After Party with Emily Jashinsky - “Happy Hour”: Nicholas Kristof’s NYT column, Trust in Media, and the Text from Emily’s Mom: Emily Answers YOUR Questions

Episode Date: May 15, 2026

On this week’s edition of “Happy Hour,” Emily opens the show with a story about her mom texting during “After Party.” Emily shares some fun anecdotes about her family, childhood, and faith journey. She also dives into questions about the essence of humanity and the vacuum of Christian tradition in the West. Emily responds to recent comments she made about the dangers of taking people out of context, if she believes mainstream media figures would ever openly say political violence is acceptable, and she offers recommendations for straight news sources. Other topics include her concerns about Israel and the Iran war, Nicholas Kristof’s “New York Times” column and the response from Haviv Rettig Gur in “The Free Press,” and how she selects stories to cover on “After Party.” Emily also addresses a few questions about gerrymandering, abortion, the Trump administration’s use of “fake news,” and more…  Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Back to another edition of Happy Hour, everyone. This is, of course, the special edition of After Party. We do every Friday here for our podcast audience. Only, it's just on the podcast feed. So make sure to subscribe on Apple or Spotify, so you never miss an edition of Happy Hour. Also, if you haven't subscribed to the YouTube channel yet, that's actually probably the best way to help support our journalism here at After Party. Go ahead. Head on over to the YouTube channel. Click subscribe. It really does help us a lot. Now, as you know, I answer your questions live every single, well, I'm taping it live. It's called live to tape. You can't, to my knowledge, you can't do like a live podcast yet. But someday, you can be live on YouTube, of course, as we are.

But this is taped live. And what I mean by that is I flag your emails as they come into Emily at double makehaer media.com every week in my inbox when I see basically look like a happy hour email. And then I go through them live. So I'm reading them. pretty much for the first time. I mostly read your subject line, and then we'll skim through it to see if it looks like a happy hour question, and then I go through them live while we record happy hour every Thursday afternoon. So if you get your question about Thursday afternoon, it'll be on that week's edition of the show. Let's go ahead get started. John writes in to say he actually met Graham Platner in a shooting class 15 years ago. Isn't that interesting? Gravely voiced. No one knew he was a commie trust fund baby and possibly Bernie Sanders love child, John says. He also adds he was very popular with the students. Multiple

combat tours as a Marine infantryman. Not all combat tours are the same. All right. Very interesting. Very interesting anecdote, John. Appreciate it. Richard says, you know I'm a big fan, but my favorite part of after party this week was at the 113 work when your mom texted you to call you out, quote, hey, that was rude. Knowing your mom is listening and called you out immediately as priceless than your response that you already apologized sounded like in that brief moment you were transported to being 15 and rolling your eyes as you walk away. The interviews were great. Your insights are always welcome but that my friend made my week. Well, thanks Richard. I probably teased my mom too much. But yes, that was on, I think last Wednesday's show, so a week before this Wednesday.

And I was talking about, I think I was trashing my own political science degree, which, you know, my mom and my dad worked very hard to pay for. And I think I said something like it was useless. We were talking about Spencer Pratt, if I'm remembering correctly, who has a political science degree from USC, I think. And I was knocking my own political science degree. And I said, sorry, Mom. And then immediately got a text message like 30 seconds later because she watches everything

live. She listens to the wrap-up show. She's always listening. It's not big brother. It's big mother, except she's tiny. So she's always listening and I'm always getting texts with running commentary on what I'm saying or what I'm not saying, which is always fun because she's all the way in Wisconsin. And it's, I love hearing from her about the shows. She has all kinds of interesting, interesting thoughts. But I do probably tease her so much. I did a lot of that rolling your eyes and walking away when I was 15. I probably should be doing less of that these days. Tom writes in and says, says in a past episode or two of Afterparty, you've referred to having been a member of the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod, as am I, and expressed regard for their our theological rigor,

and you have subsequently remarked that you have left the church, but not the Christian faith, would you care to comment on your departure from the LCMS, inquiring minds, et cetera, dot, dot, dot. So Tom, I didn't leave LCMS formally or anything like that. In fact, if I still lived in an area that had easy access to LCMS churches, I might go to one. So my parents still belong to the exact same church that they were married in, that I was raised in, go there every time I'm home. But honestly, D.C. has a couple of LCMS churches. One is really good out in Alexandria. Most of the time that I lived here, I didn't even have a car.

I've only had a car really for like the past, what, five years. And so it was a real hike to get out there. And there weren't a lot of good L CMS options. So I didn't like formally leave the church or anything. Just when you're outside of the Midwest, there's not as many LCS. churches as there are in the Midwest. So I go to a non-denominational church now and really like it. So that's a little bit of the backstory there. It's, it was it like a formal leaving or break with L CMS or anything? Just not a lot of options around here unless you drive out to a really

great church actually in Alexandria. But, you know, like I said, didn't have a car. Even with a car, It's a really far drive. I know many of you probably do long drives to church. It's worth it if you have a really great church. I have really great church. In D.C. here now, not denominational. But anyway, that is how I was raised. And it's definitely what my parents still go to as well. This is from Hank, who says, regarding your feelings about people taking quotes about Tucker or anyone else out of context, so many people believe what they want to believe. I had a conversation recently with a liberal friend about the quote, very fine people hoax. I tried to explain to her that while Trump did say those words, he immediately said that he wasn't talking about white supremacists or anyone like them. She just shot back that she didn't understand that Donald Trump's comments were the reason Joe Biden ran for president. She then proceeded to list several other Democrats who made the same claim. There's something else going on with people these days on both the left and right. While some of the dishonesty comes from political operatives who know they're being unfair but doing anyway, there are a lot of people who seem to be delusional to the point of having mental health issues.

I fear for our country. Hank, I think a lot of people are probably right there with you. Yeah, the very fine people one, that took a while to sort of be debunked to the point where it penetrated the mainstream consciousness. And it really hasn't itself become, the debunking has not yet become mainstream, which is shocking to me. but there are people who are sort of normal political news consumers who have seen now the juxtaposition of what the media said Trump said, what Democrats said Trump said, what Republicans said Trump said, some Republicans said Trump said with the actual transcript. And I feel like I've picked up just anecdotally over the years that that has been a kind

of radicalizing moment against the media for many people, because we all remember how steady the drumbeat was after Charlottesville against Trump. that Trump had essentially caused Charlottesville that he was fomenting hatred and extremism. The Southern Poverty Law Center had a windfall in high-profile donations from Tim Cook, Apple, other places after that. And it's so shaped the way people saw Trump as someone who was kind of nakedly siding with white supremacists. I even have the same take. It's more controversial.

But when he told the proud boys, like, stand back and stand by, I also thought that was taken out of context in a debate like the transcript was different than what he was reported to have said we can debate whether or not it was a wise thing to have said but just the way that the media presented it

was slightly different I'm seeing if I can actually pull it up right here while we're speaking I remember at the time I caught a lot of flack for trying to point out what he actually said, let's see if I can pull this up quickly. Yeah, here's media matters. Getting mad at me.

That's always fun. Yeah, look at this. So here's the transcript of the white supremacy exchange. Chris Wallace said, are you willing tonight to condemn white supremacists and militia groups? Trump said, sure. Mike Wallace said, Chris Wallace said, and to say that they need to stand down and not add to the violence in a number of these cities, as we saw in Kenosha and as we've seen in Portland. Trump says, sure, I'm prepared to do it, but I would say almost everything I see is from the left wing, not from the right wing. I'm willing to do anything. I want to see peace. Wallace says, then do it, say it, says Biden. Trump says, what do you want to call them? Give me a name. Wallace, white supremacists and right wing militias. Biden, proud boys. Trump says, proud boys, stand back and

stand by. But I'll tell you what, somebody's got to do something about Antifa and the left. So repeatedly, he says he's prepared to condemn it and call it out, etc. Wallace tells him to stand down. Trump says stand back and stand by. So what it looked like Trump did is he was, as he often does, and you can call this cope or whatever. But in the context of him saying he's calling out the white supremacists and the militia groups, he says stand back and stand by instead of stand down.

It seems clearly like it's an accident for him to say stand back instead of stand down. and stand by. People will tell me that that's cope, but I'm saying it's in the context of this one-minute exchange where he's over and over again condemning saying, yes, of course, I'm prepared to call it out, yes. And that's my read of the situation. It was taken as just some complete, definitive wink and nod to the proud voice, no more than a wink and nod, as just a naked call to arms, basically. Stand back, and stand by when he was doing it saying, yes, I will denounce them, stand back and stand by instead of when Wallace said stand down. So anyway, that's a rabbit hole. And I'm sure I'll get emails to be like, that's cope, that's cope. But I really don't think it was that clear cut at all.

And these things just, it's crazy how the nuance just gets ironed out so quickly now because of how quickly these narratives build. And if you don't read the full transcripts or if you don't read the full transcripts if you don't watch the full video, because Hank was referring to a big conversation we had on shows last week about clips, which are just, I mean, first of all, short-form video, short-form video, I believe, is having effects on, like, our cognitive functioning and memory. But also, just, it is so destructive because there's just right for selective editing. And the bad actors are doing that. You know, I've talked a couple of times about exact verbatim quotes being put in Tucker's mouth,

to the point where people I know believe them. And they're arguable, like what he's saying about Sharia law, for example, like people can argue his point, but they can't say that he's like glazing Sharia law or embracing Islam, because this is not what he's saying. And people believe he said some direct quotes, informed people I know, some direct quotes that he hasn't said. And that's frustrating because it's going to make it so we can't even have conversations anymore because nobody trusts anything. And that's going to get worse or worse with AI. But it's not helping. The people who want to defeat Tucker's arguments, taking those cheap shots and shortcuts are not, like, that is actually not going to help in the long one. You're going to sow more distrust in

your own side for that sugar high of the momentary dunk. And I find that very, very frustrating. Hank again says, it's not just your liberal-oriented people inching toward accepting violence to settle political issues. I'm 72, and two of my high school friends expressed real disappointment that the shooter at Butler missed killing Trump. And also, you said something about somebody talking about your Wisconsin accent. I didn't catch the whole segment for the record. I've been listed for years. I can't recall you or Avita or Kylie, my former colleagues at the Federalist ever using the phrase, yeah, hey, but eventually you'll slip. It slips sometimes on my A's when I get, hang, thanks for the email, when I get animated. Sometimes you'll hear it come out in an A and

Yeah, there's nothing I can do about it. Howard says, I enjoyed your happy hour yesterday, always fun. I know one of your favorite words is epistemology, and I have a new one for you. I was reading the newspaper and came across pulker tudanus and had to look it up. Being the brainiac you are, I guess you are familiar with it, but it was new to me. An SAT word is what it was called. How is this? The epistemology of newspaper-based reporting was discussed by the pulkerudanist reporter.

sure. This is pretty good. It's pretty good. That's pretty good, Howard. Howard says, I do love your vocabulary, even though I occasionally feel like a donate after reach for the dictionary. Well, thank you, Howard. This is a very nice email. I appreciate it. And I will say, epistemology I only ever use in the context of quoting Neil Postman, because I love what he says in amusing ourselves to death about the print-based epistemology versus the television-based epistemology. And I have extrapolated that into the algorithm-based epistemology or the social media algorithm-based epistemology, which does not roll off the tongue at all. But usually if I'm using that word, it's in the context of a quote, pulkeritudinus is one of those, I think, rare words

that sounds very different from what it means. I think of that word. When you see that word, you think of it almost meaning something's a little icky. I don't know, maybe it's because it's It's like pungent or putrid, which is a word I hate, by the way, that come to mind. But it actually means the opposite. It means beautiful. So it's one of those rare words that just it doesn't sound like what it means. Daniel says, I was listening to your recent happy hour mailbag, and you made an interesting comment around minute 46 on Spotify in which you differentiate between insane people with literal schizophrenia and people like Mangione who are capable of reason.

I just happened to finish reading G.K. Chesterson's orthodoxy, in which as part of his defense of religion, he addresses the idea of madness as follows. Quote, The madman is not the man who has lost his reason. The madman is the man who has lost everything except his reason. I tend to view politics through a fundamentally religious lens, and it is not altogether surprising to me to see a rise in cultural madness, as our society increasingly secularizes, i.e. loses everything except its reason. Curious for your thoughts and highly recommend Chesterton if you haven't, haven't read him before. He's similar to Tolkien and Lewis in literary style and wit. I haven't read too much Chesterton. I love Chesterton's fence. I think that's just like a wonderful illustration of the conservative impulse. But I will also say this is, I have a reading recommendation based on this email from Dan. There's a wonderful Mary Harrington essay in First Things, right? now. Let me make sure I have the exact, I want to make sure I have the exact article titles so that when you look it up, you can find it pretty easily. Yeah, it's called Tomophobia. It's on Aquinas, and it is so good. If you haven't read Mary's book, Feminism Against Progress, you absolutely should. It's so, so deep and so interesting. But what she talks about is essentially how Aquinas, building off Aristotle,

worked from a Christian perspective to explain the forms, right? Substance, essence, cause, effect, and how when you look back at the literal violence over trans substantiation and you don't understand the form essence, then you're just missing so much of, that's how you end up basically with a society where, as Mary calls the sort of progressive mind, the conception of the progressive mind about human beings as meat Legos. Meat Legos.

If you haven't heard that before, basically that we're modular slabs of meat. in that progressive conception of humanity because we have lost our, the deep understanding of the form and the essence. And the essence of a human is not the same as the accident of what a human becomes, if that makes sense. And, you know, it's a, again, it's that she is such a brilliant piece of writing over in first things. I really recommend. I mean, she probably spends like 2,000 words on this, which is much more, This is the print-based epistemology, by the way. This is much better written than explained. So head over to first things and read it.

But it's a really wonderful, I think, examination of how we ended up, where we ended up. In some way, because of this flattening linguistically of some of these deep, deep concepts. And, oh my gosh, she has this great example of Derruda and the kind of explicit postmodern denunciation of substance and essence. So I highly recommend it. But it gets to what I think Dan's talking about we see with the secularization,

which is the meat legos, right? The secularization as an inevitable path to meat legos. and, you know, some people would say it's actually not the secularization. It's the re-enchantment. That's definitely what my friend Rod Dreher would say. And there's a new Carl Truman book out about this called The Desecration of Man that I haven't had a chance to read it in full yet. I've read some about it.

And it sounds fascinating, but it's similar to this point. And he's kind of in conversation with Rod's book on the reenchantment. but that what we see isn't secular in that sense, in the sense that it's sort of culturally, that we've become culturally atheistic. It's, or anti-religious. It's in the sense that we have something else filling the vacuum of religion or of Christianity, as Nietzsche said. And it's just as supernatural, right?

and, you know, Rod talks a lot about supernatural influences, demonic influences, exorcisms rising, and the like. So secularization is probably a word that some of, you know, people who agree with Dan and I would quibble with. But I do think there's something to this that in the vacuum of Christian tradition and a lot of the West, something that is making people deeply, deeply unhappy. both, I think, probably supernaturally. It is true that exorcisms are on the rise in a lot of places, but also just from a, like, mental health standpoint, a human standpoint, there's a reason why people like Mark Zuckerberg aren't ashamed to go out in public despite foisting proudly to the tune of billions of dollars, these very harmful technologies upon us. and it's because we just have a cultural acceptance, or we've been numbed and conditioned to accept that some of these,

like, obviously, anti-human technologies. And, you know, I think one of the real questions in politics right now is, when do we hit critical mass? Do we ever hit a point of critical mass where there's resistance? And we can kind of shed this anti-human technology or technology. or technological movement and really restore a balance. You don't have to go full Luddite to use a cliche term. But do we end up hitting a point of critical mass?

I think that is actually a really interesting question. I think we're watching that play out in real time. So interesting email, Dan. Very, very interesting email. And I think also that's why I wanted to spend time a couple of weeks ago on the show saying I don't think it's obvious to people anymore. that nonviolence is better than violence in the case of some intractable political issues, because we were talking about Hassan Piker and Luigi Mangione and the concept of social murder

and alike. And that's why I just wanted to take some time to revisit how Martin Luther King discussed nonviolence as being not only more moral, but more efficient as a means of political change than violence. Because I just don't think that's obvious to people anymore. And I understand why, because of the world that we, have created for ourselves to live in. And it gets to Dan's point, too. When you look at politics through a religious lens, I think some of this makes more sense. So very interesting email, Dan. Thank you. Casey says, please pre-read before reading on the show. Okay, I think I actually read this because that intrigued me when it came in last week. And I think I said it was fine.

We'll find out while I read it. Do you think it will ever be acceptable on a mainstream show or political podcasts? Oh, yeah. Okay. So I I remember this. This is similar to what we were just talking about. So good segue. Do you think it will ever be acceptable on a mainstream show or political podcast in America for a host to say that they would find an act of political violence acceptable in their country? I hear hosts say polls where a double-digit percentage of young people find it acceptable, but the hosts will never say it themselves. Our current leaders are more than okay with those in other countries overthrowing their governments if they don't fall within America's interest. I don't know where it would fall under First Amendment protections if after an act of violence, someone with a large platform, said something on the lines of, I get why they did it. And had I been there in their circumstance,

I may have done it myself. Would you agree that there could be a government so tyrannical and terrible that a targeted act of terror would be the ticket to a better future and that it could one day be our country? If that's all too much for the podcast, what is your favorite sugary cereal that isn't the original? Oh, that's a good question. Okay, so I'll take that last one first. Rees's puffs, I think, right? Or fruity pebbles? It's a hard choice for me between Reese's Pust and Fruity Pebbles. Fruity Pebbles has the edge because it doesn't hurt your mouth. I also consider like honey bunches of oats to be a sugary cereal, and that's one of my very favorite. Costco has this amazing like blueberry almond cereal that is my favorite cereal ever.

Still has got quite a bit of sugar in it. So unfortunately, don't get to eat that much anymore. But Casey, this, no, I have no problem responding to this question whatsoever. There's a, there are two questions in here. First of all is, the first main one is, will it ever be acceptable on a mainstream show or political podcast in America for a host to say that they would find an act of political violence acceptable in their country. And then the second one here is, would you agree that there could be a government so tyrannical and terrible, that a targeted act of terror would be the ticket to a better future and that it could one day be our country? Well, so to the first question,

Hassan Piker is clearly mainstream and he got very close to that when talking about landlords. And the reason I say very close is because he's sort of walked it back. And he has talked about, as we discussed on this show, you know, looking to Zara Mamdani as a leftist instead of Mangione. That's kind of in the New York Times interview that I argued was actually chopped up to miss that important part of it. still not great and argued why I thought it was not great but I think some people missed that part of it which is interesting right because it seems to me like he's changing tack a bit um let me pull up the exact quote about landlords uh so that I have it uh yeah here it is he said oh my goodness uh yeah he said that this is hyperbolic um my goodness uh yeah he said that this is hyperbolic

And again, like, I want to have the exact quote. I have it in front of me. Yay. He said, kill them, kill those mother effers, murder those mother effers in the street. Let the streets soak in their effing red capitalist blood dude. Now, that was on a Twitch, I think it was on a Twitch stream. And so the argument that you're always going to get is,

Oh, that's, it is hyperbole. It is a joke. And I think it's, it is hyperbole. And I think it is a joke. I just don't think it's a wise bit of hyperbole because it's not, I don't think it's, it's, a, particularly funny. A, a lot of good landlords out there. And B, I don't think that this gets to the second question that Casey asked.

No, I don't think that terror is a moral, or effective political strategy. And C, he does have impressionable young listeners. And I promise you some of the reason that you have, it's not the only reason, but it shifts the Overton window when you're making jokes like that. And that's why, you know, the poll we've discussed about the Charlie Kirk assassination, or it was in the aftermath of the Charlie Kirk assassination from UGov and the Economist, September 12th, 15th of last year

found young liberals were much more likely. It was already of like 30% to say political violence is sometimes justifiable. And listen, the big picture cause of that, more than anything else, is the horrible climate that, you know, other generations have left for

younger liberals and younger Americans period. Right now, they have been emiscerated. They have been made mentally ill by these technologies, and it is not Hassan Piker's fault. But, When you shift the Overton window with jokes like that, I just don't think it's a responsible use of a platform. I don't think it's either the biggest story in the world to speak hyperbably myself, as I think some people maybe overstate Piker's influence here. But that's a good example of somebody being pretty close to saying they would find an act of political violence acceptable.

Again, he took it back, he said he was being hyperbolic, and now he's saying Mom Dani. To answer your question, Casey, I don't doubt that that's far off, that that's not far off, I should say, to use a double negative. Yeah, I wouldn't be surprised if that happened. I would be surprised if we ever had an environment where somebody who is quote-unquote mainstream doesn't have to walk that back. But I can see it slipping from somebody in the mainstream. We'll see.

And maybe not even having to take it back, depending on where the, culture goes. To the question about, would you agree that there could be a government so tyrannical and terrible, that a targeted act of terror would be to a better future and that it could one day be our country? When you say targeted act of terror, absolutely not, would be my answer to that question. It's, of course, true, that our country was founded basically in a civil war. You know, that's the American Revolution was seen by people at the time, many people at the time,

as a civil war and they were very careful. I talked about this actually in the episode a couple weeks ago with the Hassan Piker case. They were very careful to draft before the Declaration of Independence even. Documents explaining how they felt they had exhausted every nonviolent path to resolution that they possibly could. Non-war related, non-independence-related path to reconciliation that they possibly could. that they possibly could. The Declaration of Independence itself can kind of be read almost

as a just war document. And so they went to great pains not to be involved in terror as a big picture strategy. And so some people will try to say that's, you know, that, well, that's violence. Yeah, I mean, it was obviously a violent war. It was war. It was not terror.

And so no, I never, ever, ever want to get into means justifying ends. And I think that's what's really dangerous about the country right now is people are much more willing to say evil means can justify a moral end because they feel they've exhausted every other route. And I just don't think that's true because I think nonviolent disobedience or nonviolent protest, nonviolent action. Like from a conservative perspective, I kind of agree with what Piker says about Mamdani. Obviously, not with Mom Donnie, but with another type of radically anti-establishment candidate. I think we still absolutely have the ability to get people elected to offices. I don't think we're anywhere near where the founding fathers were.

But I do worry that more and more people are going to think we are. And they're not wrong to feel desperate. They would be wrong to engage in terror or violence. but they are not wrong to feel desperate and exhausted and fatigued with the political process and disempowered, frankly. And so I like how Rokane describes a policy that I hate, which is the 5% billionaire tax. I think of that as wealth confiscation in California is that if it's a one-time tax, is not a tax.

This is the one circumstance where the phrase tax is doing good branding because they're trying to say it's normal. It's a tax. It's not really a tax. It's a one-time thing. It's crazy from my perspective, but he describes it in a way that I like as an anti-revolutionary measure. And I do think we need to start thinking about policies like that that can help people feel more empowered. It's better for everyone. It'll actually be better for the billionaires in the long run.

If you have a more empowered, more satisfied, more healthy public. And they're doing everything to basically go in the opposite direction of that right now. So it's an interesting question, Casey. It's a very interesting question. Thanks for sending it in. But of course, I say no to that point about a targeted act of terror. Definitely not. Bill says,

I was driving along listening to your latest happy hour, and I've been feeling the same way one of your correspondents felt re-dropping off of Kelly and other podcasts. I assume that means Megan. I used to listen to the commentary magazine podcast, but have found John Pador, it's increasingly different. to get past his bias. I used to, Bill says in parentheses, I listen to Ben Shapiro and the same vein with him. I do like VDH, MKH's getting hammered and Hugh Hewitt. I really miss Dennis Prager.

Funny enough, used to not like Next Up, but find Mark's view less cringing than I previously did as he lodged. I feel like you in here are very similar in trying to get a few steps back with different voices to contend with the echo chamber. This is kind of a long email, so I'm trying to get down to the bottom. Okay, so finally getting to my question, I would like to get your thoughts on decent straight news. I like Brett Bear and Britt Hume, but wondering who else fits into this mold in your world. I know Brett and Britt both have their biases, but they play a much less sensational act than almost everyone out there. Finding voices that require less additional follow-up would be so wonderful and less exhausting. Thank you, Bill. I appreciate that. I keep laughing at the John Padort's light. There's some great Norman Padourts. essays out there, by the way. Chompidore, it's... But I think real clear politics is exactly what you're describing on the podcast between Tom, Andy, and Carl Cannon.

I mean, Carl Cannon is a legend. He is underappreciated as a straight newsman who has just the richest life experiences. And Tom and Andy, you know, works so hard to be fair, but they're also, they also show their human side and they're punchy. They're not interested in placating the powerful class. They're very, and that's so rare. So my strong recommendation is both Real Clear Politics, the website and their podcast,

which is actually on the Series XM Megan Kelly channel, they are fantastic. And they're really on top of, because they're such news junkies to keep the website. updated and to assign it in its stories and the like. They're just so good at doing the quote straight news. They have all the stories down pat. Like they know everything that's happening throughout the news cycle. So I can't recommend them strongly enough. I also love Victor Davis Hanson and Mary Catherine Ham trying to think of other like good straight news sources. I consume a lot of like the quote unquote mainstream. So I compare them with each other and then with what I read in other sources. So Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, New York Times,

then Atlantic, New York Magazine, and then I read a lot of the leftist places like Jacobin, Salon, Slate, The Nation. Then I read a lot of the conservative things, because this is my job. This is not a normal news diet for people outside of media. But of course, read the Federalist National Review, Daily Caller, Washington Examiner. those types of places. I'm leaving in a bunch of places that I read often too. But those just, as I'm going through the list of the Daily News Diet, it's just kind of my strategy with like straight news has been to read a bunch of different sources and then compare it. Like find a good source down the middle that purports be down the middle at least. And then compare it with what the populist left is saying and the populist right is saying. Like one good source is lever news from David's Rhoda on the left. And then. And then, or the American Prospect, they do some, like, decent reporting, Dave Dayan and the like. And then to, you know, maybe listen to populace, right? Like, listen to Tucker Carlson or read the federalist.

And then compare it with what you're seeing down the middle. And I know that's a lot of extra effort. But I just think the incentive structure in media is so bad now. And we all have to, like, I'm inside and I'm telling you this. Like, we all just have to work a little bit harder to, if we want to be a little bit harder to, if we want to be like reasonably confident of the set of facts and have a reasonably good understanding of what's happening. Real clear politics is kind of a cheat sheet though because they're still doing it, the kind of old school way where they really are fair and true to the story. So that's my recommendation.

And if you go to the website, it's like one-stop shopping too. You can get a good feel for what's happening in the world. Let's see. This is from Paul who says he has a combat veteran. I wanted to make sure I had a better chance of you reading this. I'm devastated. That is a correct word. One of my most trusted sources of information is Victor Davis Hanson and next to him was Megan Kelly. I don't know what to say. I still love Megan and trust her because she has always admitted to mistakes and she loves her listeners in America and her family. And I just believe I have to believe that she wants to give us the truth. I'll just stop there, Paul. Yes, I promise you. That is true. Paul says, I just don't understand her stance on Israel. I'm sure Israel doesn't always do what is right, I guess,

but I know from being in the Middle East that Islam and Islamic countries, no matter who they are, will always breed terrorism and tyranny. Israel is a democracy of 10 million people. They can't be more powerful than the Islamic countries all around them. And if they are in some sense, it is because they have to fight for the rights to exist. I won't make this longer. I haven't listened to Megan anymore. She doesn't sound like herself. Okay, yeah, this goes on a long way and says the right to support Trump. I'm very sad. We're absolutely beginning to experience an economic boom, the likes of which we'd never seen before. We can win them in terms. Gas will go down. It goes on and on. Okay. And then says, I want to put my two cents in for what it's worth. Well, thank you for doing that, Paul. I appreciate you putting your two cents in. And it's worth a lot. I will just say, I mean, I obviously cannot speak for Megan on this and have heard from some of you on this as well. But just I really encourage you, Paul, if you value Megan, I would keep listening to Megan because there are a lot of clips circulating that are, wildly misleading about, you know, part of my job is listening to Megan every single day and then doing the wrap-up show in Sirius XM right afterwards, taking calls from around the country.

And if you listen to the whole show every single day, instead of just seeing clips or watching YouTube clips or whatever, but if you listen to the whole show in its full context, there's way, way, way, way, way, way, way, more nuance than what is getting tossed around in these clips that are circulated by people who actually really don't want to see journalists questioning Israel at all. And I just have to say, I mean, if you look at Israeli media, it is much more critical of the Israeli government than conservative media here in the United States. And, you know, I think it's very important to understand where Jewish Americans and certainly Jewish Israelis come from, which is that there was a industrial genocide perpetrated against the Jewish people. In the delivering

memory of a generation who is still with us. We are in the shadow of that. This is living memory. This is not ancient history. This is living memory. And so there is an obvious fear and a rational fear of that happening again, of that horror being repeated. And certainly nobody wants to be responsible for that horror being repeated. And there are certainly fanatical regimes or even terror groups would be another way to put it around the state of Israel that do not want Israel to be their period. They will never want Israel to be their period for fanatical religious reasons. And so if you come from a point of understanding on that as I think most decent people do, then you really see where Israel acts out of existential terror.

On the other hand, that does not always overlap with the interests of the United States. And I think now that we are in another Middle East war, you know, you all know that I'm aligned with Megan on this question of the war in Iran. Now that we're in another Middle East war, there are a lot of people who do not want to repeat the mistakes of the buildup to the Iraq war where the media including the New York Times particularly the New York Times the Atlantic they were so credulous they they bought a lot of the BS that was being sold by the intelligence community and the Bush administration and then laundered into the media and people have their guard up right now and they should have their guard up right now again

from my perspective, because there's a very, there are some very clear areas, again, in my opinion, where the interests of Israel do not align with the interests of the United States. That's not to say America should want Iran to have nuclear weapons. That is not what I'm saying. No. We, Iran having nuclear weapons is obviously not in our interest, but it's also not in our interest to allow speech to be controlled here, like Mark Levin has been talking about deploy. platforming Nazis. And of course, he calls people who just disagree with him in good faith Nazis. He calls people to quote, woke Reich. So that doesn't overlap with the interests of the United States. A war where success is, listen, again, if this war doesn't end with this trade of war moves open at the very least, which it already was before we went to war, so that's just back to a status quo.

The intelligence assessments that are now getting passed around the media is that what Iran has already reconstituted 70% of its missile launchers and a lot of its missile capacity. And if it doesn't end with real serious safeguards against enrichment, I just, I think it is really important right now for people like Megan to be criticizing. And one of the things that makes Megan successful is that she's a human being and is open. Where's her frustration on her sleeve? And I really think that it gives credibility, Lens credibility, because you know where someone is coming from. And then she'll bring Rich Lowry and Charlie Cook on from National Review and let them make the case for the war or others as she has. And yeah, she'll bring some really anti-war voices on as well. and, you know, they're more aligned with her.

But I think in this difficult media climate where institutional trust is low, personally, as a consumer, I like seeing where people are coming from on some of these big questions. Because to me, it helps me say, all right, this is, now let me go seek out this other side or let me seek out somebody who's on the fence or something like that, right? Like, Megan was very pro- Midnight Hammer. And it wasn't until, you know, Midnight Hammer was supposed to end the, was supposed to have set back the nuclear program forever. And that was the justification for launching the strikes that six months later, I mean, I think at the bare minimum, even if you disagree with the position, I think we all have to understand that some people have some real deep-seated frustration. And you know what? I understand that people have deep frustration with me. And I think that's like honestly, I just think that's okay.

I think it's okay to feel like we're not being heard or to feel like other people aren't hearing us or to reflect on who we might not be hearing because these are really tough questions. And I just appreciate Megan wearing, you know, some of these frustrations openly on her sleeve. I appreciate people who are being skeptical and critical right now because I've seen that not happen in the past. And, you know, no more important decisions in the world than. war and peace. So I hear you, Paul. I really appreciate the email. And I hope we can all, you know, have some, I guess, some grace for our disagreements on this. Because, listen, I know a lot of good people who are coming to different conclusions, but based on good intentions. So I appreciate the email, Paul. Thank you for listening. Oh, I accidentally flagged.

if you have a small business you know you sometimes get annoying emails probably from related to small business stuff I accidentally flagged one of those Howard says you didn't need to know that but nevertheless I persisted Howard says brilliant rant on Katie Kirk I remember when she was young and cute in a breath of fresh air how times have changed my mom always watched the today show when I was growing up in the 90s and early 2000s so I remember looking up at the TV because I was little. My mom was getting ready in the morning and watching the Today Show and Katie Kirk and Matt Lauer. So it gives me no pleasure to see where Katie Couric has, to see what Katie Kirk has become. Aaron says, hi Emily, love the show. Please keep bringing on folks like

Dave Smith. It's okay to hear from other views. I'd love to hear you interviewing a supporter of the Ron War and hear your questions. Aaron says, this not the point of Aaron's email. He's writing in about gerrymandering, but I will add, Brian Dean Wright came on early in the war. And he He gave a pretty pro-war perspective. I actually have not been covering the world a lot on After Party a bit. You know, you have Dave on or when Brian was on. It was a good example of a time to talk to him. But, yeah, after-party, it's like, I want it to be a little lighter.

I know we have to cover some of the stuff. And it looms so large over the entire discourse that it's going to come up constantly. But I haven't been leaning too hard into it. Just we do a lot of that on breaking points. And after party is like supposed to be kind of the after party from the news cycle. So it's kind of covering a different collection of things. But yeah, I'm very interested in it. So definitely cover it and appreciate the note about Dave there.

Aaron. On gerrymandering, Aaron says, Alita wrote a well-reasoned opinion in Callas. That was the case in question, be Louisiana. The footnote attacking the dissent for ignoring the 14th Amendment was on point, but man, I'm not sure we're quite there yet on this issue as a country. From what I understand the creation of majority black districts was basically lawmakers interpreting the Voting Rights Act as requiring it. A few weeks ago, I think SCOT has correctly shot that interpretation down. I don't like it, but it's hard to say why without just saying it's our past.

I'm wrestling with this one. It doesn't sit well, especially right now. And the gerrymandering efforts by both parties is disgusting. But predictable, what party or candidate would be brave enough to run on a national prohibition on political? political gerrymandering. Oh, how much traction would that have with voters? Not even sure what it would look like, but we need it. Yeah, Erin, this is a great question. I read a good piece on gerrymandering in Compact today that made a fairly obvious point, but a good one, which is that the gerrymandering battle is not even a battle over how to use power. It's a battle on how to gain power, but not how to

use it. And that's really sad. I think that's a really sad statement on politics, because, yeah, Yes, if you, you know, voters in Indiana didn't want Indiana Republicans sitting on their hands, well, Democrats jerrymandered in California. And California Democrats didn't want Democrats sitting on their hands while Republicans gerrymandered in Texas. Nobody wants unilateral disarmament at that, at this point. And so the entire fight about gerrymandering is about gaining power rather than using it. It means that we're debating gaining the power rather than how the power is going to be used. And I thought that was a, again, it's a basic point, but it's a really good one, at least from my perspective. I will say, I think we're at a point in country. I think we always should be at a point. I've never believed in affirmative action. I thought that was always a problem with affirmative action that there was like a time clock set on it. And that was, of course, overturned. But I always thought that was a bizarre way to see what is essentially racial preferences. So I don't think you.

solve the problem of racial disparities by adding a new racial discrimination regime. I think that is a terrible idea. I think it's immoral, first of all, to have any racial discrimination, any discrimination on the basis of race, bad. But I also don't think it's particularly helpful. So that aside, I don't like the idea that there's some point of critical mass wherein, okay, we can get rid of affirmative action because the country has moved on. I don't even like to think that way. You know, we have made enormous strides. I went through some polling on a recent episode about how enormous those strides have been when you look at the research on racial sentiments in America. It's a miracle. And it happens so quickly. And it feels like we're also

throwing it away quickly as well. But I don't actually even like to think of it that way. I do think conservatives make a mistake by downplaying the importance of ancestral well Not everybody has this, but it has obviously benefited some families. And especially since redlining is in the relatively recent past as well, like generational wealth is a thing that matters to some families. And there are families that were not able to build up generational wealth because literally their ancestors were enslaved or lived in Jim Crow jurisdictions and the like. So I think that has been a little bit of a blind spot for conservatives, but I think it's kind of overstated then by the left as well. So I don't think that you'll ever see a candidate. I mean, it's the thing like Tea Party candidates always wanted to run on term limits and just about everybody supports term limits.

You know, Megan was talking on today's show about Citizens United and how she thought the Thursday show, I should say, how she thought the decision legally was. was sound, but like the practical effect of what happened after Citizens United, like, do you need a constitutional amendment to fix the problem of money in politics, probably? But I don't think anybody is successful running on these structural problems that most people instinctively want and support. For whatever reason, it just doesn't play well in our elections. Because they tend to prioritize kitchen table issues, right? Because you and I have a million kitchen table concerns that we think are more immediately important than these abstract, you know, philosophical concepts. It's just hard to run on that. So I like it. It's hard for any one politician to do it. So it's hard, you know,

like prohibiting gerrymandering. You would need a political movement. I think you'll see candidates maybe who would be willing to do that, say that they would support it. But to see like a big legislative push or constitutional push, it never seems to work in modern history. Obviously, there were a lot of amendments to the Constitution in the past, but just in modern history, maybe it's, maybe it is the print-based versus television-based epistemology to go back into that. This is an email from somebody who says that Dana Kennedy of the Daily Mail recently published a piece on their mini-documentary about the Thomas Crooks slash Willie Teppis connection. Yes, that is, I first saw that connection made.

I'm sure it predated this, probably on the internet, between Thomas Crooks and Willie Teppis, which is the screen name of an internet user that Crooks was interacting with and then suddenly seems to have stopped interacting with around the time that Crooks changed ideology. So interesting, I first saw that in the, Tucker documentary on Butler, which is a very good watch. It's definitely with your time to watch

Tucker's documentary on Butler if you haven't yet. But yeah, here is the, just reading this email that says Daily Mail covered their documentary on it. So if you're interested in that, I guess you can read about it in the Daily Mail. This next email is anonymous and says, I'm curious about your familiarity with and thoughts on the discourse between abolitionists and pro-lifers. Yes, Cruz, I am familiar with that discourse. I'm not super, super deep into the discourse and kind of intentionally so. But Cruz says my understanding is that most pro-lifers support incremental abortion restrictions that eventually make abortion illegal for providers while granting blanket immunity to the mother.

Abolitionists, on the other hand, generally support only equal protection bills that immediately recognize unborn personhood and often support prosecuting everyone involved, including their mother. There seem to be very few people in between Seth Gruber and Abby Johnson with the main examples I can think of who support incrementalism leading to equal protection without blanket immunity for women. That's generally where I fall as well. It seems like pro-lifers are correct on incrementalism while abolitionists are correct

on equal protection, but neither will budge. What are your thoughts? Appreciate all you do. Well, thank you for the email. And it's a very, very complicated debate where I think people in both sides of the debate are generally coming from very moral positions, which is that all life is important. All human life is made in the image of God and has equal dignity and should have equal dignity under the law. And so I think both sides of this is very complicated and very fraught debate are coming from that position. And there's some really, I think, often bad faith attacks that go against the mainstream pro-life groups. And listen, I actually, I totally get it.

I think it's really not good to argue, as some people can slip into the habit of doing. I'm not naming names. I actually don't know that it's that widespread. But in the pro-life movement, in the Republican Party, it's widespread. But to slip into the habit of talking about lives as though they are not. equally worth protecting and that this is just a political issue and that if you are somebody who spends your time as an activist pro-lifer, that just has to be galling and frustrating to be then sidelined in the political process because abolitionism is obviously politically

toxic because this is a country where there is widespread acceptance of some abortion, right? 12 weeks, allowing abortion up to 12 weeks, that is the mainstream majority position of the country. Now, late-term abortion absolutely relegated to the fringe left. That is not, I mean, sadly, it feels like it's increasing in popularity, but that has not been a mainstream American position, though it's fairly popular in the media. And the media will talk about abortion bans when we're talking about late-term instead of talking about protecting babies. So they still cover it in the craziest ways. But We don't live in a country where most people believe, and I really mean this, where most people believe that an abortion is equal to murder.

And I think intent is very important if you believe that you are taking a life versus if you believe that you are simply dissolving a, quote, clump of cells, which is what women are told. It is what men are told. It is what they are told by medical professionals. by the people that they trust, the people that we credential as a society that are legal structure credentials to tell them these things. And so that is why I really blanch at punishments for the mother, even to shift the Overton window, because you are asking, first of all, I don't think it's moral, because I think people genuinely believe. And I say that in good faith to people who disagree with me on this and who are working their butts off in the trenches to protect life. Don't get me wrong. But this is where I'm coming from on it. We just don't live

in a country when most people believe that you are ending the life of a human being with abortion, that you are killing a human being. I do think that, right? I've been inspired by Christopher Hitchens. And the way from the left, Christopher Hitchens put it, the center left, I should say, Christopher Hitchens put it. Well, what do you have? You have unique DNA, and it is alive, right? It is living after conception. This is where my opposition to IVF comes in, some forms of birth control, some forms of plan B. So it's a new human life.

There's no other way to describe it. It is human and it is alive. And when you meet those two criteria, that is where you have to stop the same. the slippery slope. You have to put a gate up right there, in my opinion. And this is, I admit, unpopular with the rest of the American public. But for me, that is the only moral place to protect life when you have a new human life. And so I just don't think most of the country believes that.

And I think the, wherever it's acceptable politically, possible, feasible. politically to immediately defend human life and protect all human life. If it's alive and it's human, then I think it should be done. But if you still need to persuade much of the public, if not most of the public, that it's actually taking of a human life, that is, I mean, to most people, that is going to hit them as fascism because they don't see that as a, a, a as a new human life. And so I do believe that much more just needs to be done in the work of persuasion.

I think politics can be a part of that. I believe in the maximally possible protection of those lives. But I think we kind of all know that abolition is not politically feasible right now. It doesn't mean that we should give up on it becoming politically feasible. But those are some kind of quick and dirty thoughts. This is something that deserves, you know, really

to do it justice deserves a lot more time and a lot more care with how the debate is laid out and addressed. But really, I just want to emphasize, I think it gets so bitter and rancorous, but I think there really are people who are generally trying to do God's work in treating all human life with the dignity that it deserves, because we all created in the image of God. and when people are human and alive, they fit that criteria. So Bob says sends a substack along from Eric Erickson, the only way out is through, why America must finish the fight with Iran. Eric Erickson, I'll just read a bit from it here.

I haven't read this yet. US intel assessments indicate that Iran is rapidly restoring missile bunkers and launch sites bombarded by the U.S. and Israel, raising serious questions, but Washington's claim of weakening Tehran's military capabilities. This is not a minor setback for American war aims. It is an indictment of the entire theory that air strikes alone can defang the Islamic Republic. I'll just pause there. That is what Robert Pape has been saying on Megan's show and breaking points on other shows.

Literally, he's been making that case for years. But that is the case that he has been making about Iran for a long time. Eric goes on to say a recent CNN investigation found that while 77% of visible tunnel entrances had been hit, activity at those sites resumed quickly. It goes on and on here. And yeah, Eric concludes the only way out of this conflict is through it to a decisive conclusion. Anything less is simply a longer road to the same fight, but with growing numbers of Americans dead, the longer we wait. Now, I don't necessarily agree with that. I wouldn't say that I agree. Our only option is to escalate and go through, or our moral option is to escalate and plow through.

And the reason I say that is precisely because I don't know what that means. Like, I don't know what that end game actually is. What is, what would the end, what does it mean to go through and to truly win the war? And why then will you actually stop Iran from rebuilding quickly as they're doing right now, according to Eric's argument. There was a great piece in unheard around, not from a conservative perspective,

but about this exact point. It was by Wolfgang Munchao. And I just really recommend the piece. I'm trying to find the title so that you can search it. The headline was, Boots on the Ground is Trump's best option. And I just disagree that the only moral way out is through with Eric on that point, because I don't know, like, any option that involves more Americans dead, more blood and treasure, like, short of what do I think is really going to prevent, and it could make even worse, the radicalism in or among, or in Iran, I should say,

in the sort of radical Shia IRGC trainings and ideology that has gotten passed down, I just don't, I mean, unless they have a plan to replace the government in a way that's not going to ensure that these now asymmetrical warfare options are easily accessible, where they're not able to get close. Like, yes, a lot of scientists have been killed, but not all of them. They're not going to be able to get close to nuclear weapons enrichment in the near future. I just don't know how you do that, short of nuclear weapons. So at which, I mean, if we're calling for that, we're in a very different position. So I get what Eric is saying that, like, for Trump to accomplish what his own goals apparently are, yes, the only way out is probably through. I think those goals were always the problem in the first place, the idea that this military component would achieve those goals and not make those goals actually even harder to attain.

So that would be my disagreement, but I definitely see what you are saying, Bob. Bob also says Bob Kagan was right a few days ago. Bob Kagan, married to Victoria Newland, founder of the New American Century. So behind previous Middle Eastern engagements, failed Middle Eastern engagements, was saying that the Iran war was lost in the Atlantic. And Bob says, this is Bob who wrote in, says, since we know, and he, Bob Kagan, admits that more bombing won't do it. And there's no way in how that the American people would support the kind of massive ground invasion that would take, then the only serious option would be a nuclear strike on Tehran. Would we be willing to do that? The answer is obvious.

And so that's sort of what I was trying to say, Bob, about your link to that Eric Erickson article. So well said. Very, very interesting. Hank says, another great show tonight. I just ordered Dr. Sad's book. It's the same you didn't get more into his views on Islam. He's pretty adamant that what we see in the way of violence and tolerance and pushing against Western values is not radical Islam or Islamism, but simply Islam itself. Given his family's experiences in Lebanon, you can see where he would believe that.

And then Hank says, because Hank even. about this a couple weeks ago, why in the hell aren't more people talking about this? Kill Switch BS. I can't believe that we actually have a law going into effect like that. If it's not changed, I predict the sale of 2026 models to be through the roof for the next decade. It's certainly why I have an old car and plans to not buy a new car, Hank on that one. But you know who I, so I'm not like a close follower of Gad's ad. I did flip through this book, certainly, before he interviewed him. So I don't know. I listened to his interview. I think I'm honestly with Barry Weiss about some of this, that was probably a year or two ago. But I follow, first of all, Victor Davis Hansen,

but then also Raymond I think was a student of Victor's. And he has a book that's sort of popular and conservative circles called The Sword and Cimitar. He has a subsect now that I've been reading very closely. But I also always try to read the source documents, whether it's near the Hamas charter or what the Iranians are saying themselves, you know, just in their own language, not literally their own language, of course, but their own words. So yeah, that's, those are a couple of places. I follow Raymond Ibrahim's work pretty closely. And he's an interesting thinker. And he's gone really deep on, on some of this. I said, I think I said this to Crystal this week on Monday's breaking points, if I'm remembering correctly, that I do think that's

one of the fault lines with the kind of populist left-right coalition, is that the populist right, by and large, is very, what's the right way to put it, skeptical of modern Islam and skeptical that there has been sort of sufficient, a sufficient kind of. of reformation isn't the right word, but that type of movement, right? Reformation of some of the interpretations. And that would be faith-wide. And, you know, there are some Muslims who make that criticism as well. It's not just Christians who make that criticism. But that's generally where the populist right is. The populist left thinks actually a lot of those arguments would qualify as Islamophobic. And that's going to be a hard, I think, bridge for populist left and right to build

going forward. And you don't have to agree on everything to agree on some things and have progress on some things. So we'll see. But you do actually have to have, maintain, you know, good personal relationships. And you come to these things from a place of good faith. And that's obviously really, really hard to do when you're talking about people's most intimate, closely held beliefs. And so it does get fraught. It gets very, very fraught. But, you know, it's so important to just, you know, do your absolute best to see the humanity in the people who you're talking to, even when you think they're very, very wrong. So, you know, I could see that becoming more of a, more of a barrier. But, again, you know, can surround yourself with people who really are seeing the humanity, just kind of across the board. And then you can argue against it and win in the war of ideas. But that's my thought on that quickly.

Hank says you listen to a public radio panel discussion on SCOTUS and watched Rokana take a talk about expanding the court and limiting tenure. But in all the talk from Democrats and all the immediate commentary about reforming SCOTUS, the one term that I sell them here is court packing. I guess reform pulled better in focus groups. That's really funny. I don't know. But maybe that is what they're saying, no.

This is someone Nats today, says, as you are aware, Nick Christoph's 511, New York Times, opinion piece on institutionalized sexual violence has resulted in shock and horror everywhere. However, the very next day, 512, Israel reported the results of its own investigation of such violence on its citizens on and after 10.7, also in New York Times. What is your view of the timing of the release of the report, which seems too coincidental? It seems as though the government saved this information to release at exactly the right time as a distraction away from itself. and as a clever manipulation of news, in case a piece like Christoph was ever published, does it make the question, make you question the veracity of the government's investigation and reporting? This is such an interesting question because I had the exact same question myself. So Christoph publishes this long and deeply reported, though people have disputed the quality of

the reporting. Let's just say he talked to 14 different sources. He cites multiple different reports. Now, people who are opposed to the Christoph piece say that those reports are biased, but the point is, he talked to different people, he brought in different reports. And then the next day, this really, really, really, deeply researched report comes out about the, as this email says, basically institutionalized sexualized violence from Hamas on 10-7, and then to abduct, abduct, to the prisoners taken on 10-7 and kept and held afterwards in awful conditions. And I also thought that timing was very interesting. Part of me wonders if it's the other way around, if Christoph, because he works at the New York Times,

I think CNN got the report, the Hamas report first. But that usually means it's being passed around for early access so that people can get their stories written up. And so I wonder if Christoph knew that that report was coming out and wanted to get ahead of it and publish this column that he's clearly been working on for a very long time this week. Or, I mean, it's possible the other way around, too, as the email suggests. I have no idea. But I did think that both of these things clearly had been in the works for a long time. Obviously, the Hamas report's like 300 pages long has been in the works for much longer. I'm sure than Christoph's reporting.

But with both of them being long-term projects and coming, out within 24 hours of each other, I did think that was interesting. I have no idea what to make of it. And I highly recommend people go read the Christoph piece and then read Haviv Redig-Gir's response to the Christoph piece in the free press. Basically, the Christoph piece is a bit different than some of the controversy you're seeing around it. Haviv-Redig-Gur addresses those controversies from a very pro-Israel perspective and disputes some of the big, what's the, probably the most high profile claims that came from Christoph's reporting, but actually agrees with what I would say was the larger argument of the Christoph piece,

that there is a problem of, you know, some widespread sexual violence in Israeli prisons, and that it's been a problem. Have you read a Gur argues that it's a problem in prisons, basically most places around the world. And so anyway, I would just say read both of the pieces and that's the best way to kind of get close to what might actually be happening in this situation. Natalie says, I really enjoyed yesterday's episode about the SPLC and learning for justice curriculum. I live in a rural farming community in Montana where a primarily Christian conservative population established a private Christian school. my children happily intended I found out, until I found out the school was using second step social emotional learning curriculum, looking at even one page of fairly innocuous material

instantly set off alarm bells for me and a deeper dive revealed a dumpster fire of leftist indoctrination material. Second step works with learning for justice to provide, quote, direct instruction on identity, diversity, justice, and action that complement and enhance social emotional skills. Woo! This is a long email, but long story short, the school received this curriculum from the state and they felt that shiny new ed tech materials, especially for runs, were inherently good. Yes, yes, yes. That's a great point. Natalie and Natalie passes along some Mary Margaret O'Lehan reporting in The Daily Signal on some of this. Yes, Mary Margaret is a friend and has covered a lot of this very closely. So take a look. If you're interested in this, it's over at the Daily Signal. But she's at the Daily Wire now. but this was at the Daily Signal at the time. And yeah, this is interesting, Natalie, because I think you just described exactly how these pieces of curriculum get integrated,

especially in areas where they're rural and probably people are broadly opposed to social justice ideology, especially opposed to it being taught as like neutral public school material. And that's how it happens is that it gets provided to the state. and if a state has, you know, education departments are just riddled with ideologues, kind of social justice ideologues. And so, you know, they already support SPLC, even if they live in Montana or Wisconsin or wherever. And then as soon as the state accepts that curriculum, because somebody in the capital accepted the curriculum who maybe is like a bureaucrat who's doing education work or maybe the state is under the control of dem legislators, whatever, then it just gets shrews.

shipped off to the school districts and integrated. Sometimes, yeah, because it's ed tech or it's kind of a shiny object. It's, uh, looks like it's, you know, going to, and there's also requirements that they have to meet through things like this. Uh, and they can do it through things like this. So it gets adopted in so many seemingly anodyne innocuous ways. And it's just, I think, done so much damage to, uh, what was this miracle of real, like racial, harmony. It was not perfect. I'm not understating or trying to ignore people's experiences. Certainly in the

90s or early aughts, but it just obviously got worse. And I think as, you know, frustrating as lingering racism, sexism, that sort of thing still was, it was nothing compared to what it had been. And sadly, I think it's going to be nothing compared to where we could

go in the future. Thanks in no small part to some of this conditioning that very quietly, subtly, but powerfully made its way into school curriculum. So, got a couple more here. Texan 316 says, do you think Trump in his cabinet use fake news as an excuse to not answer questions? I don't think they have any problem answering questions because they often can say things like fake news, but I guess Texan means like to answer questions in detail or in substance. Yeah, I think

they cynically deploy the fake news label sometimes in ways that makes the problem worse, because if you're dismissing something as fake news that's actually like serious reporting, then you are doing a disservice to the anti-fake news movement, which should really be bipartisan because distrust in media is bipartisan. Transpartisan is a better way to put it, probably. So I don't like that done cynically. People do it under different names. They don't necessarily. They'll not always say fake news, but they'll say, you know, that's the media lying again or something like that, which just makes it harder to build a movement against media if politicians that have followings, like Trump. I mean, a lot of politicians don't have

following. It doesn't do that much damage. But yeah, I think they do that sometimes. But also, I feel like they're generally happy to talk about what they're doing because they don't, they often don't think that it's that damaging. So that's maybe a little bit of both, but I think generally that's right. Tom says, listening to all the reporting on gerrymandering got me thinking about a possible fix. I want to see what you thought and whether you can spot any major flaws in it. My idea is to let states draw districts however they want, salamanders and lobsters included, as long as the final results stay within a certain percentage of the state's voter registration makeup.

For example, the state is 10 house seats and the voter registration is 50% Democrat, 40% Republican, and 10% independent. Then the outcome would need to roughly reflect that breakdown. In that case, Republicans would need to win at least the three or four seats, depending on the marginal loud. It seems like a fair way to make sure everyone's voice is represented, regardless of how the districts are drawn. Thanks, and I hope you have a great weekend.

Very interesting idea, Tom. The problem that I would see with it right off the bat is if political identification shifts, not just with people moving in and out of the state. I mean, that was certainly a big thing during COVID. Like Florida got more red over the course of COVID because a lot of people who wanted to live in a well-run Republican state. at the time, DeSantis is the governor, moved down to Florida. So also on top of that, you know, if Trump is really unpopular, you can see fewer people identifying as a Republican.

But in 2024, I bet more people were identifying as Republicans in certain states. And so that would be, I mean, I think these numbers are constantly in flux. And so I think it would actually be sort difficult to make those, to draw those districts or make those apportionment. So it's an interesting idea. I don't really know what the fixes to this. A lot of people have suggestions for how to fix this. I don't really know what they are. So, anyway, that's the last question for today. Let's see, how long did I go? I don't even watch how long I'm going as I do it. Okay, not quite record level. I went long, but not quite record level.

I appreciate you all for listening. Again, my email is emily at devil makecaremedia.com. You can hit me up there, and I can answer your questions. I guess if you didn't get it in this week on next week's edition of Happy Hour, like I said, I'm going to start doing them maybe in the live shows too because we get a lot of positive feedback on happy hour. Like people seem to really like it. So I might start integrating it more into the live shows. We have some fun stuff coming. We're about to hit the one year mark of after party. Shows growing. It helps us a lot if you tell a friend, share it with a friend, subscribe on YouTube. Again, those are the best ways to support the work that we are doing here. Appreciate it. Hope you all have a wonderful weekend and we'll

see you back here with more after party soon.