After Party with Emily Jashinsky - “Happy Hour”: Tribalism on the Right, Ditching Tech, and Trump’s Goals in Iran: Emily Answers YOUR Questions

Episode Date: January 16, 2026

On this week’s edition of “Happy Hour,” Emily Jashinsky takes up a series of questions about issues in the news including the problems with arguments before the Supreme Court on transgender athletes in sport, media coverage of the Minneapolis shooting, the situation in Iran and Venezuela, and the Trump administration's role. Emily also addresses several questions about the split on the right, discusses when emotionalism and tribalism get the best of people, the aftermath and trauma of Charlie Kirk's assassination, she explains why it's easier to have a strong coalition when you're in the opposition, and she discusses how she stays sane dealing with the news cycle while also being on social media, plus an encouraging new study on Gen Z ditching smart phones.  Emily also tackles great questions from listeners on the importance of local politics and school choice, if Hip Hop is actually conservative, and happiness in America versus other countries. She rounds out the show with some thoughts on Palm Beach, why she prefers TV to movies, her Super Bowl pick, and a beauty tip for having great eyebrows. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Welcome, welcome to another edition of Happy Hour here on the After Party feed. Thank you so much for subscribing. If you aren't subscribed on the podcast feed, that's the only place to get Happy Hour. We just released this audio only every Friday around 5 p.m. So it's there for your weekend listening pleasure. Also because I love just doing audio, there's something about just you in a microphone in a room that I particularly love. So Emily at Devil McCarratt Media is where you can send in your emails also on the After Party. Emily, Instagram, feed. As a reminder, I am reading all your emails live. I'm reading them live. What I do in my inbox is just separate them as they come in. It looks like, okay, that's a happy hour one. I flag it.

And I read them. I just think it's much more entertaining that way. So frankly, I can't, like, sort them out ahead of time. It would just make it more boring. You can also submit those questions on the after party. Emily Instagram page. Also, subscribe on the YouTube, by the way, if you haven't done that yet. That is one of those things that helps us a lot. Helps us a lot. All right. Let's get to the emails today. Here comes one. This is from Ken, who says, Emily, I enjoyed your segment with Black Hill Blake, Blake Neff, producer over the Charlie Kirk show, was on the show Monday. He says, Ken says, lots of good sense expressed with good humor. Listening later to Supreme Court cases, coverage by various outlets, I was sure.

struck by how disingenuous the recurring idea that males claiming to be females are being excluded from sports. They are not at all excluded. They're fully eligible to participate and enjoy all the benefits of sports on the basis of their sex. Amen, Ken. Great point. They may choose to not participate in the correct sex-based category due to their discomfort, but that is in no way exclusion from sports. If some argue that males claiming to be females are not comfortable participating in male sports, that is too bad. But why would such feelings be in those boys should be allowed to join the girls' competition. Ken goes on to say, why in the world would their feelings of discomfort override their often expressed feelings of discomfort of females,

as well as overriding the clear competitive unfairness, the stolen spots on girls' teams, the lost awards and scholarships, and the real safety concerns. Really, really good point, Ken. So basically, the argument here is, if you are a boy, you are not being excluded from sports. You can play on the boys' soccer team. You are arguing, and this is, actually a point that Jed Reubenfeld, who's a Yale professor, a Yale law professor made in the free press when he was explaining the problems with the left's argument in the Supreme Court case on transports. That was the oral arguments were, of course, on Wednesday, and there was a lot of coverage of it. And Jed Rubenfeld, again, Yale law professor, he's writing in the free press,

he was saying that if the states do not accept the premise that a boy can become a girl because the boy identifies as a girl, then the entire argument about sex-based discrimination falls apart completely because they aren't buying that a boy can become a girl, therefore it is not sex discrimination. And again, that's why the quote-unquote mainstream media, the mass media, corporate media, legacy media coverage of this issue is, I think really, I mean, first of all, it turns people off, makes people not trust the outlets. But it's also just so. detached from the median Americans analysis of what's happening because these outlets do buy into, they do truly buy into the idea that it's a boy should be put in the girl's category

because the boy identifies as a girl. And that is diminishing a bit somewhat. I think there are people with more open minds. I mean, you've seen some really interesting coverage in like the New York Times over the last year or so. I think the Cass review over in the UK where obviously Hillary Class Cass reviewed the literature and all of the studies about the main points

that the trans community claimed to be capitalized science and then laundered into the mass media for years because, you know, people who are sympathetic to the cultural left and to the progressive cultural left just bought these arguments,

hook line and sinkers. change the style guide on the Associated Press, which is in charge of the way that basically every media outlet covers this, they change the style guide to say you have to refer, you have to use preferred pronouns, you have to use the plural they, you have to use a woman when someone identifies as a woman. And I'm just, I've stopped saying biological woman. I mean, I still slip into it sometimes accidentally, but I just say woman now if someone is a woman. because even saying biological implies that there's some other type of woman. And I use it all the time in my coverage just because it distinguishes between the language being used elsewhere.

And so it can just be more clear as a writer. But at this point, I don't think it's helpful to even use that marker. So this is a great point, Ken, that it is not, and this is a legal argument as well, as Rubenfeld wrote in the free press. But it is not, you heard this a lot with marriage as well. that you know man, it's that sex discrimination. This was the argument from Christians. They were saying there's no discrimination on the basis of sex, certainly happening here.

A man is still free to get married. It's the difference between, you know, saying a man is free to get married to another man and saying it's slightly different, but it was actually a similar argument. But in this case, again, you have to, in order to say that this is, sex discrimination, you have to actually buy that sex is interchangeable. And that just isn't true. It's just, it isn't true. I don't know. I mean, I have a lot of theories on why. It was laundered into the discourse, but, you know, that's, we can get into that later. Here's an email from Shea, who says,

grateful to you and Glenn Greenwald for showing me that I'm not in fact getting dumber, a monumental is taking place and the Normies are trying to articulate their stance with the ground shifts beneath them. Again, I did not vote for regime change for policing Venezuela or Greenland and most definitely not Iran. We don't even do America well. The hubris to think we can do better at Venezuela than Venezuela can. I want off this crazy train. She goes on to ask, how do you stay sane, Emily? I have to check out, delete apps, podcast, news sites. I feel that I must detach from the world in order to focus on my sphere, my own sphere of influence, my kids, my husband, my church, those I mentor. Is it only me? It feels more difficult every passing year to be in the world,

but not of the world. God help us keep our eyes lifted to the only one who saves. It's a great message, Shea. Thanks for the email. How do I stay sane? I can't. I actually want to delete apps, as Shea says, and podcasts and news sites. Obviously, I can't for work purposes, but I do think it probably helps the average person. I just, you know, this is a, personal what's the right way to put it, Bugaboo that I have with Elon Musk and certainly Mark Zuckerberg trying to

say that he's on the Trump train or whatever else I don't think it's appropriate for the right to embrace some of these guys because their products are responsible for a huge mass poisoning of our brains and we don't have all the research yet.

It's starting to stack up, but short-form video and memory. There are already links in scientific papers about what short-form videos are doing to our memory. And it's not good. It's not good. The mental health research is not great, but even just cognition and memory. Brain functions. We have exported so much of our social lives onto these platforms. And the way the algorithms are changing our interactions with each other that are changing our politics. I mean, Musk's X has been poisonous to our discourse, period. Yes, it has a better approach to free speech here in the States. And I'm grateful for that, and I think it has made a difference. But I can't at the same time say that it's okay, that X is great

and wonderful because Elon Musk did that when he's claiming to be a conservative who wants to rescue Western civilization while profiting off of and encouraging an algorithm that can continues to reward extremity. So I do think deleting apps is a really great idea. I wish that I could do it. I mean, I probably could, but I just wouldn't, I wouldn't be as good at my job. I don't think I wouldn't be able to do this well. Because you just, I unfortunately have to be really zeroed in on, you know, what people are saying and all of that. A lot of what I do is cover the media. So best place to do it is on X. No question about it. I don't have TikTok, though. Maybe that's the only reason that I have any sanity remaining is I never, ever downloaded TikTok.

But now Instagram Reels is just TikTok, so I don't know. Maybe that's not right either. It's tough. It's tough. And I agree, Shea, that it does feel more difficult every passing year. Here's a hopeful note, though, just to end my reply here on. I saw a study the other day. It was actually a book company that it commissioned the study.

and it found that members of Gen Z were intentionally carving out time in their day to be off of their phones. Isn't that interesting? People who grew up with smartphones are intentionally creating space in their lives where there are no phones. And it's not necessarily surprising. I think COVID was a tipping point for a lot of people in that generation who just became hyper aware of the problems with social media-enabled smartphones and having Wi-Fi like the air. But that's hopeful because it shows that maybe there's a, the, our human nature is starting to reject the anti-human, the anti-human influences

of the social media-enabled smartphones. And I do find that hopeful because it's a kind of gasp of humanity in a transhumanist age, an anti-humanist age. an anti-humanist age. As it's, you know, I'm not even just talking about smartphones and social media. I think it'll, that could be more broad, right? Like that could be people starting to get outside, work out, eat real food. We're, I think, finding ways to push back against this big business of anti-humanism,

transhumanism, and all of that. So here's a message from, thanks for that email, Shea. Here's a message from James, who says, now Dave Rubin is going. after Megan, why does the entire Israel first right-wing commentators want to drive every Republican under 60 away from supporting Israel? Mark Levin has always been an angry little troll, but to see Dave Rubin turn on her is revolting. Yeah, they go on to say, I hope she flames all of them. They're shattering the Republican Party, calling her Grandma Groyper or whatever else. Dave Rubin, I think, got mad because actually I was on this Megan Kelly show.

when Megan talked about something Ruben had posted, I think it was in response to J.D. Vance that kind of implied Vance was complicit in some of this

like anti-Israel stuff. It was, I don't know, but that's where, again, being on social media, that's where I think I first noticed there was a breach or whatever. And since I've seen Dave,

I think unfollowed me on X. I think he's been going after Megan more and more. I don't know, it is all unfortunate because it's easier to be in, you know, in the Biden era, it's going to be, of course, easier, as we're seeing right now for the left. It's politically easier to have a strong coalition when you are in the opposition, right? Because there's nobody making the policy decisions. You know, you're strictly opposing those policy decisions that are being made. And when people are vying for, you know, in, what's the right, right word, like, when people are vying for positioning or influence or whatever it is with,

you know, some of the folks who feel like the support for Israel is slipping away, one of my big things is just, and I know, a lot of people have said this. So it's hardly like unique to me. But I deal with a lot of students. I talk to a lot of students. And just like it's the it's the relentless gatekeeping and tone policing that even when it is rational, you know, even when it is important, the way that it's done, you know, because I'm not one of those people who thinks it's crazy that, you know, a movement would have to gatekeep itself. I don't think that's crazy at all, or there should be some policing of language. But young people just came off of 10 years of relentless policing of language and gatekeeping from the left. And their hackles are up, right? Like their radar is up.

It's really, really strong right now. So I think there's been some very counterproductive efforts, like even by their own goals, counterproductive efforts. And that makes me sad because they've basically pushed everybody who could make that point. out of their, there's kind of circle of serious people that they listen to. And that's what happens when I think, honestly, emotion and tribalism gets the better of folks.

And again, I actually understand why that happens to people. It just all sucks. And people would disagree with what I'm saying right now. But I get it. I mean, I'm just saying spent a lot of time with young people. I spent a lot of time with the left.

And I think I have an audience that is, persuadable people, people who are, you know, listening to different arguments and all of that. So I hear from a lot of you guys as well. And just to me, my sense of all this has sadly been counterproductive from people who are, you know, understandably trying to make sure America remains relatively supportive of the Jewish state. So I get it. I get it. Here's another message actually on that. Someone says, okay, this is, okay, this one says it's not for happy hour, not for happy hour, but it is a similar thing for this. Talking about Tucker and Candace and all that, I have gotten a lot of emails about this. Oh, I just clicked on another one.

This one's from Dan, who says, I'm a relatively new listener to the show, although I've known of you for a while due to breaking points in YouTube. I found myself extremely black-pilled by the conservative libertarian podcast sphere ever since Charlie Crick's assassination. and as someone who considers themselves, quote, woke right on the issue of Israel, it's been disturbing to me to see how many people I used to greater respect push the increasingly absurd conspiracies about Charlie's death. It's pretty obvious to me that Candace Owen says a bonapick with Ben Shapiro and the Zionist, right, and is using Charlie's death to push her agenda. Well, I'm not surprised by her behavior.

I'm surprised by how many people like Tucker, Dave Smith, and Clint Russell have either bought into her story completely or at least seem to tacitly support her because it aligns with their own agenda. I am greatly disappointed because I thought these were people who were committed to the truth above all else. but the last few months have proven otherwise. I find myself listening to Nick Fuentes more, even though I often disagree with him, simply because he seems to be the only one lately

who is willing to call out both the Zionist right and the Candace cult. I'm curious for your thoughts. Even though I didn't listen to him much prior to his death and Miss Charlie, I didn't realize until now how much of a glue he was for the right wing. Dan, that last point is critical. I think that has been, that has become very clear

in the last couple of months, sadly, is that there was, that Charlie Kirk really because he had personal relationships with Candace while also having personal relationships with Ben Shapiro, that there was something. He did this ideologically, too, through his punditry and substantively through his activist work at Turning Point USA. But I think part of us also just personally he was able to mediate these disputes behind the scenes, sometimes on air and all of that. So I do think that's an important point. And another important point about Nick Fuentes, this is one that I've been making for a while, is people underestimate the degree to which folks who have zero interest in bigotry, zero, zero interest in bigotry, find themselves listening to Fuentes because he's doing criticism of the right.

And he's doing criticism of the right as somebody who has no allegiance particularly to any person or whatever. Like basically everyone has rejected him. And again, for good reasons. but he does a fairly honest assessment of the right in ways that other people don't. And I'm just, when I say honest, I mean, he is, you know, not hampered by who he's going to run into at this event or that event because he's not going to the events. So he doesn't have any, like, so honest in the sense that he's just saying whatever the hell he wants to say. And there's an appetite for that. from my perspective, there's a real appetite for that.

He criticizes Trump a lot. He obviously criticizes J.D. Vance and in some ways I find awful. But the point is, even as he makes some non-substantive criticisms, he will then tack on a substantive criticism of, like, for example, the tech right in his criticism of J.D. Vance. And you don't see a lot of that in right-wing punditory spaces or in right-wing media. and it's something that people actually care about. And so if folks want to stop people from turning to Fuentes, one of the ways they could do that is having more critical coverage of the Trump administration and of other people on the right

when they do something that they shouldn't have done. And again, I'm not saying like Fuentes is coming from a good place on all of that, but I'm saying it's why people turn to him. And I think this listener question gets to that. for sure. On the Candace point, I talked about this in the last few episodes of Happy Hour and basically you could go back and listen to the last two

for more of what I said. But yeah, I mean, I've listened to, yesterday I listened to one of the full episodes of Candace recently and just in the last couple of days. And my position on it is that she is not doing well. Do I think some of it is maybe exploitive, like maybe using, this for an anti-Zionist agenda, it's possible, but I really do think she is not well.

Not well. That's just my personal assessment of it. I do not know Candace. I don't know her personally. I don't think I've ever talked to her. So this is totally from a distance, but I don't know how much of it is honestly, like intentionally exploitive and how much of it is. And I know some of you disagree with me on this. I always get emails when I talk about this. But I think, you know, it was. it was certainly right for Erica Kirk and Megan, as we now know, to try and defuse the situation behind the scenes. That's my understanding of it. It's only, I haven't talked to anybody about that, just from hearing publicly what was happening behind the scenes now. I think that was the right approach. And a lot of people have misunderstood that. And it's, I just really think everyone will be better served if there's a mentally healthier person in the chair over at Candace.

And then I hope it's her. I also think people underestimate the extent to which seeing someone people knew really well. I don't know how good of friends Candace and Charlie were at the end. There's disputed reports on that. But I honestly have no idea. But even, you know, someone that you knew so well, you traveled with that you've been very good friends with. I think people have underestimated the trauma that has. visited so many people on the right. I think it's very true about Candace Owens. Even some people,

by the way, just on the left. You saw some of those podcasters' reaction to it as it was happening, Hassan Piker, Dean Withers, but especially people on the right who were friends, close friends with Charlie Kirk. Everything, I mean, I think to some extent everything people have said for the last few months who were close friends with him should be viewed through the lens of they just watched a friend of theirs get taken out in. a cloud of blood while he was speaking to college students. And that just, I feel like it's faded from everybody's mind, how traumatic and awful it is to see that.

So have some people handled it better than others? Absolutely. But yeah, you can go back and listen. I talk a bit about it. I do listen to full episodes of Candace because they're entertaining. Sad, but entertaining. I think that's also an explanation for why her podcast is doing well. I mean, the threads that she's trying to tie together.

And as a presenter, she's a compelling personality, certainly. So, you know, I don't know that everybody who's watching or listening is buying the story. I frankly still think we're, I hope this FBI gets us a lot more information. I'm willing to wait if they, you know, say they need more time. to tie up the case and to have a legal slam dunk and make sure it's all done in order and that's fine. But yeah, I think there are still questions about what was happening behind the scenes and about the official story. But yeah, people could go back and listen to the Candace stuff I've done. That's my theory, having listened to recent full episodes, not just clips,

about what I think. All right, here we go. Jesse says, well, I wish the ICE officer involved in the Renee Good shooting had the presence of minds who make a different decision. I can understand how he was legally permitted to defend himself from a perceived threat. With that, said, do you feel the media has created a false sense of privilege for individuals who insert themselves into law enforcement questions? I firmly believe in the idea of civil disobedience, but it needs to come with training and discipline. It's an interesting question about the media because I was watching the coverage of it as it blew up that day. and they always have a lot of law enforcement, like ex-law enforcement on media.

Like, they really are right away when the breaking news happens on Fox and CNN. And I was not watching MSNBC. I'm sure they probably did have some on MSNBC. They always have FBI on MSNBC. But that was happening. There were people right away who were even talking to law enforcement. sources and what was it? What's his name? Tom Winter at NBC. I saw him right away say lawful but awful. Looks like it might be a lawful but awful situation. My big frustration,

I mean, I think that's a legitimate point that people underestimate the extent to which a law enforcement officer has to make a split second decision. And then we nationalize a split second decision into a big story, weeks-long news cycle, when the reality is that, you know, in this case, this is a trained ICE officer. It wasn't a new kind of ICE officer who had just been trained. It was like new on the job. This guy had been trained. He's been doing what he's been doing for a long time. We know that he is now, according to CBS, at least as of Thursday afternoon when I'm recording this, that he had internal bleeding, which would, you know, say that that would pretty much be definitive proof, assuming it's true that he was hit by the car. So, yeah, there's something about

it where it's like, you don't understand. I mean, if that was your father, your brother, your son, and you put yourself in the shoes of a loved one of the law enforcement officer in a situation like that, It was the same thing with Michael Brown and George Floyd and the Derek Chauvin trial turned into what it turned into because there was this drumbeat of right versus wrong, right versus wrong, right versus wrong. And I agree with you, Jesse. I wish, like Jesse says, quote, I wish the ICE officer involved in the shooting had the presence of mind to make a different decision. I totally agree with that. But then you also have to consider, and that's why this is so much more complicated than the narrative that's emerged, you also have to consider he doesn't have all of the time in the world that we have to luxuriate in pontificating about what could have been done, what could have been done, what could have been done, and yes, he gets paid to make the right decision in the moment. That's not always going to happen. And it doesn't mean that the tragedy has national implications for the bigger ice question. And I think that's where some of the coverage goes

wrong. I also think some of the coverage goes wrong by underplaying the threat that exists right now because of the Biden administration. This is not cope at all. I'm talking about a current threat. I'm not pointing to deflect to the Biden administration. Talking about the fact that average American citizens now live in neighborhoods with non-citizen criminals. And depending on what city you live in, those are non-sentencing criminals basically being shielded by sanctuary laws. And so that is a significant problem that exists. And Democrats say they, you know, you got to do better than what ICE is doing. No, these protests would be happening if ICE was perfect.

And I wish ICE was perfect. And I think there are things that could be doing better. But it would be happening anyway. We know it would be happening anyway. And one of my big frustrations with the media since this story burst into the, the national scene is that big picture, you know, Bill Malugin, for example, posted on X, this long list of criminals that had been convicted criminals, violent convicted criminals in Minneapolis or in Minnesota that were being targeted by DHS. And the media needs to cover that. It needs to cover that.

It needs to cover the fact that ICE has a legitimate duty to deport convicted criminals. And, you We can talk about other cases as well. We can talk about non-criminal, non-citizens, that also should be in positions where they're confronted with what happens next. Nobody in this country wants a path to citizenship except maybe the far left. That's it.

But there are literally, there's a safety question here. Like, the safety question is not just about ICE. That's the point I'm making. The safety question is not just about ICE. It's about the threat that ICE exists to confront. as well, and there's so little of that in the media. Here's a question from Justin. In your last episode of Happy Hour, you said there's an inequality between which,

between white and black Americans in the pre-cival rights era. You mentioned generational wealth and redlining. What is your prescription for this? A big thing I feel we don't talk about enough is a level of debt and spending from the government. This applies to federal, state, and local some generation is going to have to man up and deal with austerity measures or higher taxes. It goes on to say, what is a realistic way to address this?

We can't even get agreement to try to cut waste fraud. or funding illegals. Finally, in my hometown Iowa, public school board meeting Monday. Board announced likely cuts to music and business departments. A lot of people are blaming ESA Republican leaders. It goes on to say,

it also goes back to what I said previously. Justin writes about how people complain about cuts and seem to prefer overspending. I'm considering speaking at the board meeting. Do you have any suggestions on how to present what I expressed? What is your opinion on it? This is a loser really really good thoughts.

Yeah, Justin says at one point, if the public school was doing well, less students would be open enrolling. Also, my time we'd just spend a stupid amount of money on building. A quote alternative high school and elementary school, so it tracks that if we overspent on building, they would need to make cuts. It's so sad how in localities,

some of these things can't even be figured out now. Like, that's, my politics can be defined to some level by, you know, the Jeffersonian instinct for self-government and small communities. Like, I really, really, really believe in that. And part of me now feels like the national discourse has just made it so much harder to have these conversations even at a local level. I really believe the death of local news has left so many local decisions in a total shadow where there's little, oversight or less oversight than there should be and less kind of local bickering in a good way where you hash some of these things out. And I think that's a problem. I'm just I do not, I really don't know. I really, really don't know. This is extremely tough. And I hate seeing,

I hate seeing what happens to public schools. This is something I think about a lot because school choice is a reflexive position for many of us on the right. It does liberate kids instantaneously from awful circumstances in failing public schools. And it does, in theory, force those public schools to become better by competing with the private schools. You know, if kids can take their public money and use it to cover private tuition and families can do that, then it should, in theory, force the public schools to be better. But it's, I'm not going to I've never been conflicted about it because, and I think people have been involved in school choice will tell you this too, but it just is so sad to give up on public schools. And it's not

giving up on public schools to say that they should have some competition, but in a sense, you know, it does bleed public schools of money. And so I think, you know, school choice in general, and I know this isn't a direct answer to your question, Justin, but I think school choice in general needs to be equally focused on paying teachers more money and getting better talent into those public schools while it's creating competition. I think those two things should be seen as necessary and symbiotic and harmonious and one shouldn't fall by the wayside. That's my best kind of big picture answer to this. But it's crazy. It happens on the higher education college level as well, just spend money on the dumbest things and then basic stuff gets cut and everyone suffers

because the basic functions don't function or don't even exist anymore. Like liberal arts schools should in theory, actually liberal arts at the high school level too, music, for example, should in theory be part of these curriculums, but because, you know, there's the stupid spending on pools and whatever else, you end up or administrators, all that dumb stuff. you end up saying, well, if we're going to cut something, we've got to cut music because we need more money for math. You just created problems. Yeah. And the question, Justin's question about plans to address the debt or balance the budget that isn't tax the rich.

What is a realistic way to address this even if we can't get agreement to try to cut waste fraud or funding of illegals? Huge black pill over the last year with Doge. because, and I think a lot of people experienced it, once again, just the resistance to making smart cuts at USAID, which, by the way, the left would have supported for a long time. But then you had the left, like, rallying around USAID. What world is this? Obviously, there's a difference between liberals and the left, but there are some left, people on the left who were like, what, like leftists who were supportive of USAID.

Like, well, you can't cut USAID like that. It's like, okay, what can we do? What can we do? Yeah, the debt deficit, interest on the debt right now, it's just disgusting. The only thing that will fix it is an emergency, and that's the black pill. It's never going to get fixed without that. And what worries me about the right leaving this issue behind, you know, there's been a lot of spending in both Trump administrations, unfortunately. What worries me about that is you leave it to.

the left. And left gets elected and does have a taxation level that genuinely hurts innovation and is unjust, rather than, you know, the Trump administration one and two put so much political capital behind the tax cut bills. Paul Ryan was originally talking about postcard level taxation when they were working on that tax bill in 2017. Well, it didn't happen. We didn't simplify the tax code. Certainly not to that level. In some ways, you could argue the tax code got more complicated. We don't have a...

I mean, everyone's political capital should be behind like a flat tax on the right if we're ever going to deal with this because that closes loopholes. You force corporations and wealthy individuals to come from offshore accounts and not to take advantage of these ridiculous accounting schemes.

You force everybody to pay the taxes that they owe. And yes, we are going to need some form of austerity. Unfortunately, at some point, I don't know what it's going to be. There is no such thing as modern monetary theory. There's no such thing as the facts of the theory behind it. The theory is bunk. But that's what a lot of people in the left believe in. Look it up.

If you haven't heard of MMT, that's one of the big problems right now. That's why there aren't a lot of people on the left who really care about debt and deficit. many of the thought leaders have come to this idea that you can just spend and kind of spend your way out of it and print money and all of that. It gets complicated and nuance, but that's my short version of it. So, yeah, I worry that the lack of vigor behind the rights concern over debt and deficits and spending is going to leave it to a place where you just have an even more unjust taxation system and it does turn us into Western Europe, essentially.

Good question. It's a good question. Here's one. Jesse says, what do you think Trump's position? What do you think this will do, talking about a potential... Oh, let me just read the whole email here. It says, Trump decided against striking Iran. At least for now, again, I'm recording this Thursday afternoon,

in action which I 100% understand from a strategic perspective. However, is posturing the days leading to that decision and is now blinking in the game of chicken, made him look incredibly weak internationally, overturning the sudden strength he had regarding Maduro, and likely results in the dozens more Iranians who believed help was on the way, as he said himself. I genuinely feel bad for them, and now they'll mostly die, be imprisoned, or worse. What do you think this will do to Trump's position on the global stage and in his own party? I don't know. Again, this is a fluid situation.

We're talking Thursday afternoon. I do not know what precise number to believe about protester killings in Iran. I do not know what to believe about the Trump administration's goals. in the region, the movements, the evacuation of the Qatari base. Again, I'm talking on Thursday afternoon. So this situation may change. I genuinely think it's too early to say. I actually even think it's too early to say since the June strike, to be honest. And again, not cope, but just because the situation in Iran is like under the Trump administration is fluid. And that strike will always have an effect on what happens from the regime, what happens from the people. And so I think the wisdom of it is

still on the table, even though in the short term, he was totally vindicated. And I was totally proven wrong in the short term. Well, I guess not proven wrong. My point was that the risk calculus was too high. I still think the risk calculus was too high. But his near-term goals, the risk calculus, he kind of defeated the odds or what I would say the odds were. And it paid off. But in the long term, I don't know how that's going to play out. I just think it's really early. Israel can make a decision that forces us to make a decision, which basically happened last time around. So I think when we have more information, and maybe there'll be like six months for now, this question will be easier to answer. But we also don't know what was happening on the ground

in terms of, and is happening on the ground in terms of, like Marco Rubio reportedly was pushing, quote, non-kinetic options. So we don't know who's been armed by who. We don't know what's being done on the ground. Sometimes you don't learn that stuff for years, unfortunately. But I think we'll know a lot more soon. All right. What else do we have here? This is a comment from Wes who says, he's hoping once we kick out the Cubans and the Iranians from Venezuela, he'll be able to visit and says if we don't blow it,

it could, all of this makes for great headlines, but I think if there's a bigger story on the strategy to develop a Pax America for Latin America, America that would also include economic miracles, similar to what we saw with the Asian Tigers in the 80s and 90s. if we don't blow it, it could significantly reshape how we see Latin America, and there's an interesting Christian evangelical component to it. Yeah, that's a pretty interesting point. There's been a lot of missionary work, obviously, in South America, Latin America.

That would be enabled more easily in Venezuela, certainly. But there's also an argument that a prosperous South America and Latin America will be better for the United States. The problem here, though, is that they want their sovereignty respected, and it does influence Latin America, South American politics, to have the sovereignty of Venezuela, potentially Colombia, looks like Gustav Petro is going to come to the U.S. soon. That sovereignty, be, as people feel it, encroached by the United States, that does influence their politics.

And they do have, not in Venezuela, of course, but other countries, Democratic systems. And the pink tide recurred recently, actually, in some ways because people of Latin America, there are a lot of, like, nationalist leftists, like Amlowe types, you know, from Amelow in Mexico, Scheinbaum and Mexico. Those leaders have a big constituency. And I just have little confidence in even as great and powerful as the United States. in our ability to control outcomes in those countries in the long term. And so I don't think we should violate the sovereignty of those countries, even if it's with like CIA activity, to try,

because it's often counterproductive. Again, I keep saying this. There's a Sandinista, currently president of Nicaragua. So in the long term, you may have some success in the short term, but in the long term, are you really increasing the odds of prosperity and cooperation with the United States when other countries feel bullied and messed around? And can you even control the outcomes when they have democratic regimes and not regimes, democratic governments in places like Chile or, you know, different, like Mexico and all of that. So I get it. I think there is an idealistic outlook about what could become of the hemisphere. And I think we do have a lot of people who would like to be partners and would like to have better relationships to the United States

and all of that. And I hope it plays out that way. I'm just, I like some optimism. it to be honest. Erica says, Emily, I'm in Palm Beach right now driving through. We are from Kentucky. We're passing through Palm Beach. It's not creepy. I think it's so awesome. I wish I had time to take a pick with Mar-a-Lago in the background. While I sport my 47-turning point hat, best purchase of 2025. I already told myself to not over fan girl. No hiding the bushes near Mar-a-Lago for a peek. L-O-I-I-L-O-I-I-L-O-I-L. Okay, I want to say, don't think these two positions are mutually exclusive. I do think Palm Beach is beautiful. Do not get me wrong. I think Palm Beach is beautiful. I also find it creepy. These two things are true. The beaches in Palm Beach are

fantastic. And it is just gorgeous. I just mean, you walk into the breakers or you're on Worth Avenue and the level of wealth and material consumption, it's just such a concentration of wealth and power. And you see it manifest literally in people's like faces and clothes and cars. And, you know, it's, I don't, I don't enjoy that. I don't enjoy that. And I feel like Palm Beach is one big version of that. It's like everywhere you go.

Now it's nice because it's like pristine. You know, the nice areas of Palm Beach are just utterly pristine. It feels like you're almost on a movie set. And it is gorgeous. It is beautiful. There's a lot of really good restaurants in Palm Beach, as you can imagine. So I don't think these things are mutually exclusive. I do cling to that.

I think that's, that is my point. That is my story and I'm sticking to it. Sue says, I'm so glad to discover your podcast. I appreciate your right of center political point and viewpoint and political. insights. Listening to your discussion about the shooting in Minneapolis, I found it interesting that you seemed willing to believe a witness account without any vetting of the witness. I remind you that an eyewitness to the Michael Brown shooting was quoted without betting and his hands up don't shoot account turned out to be bull. Sue, thank you for the email. I think that's absolutely right. I can't vet a witness that Minneapolis public radio, which I think is what Sue's referencing. I don't actually even know who that person is. I think it was a first name only or anonymous in that MPR account. But my memory and I genuinely apologize if I didn't do this, and one of the times I mentioned it, I know for sure that multiple times I mentioned it. I said, I still have questions because there is one witness saying this. And so I want to know in a full investigation. I'm pretty sure this is how I said it every time. But again, I apologize if it's not.

I want to know with the full scope of the investigation and all the information that comes if it was true that Renee Good was getting multiple instructions. And so far from the video, I haven't seen that. I haven't seen anybody saying, in that moment, both get out of here and get out of the vehicle. But if there's an eyewitness saying that, I would hope that is thoroughly investigated. And it does give me some pause, because that changes the calculus for me. Like, you still shouldn't turn towards a law enforcement officer and ever accelerate, even if it's five miles per hour. But it changes it if Renee Good wasn't listening to one person, only heard the other instruction, couldn't see anything was happening quickly and all of that.

So I was just saying I'm open-minded to all of that happening. Abe says, I had to laugh out loud when you mentioned the White St.ag, as one of your favorite restaurants in Wisconsin. I grew up in St. Germain. Awesome. And we never actually ate there but drove by it many times. Amazing. Classic Northwood supper club, a lot of those hidden gems where you'd never expect to find them.

I've also never been to Paul Bunyan, even though we spent tons of time in Aqua. I wanted to go to the White Stag over Christmas. It didn't get a time new. get up there. But man, that's a great spot. Love those supper clubs. Love a good old fashioned at a supper club.

One of the most fun things in Wisconsin. Buck says, there have been a handful of videos widely available online related to the shooting Vernet Good to Minneapolis. The latest one I've seen was recorded by the ICE agent,

and another individual is identified as Good's wife is seen interacting with the agent, holding your phone in a matter, which leaves me to believe she is recording a video of the interaction. Where is that video hasn't been released? curious minds want to see it or know why it has not gone public. Great point. Buck. Julie Kelly was reporting that they weren't actually married. So I think the other one, it's Renee and Becca. I think Becca is the partner.

I would love to know where that video is. We got the officer's video from Alpha News. So obviously that leaked somehow to Alpha News, which is a publication. I think it's probably fair to say, right of center publication in Minneapolis. it's I would love to see that video too. I'm sure it exists. And I would imagine if it's helpful to the goods case, it will come out sooner rather than later. But I would imagine investigators are probably already do have it. So I think that was a great question. I'd love to see that video too. And I haven't heard many people talk about it. Dylan says, your recent segments on Kelsey Balerini and Nicky Minaj made me curious about your thoughts on a long-time theory of mine that hip-hop is actually one of the most conservative, lowercase C, musical genres in American popular culture. Back when the National Review style conservatives reigned supreme, I think there was a lot of not

entirely unjustified pushback against hip-hop due to the glorification of hedonism, explicit, explicit, implicit endorsement of crime, as well as racial element. However, the core of the music has always been pro-capitalism and making money, pro-gun and self-defense, deeply suspicious to the establishment, religion-friendly or at worst-neutral, and maybe most importantly, but also least-notedly, deeply communitarian and based on place. This is a super interesting email. It goes on and on. Really, Dylan, I think you should write about this. I'll respond to you, certainly, but that is a very, very interesting point. I'm going to have to think about it more. The National Review style conservatives, of course, you had a reflexive reaction

to hip-hop, and not unreasonably so. That's why people had, I think about this a lot, actually, this like reflexive reaction to Elvis shaking his hips, breaking norms at the time. And hip hop is just there is the norm now. I mean, the way that it's all talked about, one of the obvious ways to push back on this, Dylan, you've probably thought about it. And I'm just doing this in the moment as I'm reading the email. But the pro-capitalism and making money element of it tends to be very materialistic. As it's emphasized in hip-hop, it tends to be per music and making money.

money for the sheer sex appeal of, um, or pro capitalism and making money for the sheer like sex appeal and power that comes with money and the material benefits that come with money. So that's one thing I push back on that there's a, a lower case C conservatism, but they are certainly capitalists. I think that is a great point. Pro gun and self-defense. My immediate pushback would be the important thing that the second amendment lower case C conservatives care about is legal and orderly gun ownership. the libertarians would probably agree with you, Dylan. I have to think more about this. Deeply suspicious of the establishment. Great point. Conservatives have not always been as suspicious of the establishment as they should have been. Religion friendly or at worst neutral.

A lot of pro-god content in hip-hop music. Sometimes it's actually defensible. And like Christian, sometimes it's mixed in a really, I think, unfortunate way. But communitarian as well, that is an important point. Communitarian and based on place. That if I were like an editor right now, which is what I miss doing a lot at the Federalist, but if I were an editor, I would say that would be the core of the argument, deeply communitarian and based on place. I'm going to think more about this, Dylan, and I'll get back to you. I think that's a super interesting question. All right. This one is from Zach, who says, love your show. Appreciate your brand of comedy and voice of reason. Have you heard of the Pentagon Index? It's a theory that suggests when pizza orders increase to the Pentagon region.

Major world conflict isn't pending. Pizza orders are currently spiking. This was back on January 11. And it feels like everything with Trump is doing more and more conflict is going to ensue. This seems to me like a major departure from the American First agenda. I voted for. Do you think America is headed for more world conflict? The Pentagon Pizza Index is interesting. It always pops on X around times of conflict and understandably. So it's kind of a funny thing to see.

It does seem to be anecdotally one method of determining what the heck is going on at the Pentagon. If there's about to be some kinetic action. There have been some interesting connections between the Pizza Index and that I really doubt that they're ordering pizza at the Pentagon anymore, though, to be honest. Like, what the index does is looks at like the Dominoes and Papa John's and pizza bullies or whatever next to the Pentagon and tracks their level of busyness. It's very clever. But I feel like they're also right now, since Uber Eats, it just makes it so much easier. Like Uber Eats, DoorDash, whatever, it just makes it so much easier. easier to get any kind of food. Like, you just don't have to go over to the fridge and be like,

oh, this is the local pizza boles number, the local Domino's number. So I feel like maybe it's losing its relevance, to be honest. So just a thought. Ryan says, I'm not sure if this question has been asked for. What was your main inspiration for wanting to be a journalist? When did you have that inspiration? I always just like writing. I've always been fascinated with media. I talked about this with Megan on her tour stop in St. Antonio, but I love writing and I'm fascinated with television. fascinating with media and television. I've always found it to be very romantic. And, you know, growing up in Wisconsin, I didn't really know anybody that was on TV.

And to me, it just sort of seemed like this kind of fantasy land. And I really, really have been pulled towards that. And I really like writing. So for me, that was a big, big, big part of it. Just love those types of, yeah, I love that type of stuff. You know, it's just fun. And I forget who was saying this recently. but you get to, it's barely a job.

You work really hard in journalism, but you get to think about and do all kinds of really cool stuff. So it's every day as your job. So let's get to a couple of these. Instagram questions here. Ryan says, do you think Israel wants Iran to have a truly democratically elected government? Wouldn't they be concerned that the Iranian people will elect anti-Israel leadership? That's a good point. I don't know. I don't know what Israel knows about what's possible in Iran. I don't think anybody truly knows what's possible in Iran. And I don't think anybody knows truly what the mix of different opinions inside Iran actually is. Israel seems to have pretty good intelligence in Iran. I don't even know that our intelligence is as good in Iran. I don't know what the sharing of the intelligence is there. But we don't

really have a deep familiarity with the sentiments of the Iranian people. And I don't think we know what Israel knows about what the sentiments are of the Iranian people, what they think about politics, what type of government they want. Is there a majority position or even a plurality position? What does that mean? That's one of the reasons that this makes me very, very nervous, is that you just don't know what comes next in a power vacuum. But that's a very good question. I don't know that they know what would happen in the next steps. This is from Anne and Joy, 1993. Why did people in places like the Netherlands have a higher standard of living than Americans?

It kind of depends on how you're measuring that. That's my understanding of the statistics. Americans certainly have more access to cheap material goods, but also you do see happiness indexes that find Scandinavia, like kind of at the top, but I've also seen people question those. I love Arthur Brooks's work on happiness. He's kind of fisked some of those indexes and tried to explain them. So I totally recommend checking out Arthur's books on this and his writing on this. He's done a lot of good stuff for the Atlantic in his own books on standards of living and happiness and all of that.

One thing I would say is we are a massive country with a huge level of ethnic diversity, religious diversity, geographic diversity that doesn't exist in a lot of those countries, like the Netherlands, which are much geographically smaller and much more ethnically, religiously homogenous populations. And so it's much easier. People are just coming from similar backgrounds in a way where their politics are more harmonious. And that's not going to last forever, I don't think. That's been one of the kind of immigration storylines in Europe. But I think that's just genuinely the Republicans lowercase our Republican project is much, much easier in countries like that. So that would be my response. But there are some things I think we

certainly learn from those countries. I wouldn't discount that. But yeah, it's always worth thinking about. But I would check out some of the work on those indices too. I need to actually, it's a good reminder for me to go refresh that. One of my, one of the things that I look at as a North Star study on happiness is the survey of research on happiness in indigenous communities. You can Google. You'll find it. But it was, I mean, that is a really interesting one that shows happiness levels in indigenous communities where they don't have, obviously, people live relatively similar lives, right?

Like, there aren't people living in McMansions and then people living in, you know, on the streets. or anything, you know, like, that's something that comes in the modern nation state, and definitely something we experience in America, wealth disparities in America. But what's correlated with happiness is health. So it's an argument for Republicans, by the way, to take health care very seriously, but good health and having community, so not feeling lonely. So that's one of the things that I think about a lot. This is from FVR.07, which I wonder is like a FARV, an invocation of FARV.

Any Super Bowl favorites? I said all season I like the Colts. So obviously that's not impossible anymore. But I really think if Daniel Jones had stayed happy, it might have been the cults. No, I don't. I mean, maybe the, I don't know. Maybe the Patriots.

I don't know. I don't know. It was a really heartbreaking end of the Packers season. Just such a terrible game. A terrible game. But I don't think the Bears, Bears looked all right. Caleb Williams looked all right, but I don't know that that is,

I don't know whether they're going to have the longevity of some other teams. But they're having a, having one of those lucky seasons, cardiac bears. That's what the Packers had in like 2010, where a lot of things just go your way. Like even McManus missing a couple times in that game. Things just go your way. And when that happens, you can, you really do have momentum. So I'm not going to make predictions right now because I just don't have a strong gut instinct about anyone. Unless I'm forgetting something off top of my head right here.

I'm trying to rack my brain. Whether I'm forgetting something. Yeah, I'll stay out of the prediction game for now. Augustine Alexander asked Blade Runner or Dune and why. You're asking the wrong person this question. I've not seen Blade Runner or Dune. Yeah, no, I actually haven't. I was going to say maybe I've seen Dune, but no, I haven't seen Blade Runner or June.

I could be wrong about this, but when I have to make decisions about how to spend a couple of hours of my time, I've never, like, even before the smartphone era, been a movie lover because I'd rather watch TV. I like the pace of TV better than the pace of movies. And I like the longevity of TV, better than movies. I love some movies, of course, don't get me wrong, and I watch many movies. But when I'm trying to make the cost-benefit analysis about how I spend my time, the odds that I am going to like a movie like Blade Runner or Dune are so low that I choose not to take the risk. I believe that they're good movies.

I'm not saying they aren't technically excellent and entertaining films. I just do not dabble. Like anything that's science fiction or fantasy, I generally choose to watch something else. It's never at the top of my list. The only way I do end up watching that stuff is if my boyfriend, wants to watch it. And I think he saw Dune with his friends. So I missed that one. This one is from Diavtretna. I'm definitely pronouncing that incorrectly. Name the person who does your eyebrows. They're the best with your expressions. Very funny comment because I'm telling you I have like the

worst eyebrows in the world. One of my nervous habits is picking at my eyebrows and TMI. But that is one of my worst habits. And like up close, it's really easy to make eyebrows look good for a camera. That's one thing I've learned. But up close, different story. I do really think that the, I've always used anesthesia brow products. I just think they're the best. But the one that I discovered recently that people, I've started getting a lot of comments about having great brows after using this product. It's the natural volumizing tinted brow gel. It comes in a a little thing. But yeah, it's the Anastasia Beverly Hills, long wearing natural volumizing tinted brow gel. I just looked it up to be precise. After I started using that, I started, I was like

amused by it. I started getting comments being like, you have really great eyebrows. And I'm like, well, trust me, I don't. But that gel has helped a ton. So I highly recommend it. And this has been your beauty recommendations for this lovely Friday afternoon. I'm taking the course on Thursday. Man, I went on for an hour today, but I've gotten a ton of emails lately. I didn't even get to all of them, I don't think. I think you got to almost all of them, but not quite all of them. So thanks for sending those emails in. I really appreciate it.

Emily at devilmykare.media.com is where you can reach me. I reply to almost all of them, and I love answering them on these additions of happy hour, as you can tell, because I went for an hour. Also on the app for party, Emily, Instagram. Make sure to give us a subscribe. If you haven't done that yet, it helps us so, so much. And I'm really bad about remembering to ask. So smash that subscribe button on the podcast feed.

And on the YouTube channel, helps us a lot. And I hope everyone has a great weekend. We'll see you back here with more After Party Monday night at 10 p.m. Eastern.