Bill Meyer Show Podcast - Sponsored by Clouser Drilling www.ClouserDrilling.com - 10-29-25_WEDNESDAY_7AM

Episode Date: October 30, 2025

10-29-25_WEDNESDAY_7AM

The Bill Myriss Show podcast is sponsored by Klausur drilling. They've been leading the way in Southern Oregon well drilling for over 50 years. Find out more about them at Klausor drilling.com. 68 for your Halloween with increasing clouds. Good for the trick-or-treaters. Oh, no. The trick-or-treaters might be, though, on Halloween. They might be out there, Mr. X, because they need to get candy because the snap benefits go away on November 1st, right?

So they're going to have to load up on candy. Now, I don't need to make light of this, but I wanted to talk with you about something. You had sent me an email, and I thought this was really interesting because I had mentioned that, and this is the way the story has been reported, that the 25 states are suing the Trump administration over the SNAP benefits going away November 1st. And you wanted to draw a distinction in the way it's being reported. Well, I feel it's important when we see these things. We have to start calling it out for what it is because you go on and everything is a minor cut and you bleed out over the abundance of cuts.

And I look at this. The reality to it is that they're not suing the Trump administration. This stuff has been long administered and run through the U.S. Department of Agriculture. And what I sent you was a proof of that. And the lawsuits are actually filed against the U.S. Department of Agriculture and its secretary. and the reality to it is that none of this has anything to do with Trump. It's a byproduct of the Democrats holding hostage their demand. Yeah, but the Secretary of the USDA is a member of the Trump administration, though.

That's true, but technically they're suing the U.S. Department of Agriculture first. That's it. Okay. The Secretary is listed only as a party to it because the Secretary has that part of it. That's a good point, though. I mean, that's a good point. You're right, because all the report. reporting is at the suing the Trump administration.

So they make it sound as if it is, once again, that it is Trump ordering this, in other words, right? Right, exactly. Now, Trump, for, we know, now Trump wants it reopened. We know that. We know Trump wants it all reopened. He can't order that. My guess is that they'll, you know, he's going to take some steps to figure out some emergency funding for it somehow.

But, you know, this is the long-term thing. You're asking an unreasonable demand. and you want to have someone negotiate with you over an unreasonable to mean. Yeah. Now, the thing is, though, according to the lawsuit, though, what they're doing, you and I are just spitballing this, okay? We're not attorneys, but, you know, you can read, and I can read too. But these are all Democrat attorney generals and governors of 25 states. Okay, so we know it's from the blue hive mind, okay?

There's no doubt about this. But what they're claiming, the Trump administration, claims that it cannot tap emergency funds and that it can't go into an emergency money supply in order to keep the food aid coming on the Oregon Trail card. I agree totally. I agree totally with that, Bill. And when I said, my guess my guess would be that they're going to make some move, they're going to make some move to correct that aspect of it. That's what I'm seeing.

Yeah, and I would recommend that too. I don't think that anything is served by cutting off SNAP benefits the first of the month, which is just a few days from now. I don't think that helps anyway. And that's exactly the truth. But the, you know, the general course, we have to, you know, show people the unreasonable how to say distribution of money to people that don't deserve it against people that deserve it. They brought in a loud, just an overwhelming, you know, group of people that came over the border illegally to do this.

And this is ridiculous. there's no way for a country to afford this without utter chaos. Yeah, it'll be interesting to see what immigrants trial. Immigant is putting the, well, they're having that lawsuit continuing to whether to justify National Guard in Portland, et cetera, et cetera. They're going to have a three-day trial on that. But there are many additional, just so many, so many legal angles of attack going on right now. The lawfare is just absolutely insane. It really is.

well it's you know that decision was was made initially by a three judge panel and the 11 judges are now going to to hear that but that's that's going to be in a few days on imagine i don't know what the schedule is but the arrogance trial on the initial you know request and whether or not to keep the temporary restraining order in effect or stayed as it is currently right now i mean this is what we're looking at right now well i don't myself i don't don't think that they have any standing to keep its state or to keep the restraining order in place. Yeah.

All right. We'll see about that. But, yeah, the thing is, this is being held hostage by the Democrats. Everybody knows it. Everyone who's listening knows this story. They wanted an additional $1.7 trillion in spending is almost like the bounty, you know, the bounty or the bribe in order to reopen it. I don't know.

I'm ready just to do the nuclear option. just say, hey, 51 votes, that's it instead of 60. What do you think? I think that that's the step that may have to be taken. Because, like I said, when you have... You can be reasonable with reasonable people, but we're not dealing with reasonable people. That's a good way to put it, Phil, because you're not dealing with a sound mind and a sound understanding. You can't keep this up, but what they're doing is keeping it.

up when you see this reporter as suing the Trump administration, that's the thing that's crucial to it, is these are the death of the thousand cuts. It's continuing to picket you that it's Trump's fault, Trump's fault, Trump's fault. That's right. Yeah. Yeah, it's just like Trump causes the Antifa riots by just having National Guard present there at ice, right? You know, the basic theory of the National Guard, those guys are, they're called in to keep

people away from destroying the building. destroying and damaging the property. All right, Mr. X, I appreciate the call, but I wanted to touch on you because you wrote me, though, about the way it was reported, and I wanted to give you a bite of that, okay? Thanks so much. Well, I did send you the backup to it, too. Yeah, I know. I appreciate that.

I appreciate that, X. Email Bill of Bill Meyers Show.com. Head of the update that will take more of your calls. It's open phones here on KMED and KBXG. Oregon Truck and Auto Authority is your tono cover source. Tano cover. Here's Bill Meyer. Happy to take your call.

calls here. I'll also be talking with an attorney just a few minutes in. We're going to be analyzing more of this, you know, the suing of the USDA over SNAP and Trump appealing his felony conviction, you know, trying to get that Stormy Daniels lawsuit to go away. Always smelled right for the beginning. That is for sure. Leslie Corbly is her name and we'll talk about her also, her latest book, The Devouring Mother. I want to find out what she means by the devouring mother. I wonder if it has anything to do with the feminization. Gosh, I have an article around here somewhere.

Oh, yeah. A really interesting article that I've been reading off and on, and I go back and revisit it. It came out the 16th of October a couple of weeks ago on compactmag.com. It was calling it the great feminization. The great feminization. Have you heard about that? Yeah.

Helen Andrews wrote a piece and she was talking about one of the challenges of the United States culture is that, and she's a woman, but she's saying our challenge is that we have female attitudes kind of supplanting rule of law in which we're having females taking over the culture in many ways. you have women now as the majority of doctors, the majority going into medical school, you have the majority of them going in to be lawyers, more female lawyers than male lawyers. In Oregon, you have more female representatives. You certainly have more female governors than you do male. What was the last time he had a guy? Is it Kulengoski? Yeah, Kulengoski was the last guy, right?

Now you have to be a lesbian female. That's really the job requirement now, if you're going to be a leader here. But Helen talks about this. It's really worth reading on Compact Mac, the Great Feminization. I'm just going to share just a little bit of this. In 2019, I read an article, she says, about Larry Summers and Harvard that changed the way I look at the world. The author argued that the day Larry Summers resigned as president of Harvard marked a turning point in our culture. the entire woke era could be extrapolated from that moment from the details of how Summers was canceled.

And most of all, who did the canceling? Women. Now, remember, this is coming from Helen Andrews, a woman, okay? The basic facts were familiar to me. Larry Summers gave a talk that was supposed to be off the record in that he said that female underrepresentation in hard sciences was partly due to different availability of aptitude at the high end, as well as taste differences between men and women, not attributable to socialization. Some female professors in attendance were offended, and they sent his remarks to a reporter

in defiance of the off-the-record rule, and the scandal led to a no-confidence vote, and then Summers ends up quitting, Harvard. And Andrews continues in this. The essay argued that it wasn't just that women had canceled the president of Harvard, it was that they canceled him in a very feminine way. They made emotional appeals rather than making logical arguments. When he started talking about the innate differences in aptitude between men and women, I just couldn't breathe because this kind of bias makes me physically ill, said Nancy Hopkins, a biologist in MIT.

Summers made a public statement clarifying his remarks and then another and then a third, with the apology more insistent each time. experts chiming in to declare that everything Summers had said about sex differences was within the scientific mainstream, but the rational appeals had no effect on the mob hysteria. Helen Andrews writing, the cancellation was feminine. The essay argued because all cancellations are feminine. Cancel culture is simply what women do whenever there are enough of them in a given organization or field. This is the Great Feminization Thesis, which the same author later elaborated on.

Everything you think of as wokeness today is simply an extension of demographic feminization. That's really interesting, don't you think? And this is coming from women writing about this, the great feminization, and that the cancel culture and what we think of as woke is actually the feminization of, the culture's thought process in which, as an example, Larry Summers making perfectly reasonable, factual, scientific analysis and judgment about the differences between biological men and biological women. But that doesn't matter. He gets canceled anyway. Isn't this what we're dealing with right now?

You know, here in the state of Oregon, remember talking about trans women are women? No, they're not. shut up and you're canceled. It's kind of like when they go after state representative Dwayne Yonker and various others who bring up the scientific obviousness of our situation right now. And that's why I was just kind of only half-joking with here that we have more state representatives and state senators.

Maybe not state senators, I don't have to look at, but more women in the state government than we do men. And we certainly have more women. and certainly more women of LGBTQ persquation in the governor's mansion than ever before. And even now, what are we talking about right now? The conversation is a rematch, a rematch of the last gubernatorial election. It's going to be Governor Kotech running for re-election and most likely against Christine Drazen, senator, who is now a senator, Senator Christine Drazen,

and apparently she got herself in that situation, because you can be a senator and still raise money. No for running for office. Is it progress? I don't know. Christine Drazen lost by 4% last time. Do you think that anything changes this time around? Maybe you can talk about it.

You know my number. 770-5633-37-O-K-M-E-D. But the Ford's got your truck, man. Big at Garrison's Express on Crater Lake Highway. Garrisons.com. You're hearing the Bill Myers Show on 106.3 KMED. 7.30.

We're going to break for news here in just a moment and dig into the latest Trump administration. Well, first off, we have the suing of the USDA over SNAP benefits. Snap benefits go away November 1st, and the administration claims that they don't have emergency money that they can tap, that there's no way to do this to backfill. The SNAP benefits, which is Oregon Trail Card, and these governors, mostly from blue hive mine states, including Oregon, are suing over this. And I just want to talk with Leslie Corvley, who has a pretty good mind on such matters. So we'll focus on that and also the Stormy Daniels thing and all the rest of it.

Comes right down to it, though. I think the outages just do, the nuclear option, busted up, 53 votes like they've had so far with 47 Democrats, and then you pass the continuing resolution, the CR, it's a clean. and we just go on to spending, overspending like we were before, overspending, and then off we go. Going into the snap benefit thing, I'm just looking at the stability of society right now. Because remember last week I played that clip of a young man, inner urban, no doubt. I think he was from Chicago in which he was talking about, hey, you know, I feel sorry for shopping cart, man. you know, if the EBT stops working,

EBT, whether we like to admit it or not, is about keeping a lid on the great one unwashed, keeping a lid on the so-called underclass. And I'm not saying that to be, you know, mean or anything. I'm just saying it's just the obvious. It's about buying silence in peace a little bit, isn't it? Robin writes me this morning. By the way, my email is bill at Billmyershow.com.

It says, good morning, Bill. I work at a local grocery store. We were all brought into the office, and we were told that our hours are going to be cut. Without SNAP benefit, we will not have the sales to support the staff. We also have been advised that there will be lots of shoplifting, and we are not to confront or contact anyone that attempts to do so. That is astounding to me. You want to talk about a collapse of law and order with something like that.

And that's going back to that young man, the audio that I played last week, said, hey, man, I'll tell you, I'm going to have Thanksgiving anyway. I'm going to grab that turkey and that ham. I'm going to have me a Thanksgiving, one way or the other. And, of course, he was cussing off and on. But, yeah, I love individuals, potential criminals who advertise it on social media and then probably complain about it if they get busted. But, but, yeah, it was from Robin.

Robin, I appreciate your writing about that. That is the unspoken secret, too, that... A big part of the supermarket chains, a big part of Walmart's bottom line. Yeah, Walmart and Target, a big part of that. Snap Benefits, Oregon Trail Card. Just saying. Hi, good morning. This is Bill. Who's this? Is this me?

Yeah, it sure is. It's you. Hey, Bill. Sorry, I'm calling off topic. That's okay. I was just wrapping up that topic, just speaking the obvious, but what's on your mind, huh? Is your streaming service down? No, it is not down. Okay, because I haven't been able to get on your streaming for three days now. Yeah. Can you email me, Steve?

I can try. Okay, email at Bill at Billmyershow.com, and I will send you a direct link to the stream for now. What has happened is that it's the transition to our new company and they're moving the internet contacts and the website and everything else. and we have not been able to get everything fixed on KM&E.com yet. And if you email Bill at Billmyershow.com, I will send you the direct link to it. That'll get you to the pinch, okay? Fantastic. All right.

Hey, it's good to have you back in the fold, okay? Thanks. Yes, I've been missing you last couple days. All right, well, we'll get you hooked up, all right? 734, email Bill at Billemeyer Show.com, and I'll send that to you. Oregon Truck and Ottawa, Thor. Okay. all. Sorry for yelling. Can I get a throat drop over here, please? Hi, I'm Steven

with Stephen Westwell Ripeney, and I'm on KMED. Leslie Carverly joins me. She's the author of Progressive Prejudice, exposing the Devouring Mother. I love that title. I mean, just the imagery, Leslie, of the devouring mother. But you are an author, poet, and attorney, and you have a poetry collection you debuted, right? silent suffering, too. Tell me a little bit about that. You know, it's interesting to find a poet and an attorney and an author, kind of all combined into one, wouldn't you agree? Yeah, yeah, I guess it's a little bit unusual. So I, that poetry class was very spontaneous. I started writing films, critiquing progressive culture. I would then perform at, like, my open

mics in the Salt Lake City region. And by the, I think I started that around February or something of 2023. Anyway, by June of that year, I had a ridiculous number of poems. And so I thought, well, I may as well put them in a collection. And so I went ahead and just combined them all through it together and ended up getting it published early 2024. So that was really neat. Yeah. The book I wrote now would be the first book I released. Oh, okay. All right. Yeah, I got it then. Progressive Prejudice exposing the devouring mother. And what you tend to work on is that you critique, you critique, pardon me, I talk for a living, critique progressive postmodern beliefs, right?

That's essentially what you do a lot. Tell me more about that. Sure. So I just think that there's a lack of, I think that there's a broad understanding publicly of what it means for there to be those on the margins of society when you're talking about religious cultures or conservative and traditional cultures. But I don't think there's a lot of conversations about who falls on the margins of progressive society? What does it look like, you know, for people who feel as though progressive culture

itself has oppressed them or has made them feel otherwise less than those kind of things? I mean, there's obvious targets, right, cis-white, heterosexual Christian men, for example, but it's a much... Oh, yeah, hey, listen, you know, we are target number one right now, you know, me, you know, being cis-white, hetero, you know, I like women, I make no bones about that, like women, and, you know, You know, and so, and I am, and I often wonder about my son, though, because, you know, even he wonders about, you know, am I responsible for all the badness in the world? He kind of alluded that to me one time, and I, how could he? That's an example, but my, I came at this from both autobiographical and cultural commentary critique angle because I grew up, you know, before, before maybe some of the woke stuff was as extreme, but I always found progressive culture very off-putting.

I'm religious now, but I was not growing up, and I found progressivism be much more off, putting them in religion, because of the emphasis on human, the simultaneous emphasis on human dignity, but also destroying children in utero. I thought that was an incredibly hypocritical set of beliefs. Yeah, it is sort of counterproductive, counterproductive, you know, views. And it was well critique, because I really don't. And also, I think that there's just a general struggle with those on the left of critiquing. groups or individuals they perceive as having been victims. So the idea that you're a woman, therefore you don't engage in sexism, for example, or you're African-American, therefore you can't be racist. Those kind of ideas, I think, are very pernicious, and they have proved to be very damaging to the left, and they're also just not true, right? No, you aren't sort of incapable of doing something wrong because of your race, class, creed, or gender. You know,

you're still able to engage in bad conduct that has terrible consequences. Yeah, well, everybody can be bad or wonderful people. You know, it's just that into just a tag group characteristics is not always wise. But with exposing the devouring mother, that is such an imagery in my mind. I always think of my mom as just this sweet little thing and, you know, bearing me and taking care of me and fixing my boo-boos. But where does the devouring mother come into this? exposing the devouring mother. Is that almost like the progressive world, in your view, the devouring mother?

Yeah, I think of the pernicious, malvolent aspect of the West, is embodying the devouring mother archetype because it tends to focus so heavily on, we care about people, you know, we're tolerant, we're kind, but in a way that's very self-aggrandizing. So, you know, the idea, basically the idea of the devouring mother is that the devouring mother is using caretaking as a pretext for control. Ah, okay. And for engaging in conduct that actually has nothing to do with taking care of her

dependents is in fact about herself, right? It's interesting that you talk about progressive caring as really just being, well, an analog to control. I find it fascinating when Bill Gates, of all people, one of my favorite progressives out there. I'll just absolutely love this guy. And he then comes out the other day and talks, a major climate change reversal.

Years of doomerism, we were all going to die, Leslie, okay? And he said, well, people will be able to live and thrive, is now what he is saying about the climate change. Yeah, the climate is changing, but we'll be okay. It couldn't be that he's trying to get nuclear power for AI, right? I'm sure there's a reason self-serving, that's for sure. Yeah, yeah. Well, that may show, though, that that progressive deal about climate alarmism, it's not working anymore, right?

So you have to come up with a new scam, maybe? Is that it? Yeah, well, I think it's certainly not working. I don't know if it's going to be a new scam or a different variation of the old one. I don't know. But the idea being that taking care of people, that morality itself is sort of weaponized, it's fascinating because in so many ways, progressive, the dark side and shadowed side of progressive culture reminds me. much of fundamentalist religions in the sense of, you know, you can have people who use religion in any which way to try to obtain what they want.

That's a very interesting, that's a very interesting statement. Like, I'm sorry, I interrupted you there, Leslie, but... That's okay. No, I think that's a really interesting take on it, like a fundamentalist political religion than, in essence. It's disgusting because I grew up in, you know, again, I'm Christian now, but I don't particularly have any love of... um let me like a weaponized religion you know i don't think it's healthy or good to have people

claiming the religious who are or using religion as a mechanism for their own self-aggrandizement and that happens a lot but it's just fascinating to me because i think that's something that generally happens when you have a strong moral system right morals can either be something that helps someone become a better person and look at themselves and face what's wrong with them and and turn to what is good or it can become something that's used for your own self-aggrandizement and And I think those on the left really struggle to understand that applies to their own worldview. They're very good at critiquing it externally. You know, they see it in Christians and whatnot, but they can't really, they really struggle to turn the mirror around and look at themselves.

Yeah, self-awareness is always a challenge. Yeah, self-awareness always a challenge. You know, point being, though, it's interesting you're a Christian now, but isn't the sad truth of life right now that Christendom, Christendom is collapsed and we're really living among the ruins of that these days? really in it, and that's why the progressives have been able to fill that vacuum in one way or another? Absolutely. I think some of it, too, is just how beliefs and value systems move through time. You know, there's always, when your value system becomes too hypocritical, people tend to reject it, right? And I don't, sorry, not being the system itself, the way it's acted out by

individuals, whether they believe in it or not, right? So when you have a lot of scandals in the church, or you have leaders in the church who are engaging in poor conduct, who are corrupt, who are willing to weaponize the faith system for their own benefit, rather than seeking to actually, you know, live it out faithfully, well, then you shouldn't come with those perfect people reject that. And so, you know, you have a lot of rise of competing world. We competed with religion after the Enlightenment, so I don't think it's any surprise that we are where we are. Obviously, I think genuine Christianity will carry on irregardless of the cultural climate or environment.

Yeah, I hope you're right, though, but when it comes right down to it, Christianity was the West, wasn't it? Yes. Well, that's what I think so fascinating about those on the progressive side is that in some ways I think the West has always wanted to tear down the structures of Western civilization itself. And I don't mean that in even a anti-Barxis kind of way, like we're doing it in a, you know, I don't mean it in a necessarily violent-oriented manner.

I think even those who aren't violent on the left, to some degree, have always wanted to tear at the structures of Western civilization because the structures are very religious. Western civilization itself, as you mentioned, was built on Christian ideas. Now, I guess you could argue whether America was founded as a quote-unquote Christian nation, that's a fair debate. But the bottom line is Christian morals, Judeo-Christian values were at the very base of the foundation of our nation. And yeah, so I think those on the left have always wanted to undo that. And they've been somewhat successful, I would say, particularly in the 20th century and enacting that vision. But I think it's backfiring now. I think that because progressives are now the establishment, you know, those on the left moral views that are more left-weaning have been the benchmark for morality and goodness for a very long time well before I was even born.

And so the idea that, you know, you're sticking it to the man by rebelling against Christian or traditional ideas isn't, I don't think Colts true anymore, at least not as broadly as it used to. Yeah, and I would agree it's very different. Even over the last 50 years, there's been a sea change in the, you know, things that, you know, we're not even supposed to question. You know, what do you mean men or men and boys and girls are girls, right? You know, you can't do that, right? Exactly. And I think children are noticing that, for what it's worth, right, that, oh, you know, children when they reach 13 years, I think are increasingly when they're going to rebel, not necessarily only be rebelling against Christian ideas. I think it's much broader now, right? Some children, like I said, they may be raised very religious or in very religious, some cultures, and that will still hold true for them. But for a larger swath of the country, increasingly large swath of the country, the ideas they may, that may be forced to them, likely. don't have anything to do with God. Yep, pretty much.

Leslie Corbly with me, her book is Progressive Prejudice, exposing the Devouring Mother, and she's an author, poet, and attorney. I want to ask your opinion on a couple of legal things, if you don't mind. And we have all these progressive governors in 25 states or so that are suing the USDA, and, you know, they always report this as the Trump administration, but I'll try to be fair about it. They're suing the USDA saying that it is improper to stop SNAP benefits. Now, politically, I don't think it's a wise thing to do right now. I think it keeps a lid on society at the moment.

I don't like admitting that, but it's just, you know, the truth of it right now. What do you see as the legal merits potentially of something like this? Like, you know, you have to keep sending us money, even though there's no budget. You know, that kind of thing right now. It's fascinating because it's almost the reverse of commandeering. There's a concept of constitutional law where the federal government is not allowed to commandeer or force the state to engage in certain actions. Right.

And this is almost like the reverse, where the states are trying to commandeer the federal government end up sending them money. It's a very bizarre. I don't, it makes me want to read more about it, honestly, because I would want to know more of what their legal theory actually is, because I don't see it as particularly persuasive. You know, Congress is not obligated to send money. there's no obligation of Congress to direct money to go specific places, right?

Congress has the power of the purse, and if Congress can't come to a deal, and therefore sub-benefits are paused or end, it's Congress, well, in this case acting by not acting, but, you know, I don't, again, Congress is not obligated to direct funds in a manner any specific state would like it. Yeah, okay, because just as a layman here, I'm not an attorney, but I read and talk to attorney. and I'm just scratching my head. It's like, huh? But, of course, I guess the idea is, though, you find a progressive, prejudiced lawyer that will just say, yeah, you're right, right?

That kind of thing. Well, you know, when you're desperate, there's enough, you know, someone's going to come with a legal, or it's some cause of action to try to, I suppose, get what they want. There was that lawsuit earlier with Planned Parenthood arguing that it was discrimination for them not to be funded. If I recall correctly, that didn't involve a Planned Parenthood, or if they didn't receive the result they wanted. This is true. Yeah, so I think that, you know, there's always those kind of lawsuits that go on and no surprise, right? That's how, that's how law changes if you find

a novel cause of action. You try to push forward your agenda in that way, but I don't think, at least on first blush, I don't find it initially, particularly persuasive, I would have to have a lot more to find it persuasive that Congress is obligated to send funds, to direct funds to a specific program. I mean, generally, Congress has the power of a first. And they're able to say, we would like to fund certain programs and not fund others. And that's, I suppose, prejudicial, but it's up to their discretion. Yeah, even though, and technically Medicare and Social Security could technically be vanished today if they wanted to. Of course, there would be, of course, there would be blood in the streets.

There's a fallout for that politically. But, yeah, there's no obligation to fund these giant behemoth government programs. You know, it's funny because you think back and you go, oh, you're obligated to do this. It's like, well, over the time in our country, when none of these programs existed. As a libertarian-leaning, conservative, I find that somewhat attractive. I think that we should all do better to find ways to be less dependent on government rather than more dependent.

But, again, there's a lot of political fallout right now. And there would be, of course, a cost, a trade-off to immediately halting these kind of government programs. Oh, yeah, yeah, indeed. Leslie Corbly with me. to ask another question of your of your attorney hat here and this is uh trump's manhattan hush money conviction you know that's the where they got end up saying our felon president you know that kind of thing um he's appealing this now and do you think he has a pretty good chance because there were really unique and twisted legal theories that were brought to bear to bring this

conviction but how do you see it as an attorney i don't know i would i i find all of this so fascinating because it's so it's so outside the scope of how law is typically practiced. Okay, so even you saw that that case was really weird then, right? Oh, yes, yes, yes. I mean, there's a lot. Well, everything with Donald Trump, I think, is weird and hyper politicized for what it's worth. You know, law at its best is able to be blind. It's so funny because I practice family law in Utah state courts, and I think people,

I think that what's happening politically really gives people an exaggerated sense of how biased to judges are. generally speaking in law, there's somewhat of a predictability element, you know, how judges rule. Okay, so even the progressive judges are not as bat guano crazy as the news would have us believe? Well, when it comes to lay people and lay situations that aren't politically charged, biases, I think, quite a bit more muted. Oh.

You know, and judges tend to behave in more predictable manners. I think that's one of the dangers of politicizing law and everything in society becoming so political. But with Donald Trump, you know, that's inherently incredibly emotionally charged. Most people don't have neutral views of Donald Trump. I would say I'm probably in the minority that does. I don't love him or hate him. I have pretty neutral views surrounding him. I like to look at the broader, I think, context of his rise and whatnot.

I like to look at the broader cultural and social things going on rather than just focusing on one person. But, you know, look at the rise of Donald Trump. That's incredibly politicized. Well, look at, and maybe, maybe here, Leslie, you could look at all the issues of what you write about in your book, Progressive Prejudice as having led to the rise of Donald Trump. It was the obvious, you know, reaction, I guess, in some ways to this, maybe? Yes, well, I think that there was always going to be some kind of pushback against the leftist ideas coming that were, like I said, becoming the benchmark. I mean, those on the progressive left, really, especially prior to Trump, had pretty much a monopoly on cultural gatekeeping. Oh, they had free run.

Right. They had free run of the whole. I mean, Mitt Romney, for goodness sake, was a misogynist, right, with his binders of women. I mean, he was a terrible human being. He was probably getting close to being Satan himself, you know? And Mitt and Romney, for good. Again, it became so absurd almost that it's no shock, right? you had Obama, you had the Tea Party movement, you had sort of, you know, and again, every

single figure on the right, no matter how demure, no matter how obviously Gentile and kind was sort of disparaged as being a terrible person. And that doesn't, you know, eventually the constituencies that Trump represented needed a voice. And that voice, frankly, was going to be, I think, inevitably someone who really was much more brash and didn't particularly care about political correctness or how tone comes off or, you know, maybe to a fault. But yeah, I think all of that to say that Donald Trump's rise is inherently intertwined with progressive norms becoming something that was increasingly weaponized against regular people to make them fall in line with a political and moral ideology they now have agreed with.

And that obviously can be seen through the rise of cancel culture, which was initially which occurred largely on college campuses, which are bastions of fluff, great thoughts. Yeah, and I wanted to bring that up, too, because I had mentioned, I had mentioned an article briefly before coming on. It was on Compact Magazine, and I swear that Helen Andrews must have read your book Progressive Prejudice. Okay, it made me wonder about this.

But she called it the great, now it's a she who wrote this, the great feminization, and that the cancel culture was largely the way feminized and weaponized feminism would tend to operate. You get enough women in a room. This is the way we deal with it. We don't deal with a challenge. Logically, we deal with it through emotional appeals. And I don't know if you, I think you said you read a little bit of that article, but I found it fascinating, found it fascinating what she said. What is your take on it? I did read it, and I did find it fascinating. I think that there is something to be said for the fact that, well, I think that we really, really, to our detriment, ignore the differences between men and the broad

differences between men and women. The broad differences, yeah. Beable a difference, as far as I'm concerned, you know? There's always, and there's always outliers, you know, people talk about, you know, men, men traditionally went to war. There were also male poets for sure. Sure. They weren't, I don't, they weren't necessarily, I don't think, view themselves as not men, you know.

But, again, there's always, there's always variety. But my point being that women and men do have very different. methods of engaging in socialization. And that's not purely nurture. I think that's also nature. I think it's a complex mix. That being said, yeah, I do think women are much more sensitive to how things are said, you know, to the way words are used. But women who are largely progressive, especially if they're young white women in today's culture, are largely progressive and they are the majority of attorneys. They are the majority of college students.

They are the majority, at least in the state of Oregon, of our state legislators, too. You know, so there is something to that, wouldn't you think? Well, I think it's led to, I think it went back way further than that. What I mean is I think female modes of engaging relationally tend to be more baked into modern, say, social settings or professional settings. And again, I'm not saying that, There's no value at all to professionalism standards.

I'm an attorney. Believe me, there are, there is some value to that. What I'm saying is that I think that you can go too far. So I think that the, if I recall correctly, the article mentioned sort of the rise of HR departments and people becoming very wary of being sent to HR. Yes. You know, and you can have these sort of onerous, again, these work environment. But HR was usually filled with cat ladies, you know, single feminine women cat ladies.

I'm sorry. It's just. It's true. I'm just stereotyped for a reason, but my point being that when you set up these structures, you can end up with incentive structures as reward a more. Okay, I just lost that last statement here. God, I need to be really... Yeah, you fire that at me again, Leslie.

Your cell cut out, just briefly. Oh, sure, sorry about that. Okay. I think those kind of structures can incentivize a female mode of communicating, which is more subtle, less direct. It sort of punishes direct, straightforward communication. as being too blunt. And I think it can encourage people to almost see certain forms of communication as inherently prejudicial rather than a just different method that someone may communicate

their ideas. Yeah, and that's where we got the, that's where we got the, your speech is violence. And then your silence is violence too, right? And I do think it can encourage people to be too far too easily offended. And not only, importantly, not just far too easily offended, but very poor at standing up for their own ideas. And let me give you an example of that. Like, if someone's saying something that you believe is offensive, someone believes is offensive or should be pushed back on, these kind of environment don't encourage someone to push back against that person directly.

They encourage people to simply never say it at all. And I think that that actually does society largely a disfavor. Because if someone is saying something or behaving in an inappropriate way, and they get pushed back naturally from other people saying that's inappropriate. That person is more likely, I think, to get the positive, have the opportunity to have the positive feedback of, hey, what you're doing maybe is inappropriate. People keep pushing back on that, rather than just being told you can't say that. You see what I'm saying?

If you push back on what someone's actually saying and the reasons they're saying it, then both parties know where they stand. And I think right now there's an incentive for people not to know where each other stand because the idea is don't be offensive at all, even if what you, even if that means stifling what you think is true. And that means people are interacting in some ways with a mask. And I don't think that's healthy culturally. Agreed wholeheartedly. I just picked up a copy of your book this morning on Kindle, so I'll get back to you on that, all right? Well, great.

And maybe other people can check this out, too. Progressive Prejudice exposing the devouring mother from Leslie Corbly, once again, an author, a poet, and an attorney. So you have three very different personality types battling within your soul right now. Okay. Hey, do you have a website, Leslie? Yes, yes, Leslie Corbly.com. All right, very good.

Hey, great talk. We'll have you back, all right? Be well. Thanks so much for having me. You met, Leslie Corbly. This is KMED, KMED, H.D. H.E. Eagle Point, Medford, KBXG Grants Pass. 30 years ago, American Industrial Door specialized in a...