So happy to be here again. Thank you for the email that linked me to the podcast, Steven.
As is usual, for me, thank you Lucretia for speaking so many of my thoughts to John who had everything right in his opening remarks on Israel and Iran until his conclusion. How could he say all of that and then give Trump little to no credit for it. As stated by Lucretia, Trumps Huuuuge, support for Israel and then the bunker busters to boot had everything to do with what, so far, has been a brilliant action taken against Iran. With no boots on the ground intervention from America, or for that matter, Israel. And John says Trump had little to do with it??? Seems to me sometimes brilliant minds, in some fields - for John, the law - seem quite mind boggling in others. Then again John sounds a little stuffed up from not quite having 'woke' up from, apparently, your early morning podcast - at least for y'all. Maybe a little whiskey (or coffee?) would help.
To Johns point that we (conservatives) have enjoyed more success with SCOTUS rulings recently than perhaps in the history of the republic, this can also, ultimately, be credited to President Trump. God Bless that man. ;-)
BTW, commercial breaks here were nothing more than a quick couple of seconds of quiet pause. ;-)
I'm considering reaching deep into my pocket for enough $$ to become a paid subscriber - if and/or when I get a like from Lucretia. If not, I guess I'll just go eat worms. Also I must have control over renewals so as not be automatically charged for annual renewals when that time rolls around, always unexpectedly it seems. We'll see.
It's been fun and it is great to be back in touch with y'all's voices. Very enjoyable podcast.
If you listen to the episode from here on Substack, you won't get ads. But if you get it from Ricochet, Apple iTunes, etc, you will. So, for future reference. . .
Thanks Steven I listened on Substack today and will continue to do so. BTW I got 4 emails for likes on my comment and 3 were identified as you, Max and a Brian Miller. 1 was identified as 'someone' and I have no idea who that may be. Lucretia?? Seems strange. The 4 likes indicated at the end of my comments does not display who the likes are when my cursor is hovered over it so I'm in the blind on who the 4th like is from. Not your concern. Just throwing it out there.
P.S. I went searching in my spam box and found a substack email in there from you. May be why I suddenly stopped getting your emails some time back. Ya think? Duh. Definitely accidental at best. Fixed it.
Brilliant addition of the headlines we've missed on Saturdays with PLB's post-Hayward version of TWIP. With PLB putting its TWIP commentary behind a pay wall, now is the time to add memes to your headlines. Perhaps a headline sandwich as in days of old?
John may have come around, but not quite far enough in his comments diminishing Trump's role in the Israel/Iran conflict. DJT did far more than simply allow Israel to go forward. Going back to the Abraham Accords in his first term and then his trip to the ME several months ago, he set the table for a complete reset in the ME, including the acquiescence of the Arab states when Israel launched the offensive. That didn't just happen. Why is it so difficult to give credit to the man who has accomplished more than all the foreign policy experts who tried and failed for decades. As for Trump not having an overarching strategy, it's staring us in the face. He has consistently worked to promote economic self-interest among nations as the way to forge peace. If that isn't a strategy to achieve peace as the objective, then I don't know what is.
Indeed. When a state has their own liquor stores it IS more expensive and the selections are limited. Unless it’s Washington where the people voted to get rid of state liquor stores and the state jacked up the tax so it cost more than ever. Can’t wait to see how the NYC communist groceries work out.
I’m always agog at Total Wine liquor selections. If you can’t get it there, they don’t make it.
Love me some John Yoo, but I couldn't wrap my head around why he needed an explanation or understanding of Trump's decision-making process. As Lucretia stated, there's an outcome he's trying to achieve (no Iranian nukes), the higher-level strategy and lower-level tactics of which John seems to want to see a 1,000-line project plan that's laid out to achieve that same outcome. I actually think Trump's already done that (Abraham accords, switching the US embassy to Jerusalem/recognition of Jerusalem as the capitol of Israel in his first term, all of his loud and vocal support for Israel over the years, both terms), if it's not specifically enumerated in some white paper.
The outcome of a non-nuclear Iran is not just Israel's security, but the region's security, an outcome which all non-maniacal regimes are seeking. Or mostly non-maniacal regimes.
All these cases of children, teachers, and parents that come before the courts have a common element that holds that “Proper” instruction is best. Proper instruction, it is maintained, is always provided by teachers. That teachers’ instruction may be tendentious is never considered by the teachers to be a real possibility.
What the LGBT+ community would like is children being propagandized into a specific set of beliefs. Parents would also like their children to believe as they do, which is to say believe a historically accepted view of mature sexual relationships. The issue hinges upon who is right. It should never hinge on the legal opinions of judges and courts for the law is always amoral.
The fact that children may not be instructed in these matters is never seen as a benefit, only as a detriment. Yet, throughout millennia issues of this sort have been decided by children growing into adulthood in a manner that accommodates them and their personal view of life. Good or evil it has always been so.
Contrary to what parents think, teachers’ unions will hold that THEY and only THEY can instruct, everyone else has no opinion. Teachers are brainwashed into this idea, because they think themselves to be neutral educators, which they are not. This implicit assumption of neutrality can be dismissed by the presentation of any picture of a blue haired teacher that challenges “the man.”
That parental instruction may be incomplete or, in itself, tendentious is no reason for it to be dismissed. We, as individuals, decide how best to spend our adult freedoms. The great battle we all fight, as Solzhenitsyn so aptly put it, runs through the heart of every man, and that is the line that separates good from evil. We need no teacher, no union, or no court to push us one way or the other.
That parents have a vital, if not the most important, role to play in this struggle goes without saying.
I do have to say that males prefer the air conditioning colder than women. Your bodies are designed to stay warm more efficiently being in most cases more of a simple column than ours. When I was doing office work, I don't think I ever saw a female, myself included without an emergency sweater. This battle will never end as long as there are two sexes.
When some of us men (myself) get older (old;-) we tolerate the cold less than in our youth. At least for those of us who do not have our bellies hanging over our belts with all that built in body heat. That's why 'they' call me Slim Jim. The ladies that is. Now I'm bragging ;-).
And that's what happens when you (me) apply statistical probabilities to every individual on the planet. But I'm mostly right. But our conversation just illustrated why a centrally planned economy doesn't work. It doesn't allow for exceptions.
First the Maryland LGBT+ case is more than pro-parent, but it is pro-religion. As Alito pointed out the Montgomery County school board was treating freedom of religion as a second-class right, it allowed parental opt-outs for other programs but not only refused the same for children stories about princes having the hots for knights, but actually rescinded a previously granted opt-out.
The Court also restablished that public schools are a public benefitwhich people should not have to forego in order to enjoy their natural rights.
Second, please John stop talking about strategy. You are an amazing person, not only the master of all media and three branches of government but the epitome of “Philly” - when I think of this ad I think of you.
HR is great and aligned with Trump’s great moves on foreign policy. Love John too but his demands for foreign policy strike me as less great. However both remain free from locked rooms in my head,😁
Commenting on the 3WHH and the expansion of parental rights -- I'm not seeing any of the three cases furthered that goal for ALL parents.
In Skrmetti, I thought the Supreme Court validated States Rights by rejecting the concept that a minor who identifies as trans has rights to healthcare procedures that a state legislature was attempting to ban. This is a victory for common sense, but the role of a parent, if anything was impinged. Parents who buy into the fallacious concept that gender affirming care is 'safe and effective' in addressing gender dysphoria actually lost rights.
In the 'Sotomayor thinks all books are great for 2nd graders' case from Maryland, it's only the rights of parents who possess 'sincerely held religious beliefs' that were affirmed on 1A grounds. What if you are non-religious and, again in possession of common sense, and you don't want the school system presenting a point of view that your gender was only assigned at birth but is not an immutable characteristic? Or any aspect of sex ed should be delayed until children start to enter puberty? (And even then the parent has the right to review the curriculum and opt-out of the school district's approach to presenting a complex and sensitive subject.)
There are many reasons to counsel young people that premarital sex is a bad idea -- the risk of disease or an unplanned pregnancy when they don't possess the ability to fend for themselves are two obvious reasons and don't require a belief in a higher power and a particular morale doctrine.
The Texas age verification was a victory for parental rights, but again it has its limits. It only affirmed parental rights if the parent lives in a state where the legislature feels these rights should be affirmed as it relates to online access to pornography.
Let's save the parental rights victory dance until the Supreme Court or Congress, chooses to strike down state laws that affirm a child's access to gender affirming care or to transition while at school without any parental involvement and require a nationwide age verification system that will protect children and adolescents from a wide range of harmful content accessible on the Internet.
One other comment -- a justice who falls into Vance's childless cat lady grouping should be the last to comment on the role parents should have in the raising of their children...
Double Header:
Re: 3 WHH
So happy to be here again. Thank you for the email that linked me to the podcast, Steven.
As is usual, for me, thank you Lucretia for speaking so many of my thoughts to John who had everything right in his opening remarks on Israel and Iran until his conclusion. How could he say all of that and then give Trump little to no credit for it. As stated by Lucretia, Trumps Huuuuge, support for Israel and then the bunker busters to boot had everything to do with what, so far, has been a brilliant action taken against Iran. With no boots on the ground intervention from America, or for that matter, Israel. And John says Trump had little to do with it??? Seems to me sometimes brilliant minds, in some fields - for John, the law - seem quite mind boggling in others. Then again John sounds a little stuffed up from not quite having 'woke' up from, apparently, your early morning podcast - at least for y'all. Maybe a little whiskey (or coffee?) would help.
To Johns point that we (conservatives) have enjoyed more success with SCOTUS rulings recently than perhaps in the history of the republic, this can also, ultimately, be credited to President Trump. God Bless that man. ;-)
BTW, commercial breaks here were nothing more than a quick couple of seconds of quiet pause. ;-)
I'm considering reaching deep into my pocket for enough $$ to become a paid subscriber - if and/or when I get a like from Lucretia. If not, I guess I'll just go eat worms. Also I must have control over renewals so as not be automatically charged for annual renewals when that time rolls around, always unexpectedly it seems. We'll see.
It's been fun and it is great to be back in touch with y'all's voices. Very enjoyable podcast.
Til next time,
Jim
If you listen to the episode from here on Substack, you won't get ads. But if you get it from Ricochet, Apple iTunes, etc, you will. So, for future reference. . .
Thanks Steven I listened on Substack today and will continue to do so. BTW I got 4 emails for likes on my comment and 3 were identified as you, Max and a Brian Miller. 1 was identified as 'someone' and I have no idea who that may be. Lucretia?? Seems strange. The 4 likes indicated at the end of my comments does not display who the likes are when my cursor is hovered over it so I'm in the blind on who the 4th like is from. Not your concern. Just throwing it out there.
P.S. I went searching in my spam box and found a substack email in there from you. May be why I suddenly stopped getting your emails some time back. Ya think? Duh. Definitely accidental at best. Fixed it.
Brilliant addition of the headlines we've missed on Saturdays with PLB's post-Hayward version of TWIP. With PLB putting its TWIP commentary behind a pay wall, now is the time to add memes to your headlines. Perhaps a headline sandwich as in days of old?
Agreed.
I doubt Steve will ever tell, but I wonder if discussion about setting up that paywall at PL was one of his reasons for leaving
I'm certainly not buying that nonsense about too many memes, considering how he posts as many as ever in the daily emails 😉
🤣
I have to say that you and Cooke have been ("unexpectedly!") strong replacements for those two other guys. I started listening regularly again.
Very kind of you to say and much appreciated. But I owe my spot to the "other guys," so I have to stick up for them.
John may have come around, but not quite far enough in his comments diminishing Trump's role in the Israel/Iran conflict. DJT did far more than simply allow Israel to go forward. Going back to the Abraham Accords in his first term and then his trip to the ME several months ago, he set the table for a complete reset in the ME, including the acquiescence of the Arab states when Israel launched the offensive. That didn't just happen. Why is it so difficult to give credit to the man who has accomplished more than all the foreign policy experts who tried and failed for decades. As for Trump not having an overarching strategy, it's staring us in the face. He has consistently worked to promote economic self-interest among nations as the way to forge peace. If that isn't a strategy to achieve peace as the objective, then I don't know what is.
Indeed. When a state has their own liquor stores it IS more expensive and the selections are limited. Unless it’s Washington where the people voted to get rid of state liquor stores and the state jacked up the tax so it cost more than ever. Can’t wait to see how the NYC communist groceries work out.
I’m always agog at Total Wine liquor selections. If you can’t get it there, they don’t make it.
Love me some John Yoo, but I couldn't wrap my head around why he needed an explanation or understanding of Trump's decision-making process. As Lucretia stated, there's an outcome he's trying to achieve (no Iranian nukes), the higher-level strategy and lower-level tactics of which John seems to want to see a 1,000-line project plan that's laid out to achieve that same outcome. I actually think Trump's already done that (Abraham accords, switching the US embassy to Jerusalem/recognition of Jerusalem as the capitol of Israel in his first term, all of his loud and vocal support for Israel over the years, both terms), if it's not specifically enumerated in some white paper.
The outcome of a non-nuclear Iran is not just Israel's security, but the region's security, an outcome which all non-maniacal regimes are seeking. Or mostly non-maniacal regimes.
All these cases of children, teachers, and parents that come before the courts have a common element that holds that “Proper” instruction is best. Proper instruction, it is maintained, is always provided by teachers. That teachers’ instruction may be tendentious is never considered by the teachers to be a real possibility.
What the LGBT+ community would like is children being propagandized into a specific set of beliefs. Parents would also like their children to believe as they do, which is to say believe a historically accepted view of mature sexual relationships. The issue hinges upon who is right. It should never hinge on the legal opinions of judges and courts for the law is always amoral.
The fact that children may not be instructed in these matters is never seen as a benefit, only as a detriment. Yet, throughout millennia issues of this sort have been decided by children growing into adulthood in a manner that accommodates them and their personal view of life. Good or evil it has always been so.
Contrary to what parents think, teachers’ unions will hold that THEY and only THEY can instruct, everyone else has no opinion. Teachers are brainwashed into this idea, because they think themselves to be neutral educators, which they are not. This implicit assumption of neutrality can be dismissed by the presentation of any picture of a blue haired teacher that challenges “the man.”
That parental instruction may be incomplete or, in itself, tendentious is no reason for it to be dismissed. We, as individuals, decide how best to spend our adult freedoms. The great battle we all fight, as Solzhenitsyn so aptly put it, runs through the heart of every man, and that is the line that separates good from evil. We need no teacher, no union, or no court to push us one way or the other.
That parents have a vital, if not the most important, role to play in this struggle goes without saying.
I do have to say that males prefer the air conditioning colder than women. Your bodies are designed to stay warm more efficiently being in most cases more of a simple column than ours. When I was doing office work, I don't think I ever saw a female, myself included without an emergency sweater. This battle will never end as long as there are two sexes.
When some of us men (myself) get older (old;-) we tolerate the cold less than in our youth. At least for those of us who do not have our bellies hanging over our belts with all that built in body heat. That's why 'they' call me Slim Jim. The ladies that is. Now I'm bragging ;-).
It is the opposite in our house. My husband is always cold.
And that's what happens when you (me) apply statistical probabilities to every individual on the planet. But I'm mostly right. But our conversation just illustrated why a centrally planned economy doesn't work. It doesn't allow for exceptions.
I will add two things....
First the Maryland LGBT+ case is more than pro-parent, but it is pro-religion. As Alito pointed out the Montgomery County school board was treating freedom of religion as a second-class right, it allowed parental opt-outs for other programs but not only refused the same for children stories about princes having the hots for knights, but actually rescinded a previously granted opt-out.
The Court also restablished that public schools are a public benefitwhich people should not have to forego in order to enjoy their natural rights.
Second, please John stop talking about strategy. You are an amazing person, not only the master of all media and three branches of government but the epitome of “Philly” - when I think of this ad I think of you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14iXfAbuQq8
However everytime you talk about strategy so you make me want to put you in the same room as H.R. McMaster, lock the door and run away.
HR is great and aligned with Trump’s great moves on foreign policy. Love John too but his demands for foreign policy strike me as less great. However both remain free from locked rooms in my head,😁
Higher taxes on white neighborhoods? Jeffersons hardest hit!
Booze is more money at state stores? Good thing that doesn't apply to groceries.
If NYC elects that guy, will they finally get the message? I wonder.
Commenting on the 3WHH and the expansion of parental rights -- I'm not seeing any of the three cases furthered that goal for ALL parents.
In Skrmetti, I thought the Supreme Court validated States Rights by rejecting the concept that a minor who identifies as trans has rights to healthcare procedures that a state legislature was attempting to ban. This is a victory for common sense, but the role of a parent, if anything was impinged. Parents who buy into the fallacious concept that gender affirming care is 'safe and effective' in addressing gender dysphoria actually lost rights.
In the 'Sotomayor thinks all books are great for 2nd graders' case from Maryland, it's only the rights of parents who possess 'sincerely held religious beliefs' that were affirmed on 1A grounds. What if you are non-religious and, again in possession of common sense, and you don't want the school system presenting a point of view that your gender was only assigned at birth but is not an immutable characteristic? Or any aspect of sex ed should be delayed until children start to enter puberty? (And even then the parent has the right to review the curriculum and opt-out of the school district's approach to presenting a complex and sensitive subject.)
There are many reasons to counsel young people that premarital sex is a bad idea -- the risk of disease or an unplanned pregnancy when they don't possess the ability to fend for themselves are two obvious reasons and don't require a belief in a higher power and a particular morale doctrine.
The Texas age verification was a victory for parental rights, but again it has its limits. It only affirmed parental rights if the parent lives in a state where the legislature feels these rights should be affirmed as it relates to online access to pornography.
Let's save the parental rights victory dance until the Supreme Court or Congress, chooses to strike down state laws that affirm a child's access to gender affirming care or to transition while at school without any parental involvement and require a nationwide age verification system that will protect children and adolescents from a wide range of harmful content accessible on the Internet.
One other comment -- a justice who falls into Vance's childless cat lady grouping should be the last to comment on the role parents should have in the raising of their children...