After Party with Emily Jashinsky - "Happy Hour": Bidens Cashing In, Abortion After Dobbs, and Free Speech’s Future: Emily Answers YOUR Questions

Episode Date: July 24, 2026

On this week's edition of “Happy Hour,” Emily Jashinsky begins by discussing the Biden family's post-presidency book deals and why she believes they're part of a broader effort to cash in while the family's political influence still carries value. She also explains why she tends to view assassination plots and other historic tragedies through the lens of incompetence before conspiracy, weighs the future of free speech on college campuses, and explores the role of religion and God's plan throughout history. Emily reflects on adapting classic works for modern audiences, how politics has become increasingly performative in the social media era, the value of talking to everyone in journalism, and the difference between political art and partisan activism. She also shares stories about her background as a percussionist, the books that fill her office shelves, and why the “Happy Hour” format has become one of her favorite parts of the week. Finally, Emily offers an in-depth discussion of abortion, explaining her pro-life perspective and the challenges facing the movement after Dobbs, before closing with her reaction to the latest controversy surrounding the Smithsonian Institution and broader debates over American history, culture, and more… Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Welcome to Happy Hour, everyone. Thank you so much for being here. As a reminder, this is a special edition of AfterParty that we do every single week here on the podcast feed. And on the podcast feed only, I love it that way. I think it's such a fun format to go back and forth with all of you via the emails you send it to Emily at Double Makeare Media.com, which, as if you're a long-time listener, you know, I read live. I flag them in my inbox and then get to them as we go through the taping. It's just more entertaining that way. So let's go ahead and dive in.

First one is from Kiki. I was listening to the pod today and started noodling on the Biden books. Why write them? Who asked for this? What is even the target demo? Then, let's see, Kiki says, conspiracy kicked in. I thought maybe the book deals were part of the exit package. For this, the party agrees to get them astronomically overpriced book deals.

If he agrees to run is the... the gist of the email as recompense for the Biden money train coming to an end. Your thoughts, please, have we seen the end of the Biden book party? Is Jim's book coming out next? Maybe he cops to being the big guy. Well, thanks so much, Kiki, for the email. My sense on the Biden book front, because it is like who is at, that's a fair question. Like, who is asking for this? Who wants the Biden memoir? But I think they didn't need to cut a deal with him. to get him out. I think at that point it was just pretty clear he didn't have a choice. It was Nancy Pelosi just making that arm twist so painful that there's, you know, they weren't even

using carrots. It was all sticks. So I think what it is with the Biden's is because Joe Biden, I would say conducted himself honorably on a financial level into the last couple decades of his career, meaning he really did have a pretty normal net worth despite spending a long time in the Senate and in the Senate on key committees. But while he was doing that on the sidelines, his family was building up this big lobbying, influence peddling operation. And so while Biden, I guess I shouldn't say conduct himself honorably because obviously he was aware of what was happening.

That was a poor articulation of what I meant, which is that basically he did maintain a fairly normal net worth instead of doing whatever the heck it is, maybe stock trading that gets those instead of trading stock trading that gets those net worths to skyrocket while people are in office. But all is to say, they always, my sense is they always wanted and kind of resented the money and power. they were surrounded with. I think that was probably especially true after Biden was vice president. And right now, because you can't really sell access to Joe Biden anymore.

Right, it doesn't matter if you're Frank or Jim Biden or Valerie Biden-Owins or Hunter Biden, you know, you're not close to, you don't have proximity to power. The Biden name is not powerful in politics anymore. And that means

business dried up. So my sense is that Jill Biden and Joe Biden are just trying to quickly, before Joe Biden passes, are trying to quickly kind of cash in with what's even possible. And they want that cash because they feel like they deserve it. That's my read on it. But it's an interesting question. I mean, like with Jill Biden, obviously, She had these artificial book sales for events and that sort of thing that boosted her onto the New York Times bestseller list. She dropped off the next week. It's a telltale sign that somebody did bulk book sales to get on the bestseller list. And so the question is, did she, you know, even make deals to get those? Like what deals, who is trying to, who would buy Jill Biden books in bulk?

Like, why? When she was at the 92nd Y event with Whoopi Goldberg, I'm thinking to myself, Whoopi Goldberg doesn't have to glaze Jill Biden. Why is she doing that? I mean, what the Biden said was so shameful. But I guess they're just so entrenched in society, as they say. But hey, I hear what you're saying, Kiki. Let's see.

This is Paul. who says, you covered the fascinating topic of assassination conspiracies earlier this week better than any sure I've seen. I am mildly geek about this, and yet I learned some things for the first time. And you do it all with your characteristic endearing upbeat charm without getting too deep. I note that one common thread linking the JFK murder and the Butler, Trump near miss, is the security lapse or partial stand down that at the very least aided or abetted whatever shooting plans were being made. Unreal. Anyway, your work is really sure and getting better all the time. I am super impressed. Paul. Paul, thank you. That's an extremely

kind note. And the point about that similarity is a good one. And one of the things that is frustrating when you dive into these mysteries is how much of it is clearly murky by design. You can never prove that something's incompetence versus a conspiracy, at least not in the early years and decades. You know, that's true of JFK. true of RFK, it's just, I think, pretty obviously designed to go in a million different directions, leave all kinds of loose ends that could go in one way or the other and become sort of this wall people project different theories onto, but without ever getting clarity or peace of mind and it kind of drives people nuts. Like, we've all seen it. I just watched a movie conspiracy theory

recently with Mel Gibson, Julia Roberts. That movie is underrated, let me say, underrated film. But it does drive people crazy and it understandably drives people crazy, especially drives people crazy when they're told, no, no, no, you're wrong or you're the one who's incorrect and you're the one who's crazy. But it is clearly, I think it's pretty clearly by design. So anyway, appreciate that, Paul. You can't tell whether the incompetence, in the case of Butler. I mean, the incompetence in the Butler case is absolutely staggering. Unfortunately, I think the same is true in the Charlie Kirk case. I am always, and actually after that happened, I remember on the show, having been behind organizing campus lectures before,

went through some of what was just obviously not handled well. And I'm always more inclined to ascribe incompetence, tragedy to incompetence than to conspiracy. But sometimes when you combine the incompetence, just the level of incompetence and Butler, again, staggering. It makes absolutely no sense that they are that bad. And then when you combine it with different questions about Thomas Crooks, it's hard to ignore some of those problems. But anyway, no need to go too deep down that rabbit hole this time because I've said a lot about what I think on those. types of things. George says, Dear Emily, I'm reading William F. Buckley's got a man at Yale right now. The author argues that Yale's purported goal of academic freedom is actually a cover that

professors use to push non-religious and collectivist views on its students. He writes that alumni should vote with their wallet and press to the university to adopt an openly pro-individualist and pro-Christian viewpoint. I'm not sure what I think about this. My personal views align with Buckleys, but if I had to vote my wallet, I think I'd prefer a school where faculty and students could stridently advocate for unpopular and even potentially dangerous views at the same time to borrow the cliche, I can understand that if schools stand for nothing, their faculty and students will believe in anything. Since moral relativism can lead to dark ideological corners, maybe a pro individualist and pro-Christian school is the best realistic solution, have you thought about how

schools should balance academic openness and a commitment to their values? Is there even a one-size-fits-all solution to this question? Maybe different universities should pursue completely different answers to this question. Fascinating question, George. And actually, it would be a great question for Michael Knowles, who I believe it is at Yaley. But I say that because he wrote a book, it's called Speechless, right? That book was about how conservatives misconstrue or conservatives in the kind of woke era came to align themselves with many people on the left and in the libertarian world on this question of free speech saying, we believe, I may not agree what you're saying, but I defend to the death your right to say it.

And Knowles sees that as anti-conservative. The proper conservative approach to speech, as the framers would express it, according to Michael, is that speech is not a good in and of itself. It is a means to an end. And the end is virtue, justice, a rightly ordered society. And so you should have free speech to the extent that it serves that end,

but not just as an end in it of itself. And I don't agree with that, but I do think that's what Buckley's got a man at Yale is the cornerstone. I think that's why Buckley's got a man at Yale was the cornerstone of the conservative movement to rest academia from the direction that it was going in. And it is interesting.

how the conservative movement shifted on that during the kind of woke era. You know, I don't, it's true to Georgia's point, like if universities stand for everything, they stand for nothing. And I can see a counterargument to me being, well, that, and I would agree with this, universities are built on these concepts of, like, what's the best way to put it? They're built on Western concepts, right? Like these world-class universities that we've developed in the West and here in the United States are built on these concepts that academic freedom is a good, right? That that is itself good. So it's not

neutral. And universities want to see themselves as these speech neutral places, as these ideologically neutral places, but that's not neutral in and of itself. That is a very unique historic viewpoint. And you can't have the system without that. It's kind of like the conversation we had a couple of weeks ago or even last week on Happy Hour about whether you can have Christianity without Christ, right? Can Richard Dawkins do it? I and Herssey, Ali said she couldn't do it.

It's that question of whether you can have Western institutions without, respecting the foundations of Western culture. And so I say what you're getting at, George. I think this is a really complicated question. And it brings to mind the Aaron Wren formula that I like a lot. And I cite here a lot about, you know, being in the negative world. You know, what are expectations of public institutions in an increasingly secular West? It's not an easy answer. But I guess we just have to go back to first principles. So this is a really, really interesting question.

I was always surprised, actually, during the kind of rising days of wokeness, how often, or actually how little attention, I should say, got a minute you got, how infrequently people went back to that very foundational text,

which said something different than a lot of people on the right were saying at the time. Yeah, it's interesting. I mean, I obviously think, like, God forbid I was in charge of anything. God forbid I was in charge of anything. But I think it the left basically did to academia, what Ronda Santos did to New College of Florida. And, you know, the, there's a way to have higher education that does have a level of academic freedom and a level of speech freedom.

But that is not also obscene, counterproductive, and chaotic. I think there is a way to do that. And there's no problem with striving for a system like that. Not a super clear answer, but that's because one of the things I like about the show where we're just talking through these things is that it's a really good question, George. And I wish I had more clarity on it, but we'll continue thinking, of course. Scott says, On the days you don't release new episodes,

I've been slowly working through old episodes I haven't listened to yet. You've talked about the guitar many times, but on the episode released on January 2nd of this year, you quietly dropped the bombshell that you played percussion all through school. And when you're holding out on us, the world needs to see you whip out a real feel

and throw down some parotittles. The numbers would be bonkers. When can we expect to see this on the stream? I did actually post... Thanks for the question, Scott. I posted a little bit of Cahone on Instagram. a couple of months ago.

I love, I bought a chone like a year ago because I've always, since I graduated college, lived in apartments or like a townhouse where you share walls. And I can't have a drum set, obviously. And I love, like, my dad had his old drum set when I was growing up from when he was a kid. He was probably like 10 years old when he got it. And he let me bring that up from our basement into my bedroom. when I was a kid. My parents never told me to be quiet on it or anything like that.

I was just like wail and I was figuring it all out, like kind of teaching myself on the set. I did, I was in percussion from the time that I was like 10 until I graduated high school. I was a band kid for better or worse and not a very good one, but I was a band kid and did a lot of paradigils in my day.

But on Instagram, I did put up, a cahone. I forget what it was. It was just like a silly little thing of me tooling around in the cahone because I had gotten brush sticks for it recently, which I think are really fun. But anyway, I have probably played more guitar in my life than drums, but I'm actually, to be honest, better at drums, if I'm being honest. That's my better instrument. I'm not particularly good at any of it. My dad's great, but that's probably the, I can keep up with, you know, I can't do anything super fancy.

I can keep up on the drums pretty well. This is from Joe who says, Hello, Emily. My wife and I are fairly recent subscribers of Breaking Points in Act Party, and we have both been trying to identify books on your bookshelf, having noted quite a bit of overlap in our respective collections. If you have a photo or a spreadsheet, we will mail you a case of Moon Manor supply a gift card to a separate club

if you're choosing Midwest's best. Yeah, it probably is. You probably can't tell what most of them are because the, because of the way the camera is set up. If you are looking at a breaking point shot, you probably have a clear example, or you probably have a clear view of what's on the shelf. It's actually just my real bookshelf.

Like, this is my real office where I broadcast from. And so I try to clean up any, like, messes on the shelf before the shows. But that is actually, like, when you're in media, people send me a lot of books, review copies, those sorts of things, although more and more, they're PDFs, which I don't mind. But I love hard copies, too. And so that is actually just like, I throw every random book that I get onto my real bookshelf. So it's not like specially curated or anything or specially arranged. Other people probably do that to avoid like having random things in the shot. I don't because I don't have anywhere else to put these books. And I've pretty much run out of room on that shelf. So I don't know what I'm going to probably just have to keep a stack next to it or something. in the near future, but it's not especially curated. It's really just things that people send me or things that I've had for a while or some of the new books I buy too. I can, Joe, I can try to take a picture, so some of them are clearer. Stephen says, a long while ago, I was listening to

Kyle Kalinsky's show and he had called his U.S. House representative about a vote they were about to take. I forget the issue in question, but it was interesting to hear how a call to a congressman in the office could go as a staffer who answered, and they had a conversation. And of course, their discussion and his concerns will be passed on to the congressman though who's to know of it actually who's to know if it actually would have you ever called a representative or senator about an issue in your area or state is there something that's happening now that you'd be willing to call about and would you ever record the conversation for your listeners thanks keep what keep doing what you're doing interesting no i didn't see uh kalinsky do that um my understanding i have a lot of

friends who've worked in the house and the senate my understanding is that the volume of calls can make a difference sometimes because there isn't always great issue area polling, especially in a small house district, or especially on a really specific issue, like, you know, the NDAA that was just being debated. And so the volume of calls actually can make a difference. So even just calling and saying, hey, I want the congressman to know, I really object to this, hope you'll do X, Y, and C. You don't have to have like a whole speech prepared. You can just register that. And my understanding is that it's basically then just a metric that does matter. It becomes part of it. It adds to the metrics that do really matter. I don't normally call

because if I care a lot about something, I'll probably, I've always seen the best way to deal with it as like reporting it out or making an argument on the show or in writing, something like that. I have written in on a hyper local level. It didn't go well, but I've written into like very, very local representatives about different things that have happened. I've seen a lot of local government up close, so I know that stuff does matter very much. I grew up in a city of about like, I think when I was growing up, 6,000. I think it's 7,000 people now. And I think that's awesome.

Like, it does really matter. DC is not the biggest city in the world, so it's still, you can still see some results on a local level sometimes. I think it was about, there was a hotel that didn't have parking. And it was getting so dangerous on the road because Ubers were putting their hazards on and idling. There's only two lanes. I don't need to get into all of it. It was like genuinely so dangerous because cars were like speeding, they get around certain things. The problem has not been solved. You'll be not surprised to know. Okay, let's see. Howard says, just listen to Happy Hour, get stuff. I'm fascinated by your religious point of view. I found this short video on YouTube, the source of all wisdom.

Let's see, I'm clicking on it. It's a video, oh, looks like it's a longer video, 17-minute-long video here about religion. Thanks for the link. Howard. David says, any chance we might get Clint Russell on the show, Dave Smith-esque libertarian with a great hold on some of the issues. He had the best take I've seen so far on the Trump, China, still the election speech, that it's a push to get the Save America Act pass, which was recently added to the NDAA, so it's sneakily a way to get Section 219 through 2. In other words, instead of senators getting hate calls all day about how they are traders, if they pass the NDAA and 219, they're getting hate calls about how they're traders unless they pass the Save America Act, aka A, the NDAA, seemed compelling either way,

huge fan of both your and his show, Best, David. Interesting, David, I have a have listened to Clint's show a little bit. I have listened to it a little bit. And I'll probably have to listen more. I probably will listen more because I did listen to a decent bit of it. And lately, sorry, I'm looking up this NDAA that passed recently just to get the details here so I can read them to everyone. But, yeah, I probably just have to listen to more. I usually try to listen to a lot of what someone's doing before having them on.

So I'd probably do that. Let's see, just to get the details here. House lawmakers on Wednesday narrowly passed a nearly $1.15 trillion annual defense policy bill advancing the measure amid increasing tension over military spending and the war in Iran. Six Democrats voted for it. Seven Republicans voted against it. And the reason I'm reading this is it then says Massey and Roe-Kana sought to strip Section 219 from this measure, which would direct Secretary of Defense Hegsseth, Secretary of War, should say, reading from the Hill, to appoint an executive agent at the Pentagon to supervise the U.S. Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative. Massey's amendment to remove the provision was excluded by the House earlier this week. my understanding that there was actually mixed, like who was lobbying for this, ended up getting,

I'm basically trying to get at whether the administration cares a lot about 219. And I don't know that Trump cares about it as much as he cares about Save America. So I don't know that I agree with that take that he attached it onto the bill. I think he cares more about Save than he does about the NDAA. And so the establishment Republicans knew that if they attached them, it would have a better chance of passing because it would have the grassroots priority and Trump's priority in it. And then they can use that to get it over the top. So that's my read on the situation. But interesting point.

Thanks so much, David. Let's see. Matt says, have you ever wondered how the time and place of our birth influence is? faith. For instance, if you had been born in ancient Greece or present-day Saudi Arabia, do you think you'd be as devout a pagan or Sunni Muslim as you are today a Christian? To phrase it another way, do you think Christianity offers something truly unique, or do you think it's one of many ways to fill a religion-shaped whole in our hearts? Thank you. I enjoy it listening to all your answers. Good question, Matt. I think as a Christian, it would be weird if I said

that Christianity is just another path to the divine or another psychological tool to or balm to make life on earth a little bit easier. I think it's obviously the true story. I think it's obviously the good news, the true story of humanity. And because of that, it is fulfilling like nothing else. There is nothing like the joy of Christ. And so no, I would say I probably wouldn't be, but it is obviously something worth thinking about. You know, it's something that theologians have thought a lot about. Like, what does it mean? And, you know, I think also it's the empathy that I have for people of other faiths

is based on, you know, knowing what faith does. Obviously, I think Christianity is different. But I think it's... easier, I guess, it's easier for me to understand why people risk their lives for faith and a secular person might understand it. I just, I think being a person of faith, you just do consider some of these things a little bit differently because you understand why people risk their lives for what they believe is the truth. Now, in my case, this is the truth. So, I do believe that this is the truth and is more fulfilling because of that.

But, you know, religion throughout time has served that purpose of, like, filling a God-shaped whole, religion-shaped whole that people have in their hearts or a gods-shaped whole, if we're talking about ancient Greece. I just see that as part of history, as part of the plan. And let me find this quote. It's from, I think it's from, yeah, here it is. This is from Paul, and it's a much debated verse. And I'm sure I'll get more notes about this one.

one. There is no, where there is no law, there is no transgression. And part of that is the mystery of God's plan, right? But it does sort of call into question what happened to the people of ancient Greece, what happened to people who in ancient times never encountered a Jew, right? never encountered a Christian. So I think there's obviously theological questions raised by that. I think Paul gives us a pretty good answer in this is 415. Where there is no law, there is no transgression. So anyway, deep question.

That's my quick answer. Let's see here. Hank says, good show with John Daniel Davidson. I've never read The Odyssey and didn't see the movie. So take my opinion for what it's worth. I don't have any trouble with the casting, but if John Daniel Davidson is right, that no one essentially changed the story that I find troubling. I get making an interpretation of a classic work of art to relate to modern audiences. That's what they did with Romeo and Juliet.

The 60s version was West Side Story. The 90s version was Romeo and Juliet with Claire Dane's and Leo DiCaprio. They tweak both some to make it relatable to their audiences, but there are limits to how much you can change the structure of a work of art, especially a classic. That's such an iconic part of the Western canon. permission to make a tortured analogy. Hank continues if you're reading Mozart's Ein Klein and knocked music. You wouldn't drop in Clapton's guitar riff from Sunshine of Your Love, would you? Maybe you would.

Maybe you would. There's some good sampling of classical music and modern music or some interesting sampling of it. But yeah, I think that's generally correct that everyone's entitled to reinterpret classic stories and take artistic license. So I don't really have an issue with people doing that. I just have an issue if they do that and act as though it is beyond debate that their interpretation is the true interpretation or the good interpretation as opposed to maybe a postmodern and distorted interpretation.

If you want to do that, by all means, go for it. But it's more than fair for people to debate the legitimacy. of the project. Let's see. This is Richard who says it hit me the other day, Ashley Webb in Maine, Hassan Piker dresses like Mao, AOC's fake accents, it's all just political cosplay. This new generation of Politico's has grown up with anime, COVID isolation and the rise of furry culture, and it's all morphed into a strange new type of cosplay where they play a role and expect no consequences for their performance. Yes, politicians have played the stage for generations, but this feels different. It's more than performative. It's purposely manipulative, and much like anime and furry culture,

it all feels imported, but my hope is with time and the rising heat of real life, the masks will eventually have to come off. Thank you for your work in insights. Your show helps keep perspective. Thank you, Richard. I am so much of a boomer on anime and cosplay and furry culture, right? I just, I find it all very impenetrable in some sense I'm grateful for that. But there is something, if we broad in the aperture a bit more performative about politics now,

I think because of social media. Now you all know I love amusing ourselves to death by Neil Postman, who was, who actually believed that the performativity encouraged by television was negative. When Ronald Reagan was president,

he thought that had created a bad performance. that that had itself already degraded the print-based epistemology, which was more suited to a serious politics, as Postman argued. But I think right now with social media, we are constantly performing. If you're a regular poster, you're kind of constantly performing. You have to check your urge to do that. But it's created a normalization of performance culture. And that creates a It's like layers of irony that become impenetrable because you're performing to a small audience, but it's accessible to a broad audience. I think, you know, I was thinking about this actually.

I was on Megan's show today, and we were talking about Haley Stevens going from being somebody who had a little bit of a Michigan accent and a little bit of millennial uptalk. And now is just sounds cartoonish. And I was thinking actually the video of AOC's recent accent shift, but also thinking back to Hillary Clinton's accent shifts over the years, it's much harder to get away with now because there are all of these old videos. Like, you're just tracked ever, you can't go to the south and pretend to have an accent in a way that you used to. So I wonder actually if in a strange sense, we're going to pass the culture of performativity when it comes to politics because it's going to be harder and harder to perform a role when you are constantly on camera. It would just be so hard to keep up that act. And that I say is for better or worse because on the one hand it means we're going to have to have a lot more tolerance for quote unquote authenticity, which can be excellent or it can be really bad.

because it can mean people who are just totally the raw milk version of themselves versus a like slightly more, I don't know what's the best way to put it is, like a slightly more intentional presented version of what you want to save somebody in politics, putting their best foot forward, as opposed to just whatever foot goes at any given time, there are tradeoffs to it. So I see you're saying, Richard, I think that it's possible. we hit that peak and we're going towards something different. Eddie says, I was listening to last week's happy hour, my Friday afternoon decompression ritual. It hit me that one of the reasons I enjoy the show so

much is not only your commentary, but also for the breadth and the depth of the listener questions. Yes, Eddie. Eddie goes on to say, you have amassed a wonderful audience and I wish it were possible for us together in a person someday. I'm impressed each week and enjoy spending this time with all y'all. Eddie, that's wonderful because I think I closed last week's happy hour with the same sentiment, that these questions, breadth and depth is a great way to put it. These questions are so deep and so insightful themselves that I love the fun ones too, Doug Ery Rock, but they make for fascinating conversation. And it really is a highlight of my week to sit down and record Happy Hour. I love doing it. It's provocative. I know my answers aren't always perfect and you're polished

in and of themselves. But I just think the questions that we get here on the show are really enjoyable because they're often so smart. And I like being able to talk through this stuff. Again, without any time constraints, I like doing it off camera. Maybe someday we'll add a camera to happy hour. But for now, at least, I like doing it off camera because it's easier for me to just focus on your messages. And it's, again, a highlight of my week. So agree, Eddie. And thanks to all of you. Fritz says, I was listening to your friend, Mark, oh, this must be Mark Halperin's podcast, and I completely agree with his analysis that the mood right now is, quote, the system is rigged. As a Republican, the question that I have for Democrats is, quote, how is handing more power

to the government going to fix that? More concentrated power is only going to exacerbate the rigging. Government should be ensuring an even playing field to allow for more competition and independence for the American people. Bigger government just ensures greater dependence on it. Fritz, this is definitely my worldview and it's something that would always be difficult for me to reconcile with my progressive friends. I remember when my friend Ryan Graham and I would debate. This was Chevron Doctrine when that was on the chopping block on the Supreme Court. You know, I was talking about how, we were we talking, we may have been just talking about unitary executive theory and how from the left you should worry with unitary executive theory that you have

people going through the revolving door of industry into places like the EPA or into places like the FDA, certainly the Pentagon, who are acting out of line with perhaps the duly elected, democratically elected president of the United States. Like if you elect, I think this is the example that I've used in the past. If you elect Bernie Sanders president, you have somebody from Big Pharma or somebody who was lobbying for Big Pharma, there. in a role one of these agencies, and they're doing things that would undermine the Sanders agenda, you obviously want to have a mechanism to crack down on that and to kind of control that bureaucratic sprawl so that it has a democratic fuel, that it's really fueled by

this constitutional Republican system that we have. And so that's a foundational debate that I have with my friends on the left. I do find it hard to reconcile, especially for civil libertarians on the left, people who care about things like ICE, by the way. It's really, really hard to have open borders and no law enforcement agency federally like ICE. It's really hard to do that. And it's going to be really hard to have open borders in the future without the government then saying, oh, you're going to need digital ID. It's what happened in the UK. They walked it back, but it's what happened to the UK.

Oh, you don't want flock cameras, then, or the argument goes, we will let in, you know, 8 million non-citizens in the course of three years. And then we're going to put up ALPR, automatic license plate reader, flock cameras, and it's just to keep you safe, right? A lot of, I don't know, I just, I think that's hard for civil libertarians on the left to reconcile. Feel free to write in if you disagree, but I'm with you for it. I think that is a very good question. Marla says, I have watched all your episodes many two times because I fell asleep and I'm focusing on better sleep lately.

That's awesome, Marl. I also have been helping Meals on Wheels on Thursday, so I keep missing timeliness of email submission. Oh, Marlowe, God bless you. That's awesome. Key points, I'm clearly more on the side. Dr. Matthew Meyen, Mark Hemingway, VDH, Tom Bevin, and John Daniel Davidson, then I am on Glenn Greenwald, Ryan Graham, or Crystal Ball. I'm grateful you provide the space to hear from all of them. It helps me clarify my thoughts, form educated opinions. I want to read more of your suggestions. Dr. Means' book is beautiful and poetic. Marlowe attaches a picture of Dr. Meen's book. It is a really beautiful hard copy. So pick that up if you are interested at all. Marla says, I know little do nothing about Taylor Swift, but I bet her wedding was meant to be more of a Netflix special than a sacred ceremony, which is kind of sad. Hopefully it was for the right reasons and will be a success last week on the five.

Dana Perino and Kennedy mocked Jessica Kotarlov when she quoted DropSight News. Seeing like they knew nothing about it as a news source, do you think they were unaware of DropSite news? I surely hope not. I should not have greater awareness of news sources than Fox News personalities. Do you think the pejorative conspiracy theory has become as overuse as racist, worse than Largate and Nazi fascist? It seems to be meaningless, maybe just to me. I'm grateful for your efforts. Thank you for reading. God bless you. Marlowe. I did see that clip of Dana and Kennedy mocking Jessica Tarlov. I think Kennedy would probably agree with a decent bit

of drop sites foreign policy reporting. But I do keep in mind. I think drop site is what two years old now. If I'm remembering correctly, two or three years old. I think two years old. And so it is a fairly new source and we're all in our own kind of media bubble. So I'm a little forgiving on that. Harlov, who I don't often agree with, though, was making a good point about how drop sites reporting has aged pretty well in some of these bits of reporting on the Iran War. And that's because, frankly, they have sources that a lot of people in the American press are squeamish about talking to. And I think that just speaks to the value of talking to everybody in journalism. So they do have foreign sources. They do have sources from enemies that are not aligned. with the United States. And those are uncomfortable sources to build. But if you do the reporting, you're able to. And their reporting comes from one direction.

There's no question about their bias. When you're reading it, they're open about it. They're anti-imperialists. And they see the United States as imperialist. But because they have those conversations, you often get a really good glimpse of what's actually going to happen. And that's the point that Tarlov was making about their reporting. Conspiracy theory is so overused.

I totally agree with that. It's used as a smear. Since the origin of the term, it's been used as a smear. It's losing its power, though. So I agree. Corey says, Dear Emily, thought you'd be interested in this, as it brings together two threads for the most recent show.

Canada and Rob Schneider, I don't know if you heard about Schneider getting kicked off the stage in Saskatchewan a couple of years ago, but if you didn't, this will set you straight, love the show, keep up the great work. I have seen that. I forgot about it.

But, man, Canadians. You guys got it. Rough up there. You got it rough up there. There's probably some resentment over the failed Poliyev experience, resentment towards Trump, perhaps of the failed Polyev experiment, because, as Eric Kaufman has pointed out, Trump has arguably, at least in the near term, weakened some of his populist allies, right populist allies in the West. So interesting here. All right. This as Palestine Deep Dive is a UK-based podcast that I just became aware of this morning. You may already know of it, but I'm sharing this particular episode with you because the discussion is about sourcing trustworthy, no spin, reporting of conditions in Gaza and the state of journalists and journalism there.

I think it will appreciate it. There's a lot to unpack, and I hope it will take the time to listen to it. It's in its entirety. There's even a shout-out to drop-site news in there. Interesting. All right. This is a YouTube link. So I will take a look at that.

All right. Thank you. Let's see what we got here. Next. This is from Paul, who says just to follow up on the discussion of artists presuming to take overt political stands. It's not that they shouldn't have a point of view. It's just best done through their art itself. Bob Dylan was one of the best examples in his powerful lyrics stand the test of time. It's all right. Ma is brilliant biting commentary illustrated by powerful almost hallucinicenic imagery. In his pre-TDS days, my countryman Neil Young, oh, another Canadian, made a timely and legendary point in opposing Richard Nixon's harsh response to anti-Vietnam War protest by penning and releasing the CSNY Anthem, Ohio within days of the Kent State shooting. Springsteen used to do it well. Born in the Fourth of July was an ironic critique of America. Now he is just tedious with these lecturing, hectoring speeches from the stage to people who have forked over major dollars to be entertained and not effective and of course deranged all the best, Paul. And yeah, Paul, I know I have mentioned this before and I think even in the conversation you're referencing, but I agree with you. I have any problem with the political expression. I do think it's best through the art, but I don't

think it's best if it's partisan in the art. I think when you're using art for partisan purposes, you are necessarily putting on a team jersey. And art is not going to be good when it is for a political team. Like just if it's just broadly anti-everything Trump. You've restricted yourself in a way that I don't think is conducive to creating genuinely good, provocative, probative art. So that's my position on it. It's just like partisanship versus political, partisan art versus political art. I think Springsteen has gone into a pretty partisan direction. So, yeah, a lot to agree with there.

This is from Michael, who says, long-time listener, first-time emailer. I want to start by saying how much I appreciate perspective. I find myself seeing things the exact same way as you do on most issues, and I value the unique topics to bring up like the current absence of monoculture and its impact on society. To give you some background to where I'm coming from, I'm a 43-year-old builder out in the Pacific Northwest. I grew up Southern Baptist and hold traditional family values. Very close to my heart. However, there's one major issue where I really struggle to align with the broader conservative movement, and because I respect your worldview, I'd love to hear you

frame it abortion. My hesitation comes down to a few practical concerns. Years ago, I read the economics analysis detailing the correlation between legalized abortion and the massive drop in crime decades later, essentially tracing it back to a sharp decrease in unwanted children. From a practical standpoint, forcing women to have and raise children they genuinely do not want is tough for me to support. Compounding this is the reality that the conservative push to eliminate abortion doesn't seem to come with a corresponding push to expand the social safety net or welfare state to care for an influx of unwanted children. I'd love to know your thoughts on a few specific questions. In a world where abortion is no longer an option, what is the practical

solution for unwanted children. If conservatives generally oppose, expanding the welfare state, what does a society that takes care of these children actually look like? Where do you draw the line on contraception? Where is its use straightforward and appropriate? And where does it start to cross into ethically shady territory for you? Thanks for taking the time to read this. I appreciate the work you do and would genuinely value your insight on this blind

spot of mine. Best regards. Yeah, this is, there's a lot here. So it's, for me, there are practical concerns. of course, but those all exist secondarily to the first order concern in the case of abortion,

which is whether or not the procedure takes a human life. And none of the downstream consequences if the answer to the question of whether it takes a human life is yes, none of the secondary consequences justify making the first decision. So we could talk all day

about the second order consequences, but for me, the absolute fundamental question is whether or not the procedure takes a human life. And I believe it does. You have a, as Christopher Hitchens, I like to reference, well, what is an embryo, if not a unique human life? Is it living? Yes. Is it human? Yes. So without answering no to either of those questions, unless someone disagrees with the answer to those questions, I think it's fairly obvious that it ends, abortion ends a human life. And for me, then, these practical questions are secondary to that. So let's get into some of these specifics.

What is the practical solution for unwanted children? Well, and also let me say one other thing. In many cases with abortion, for example, you write from a practical standpoint forcing women to have and raise children they generally do not want, is tough for me to support. In many cases with abortion, the women made the choice to create the children. It might not have been intentional, but that is obviously the consequence of having sexual intercourse. And so once you make that choice, once you've made that choice knowing the risks or the rewards, depending on how you see it, certainly I would say reward, even if it's unexpected, you've already, though, engaged in a decision to take that risk. risk and make that choice. So anyway, that was one other thing I wanted to address before the specific questions. What is the practical solution for unwanted children? Having them and

loving them. And that's obviously not going to happen in every case. Certainly. And that's very sad. The current pro-life movement is focusing more and more after Roe. And I think people have made honest analyses of the pro-life movement being caught a little bit behind on developing a robust policy plan for support programs, for people who find themselves in these situations, supporting pregnancy centers, you know, having robust support for adoption agencies, those types of things. So I think that's the practical solution is just building up those avenues of support. If you ever talk to people at crisis pregnancy centers, they are just the salt of the earth, truly. Some of the most incredible people you'll ever meet.

They work with people who, you know, maybe would have chosen abortion under different circumstances. And when they get the support, they're just so, when their baby comes, they're just so overjoyed and so happy. And, you know, we support them as much as we possibly can. would be my answer to that because they do the Lord's work, truly do the Lord's work. The welfare state, what does a society that takes care of these children actually look like? Well, this is a legitimate practical question, not an argument, I think, for abortion, obviously, a legitimate practical question, though. We just have a culture right now where certain places, there's huge dependency, whether it's rural places.

I mean, if you live in rural places, you've seen dependency, just as people have seen it in inner city places as well. And I think there's a kind of cultural expectation in some areas of SNAP benefits or really generous disability designations and those sorts of things. So I think we have a big cultural problem that if we save a lot of babies, there's no question. there could be some like obvious societal difficulties down the road. My argument is, of course, that's totally worth it because we value human life above all else. And so I think, you know, if abortion hypothetically were completely totally outlawed, there would have to be a ton of focus in the near term on rebuilding a culture. And like, that's abstract.

That's not a specific policy prescript. So I totally understand where you're coming from. But I think that's what would have to happen. Where do I draw the line on contraception? Where is it used straightforward and appropriate? And where does it start to cross an ethically shady territory for you? I don't have any problems with contraception. I think there are problems with Plan B.

I think there are some types of people have to be careful with some types of birth control to make sure that it's not disrupting implantation. those are questions that if you care about this, you can try to get to the bottom of with your birth control methods. But no, I don't, I certainly don't have any problems with contraception. So a lot of interesting questions here. And I don't pretend that your conservatives have the right answer to what would happen should they get to wave a magic wand and totally outlaw abortion. And, you know, nobody expected road to fall. really nobody expected road to fall and the pro-life movement said pretty openly they fell behind but abortions have gone up after the fall of row after dobs abortions have gone up and that's because of the widespread use of mitha pristone which is why a lot of the pro-life movement is furious with the trump administration right now so um much many interesting things um going on with that uh let's see what else do we have here

going through these Steve says love Sophie Cunningham she's always a straight talker great piece on her in the horribly dishonest Megan Ripino it's interesting to see the Facebook discourse in WMBA fan circles as much as you see headlines about

Sophie's comments being right wing or anti-trans 95% of what I see is complete agreement with Sophie both WMBA fans and people wanting to comment just to show her support that may change as the insane trans propaganda machine gets cranking, spewing out various messaging to try to win people over. That's what I see now.

Oh, that is really interesting, Steve, because I've said this before. I'm not in the WNBA world. I'm not a particular fan. But I always wonder who, like, what the composition of WMBA fans actually is. My impression is that it's pretty heavily left. But then again, in these different Facebook groups,

I guess people self-sort. And you can learn a lot, like as a journalist from some Facebook groups. You can't take it as like a representative sample. But you can see how some of these conversations are going. But yeah, I think even people on the left, not the kind of cultural left, I would say, but people are sort of center left, understand what some of the problems are here. And, you know, it's just getting dangerous. it's getting dangerous for Caitlin Clark, but I think it's getting dangerous for everybody because

the refs are in a hard position. And I think on the trans stuff, everybody is now, not everybody, but, you know, what, seven to eight out of every 10 Americans has recognized that not only is it not bigoted to say what Sophie Cunningham said, but it's kind of common sense. So I wouldn't be surprised at actually the kind of like elite people inside the institution of the WMBA are out of touch with the broader fandom, even with something as narrow as the WNBA, which my impression is Leans left.

All right. Ralph says, we forget how great we have it here and sends a link to an Instagram that is loading. Oh, yeah, it's immigrants coming to America for the first time. Yeah, some of that over the summer was awesome. Some good perspective.

Let me get a sip of water here. All right. Hank says, no one find it ironic that the things the Smithsonian associates with white people politeness, the scientific method, rugged individualism, are admirable traits and ultimately compliments, odd. It's one of the strangest things about the white supremacy toolkit that the Smithsonian put its stamp of approval on, and Brandon Gill was questioning, Director Hardig about the Trump administration report was questioning or was calling attention

to the kind of institutional progressivism that captured the Smithsonian. That white supremacy toolkit was passed around, versions of it have been passed around college campuses for a really long time, and it is astounding and so insulting and offensive. And again, I think some of this was exposed to harsh daylight in 2020, and parents across the political spectrum would look at something like that. Community members would look at something like that.

Alumni would look at something like that. And just say, what the hell are you talking about? Not only does this not make sense, but you are then also insulting non-white Americans in a completely egregious way, soft bigotry of low expectations, you know, on full display here. And so I think some of it was exposed to the harsh daylight in 2020 and has kind of crept back into the shadows. It'll continue, as you know, my position is here for a while. We'll have flare-ups of this for a while. I think probably it'll get stamped out of institutions like the Smithsonian.

Probably will stick around college campuses, but get, you know, caught and taken down when people take notice of it. It'll get caught and eliminated, at least for the near-term future, because stuff is so egregiously racist. And I think part of the backlash to the P. capital P.W. Peekwoke years was starting to see some of the stuff that just does not stand up to scrutiny. That's what I liked about the Brandon Gail questioning is that, you know, I mentioned this on Megan's show today, but a friend of mine posted Billy Grubman in response to one of those videos. In all seriousness, a vital part of salting the earth and ensuring that peak woke never returns is making quote unquote serious people answer humiliating questions about it. They never want to hear again. And this was in response to, to hard at getting questioned by Gill on that white supremacist toolkit. It's true.

There should be enormous social stigma attached to this racism and stupidity. It just metastasized in the faculty lounge for a long time because everybody who disagreed was stigmatized as a bigot that was part of the construction

of the ideology is that only the oppressors can be discriminatory, racist, etc., but the oppressed cannot be in the reverse. It does not withstand the basic level of scrutiny. But again, there were even arguments that Socratic dialogue was racist. Talking about free speech was like it was, it was so foolish, but it was metastasizing these faculty lounges in these like, I know, the situations where they had stigmatized their critics as bigots, which nobody wants to be called in America. So it's

really increasing the cost of asking questions. And it grew into something utterly foolish. So, yeah, it is so bizarre. This is from Jane, who says, I happen to overhear your conversation with Mark Halperin, where Alexander Hamilton's legacy as a slave owner, I believe that was the reference was mentioned. To my knowledge, there has been only one academic paper published that asserts Hamilton owned a slave.

Note the singular, that paper was speculative and based on a reference to a blackmail in the service of the Shuler family, Hamilton's in-laws. Hamilton founded the New York Manu Mission Society and had a very strong objection to slavery because of his early experience watching the slave trade as a clerk for Beekman and Kruger, the import-export firm where he worked his youth, you do his legacy a disservice when you repeat these claims that are not verified, Jane. Well, Jane, let me just pull up here. My understanding is that is the, that is correct. Everything you just says is correct.

What I was reading from, what I was referencing is the Smithsonian report that the White House put out. And I'm going to read, let's get this here, the exact quote in that report. They say highlighting, they're taking, this is a criticism of the Smithsonian, highlighting that some founders like Alexander Hamilton and Benjamin Franklin own slaves while downplaying or completely excluding information about their abolitionist efforts or their pivotal roles in American history in MAAH exhibits, National Museum of American History exhibits, including a didactic about the Broadway musical Hamilton in the NMAAH's Entertainment Nation Exhibit, that simply called Alexander Hamilton, an influential and flawed founding father, likely in part

because he owned slaves, this is again from the White House report, while providing no information about his key roles in America's founding and early development. It failed to mention that he was a vocal critic of slavery and helped found the anti-slavery New York Manu Mission Society in 1785, which worked to end the slave trade supported and lobbied for the ultimate extermination of slavery, connected black people with resources such as legal representation, helped protect them from kidnapping from slave dealers, put on anti-slavery lectures and readings, and founded seven African free schools that educated more than 1,400 students by the time they started, becoming part of the New York City public school system in the 1830s. So I think in the segment that I referenced in that segment

with Mark, we read a lot from exactly what I just read here on Happy Hour. That's what the government report we're referencing says. And let me pull up here. I'm reading here from the history channel. Alexander Hamilton's complicated relationship to slavery. This is from Christopher Klein, who says Alexander Hamilton abhorred slavery and at a few points in his life work to help limit it. But any moral objections he held were tempered

by his social and political ambitions throughout his life like so many leaders of his time. He allowed her use slavery to advance his fortunes, both indirectly and through compromises he chose to make. Let's see. After attending New Jersey's Elizabeth Tavis, Academy, Hamilton matriculated at New York City. New York City's King's College were 16 slave merchants served as trustees, students such as George Washington's stepson to Jackie, brought

enslaved schools, students with enslaved servants with them to school. Nonetheless, Hamilton held more progressive views than most of the founding fathers, just trying to get this out there for everybody to see here, or just to have this kind of, yeah, Okay, here it is. Just to have some of the facts on hand. It says, in the course of handling his in-laws finances, the future U.S. Treasury Secretary was involved in the purchase and sale of enslaved servants for Schuller's in 1884. He attempted to help his sister-in-law Angelica reacquire one of her formerly enslaved people. Historians differ, however, on whether Hamilton's financial records refer to enslaved household workers owned by his in-laws or by the Hamilton's themselves. So that gets to Jane's point, which is, of course, well,

taken and we always appreciate notes whether they're critical or not. So appreciate it. Yeah, like I said, I was just reading from the government report in that sense. And that was what the question to Mark was based on. Thanks so much for all your notes this week. Really appreciate it. Thank you for subscribing. And just let me reiterate what Eddie said. I think it was Eddie in one of the notes this week. The questions make for such an enjoyable experience recording this week to week. Appreciate our audience so much. Appreciate you guys giving me the ability, the space, the oxygen to go back and forth with all of you on these often very deep and important questions. So thank you. And fun questions too. So thank you all for tuning in.

I hope you have wonderful weekends. God bless. And we'll catch you back here soon.