judicial um presidential appointment. Like, it wasn't used that much for that. It was more for like bills and things. Uh. And there have been only about a hundred and eighty something times in the history of this country that that's been done and more than half of those have happened during the past seven years. Wow. So it wasn't used that much in the past, but in the past it's been happened I think more than ninety two times in the past seven years. Well you know what that suggests. That suggests that before those things were used, um, like a scalpel, and now they're just basically arbitrary. That's exactly what it was. In the eight years that um Bush Jr. Was in office, there was about a dozen of those nominees that were filibustered, as opposed to ninety two. And since Obama has been in there, so it's definitely not surgical anymore. And again, both parties use it, but it's being misused and has been for a while. Yes, And if you if you listen to the GOP, they're saying that Obama is trying to pack the courts. If you listen to the Democrats, they're saying, dude, nobody does this come on? Cool. So the reason that all those bills failed, um or the the reform failed in two thousand ten was because they basically did a little handshake deal where they said, um, all right, don't use filibustering so much to prevent these bills from being introduced. All right, I won't do that. And hey, you guys can add a bunch of amendments if you want to. And no one's gonna use the nuclear option. Are we all cool with that? Yeah, we're all cool with that. And then the GOP went back and started filibustering against so and so the Democrats use a nuclear option, Yeah, they did, which was huge. I remember Harry Reid threatened it and everybody's like, oh my gosh, okay, all right, UM, I can't remember what it was. There was the GOP was blocking something that Harry Reid really wanted to push through, and he said, I'm going to use the nuclear option and it works. Have we even said what that is? I don't think we have no. So the nuclear option is, uh, it's the power of the majority to use parliamentary procedures to change major rules, in this case, specifically to remove the ability to filibuster. Yeah, just for that session. Just for that Yeah, just for that session. I think. So I saw that in this article, but I didn't see it elsewhere. Well, so, so here's the thing. The majority holds the power to say, um, we're all we need is a simple majority senators, which we have as Democrats. Two change your rule, right, and that rule that we're going to change is that you don't need sixty senators to block a sixty one senators to block a filibuster or sixty sentators. I'm sorry, you only need which we the Democrats have simple majority. Yes, so that this has been in the power of whoever has been in the majority the whole time. But it's such a polarizing thing. It's saying like, we're we're taking away your ability to block what we want to push through through filibustering because we're taking away your ability to filibuster. We're gonna pass this rule with a simple majority, saying it just takes a simple majority to invoke culture and and debate and bring something to the floor. It's not saying, um, it only takes a simple majority to confirm this nominee, because that's already the case. So if you follow it backwards, it takes a simple majority confirmed a nominee. Now it just takes a simple majority to bring that nominee's confirmation to a vote. And they did that by passing a rule with a simple majority saying that we're going to end filibustering. Yeah, and that was just a few weeks ago on November twenty one, and it passed fifty eight all Republicans and three Democrats hopped to the other side and voted against it. And it was not for all filibustering. It was just filibustering on executive branch nominees and judicial nominees, but not Supreme Court, not yet other than the Supreme Court. Um. So it wasn't like, you know, for introducing a bill or whatever. But earlier this year they reached a compromise on some reform. Both sides worked out a bunch of new rules that changed the process somewhat. But I guess that wasn't enough in the case of Member twenty feet Harry Reid, because I kind of threw down the gauntlet which no one thought would ever happen. No, it's been an option for many, many years and no one's ever exercised it. So Harry read either said this is this is ridiculous, is out of control, or government's broken or Harry Reid was drunk with power, depending on who you talk to. Well, it kind of came down to the um or. This particular sticking point was about nominating UH judges to the United States Court of Appeals for DC, and Republicans said that, you know what, the d C circuit has really underworked, and they said that they could save a million dollars a year cut costs basically um, which is pretty preposterous considering the amount of money that's leaked away every second in Washington. Just that a is the argument makes the whole thing smell fishy to me. It's a little bit shallow um. And then Democrats said, no, you know what, you guys didn't have these concerns when Bush was appointing these nominees, and we need to maintain this court because in the size of it, because it's UH really complex, like this particular court is so I heard um. The Democrats tried to block appointments to that same court when Bush was in office, sure did string Yeah, So like apparently both sides just completely flip flop the same point. Yeah, and and took entirely one another's point when the when the presidency was well, it depends on who's in office and who has the majority on what your beliefs are. It seems like ye wishy washy is what I call that USA so um. As of November of this year, Obama presented seventy nine nominees who received culture votes. Bush had thirty eight in the eight years that he was in office. But we should say that most of those culture votes UM ended the debate and most of those nominees did clear the filibuster, right be You used to have a filibuster that required sixty senators, but a confirmation only required fifty one. So now it's fifty one and fifty one. And in the meantime, regular old Americans are out there like having real troubles and senators are on the floor talking. Actually that was I can't keep talking about the oyster thing, but still cathetering up in some cases. I'm pretty sure she had a catheter. Really, that's crazy, uh and uniquely American, I guess. So you got anything else. I got nothing else. I hate to sound so jaded about all this stuff, but it's kind of hard not to. I don't. I think you would be a drooling automaton if you didn't like get worked up about and just say it like this is how government should work. Yeah, if this didn't make you cynical, you know, it doesn't matter what party you're affiliated with or whether you're conservative or liberal. If you think things are working right now, there's you need to completely reevaluate your life. Yeah, it's hard. Did you hear Russell Brand go off a few weeks ago in the interview It's it's interesting, it's an interesting take, But don't go vote. Yeah, Like, it's hard to make an argument that your vote really matters these days. And I mean, like, if you're in a red state, deeply read state, and you're a Democrat, like there's really no reason for you to go vote states your vote might matter. And then and then and then those are the states that the the candidates go to and that the senators have more power than others. It's it is a broken system. But how many politicians in this country are out there truly like pure and chaste in their and their motives. I don't think there's a single one that's pure and chasing their motives, but I think some there are still some good ones out there now there are, and I guess I don't know. They believe in their own side. Things that go on behind closed doors you have to look out for. Are the ones that don't believe in their own side. They're just exploiting one side to get themselves into power. Those are the ones that are truly bad. At least, if you believe in your own side, you have conviction. Whether I agree with your convictions or not, at the very least respect the fact that you are convinced of your convictions, you know. But if you're just like, if you don't have any convictions and you're just out for power, then to tell with you, pal, buddy, lady, all of you. Yeah, so we're gonna move to Costa Rica. Do they have government there? Yeah? Government? There are there any islands, tropical islands that have no government. There's tons of uninhabited islands. Okay, that's what we need. And I'm not going to believe in anarchy. Would just be nice to move to an island. Well, there's not a bunch of jerks wasting your time and taking your money. Yeah, I don't know. Anarchies looking more and more attractively. We should do a podcast on anarchy. We really should. Uh. If you want to know more about filibustering, you can type that word into the search bar how stuff works dot com. And since I said search bar, that means it's time for listener mayl. All right, I'm gonna call this one. Uh, let's see if we can help out some heroin addicts. It's not funny, that's funny how I said it though. Hey, there, guys, thanks for keeping me entertained insane. Um, I'll explain the same part. I will let you know what's been up with me and how you guys have helped me in the past few months. I am a twenty five year old living in Santa Monica, California, and I'm a part of the huge homeless population there. Most nights of my girlfriend I end up staying in a motel in Venice, in l A, where we are both homeless. It is my fault we ended up this way. We were both addicted to heroin and it was because of me. Each day my girlfriend I have to go out and come up with a hundred and ten dollars in order to afford our heroine and our room since their daily habit each day, we have to do this. It is an awful way of life and we both feel horrible to been to get detox meds through the county clinics. But the waiting list to see a doctor to get into rehab like that has uh is a very long list. Indeed, unfortunately, there are not a lot of resources out there for drug addicts as far as detox is concerned. Um, what is that Switzerland? And actually there are not a lot of people are institutions that are willing to help unless the addictive person has insurance or money to pay for treatment. We're not bad people, um, just looking at it. In fact, you wouldn't know that we were addicted to heroin. We both have had jobs in the past and homes in the past, and she is even a college graduate and is certified to do special effects makeup. The reason why why I'm writing you guys, is because you can imagine this lifestyle is very stressful. It's a lot of pain, shame and guilt on a daily basis. Uh. In about three or four months ago, I came across your podcast, and it's really helped me get through some of the tough times. I found that listening to you when I'm gonna fight with my girlfriend or stressed or sad really helps me turn around my mood. So thanks for this, and thank Jerry as well. And this is from t J. And I told t J that we would put a call out, and I don't know if it will work or not, but if anyone in southern California has a resource for t J and his girlfriend to kick heroin, then we'd love to hear from you and we will put you in touch the email. Uh, t J, if you're listening. I don't know if this is gonna work, and this is about as far as we can take it, but um, if someone writes in, we will definitely put them in touch and uh see if we can get you guys off the junk. Yeah. So thanks for writing, and I'm glad we can help in some small way. Yeah, I'm glad we're doing something to help out you know. Yeah, we'll see. Um well, I mean like also turning his mood around. Yeah. True. But if you are a resource and can help these guys, email us um at our stuff podcast at Discovery dot com email just putting the subject line I can help the heroin addict. I think that's a great subject line. Uh. And until then, t J and girlfriends stay safe. Please, if you need some help that you think Chuck and I can help you out with, you should get in touch with us. You can tweet to us at s Y s K podcast. That's on Twitter. You can join us on Facebook dot com slash stuff you Should Know. You can send us an email to Stuff Podcasts at Discovery dot com, and you can join us at our home on the web, it's Stuff you Should Know dot com. For more on this and thousands of other topics, visit how Stuff Works dot com.

Hey, everybody, this is Chuck and uh surprise, you get a bonus episode this week and every Saturday moving forward with our s Y s K Selects episode. So what we decided to do was um to kind of you know, not everyone knows we have all these back episodes laying in wait to the tune of nine plus. So each week, UM, Josh will pick one, I'll pick one. We're gonna curate these. It might be Newsy, it might just be one of our favorites, and we're gonna publish them on Saturday. So if you if you haven't heard this one before, enjoy it. If you have, maybe listen again. Uh And this week I picked out Filibusters, especially because of kind of what's going on in this country right now with the looming nomination of uh Mr Gorsych to the Supreme Court and the threatened democratic filibuster. So if you don't know what filibusters are all about, give this episode to listen and everything will be a lot more clear and we hope you enjoy it. Welcome to Stuff you should know the house Stuff Works dot Com. Hey, and welcome to the podcast. I'm Josh Clark and with me is always at Charles Study, Chuck Bryant, and Jerry And that's the stuff you should know. I filibuster that you can't. I could talk for the next twenty four hours straight and not allow you to speak, and that would be filibuster in this podcast. Um, No, you'd actually be creating a podcast. Still, I guess we don't have any part elementary rules, So I mean, technically you could do that and it's a podcast. Still, upon reading this, it seems like the U. S. Government doesn't either, because one strategy is to just pick up your ball and go home. Yeah. I just sort of put the filibustering is, except you don't go home. No, you stand there and tell everybody else goes home. In the most classic example, which is what we're all about here at stuff you should know the classics, man, Um, Chuck. You know this year two thirteen, which is drawing to a close, Um, there were two very high profile filibusters. One was by Wendy Davis, member of the Texas State Senate, who filibustered against a proposed bill that would or a package of bills that would limit access to abortions. Did she actually do it like a solo filibuster? Yeah, the classic she had like on some snazzy pink magenta Mazzuno running shoes, back brace and I believe a catheter. Shut up. No, I'm not kidding, I'm I'm almost positive shad a catheter and spoke for eleven hours straight. Um. There was also another one by in September by U S. Senator from Texas Ted Cruz, one of the founding people of the Tea Party, or at least one of the most prominent members of the Tea Party, who was um filibustering against a continuing resolution to keep the government open, okay, or to reopen the government. He went solo as well he did. One was real. One was fake. What do you mean, Cruises was fake? It wasn't a real filibuster. It was basically stage dressing that looked like filibuster. But at its core, as we'll soon find out, it wasn't a filibuster because it was the result of a deal with Harry Reid that Ted Cruise would be allowed to speak for twenty one hours and then at the end of his twenty one hours, this vote would go on. The whole purpose of a filibuster is to prevent a vote from taking place. Not make a deal to speak for a certain amount of time. Uh, and then let the vote go through and then cruise even further wild people by voting in favor of the motion after he supposedly filibustered it. So we have one, very very real one Wendy Davis. She wasn't allowed to take a simple water, She had to stay on on topic, spoke NonStop for eleven hours, catheter the whole she had to stay on topic. Is that a new thing, Well, it isn't. It's a Texas state rule. And then Crews just basically spoke for twenty one hours, handed the lecture and over to I think Ram Paul. For a little while it was this kind of meandering or whatever. It looked like a filipbuster, but as we'll find out, it wasn't really, even though Davis was very much filibuster. So let's talk filibusters, man. Yeah, it's one of these. Well, I was about to say uniquely American, but it does happen and has happened in other countries. Actually dates back to ancient room, but it is uniquely American in the way that we do it and how it's abused. So, um, it's history does go back to ancient room. Cato the younger was a master of the filibuster. And this is back at a time when you actually could make pretty good use of the filibuster because the Senate rule was that all business had to be concluded by dusk. If it wasn't, sorry, it's off the table. So all you had to do a stand there technically for one day, and you could filibuster anything. It's pretty when you think about it. Yeah, and a lot of people, I think assume that it's like part of like the Constitution maybe nope, Or that the founding father said, hey, we need this rule the filibuster. Nope. Uh that perhaps it was um brought up by Superman and the guys at Clark Kent. Yes, okay, we get there something alright. So filibuster is an actual it's any sort of action that you can take to um block or delay action in the Senate House can't do it, Senate can, right, And it's it's it exists because there are rules. Yeah, it's a really it's an odd thing with an odd accidental history. Um. I guess first we should say that the name they believe comes from the Dutch word that means pirate, and as pirates take things hostage, filibustering can also be looked at its taking things off very much. So, I mean like a vote or a bill that wants to be introduced, confirmation or a nomination. Yeah, for a confirmation for a judge. Let's say, yeah, you're holding it hostage. Um. A lot of people think a filibuster is a good thing because it allows the minority, meaning the minority in the Senate to still have a voice and not just have to get run rush shot over by the majority. And the Senate has very has a long storied history of giving a tremendous amount of say and rights to the minority whichever whichever party that might be at any given time. Um. And so as a result, the filibuster was allowed to exist for a while ever since it was accidentally created. But initially the Senate and the House had a rule UM that prevented filibustering. Yeah, the previous question motion which required a majority vote, and it was not used though apparently ever so in eighteen o six they got rid of it. Yeah, the Senate did, and um kind of didn't realize what they had created was a bit of a loophole. And that now, if you wanted, you could get up and speak endlessly about something, and that's basically what it is. And Mr Smith goes to Washington. Jimmy Stewart did it and everyone loved it. But these days it's kind of a different story. Well, yeah, it's definitely lost a lot of its um substance to you know. Well, they didn't used to use it very much. No, And and that previous question motion, um, that's what it was called, right, Yeah, so that was basically like you could say, um, so is everybody ready for this guy to stop talking about this bill or can we be done with debate? And everybody says yeah, your nay? And then if it's yeah, then you just go on and and vote like it ends debate. But like you said, nobody was using it and so they just kind of threw it out because debate is Yeah, I guess it was Aaron Aaron Burr was saying, we need to simplify these rules. So the Senate did it. The House didn't, which is why you can't have a filibuster in the House because they never got rid of the previous question motion. But like you said, Jimmy Stewart did it. Everybody was just in awe of the idea of one all you need is one good senator and the rest of the Senate could be corrupt. But as long as you have Jimmy Stewart, one Jimmy Stewart in there. Yeah, and and a little bit of stamina, um, you the the truth justice in the American way can prevail. Um. And as you were saying, as a result, a lot of people think having a filibuster is a good thing because it prevents tyranny by the majority. Yeah. And in essence it is a good thing in a democracy. Um. And like I said, it wasn't used that much in the nineteenth century. The first one was not until eighteen thirty seven, and less than two dozen took place before the year nineteen hundred. Uh. In nineteen seventeen, things change with President Wilson got a little ticked off because there was a filibus for blocking a bill arming merchant ships in the Great War was being fought, and he said, we don't have time for this, so I'm gonna push to pass something called a culture rule, which means that we can cease this filibustering with the two thirds vote, right, And he didn't really have any say. I mean, the President is not the he's not involved in the Senate. That's the vice where he but he was. He was using all of his influence in public opinion against a quote a little group of willful men. Yeah. I mean he hated it, and he was a big champion of trying to limit it as much as possible. So the Senate passed this culture rule that said you can you can bring something to a vote with two thirds majority, which is sixty seven senators. That's right, that's still you know, that's a lot of people. That means that the will of the Senate, not just the majority. Uh, not just the majority party, I should say, but the actual Senate is like enough of this, Like, well, let's just we agree that we need to stop debating exactly. Uh. It has since been abused um or used depending on your viewpoint. UH. In the during the civil rights movement, racist senators used it to block all sorts of things, from anti lynching laws to civil rights UH bills and um successfully. Strom Thurman in n seven broke the record for speaking for twenty four hours and eighteen minutes. That's still the record straight. That's because no one else wants to do that, or has the stamina or the adult papers. We can't leave. We keep talking about that. We should explain you're not allowed to leave, even to pee. You have to keep talking. Well, that was the case until the seventies. Apparently, filibustering thanks to the um UH segregationists who are using it to prevent lynching, laws, to prevent the um UH, the Civil Rights Bill, UH, pretty much anything that had to do civil rights they were using the filibuster for. So by the time the seventies rolled around, the Senate passed a um A different rule that meant well, it said, if you want to bring a vote to cloture to end debate, no longer do you need sixty seven senators. You only need sixty, which is a little easier to get. But we're going to give the minority. Still. See, the Senate loves the minority, UM the ability to threaten a filibuster if they have forty one senators on board with that filipbuster, and you don't even have to stand up there anymore. Yeah, but you still can if you're a loan senator like it. It didn't eliminate the loan filibuster. Speaker, no because if you have forty or thirty nine or thirty eight, or it's just you, you're just that one person, then you have to stand up there still. But the idea that, um, if you had forty one senators who would, if called upon, would vote um against that clture, you don't have to talk, right because by definition, you have that filibuster power. And the whole idea of adding this rule was not just to kind of give a little back to the minority when you were taking it away by dropping it from a two thirds to three fifths majority for culture Um. They were also trying to make it so that the Senate business was more streamlined and efficient. But it had the unintended consequence of people saying like, oh, well, I'm I threatened filibuster. I'm gonna sit over here and I don't have to talk. I'm gonna threaten filibuster. So that means take this bill out of consideration and let's move on with the other business. And that's when bills just started getting blocked the left and right. Yeah yeah, um. And back to Thurman. Supposedly with the whole bathroom thing, he h took a steam bath to hydrate himself so he wouldn't have to peat. That's the story. I can imagine that would take for maybe ten twelve hours, but then twenty four hours he peat himself. You think, I'll bet it's just one of those untold stories of the Senate strom Thurm and Pete all over himself. Okay, so that's the simple filibuster, the one you don't see as much anymore because the one guy standing up. Yeah, now now it's more about, hey, we we can just threaten it and no one has to waste their time speaking and debating. But Chuck, it's also it does. It does keep you from wasting time. But because it's easy to do and because all you need are forty one senators, um, it's created a backlog. It's a really easy way for the minority to hold anything they want hostage, which is one reason why while a lot of people say it's a good thing to have a filibuster because it protects the minority from majority tyranny. Um, but having a filibuster means that really just a fairly small group of senators less than half can hold anything they want up and just that that one simple filibuster, the presence of it means that you can have any crazy nut who's a senator hold anything up that he wants as long as he's willing to stand there and talk. Ye. So there's some people who say we need to get rid of the filibuster. There's others who say, no, the filibuster has to exist. It's this accidental thing that the Framers didn't put in there, but it was a happy accident that it came about, and it proved it's worth as a as a part of democracy. Uh. Well, you mentioned earlier how who was who was the lady that Davis? Yeah, Wendy Davis who you said she had to stay on point because in Texas they say you have to stay on point. But federally there are no laws, specifically are rules that say you have to do so you just have to talk, which is fairly ridiculous. Uh in hughe p Long did such things as read Shakespeare and talk about cooking fried oysters site recipes and I'll bet you we Long had a pretty good fried oyster. Uh. It's just crazy. It's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. You know what, that you can say whatever you want. Yeah, that literally, that is what our government is doing they're up there talking about oyster recipes on the floor of the Senate to block a bill being introduced. Perhaps I've always equated filibusters with the senator standing up there reading from a phone book. I think that that was another common tactic too that Yeah, I don't know who did, but that's definitely been done USA, right, And yeah, I think it'should kind of should leave a it is, especially when it's not just at the very least, you should have to stand up there and debate your bill, debate your position and yes, and talk about what the issue is at hand. And if you're willing to do that, if you feel that passionate about that, then there's really not a lot of criticism that slong at you. But if you're staying out there talking oyster recipes, or in my opinion, if you're just saying they're in filibuster, that that that, to me is just that's hijacking. It is it's piracy. It is. Uh So that is not the only way you can waste time and block things from happening in Congress. Uh you can. There are all these little tactics that can be used. For instance, um, you can introduce a lot of amendments to a bill. UM, and instead of just saying waving the right and saying, you know what, we're introducing this amendment. Everyone knows it. We don't have to waste our time reading it, they can demand, well, I'm gonna introduce forty seven amendments to this bill, and we're gonna read each one in full. It's just a time wasting measure. You can also add on to that UM a roll call vote for each amendment, so you have an amendment read and then you have a role call taken for every senator to say whether they vote yeah your name for each amendment yeah, which would make it even more timely. Uh. Something called quorum calls. Apparently that UM ascertains a number of senators present. I don't know how that's different than a roll call. Role call is what what you're voting, like, like, how do you feel about this amendment? Are you present or not? Because you have to have a quorum. I can't remember how many makeup a quorum, but basically, like there has to be a certain amount of people present for Senate business to be conducted, So quorum would be to find out if there's enough people present and if you're just doing it delay time. They might be in their offices or whatever. They might be having dinner and they're still technically present. But if you call quorum call, then that means they have to come in and say present and then go back to dinner. Uh. There can be something called an anonymous hold, which allows someone to block a bill a man or woman in the Senate um when it requires unanimous consent in order to be voted on. But it's anonymous, which is kind of tricky because then you don't know who's holding up the gumming up the works, right, you know, then it turns into like a big game of clue. So, yeah, Harry read did it in the conservatory with the rope um. So filibuster reform surely something this weird and hanky should be looked at and reformed in order to retain the true spirit of of the filibuster. And over the years there's been a lot of talk about reform, a little bit of action about reform, but not a ton until recently. Uh. In the fifties there was but one filibuster procession, and in two thousand seven and two thousand eight there were one hundred and thirty nine threatened filibusters affecting seventy of major legislation in two thousands to seven two thousand, Right, is that amazing? Yeah, so it obviously got out of hand and people were abusing the power. I can't help but wonder also if the the concept that both groups are coming together to rule the country in a combined manner has become less and less of a concept over the last few decades as well. You know, is it? Is it? Or am I just like making that assumption and it's always been that way. There's always been that division. Is that the case or no? It seemed to be like my opinion is that it used to be checks and balances, and now it's not so much checks and balances as it in is just severe, severe digging in. It certainly seems that way, But maybe it was always like that. I don't know. I didn't grow up in the fifties. Yeah, I don't know either. They probably felt the same way that American people, did, you know, those jerks in Washington. You know, Oh, I'm sure they did. But I wonder if they had as much cause to say that as we do today. Like it the way it's always actually worse. I mean, the numbers would suggest that, you know. But is it just that the numbers are showing that people figure it out how to use a filibuster better than they knew before, smarter, or they're they're more depth at using it, or is government broken that much more to where there was one a year each year during the fifties and then there's a hundred and thirty nine a year in two thousand eight. Yeah, it seems broken to me, but I'm definitely indicates that to me too. Yeah, I'm fairly cynical about the state of modern politics, though I am too. And the thing that gets me the most about this is the idea that the government is broken because the two sides can't agree, even though really, if you get down to it, there's almost no distinction between Democrats and Republicans Ideologically here they're a little bit, but as definitely between liberals and conservatives, but between the Democrats and the Republicans, I feel there's almost no difference any long, like where the rubber meets the road, and not ideologically speaking, And so the idea that the government still can't function even when you have virtually one large mega party um is I don't understand it. I don't understand what's going on there. It's sad. It seems like it would be functioning in a really smooth manner and steamrolling over us. Silly boy. Uh So we've talked a lot about this weird process, UM, but we should talk about reform right after this message, right, okay, So back to it. We were talking before we went off on some of our personally thinking's about that it stinks now about reforming filibusters. But problems arise when you try to reform filibustering because that can be filibustered. Yeah, you know, yeah, if you have a proposals to reform filibustering, it's still a measure and you exactly. UM. So that this this whole talk of how to reform filibustering, some proposals came up in two thousand ten. UM. There were three good ones. One was, if you're filibustering, you can't threaten to filibuster any longer. You have to get up there and you have to talk play the part. That one that was shot down. Another one was that UM over the length of a filipbuster, the UM required number of senators to invoke clture just decreases, so a filibuster could only go on for so long before you get to like a simple majority. Now that was that was shot down. The third one you got that one. Yeah, it would have banned filibusters on motions bringing a bill to the floor, so you couldn't filibuster like maybe something to perform filibustering. None of those were passed. And the reason why, like you would think that one party would be like, well, we don't want filipbusters were in charge. They you have to remember that eventually you're not going to be in charge and you're gonna want a filibuster. Both parties filibuster. The Democrats filibuster Reagan's appointments and nominees in the eighties, just like the Republicans are filibustering Obama's right now. Yeah, I will say though, in fairness, it's record numbers now compared to even what Democrats did, And I'm not saying one is better than the other. No, No, it's much more highly evoked in recent years, and it's definitely been squarely on the shoulders of the Tea Party too. Yeah, it's been since the Tea Party started to get some um, some major seats for instance, I got a number for you. Uh. It used to be fairly rare to filibuster a judicial um presidential appointment. Like, it wasn't used that much for that. It was more for like bills and things. Uh. And there have been only about a hundred and eighty something times in the history of this country that that's been done and more than half of those have happened during the past seven years. Wow. So it wasn't used that much in the past, but in the past it's been happened I think more than ninety two times in the past seven years. Well you know what that suggests. That suggests that before those things were used, um, like a scalpel, and now they're just basically arbitrary. That's exactly what it was. In the eight years that um Bush Jr. Was in office, there was about a dozen of those nominees that were filibustered, as opposed to ninety two. And since Obama has been in there, so it's definitely not surgical anymore. And again, both parties use it, but it's being misused and has been for a while. Yes, And if you if you listen to the GOP, they're saying that Obama is trying to pack the courts. If you listen to the Democrats, they're saying, dude, nobody does this come on? Cool. So the reason that all those bills failed, um or the the reform failed in two thousand ten was because they basically did a little handshake deal where they said, um, all right, don't use filibustering so much to prevent these bills from being introduced. All right, I won't do that. And hey, you guys can add a bunch of amendments if you want to. And no one's gonna use the nuclear option. Are we all cool with that? Yeah, we're all cool with that. And then the GOP went back and started filibustering against so and so the Democrats use a nuclear option, Yeah, they did, which was huge. I remember Harry Reid threatened it and everybody's like, oh my gosh, okay, all right, UM, I can't remember what it was. There was the GOP was blocking something that Harry Reid really wanted to push through, and he said, I'm going to use the nuclear option and it works. Have we even said what that is? I don't think we have no. So the nuclear option is, uh, it's the power of the majority to use parliamentary procedures to change major rules, in this case, specifically to remove the ability to filibuster. Yeah, just for that session. Just for that Yeah, just for that session. I think. So I saw that in this article, but I didn't see it elsewhere. Well, so, so here's the thing. The majority holds the power to say, um, we're all we need is a simple majority senators, which we have as Democrats. Two change your rule, right, and that rule that we're going to change is that you don't need sixty senators to block a sixty one senators to block a filibuster or sixty sentators. I'm sorry, you only need which we the Democrats have simple majority. Yes, so that this has been in the power of whoever has been in the majority the whole time. But it's such a polarizing thing. It's saying like, we're we're taking away your ability to block what we want to push through through filibustering because we're taking away your ability to filibuster. We're gonna pass this rule with a simple majority, saying it just takes a simple majority to invoke culture and and debate and bring something to the floor. It's not saying, um, it only takes a simple majority to confirm this nominee, because that's already the case. So if you follow it backwards, it takes a simple majority confirmed a nominee. Now it just takes a simple majority to bring that nominee's confirmation to a vote. And they did that by passing a rule with a simple majority saying that we're going to end filibustering. Yeah, and that was just a few weeks ago on November twenty one, and it passed fifty eight all Republicans and three Democrats hopped to the other side and voted against it. And it was not for all filibustering. It was just filibustering on executive branch nominees and judicial nominees, but not Supreme Court, not yet other than the Supreme Court. Um. So it wasn't like, you know, for introducing a bill or whatever. But earlier this year they reached a compromise on some reform. Both sides worked out a bunch of new rules that changed the process somewhat. But I guess that wasn't enough in the case of Member twenty feet Harry Reid, because I kind of threw down the gauntlet which no one thought would ever happen. No, it's been an option for many, many years and no one's ever exercised it. So Harry read either said this is this is ridiculous, is out of control, or government's broken or Harry Reid was drunk with power, depending on who you talk to. Well, it kind of came down to the um or. This particular sticking point was about nominating UH judges to the United States Court of Appeals for DC, and Republicans said that, you know what, the d C circuit has really underworked, and they said that they could save a million dollars a year cut costs basically um, which is pretty preposterous considering the amount of money that's leaked away every second in Washington. Just that a is the argument makes the whole thing smell fishy to me. It's a little bit shallow um. And then Democrats said, no, you know what, you guys didn't have these concerns when Bush was appointing these nominees, and we need to maintain this court because in the size of it, because it's UH really complex, like this particular court is so I heard um. The Democrats tried to block appointments to that same court when Bush was in office, sure did string Yeah, So like apparently both sides just completely flip flop the same point. Yeah, and and took entirely one another's point when the when the presidency was well, it depends on who's in office and who has the majority on what your beliefs are. It seems like ye wishy washy is what I call that USA so um. As of November of this year, Obama presented seventy nine nominees who received culture votes. Bush had thirty eight in the eight years that he was in office. But we should say that most of those culture votes UM ended the debate and most of those nominees did clear the filibuster, right be You used to have a filibuster that required sixty senators, but a confirmation only required fifty one. So now it's fifty one and fifty one. And in the meantime, regular old Americans are out there like having real troubles and senators are on the floor talking. Actually that was I can't keep talking about the oyster thing, but still cathetering up in some cases. I'm pretty sure she had a catheter. Really, that's crazy, uh and uniquely American, I guess. So you got anything else. I got nothing else. I hate to sound so jaded about all this stuff, but it's kind of hard not to. I don't. I think you would be a drooling automaton if you didn't like get worked up about and just say it like this is how government should work. Yeah, if this didn't make you cynical, you know, it doesn't matter what party you're affiliated with or whether you're conservative or liberal. If you think things are working right now, there's you need to completely reevaluate your life. Yeah, it's hard. Did you hear Russell Brand go off a few weeks ago in the interview It's it's interesting, it's an interesting take, But don't go vote. Yeah, Like, it's hard to make an argument that your vote really matters these days. And I mean, like, if you're in a red state, deeply read state, and you're a Democrat, like there's really no reason for you to go vote states your vote might matter. And then and then and then those are the states that the the candidates go to and that the senators have more power than others. It's it is a broken system. But how many politicians in this country are out there truly like pure and chaste in their and their motives. I don't think there's a single one that's pure and chasing their motives, but I think some there are still some good ones out there now there are, and I guess I don't know. They believe in their own side. Things that go on behind closed doors you have to look out for. Are the ones that don't believe in their own side. They're just exploiting one side to get themselves into power. Those are the ones that are truly bad. At least, if you believe in your own side, you have conviction. Whether I agree with your convictions or not, at the very least respect the fact that you are convinced of your convictions, you know. But if you're just like, if you don't have any convictions and you're just out for power, then to tell with you, pal, buddy, lady, all of you. Yeah, so we're gonna move to Costa Rica. Do they have government there? Yeah? Government? There are there any islands, tropical islands that have no government. There's tons of uninhabited islands. Okay, that's what we need. And I'm not going to believe in anarchy. Would just be nice to move to an island. Well, there's not a bunch of jerks wasting your time and taking your money. Yeah, I don't know. Anarchies looking more and more attractively. We should do a podcast on anarchy. We really should. Uh. If you want to know more about filibustering, you can type that word into the search bar how stuff works dot com. And since I said search bar, that means it's time for listener mayl. All right, I'm gonna call this one. Uh, let's see if we can help out some heroin addicts. It's not funny, that's funny how I said it though. Hey, there, guys, thanks for keeping me entertained insane. Um, I'll explain the same part. I will let you know what's been up with me and how you guys have helped me in the past few months. I am a twenty five year old living in Santa Monica, California, and I'm a part of the huge homeless population there. Most nights of my girlfriend I end up staying in a motel in Venice, in l A, where we are both homeless. It is my fault we ended up this way. We were both addicted to heroin and it was because of me. Each day my girlfriend I have to go out and come up with a hundred and ten dollars in order to afford our heroine and our room since their daily habit each day, we have to do this. It is an awful way of life and we both feel horrible to been to get detox meds through the county clinics. But the waiting list to see a doctor to get into rehab like that has uh is a very long list. Indeed, unfortunately, there are not a lot of resources out there for drug addicts as far as detox is concerned. Um, what is that Switzerland? And actually there are not a lot of people are institutions that are willing to help unless the addictive person has insurance or money to pay for treatment. We're not bad people, um, just looking at it. In fact, you wouldn't know that we were addicted to heroin. We both have had jobs in the past and homes in the past, and she is even a college graduate and is certified to do special effects makeup. The reason why why I'm writing you guys, is because you can imagine this lifestyle is very stressful. It's a lot of pain, shame and guilt on a daily basis. Uh. In about three or four months ago, I came across your podcast, and it's really helped me get through some of the tough times. I found that listening to you when I'm gonna fight with my girlfriend or stressed or sad really helps me turn around my mood. So thanks for this, and thank Jerry as well. And this is from t J. And I told t J that we would put a call out, and I don't know if it will work or not, but if anyone in southern California has a resource for t J and his girlfriend to kick heroin, then we'd love to hear from you and we will put you in touch the email. Uh, t J, if you're listening. I don't know if this is gonna work, and this is about as far as we can take it, but um, if someone writes in, we will definitely put them in touch and uh see if we can get you guys off the junk. Yeah. So thanks for writing, and I'm glad we can help in some small way. Yeah, I'm glad we're doing something to help out you know. Yeah, we'll see. Um well, I mean like also turning his mood around. Yeah. True. But if you are a resource and can help these guys, email us um at our stuff podcast at Discovery dot com email just putting the subject line I can help the heroin addict. I think that's a great subject line. Uh. And until then, t J and girlfriends stay safe. Please, if you need some help that you think Chuck and I can help you out with, you should get in touch with us. You can tweet to us at s Y s K podcast. That's on Twitter. You can join us on Facebook dot com slash stuff you Should Know. You can send us an email to Stuff Podcasts at Discovery dot com, and you can join us at our home on the web, it's Stuff you Should Know dot com. For more on this and thousands of other topics, visit how Stuff Works dot com.