After Party with Emily Jashinsky - "Happy Hour": Why Fauci Was Malicious, $20 Burritos, and the “Influencer” Insult: Emily Answers YOUR Questions

Episode Date: August 7, 2026

On this week’s edition of “Happy Hour,” Emily Jashinsky responds to several emails about Anthony Fauci, why he has become a mascot for the corruption and misbehavior of the COVID era, and why she believes his actions went beyond incompetence and became malicious. She also dives into the $20 burrito discourse and what downward mobility can tell us about the frustration of younger Americans. Emily tackles questions about single-issue voters, protest votes, and Zohran Mamdani’s controversial decision to publicize information about wealthy New York property owners. She gets more personal as she discusses her love of architecture, explains why she bristles at being called an “influencer,” and reflects on algorithm-driven podcasting and whether it pushes political commentary toward increasingly extreme positions. She weighs the allegations surrounding Max Miller and Graham Platner as she considers whether character and morality still matter in political candidates, and more… Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

All right, everyone, welcome back to another edition of Happy Hour, which is, of course, itself a special edition of After Party that we do every Friday here on the podcast feed. Thank you so much for being a listener. It means a lot to us. Really, really appreciate it. And we have a lot of emails this week that were sent into Emily at devilmaycaremedia.com. As a reminder, I do always read them live. I flag them as they come in in my inbox, take a look at whether or not they are for a happy hour,

and then just save them so we can go through them together here on the show. All right, let's dig into this week's batch. Like I mentioned, we have a lot. So I'm going to start here with Donald, who says, just finished watching Wednesday's episode of After Party and your monologue about Duolipa, oh, so this was from last week, really grabbed my attention. I remember seeing her post on Instagram when she announced,

and to be honest, I just rolled at it and kind of disappointed me because I do rather like her music. I did find it hilarious when you read from The Daily Mail article that 1984 by George Orwell is one of the books in the bookstore, which had me laughing because I bought it two weeks ago at Barnes & Noble, and I'm actively looking at my copy and can easily reach out and grab it and love the show. God bless you and have a great weekend. Thank you, Donald. Yes, it is funny. That's got to be one of the best selling books. I think it was the Daily Wire article pointed out that it had been banned at a library somewhere in like the 1980s. I'm sure

there are a handful of cases, but by and large, that book is readily available, hardly qualifies as a quote unquote banned book, but it lends itself to an easy virtue signal because you can say what was banned in one place or the other without grappling with the fact that, I mean, it's assigned in school curricula. I'm sure it is. It should be. I mean, of course, If it's not, it should be. But anyway, same with Animal Farm. But anyway, yes, it's always very funny to see the banned book narrative. And by the way, it's spread by groups like Penn America who get taken seriously by corporate

press, even though if you look at the groups, I think I mentioned this in the segment, if you look at the books at the top of the Penn America list, they're the ones that are being banned for what most Americans would say are being quote unquote banned. Well, they're being banned in some places, meaning they're taken out of libraries, stuff like that, or moved to areas of libraries for older kids or taken out of curricula. But still in some of those places, despite being just overtly sexual in a way that's wildly inappropriate, at least in my opinion, probably in many people's opinion, for public school libraries or curricula. So that is one of my bugaboo's in political discourse right now, the banned books narrative. So thanks for that question. Donald, this one is from Brandon who says, hello, Emily. I'm still pretty new to politics and learning as fast as I can, but the learning curve is definitely steep. I wanted to reach out regarding the show we watched yesterday, which I know you covered in detail on your latest episode. My main confusion comes down to accountability. In my eyes, Fauci comes across as an insidious criminal who profited off the deaths of millions, allegedly, if we're making World War II comparisons, he reminds me a lot of Joseph Mangola. Many of the people around him seem just as guilty. My question is, if there's no real intention to criminally prosecute any of these people, what's the point of all this? Publicly shaming him is a start, but to what end? It feels like he's just going to end up on the long list of high-profile figures who never face arrest, marking yet another unfulfilled promise from the Trump administration. With so many shiny objects constantly distracting everyone, it's hard to stay focused. One point remains clear we have to have accountability or our 250-year experiment is going to come to an earth-shattering end. It's so confusing.

me. Maybe you can make it make sense. Thanks for all you do. Thank you, Brandon. You know, the Fauci case, you sound Brandon actually, you wrote this before we had Dreo de Mateo on, but you actually kind of remind me of exactly what Dreya brought up on the show, that Fauci has become a mascot for the wrongs of COVID. The elite classes, corruption, misbehavior, dishonesty during the pandemic. He neatly symbolizes all of it because all of the layers of corruption seem to be present in Fauci himself. And the criminal charge that I think is he's most vulnerable to, of course, was perjury. There may be more. I mean, he's had his hands in a lot. I don't know if it was criminal conduct or illegal conduct. I think he's,

he did pretty clearly commit perjury, but because of that pardon, the legal question is really complicated. But I think Drea's point is exactly yours about the shiny object theory, that if we focus all of our energy on Anthony Fauci, does that necessarily distract from, you know, downstream or lower profile misdeeds, malfeasance that didn't come directly from Fauci? I mean, there's not been a lot of attention played to the David Morin's or given to the David Morin's case, which I think is a criminal case. So I'm definitely sympathetic to that. You know, it's easy for politicians to make a spectacle of Fauci, but what else are they doing? And I think it's totally fair to hold their feet to the fire on that.

I mean, Trump banned gain a function. So I think that's a really huge significant step in the right direction. So, but how easily will that be reversed? Accountability for others involved. I think it is incumbent on people to push in cases where there's good evidence. Sorry, I just got a text message. I'm very popular, of course, just people text me, you know, left and right. No, I forgot to turn my volume off.

But anyway, all that is to say, I do think it's, you can walk and chew gum at the same time, But you should always be skeptical that politicians are only going to walk and maybe not chew gum. That's one way to put it. So I totally understand it. Sometimes it's not, you know, for example, going to be Rand Paul's fault that others don't work with him on getting accountability. You know, I don't necessarily blame him for making a spectacle of Fauci. If there's a serious problem to be addressed, he should be addressing that problem. But then, yeah, the public should hold everybody's feet to the fire when it comes to walking and chewing gum at the same time, you know, going after the shiny object and then the less shiny objects as well where they exist. So interesting thoughts, Brandon, really appreciate it. Paul says, hi again, Emily, your podcast continues to be great. Thank you. My wife and I were both impressed by your conversation with Jennifer say, by what she had to say, what she has accomplished. And by the way, you conducted the conversation. Thank you. We were going to pray for her. How interesting that she admitted at the end of her last.

admitted at the end her lack of faith. I wonder though if you agree with me about one thing. What Dr. Fauci and the elite ruling class did during COVID was wrong and intensely damaging. Agreed, this includes the bad decisions and the cancellations of people who tried to speak up, but asserting that Fauci couldn't care less about the lives of victims is, in my opinion, a misdip by anyone who is fighting accountability. For accountability, first of all, I think it's possible that these people who shut everything down honestly believed at least for a moment that they were helping people. It's conceivable that they cared about human lives. But even if it's inconceivable, It's still a waste of time and energy to condemn Fauci's assumed thoughts or motives.

We will never prove anything, even with diaries at our disposal. Let's do battle on the basis of what was done and said, not our assumptions of what was thought and felt. Is that fair? Thanks again. It's an interesting question, Paul, because, you know, I've been here in D.C. for a while, and I'm always inclined to attribute corruption to incompetence, often over actual malice. And Fauci, to me, his incompetence is malicious. I think it's not merely incidental to him being a part of a broken and flood system. I think his diaries, which again I read every single one of, do reflect a real lack of interest in the victims on the other side of his policies.

Right. And so maybe it's myopia, but that to me over so many months, starts to feel very malicious when there's nothing in your diary about what's happening in terms of suicide hotline calls, addictions. There's very little on kids in school lockdowns. He does brag at one point about helping to convince de Blasio on that front. We covered it on the show because he also then went on to say an interview with CBS, well, I didn't have anything to do with that. Meanwhile, he was bragging to himself about having a whole lot to do with it. But I do think it's probably the case. I love the line and I wish I knew who originated it. Nobody sees themselves as the villain

in their own story, right? Everybody sees themselves as the hero. And for the most part, it's a hero on our cultural terms of, you know, protecting the weak. And so I think that's how Fauci probably saw himself. I do, though, think there's something so dark and malicious about at a certain point not even weighing in this diary. He thought nobody would ever read. It was. his notes to write a memoir, not even weighing the costs on the other side of the equation, paying so little attention to it, and then smearing people who were raising fair-minded questions. So did he care? I think he cared about, I think he genuinely thought he cared about the people who were being saved

by lockdowns and whatever else. But there is a carelessness that I think Jen was speaking. to about people he was directly affecting by pushing these policies. So I kind of, you know, I am, I agree with you generally that a lot of times it's a shortcut to attribute malicious intent to bureaucrats and people on the other side of the aisle just say, this is, you are a horrible human being, et cetera. but most of the time they see themselves as a good person on their own terms, and that's kind of interesting. It's kind of more interesting than often saying you are a bigot or you are hateful or you don't care about anyone else. Like usually they think they care. But I do think in Fauci's case, there's a malicious carelessness about people on the other side of it. At a certain point, he was well aware. well aware that his policies were affecting people. He just refused because of his lack of humility

to seriously consider those stories. And so I think it is kind of fair to call out a carelessness on Fauci's behalf. But that's a really interesting question. Dunn says Emily, congratulations on being one of the first to have Jennifer say as a guest immediately when the internet blew up over two female who were castigated. Oh, female youths who were castigated at a WMBA game. I didn't realize the enormity of this coup until after the show and everyone was talking about it. More confirmation that you're a big deal. Congratulations, young lady. You know, I've known Jen for years, actually. I had her on Federalist Radio Hour back in the day during COVID when she was first kind of getting canceled over all of this stuff. So I've known her for a long time and

wanted to have her reaction on to Fauci because I was seeing on X how visceral it was for her. and I thought that would be useful as everyone was kind of metabolizing the conversation on or metabolizing his testimony or lack of testimony. I was like, let's go to Jen. I think about Jen a lot. So we got to get her on more. She's such an interesting person with such interesting experiences. So it wasn't, it's really no credit to me. It's just like there's some people I just kind of have in my pocket because I've been doing podcasting for so long.

I'm like, hmm. let's ping Jen here. I like texted her right away. I was like, a guy to get you on. So that's how that happened. Let's see. This is from Paul, who says, great episode today. I really love your response to the email from Brandon. So this was about last week's. One of my major focuses is monetary policy. And it's trickle-down effects on prosperity. And I've torn my hair out many times over why the American political left is so loud about those issues while somehow being incapable of pinpointing the real problem. I often. I often wonder if modern monetary theory was nothing more than an intellectual glue trap. That's hilarious. To capture the young left who would otherwise realize that money printing is destroying their future. Oh, that's so interesting. Again, this is a great example of I don't think that was a deliberate setting of a glue trap. But I do think it's fascinating.

Right now, this is going to, I got a bunch of emails about the burrito discourse, of course. I noticed that coming in over the course of this morning, Thursday morning. And it is one of the frustrating elements of all of this. Like both conservatives and leftists, frankly, should be making this about monetary policy. And it's very rarely about that. Let's see. Christine says, hi, Emily, great episode today. Your love of writing makes me want to ask if you've ever considered writing a book.

I don't have a topic for you, but your depth of knowledge makes me think you need to do it. As far as a request. Oh, yeah, okay. Um, Christine says you don't have to read this on the pod, but please add my mom to your prayers. I will absolutely do that. Christine. Um, I'm so sorry. We'll absolutely add your mom to my prayers. On the, on the book question, that is when I've gotten over the years. I've had different opportunities come up over the years. I've pursued them, uh, in varying levels of depth over the years, but it's never been right. I very much do want to write a book, but it has to be, you know, everybody who's done it. will tell you it has to be a labor of love. You have to love the subject of your book, especially the first time that you do it, because if you go into it thinking it's going to be a lot of work, you will be surprised, actually, by how much work it is. So, yeah, that's always in the back of my mind. And I'm always thinking about it. I have a lot of ideas. Nothing has quite

clicked yet. So I hear you. I hear you. This is from Hank, who says, as always, a love your take on things, but as a proud boomer of 73, perhaps I can lend some perspective to your obligatory millennial criticisms of us on Happy Hour. When I was growing up in the 60s, it was also a given if you did the right thing and went to college. It was a ticket to the American dream, but what a lot of millennials, Gen Zers, don't seem to realize as the late 70s were not exactly a day at the beach for us financially either. I remember the astronomical interest rates of the Carter era, how inflation and the taxes were killing us, and so many of my friends thought they'd never own a home. I mean, yeah, interest rates, another good example there.

I remember we were always hearing from our greatest generation parents how we didn't really know, how we didn't know what really tough times were. They'd grown up in the Depression and fought World War II. All we had to do was toughen up and we resented their preaching just as much as your generation resents our condescension. No, I get that totally, totally get that, Hank. And I think part of this is because the rate of change continues to accelerate, we now identify on a generational basis, much more, than we used to. And again, this is for obvious reasons. How different was your life if you grew up in the 1110s versus if you grew up in the 1160s, right? Like often the rate of change just,

or actually not often, like universally, the rate of change just is not what it was technologically now. And I think that means we identify as a generation more closely and identify against other generations more, yeah, more closely or more coherently. We see ourselves as part of these cohorts more coherently because life was much different before and after on these more, again, coherent timelines or more clear-cut timelines. And I think I've mentioned that on the show before, but I do think that's what some of this is, is as you identify as somebody who grew up in this time period, you lived through the Depression or you lived through the Carter era or you live, through the pandemic, for example, you lived through smartphones, Facebook coming into critical mass.

You just had a really different life than anyone else in a way that's hard for others to understand if you were a particular age in a particular time. And I think that means, especially because we're now also looking to identity for more of a sense of purpose and meaning as religion has particularly faded, that just does anything. increase the way that we see ourselves. It's kind of culture of narcissism, Christopher Lash, right? Like we see ourselves as unique, our experiences, our generational experiences, as unique compared to others. So I think that's, you're right, Hank. There's something about this that's repeating more and more in generational cycles. And that's my soft theory on what it could be. But I totally

hear you. I mean, yeah, interest rates, for example, that's, that was tough. That was tough. And so, Well, I know we'll get into this more on the episode because I know I got burrito questions. This is from David who says, is this whole talk about low-income college grads voting dem DSA because of financial issues really just talking about women's studies, language, art majors, or other soft sciences. Were those people ever going to be anything but moving to the left? I'm in this age group, but studied medicine. And all my friends that studied medicine, engineering, heart sciences, went out and got great jobs and are doing well. But we also have political ideologies all over the spectrum. I'm just saying that whenever I see these polls, they only differentiate between high-earning and low-earning college grads without actually parsing through the finer details there.

Is it possible that there are real major differences besides income between high and low-earning college grads that explains these polls? Probably I'm just biased, but I doubt very many women's studies majors regardless of their income would ever consider voting anything but as left progressive socialist if possible. Hmm. Yeah, I mean, there may be a lot of. might be something, that strikes me as something that would be difficult to extricate in the data. If you were, because if you go into college and study women's studies before you even got into the college degree, you were probably already more likely to vote Dem DSA. So that might be tough anyway. Also, there's this question of downward mobility, meaning say that you went into medicine.

For example, some of you might write in about how Obamacare changed that. But say you went into medicine or a hard science and like actually computer science. AI is hitting computer science majors right now and is projected to hit computer science majors right now in a difficult way. So the downward mobility question doesn't just apply to those sorts of majors. I'm thinking through this in, like you're hearing me think through this in real. time right now, so forgive me. But it does strike me that that would be kind of hard to extricate the variables. I don't know if it would ever even be possible to extricate the variables. It's an interesting thought. I'm tempted to say that downward mobility, even among people in the kind of

hard sciences, would contribute to them DSA voting or interest. So I don't know. It's a good question, David. George says, I heard you talk about the Obama presidential library. Have you seen the new Teddy Roosevelt Library in North Dakota? And if so, do you have any thoughts? There was a positive review in the Wall Street Journal yesterday. On a similar note, do you have any views about architecture, public art, or design more generally that inform your opinions? I remember Tucker Carlson saying during an interview that he hated drywall and fluorescent lighting and insisted on natural building materials, which I thought was an interesting take. My only take is that public art should look like things and be simple and straightforward. I'm from Boston. Whenever I have friends visit,

I cannot tell you the deep shame I feel for a city I love whenever I show them the MLK Memorial and Boston Common or City Hall. Yes, the Boston City Hall is a brutalist monstrosity. I dabble in understanding art history, architecture, history as a hobby. I wish I understood it better. I wish I understood it more. I try very hard to read up because I find it fascinating. I generally agree with Tucker. I also, though, do really love some Bauhaus architecture. I even love, honestly, I even love some brutalist architecture. It's all a time and place thing. I'm so profoundly opposed to the proliferation of it. You know, London is another city with a lot. My understanding is actually that there's more brutalist architecture in the U.S.

than there is in the old Soviet Union, which is interesting because we were building really quickly after World War II. And obviously the market conditions were different, but you know, you are welcome to double check that. But no, I find that to be an endlessly fascinating topic. And I'm not universally opposed to some of the modern architecture that others detest, but I do kind of detest it en masse because when you're building cities that way. I was recently in Brasilia, and I don't know if I had, I don't know if I debriefed the architectural city planning observations from Brazil. It's one of the most interesting cities in the world. If you're interested in architecture, it probably is perhaps the most interesting city in the world. Or if you're

interested in modern architecture, probably the most interesting city in the world was basically built out of absolutely nothing over the course of like four years between 1956 and 1960 by the communist famous communist architect Oscar Nirmar who it's it is a hellscape the the government district of brazilia is fascinating as a kind of artifact of modern architecture and post-war history But it's kind of beautiful, hauntingly beautiful in that sense, as a representation of the human spirit after World War II. But it's not good. It's just, it's, you know, it's terrible for pedestrians and walking.

It is spiritually so bleak. The concrete, over time, what happens to brutal with concrete is, it's here in D.C. I mean, if you look at like the HHS building, the FBI building, the old Jay Edgar Hoover building, it is so bleak. And I like classical architecture. It's, I think, respects the music of symmetry. Or maybe you could reverse that and say the symmetry of music, symmetry of art. Everything is ultimately mathematically, everything beautiful is mathematically symmetrical in some. sense and this forced lack of symmetry to be more in line with nature, I find to actually be the

opposite of what it purports. And you sense that and you feel that. I remember what you're saying about Tucker. He doesn't like to have synthetic building materials. So everything is wood, the types of permanent materials before the plastic revolution of the 20th century. And after he said that this was years ago. It might have been while he was still at Fox. I think it was while you were still at Fox. I thought about it a lot afterwards. And I still think about it now. Think about it now. And I guess I would encourage everyone to try to have some consciousness when you're in a place that's full of synthetic materials versus a place where you're not. You know, a place that is full of wood, stone, do you feel different? I think the answer is yes.

But anyway, I could go on about this. I'm not well informed. I'm not well informed on this at all. My dad is a civil engineer. So, you know, has done his on bloomprints and those sorts of things. But I have some exposure to it. But no, I have no expertise. I just have a lot of interest. This is from Steve, who says, one thing that struck me today looking at the totally

mealy-mouthed responses to questions about whether biological males belong in women's sports by the coaches of the links, the fire and the fever, two of whom are women with decades of experience of women's sports, is that I can see why. bad actors in women's sports, trainers, coaches, etc., have had no problem carrying out their crimes for protracted periods of time because when you get down to it, there are very few people involved in women's sports that seem to give a rat's ass about women and girls. Their feelings don't matter. Their injuries don't matter. The theft of their accomplishments don't matter. They just don't give a damn. What's interesting about that comment, Steve, is they do think they care. At least,

that's my impression. They think they care. But they, because of the way, intersectional theory took hold of a generation believe other identities are more important. So your trans queer identity is higher in the hierarchy than your sex. And if it's intersectional, your black queer identity, even more important. So that would be my read on what it is. Like, they do genuinely care less because of that. So interesting, interesting comments, Steve. Christine says, I was just listening to this week's happy hour and wanted to respond to the veterans saying they will vote for every Democrat in sight to punish Trump.

I want to say that with Bob, if I'm remembering correctly. Christine says, firstly, I'm eternally grateful for his service and don't want to criticize his reaction to the war. However, I feel like I'm losing my mind when I hear things like this. I am as angry and opposed to this war as anyone, but I don't understand throwing away. all my other beliefs over one issue. Well, you could argue that a Democrat might not have entered into the war. They have doubled down on every other reason Trump was elected. Immigration, men and women's sports, free speech issues, DEI, taxes, and the list goes on. I'm completely unwilling to reward Democrats for their terrible behavior simply because I'm angry at Trump on one issue. I don't understand why

people have an all or nothing view on politicians rather than a pragmatic one where they can rationally look at the presidency as a whole. If you agree with nine out of ten things that Trump has done and disagreed with nine out of ten things Democrats stand for. How can this even be a question? I don't know. Maybe I'm the crazy one. Curious your thoughts on the single issue voter's perspective. And if you think it's the more the online niche versus the general electorate, thank you for everything you do. Thank you for your note, Christine. I would say it depends on how people see voting. Because I do know a lot of single issue, for example, pro-life voters who, and this was a big issue in 2016 with Donald Trump, who just would never pull the lever for.

somebody who doesn't agree with them on abortion. And I totally understand that. I think, again, it's about how it's, it's not how I vote, but I do think it's, it depends on how you see voting. And that can change from election to election. And I would think, I would say with respect to Bob, I think I'm remembering correctly that it was him, I think he was saying it was important to use this particular vote as a protest vote to send a message. And then, that the costs of voting for Democrats would be lower than the benefit of sending a message to Republicans that a war in Iran was utterly unacceptable. So that would be my explanation. Obviously, I'm not in shoes, but I think that's where he's coming from. I think most people see it your way,

Christine, and he may indeed, in most election cycles, see it your way as well. I think that's a pretty common way to look at it. Most of us see ourselves in, like, lesser than two evil elections at this point anyway. I shouldn't say most, but I think it's such a big chunk of the country. Maybe it's a third sees it that way. Just institutional trust is so low. People don't trust politicians. And especially on the presidential level, it's sort of like, well, this person's not perfect. The other person's worse. And to your point, Christine, they'll say, well, nine on ten issues. It looks like this, this and that. But I understand people coming with a cost benefit analysis that weighs protest votes. This is always the case with people who are third party curious. The

Hillstein voters, the Gary Johnson voters. So I think it does depend election to election on how you're looking at the cost-benefit analysis of a protest vote. But it's an interesting question, totally. Hank says, are you okay with Mom Donnie making it a point to release the names and addresses of property owners who own second residences in New York? I checked with several sources, and while the info was always public knowledge, this has never been done before, what was the legitimate governing purpose of essentially doxing citizens pointing out to potentially violent leftists where people who happen to be doing well lived, it's beyond the pale, and I don't accept the excuse that Mamdani doesn't realize that some unbalanced individual might be

inspired to pull a Luigi on some innocent citizen. He's a comedy, but not stupid. So, no, I don't think that was a wise governing decision from Mamdani. I don't think it was particularly wise on a political level either. If I had to guess what the politics behind it were. It's that he wanted to show like this is putting a really charitable gloss on it, trying to again

understand what they might have been thinking behind the scenes. Transparency about who would be affected. And then you can kind of point to person X, Y, and Z not moving because that's one of the really big arguments against his

piettaire attacks. Like, okay, well people are just going to take their money, their staff, and their economic contributions out, and then he would be able to say, well, no, here's the baseline. But I think people who listen to this show know or believe that we are in enormously tense political climate. We all understand that. With tensions this high, with outbursts of real violence, political violence, it's just not wise to do. On the other hand, I want to say the hysteria about it was a bit much for me as well, because as Hank points out, a lot of this was public information. These people, for the most part, have lots of bodyguards, security.

They all have doorman. And so it's one of those things where it's difficult to weigh in and miss that nuance. or it's difficult to weigh in without missing that nuance. Maybe that's a better way to put it. So the hysteria over him doing it was kind of like, cry me a river. Still doesn't make it okay. I don't think it was a good decision at all. And I hope that we don't see more of it.

So that would be my answer there. Eddie says, when you see people on the online right to ride the podcasters, do you count yourself in that group? Who do you think they mean? respectfully, I know tone is tricky in text. Well, I don't think I'm high profile enough to be one of the quote-unquote podcasters. People like Bacha Ungar Sargon, who uses that as a slur. You know, she's been on the show, of course, and I hope she'll come back.

But I don't think I'm necessarily high-profile enough. I think they're talking about Tucker Carlson, Matt Walsh. maybe sometimes they mean Megan. It's not a good slur, though, because what they're trying to imply is people who are too online and are talking to narrow, preaching to narrow choirs.

Let's put it that way. And they're all kind of doing that too. Like, there are plenty of the quote-unquote podcasters on both sides of, like, say, the Iran conflict. So I, that's, how I read it. I'm sure someone has used it to include me at some point, but I think generally I'm probably too low profile for that. One thing I have noticed recently is people identify me as like an influencer because we post, it started when we, with After Party, we're doing

more on Instagram. So posting like Instagram reels. And that I do, nobody cry for me to be clear, but I don't like that because I influencer is an insult, but it also is just different from journalism. And again, like, I don't begrudge anyone for

using that label because the lines are blurred and it's really nobody's fault but journalists that the lines are blurred. But it is frustrating when you're somebody who does try to put everything through an editorial layer of oversight to be conflated. So that's something I've noticed. Let's see. This is from Amber, who says, I had no idea that happy hours available on Apple Podcasts. I thought it was only on Sirius XM for some reason. Glad to

know I Conlincent after all. So this is a good point. There is the Series XM Megan Kelly wrap-up show. That one is only on Sirius XM. I do that every day, 2 to 3 p.m. right after the Megan Kelly show. That one, you have to be a Sirius XM subscriber to listen to. But, But happy hour is just a special name for the Friday show on After Party. Just another episode of After Party. We're here Monday, Wednesday, Friday. So that is a really good point, Amber, and I should clarify that more often. Amber says that she lives in Washington State.

Megan Rapino briefly went off the view, went off on the view about the ballot measure in Washington State specifically saying kids will have to have a special sex test if it passes. That was her beef. It's a lie. I caught myself thinking more about Megan Rapino. And have you noticed how she's doing that ugly five thing? She's looking worse and worse as time goes on. She used to be kind of cute. And pretty sure she's coming out as a man in the near future.

So woman dating a so-called trans man, recognized as a lesbian or straight. Maybe Sue Bird wanted to remain a staunch lesbian, but the community would consider her otherwise. If she and Rapino stayed together, I don't know why I try to make sense of such nonsense. That's funny. I actually had the opposite reaction to Rapino on the view.

I thought she was starting to dabble in a slightly more feminine look again because, boy, was she getting a little. away from that. So I don't know. Maybe I haven't paid close enough attention to Megan Rapino, but when I saw it on the video, I was like, she's a little bit more glammed up. Just a different take, Amber. Thanks. Let's see. This is from Matt, who says, I wanted to weigh in on the Christianity without Christ dialogue. Okay, so that's been, if you've listened to recent weeks of the show, we've been talking a lot about that on Friday. I forget what kicked it off, but let's go on here, Matt's email. I understand your point that it isn't possible, but if I can, I wanted to steal man the

opposing side and get your take. On a theoretical level, in the same way that it isn't necessary to accept that Roman emperors were gods to make Marcus Aurelius' meditations a transformative text in your life, it likewise isn't necessary to accept Jesus as the son of God or the Bible is divinely inspired to accept and follow Christian teaching, or to phrase it another way, is there a Christian moral teaching that you have to disregard if you don't, I think it's supposed to say, accept Jesus's divinity? On a practical level, we all see members of our churches who join for a variety of reasons. They like the community or the choir.

It's part of their culture. They want to improve their lives. Or their parents who don't believe in Christianity's supernatural claims, but they want to raise their children as Christians because they fear the secular alternative. I doubt these people seriously believe in the veracity of the resurrection. Also, add that I'm of Polish origin and know many devout polls with limited knowledge of the Catholic Cateicism.

But they worship for decades and still do worship regularly because the church was the one nationwide institution the communists didn't take over in the post-war years. Most of the polls I know couldn't speak. intelligently about Pope St. John Paul the Second's encyclicals, but they do revere him and likely still call themselves Catholic simply because he was Polish and stood up to the Communists. I think it's fair to say these people aren't real Christians and are perhaps unimpressive in their convictions, but it's too glib to say Christianity without Christ isn't possible because we all

see versions of it every day. Where do you think I'm wrong? I don't know that I would say you're wrong, Matt. I think this is a maybe we're having a semantic devil's advocate debate here because, or steel man, I should say, debate here, which I appreciate. Always important to steal man. So I think this is helpful. I think it's semantic, though, in that when we were talking about Christianity without Christ, I think we were talking about whether it's philosophically possible to make a consistent argument. In Ion Hercielli grappled with this in her original, I think was an unheard essay, actually,

about coming to Christ, becoming a Christian. and others have as well, Richard Dawkins, for example, with the cultural Christianity formula. So I think that's a bit different from the question of whether people can live Christian lives without consciously accepting the factual truth of the resurrection. So I would say absolutely, I don't think you're wrong, that people who are not consciously accepting the truth of the resurrection, they can absolutely live culturally Christian lives, but I think that's a separate question from whether philosophically it's possible. For example, as we've brought up before, some will argue the Stoics.

You mentioned Ralea. Some will argue the Stoics were Christianity without Christ, that the Judeo-Christian justice system, as some people would define it, or liberalism. Judeo-Christian liberalism, as some people would define it. Is that possible without Christ? Some people would say basically Christ borrowed from the Stoics. It was already happening. That was in progress. And we would have gotten where we got to the Enlightenment without Christianity. In fact, maybe Christianity hampered our advancement to the Enlightenment. And I just think that's a separate argument than whether people can kind of live their daily lives as cultural Christians. But it's an interesting

steel man. Thanks for the question, Matt. Let's see. This is from Z who writes in about, I guess this is about a Gerard Baker piece in the Wall Street Journal. It says, your colleague Mark Halperin continues to express his conviction that Kamala Harris continues to linger in the public imagination and could be a frontrunner for the 2028 election. The Iran war is quite possibly likely to be ended by the next president, not this one. So in this sense, it's very possible that history awaits Ms. Harris to do the dirty work, the same way that 2015 was a moment where history awaits someone coming down that golden escalator in Trump Tower.

Another nightmare scenario for some of us that some of your guests more skilled in social punitry than I might have fun dissecting. But when it comes to overall lack of situational awareness, you would have to look far and wide to find a better moment than Kamala Harris ascending to the presidency to end the Iran War. Have a great day, Emily. That is a somewhat amusing, if tragic, thought. pray we are not still in this conflict. By the time the next president takes the oath of office, although it's not out of the question by any means. And if it's Kamala Harris, there is, I suppose, some enjoyment to be milked out of that, again, tragically. Let's see. This is from Bob,

who says, just finished your show with Sophie. While listening to the early comments about various qualities of milk and wine, the parable of the wine skins popped into my mind. The analogy was reinforced by your later comments about trans issues and particularly about the writer who wrote about an empty culture. Pouring new ideas into older cultures can be disastrous. Obviously, my notion doesn't hold up entirely and the original teachings are generally held to be anachronistic, but I thought I'd throw that into the mix. Okay, interesting. I also, I'm trying to have a hazy, a hazy memory here. That must have been the show with Meg and Dom because I do remember her mentioning the wineskins

and I remember thinking, ah, the parable. So yeah, okay, I just checked. Yes. Yeah, pouring new ideas into older cultural, into older culture can be disastrous. Hmm. Yeah, that's an interesting point, Bob. I'm going to have to think about that one. This is from Amber who says, just listen to your chat with Megan Dom from California about Fauci and how RFK Jr. said he secreted away his emails. It's not secreted in the traditional sense, as in squeezed or oozed out. It's secreted because he tried to make them secret slash hidden. I've just seen that it's pronounced both ways, often depending on where you live. Saying it as secreted seems to be the most common, though both are correct. I think saying secreted confuses people as to why you're saying in the secret nature of it, what you're

saying in the secret nature of it, just thought I'd chime in because you were amused by the wording of it and maybe didn't catch the secret meaning. apparently there's a hilarious hot debate about this word on Reddit that's funny thanks for the note Amber um yeah it's my memory is that's how he said it and that's why I said it that way um I'd have to go back sometimes when you're reading things quotes of it out loud you say things in one way or another for no reason it's just I think of that sometimes when I'm reading like AM update I'm just like what I pronounce that in an interesting way it's just like the rhythm and the flow that you have or sometimes it's because you're working off a quote or something like that.

Hank sends in, oh, okay, yeah, this is about a substack post I wrote this week. I've only ever written two substack posts. One was in the spring and one was this week. I always mean to be writing more casually on substack, almost like blogging because I definitely appreciate the art of blogging as it was practice in the aughts where people were respectfully, but in written format, not in social media format, not in an algorithmic format, having debates over mostly email lists or like the NRO corner. So I do mean to go on substack more often. But I write, most often I'm writing for unheard. So it usually ends up there,

which I'm really thankful for it. So, but I do have an email list. I think I mentioned this on last week's show. I have a substack basically so that anybody who might want to follow my work in the future, you add your email to the list and then it'll be there in case something ever happens. Like we saw people having issues with websites during the PW peak woke period. So that's mostly why I have some advice that Ryan Grimm gave me once. Let's see. This is from Josephine, who says, I love your show and appreciate all the work you put into staying on top of issues, your perspective and genuine, harder, refreshing. And I love listening to you. Today I was listening to your Happy Hour program from the 24th of July, a listener,

named Matt Rodin asking if you had ever wondered how the time and place of your birth influences faith. I was excited by the question and I loved your answer. I wanted to take a quick second to share Acts 17, 26 through 28. From one man, he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth, and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands. God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far away, he is not far from any one of us, for in him we live and move and have our being. As some of your own poets have said, we are his offspring. Matt's question and your answer reminded me of this passage.

Your program always makes my day better. Oh, that is a really useful poll, Josephine. Thank you. Thank you. God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us. Appointed times in history. That is the phrase from Acts Chapter 17 as Josephine. sent here. And I remember that question from last week. It is a really interesting thing to ponder,

a very interesting thing to ponder. So appreciate that, Josephine. Matthew passes along a Freddie DeBore article that I'm definitely going to have, or it's a post. On the limits of the quote-unquote vibe shift that I'm definitely have to read, Matthew says it reminds him of an unheard article I wrote last year about the Aspen Institute. Yeah. I worked on that over the course of last summer because I went to the Aspen Ideas Fest in Aspen, of course. It was like the first or second week we launched after party. I remember Bacha was the guest one of those days. And I did write an essay for Unheard about how what came to be known as wokeness will be with us in a diminished form, but in a powerful form because it is the foundation upon. which most people my age and younger, not most, many people my age and younger, built their worldviews. And if you're seeking your purpose and fulfillment in identitarian politics, it's very, very hard to tear people from that foundation because they built houses on it,

you know, metaphorically houses on it. And so it's not that it doesn't happen, of course it does, but when so many people have already built their metaphorical houses on that foundation, It's really not going anywhere, especially because all the same forces, not all, but many of the same forces that contributed to in the first place, like academia and loneliness, alienation from tech, the dissolution of the nuclear family. They're still there. So I have to read this Freddie DeBore piece. He's an interesting writer. This is from someone who goes by logic over labels, says this is completely random and I doubt this will be seen, but on the off chance it does. I'm sharing a video I made. YouTube likes to suppress my video impressions, so I don't have a lot of reach.

So I've just been individually reaching out to people. It passes on a link to a YouTube video, except now it says it's unavailable. Okay, well, thank you for the note. I will reply. This is from Lisa, who says, I had a hard time listening to Megan Dom and accelerated after she said Latin X. I just can't with her. Who still says that? Thank you for listening. Lisa, I assure you, Megan was saying that sarcastically. She was making fun of the people who say Latin X. I promise you. was making fun of that. She was not seriously invoking the once-in-vogue term Latin X. She's a wonderful thinker and writer on the topic of cultural, progressive norms and mores. So I promise you that was sarcastic. This is from Matt, who says, I've heard you talk about Neil Postman's amusing

ourselves to death and wanted to ask you how it relates to podcasting. Oh, you're opening up a can of His point, as I understand it, is not that TV is in itself bad, but that an audiovisual format doesn't allow for the same rational political discourse that print does. Perhaps counterintuitively, he was fine with low and middle-brow sitcoms while simultaneously disliking the evening news in 60 minutes. Audiovisual media should be lighthearted and fun, but not political or philosophical, and it's dangerous when we mix the two. What do you think he'd make of political podcasts? I can see the benefits of having hours-long discussions that are impossible on cable news, but I wonder if political podcasts make the same mistake of mixing podcasts and entertainment in the wrong medium.

I started thinking about it this week when you mentioned or when you talked about Aaron Rogers comments on Pat McAfee's show, it seemed like a big gombo suit made of sports, politics, shockjack radio, and daytime talk show. Oh boy, that is very interesting. That. Very, very interesting indeed. I've thought about this a lot. And I still consider what McAfee does more cable. So I think it would fall into the category of cable news. that was ascendant in 1984 when amusing ourselves to death was written. Anchorman 2 is one of the best meditations on media theory that you will find reacting to GNN, right? Isn't that what the network is in Anchorman too? But that's around the time that Postman is writing. And I would slot McAfee still

into that category, but with political podcasting, I think the real problem is the distribution system. Postman had an issue with radio. I was reading back, because I talked to some students in the last week, I was reading back what he wrote in amusing ourselves to death on radio. And he actually had an issue with radio, too, and wrote really, I think effectively, maybe I still have it. I put it in my notes app. Let's see. Let's see. I bet I do still have it here.

Okay. I'm looking at the television quote. Oh, maybe I didn't pull out the... the radio part of it. But what chapter is this? And it's somewhere in the middle of the book. Yeah, I don't know the radio part of it. But it's well worth a read if people are interested. So he actually even thought that radio had been impacted. I think he argues that radio is impacted by television itself and about the way television was helping us amuse ourselves to death. And so podcasting's similar for some obvious reasons to radio, but the audiences are different as well.

meaning with radio you are broadcasting with podcasting by and large you are narrowcasting there are some shows i think buck and clay right like syndicated shows that are still i think broadcasting but with narrow casting the distribution system is algorithmic and i think that would probably if we extrapolate amusing ourselves to death into 2026 be a serious criticism of the form itself. Podcasting is often done for clips on algorithmic social media outlets. So YouTube, the distribution on YouTube is algorithmic. The distribution on X is algorithmic, Instagram, TikTok, all algorithmic.

And that conditions us toward extreme, right? Because to keep us scrolling, the algorithms as I talk about all the time are prioritizing extreme reactions. That's what they're going to put in your feed more often than mild or nuanced reactions. And it's for obvious reasons. They just want to keep you scrolling longer that activates what the amygdala. So there's a reason for it. And I think that would be a criticism of the podcasting form that Postman would probably make. And it's a very good criticism of the form. And that's why, you know, the headwinds are against you. If you are trying not to give into that, right? Like, I think it's possible to do it responsibly,

obviously, or I wouldn't do what I do. But I try to do it responsibly. I try to do it consciously. And if you're not going in one direction, you're just taking a hit. You know, if you're not going, if you're not tending towards an extreme in one direction or the other, you're just going to take a hit. Now, of course, I certainly agree with Barry Goldwater that extremity and defense of liberty is no vice. but and so you'll see you know like there are certain issues that I feel very strongly about and I don't have a problem you know prioritizing extreme emotion or emotion might not be the right word but an extreme argument if it's one that I really agree with but you have to be conscious of the form nudging you to an extreme argument in one direction of the other against

your better angels against your capacity to reason. And that, I think, is one of the biggest problems with the forum, commercialization of the forum. So that's where, I mean, we could have a, we could talk for hours about that, but that would be my, my thought. This is from Justin, who I've been going back and forth with. Justin wanted me to read, yeah, I remember this. We've been corresponding over email this week, and Justin was disappointed because we're, I think this is like a long thread. Yeah, this is a long thread. I was disappointed that I didn't read one of the emails on Happy Hour and I said, well, we were in a long written back and forth. And normally I assume that means we're just chatting. But let's see, Justin says, I thought you were taking me off

the show because maybe I said something too intense. No, no, no, no. No, we were just in a very long back and forth. This is also on the Christianity without Christ discourse. And Justin says, the main crux of this dilemma is the pagan to Christian value shift. If it's possible that society could have continued under the pagan family gods, I think the protection of the week would have been a less than primary concern. If we assume that the rise of Jesus is inevitable, then it seems like the protection of the week inevitably becomes a primary concern. I think it's as simple as that. Whether the universe is deterministic or not reveals whether the rise of Jesus is inevitable, which depends on which interpretation of quantum mechanics you subscribe to, or maybe if you

believe in John Calvin's predestination. I think you always win this discussion. I doubt that, Justin. I think you always win this discussion because it seems like protecting the week is a big concern in our society for now. That was my addition, regardless of if I think it's gone too far. Yeah, and this makes me remember that Justin earlier in the thread asked if I worried that Christianity venerates the weak at the expense of venerating the strong. Yes, and that's what Justin was saying. I'm going back to try and make sure I'm conveying this correctly.

said, I believe in free markets of meritocracy, which I think venerate strength when competition is adequately facilitated, but those systems also allow the weak to become strong and the strong to lift up the week. Tom Holland might argue that quote unquote, wokeness venerates the week in a Paulian sense, but I thought it actually, although I actually think that's just rhetorical in practice, it inevitably becomes the will to power again. Yeah, interesting. And Justin passes along a list that Grock made of U.S. states, ranked by progressive institutional intensity. Obviously, California is one. That's an interesting exercise. Thanks for the note, Justin. No, I really do read just about everything on a happy hour,

but sometimes I go back and forth with you guys for a long and extended time, and I assume that means we're just chatting, but always happy to read. If you tell me it's a happy hour submission, always happy to read that. And, yeah, standby might take on that. But I think more and more people are going to side with the Nietzsche take, which is that we are disproportionately venerating weakness. In a secular or what's the re-enchanted world, Rod Dreher makes this point, that it doesn't mean that people are just flocking back to Christianity. It means that people are flocking back to the supernatural in general, which can take them in a kind of pagan direction often or an occult direction, as we talked about with Dreya on the show this week. So I think actually probably, to the contrary,

adjust and more and more, I think people will agree with you. But it's a very, I think it's a very provocative question. And I'm glad you sent it in. David says, do you have any access to or did you read through any of Max Miller's released phone records? I look briefly for it to no avail. In his original response, he mentioned that he had texts and calls that he would release that were cordial about both his ex-wife and kid coming to see him. In casual conversation after the alleged incidents, which to me contradicts some of her allegations of abuse, I agree that he sounds like a psychopath and everything in his responses and I despise his politics. But if this is true, it seems weird to me that he's such a vile monster that is physically and sexually assaulting his wife and child, but she is still friendly

with him. Again, I haven't seen the tax or call records, so I don't know. The only thing I've heard from breaking points in other media is that he had a big dropbox thing. But he had a sexually, had a sexually revealing picture of his daughter and there are no actual reporting on the records in there, which feels very powerful. If he's an abuser for real, he should rot in jail forever. And I personally would not be surprised if most congressmen are pedos, rapist, traffickers, by the way, they seem to always protect the other ones, either way, hoping to get more clarity here. Yet you can still, he had to re-upload the Dropbox folder because it did have a picture of their daughter that showed private parts. And my understanding is that it wasn't

sexually suggestive picture, of course, but if you know anything about the people, the perverts who seek that material out, it often, that's not what they're looking for. It can just be nude pictures of children is disgusting to even talk about that. But so he did re-upload the Dropbox folder. I found it on its Facebook page on Max Miller's Facebook page. So I assume it's still there. It was when I last look, which wasn't that long. It was like a few hours ago as I recorded this on Thursday. And yeah, there is some information that suggests Emily Moreno, who is the daughter of Senator Bernie Moreno and Max Miller's ex-wife. There's evidence that she said things like, either her or she would feel safe with their daughter being with him.

And I think that stuff should absolutely be included in all of the coverage. The breaking point segment that I did with Crystal was a follow-up from a segment that was a deep dive into the allegations that I think Crystal and Sager did earlier in the week, if I'm remembering correctly. But anyway, all that is to say, I think it should be included in the coverage. but where David you said, it's if she, you say, if this is true, it seems weird to me that he's such a vile monster that is physically and sexually assaulting his ex-wife and child, but she is still friendly with him. That actually, it's evidence, right, in one direction. It's something in the, the, you can put it in one of the columns, but I don't think it's that weird at all in my experience covering me too and these allegations in general, especially, When custody is at stake, people, especially women, will say things to kind of go along and get along without trying to trigger an event, without trying, or where they're just trying to get through one day and onto the next day. And then it comes out in court records and it's horrible for the kids. It's horrible for everybody.

And then when it becomes public, the public is trying to piece together this evidence. And it's often not a full picture. Now, I will say if you can consider all of the evidence against Max Miller, I do not know exactly what is true. I am very comfortable saying it is more likely than not he was abusive. But again, exactly the exact thing that happened at this time with the full context, none of us have that. And it's so sad that it has to be litigated. but his character is more than in question. I think it is abundantly clear.

The voters in his district would be fair to vote against him for character reasons alone. He seems to me, I'm comfortable saying unfit for office. Now we have that problem with everybody across the board, so don't get me wrong. But yeah, I think her story of abuse is more credible than his story. of total vindication. I can't say that I know exactly what happened and exactly what day in this time and have the full context.

That's one of the most difficult things about litigating these stories in public, or in the court of public opinion, I should say. You know, it's hard enough in the court of law. But in the court of public opinion, it's even more difficult. But some of this also is the timeline.

So there's some stuff that happens in 2024, but some stuff that's happening between 2024 and 26, for example, And situations like this are volatile. They can change really quickly. So I don't necessarily think just what we see in one point in time means total vindication and that sort of thing. So I have flipped through a lot of it. And that's my takeaway on the situation.

I do always, always think that stuff should be included. If it, you know, there was this move to not include, to not wait the evidence on both sides, right? And we heard this in politics, too. West Lowry wrote a famous essay on this. But I think these cases are the best examples of why, even when it is painful, if something has shot into the court of public opinion and public office is on the line, someone's reputation is on the line, then we owe it to ourselves to always include details that are uncomfortable if they are relevant, salient to the question of someone's innocence.

So, yeah, I think that's worth including and appreciate the question, David. Let's see. Hank says, great show tonight with Drea Day Mateo. She has the rare quality of being curious, while knowing she doesn't have complete knowledge of every issue that comes along. It's a rare quality among modern celebrities that reminded me the opening line of one of Thomas Sol's books. Intellect isn't wisdom. Yeah, no, I like that about Drea. She was, you know, willing to be like, I don't, you know, this isn't my area of expertise.

I always appreciate when someone does that. It's honest and it frames the conversation in, I think, a helpful way. Howard says, I just finished watching the latest after-party, great Emily rant ending the program. I do love those. I heard more about burritos than I need to know. It amuses me that young people complain about the price of the burrito and the cost of gas, but routinely order DoorDash or call an Uber and they will spend for the latest iPhone or other technology gadget without a thought, selective outrage.

Oh, I don't know. I don't know that it's selective outrage. There are some people who do that, but I don't think that's, you know, for example, I cited those U-Gub statistics that showed actually younger people were more likely than older people to be cutting back on eating out. So I think it's kind of an unfair stereotype that definitely applies to some segment of millennials in Gen Z, but as a whole is unfair. I think that segment definitely needs to be argued against.

Howard goes on to say on your interview with Jue de Mateo I loved her on the Sopranos but thought she came across as an inquiry dids no no no no no I totally disagree with that Howard I think she came across as a deeply thoughtful person who as the last email as Hank mentioned

just knows she doesn't have it all figured out but is curious to kind of riff on different topics that you know for example we were talking about her proximity to Hollywood and what she saw and what she believes. It was interesting to hear her say she sees herself as a fan looking from the outside in because there are people who are in the thick of it right now and that's just different from her experience.

Granted, she has had proximity. And that's why I mentioned that, that nobody else ever will. So I was super curious to hear her thoughts on that. But I love thoughtful people who are just curious and willing to riff, kind of like the conversations that you have. My favorite conversations are the ones that kind of grab you and you lose track of time because you're so invested and it's often, you know, a good friend and it's 11 p.m. And you've had a few beers and everyone's around a table and someone said something so provocative. You just lose track of time. I love conversations like that. And I feel like Drey is a type

person who has a conversation like that. And then Howard also says, On Monday, you had Megan Dome as a guest. One of the many people you have in shows, your shows that I've never heard of, I guess I'm out of the loop. Megan's a great writer. Just have to say that again. Howard says, so out of curiosity after the show, I went to her unspeak easy website to check out the retreat. She was talking about in the Hudson Valley. Two nights and the cost is $4,500.

Wow, they say it's for varied people to come together for a sustained in-person dialogue. I can walk into any bar and do that for free. So the Hudson Valley is expensive. Let me tell you. And I imagine Megan has to put on these events in places that are around New York City, L.A., San Francisco. And so you want to, again, I imagine, I haven't talked to her about this, but I imagine you have to be in those more expensive areas and you have to pay speakers. And if people are willing to pay and she said it was almost totally filled up, then it's a fair price. She's a writer podcaster, got to make a living.

She puts a lot into organizing those events and those areas are so expensive. trip with my friends to the Hudson Valley a couple years ago. And it was the only reason we could say where we stayed is because we were splitting it three way. It was like, it was crazy. So I totally understand how you get to that number once you've paid speakers and all of that lodging in the Hudson Valley. Oh my goodness. And labor costs to put those things on. That's funny. And I love that it's filling up too. I think Megan said there are only a couple spots left. So if you're interested, I'm sure it's one of those times where you get into those conversations where you lose track of time. Let's see. This is Damien who says, I want to start this email by saying that After Party has really been on fire recently.

I've really enjoyed you in your guest's commentary on Fauci and the whole debate around Sophie Cunningham's recent comments. I'd like to ask a question about something that has been touched on during recent episodes on After Party with the allegations against Graham Platner, but also how we view political candidates in the post-Trump world. I was wondering whether you think we really have reached a point where a candidate's ethics, morality, and personal conduct no longer matter. and crucially should not matter, obviously excluding anything criminal, Damien adds. As a British Catholic, I must admit that I would feel uncomfortable with voting for a candidate who I felt was compromised in these areas, as I ultimately want leaders who I can respect and feel confident will make decisions based on strong ethical roots and a sense of morality.

Do you think these expectations are unrealistic or even irrelevant in modern America? I would appreciate your thoughts. Well, I'll just start by saying, yes, I think they're unrealistic. Sadly, I think they're unrealistic. And I wrote a column right after the... the Grand Plattenor thing on this exact topic. Let me try to pull it up so I can, because I am a postman devotee, say I do think when I work out my thoughts in writing, it is often better.

Yeah, so this was from July 7th. And I was making the argument that I think Platner would have had a better chance. He still could have beat Susan Collins or would have had at least a better chance of beating Susan Collins than anyone who would replace him because most people now believe both candidates are corrupt or are susceptible to becoming corrupt. Or both candidates have major character flaws because anybody who wants to participate in our political system is more likely than not to have deep abiding relevant character flaws. And I say relevant, relevant to their job. and I feel like that bubble burst maybe around the Clinton era and that was around the same time

that more and more people I think started talking about we got more and more disclosures about prior presidents Kennedy LBJ the democratization of information has I think maybe permanently destroyed trust in institutions I don't know how you win that back I think maybe what have to do is accept a new normal. This is something I've been thinking about a lot recently. It's a very important and good question, Damien. I think it's actually mostly true that these questions are, or that this is an unrealistic expectation because the political system itself, I was having this conversation with some friends on the left just this week about how I see a lot of excitement on the left right now for individual candidates. And it reminds me of a lot of the

excitement people on the right had for individual Tea Party candidates, for example, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, those types, but also kind of like Dave Bratt or, I don't know, down-ballot, House race types. And I just, once people get into the political system, it forces compromises, it forces fundraising, it forces wheeling and dealing, and even the best of us would be under serious pressure to make bad compromises and become corrupt, even if it's soft corruption, under those circumstances. And I think it does happen more often than not. I know I've mentioned this before.

There are a couple people, politicians that I've had experiences with that I think are genuinely, have genuinely maintained. their character through years in our political system. It's not impossible, but I think it's unrealistic to expect of most politicians, which is why I say it's a luxury to be a journalist, because my starting point is skepticism of absolutely everyone because I'm skeptical of concentrated power. I'm skeptical of concentrated power because I'm a Christian, and so it's kind of a nice vocation actually to be a journalist, but it's hard when you have to vote. I think it's easy to just assume people have really serious character flaws if they're participating in the political

system. Even when they seem nice, seem great. There's something about seeking power and then getting it that is corrupting to the soul. And yeah, anyway, so I think it is unrealistic, unfortunately. I it's unrealistic. And I think some of the reason for that is just we know more now on a day-to-day basis about the decisions people make, the questions they're confronting, the ethical questions they're confronting. And, you know, Dropbox wasn't a thing that you could drop documents for the broader public to pry into your own marriage, for example, if we use the Miller case study. and I think now it's just almost impossible to not see a version or a more complete picture. We're not going to have the complete picture, but to see a more complete picture of the day-to-day lives and decisions that our politicians make celebrities too, by the way.

And that's for better or worse. There's something to be said for a country where we're not aware what JFK is doing with Marilyn Monroe in the moment. maybe you're like well what was that birthday song but uh you don't kind of know the extent of it for decades and or martin luther king junior unfortunately and so it's it's harder for us to have national myths now because it's easier for us to puncture the myth and that would be that's my answer um this is scott who says with all the coverage of the fouchy hearing two terms are being bandied about once more that are anathema to a large group of us for context i'm about to start my 27th year teaching public school in the dc suburb

I can't speak for the rest of the country. Oh, this is a long email. But in this area, other than a two-week period at the end of March 2020, schools were not closed. School buildings were closed and classes moved online. Let's see, what more do we have here? Can't read this whole one, but I'm trying to get the crux of it. When people say there was no need to close the schools because children don't get sick from COVID, that's a flat-out lie. Children absolutely get sick from COVID. And more importantly, some children are asymptomatic carriers. Many people forget. that children are not the only people in school buildings. I was diagnosed with COVID twice.

Well, you can never prove exactly where you caught it. I almost certainly caught it from children at school. It's completely disingenuous for adults who even pre-COVID-in enjoyed the perks of working from home several days a week and who earned their most recent certification or even a whole degree completely online to say K through 12 could never work online, which brings us the other term learning loss. This is another totally disingenuous term that has somehow been adopted by media types. The dirty secret of schools is that the top 10 to 15% of kids are going to do their work without

needing any intervention. The bottom 10 to 15 are never going to do their work, no matter what anyone does. The battle is for that middle 70 to 80%. These kids generally will do their work, but only with a teacher standing over their shoulder, poking, prodding, and cajoling to do it, doing it. The kids who logged into their online classes and did their work did fine during online school. What media calls learning loss is really a symptom of 20 years, the total abdication of parental responsibility. The ultimate solution to learning loss that many teachers advocated forward to have everyone repeat the previous grade once schools were fully in person again. Bravo to you if you made it all the way to the end. I didn't, didn't read it all on air because

it's a long one, Scott, but I really appreciate this. I wanted to read as much of it as possible. Scott says once your listeners have stopped screaming at their podcast apps, I can tell you about my 27 years of membership in the National Education Association. Thank you for not being a very ample of my voices that may be out of the mainstream. This is helpful, Scott. I really appreciate it. And that's why I wanted to read as much of it as possible, because your point, about kids. Well, actually, let me start with your point about school closures. It's a good point that there was, we do conflate the early actual lockdown period sometimes with what happened afterwards, because I think that period was such a blur for so many people that the first

couple weeks, it's a little bit different, or the first couple weeks turned into, you know, two years, depending on where you lived. The lockdowns were much more severe, depending on where you live. Like, I even hear people in California who were more inland who had different experiences than people who were in L.A. County or, you know, San Francisco or those types of various. Like, it was, I've heard it was kind of a county-by-county experience. And if you were in a little bit different of a county, you might have had a little bit of different of an experience.

But that's part of the problem. That's part of the difficulty in talking about COVID, too, is that some people were, in Florida. God bless them. And you just had such a different experience than people who were in New York City or Los Angeles or those places. So I definitely hear you on that. I think some of the frustration is that kids didn't get severely sick. And teachers could have been able to adapt appropriately, but the kids are the majority of the people who are in the school buildings. Thus, there's should have been a way to handle that better within person learning. So I definitely sense the frustration. But your point, or I definitely, the frustration on that resonates with me. Obviously,

didn't have kids in school. But that, that still resonates with me. But I get your point that a lockdown or a closure is different than also kind of opening back up and going to a more robust formal online learning program. And I believe you that people who were in homes where online learning was taking seriously, we're able to do just fine. I do wonder how we measure learning loss. Like, are we just talking about scores or are we talking about social learning loss? Because I think I always think about social learning loss too. Just, you know, like I think about band. I think about what it means to just like play music together or what it means even just to learn to socialize. I think about that in the same vein as learning loss, but I don't know if that's, that's not the thing that shows up in test scores, for example.

So I hear what you're saying that, you know, probably on the right, you feel that there's a lack of nuance sometimes or conflation of the very, very early days with what happened afterwards in a lot of different pockets of the country. That would just be my gentle pushback as a non-teacher, as a non-teacher, to be fair. man, I can't imagine what the experience was watching people who were not in households that took this seriously. It must have been profoundly sad to see those kids' experiences. Oh, I can't imagine. But I appreciate it. Yeah, you know, the quote, lazy union thugs. At one point, Scott says, social media was flooded with, give all these teachers a raise posts.

At the end of the 1920 school year, after just a little more than two months of their children, and the culture shifted to get these lazy union thugs back to work. Well, the mainstream media narrative that the conservatives are often pushing back against, or even people like Jen pushed back against, still wasn't get these lazy union thugs back to work. It took years for the New York Times to publish something of Amoeia Koppah. I think one writer published a story that was something. David Leonhardt was doing it if I'm remembering in real time too. But anyway, all that is to say, yeah, I mean, I just, I'm one of the,

those people that thinks, one of the many people that thinks we should pay teachers more so that we attract more talented teachers, that we attract people who, you know, want to live comfortably that are just top talents and make it a more competitive position. I obviously believe in public service, but I also believe that we need to have the best and the brightest teaching kids and that it should be a really in-demand profession and among, you know, talented smart people. So God bless people who do it. I think it should be, I think you should make more money. I think it would be better for everyone.

Ryan says, do you find it difficult to keep your sources anonymous when you chat with them at networking events or other social gatherings? With the invention of the smartphone, everyone has a camera in their pockets and the camera always seems to be running. Right. And this is a good question. It doesn't apply too much to me because I don't do a lot of how. level national security investigative journalism, if that makes sense. If I were doing a ton of national security investigations where people's lives can sometimes be on the line if they are sources, then I would be really conscious of it.

But a lot of what I do is, like, I don't know if lower stakes. Lower stakes might be the best word for it. And, you know, people know I'm conservative. So they, you know, I'm talking to a lot of conservatives if that makes sense. So, no, I don't find that difficult. It's something that I still take very seriously, of course. But it's, yeah, it's one of those things where if you're in, if you're an, if you're investigative journalist doing really high level national security stuff, then, but it is funny

sometimes because I will see my friends who do a lot of investigative work. And by investigative, I don't mean, in this case, deep, you know, 5,000-word investigations. But, you know, they're getting to the bottom of what's going on with this bill in the Senate or something like that. I do sometimes piece together. Like, oh, oh, that's interesting. Or even just people in the business. I can sometimes, like, if I'm out of conference or, yeah, networking. I'm like, oh, it's interesting. That reporter went up to that person right away. Sometimes you don't know if they're trying to court a source

or if it's a preexisting relationship, but sometimes you can tell if it's a preexisting relationship. This was a funny thing with the cameras at the White House Correspondents in a redo where people saw like Kristen Welker engaged in what seemed to be a very pleasant conversation with Stephen and Katie Miller. And I think Dasha Burns. too. It's like, uh-huh, I don't know if you're trying to court sources, trying to get them

to talk to you more, or if those actually are pre-existing relationships because you talk with them a lot. But it can be interesting to kind of put the pieces together sometimes. I think it's especially funny with Hill and White House reporters to see who knows who and see if they're trying to get this person to talk to them or not. But it's definitely different being someone who's doing like reported opinion and I again do I tend to do like lower stakes stuff if it's a high stake thing I do get your tips in that vein sometimes but um you know that's not a thing where there are a lot of like you know I don't I'm not in like the Pentagon press corps so I don't see a lot of that anyway that makes sense but you I am careful about it sometimes because even with like

Capitol Hill stuff or White House or presidential stuff. You know, you don't want someone to be able to put the pieces together because that can cause somebody problems that work in one way or the other. So you do, you just have to be very conscious. Let's see. This is from John who says, catching up on podcast episodes after being away and just listen to the story about Duolipus bookstore of banned books. I appreciate you highlighting the BS surrounding these book band stories. It always gets me angry when people say moving adult level or sexually explicit books out of an elementary school library. is a ban.

It goes on to say, if Duo wanted to make a real statement, she could open a bookstore with books banned in actualitarian places to say China or Iran or any Muslim country. That's a great point. John says, question for you too, what do you make of the Democrats apparent embrace of Islam and Muslim candidates? It seems like after 9-11, a significant portion of our country has fallen into a kind of Stockholm syndrome with Islam. I don't understand the way Dems are embracing and promoting it, especially women.

Let's see. It talks about a bill in Massachusetts. for a party that basically disdains religion and public life, it doesn't make sense to me that they single up this one that is perhaps the most antithetical to their policies and operational philosophies. This was a, this was an interesting fault line for the left after 9-11 with the new atheist crowd, Sam Harris, Bill Maher, Christopher Hitchens, coming into sharp conflict with people like Ben Affleck. Wasn't it Sam Harris who Ben Affleck unloaded on

during an episode of real time? I think that it was Sam Harris versus Ben Affleck. And Ben Affleck was calling Sam Harris like an Islamophob for his criticism of Islam. And this was something that was really salient for the left during the post-9-11 years. And maybe it'll become salient again. But I think the reason it isn't right now

is that so, many of the Muslim candidates, and I do mean this as a challenge to the right as well because I've interviewed some of them. I've interviewed Abdu Al-Sayed. So many of them have been they're not

the, this came up in Al-Saiad's candidacy where that leaked audio said some people in Dearborn are sad about Kamani's death. And what's interesting from that recording is he's not one of them, right? He's separating himself from these like other people in

yearborn. Interesting that he seems to care about the kind of not interesting, not surprising, but interesting nonetheless, that he seems to care about the political question at hand. But a lot of the candidates are, I don't know, secularized is the right word in the same way that a lot of American Protestantism is secularized, but westernized. It's a tough descriptor to find. But I think, you know, Ilhan Omar, for example, marches in the pride parades, right? It's different than some of what you see in pockets of Houston or Dearborn, for example. And most of the candidates like Mamdani have, although when Mamdani went to that one, oh, Momdani has in his, his outreach, has run into this issue before. But their personal faith appears to be more secular than, those more secular or more progressive. Progressive is a better word. They seem to me to be progressive Muslims, most of the candidates who have come out of DSA world. And I really think that's important for the right to understand. Also important because one lesson of the post nine 11 years is that

often the quote unquote progressive Muslims can be the best ambassadors of messages to let's say political radical Islamists. And so I think it's important not to alienate people who we will inevitably share a planet with. It's the history of the world. In inevitably share a planet with in the years to come who actually may help with the de-radicalization process of some sort of political Islamists, but who are not progressive. So I think, you know, there is a real overlap between economic, economically progressive leftists and very traditional Muslim interest groups on the economic issue. There's obviously a gap on the cultural issue. And that is going to be, just as it was after 9-11, it was going to be, uh,

something they grapple with in the years to come. So I think that is a correct prediction. But I do also think most of these characters are not, you know, that was the question that I asked Trump when he was with Mom Dani in the Oval Office. I said, at least the phonics calling him a jihadist. Do you think you're standing next to a jihadist? And I was like, no, I think he's a very nice man or whatever he said. But I find those to be tiny distinctions with math.

of differences. And I think this is a similar case. But yeah, there's something, I think there's something brewing. Oh, this is another long one. This is from Samuel, who says, yesterday's program was quite interesting, but I have to, I have a comment or two in the last part, a number of comments, actually, sorry for the length. As I'm sure you realize to say that burrito should not cost $20. It's silly. Price of goods or services are not founded on moral judgments will only reach to that point when a transaction is compelled either by government or private force. Not even price-fixing agreements are such as long as consumers are free to say no, but before we can address rising prices, we need to clarify some basic economics.

Inflation is not rising prices. Yes, I agree with you on that point, Sam. I'll just stop and say it's something that drove me crazy during the Biden administration to conflate inflation when you're pumping too much money into the system with price increases. It's sort of like a squares, what is it, a... I'm going to get it wrong. Rombus is always a square, but a square is not always a rompice. And then Sam goes on to say,

inflation is a process of increasing the quantity or volume of money in circulation. Yes. M.M. Money supply was about $4 trillion at the end of 2019. By spring of 2022, it was $21.5 trillion. We can thank Congress for that, Democrats and Republicans. Yes, amen. One more factor must be mentioned, the importation of 15 to 20 million illegals,

but the Biden administration greatly boosted the demand for housing and all consumer goods. Yes, yes, yes, Sam. Sam goes on to say, Trump has a mostly good record on gas prices. It is still cheaper than it was during the Biden years. Groceries, however, are roughly three times what they were before Biden's COVID economy. Pork and chicken aren't too bad, but beef is unaffordable. Fruits and vegetables run two times to three times higher. Bread and milk maybe two times. Fast food prices, of course, are closer to three times higher over the last three to four years. As for college expense and debt, all I can say is don't bother. Most colleges are defrauding their customers. Yeah, thanks for the note, Sam.

Some important stuff here. You know, the increase in the grocery prices and wages, comparing that to wages, is obviously really important. And so also one of the reasons I pulled that stat on the show last night about how uneven the wage rise versus grocery rise has been around the country is precisely because overall it looks like a rosier picture than if you look at it was like five states where it is a rosier picture versus 45 where it's not. And I do think it's important because there's such huge regional differences. We have a massive country. And I think we're not aware enough of how our experience in one part in the country is not always indicative of the broader picture or just frankly people's experiences. other parts that they're speaking from and assuming that it's representative. It's just not the case.

Gas prices are a really good example of that, by the way. So, anyway, let's see here. What else was I going to say? Yeah, I think that's a good point. The spending, Biden-eer spending, immigration, crucial to this, absolutely crucial to this. It put a huge strain on housing prices. There's no question about it. And again, that's going to be regional. If you were in a place where there was, like New York City, for example, or I'm sure Los Angeles, where there was a Texas, where there's a massive influx over the course of a few years, of course. And of course it's going to put downward pressure on the lowest wages. And that's, I think, another important thing to mention. I was going deeper into this today because the debate rages on. You'll be shocked to learn.

But a really important graph that I found in Forbes, actually. This will recall Obama era income inequality, Occupy-style debates, but this graph ends, geez, around 20, it actually looks like it ends around 2010, but it's the top 10 percent you show wage rises into the 2010s, and then if you look at the bottom 90 percent, this is basically accepted by economists. it's a very slow wage increase. This isn't $2015. Okay, so that's where it ends.

But it's a very slow wage increase, if any, actually, nothing like, yeah, very slow from 1980, way slower comparatively. And I think that's also, again, an important part of this is that when you're trying to think of why people are,

like, are people making something out of nothing? Are people just greedy and lazy and they don't realize that wages have kept up with inflation? I think it is helpful to kind of drilled down into the experiences different people are having to understand some of the better. Donald says, given your opinions on feminism, I was wondering if you thought about or have read Candace Owen's book, Make him a Sandwich and what your thoughts about it are. I know you have your opinions of her, which I respectfully disagree with. I recently finished reading it myself and as a Genzi man who was born in 2005 and only experienced the man-hating style of feminism. I found it rather interesting and enjoyable. No, I have not. I would

say there are a lot of good books on this topic that she definitely was, I would assume, standing on the shoulders of. Christina Hoffsummers, who I interned for for a couple years in college, wrote a great book called Who Stole Feminism in, I think, 1994, and then another great book called The War Against Boys that popped around 2000 and that was released around 2013, 2014, There's a great book called Primal Screams by Mary Eberset. Oh, I love that book. So much. Can't recommend it enough that gets into some of this.

Louise Perry, Mary Harrington, their books on this subject are fabulous and just trenchant, wonderful exposés or they're great books. I'll just put it that way. They're fantastic books. Marys is called feminism against progress. And Louise Perry's is called, let me get the actual title. Yeah, it's called the case against the sexual revolution. It is so good. And so is feminism against progress.

So also everything Camille Pollya basically is ever written, which will be a controversial statement because some conservatives have very polarized opinions on Pollya. But the sexual persona is the, it was her Yale thesis. I think the first chapter of it was her. no, I think the whole thing was her thesis at Yale. And the first chapter of it is almost a perfect piece of writing on this topic. So I would highly recommend checking that out. This is someone who requests to go by Squelchy. Okay. There were statements made on breaking points that need to be held to account, namely the Carlson Initiative and favorable response from one of our two favorite

co-hosts today. I haven't seen this yet. So I guess I'll keep reading the email, but I'm assuming they did a statement, or I'm assuming they did a segment on Tucker Carlson last night, laying out what he thinks. I watched the whole Carlson thing, laying out what he thinks America, American politicians need to be focused on. It was like seven points or something. So anyway, email goes on to say, this has been on my mind for weeks and only now has the obvious opportunity risen to bring this before your jury. A move that we nominate or else forcibly conscript Ryan into the movement he so clearly endorsed this morning. Oh, it was. Ryan and Sager, okay, because I've been wanting him in for vice. Hand him one of the keys to launch nuclear strength investigative strikes toward deliberating the electorate. Want truth, grim reveal. Want reconciliation? Grim solutions.

Want reparations? Grim for oligarch. I don't know about the top of the ticket. Just looking to see history books record this as the grim administration, the grim admin. For a veep pivoting us into peace, justice, and prosperity, run him as a dem for debate engagement and to open an electoral college route, have him go gone. So as a journalist with the right portfolio for our time, we find Ryan guilty of patriotism and ask the court for a sentence,

fit to the crime, four years hard labor to usher in a better world. I'm sending this to Ryan. 100% sending this to Ryan. Thank you for the email. That is hilarious. That is hilarious. On the patriotism question, Ryan and I around Christmas did interviews of each other. We pre-taped them so they would air during the Christmas holiday.

And I asked him, I think, if he loves America, And he said, no, he couldn't imagine loving a country. Okay. I was like, you celebrate the Fourth of July. So maybe not on the patriotism. Maybe he's not guilty of patriotism. But I'm definitely sending that to him. I think he'll get a kick out of it.

Oh, we got another burrito email here. How long am I going? I should check the time. Oh, this is going to be a record long happy hour episode. All right, we'll keep going. This is from Scott, who says, love the show, and you're sticking to discussing and understanding the facts to present both sides. I understand the concern about the $20 burrito.

but I've been less inclined to eat out since my upbringing is I've always thought that eating out is way too expensive. Let's see. I am now 60 but made good choices during many of my years after college and started working at a large company. The pay was okay, but I purposely took a job in a smaller town so that I could save money to eventually buy a house. Oh, that's awesome. Today, young adults and parents have expenses to maintain a standard of living that just did not exist 50 years ago. There is the expectation to get a new phone, a computer every few years, getting a new car back then was a luxury as we only bought used cars. and now is an expectation of I knew if you have kids,

the above is doubled or tripled, and then there are expectations with extra activities outside the home that well-execided what my parents could offer me. Okay, so this is a really interesting email because I do think a lot of this stems from downward mobility, right? Roger has written about this as well. There's the Turchin book,

I forget when that was published, but that downwardly mobile elites are a, or downwardly mobile affluent, individuals, it's kind of a political ticking time bomb because you'll have, I mean, it's just so much discontent. So anyway, I think that's actually a very, very good point that expectations, but I also think it's fair then to be frustrated by downward mobility because the American dream, for many people was or included the idea that each generation would have it a little bit better. And what does that mean?

Does that mean would have a little bit bigger TVs at a little bit cheaper price or a lot cheaper price? Or does that mean, you know, would find it easier to have some land with the house and send your kids to college or make sure your kids get a good education and live good, fulfilling lives? those kind of building blocks as opposed to the material aspect of it. And I think that's the question with like new phones, just an observation. The things that haven't been subsidized have gotten cheaper over time. The famous AEI chart shows this really well. You can look that. I think it's Mark Perry who produced it and has updated it recently too.

TVs, phones, those sorts of things have gotten cheaper over time, whereas things that are subsidized have gotten more expensive of overtime, overtime, healthcare, housing, et cetera. And I think when people get frustrating with the important things that are subsidized because they're important, and it's an easy political solution to prices, when people get fresher with those costs, they lose hope, and then they do start spending more on phones and cars and that sort of thing.

Or phones and nice cars, I should say. Phones, TVs, cars, vacations, those sorts of things, because they can do the math and say, I could put all of this money that I'm spending on a new phone or a vacation or DoorDash. You know, maybe you spend $2,000 a year on DoorDash. They say, I could put it in savings. And I'm still not going to be able to buy a house until I'm 45 or 50. Well, when they're 45 or 50, they'll be glad that they put it in savings instead, right?

Of course. But it's a kind of immediate cost-benefit analysis. And my sense is that people get really frustrated and, you know, do that. Or also, it's just, I mean, generally unattainable. I think I saw the great Tim Carney making this point that people are spending more time alone. And you actually cooking meals for one is different than in some ways it's more difficult than cooking meals for five or four. And that pushes people to do DoorDash or whatever it is. That's not a defense.

It's just kind of explaining the trend. And as I said on last night show, I don't think that's really the problem. I think that was a rather telling impulse of people to read into the simple observation, quote, a burrito shouldn't cost $20. That's what started all of this. Read into it laziness or entitlement. It was just an observation, basically. Or, I mean, it was a judgment, right, that that's too steep a price for the product in question.

And, you know, that's politically and I think substantively problematic and very telling how people reacted to it by saying, well, it only costs that much if you're door-dashing it, or, you know, you shouldn't be eating out. It's like, nobody said people were eating out. Nobody said people were, like, constantly getting $20 burritos. It was just saying that this price was too high. Maybe some people are. I'm sure some people are making bad judgments. Like I said, they feel kind of like the saving is for nothing, because, you know, it'll take you 20 years. to be able to afford a home, whatever. It's, you know, hard for people, especially in the early 20s whose frontal cortex have not fully developed to make long-term savings and judgment.

It's not an excuse for not doing it. I mean, I think all the time about that dad who confronted Elizabeth Warren in Iowa. Was that on student loan forgiveness? If I'm remembering correctly, the precise policy, I think was something like that. He was furious. And yeah, you have a right to be furious if the government starts forgiving the loans of people who made bad decisions. It doesn't mean, though, that we can, you know, forgive the system for pushing people more and more into those bad decisions. Totally. It doesn't totally, you know, what's the best way to put it, vindicate the system or get them off the, get our broader system off the hook or our systemic mistakes off the hook. Two things can be true at the same time.

So anyway, I get people's anger at other people making bad decisions and, you know, then complaining about their financial. situations, but those decisions don't happen in a vacuum. And anyway, the original statement didn't imply anyone was even making a bad decision unless you think even purchasing a burrito once at the $20 level, once in your life is a bad decision because all the person said was it shouldn't cost that much. So anyway, anyway, anyway, that has been, this is a monster edition of Happy Hour. Thank you so much for all your emails. Appreciate it. Thank you for listening. We are going to be back on Monday with more after party. If you aren't subscribed on the YouTube channel, that is,

did I miss emails? Actually, now I feel like I might have missed somebody's email. I don't know. It looks like I went through all of them. But if I miss it, I usually try to get to it the next week. Because sometimes as I'm going through the emails on the show, I'm like, ah, I missed this one or this one. So if I miss it, I usually try to get to it the next week.

On that note, thank you all so much. for listening. Really appreciate it. If you haven't subscribed on YouTube, that is a huge help to the show. Really appreciate it. And it helps the algorithm. You know, if the algorithm sees people are subscribing, it then pushes it to more and more people. He's like, oh, people are liking this. So it's a good way to help the show. Thank you for sending your emails in. Thank you for being subscribed on the podcast feed. I hope you'll have a wonderful weekend. We'll see you back here on Monday with more.