April 24, 2025 • 39 mins
In this episode, Mary Katharine Ham and Karol Markowicz discuss significant current events, focusing on a Supreme Court case regarding parental rights in education, particularly concerning gender instruction in schools. They explore the cultural implications of children's literature and the ongoing internal conflicts within the right, exemplified by the situation surrounding Pete Hegseth. Normally is part of the Clay Travis & Buck Sexton Podcast Network - new episodes debut every Tuesday & Thursday.
Follow Clay & Buck on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/clayandbuck
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
Hey, guys, we are batting along normally the show with
normal she takes.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
But when the news gets weird, I am Mary Catherine.
Speaker 3 (00:09):
And I am Carol Marko. I'm Mary Catherine.
Speaker 4 (00:11):
I feel like it's been a month since I spoke
to you.
Speaker 2 (00:15):
Look, the news cycle never stops, my friend.
Speaker 1 (00:19):
There's a lot going on, by the way, programming note,
if you did not listen to us on the Ruthless podcast,
you should.
Speaker 3 (00:25):
That's fun.
Speaker 2 (00:26):
Got to make a guest visit with the fellas, so
that was good.
Speaker 4 (00:29):
Well, some of the fellas you know comfortably. Smug is
afraid afraid to face.
Speaker 2 (00:33):
Me, so you can't face you just can't.
Speaker 3 (00:36):
I'm joking.
Speaker 4 (00:37):
Smug and I are friends, but we got a lot
of lib jokes on each other. And I've been on
Ruthless twice now and he did not appear for either
the show. So it's a running joke that he is afraid.
Speaker 2 (00:50):
Why is he scared?
Speaker 4 (00:51):
I don't know.
Speaker 1 (00:52):
I don't know, man, But it was nice to be
on with them and uh to reach some other folks.
Speaker 2 (00:58):
So should we get straight into the.
Speaker 3 (01:00):
Get it straight into it?
Speaker 1 (01:02):
Yeah, we had an important case at the Supreme Court yesterday.
Now this one's been brewing for a while, and you
and I have been following it. Yeah, one, because your
book Stolen Youth covers this subject exactly, and your co author,
Bethany Mandel, lives in the county where this big case originated.
(01:24):
So the Montgomery County school Board wanted to have and
did inflict upon the parents of Montgomery County a lot
of gender and sexual instruction, instruction starting as early as
three and into the very early grades of elementary school
through various means and story books and this kind of thing.
(01:45):
And the parents in Montgomery County said, hey, we'd love
to opt out of this, and Montgomery County was like, no,
we take away that option.
Speaker 2 (01:54):
Is that correct?
Speaker 4 (01:58):
That is actually exactly what happened. And it's crazy because
they're not saying, and you know, I don't think they
should be taught in schools.
Speaker 3 (02:06):
So that's where I am. But the parents who have
a problem with this aren't even saying that.
Speaker 4 (02:12):
They're just saying, I don't want my kid being taught this,
and I want to opt them out. And that should
be a fairly easy call, right And yet here we
are at the Supreme Court, and it's worth.
Speaker 1 (02:26):
Noting that the plaintiff in this case is a Muslim family.
There are many religious Jewish families in this area as
well as Christians, of course, and it's not obviously just
religious families that have objections to this kind of instruction,
but it is an interesting alliance of all three of
the major religion.
Speaker 2 (02:48):
In Montgomery in.
Speaker 4 (02:49):
Very you know, I would just guess all the minor
ones are also against teaching porn to kids.
Speaker 3 (02:55):
I don't know.
Speaker 1 (02:56):
Yes, in the very liberal county of Montgomery County, these
three groups nonetheless come together and say this is our line.
Speaker 2 (03:05):
Man.
Speaker 1 (03:05):
So the school board says, no, you can't opt out.
And what was hilarious to me is once this gets
to the Supreme Court and the school board's lawyer is
arguing with one of the justices, and well the justice
says like, well, like, why couldn't you just do an
opt out? There's opt outs for all sorts of things
for parents, and the lawyers basically like, well, so many
(03:27):
people opted out that it really became a problem.
Speaker 2 (03:33):
It's like, yeah, so is it the parents that are
the problem or is it the curriculum that is the problem.
Speaker 4 (03:41):
That's right, And Bethany points out that Montgomery County public
schools must have spent about two million dollars to get
this argument about forcing families to read these books that
are counter to their religious beliefs. As Bethany points out
to Scotus, that is congratts guys that should have been
(04:01):
spent elsewhere.
Speaker 5 (04:03):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (04:04):
Well, and it strikes me that, you know, again, you'll
see it framed in a lot of media as parents
want to make decisions about the curriculum.
Speaker 2 (04:14):
These parents did not wish to.
Speaker 1 (04:17):
Change the curriculum like some of them might have wished
on the margins to change them if they had their brothers.
But their request is simply, can we just pull our
kids out of this part of instruction? And there's this telling.
It's a little long, it's two minutes, but I want
you to listen to the Montgomery County lawyer speak to
Justice Gorsich about one of the books that they introduced
(04:41):
as early as three years old, and just think about
the fact that parents have to bring this to the
Supreme Court to be adjudicated. Here's Justice Gorsus talking to
the school board's lawyer.
Speaker 6 (04:56):
What age do you in Montgomery County teach students normally
about human sexuality?
Speaker 5 (05:03):
I think that it begins in either fourth or fifth grade.
Speaker 7 (05:07):
The Human Sexuality class.
Speaker 5 (05:09):
Family Life and Human Sexuality curriculum. I'm not entirely sure.
Speaker 6 (05:13):
It starts in fourth or fifth grade. I think, is
there anything you can point us to in the record on.
Speaker 5 (05:17):
That, I don't think so?
Speaker 7 (05:19):
Okay. And second, these books are being used in English class.
Speaker 5 (05:25):
The division between English class and other things in a
second grade classroom doesn't really exist. You're sort of in
a room with a teacher.
Speaker 6 (05:31):
And sometimes I appreciate that I went to second grade too,
but it's part of the English curriculum that these books
are being used in. That's I thought that was.
Speaker 5 (05:42):
Yeah. I'm not fighting the premise.
Speaker 6 (05:44):
I'm just saying, it's not the math class, it's not
the human sexuality class.
Speaker 5 (05:47):
It's it is certainly not the human sexuality class. I'm
just sort of fighting the premise that there's a neat disciser.
Speaker 6 (05:53):
Okay, And they're being used in English language instruction at
age three, some of them.
Speaker 5 (06:00):
So Pride Puppy was the book that was used for
the pre kindergarten curriculum. That's no longer in the curriculum.
Speaker 6 (06:06):
That's the one where they are supposed to look for
the leather and things and bondage things like that.
Speaker 5 (06:11):
It's not bomb site a woman and a leather.
Speaker 7 (06:13):
Sex worker, right, No, no, it's not correct.
Speaker 3 (06:15):
No, gosh, I read it directly.
Speaker 5 (06:21):
The leather that they're pointing to is a woman in
a leather jacket and one of the words is drag.
Speaker 7 (06:26):
Queen in this and they're supposed to look for those.
Speaker 5 (06:29):
It is an option at the end of the book.
Speaker 6 (06:30):
Correct, Okay, And you're you've included these in the English
language curriculum rather than the Human Sexuality curriculum to influence students.
Speaker 7 (06:43):
Is that fair? That's what the district court found.
Speaker 5 (06:47):
I think to the extent the district Court found that
it was to influence. It was to influence them towards
civility then natural consequence of being exposed.
Speaker 7 (06:54):
Whatever, But to influence them.
Speaker 5 (06:57):
In the manner that I just mentioned.
Speaker 2 (06:58):
Yes, what a I enjoy that. Whatever. There's a couple
of things happening here.
Speaker 1 (07:03):
One Gourse is just pointing out you're introducing this to
three year olds because you didn't put it in the Human.
Speaker 2 (07:08):
Sexuality which starts much later.
Speaker 1 (07:11):
You smuggled it into three year olds in pre K
under the English guidelines. And then he goes on to
describe some of the things that are in this book,
and he does get it slightly wrong that this is
not a sex worker. There is a drag queen in
the book. There is a piece of There is a
leather garment to which students are supposed to point at
(07:34):
some point, and it is just it's like a lady
wearing a leather jacket.
Speaker 2 (07:38):
It's chaps.
Speaker 3 (07:40):
But is it a drag queen wearing a leather joe?
Speaker 1 (07:42):
It possibly everyone is a confusing and uncertain gender identification
in this book. But again the idea and the district
is the district has also admitted in lower courts that
the point of introducing this was to influence children. That
(08:02):
was the point of having this book, right, this inclusive book,
quote unquote, was to influence children in a direction by
the way the parents have lost at the lower courts
because sanity could not be understood there.
Speaker 2 (08:15):
And I'm just trying to imagine, like.
Speaker 1 (08:17):
My parents in the eighties having to go to the
Supreme Court to say, like maybe a book with a
drag queen in it should not be presented to three
year olds. That's the conversation we must have. Those are
the scraps of sanity that Montgomery County parents must go
to the mats form.
Speaker 4 (08:37):
Right, it's crazy because when you tell the story to people,
I think just the normies listening and the normies who
we love are like, this can't be happening. This can't
be happening. But this is at the Supreme Court and
it is happening. And I have to tell you also
that one of the kind of scarier things of the
last few years was that the other side did such
(09:01):
a great job of portraying this kind of thing as
book banning. So book banning. If you don't wand want
Pride Puppy read to your three year old three year old, right,
that is an example of book banning by these people.
So and I have seen you know it's been pulled,
this banning banning quote unquote, these kinds of books did
(09:25):
not pull well.
Speaker 3 (09:27):
It's very interesting.
Speaker 4 (09:28):
That they actually got this to be a problem, that
taking these kinds of books out of schools became a
problem and an issue. But when you hear what's in
the books, it really changes people's minds.
Speaker 5 (09:41):
Well.
Speaker 1 (09:42):
And so one of the things that tripped up the
lawyer in this case for the school board is that
the justices had read these books, they had seen what
was in them. And this is a This is a
straw man that the left often uses, particularly at high
school and middle school levels, where they're like, this is
just a graphic novel, and then you actually see some
of the graphic novel or the parents those one of
(10:04):
my favorite moves. The parents will read the graphic novel
at a school board meeting and the school board will
be like, you can't say that at our meeting, and
they're like, well, that sort of proves my point, right.
So some of the titles of these books for very
very young kids again Born Ready, the True Story of
a Boy named Penelope, Rainbow Revolutionaries, fifty LGBTQ plus people
(10:24):
who made history. And suddenly Montgomery County is faced with
a very diverse crowd of objectors to these titles. And
they were sort of like, wait, wait, wait, we're good libs.
Why are the ethnic minorities in our district upset about this?
Speaker 2 (10:41):
And that's because they're often more normal than the libs.
The white no true are not the normal. Right.
Speaker 4 (10:48):
So I've told the story on here before, but I
moved to Florida from a very white liberal neighborhood of
Park Slope. My kids were given books to take home
from their school so often, and it was always on
a trans topic.
Speaker 3 (11:05):
We have like five copies I only have three kids.
We have five copies.
Speaker 4 (11:08):
Of Julian is a Mermaid, which is a mad a
little boy who wants to be a girl, and et cetera.
It's crazy how openly this has pushed in some areas,
and the fact that they're getting pushed back and that's
gone all the way to.
Speaker 3 (11:22):
The Supreme Court.
Speaker 4 (11:23):
I love that this is going to get attention to
this because I think people just don't understand how prevalent
this is.
Speaker 7 (11:30):
Well.
Speaker 1 (11:30):
And you know, I'm a person who look, if my
kids came across Pride Puppy, I'm not.
Speaker 2 (11:34):
Going to be like, oh no, right, oh they yeah,
shield their eyes whatever.
Speaker 1 (11:40):
I do think it's weird if you want to be
pushing that at three to my child. I get to
make those decisions. And also, the prevalence is what you're
talking about where I mean, it's changed a bit in
the vibe shift. We used to go to Barnes and
Noble or any bookstore. I actually, to illustrate this, I
went to a bookstore in pennsylv And I saw a
(12:01):
children's display that had all, I think, almost exclusively non
woke titles.
Speaker 2 (12:08):
And I don't mean anti woke titles.
Speaker 1 (12:11):
I just mean classic children's books, things that are stories
about children that are not trans stories about children that
are not race related.
Speaker 2 (12:20):
Like it, if you go to a Barnes and Noble,
that's almost exclusively.
Speaker 1 (12:24):
What you see, or was up until like a year
and a half ago, right, And so the prevalence is
weird where what you're being offered and what you're being
pushed is almost exclusively this stuff. And every time I
read a novel for my kids that's come out in
the last five years, I'm like, just brace for it,
like whatever it is, it's coming, right, it's coming.
Speaker 2 (12:45):
They can't do it without.
Speaker 4 (12:46):
Yeah, I think we're going to look back at this
era and see how insane it was. And it's not
just children's books either. One of my favorite fiction writers
is a guy named Blake Nelson. He wrote a lot
of nine.
Speaker 3 (13:00):
These books, like Girl It Goes Wade into a movie.
Speaker 4 (13:02):
He had this piece on his substack the other day
where he was talking about how every book he picks
up by a female writer is anti men, and he's like.
Speaker 3 (13:12):
I just don't want to read this anymore. And he's
a left of central guy.
Speaker 4 (13:16):
Who would it is actively seeking out female writers to
read and is just like, I don't want to read
about how I'm trash, and I think this whole era
is going to look so dated when we get past it,
if we get past it.
Speaker 1 (13:31):
Well, And this is one of those things too where
Greg Lukianov calls it the gauntlet of conformity, where in
order to get a book published as a woman writer,
let's say, if that's not in your book, right, you
ain't getting to the next level of the process. That
thing's not getting published, and it will take a couple
(13:51):
of years for that to work itself out of the system,
unless like you're you and me and you can maybe
get an explicitly political right published.
Speaker 4 (14:00):
Or a conservative publisher specifically. Yeah, but it's sad that
it has to come to that. And you know, Mary
Margaret I forgot her last name from Daily Wire all
in right from Daily Wire.
Speaker 3 (14:13):
Somebody called her.
Speaker 4 (14:14):
A maga writer or a maga journalist the other day
because she reports from the White House briefing room, and
her comment was, if I'm maga reporter. Who are what
are you guys reporters?
Speaker 2 (14:27):
Right?
Speaker 4 (14:27):
So I think that when we say, like, oh, only
conservative publishers would publish this kind of book, who are
the other publishers? You know, they're all political leftist publishers
and they kind of need to be ascribed.
Speaker 1 (14:39):
Well, it sounded like the justices were friendly to the
argument of the parents in this case.
Speaker 2 (14:46):
To me, it makes absolute.
Speaker 1 (14:47):
Sense that they should just have an option to not
do this kind of content. And one of the things
I noted that I think is such a huge difference
between my childhood and the way I'm raising my kids.
I was raised in a liberal area. My kids are
raised in a liberal area. In order for me to
get them in just neutral activities, almost they're almost exclusively
(15:10):
religious activities, right, because explicitly religious is normal now as
opposed to secular, which used to be normal and now
has become liberal religious.
Speaker 3 (15:20):
Right, it's so crazy.
Speaker 4 (15:22):
Oh, this is really bane of my existence because I'm
not religious and this I mean or not observant in
Jewish terms.
Speaker 3 (15:29):
Yes, yeah, it's really tough.
Speaker 1 (15:32):
Well, that's what I was saying, Like, even if you're
not particularly religious, if you want your kid in a
basically normal craft group or scouting group, Like you just
pick the one that's sort of religious and they might
just be like a normal eighties group. That's my this
is my tactic, this is how I go about it.
Speaker 4 (15:51):
Yeah, how far we've come. I think this is going
to be nine zero at the Supreme Court, and if
it's not, I'm going to be surprised and appalled.
Speaker 1 (16:00):
So a big win would be great for parents everywhere
and a nice rebuke to people who have gotten us
to the point where you have to go to the
Supreme Court to say, can I please.
Speaker 2 (16:08):
Off my kid out of pride? Puppy right people?
Speaker 1 (16:13):
Yeah, and they wonder why I'm not in the public
schools era.
Speaker 4 (16:16):
Now I we'll be right back on normally. Our next
topic is the Pete Hegseeth story, which is continuing to
be an ongoing story. I went pretty hard to support
Pete before he was nominated or when he was nominated,
(16:38):
and now I feel very defensive of him in this position.
I think that he has had some missteps. I can't
say that the Signal group chat was a moment of
you know where I thought things were going amazing for him,
But it does seem like the knives are out for
(16:58):
him beyond any of that. So let's get into it.
Dan Caldwell, he was a senior advisor to heg Seth,
has been placed on administrative leave for leaking information to
the media. And he went on Tucker Carlson and he
said that none of that. You know, the language that
(17:20):
they used was he didn't leak classified information, which left
a lot of room to say he did leak information.
I'm sorry, good riddance. Good people who leak information to
the media should be kicked out. And I think that
some of what is going on with Pete heg Seth
is very inside baseball. We'll try to get into it here.
(17:43):
We'll try to keep it as normy as possible. But
John Oulat resigned last week as a Pentagon spokesperson, Yes,
and he wrote an article in political trashing heg Sath.
Then Donald Trump Junior took to X and said, I've
been hearing for years that he oh yet works his
ass off to subvert my father's agenda.
Speaker 3 (18:04):
That ends today.
Speaker 4 (18:05):
He's officially exiled from our movement. I do think that
some of this really is a split.
Speaker 2 (18:12):
On the right policy.
Speaker 4 (18:15):
Yeah, on policy.
Speaker 2 (18:16):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (18:16):
So Eli Lake is always interesting to read on this
stuff because he has a lot of defense contacts and
policy contacts. So he wrote in the Free Press, and
he just gives a nice, like three paragraph outlay of
like kind of what the lay of the land his here.
It's been nearly one hundred days into the Trump presidency
and his administration appears bitterly divided over what to do
about Iran Secretary of State was not present for the
negotiations between the Mulla's diplomats and Trump's personal friend and
(18:39):
special on voice, Steve Whitcoff. Mago world influencers have staked
out opposing positions on whether to bomb Moren's nuclear facilities
or go for an Obama style deal. The battle is
at its nastiest inside the Pentagon, where the restrainer wing
of the administration and the more hawkish Defense Secretary Pete
Hegsas with whom we both I think agree on this,
are now in direct bureaucratic conflict. On Tuesday, he Seth
(19:02):
told Fox News that three recently fired senior officials are
now attempting to leak and sabotage to President's agenda. But
is this civil war about foreign policy ideology? Or is
it about a breach and trust between a cabinet secretary
and his closest advisors. Either way, a deep friendship has
been torn asunder. So the question is is the underlying
thing the foreign policy differences or is it a personality
(19:24):
dispute that is being sort of using the foreign policy
dispute as its cover, and people are sort of knifing
as they sometimes do in Washington. It is interesting because
Caldwell and several of these other folks have been very
close allies of.
Speaker 2 (19:40):
Hegsath for a long time.
Speaker 1 (19:42):
This guy's not new to the crew, right, and so
that part is concerning in Oliat And I don't know
what the real deal is on his motivations, but his
peace and Politico also puts in there kind of some
pretty flowery language about the things they were able to
accomplish with at Defense and the things that he was
(20:03):
proud of, and how he wants this administration to work.
So I'm a little confused about what's happening here.
Speaker 4 (20:10):
Yeah, you know, I try not to be the when
you have a hammer, the whole world like looks like
a nail. But a lot of this to me is
also tied into kind of the growing anti Semitism on
the right, and I have been foolishly on the for
you tab on x, which has really fallen off recently.
(20:31):
Actually a lot of people have mentioned it, like it
was really good for a minute there and now it's like,
I actually don't want to see any of these people.
Speaker 3 (20:37):
They're not for me.
Speaker 2 (20:38):
Mine is real hit and miss I get.
Speaker 1 (20:40):
I get this is a weird thing, but I get
a lot of Hailey Bieber news in for you.
Speaker 3 (20:44):
I actually would prefer that to what.
Speaker 1 (20:46):
I don't understand how it happened, Like I just clicked
on one too many Selena and Haley conspiracy theories.
Speaker 2 (20:52):
Here I am so and aside.
Speaker 4 (20:54):
So I'll get like an account like Patriot one nine seven,
four to two, and they'll be spit absolute fire about
like somebody in the administration. And I'm not talking about
like Marco Rubio or even like Pam Bondi, but sort
of like the real deal mega members like Pete Hegsett,
dom Gino, Cash Patel. And then I'll click over to
(21:14):
the page and most of the tweets are Cash Bateel
is a sellout, And then the next tweet will almost
always be and the Jews did nine to eleven and
so I feel like there is this and you know,
it's a through line kind of from this jew hatred
to trying to bring down the Trump administration. I don't
know if these accounts are American or a foreign op.
(21:37):
It obviously could be very much a foreign op. But
there's absolutely an online movement to seem like the right
is turning on the Trump administration, and it's driven by
this conspiratorial anti Semitic gunch. And to see these people,
you know, again they're anonymous on X but then watch
(21:58):
their kind of insan play out in real time elsewhere
is concerning.
Speaker 1 (22:05):
Yeah, I don't love the Caldwell to Tucker pipeline. As
soon as you leave, you go straight there.
Speaker 4 (22:11):
Well, the question is who was called Well leaking to
And the answer is maybe the guy who tweeted about
the I'm not going to war where Iran at a
really random time in the last few weeks.
Speaker 1 (22:22):
So well, and he says he didn't like you said.
He says he didn't classified info. We have yet to
see if he's under investigation. It doesn't I mean not
to be a sap, but it does make me a
little sad that this seems like several major longtime friendships, yeah,
have fallen apart hearing. And the thing for heg Seth, Look,
I don't think Trump is getting rid of him, because
(22:43):
I think Trump was invested him in him and liked
the way that he fought and got over the hill
in his confirmation hearings. Heg Seth was treated unfairly during
the investigations of his personal life and past during his
confirmation hearings, and he was right to fight back, and
I think that's one of the reasons he did get confirmed. Yeah,
the signal stuff is boneheaded and they need to This
(23:05):
is what we said after the original signal story broke, right,
what are you doing to make sure that none.
Speaker 2 (23:10):
Of this happens again?
Speaker 1 (23:12):
Yeah, and you have a story of another signal chat
that existed, right, so whatever that is.
Speaker 4 (23:17):
Maybe that one is kind of unnamed sources and we
don't really know, but the first one was really bad,
you know, so whatever, even if the second one doesn't exist,
the first one was no good.
Speaker 1 (23:29):
Yes, can we just nip that in the butt, make
sure that we're taking care of that. And then I
do think for my hesitation such that it was on
Hegseth was about management and if this is the drama
that has fallen out, Yeah, part of his job is
to manage this so that you do not have this
drama that ends up spilling over and perhaps hurting the
(23:51):
administration's goals. Although I'm not sure what the administration's goals
are either, because there is a lot of talk about
some deal with Iran, and I'm like, why why would Yeah,
can we not be depoa which is the Obama deal
that you turned you know, you got rid of.
Speaker 3 (24:05):
So much that.
Speaker 4 (24:06):
Yeah, And I want to just say unequivocally, I pose
war with Iran. I feel like the options presented to
us always are we need to make a deal with
Iran like Obama did, or we go to war like
I feel like there's some other things in between there
that we can potentially work out. And a lot of
this again, to bring it back to Israel, is US
(24:29):
giving Israel permission to do what they need to do
to keep themselves safe and sort of keep Iran contained.
Speaker 2 (24:36):
Win.
Speaker 1 (24:37):
By the way, Iran is basically naked before the world
because many of their defenses have been already taken out.
Speaker 2 (24:43):
Yeah, that's part of it too.
Speaker 1 (24:45):
There's a time there's a time crunch here so before
they rebuild their defenses, you could have a clearer shot.
Speaker 2 (24:51):
Yes.
Speaker 4 (24:51):
And of course there was the night where the missiles
took like ten hours to get to Israel, and everyone
just like it, partied in Israel and then went to
the bunkers because they were like, the missiles.
Speaker 2 (25:00):
Aren't even here. Set in alarm, right in alarm.
Speaker 5 (25:05):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (25:06):
John and Rassic from five for Fighting actually had a
concert that night, and he said that everybody was like,
we have reservations to a restaurant, so we're going and
then we'll be at the bunker when you know, when
they get closer. Anyway, Trump defended Hegseth. He said, ask
the whotis how he's doing.
Speaker 3 (25:23):
And you and I have.
Speaker 4 (25:24):
Talked about how we saw Hegseth as a magnet for
young men to rejoin the military. I can tell you
as of last week, the army has enlisted fifty one,
eight hundred and thirty seven recruits, or eighty five percent
of its goal for twenty twenty five, which is sixty
one thousand. They enlisted nearly three hundred and fifty soldiers
(25:46):
every day in December twenty twenty four. It was the
most productive december for the military branch in fifteen years.
Speaker 3 (25:54):
I believe in Pete Hegseth.
Speaker 4 (25:56):
I hope he holds on and I that this is
a split that is contained in this administration.
Speaker 2 (26:04):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (26:05):
I'm with you and I'm with them. I'm like one,
I want the administration to succeed. Yeah, not an a
JCPOA oh yeah yeah that talk is making me nervous,
but yes, and such that it will succeed. That you
need somebody who is you know, backed by good people
and keeping those people within the circle.
Speaker 4 (26:25):
We're going to take a short break and come right
back with normally.
Speaker 2 (26:31):
Shall we move on to still mad?
Speaker 1 (26:33):
Bro?
Speaker 5 (26:33):
Yeah?
Speaker 3 (26:33):
Are you still mad?
Speaker 2 (26:34):
Bro?
Speaker 3 (26:34):
I am like so, ma newly mad Bro? Why do
they keep making me mad?
Speaker 1 (26:40):
Bro?
Speaker 2 (26:40):
Yeah?
Speaker 3 (26:42):
Go ahead.
Speaker 1 (26:42):
I'm about to get really mad because I just got
David's Wige's book in the mail, which is an abundance
of caution American schools, the virus and a story of
bad decisions. And I would have even just added a
very bad decision.
Speaker 3 (26:54):
In there, super bad decision.
Speaker 1 (26:56):
So I keep saying I'm looking forward to reading this book,
But am I? Because I'm going to be lived for
like three days.
Speaker 4 (27:03):
Yeah, you're gonna have to relive all of that. But again,
these people are making us relive it anyway, so we
may as well get mad.
Speaker 3 (27:12):
And that's it. That's right.
Speaker 4 (27:15):
So Claire Leyman, she is the founder and editor of Couillette.
She was a COVID zealot. She tweeted really crazy things
at the time. She lives in Australia. Australia went absolutely bananas.
They locked down in a really serious way for a
very long time. I met a woman in Florida who
(27:37):
moved here from Australia and her talking about it, she
just broke into tears, like it was a trying time.
So Claire tweeted out a Tyler Cohen article we'll get
to that in a second in the Free Press. But
she said her tweet was lablique possible but not proven.
(27:57):
No evidence of international collusion with China NPIs, which means
non pharmaceutical interventions. Yeah, showed measurable effectiveness vaccine messaging. Optimistic
claims do not equal deliberate lies, and obvious hyperbole does
not make for a compelling argument. And I was like,
(28:19):
I am sending this to Mary Catherine Ham because we
are talking about this tomorrow.
Speaker 2 (28:23):
Yeah, it's wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong, right wrong.
Speaker 4 (28:27):
The NPI is more than anything else.
Speaker 2 (28:29):
I know.
Speaker 4 (28:29):
Everybody has their own kind of bugaboos about this kind
of thing. I know for some people it's vaccine messaging.
For me, it's the non pharmaceutical interventions worked. No, they
didn't know, they didn't and masking did not work, distancing
did not work.
Speaker 3 (28:47):
None of it worked.
Speaker 4 (28:48):
And I need people to accept that and internalize it
because should we have COVID twenty twenty nine, I need
people to not make the same mistakes again.
Speaker 3 (28:58):
So it's really.
Speaker 4 (28:58):
Important to continue to say these things didn't work and
we can't do them again. Lockdowns did not work at all,
And that's you know where I am on this.
Speaker 3 (29:10):
I am still mad, bro.
Speaker 1 (29:11):
Yeah, I'm still mad, bro. And one of the things
I'm mad about, and we can get to the Tyler
Cown piece, is that so few who continue to say
these things really weren't so bad will contend with the
fact that freedom itself is worth something. Right that what
DeSantis did, which was in general to default to the
(29:35):
side of freedom as much freedom as is possible in
an emergency situation for as many people as possible, while
trying to do responsible things that in and of itself
is much closer to pandemic plans of the past, to
actual plans that Fauci tossed out the window, to the
(29:55):
American spirit, to our actual constitution. There's given that pesty constitution.
No one gives value to that part of it. They're
just like, I mean, yes, we destroyed your lives, but
like not as bad as you think we.
Speaker 3 (30:12):
Did, right, And I are like, we had to do it.
Speaker 4 (30:14):
We didn't know that. We didn't know really bothers me
and you bring up to Santis. But you know, it's
interesting because he had taken some precautions, and I think
Florida had taken some precautions, but as they got new
information and realized that these precautions weren't working, they abandoned
those precautions. So I lived in Florida for we call
(30:37):
it our Florida Test Run for about five and a
half months in twenty twenty one January to middle of
May twenty twenty one.
Speaker 3 (30:46):
People were masking.
Speaker 4 (30:47):
My kids were masked in public school. We were kind
of the cold. I mean, we were very loose for
New York, but we were kind of tight for Florida. Yeah,
we were like looked around crowded restaurants and we're like,
these people are gonna die, you.
Speaker 2 (31:00):
Know, you know, I culture shock.
Speaker 3 (31:05):
I understand, you know.
Speaker 4 (31:06):
I often tell the story of my friend John Cardillo.
I walked into a restaurant and he was sitting at
the bar, and that was something that wouldn't happen in
New York I think for another year plus. No, I
was like sitting at a bar during this crazy time.
Speaker 5 (31:18):
I don't know.
Speaker 4 (31:20):
So I get that people were afraid. I get that
people didn't know. I think that all of that needs
to be taken into consideration.
Speaker 3 (31:27):
But but we figured it out, and the people who
maintained the.
Speaker 4 (31:33):
Things that we knew didn't work for a very long time,
they should be held accountable. They absolutely knew at the
time that you and I knew.
Speaker 1 (31:43):
This is the part, too, is that your intentional ignorance
of the facts. A lot of people were intentionally ignorant
on school openings because to them it was the correct,
left coded.
Speaker 2 (31:56):
Vision, yes, to be out of school. And this is
what I call it facts. They didn't want to know.
Speaker 1 (32:01):
They didn't want to know Achy facts because those Achy
facts were write coded and to know those or to
certainly to profess them would have made you icky and
write coded. This is the paragraph of the Tyler Cowen
Free Press piece that a lot of people take issue with,
and something that I think he's not wrestling with, which
is like, there was not only Willferral ignorance.
Speaker 2 (32:22):
But there was also lying.
Speaker 1 (32:23):
There was also very obvious confessed lying that we have
in emails and testimony, like we know people were lying.
Speaker 2 (32:30):
He says, a lot of people do not want to
admit it.
Speaker 1 (32:33):
But when it comes to the COVID nineteen pandemic, the
elites by and large actually got a lot right. Most importantly,
the people who got vaccinated fared much better than the
people who did not. We also got a vaccine in
record time, against most expectations, Operation work speed was a success.
Long COVID did turn out to be a real thing.
This one gets me because he's an economist. Low personal
(32:54):
mobility levels meant that often lockdowns were not the real issue.
Most of that economic activity was going away. In any case,
most states should have ended lockdown sooner, but they mattered
less than many critics have suggested. Furthermore, in contrast to
what many were predicting, these restrictions on our liberty proved
entirely temporary.
Speaker 2 (33:14):
Not that mean, not necessarily true.
Speaker 1 (33:16):
And also your freedom matters during the time that it
was restricted.
Speaker 3 (33:20):
Yeah, back to the whole freedom mattering. But also people suffered.
Speaker 4 (33:23):
I knew gym owners, for example, in New Jersey who
they suffered. They didn't sleep at night, they worried about
their business, they worried about their employees. I took my
middle son to the barber the other day in Florida
and the guy had moved to Florida during COVID and
he was still very enraged about the fact that he
was forced to shut down. And his comment was, you know,
(33:45):
liquor stores were open, home depot was open, all the
big businesses were open. I had to be closed. And
he and I reminisced about how Governor Andrewcomo, you know,
would go on TV and be very solemn and about
how great a job he was doing, but he would
show up with a fresh haircut every few days, like
where's he getting his haircut?
Speaker 2 (34:07):
Right?
Speaker 1 (34:07):
Right? Of course, you know, they all were full of it.
That was my favorite thing during the pandemics. I was
just tweet these stories where Nancy Pelosi gets her hair
done and be like, we're all in this together asterisk.
Speaker 2 (34:17):
It's just an asterisk because it's not all of us together.
Speaker 1 (34:20):
Sir Cowan's piece is called our elites don't deserve this
much hatred, and he has some points that are worth considering,
which is like, but I think he's like, he's just
sort of mashing it all together, and he's ignoring the
bad behavior of the elites. He says, a truly elite
method is based in science, open in quiry, and truth
seeking behavior. That's true, and I love to sniff those
people out, and that's what I did during COVID and
(34:42):
found that they were not the people who had been
crowned elites. The people who were critical thinkers were often
not those who were blessed to give the.
Speaker 2 (34:50):
Message exactly and sanctioned to give the message.
Speaker 1 (34:53):
Furthermore, I just looked it up because the point about
the economic activity bothered me LA times, which is of
course friendly to California's approach. Compared California and Florida similar populations,
although Florida's older and unemployment in December twenty twenty in California,
so that his hypothesis is that without the lockdowns, you
(35:16):
were going to lose this economic activity. Anyway, So let's
do harsh lockdown versus not lockdown. California twelve December twenty
twenty nine point three percent unemployment, Florida five point one.
By February, Florida's was down to that's twenty twenty one,
three point three, and California is still hanging out around
five because they had slowly opened back up.
Speaker 2 (35:39):
Florida retained its like economy from parks and amusement rides
and all that, you know, the Disney stuff. California did not.
Speaker 1 (35:49):
Jobs lost California one point six to three million, Florida
five hundred and eighty k. That's almost three times almost
three times more in California.
Speaker 4 (36:03):
Yeah, And there's something to be said for all of that,
and for the people who were losing those jobs. And
I called them, you know, the pajama class. Some people
say the laptop class. And I admit I am part
of that class. I Tuesday in my pajamas, don't work
on my laptop.
Speaker 3 (36:19):
That's me.
Speaker 4 (36:21):
But the thing is that those people didn't have to
worry about losing their jobs. And I've met and I
know so many people that did have to worry about it.
The lockdowns didn't help they did not help prevent spread,
and that is kind of the endgame here, I would think.
So don't tell me now in twenty twenty five that
they worked, or that some part of it worked.
Speaker 3 (36:43):
And you know, I tweeted out that.
Speaker 4 (36:44):
Article and I said, it's now impossible to find anyone
who supported school closures during COVID, Like, find someone, find
someone who's like, yeah, that was the right thing to do.
It seems like everyone wanted schools open. No one called
me a teacher killer. Randy Weingarten herself fought to open schools,
but who was she fighting, you know, I'm.
Speaker 2 (37:03):
Like, so strange.
Speaker 1 (37:04):
Yeah, Actually, the Randy Winegarden lie is so blatant because
Randy Weingarten backed her unions suing Florida and rond de
Santis to keep schools closed.
Speaker 2 (37:17):
I mean, you were literally on the other side of.
Speaker 1 (37:19):
Legal action to make this happen. I'm going to read
one more from the cow and Piece to take you off.
One of the reasons it takes me off is because
I think of him as like a libertarian ish economists, right,
so it seems like maybe he should have more a
little more criticism for these things, not reopening the schools
was a big mistake and meant a lot of lost learning.
Speaker 2 (37:38):
But plenty of elites protested at the time.
Speaker 3 (37:42):
Come on, where were these elites?
Speaker 2 (37:44):
Which ones?
Speaker 3 (37:44):
Right?
Speaker 2 (37:45):
I meanhich ones? Does he mean us or elites?
Speaker 1 (37:50):
This is a perfect example of where like, yes, there
was a class of elites that was conformist and cowardly.
Those were the blessed, sanctioned elites. And then there were
the David's wides of the world. Yea, who did the
real work and who were crapped on for it frankly, aggressively.
And now I'm going to read this book and find
all the elites that protested at.
Speaker 2 (38:11):
The time time.
Speaker 4 (38:12):
I can't wait to hear who those elites were. Let
us know if we are mentioned, because.
Speaker 3 (38:20):
Carol, I know this account.
Speaker 4 (38:22):
On X responded to the Claire Lehman tweet about it
about the you know schools and all of that when
she linked to the Tyler Cowen piece. Alex Joffe is
the account and he says children who went to Zoom
School would agree if they could actually read. Yeah, yeah,
we're mad bro today, We're still mad bro.
Speaker 3 (38:44):
We could do I mean, we could just keep going
on this forever.
Speaker 4 (38:46):
This. I need accountability, and we're not only moving away
from accountability, we seem to be moving towards. They all
did the right thing, everybody acted correctly.
Speaker 2 (38:56):
Keys closed, and just.
Speaker 1 (38:57):
On sixty minutes this week there was a scientist talk
about the next virus that's gonna make COVID look like
a walk in the park.
Speaker 2 (39:03):
And I'm like, you know what, you know what, girl.
Speaker 4 (39:05):
I can't live. Yeah, I'm yeah, I'll just stay in.
Speaker 3 (39:10):
Florida and hope for the best.
Speaker 2 (39:11):
Actually stick with the Santas, let's.
Speaker 4 (39:14):
Hang on to him.
Speaker 3 (39:15):
Thanks for joining us on Normally.
Speaker 4 (39:17):
Normally airs Tuesdays and Thursdays, and you can subscribe anywhere.
Speaker 3 (39:21):
You get your podcasts. Get in touch with us.
Speaker 4 (39:23):
At normallythepod at gmail dot com. Thanks for listening, and
when things get weird, act normally
Hey, guys, we are batting along normally the show with
normal she takes.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
But when the news gets weird, I am Mary Catherine.
Speaker 3 (00:09):
And I am Carol Marko. I'm Mary Catherine.
Speaker 4 (00:11):
I feel like it's been a month since I spoke
to you.
Speaker 2 (00:15):
Look, the news cycle never stops, my friend.
Speaker 1 (00:19):
There's a lot going on, by the way, programming note,
if you did not listen to us on the Ruthless podcast,
you should.
Speaker 3 (00:25):
That's fun.
Speaker 2 (00:26):
Got to make a guest visit with the fellas, so
that was good.
Speaker 4 (00:29):
Well, some of the fellas you know comfortably. Smug is
afraid afraid to face.
Speaker 2 (00:33):
Me, so you can't face you just can't.
Speaker 3 (00:36):
I'm joking.
Speaker 4 (00:37):
Smug and I are friends, but we got a lot
of lib jokes on each other. And I've been on
Ruthless twice now and he did not appear for either
the show. So it's a running joke that he is afraid.
Speaker 2 (00:50):
Why is he scared?
Speaker 4 (00:51):
I don't know.
Speaker 1 (00:52):
I don't know, man, But it was nice to be
on with them and uh to reach some other folks.
Speaker 2 (00:58):
So should we get straight into the.
Speaker 3 (01:00):
Get it straight into it?
Speaker 1 (01:02):
Yeah, we had an important case at the Supreme Court yesterday.
Now this one's been brewing for a while, and you
and I have been following it. Yeah, one, because your
book Stolen Youth covers this subject exactly, and your co author,
Bethany Mandel, lives in the county where this big case originated.
(01:24):
So the Montgomery County school Board wanted to have and
did inflict upon the parents of Montgomery County a lot
of gender and sexual instruction, instruction starting as early as
three and into the very early grades of elementary school
through various means and story books and this kind of thing.
(01:45):
And the parents in Montgomery County said, hey, we'd love
to opt out of this, and Montgomery County was like, no,
we take away that option.
Speaker 2 (01:54):
Is that correct?
Speaker 4 (01:58):
That is actually exactly what happened. And it's crazy because
they're not saying, and you know, I don't think they
should be taught in schools.
Speaker 3 (02:06):
So that's where I am. But the parents who have
a problem with this aren't even saying that.
Speaker 4 (02:12):
They're just saying, I don't want my kid being taught this,
and I want to opt them out. And that should
be a fairly easy call, right And yet here we
are at the Supreme Court, and it's worth.
Speaker 1 (02:26):
Noting that the plaintiff in this case is a Muslim family.
There are many religious Jewish families in this area as
well as Christians, of course, and it's not obviously just
religious families that have objections to this kind of instruction,
but it is an interesting alliance of all three of
the major religion.
Speaker 2 (02:48):
In Montgomery in.
Speaker 4 (02:49):
Very you know, I would just guess all the minor
ones are also against teaching porn to kids.
Speaker 3 (02:55):
I don't know.
Speaker 1 (02:56):
Yes, in the very liberal county of Montgomery County, these
three groups nonetheless come together and say this is our line.
Speaker 2 (03:05):
Man.
Speaker 1 (03:05):
So the school board says, no, you can't opt out.
And what was hilarious to me is once this gets
to the Supreme Court and the school board's lawyer is
arguing with one of the justices, and well the justice
says like, well, like, why couldn't you just do an
opt out? There's opt outs for all sorts of things
for parents, and the lawyers basically like, well, so many
(03:27):
people opted out that it really became a problem.
Speaker 2 (03:33):
It's like, yeah, so is it the parents that are
the problem or is it the curriculum that is the problem.
Speaker 4 (03:41):
That's right, And Bethany points out that Montgomery County public
schools must have spent about two million dollars to get
this argument about forcing families to read these books that
are counter to their religious beliefs. As Bethany points out
to Scotus, that is congratts guys that should have been
(04:01):
spent elsewhere.
Speaker 5 (04:03):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (04:04):
Well, and it strikes me that, you know, again, you'll
see it framed in a lot of media as parents
want to make decisions about the curriculum.
Speaker 2 (04:14):
These parents did not wish to.
Speaker 1 (04:17):
Change the curriculum like some of them might have wished
on the margins to change them if they had their brothers.
But their request is simply, can we just pull our
kids out of this part of instruction? And there's this telling.
It's a little long, it's two minutes, but I want
you to listen to the Montgomery County lawyer speak to
Justice Gorsich about one of the books that they introduced
(04:41):
as early as three years old, and just think about
the fact that parents have to bring this to the
Supreme Court to be adjudicated. Here's Justice Gorsus talking to
the school board's lawyer.
Speaker 6 (04:56):
What age do you in Montgomery County teach students normally
about human sexuality?
Speaker 5 (05:03):
I think that it begins in either fourth or fifth grade.
Speaker 7 (05:07):
The Human Sexuality class.
Speaker 5 (05:09):
Family Life and Human Sexuality curriculum. I'm not entirely sure.
Speaker 6 (05:13):
It starts in fourth or fifth grade. I think, is
there anything you can point us to in the record on.
Speaker 5 (05:17):
That, I don't think so?
Speaker 7 (05:19):
Okay. And second, these books are being used in English class.
Speaker 5 (05:25):
The division between English class and other things in a
second grade classroom doesn't really exist. You're sort of in
a room with a teacher.
Speaker 6 (05:31):
And sometimes I appreciate that I went to second grade too,
but it's part of the English curriculum that these books
are being used in. That's I thought that was.
Speaker 5 (05:42):
Yeah. I'm not fighting the premise.
Speaker 6 (05:44):
I'm just saying, it's not the math class, it's not
the human sexuality class.
Speaker 5 (05:47):
It's it is certainly not the human sexuality class. I'm
just sort of fighting the premise that there's a neat disciser.
Speaker 6 (05:53):
Okay, And they're being used in English language instruction at
age three, some of them.
Speaker 5 (06:00):
So Pride Puppy was the book that was used for
the pre kindergarten curriculum. That's no longer in the curriculum.
Speaker 6 (06:06):
That's the one where they are supposed to look for
the leather and things and bondage things like that.
Speaker 5 (06:11):
It's not bomb site a woman and a leather.
Speaker 7 (06:13):
Sex worker, right, No, no, it's not correct.
Speaker 3 (06:15):
No, gosh, I read it directly.
Speaker 5 (06:21):
The leather that they're pointing to is a woman in
a leather jacket and one of the words is drag.
Speaker 7 (06:26):
Queen in this and they're supposed to look for those.
Speaker 5 (06:29):
It is an option at the end of the book.
Speaker 6 (06:30):
Correct, Okay, And you're you've included these in the English
language curriculum rather than the Human Sexuality curriculum to influence students.
Speaker 7 (06:43):
Is that fair? That's what the district court found.
Speaker 5 (06:47):
I think to the extent the district Court found that
it was to influence. It was to influence them towards
civility then natural consequence of being exposed.
Speaker 7 (06:54):
Whatever, But to influence them.
Speaker 5 (06:57):
In the manner that I just mentioned.
Speaker 2 (06:58):
Yes, what a I enjoy that. Whatever. There's a couple
of things happening here.
Speaker 1 (07:03):
One Gourse is just pointing out you're introducing this to
three year olds because you didn't put it in the Human.
Speaker 2 (07:08):
Sexuality which starts much later.
Speaker 1 (07:11):
You smuggled it into three year olds in pre K
under the English guidelines. And then he goes on to
describe some of the things that are in this book,
and he does get it slightly wrong that this is
not a sex worker. There is a drag queen in
the book. There is a piece of There is a
leather garment to which students are supposed to point at
(07:34):
some point, and it is just it's like a lady
wearing a leather jacket.
Speaker 2 (07:38):
It's chaps.
Speaker 3 (07:40):
But is it a drag queen wearing a leather joe?
Speaker 1 (07:42):
It possibly everyone is a confusing and uncertain gender identification
in this book. But again the idea and the district
is the district has also admitted in lower courts that
the point of introducing this was to influence children. That
(08:02):
was the point of having this book, right, this inclusive book,
quote unquote, was to influence children in a direction by
the way the parents have lost at the lower courts
because sanity could not be understood there.
Speaker 2 (08:15):
And I'm just trying to imagine, like.
Speaker 1 (08:17):
My parents in the eighties having to go to the
Supreme Court to say, like maybe a book with a
drag queen in it should not be presented to three
year olds. That's the conversation we must have. Those are
the scraps of sanity that Montgomery County parents must go
to the mats form.
Speaker 4 (08:37):
Right, it's crazy because when you tell the story to people,
I think just the normies listening and the normies who
we love are like, this can't be happening. This can't
be happening. But this is at the Supreme Court and
it is happening. And I have to tell you also
that one of the kind of scarier things of the
last few years was that the other side did such
(09:01):
a great job of portraying this kind of thing as
book banning. So book banning. If you don't wand want
Pride Puppy read to your three year old three year old, right,
that is an example of book banning by these people.
So and I have seen you know it's been pulled,
this banning banning quote unquote, these kinds of books did
(09:25):
not pull well.
Speaker 3 (09:27):
It's very interesting.
Speaker 4 (09:28):
That they actually got this to be a problem, that
taking these kinds of books out of schools became a
problem and an issue. But when you hear what's in
the books, it really changes people's minds.
Speaker 5 (09:41):
Well.
Speaker 1 (09:42):
And so one of the things that tripped up the
lawyer in this case for the school board is that
the justices had read these books, they had seen what
was in them. And this is a This is a
straw man that the left often uses, particularly at high
school and middle school levels, where they're like, this is
just a graphic novel, and then you actually see some
of the graphic novel or the parents those one of
(10:04):
my favorite moves. The parents will read the graphic novel
at a school board meeting and the school board will
be like, you can't say that at our meeting, and
they're like, well, that sort of proves my point, right.
So some of the titles of these books for very
very young kids again Born Ready, the True Story of
a Boy named Penelope, Rainbow Revolutionaries, fifty LGBTQ plus people
(10:24):
who made history. And suddenly Montgomery County is faced with
a very diverse crowd of objectors to these titles. And
they were sort of like, wait, wait, wait, we're good libs.
Why are the ethnic minorities in our district upset about this?
Speaker 2 (10:41):
And that's because they're often more normal than the libs.
The white no true are not the normal. Right.
Speaker 4 (10:48):
So I've told the story on here before, but I
moved to Florida from a very white liberal neighborhood of
Park Slope. My kids were given books to take home
from their school so often, and it was always on
a trans topic.
Speaker 3 (11:05):
We have like five copies I only have three kids.
We have five copies.
Speaker 4 (11:08):
Of Julian is a Mermaid, which is a mad a
little boy who wants to be a girl, and et cetera.
It's crazy how openly this has pushed in some areas,
and the fact that they're getting pushed back and that's
gone all the way to.
Speaker 3 (11:22):
The Supreme Court.
Speaker 4 (11:23):
I love that this is going to get attention to
this because I think people just don't understand how prevalent
this is.
Speaker 7 (11:30):
Well.
Speaker 1 (11:30):
And you know, I'm a person who look, if my
kids came across Pride Puppy, I'm not.
Speaker 2 (11:34):
Going to be like, oh no, right, oh they yeah,
shield their eyes whatever.
Speaker 1 (11:40):
I do think it's weird if you want to be
pushing that at three to my child. I get to
make those decisions. And also, the prevalence is what you're
talking about where I mean, it's changed a bit in
the vibe shift. We used to go to Barnes and
Noble or any bookstore. I actually, to illustrate this, I
went to a bookstore in pennsylv And I saw a
(12:01):
children's display that had all, I think, almost exclusively non
woke titles.
Speaker 2 (12:08):
And I don't mean anti woke titles.
Speaker 1 (12:11):
I just mean classic children's books, things that are stories
about children that are not trans stories about children that
are not race related.
Speaker 2 (12:20):
Like it, if you go to a Barnes and Noble,
that's almost exclusively.
Speaker 1 (12:24):
What you see, or was up until like a year
and a half ago, right, And so the prevalence is
weird where what you're being offered and what you're being
pushed is almost exclusively this stuff. And every time I
read a novel for my kids that's come out in
the last five years, I'm like, just brace for it,
like whatever it is, it's coming, right, it's coming.
Speaker 2 (12:45):
They can't do it without.
Speaker 4 (12:46):
Yeah, I think we're going to look back at this
era and see how insane it was. And it's not
just children's books either. One of my favorite fiction writers
is a guy named Blake Nelson. He wrote a lot
of nine.
Speaker 3 (13:00):
These books, like Girl It Goes Wade into a movie.
Speaker 4 (13:02):
He had this piece on his substack the other day
where he was talking about how every book he picks
up by a female writer is anti men, and he's like.
Speaker 3 (13:12):
I just don't want to read this anymore. And he's
a left of central guy.
Speaker 4 (13:16):
Who would it is actively seeking out female writers to
read and is just like, I don't want to read
about how I'm trash, and I think this whole era
is going to look so dated when we get past it,
if we get past it.
Speaker 1 (13:31):
Well, And this is one of those things too where
Greg Lukianov calls it the gauntlet of conformity, where in
order to get a book published as a woman writer,
let's say, if that's not in your book, right, you
ain't getting to the next level of the process. That
thing's not getting published, and it will take a couple
(13:51):
of years for that to work itself out of the system,
unless like you're you and me and you can maybe
get an explicitly political right published.
Speaker 4 (14:00):
Or a conservative publisher specifically. Yeah, but it's sad that
it has to come to that. And you know, Mary
Margaret I forgot her last name from Daily Wire all
in right from Daily Wire.
Speaker 3 (14:13):
Somebody called her.
Speaker 4 (14:14):
A maga writer or a maga journalist the other day
because she reports from the White House briefing room, and
her comment was, if I'm maga reporter. Who are what
are you guys reporters?
Speaker 2 (14:27):
Right?
Speaker 4 (14:27):
So I think that when we say, like, oh, only
conservative publishers would publish this kind of book, who are
the other publishers? You know, they're all political leftist publishers
and they kind of need to be ascribed.
Speaker 1 (14:39):
Well, it sounded like the justices were friendly to the
argument of the parents in this case.
Speaker 2 (14:46):
To me, it makes absolute.
Speaker 1 (14:47):
Sense that they should just have an option to not
do this kind of content. And one of the things
I noted that I think is such a huge difference
between my childhood and the way I'm raising my kids.
I was raised in a liberal area. My kids are
raised in a liberal area. In order for me to
get them in just neutral activities, almost they're almost exclusively
(15:10):
religious activities, right, because explicitly religious is normal now as
opposed to secular, which used to be normal and now
has become liberal religious.
Speaker 3 (15:20):
Right, it's so crazy.
Speaker 4 (15:22):
Oh, this is really bane of my existence because I'm
not religious and this I mean or not observant in
Jewish terms.
Speaker 3 (15:29):
Yes, yeah, it's really tough.
Speaker 1 (15:32):
Well, that's what I was saying, Like, even if you're
not particularly religious, if you want your kid in a
basically normal craft group or scouting group, Like you just
pick the one that's sort of religious and they might
just be like a normal eighties group. That's my this
is my tactic, this is how I go about it.
Speaker 4 (15:51):
Yeah, how far we've come. I think this is going
to be nine zero at the Supreme Court, and if
it's not, I'm going to be surprised and appalled.
Speaker 1 (16:00):
So a big win would be great for parents everywhere
and a nice rebuke to people who have gotten us
to the point where you have to go to the
Supreme Court to say, can I please.
Speaker 2 (16:08):
Off my kid out of pride? Puppy right people?
Speaker 1 (16:13):
Yeah, and they wonder why I'm not in the public
schools era.
Speaker 4 (16:16):
Now I we'll be right back on normally. Our next
topic is the Pete Hegseeth story, which is continuing to
be an ongoing story. I went pretty hard to support
Pete before he was nominated or when he was nominated,
(16:38):
and now I feel very defensive of him in this position.
I think that he has had some missteps. I can't
say that the Signal group chat was a moment of
you know where I thought things were going amazing for him,
But it does seem like the knives are out for
(16:58):
him beyond any of that. So let's get into it.
Dan Caldwell, he was a senior advisor to heg Seth,
has been placed on administrative leave for leaking information to
the media. And he went on Tucker Carlson and he
said that none of that. You know, the language that
(17:20):
they used was he didn't leak classified information, which left
a lot of room to say he did leak information.
I'm sorry, good riddance. Good people who leak information to
the media should be kicked out. And I think that
some of what is going on with Pete heg Seth
is very inside baseball. We'll try to get into it here.
(17:43):
We'll try to keep it as normy as possible. But
John Oulat resigned last week as a Pentagon spokesperson, Yes,
and he wrote an article in political trashing heg Sath.
Then Donald Trump Junior took to X and said, I've
been hearing for years that he oh yet works his
ass off to subvert my father's agenda.
Speaker 3 (18:04):
That ends today.
Speaker 4 (18:05):
He's officially exiled from our movement. I do think that
some of this really is a split.
Speaker 2 (18:12):
On the right policy.
Speaker 4 (18:15):
Yeah, on policy.
Speaker 2 (18:16):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (18:16):
So Eli Lake is always interesting to read on this
stuff because he has a lot of defense contacts and
policy contacts. So he wrote in the Free Press, and
he just gives a nice, like three paragraph outlay of
like kind of what the lay of the land his here.
It's been nearly one hundred days into the Trump presidency
and his administration appears bitterly divided over what to do
about Iran Secretary of State was not present for the
negotiations between the Mulla's diplomats and Trump's personal friend and
(18:39):
special on voice, Steve Whitcoff. Mago world influencers have staked
out opposing positions on whether to bomb Moren's nuclear facilities
or go for an Obama style deal. The battle is
at its nastiest inside the Pentagon, where the restrainer wing
of the administration and the more hawkish Defense Secretary Pete
Hegsas with whom we both I think agree on this,
are now in direct bureaucratic conflict. On Tuesday, he Seth
(19:02):
told Fox News that three recently fired senior officials are
now attempting to leak and sabotage to President's agenda. But
is this civil war about foreign policy ideology? Or is
it about a breach and trust between a cabinet secretary
and his closest advisors. Either way, a deep friendship has
been torn asunder. So the question is is the underlying
thing the foreign policy differences or is it a personality
(19:24):
dispute that is being sort of using the foreign policy
dispute as its cover, and people are sort of knifing
as they sometimes do in Washington. It is interesting because
Caldwell and several of these other folks have been very
close allies of.
Speaker 2 (19:40):
Hegsath for a long time.
Speaker 1 (19:42):
This guy's not new to the crew, right, and so
that part is concerning in Oliat And I don't know
what the real deal is on his motivations, but his
peace and Politico also puts in there kind of some
pretty flowery language about the things they were able to
accomplish with at Defense and the things that he was
(20:03):
proud of, and how he wants this administration to work.
So I'm a little confused about what's happening here.
Speaker 4 (20:10):
Yeah, you know, I try not to be the when
you have a hammer, the whole world like looks like
a nail. But a lot of this to me is
also tied into kind of the growing anti Semitism on
the right, and I have been foolishly on the for
you tab on x, which has really fallen off recently.
(20:31):
Actually a lot of people have mentioned it, like it
was really good for a minute there and now it's like,
I actually don't want to see any of these people.
Speaker 3 (20:37):
They're not for me.
Speaker 2 (20:38):
Mine is real hit and miss I get.
Speaker 1 (20:40):
I get this is a weird thing, but I get
a lot of Hailey Bieber news in for you.
Speaker 3 (20:44):
I actually would prefer that to what.
Speaker 1 (20:46):
I don't understand how it happened, Like I just clicked
on one too many Selena and Haley conspiracy theories.
Speaker 2 (20:52):
Here I am so and aside.
Speaker 4 (20:54):
So I'll get like an account like Patriot one nine seven,
four to two, and they'll be spit absolute fire about
like somebody in the administration. And I'm not talking about
like Marco Rubio or even like Pam Bondi, but sort
of like the real deal mega members like Pete Hegsett,
dom Gino, Cash Patel. And then I'll click over to
(21:14):
the page and most of the tweets are Cash Bateel
is a sellout, And then the next tweet will almost
always be and the Jews did nine to eleven and
so I feel like there is this and you know,
it's a through line kind of from this jew hatred
to trying to bring down the Trump administration. I don't
know if these accounts are American or a foreign op.
(21:37):
It obviously could be very much a foreign op. But
there's absolutely an online movement to seem like the right
is turning on the Trump administration, and it's driven by
this conspiratorial anti Semitic gunch. And to see these people,
you know, again they're anonymous on X but then watch
(21:58):
their kind of insan play out in real time elsewhere
is concerning.
Speaker 1 (22:05):
Yeah, I don't love the Caldwell to Tucker pipeline. As
soon as you leave, you go straight there.
Speaker 4 (22:11):
Well, the question is who was called Well leaking to
And the answer is maybe the guy who tweeted about
the I'm not going to war where Iran at a
really random time in the last few weeks.
Speaker 1 (22:22):
So well, and he says he didn't like you said.
He says he didn't classified info. We have yet to
see if he's under investigation. It doesn't I mean not
to be a sap, but it does make me a
little sad that this seems like several major longtime friendships, yeah,
have fallen apart hearing. And the thing for heg Seth, Look,
I don't think Trump is getting rid of him, because
(22:43):
I think Trump was invested him in him and liked
the way that he fought and got over the hill
in his confirmation hearings. Heg Seth was treated unfairly during
the investigations of his personal life and past during his
confirmation hearings, and he was right to fight back, and
I think that's one of the reasons he did get confirmed. Yeah,
the signal stuff is boneheaded and they need to This
(23:05):
is what we said after the original signal story broke, right,
what are you doing to make sure that none.
Speaker 2 (23:10):
Of this happens again?
Speaker 1 (23:12):
Yeah, and you have a story of another signal chat
that existed, right, so whatever that is.
Speaker 4 (23:17):
Maybe that one is kind of unnamed sources and we
don't really know, but the first one was really bad,
you know, so whatever, even if the second one doesn't exist,
the first one was no good.
Speaker 1 (23:29):
Yes, can we just nip that in the butt, make
sure that we're taking care of that. And then I
do think for my hesitation such that it was on
Hegseth was about management and if this is the drama
that has fallen out, Yeah, part of his job is
to manage this so that you do not have this
drama that ends up spilling over and perhaps hurting the
(23:51):
administration's goals. Although I'm not sure what the administration's goals
are either, because there is a lot of talk about
some deal with Iran, and I'm like, why why would Yeah,
can we not be depoa which is the Obama deal
that you turned you know, you got rid of.
Speaker 3 (24:05):
So much that.
Speaker 4 (24:06):
Yeah, And I want to just say unequivocally, I pose
war with Iran. I feel like the options presented to
us always are we need to make a deal with
Iran like Obama did, or we go to war like
I feel like there's some other things in between there
that we can potentially work out. And a lot of
this again, to bring it back to Israel, is US
(24:29):
giving Israel permission to do what they need to do
to keep themselves safe and sort of keep Iran contained.
Speaker 2 (24:36):
Win.
Speaker 1 (24:37):
By the way, Iran is basically naked before the world
because many of their defenses have been already taken out.
Speaker 2 (24:43):
Yeah, that's part of it too.
Speaker 1 (24:45):
There's a time there's a time crunch here so before
they rebuild their defenses, you could have a clearer shot.
Speaker 2 (24:51):
Yes.
Speaker 4 (24:51):
And of course there was the night where the missiles
took like ten hours to get to Israel, and everyone
just like it, partied in Israel and then went to
the bunkers because they were like, the missiles.
Speaker 2 (25:00):
Aren't even here. Set in alarm, right in alarm.
Speaker 5 (25:05):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (25:06):
John and Rassic from five for Fighting actually had a
concert that night, and he said that everybody was like,
we have reservations to a restaurant, so we're going and
then we'll be at the bunker when you know, when
they get closer. Anyway, Trump defended Hegseth. He said, ask
the whotis how he's doing.
Speaker 3 (25:23):
And you and I have.
Speaker 4 (25:24):
Talked about how we saw Hegseth as a magnet for
young men to rejoin the military. I can tell you
as of last week, the army has enlisted fifty one,
eight hundred and thirty seven recruits, or eighty five percent
of its goal for twenty twenty five, which is sixty
one thousand. They enlisted nearly three hundred and fifty soldiers
(25:46):
every day in December twenty twenty four. It was the
most productive december for the military branch in fifteen years.
Speaker 3 (25:54):
I believe in Pete Hegseth.
Speaker 4 (25:56):
I hope he holds on and I that this is
a split that is contained in this administration.
Speaker 2 (26:04):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (26:05):
I'm with you and I'm with them. I'm like one,
I want the administration to succeed. Yeah, not an a
JCPOA oh yeah yeah that talk is making me nervous,
but yes, and such that it will succeed. That you
need somebody who is you know, backed by good people
and keeping those people within the circle.
Speaker 4 (26:25):
We're going to take a short break and come right
back with normally.
Speaker 2 (26:31):
Shall we move on to still mad?
Speaker 1 (26:33):
Bro?
Speaker 5 (26:33):
Yeah?
Speaker 3 (26:33):
Are you still mad?
Speaker 2 (26:34):
Bro?
Speaker 3 (26:34):
I am like so, ma newly mad Bro? Why do
they keep making me mad?
Speaker 1 (26:40):
Bro?
Speaker 2 (26:40):
Yeah?
Speaker 3 (26:42):
Go ahead.
Speaker 1 (26:42):
I'm about to get really mad because I just got
David's Wige's book in the mail, which is an abundance
of caution American schools, the virus and a story of
bad decisions. And I would have even just added a
very bad decision.
Speaker 3 (26:54):
In there, super bad decision.
Speaker 1 (26:56):
So I keep saying I'm looking forward to reading this book,
But am I? Because I'm going to be lived for
like three days.
Speaker 4 (27:03):
Yeah, you're gonna have to relive all of that. But again,
these people are making us relive it anyway, so we
may as well get mad.
Speaker 3 (27:12):
And that's it. That's right.
Speaker 4 (27:15):
So Claire Leyman, she is the founder and editor of Couillette.
She was a COVID zealot. She tweeted really crazy things
at the time. She lives in Australia. Australia went absolutely bananas.
They locked down in a really serious way for a
very long time. I met a woman in Florida who
(27:37):
moved here from Australia and her talking about it, she
just broke into tears, like it was a trying time.
So Claire tweeted out a Tyler Cohen article we'll get
to that in a second in the Free Press. But
she said her tweet was lablique possible but not proven.
(27:57):
No evidence of international collusion with China NPIs, which means
non pharmaceutical interventions. Yeah, showed measurable effectiveness vaccine messaging. Optimistic
claims do not equal deliberate lies, and obvious hyperbole does
not make for a compelling argument. And I was like,
(28:19):
I am sending this to Mary Catherine Ham because we
are talking about this tomorrow.
Speaker 2 (28:23):
Yeah, it's wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong, right wrong.
Speaker 4 (28:27):
The NPI is more than anything else.
Speaker 2 (28:29):
I know.
Speaker 4 (28:29):
Everybody has their own kind of bugaboos about this kind
of thing. I know for some people it's vaccine messaging.
For me, it's the non pharmaceutical interventions worked. No, they
didn't know, they didn't and masking did not work, distancing
did not work.
Speaker 3 (28:47):
None of it worked.
Speaker 4 (28:48):
And I need people to accept that and internalize it
because should we have COVID twenty twenty nine, I need
people to not make the same mistakes again.
Speaker 3 (28:58):
So it's really.
Speaker 4 (28:58):
Important to continue to say these things didn't work and
we can't do them again. Lockdowns did not work at all,
And that's you know where I am on this.
Speaker 3 (29:10):
I am still mad, bro.
Speaker 1 (29:11):
Yeah, I'm still mad, bro. And one of the things
I'm mad about, and we can get to the Tyler
Cown piece, is that so few who continue to say
these things really weren't so bad will contend with the
fact that freedom itself is worth something. Right that what
DeSantis did, which was in general to default to the
(29:35):
side of freedom as much freedom as is possible in
an emergency situation for as many people as possible, while
trying to do responsible things that in and of itself
is much closer to pandemic plans of the past, to
actual plans that Fauci tossed out the window, to the
(29:55):
American spirit, to our actual constitution. There's given that pesty constitution.
No one gives value to that part of it. They're
just like, I mean, yes, we destroyed your lives, but
like not as bad as you think we.
Speaker 3 (30:12):
Did, right, And I are like, we had to do it.
Speaker 4 (30:14):
We didn't know that. We didn't know really bothers me
and you bring up to Santis. But you know, it's
interesting because he had taken some precautions, and I think
Florida had taken some precautions, but as they got new
information and realized that these precautions weren't working, they abandoned
those precautions. So I lived in Florida for we call
(30:37):
it our Florida Test Run for about five and a
half months in twenty twenty one January to middle of
May twenty twenty one.
Speaker 3 (30:46):
People were masking.
Speaker 4 (30:47):
My kids were masked in public school. We were kind
of the cold. I mean, we were very loose for
New York, but we were kind of tight for Florida. Yeah,
we were like looked around crowded restaurants and we're like,
these people are gonna die, you.
Speaker 2 (31:00):
Know, you know, I culture shock.
Speaker 3 (31:05):
I understand, you know.
Speaker 4 (31:06):
I often tell the story of my friend John Cardillo.
I walked into a restaurant and he was sitting at
the bar, and that was something that wouldn't happen in
New York I think for another year plus. No, I
was like sitting at a bar during this crazy time.
Speaker 5 (31:18):
I don't know.
Speaker 4 (31:20):
So I get that people were afraid. I get that
people didn't know. I think that all of that needs
to be taken into consideration.
Speaker 3 (31:27):
But but we figured it out, and the people who
maintained the.
Speaker 4 (31:33):
Things that we knew didn't work for a very long time,
they should be held accountable. They absolutely knew at the
time that you and I knew.
Speaker 1 (31:43):
This is the part, too, is that your intentional ignorance
of the facts. A lot of people were intentionally ignorant
on school openings because to them it was the correct,
left coded.
Speaker 2 (31:56):
Vision, yes, to be out of school. And this is
what I call it facts. They didn't want to know.
Speaker 1 (32:01):
They didn't want to know Achy facts because those Achy
facts were write coded and to know those or to
certainly to profess them would have made you icky and
write coded. This is the paragraph of the Tyler Cowen
Free Press piece that a lot of people take issue with,
and something that I think he's not wrestling with, which
is like, there was not only Willferral ignorance.
Speaker 2 (32:22):
But there was also lying.
Speaker 1 (32:23):
There was also very obvious confessed lying that we have
in emails and testimony, like we know people were lying.
Speaker 2 (32:30):
He says, a lot of people do not want to
admit it.
Speaker 1 (32:33):
But when it comes to the COVID nineteen pandemic, the
elites by and large actually got a lot right. Most importantly,
the people who got vaccinated fared much better than the
people who did not. We also got a vaccine in
record time, against most expectations, Operation work speed was a success.
Long COVID did turn out to be a real thing.
This one gets me because he's an economist. Low personal
(32:54):
mobility levels meant that often lockdowns were not the real issue.
Most of that economic activity was going away. In any case,
most states should have ended lockdown sooner, but they mattered
less than many critics have suggested. Furthermore, in contrast to
what many were predicting, these restrictions on our liberty proved
entirely temporary.
Speaker 2 (33:14):
Not that mean, not necessarily true.
Speaker 1 (33:16):
And also your freedom matters during the time that it
was restricted.
Speaker 3 (33:20):
Yeah, back to the whole freedom mattering. But also people suffered.
Speaker 4 (33:23):
I knew gym owners, for example, in New Jersey who
they suffered. They didn't sleep at night, they worried about
their business, they worried about their employees. I took my
middle son to the barber the other day in Florida
and the guy had moved to Florida during COVID and
he was still very enraged about the fact that he
was forced to shut down. And his comment was, you know,
(33:45):
liquor stores were open, home depot was open, all the
big businesses were open. I had to be closed. And
he and I reminisced about how Governor Andrewcomo, you know,
would go on TV and be very solemn and about
how great a job he was doing, but he would
show up with a fresh haircut every few days, like
where's he getting his haircut?
Speaker 2 (34:07):
Right?
Speaker 1 (34:07):
Right? Of course, you know, they all were full of it.
That was my favorite thing during the pandemics. I was
just tweet these stories where Nancy Pelosi gets her hair
done and be like, we're all in this together asterisk.
Speaker 2 (34:17):
It's just an asterisk because it's not all of us together.
Speaker 1 (34:20):
Sir Cowan's piece is called our elites don't deserve this
much hatred, and he has some points that are worth considering,
which is like, but I think he's like, he's just
sort of mashing it all together, and he's ignoring the
bad behavior of the elites. He says, a truly elite
method is based in science, open in quiry, and truth
seeking behavior. That's true, and I love to sniff those
people out, and that's what I did during COVID and
(34:42):
found that they were not the people who had been
crowned elites. The people who were critical thinkers were often
not those who were blessed to give the.
Speaker 2 (34:50):
Message exactly and sanctioned to give the message.
Speaker 1 (34:53):
Furthermore, I just looked it up because the point about
the economic activity bothered me LA times, which is of
course friendly to California's approach. Compared California and Florida similar populations,
although Florida's older and unemployment in December twenty twenty in California,
so that his hypothesis is that without the lockdowns, you
(35:16):
were going to lose this economic activity. Anyway, So let's
do harsh lockdown versus not lockdown. California twelve December twenty
twenty nine point three percent unemployment, Florida five point one.
By February, Florida's was down to that's twenty twenty one,
three point three, and California is still hanging out around
five because they had slowly opened back up.
Speaker 2 (35:39):
Florida retained its like economy from parks and amusement rides
and all that, you know, the Disney stuff. California did not.
Speaker 1 (35:49):
Jobs lost California one point six to three million, Florida
five hundred and eighty k. That's almost three times almost
three times more in California.
Speaker 4 (36:03):
Yeah, And there's something to be said for all of that,
and for the people who were losing those jobs. And
I called them, you know, the pajama class. Some people
say the laptop class. And I admit I am part
of that class. I Tuesday in my pajamas, don't work
on my laptop.
Speaker 3 (36:19):
That's me.
Speaker 4 (36:21):
But the thing is that those people didn't have to
worry about losing their jobs. And I've met and I
know so many people that did have to worry about it.
The lockdowns didn't help they did not help prevent spread,
and that is kind of the endgame here, I would think.
So don't tell me now in twenty twenty five that
they worked, or that some part of it worked.
Speaker 3 (36:43):
And you know, I tweeted out that.
Speaker 4 (36:44):
Article and I said, it's now impossible to find anyone
who supported school closures during COVID, Like, find someone, find
someone who's like, yeah, that was the right thing to do.
It seems like everyone wanted schools open. No one called
me a teacher killer. Randy Weingarten herself fought to open schools,
but who was she fighting, you know, I'm.
Speaker 2 (37:03):
Like, so strange.
Speaker 1 (37:04):
Yeah, Actually, the Randy Winegarden lie is so blatant because
Randy Weingarten backed her unions suing Florida and rond de
Santis to keep schools closed.
Speaker 2 (37:17):
I mean, you were literally on the other side of.
Speaker 1 (37:19):
Legal action to make this happen. I'm going to read
one more from the cow and Piece to take you off.
One of the reasons it takes me off is because
I think of him as like a libertarian ish economists, right,
so it seems like maybe he should have more a
little more criticism for these things, not reopening the schools
was a big mistake and meant a lot of lost learning.
Speaker 2 (37:38):
But plenty of elites protested at the time.
Speaker 3 (37:42):
Come on, where were these elites?
Speaker 2 (37:44):
Which ones?
Speaker 3 (37:44):
Right?
Speaker 2 (37:45):
I meanhich ones? Does he mean us or elites?
Speaker 1 (37:50):
This is a perfect example of where like, yes, there
was a class of elites that was conformist and cowardly.
Those were the blessed, sanctioned elites. And then there were
the David's wides of the world. Yea, who did the
real work and who were crapped on for it frankly, aggressively.
And now I'm going to read this book and find
all the elites that protested at.
Speaker 2 (38:11):
The time time.
Speaker 4 (38:12):
I can't wait to hear who those elites were. Let
us know if we are mentioned, because.
Speaker 3 (38:20):
Carol, I know this account.
Speaker 4 (38:22):
On X responded to the Claire Lehman tweet about it
about the you know schools and all of that when
she linked to the Tyler Cowen piece. Alex Joffe is
the account and he says children who went to Zoom
School would agree if they could actually read. Yeah, yeah,
we're mad bro today, We're still mad bro.
Speaker 3 (38:44):
We could do I mean, we could just keep going
on this forever.
Speaker 4 (38:46):
This. I need accountability, and we're not only moving away
from accountability, we seem to be moving towards. They all
did the right thing, everybody acted correctly.
Speaker 2 (38:56):
Keys closed, and just.
Speaker 1 (38:57):
On sixty minutes this week there was a scientist talk
about the next virus that's gonna make COVID look like
a walk in the park.
Speaker 2 (39:03):
And I'm like, you know what, you know what, girl.
Speaker 4 (39:05):
I can't live. Yeah, I'm yeah, I'll just stay in.
Speaker 3 (39:10):
Florida and hope for the best.
Speaker 2 (39:11):
Actually stick with the Santas, let's.
Speaker 4 (39:14):
Hang on to him.
Speaker 3 (39:15):
Thanks for joining us on Normally.
Speaker 4 (39:17):
Normally airs Tuesdays and Thursdays, and you can subscribe anywhere.
Speaker 3 (39:21):
You get your podcasts. Get in touch with us.
Speaker 4 (39:23):
At normallythepod at gmail dot com. Thanks for listening, and
when things get weird, act normally
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show News
Hosts And Creators
Clay Travis
Buck Sexton
Show Links
WebsiteNewsletterPopular Podcasts
40s and Free Agents: NFL Draft Season
Daniel Jeremiah of Move the Sticks and Gregg Rosenthal of NFL Daily join forces to break down every team's needs this offseason.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
The Bobby Bones Show
Listen to 'The Bobby Bones Show' by downloading the daily full replay.