The Times scooped Chris Rufo for the same reasons a trial attorney chooses to reveal his client's or his witness's weaknesses before the other side gets to: to shape the way the harmful information is revealed so as to reduce the damage.
The leftists who attacked the Times for it live in a bubble and are unaware that there are people who get their news from other than exclusively left wing sources.
I have now watched several leftist podcasts from election night. The glee exuded by these people in anticipation of a 'Kamala win', then fading into a devastating sadness at the loss, you'd think at some point they'd begin to question their sources or their own biases i.e. the lady pollster Jane Ann Seltzer in Iowa.
But no, instead - in the case of Seltzer (watching clips of her before and after was just too good) - she immediately began to blame the loss on racism and misogyny that 'somehow' could not be foreseen in her surveys. There is no way those MAGA people could be 'on to something.' Just as obvious to them, it seems, we are the blind ones.
My mind burns from these boggling observations of humanity.
I am 50 mins in and have become a tad impatient with Steve's mic not being properly adjusted in volume for me/us to hear him.
Other than that I am enjoying the discussion, and must say please have Phil back anytime. In fact make it 4 WHH if you like. Much better having 3 against 1 rather than just 2 against 1. And everybody knows who 'the 1' is. Although it is clear that Lucretia and Steven - to John, 'just lump it and be quiet' ;-) - do a ---- good job keeping 'the 1' in check on sound conservative views and arguments.
It appears my microphone has quit on me but I didn't know it, and I wasn't able to boost my volume enough in post-production, which was done in a hurry anyway as I was on the road. Will fix for next week.
Yeah, it seemed apparent you did not know there was a problem, and Lucretia and John were not being affected by it to give you a heads up. Thanks for the reply.
I just assumed Lucretia had taken action to thwart another prog rock seminar... if Steve had forked the conversation down that path it would have been easier for John and Lucretia to talk over him. Kinda explains Phil crashing the podcast.
It's not quite an Epstein or Brennan level conspiracy, but nonetheless Steve should watch his back.
Yeah, I could hear Steve, but barely. I'm sure he'll see that that doesn't happen again. Some tech genius could probably have fixed it post-production, but this isn't a Hollywood outfit.
People from previous administrations must be held accountable for the crimes they commit or the famous, fabled "rule of law" means nothing. If some schlub Navy guy goes to jail because he took a picture inside his submarine, even though it didn't show any classified equipment, but Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State, skates, who violated classification rules with her unauthorized server on which she did government business, then we are just living in a feudal society where the aristocracy can do whatever they like but the peasants are punished for the slightest breach. We can't decide that serving in the government gives "unqualified immunity" for any crimes they perpetrate. That makes a mockery of the fundamentals of this country's founding. We're lost if that happens. It didn't use to be an issue because we have never had as any modern administrations as lawless as the last two Democrat ones were.
Linda is right on the school vote. Period. Making the perfect the enemy of the good is foolish. It is like being against Dobbs because it hurt us in 2022
On the employees 50% share yes. The employer share no - that is effectively a pretax contribution and is a deductible expense for the employer, regardless of the corporate structure of the firm.
You also pay ss tax on your contributions to a 401k like retirement account. Only income tax is shielded / deferred.
I wish to add that I couldn't find the podcast on Ricochet this morning. Also, maybe the esteemed Prof Munoz might sub when one of the regulars is out of pocket.
I am sure Prof. Munoz is a stand-up, interesting guy and I look forward to following him in the future; however, he didn't come across very well in his analysis of Mahmoud v. Taylor. Maybe he just melted under Lucretia's steely gaze.
First of all it would seem to me that Mahmoud is a massive win for conservatives It extends the religious protections of Yoder within the school walls itself as opposed to simply simply withdrawing minors from the public school itself. There are now boundary lines that are forming that restrict the government, whether the state of Maryland or the Montgomery County Public School (MCPS) system from imposing curriculum that violates the 1st Amendment rights of parents to raise their children.
Second, I found Munoz's discussion of what the 1st Amendment protects to be confused. It is well-understood, and outlined in the Court's opinion, that an important aspect part of what the Constitution protects in regard to religion is the ability of parents to raise their children in their particular faith. After all religion practice is more than what happens within a given building on a Sunday. It also acknowledges, perhaps implicitly, that public schools by their very nature create an authority figure, one that can compete with that of parents, in a child's development.
Those are the legal aspects of the case. As to the political parts...
Third, I found his mention of Sotomayor's quip regarding this as a political as opposed to a Constitutional decision disingenuous. Given the particular circumstances of the school district in question (MCPS), a political solution through the school board is close to impossible, MCPS is a massive 160,000 student system coterminous with an extremely liberal county in the DC metro area. I have observed their school board elections and the ability of a single outsider to get elected, let alone achieve a voting majority while theoretically possible is as a practical matter impossible due to the mobilization of a liberal voting bloc, teacher union support, and at-large members.
We wouldn't have asked the blacks in Civil Rights-era Deep South to solely petition the deprivation of their Constitutional (natural) rights through the ballot box, neither should we here. Sotomayor understands this, she simply sees the parents' religious rights as secondary to the government's supposed compelling need of having young children subjected to tales such as “Pride Puppy” and princes having the hots for male knights.
A good analogy would be the Loudoun County protests in June 2021 which showed it took the extraordinary circumstances of COVID school closures, CRT curriculum, and covering up the sexual assaults by trans-identifying boy to make any headway of parents affecting school policy. The problem with parents politically involved in school politics is that they are by definition temporary given that their kids will age out of the school system – let alone families leaving the area in general. For employment reasons. School systems have been captured by determined, entrenched minorities.
The Court was quite clear that parents should not forego the public benefit of an education in order to enjoy the free exercise of religion (as I defined above) even in those school districts in which those policies are validated by democratic means.
Fourth, as a point of clarification while the goal as Prof. Munoz states is to get these books and curriculum out of schools, prudence dictates that we follow John 14:2 “in my father's house there are many rooms.” We must think of the political project as approaching various jurisdictions on a continuum. In many political jurisdictions there is sufficient political power to rid the school system of this entirely. In other jurisdictions, there is only enough power to rid the system of some it. In other jurisdiction such as MCPS there is no political power. In those jurisdictions where our power is less than sufficient, we must exercise prudence and understand as an interim step it is enough for now to simply prevent the local school system from imposing such views on unwilling parents.
Fifth, I encourage Prof. Munoz to think creatively and outside his current frame of reference to see the immense possibilities opened up by Mahmoud for political action.
One suggestion is that now that MCPS will be obligated to extend its opt-out program to LGBT+ materials (which it has agreed to do ), the plaintiffs should organize not to win school board elections (which would be an impossibility bordering on martyrdom) but to flood the system with so many opt-outs that MCPS would find using the curriculum unviable – call it Irish democracy meets “Uncle Billy's Wedding.”
Another path is to leverage a favorable administration in DC and Mahmoud to see school choice as a civil rights issue. MCPS is an ideal candidate but in reality there are many other districts in the DC area which would be ideal - massive county-wide districts in very blue jurisdictions that allow no student choice. As seen from the fore-mentioned Loudoun County experience and the plaintiffs in Mahmoud, parent objections are ignored since they always have the option of foregoing the public benefit of a publicly-funded education.
We can use the concepts validated in Mahmoud with a friendly and aggressive Trump Administration to implement what I will call the “Otter Option” - instead of fighting with conventional weapons such as school board elections and court decisions which would take years and cost billions of dollars we drop the big one and declare school choice as a civil right. Sadly MCPS seems to be complying but I am sure we can dig up a less savvy district elsewhere in the DC-area or say Massachusetts that are infused with hubris and riddled with TDS who would be willing to fight this one out. We can use the Dept of Ed's OCR to locate such a district and force a consent decree that will force such a policy. Barring that and following the precedent set by segregationist southern states wanting to avoid integration of higher ed, I am sure we can get a Trump Dept of Ed to allow such districts and states to avoid school choice on the condition that they pay full the tuition for willing parents to send their kids to private schools.
Whether mass opt-outs or school choice, the quickest way to get this curriculum out of even the most liberal schools is to leverage the power of individual choice.
With the chatter about men drinking port and women retiring to something unknown after dinner, I would only ask one question: Have none of the four of you, including the port drinker, ever heard of the thunder mug? And by that I don't mean the short signalling cannon that only makes a loud bang.
The Times scooped Chris Rufo for the same reasons a trial attorney chooses to reveal his client's or his witness's weaknesses before the other side gets to: to shape the way the harmful information is revealed so as to reduce the damage.
The leftists who attacked the Times for it live in a bubble and are unaware that there are people who get their news from other than exclusively left wing sources.
Re: the leftist bubble
I have now watched several leftist podcasts from election night. The glee exuded by these people in anticipation of a 'Kamala win', then fading into a devastating sadness at the loss, you'd think at some point they'd begin to question their sources or their own biases i.e. the lady pollster Jane Ann Seltzer in Iowa.
But no, instead - in the case of Seltzer (watching clips of her before and after was just too good) - she immediately began to blame the loss on racism and misogyny that 'somehow' could not be foreseen in her surveys. There is no way those MAGA people could be 'on to something.' Just as obvious to them, it seems, we are the blind ones.
My mind burns from these boggling observations of humanity.
Too right Max. On both the shaping and the bubble observations.
Ref: 3 WHH
I am 50 mins in and have become a tad impatient with Steve's mic not being properly adjusted in volume for me/us to hear him.
Other than that I am enjoying the discussion, and must say please have Phil back anytime. In fact make it 4 WHH if you like. Much better having 3 against 1 rather than just 2 against 1. And everybody knows who 'the 1' is. Although it is clear that Lucretia and Steven - to John, 'just lump it and be quiet' ;-) - do a ---- good job keeping 'the 1' in check on sound conservative views and arguments.
Anyhow,
Til next week,
Jim
It appears my microphone has quit on me but I didn't know it, and I wasn't able to boost my volume enough in post-production, which was done in a hurry anyway as I was on the road. Will fix for next week.
Yeah, it seemed apparent you did not know there was a problem, and Lucretia and John were not being affected by it to give you a heads up. Thanks for the reply.
I just assumed Lucretia had taken action to thwart another prog rock seminar... if Steve had forked the conversation down that path it would have been easier for John and Lucretia to talk over him. Kinda explains Phil crashing the podcast.
It's not quite an Epstein or Brennan level conspiracy, but nonetheless Steve should watch his back.
It wouldn't be the first podcast host coup de tat
Too funny, but... you may be on to something. ;-)
Yeah, I could hear Steve, but barely. I'm sure he'll see that that doesn't happen again. Some tech genius could probably have fixed it post-production, but this isn't a Hollywood outfit.
Recurrent problem when there's a "guest:" not holding my breath for a fix.
People from previous administrations must be held accountable for the crimes they commit or the famous, fabled "rule of law" means nothing. If some schlub Navy guy goes to jail because he took a picture inside his submarine, even though it didn't show any classified equipment, but Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State, skates, who violated classification rules with her unauthorized server on which she did government business, then we are just living in a feudal society where the aristocracy can do whatever they like but the peasants are punished for the slightest breach. We can't decide that serving in the government gives "unqualified immunity" for any crimes they perpetrate. That makes a mockery of the fundamentals of this country's founding. We're lost if that happens. It didn't use to be an issue because we have never had as any modern administrations as lawless as the last two Democrat ones were.
Linda is right on the school vote. Period. Making the perfect the enemy of the good is foolish. It is like being against Dobbs because it hurt us in 2022
We need around 250,000-300,000 deportations/mo to get to some semblance of normalcy in the country. Trump the Deporter has a nice ring to it.
Just like "Deplorables" and "Ultra MAGA" the left often gives us some really good descriptors to rally around 👍
That's OK. You were less talkative than usual.
On taxing social security payments: Weren't we already taxed once on the income that goes to social security withholding through our working life?
On the employees 50% share yes. The employer share no - that is effectively a pretax contribution and is a deductible expense for the employer, regardless of the corporate structure of the firm.
You also pay ss tax on your contributions to a 401k like retirement account. Only income tax is shielded / deferred.
I wish to add that I couldn't find the podcast on Ricochet this morning. Also, maybe the esteemed Prof Munoz might sub when one of the regulars is out of pocket.
I never saw three whisky on Spotify. Are yall no longer there?
I am sure Prof. Munoz is a stand-up, interesting guy and I look forward to following him in the future; however, he didn't come across very well in his analysis of Mahmoud v. Taylor. Maybe he just melted under Lucretia's steely gaze.
First of all it would seem to me that Mahmoud is a massive win for conservatives It extends the religious protections of Yoder within the school walls itself as opposed to simply simply withdrawing minors from the public school itself. There are now boundary lines that are forming that restrict the government, whether the state of Maryland or the Montgomery County Public School (MCPS) system from imposing curriculum that violates the 1st Amendment rights of parents to raise their children.
Second, I found Munoz's discussion of what the 1st Amendment protects to be confused. It is well-understood, and outlined in the Court's opinion, that an important aspect part of what the Constitution protects in regard to religion is the ability of parents to raise their children in their particular faith. After all religion practice is more than what happens within a given building on a Sunday. It also acknowledges, perhaps implicitly, that public schools by their very nature create an authority figure, one that can compete with that of parents, in a child's development.
Those are the legal aspects of the case. As to the political parts...
Third, I found his mention of Sotomayor's quip regarding this as a political as opposed to a Constitutional decision disingenuous. Given the particular circumstances of the school district in question (MCPS), a political solution through the school board is close to impossible, MCPS is a massive 160,000 student system coterminous with an extremely liberal county in the DC metro area. I have observed their school board elections and the ability of a single outsider to get elected, let alone achieve a voting majority while theoretically possible is as a practical matter impossible due to the mobilization of a liberal voting bloc, teacher union support, and at-large members.
We wouldn't have asked the blacks in Civil Rights-era Deep South to solely petition the deprivation of their Constitutional (natural) rights through the ballot box, neither should we here. Sotomayor understands this, she simply sees the parents' religious rights as secondary to the government's supposed compelling need of having young children subjected to tales such as “Pride Puppy” and princes having the hots for male knights.
A good analogy would be the Loudoun County protests in June 2021 which showed it took the extraordinary circumstances of COVID school closures, CRT curriculum, and covering up the sexual assaults by trans-identifying boy to make any headway of parents affecting school policy. The problem with parents politically involved in school politics is that they are by definition temporary given that their kids will age out of the school system – let alone families leaving the area in general. For employment reasons. School systems have been captured by determined, entrenched minorities.
The Court was quite clear that parents should not forego the public benefit of an education in order to enjoy the free exercise of religion (as I defined above) even in those school districts in which those policies are validated by democratic means.
Fourth, as a point of clarification while the goal as Prof. Munoz states is to get these books and curriculum out of schools, prudence dictates that we follow John 14:2 “in my father's house there are many rooms.” We must think of the political project as approaching various jurisdictions on a continuum. In many political jurisdictions there is sufficient political power to rid the school system of this entirely. In other jurisdictions, there is only enough power to rid the system of some it. In other jurisdiction such as MCPS there is no political power. In those jurisdictions where our power is less than sufficient, we must exercise prudence and understand as an interim step it is enough for now to simply prevent the local school system from imposing such views on unwilling parents.
Fifth, I encourage Prof. Munoz to think creatively and outside his current frame of reference to see the immense possibilities opened up by Mahmoud for political action.
One suggestion is that now that MCPS will be obligated to extend its opt-out program to LGBT+ materials (which it has agreed to do ), the plaintiffs should organize not to win school board elections (which would be an impossibility bordering on martyrdom) but to flood the system with so many opt-outs that MCPS would find using the curriculum unviable – call it Irish democracy meets “Uncle Billy's Wedding.”
Another path is to leverage a favorable administration in DC and Mahmoud to see school choice as a civil rights issue. MCPS is an ideal candidate but in reality there are many other districts in the DC area which would be ideal - massive county-wide districts in very blue jurisdictions that allow no student choice. As seen from the fore-mentioned Loudoun County experience and the plaintiffs in Mahmoud, parent objections are ignored since they always have the option of foregoing the public benefit of a publicly-funded education.
We can use the concepts validated in Mahmoud with a friendly and aggressive Trump Administration to implement what I will call the “Otter Option” - instead of fighting with conventional weapons such as school board elections and court decisions which would take years and cost billions of dollars we drop the big one and declare school choice as a civil right. Sadly MCPS seems to be complying but I am sure we can dig up a less savvy district elsewhere in the DC-area or say Massachusetts that are infused with hubris and riddled with TDS who would be willing to fight this one out. We can use the Dept of Ed's OCR to locate such a district and force a consent decree that will force such a policy. Barring that and following the precedent set by segregationist southern states wanting to avoid integration of higher ed, I am sure we can get a Trump Dept of Ed to allow such districts and states to avoid school choice on the condition that they pay full the tuition for willing parents to send their kids to private schools.
Whether mass opt-outs or school choice, the quickest way to get this curriculum out of even the most liberal schools is to leverage the power of individual choice.
Regarding “jogging excluding black people” I remember the Boston Marathon has often had the winner from Africa:
https://www.espn.com/olympics/story/_/id/44783813/kenya-john-korir-joins-brother-boston-marathon-champion
Is the 3WP not on Podcast?
With the chatter about men drinking port and women retiring to something unknown after dinner, I would only ask one question: Have none of the four of you, including the port drinker, ever heard of the thunder mug? And by that I don't mean the short signalling cannon that only makes a loud bang.