May 29, 2025 • 28 mins
In this episode, Mary Katharine Ham and Karol Markowicz dive into a wide range of topics—from the hectic end-of-school-year season and Elon Musk’s take on the Big Beautiful Bill, to the challenges of rescission and federal spending cuts. They also explore California’s electric vehicle mandate, tensions within the Democratic Party, Pete Buttigieg’s media blitz and calls for accountability, the rise of credentialism and declining trust in institutions, and the controversy involving Francesca Gino at Harvard. Normally is part of the Clay Travis & Buck Sexton Podcast Network - new episodes debut every Tuesday & Thursday.
Follow Clay & Buck on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/clayandbuck
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
Hey, guys, we are back on normally to show normal
it takes. But when the news gets weird.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
I'm not half of him, and I am Carol Marco.
It's hi, Mary Catherine.
Speaker 3 (00:10):
How are you.
Speaker 1 (00:11):
I'm all right. It's the end of the school year,
and you know that, like just everything stacks up, stacks up,
stacks up, so running around, but good things.
Speaker 4 (00:19):
Are good, all right?
Speaker 2 (00:20):
Yeah, do you have a lot of like they have
all those days, like you dress up like this today
and like.
Speaker 1 (00:26):
Yeah, they have like end of the year parties and
end of the year ceremonies and in the year performances and.
Speaker 2 (00:32):
Yes, yes, yes to all that. I had to buy
napkins for my youngest son's class party. I always choose napkins. Yes,
I am that mom.
Speaker 4 (00:43):
But I was.
Speaker 2 (00:45):
Very pleased to learn that grown ups were not invited
to that party, something I only learned this morning.
Speaker 1 (00:53):
So yeah, we love a drop It's great. We love
a drop off. When they get old enough for the
drop off, I'm like, go forth, children and enjoy.
Speaker 4 (01:01):
Have so much fun. So elon Musk.
Speaker 2 (01:06):
We haven't talked about him in a while, ever since
our number one fan. My husband said that we were
talking about him too much. See we respond, Yeah, we're
very responsive to listener needs, especially if I sleep with you.
Speaker 1 (01:25):
There you go.
Speaker 2 (01:26):
Well, yeah, he thought we were doing too much Doge.
And then Doge itself stopped being in the news so much,
so we stopped talking about it as much. But it's
still happening. They're still dozing away and Elon Musk is on.
Speaker 4 (01:42):
He's going to be on I believe.
Speaker 2 (01:45):
A Sunday show this weekend, and he is not thrilled
with the Big Beautiful Bill.
Speaker 4 (01:53):
We have this clip for our listeners.
Speaker 5 (01:56):
I was like disappointed to see the massive spending bill, frankly,
which increases the bunch depths that not doesn't decrease it,
and that reminds the work that the Noge team is doing.
Speaker 2 (02:09):
I actually thought that when this big Beautiful Bill came along.
I mean, like everything he's done on Doge gets wiped
out in the first year.
Speaker 5 (02:16):
I think, I think a bill can be can be
can be big, or it can be beautiful, but I
don't know if it could be both.
Speaker 4 (02:24):
Same same agree.
Speaker 2 (02:25):
I like some things in the Big Beautiful Bill, like
the tax cuts. I feel like there's also this sense
online that if you criticize the bill, then.
Speaker 4 (02:33):
You don't like the tax cuts.
Speaker 2 (02:35):
No, I like the tax cuts.
Speaker 4 (02:36):
I just don't like a lot of the other stuff.
Speaker 1 (02:39):
Well, and people who criticize Elon will lump the tax
cuts in as a cost as spending. Just spending, maintaining
the tax codes for people as they are is preventing
a giant tax hike on them and must be done.
The government has a spending problem. It does not have
a collect money from us problem, exactly.
Speaker 2 (03:01):
So Stephen Miller, who is an advisor to Trump, he
had this.
Speaker 4 (03:06):
I'm going to I'm going to read.
Speaker 2 (03:07):
It's kind of a long tweet, but I feel like
it does a good job explaining some stuff that I
don't think is clear to some people. DOGE cuts are too.
Speaker 4 (03:16):
Discretionary spending e g.
Speaker 2 (03:18):
The federal bureaucracy under send a budget rules, you cannot
cannot cut discretionary spending, only mandatory in a reconciliation bill.
So DOGE cuts would have to be done through what
is known as recisions package or an appropriations bill. I'm
not going to read the rest, but you get that right.
Speaker 1 (03:35):
So those Yeah, reconciliation is a very specific process and
basically no one except for the parliamentary and understands what
can go in this bill, right, I'm willing to give
some leeway. I understand that, in order to maintain the
tax package from twenty seventeen and not give everybody a
giant tex hyke, that this bill was probably going to
get big and obnoxious. I understood.
Speaker 2 (03:57):
Yeah. The fact that dog cuts have to happen through
the recision package though, and apparently that requires a letter
from the President with the instructions to what recisions he wants.
As of this recording, no.
Speaker 4 (04:12):
Letter has been sent.
Speaker 2 (04:14):
So if anybody wants to be mad at spending, I'm
afraid the book stops with the President on this one.
Speaker 1 (04:21):
Well, and Speaker Johnson has also signaled today, given that
people are upset about this, that they would he would
move to consider this quickly. I do think that so
the President is welcome to write it, and I think
it sounds like he would he would be on that.
But I do worry that, like, you know, how much
(04:43):
do they actually have time for and actually complete during
this basically first year that you have to do things.
I think they're looking at possibly getting this big, beautiful
bill through the Senate, probably big leer by the time
it will be big by maybe July, or like keeping
(05:05):
people until the August recess and trying to do it
by then. So you got to have steam to get
the other stuff done and not have ticked off everybody
while doing the big bill.
Speaker 4 (05:15):
It's quite a tough process.
Speaker 2 (05:17):
Eric Erickson clarified a little bit about the recision letter.
He tweeted, if Congress does it without a decision letter
from the President, it follows the normal process and is
subject to the filibuster. If the President sends a letter,
it follows the Impoundment Control Act of nineteen seventy four
and bypasses a Senate filibuster. It's so confusing to the
(05:39):
average person, like recision letters and filibusters. It's really not
a process that we should be proud of.
Speaker 1 (05:48):
No, it's on one hand, it's supposed to be tough
to get stuff through the Congress, so I like that.
Right when Democrats were blithely like, let's just get rid
of the filibuster, a move which they would definitely regretting
had they done it right now when they wanted to
get rid of it, dumb dumbs. Yeah, I was like, no,
(06:08):
because the bar is supposed to be high, for passing things,
but it does sometimes end up looking like in order
to pass the things, you got to make the things big.
Speaker 2 (06:20):
I do like that Elon is speaking out on this
because I think that they will listen to Elon in
a way that they won't listen to a lot of
other people. I don't know that they would even be
trying to minimize spending if it wasn't for Elon, I think,
and again, you know you and I have talked about
it on here before. Trump is a spender. This is
(06:42):
his impulse. Take care of everyone, you know, make sure
everyone is taking care of it is part of his message,
and that is.
Speaker 4 (06:52):
Not a conservative philosophy.
Speaker 2 (06:53):
So here we are with this big, not that beautiful
spending bill as he on side. It can be big
or beautiful, it cannot be both. Although, just to add
a little bit more to what Stephen Miller was saying,
he says it includes the single largest welfare reform in
American history, along with the largest tax cut and reform
(07:14):
in American history, the most aggressive energy exploration in American history,
and the strongest border bill in American history. But then
he adds all while reducing the deficit, and yeah, we'll
see about that one. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (07:29):
I also would say the Medicaid reforms, which the Democrats
are going to call cuts, is simply asking able bodied,
like totally normal aged people with no dependence to try
to work part time. That's the requirement rights. That's pretty normal.
Talk about an eighty twenty issue. There's one right there.
(07:50):
So Republicans should be sure to characterize it the proper
way as I hope they do. Yeah, because that's quite popular.
I also want to note the sort of undercovered was
that the Congress did accomplish something last week, which is
that they struck down a key aspect of the administration's
(08:11):
nationwide electric vehicle mandate under the Congressional Review Act. We
love to see it, not to see this was a
California invention, which, you know, why not nationalize all of
those because they're doing so great. A California innovation that
was to put all like thirty percent of new cars
would have had to be electric cars in like eleven
(08:32):
or twelve states, and then would expand to the rest
of US by like next year, and then at some
point it was supposed to phase out to zero gas
powered cars could be sold new in all these states.
People don't want this, Let the market do what the
market does. Let people have gas powered cars if they
want them, let them have choice, and to have this
(08:55):
be top down from the federal government as guided by
the writing life of California. No, thank you.
Speaker 2 (09:02):
Most most importantly, let Californians keep their Californian policies in California.
Speaker 1 (09:08):
Yes, no thank you about them, guys. I wish you
the best. Did you see the picture the other day
with Karen Bass, who's the mayor of Los Angeles. She
tweeted a picture overhead view of one house built in
the Palisades and was like, look at all the work
we're doing to build houses and cut red tape and
(09:30):
I was like, you're building house.
Speaker 4 (09:32):
It's amazing.
Speaker 2 (09:32):
Yeah, building built a house.
Speaker 4 (09:35):
That house.
Speaker 1 (09:36):
The number of permits is scandalously low that they have
managed to give, and it's just yet another example of
why exporting their way of doing things is not a
good idea.
Speaker 3 (09:45):
Right.
Speaker 2 (09:45):
Meanwhile, like Ron DeSantis has probably built like ten bridges
during that time period of that one house.
Speaker 4 (09:51):
So it's some days don't learn, No, they won't. They
won't learn. I don't know will they learn? Do you
think they'll learn? I don't think so.
Speaker 2 (10:01):
I think they'll just continue down this path. I don't
think abundance Democrats are going to win this.
Speaker 1 (10:07):
Well, this is the thing. It's causing this pretty big
rift in the Democratic Party. Jonathan Chate was writing in
The Atlantic quite sensibly that like, hey, if liberal cities
and liberal governance headed by progressives in places like Chicago
or LA does not give the people we were supposed
to give people better jobs, more housing, cheaper options, and
(10:29):
more prosperity, like, what are we doing? And I would say, yeah,
but as for quite a long time, what are you doing? Yeah,
But that's causing the progressives in the party to be like,
oh my gosh, they're trying to purge us and our
government for the sake of government. What are we going
to do now? So that's going to be the fight waging,
you know, into twenty twenty eight, and I think I'll
(10:50):
enjoy it.
Speaker 2 (10:51):
I agree with you that that will be their internal fight.
But I just wonder, like places like California or New York,
they have an appeal to people, and so they will
continue to draw in, you know, the twenty somethings who
are trying to make it even as it's just a true,
you know, dumpster fire all around. And so that's why
(11:14):
the lesson's so tough for them to learn, because they're like,
people still love us, look at this, you know.
Speaker 4 (11:21):
So I don't know, I don't know if.
Speaker 1 (11:22):
How do Democrats love to pivot from more government to
less government? Like that's not their brand, that's right, the
brand of the other guys. So even though they don't
do it half the time, I would love if they
did it more. Yeah, but how do you become Democrats
for less government?
Speaker 2 (11:39):
Well, it's like or any sane policies. Actually, this this
segs very nicely into our second topic.
Speaker 4 (11:45):
Will be right back on normally.
Speaker 2 (11:51):
Pete Bootage Edge went on the Bulwark podcast and was
asked he's been doing a media tour. I think in
Prepper of running in twenty eight he comes off as
rather sane in an insane party for sure.
Speaker 4 (12:08):
But you know, he was asked this question.
Speaker 2 (12:10):
What he would have done differently five years ago, and
this was his.
Speaker 3 (12:14):
Response, one, for the love of God, figure out a
way to get the schools open sooner. We got very
new knee jerk about this, and the costs were not
just politically but in a profound way. I think for
the generation, the costs were profound, and I think anybody
who's involved, who was, by the way, obviously doing their
best to deal with the crisis that killed million Americans,
(12:36):
But I think most people involved would like to be
able to have found a way to safely get more schools,
more open, more quickly.
Speaker 2 (12:42):
That was a great first answer. I had no idea where.
I mean, there's so many ways you could have gone
with that.
Speaker 3 (12:46):
But obviously pay more attention to the border. That's real,
and that's going to be something that you can't just
like take your time to deal with. Three, even though
you spent your entire political lifetime believing that the economy
and jobs are the same thing, and if you have
lots of jobs, it's a good economy, and if you
have a problem with jobs as a bad economy. Remember
(13:09):
that prices is just as big a part of the economy.
It just hasn't come up much in the last forty years.
Speaker 1 (13:14):
So what would you have done?
Speaker 4 (13:15):
What would you have donen differently on prices?
Speaker 3 (13:17):
Then no country was able to save their economy from
COVID without getting into some inflation, so serious and painful inflation.
But I do think that there were a lot of
moments where people kind of waved it away in the
first year or two, even just like the conversation about
it the focus. It is true that we had no
(13:37):
choice but to bring back the economy by any means necessary.
I mean, we forget how grave the threat of a
depression was in twenty twenty or twenty twenty one. I
mean when I came in, I spent a big part
of my time as Secretary of dealing with getting airlines
to treat their passengers better. You could almost forget that
the entire first year our biggest focus was making sure
airlines didnt go out of business. And that's just to
(13:58):
use the airline sector as the right So again a
lot by definition you set up this exercise. It's easy
to say now, but like since it is, those are
the things I'd be whispering into my twenty twenty year
if I had the chance, If I.
Speaker 2 (14:12):
Had to specify the three topics that I wrote about
the most from twenty twenty to twenty twenty five, that
would be opening the schools, the border, and how people
were suffering with the economy even though we quote unquote
were not in a recession and things were you know,
(14:33):
technically going. Well, so welcome pee boota judge to the
Carol Markowitz brand of conservativism. We're really glad to have
you here, and we'll accept you on normally as one
of our own.
Speaker 1 (14:48):
Right, not so fast. I didn't. Part of what he
misses here in this discussion, particularly with all three of them,
is they've done it deliberate. The opening schools was not
some like oh yeah, oh goodness, we oops, we tried
(15:10):
our best, because he, you know, he uses those weasel
words to say, these are people trying their best and
they needed a way to safely open schools. Perhaps that's
more forgivable than the inflationary spending and the border, both
of which were definitely on purpose. They were just like,
these are our values, open the border, spend four trillion dollars,
those are our values. Yeah, but their values also were
(15:33):
and the design of their party was made to give
Randy Wingarden and all of her teachers union buddies, oh yeah,
giant ransom in order to open the schools. And he
still says safely open. The answer was open. That that
was the whole answer. It was safe. It was right
(15:55):
in front of your eyes. And two things happened is
we demonized rational risk analysis, so you couldn't have anyone
else pop their head up and say, hey, by the way,
perhaps you're getting this wrong, because they were all like,
why do you want to kill all the teachers?
Speaker 2 (16:09):
Right? And then public school teachers, yeah, you know.
Speaker 1 (16:13):
And then we incentivized Winegarden by giving part of the
giant inflationary handouts to her for keeping schools closed. Congratulations everyone.
So like if you if you missed the part where
a lot of this was just known what they were
doing and it was on purpose and it was aligned
with their values, you don't get to just be like, oops,
(16:35):
you're gonna have to deal with that part. By the way,
someone noted that's husband said at the time something along
the lines of like, all these teachers are going to
be in the grave if this happens. And it's like, okay, well,
the rhetoric was coming from inside.
Speaker 2 (16:54):
The house, outside your house.
Speaker 1 (16:58):
There's already a flight risk of teachers fleeing the profession.
I don't want to see teachers leaving the profession. On
Gurney's that was a totally normal thing to say.
Speaker 4 (17:08):
Do you have a date on that.
Speaker 1 (17:10):
I don't know what the date was, Yeah, that was
July twenty twenty, but that was a normal thing to
say until twenty twenty one.
Speaker 4 (17:16):
Oh, yeah, for sure.
Speaker 3 (17:17):
No.
Speaker 2 (17:17):
The thing is, you know, we say July twenty twenty,
and it sounds it was early because America kept schools
closed for so long, schools were open in Europe.
Speaker 4 (17:26):
By July twenty twenty, there.
Speaker 2 (17:28):
Were schools open in various places in Europe, and the
idea like, oh, Europe was just doing it differently than us.
Speaker 4 (17:35):
No, they weren't. No, they weren't. And you know how
I know that because private.
Speaker 2 (17:38):
Schools opened in blue areas while public schools stayed closed.
The private school teachers did.
Speaker 1 (17:45):
Not die in mass they did not.
Speaker 2 (17:47):
You know, Governor Gavin Newsom sent his kids to an
open private school while public schools stayed closed in California,
and I swear I will never forget that as long
as I live.
Speaker 1 (17:58):
No, nor should you. He was eating at the French
laundry and sending his kids to private school. No, it
was just obvious the kids that the school that my
children currently go to is zero point five miles from
the public school that wasn't open for two years, and
it was open virtually the whole time. It closed during
the spring and went virtual, and then its parents were like, no,
(18:19):
we need and it's leadership. It was like, no, we
actually need to have these kids in school, and so
they did what was necessary to make that happen because
they were not run by wandy Winegarden. They were not
answerable to teacher genes. They were answerable to students and parents.
And it turned out that like that was a much
better solution that those kids didn't fall back, fall behind
(18:41):
and didn't get hurt nearly as much. There's a thing
about Footagage is good at talking Newsome's good at talking.
Anyone who's good at talking Republicans should be wary of
because they're pretty good at talking themselves around these issues
and sounding normal, right, And many people are so starved
for normal they're like, Okay, I'll listen to that guy, right,
(19:05):
But they're skipping the part in all of this where
you actually take accountability for the thing that went wrong.
I hear you that you would do things differently. How
would you do things differently? Who would you listen to?
Listen to me? Three people who were correct about schools,
who you would bring into your circle?
Speaker 4 (19:22):
Right? No, longer welcome on normally buddhage edge.
Speaker 1 (19:27):
But like I would Kay convince me, but I would
like to know. I don't want to disincentivize people admitting
this because it's important, but I would like to know,
moving forward, how would you change your little bubble so
that you get more information so that you don't make
this mistake in the future.
Speaker 4 (19:43):
Right, And it's hard.
Speaker 1 (19:44):
If your bubble's randy, it ain't gonna it ain't gonna go.
Speaker 4 (19:47):
And it is randy, it's still randy.
Speaker 2 (19:49):
But you know, it is interesting how we're giving credit
and I count myself in this to to buddhaj Edge
and to news some and to the abundance Democrats for
sounding like Republicans. That's all they're doing is saying Republican things.
(20:11):
And I'm in for them moving to the right, and
I'm in for them being more sane.
Speaker 4 (20:17):
But is this really where they're going.
Speaker 2 (20:19):
To end up when they when they're running in the
primary in a few years, are they going to stay
this person?
Speaker 1 (20:26):
I mean, I think it's going to be very hard.
Taylor Lorenzo's response to Budajem shows.
Speaker 2 (20:32):
That what did she say?
Speaker 4 (20:33):
I didn't see?
Speaker 1 (20:34):
Oh, she says he's participating in right wing eugenics to
even suggest that they should have opened schools.
Speaker 2 (20:41):
I mean, it's wild, right, Well, he's raw dogging that air,
so it.
Speaker 1 (20:45):
Is definitely, I mean, it's it's wild. There are some
pretty amazing dead enders on that side on this issue.
But look that the left flank of the party will
be yelling at you in those terms on Blue Sky
as soon as you start expressing those things in public,
and god forbid on blue Sky, where I hear people
(21:07):
just get abused in amazing ways over there for stepping
out of line. Yeah, they're going to get freaked out
as soon as that starts happening in.
Speaker 2 (21:15):
Mass That's it. That's the problem. They're going to have
to get those people on board and stay sane. And
I just don't see it. I know one of the
it's not about education. But one of the things that
I point out is that in twenty twenty, all of
the candidates raise their hands when they were asked if
their healthcare plan would cover illegal immigrants, and obviously right
(21:40):
all of them, one of them, And that is such
a bananas crazy thing to say, because if you're an
illegal immigrant to the country, you could have just got
here today on a plane, right, So why wouldn't everybody
come to America for the free healthcare that you all
raised your hands to offer them.
Speaker 4 (21:57):
Once you've gotten to.
Speaker 2 (21:58):
That place, I think it's very hard to retreat. And
so we'll see. We'll see in a few years whether
they're able to walk a more normal line or if
they'll be pressured into making insane statements like that on
a debate stage. We're going to take a short break
and come right back with normally.
Speaker 1 (22:18):
I wanted to run over this little contretemps on Twitter
today where Batia was talking to Mark Halprin and Bridget
Fetasy and she's Battia Unger Sagan, and she was noting
the dripping contempt for the uncredentialed at elite universities like
Harvard and Connor Friedersdorf, who's an Atlantic writer who's the
(22:40):
moderate centrist issue used to be a little bit right.
He demanded proof that elite university alum and attendees were
dripping with contempt for the credentials Alli and it's like
it's one of those things like masks for two year olds,
where it's like, do we even need to make a
(23:01):
case for this like it's just it's just out there
for everyone to see. Nonetheless, I thought the school argument
was a good place to point out to Connor that
like everyone who was non credentialed, non scientists, non educators,
amateur statisticians, were one hundred percent right about this vital
(23:23):
issue that allegedly was very important to Democrats. You know,
public schools. They're very into that.
Speaker 4 (23:27):
They care a lot.
Speaker 1 (23:28):
They care so much about the people who are economically
disadvantaged and behind academically to begin with, right, so they
want a really important issue to them. Nonetheless, the rhetoric
the entire time was outrageous. I would say, dripping with
contempt for sure. In Alexandria and nearby here the school
board school board member just said like, well you can
choose do you want your kids educated or dead? Like
(23:51):
that was the.
Speaker 2 (23:51):
Time the two options was then you went to private school.
Speaker 1 (23:56):
This is the way they talk to parents. The results
were bad. People still haven't reckoned with it. Many of
those people have been promoted and are working in academia now,
still having contempt for all of us who were correct.
And I can barely read David Swyge's book because it
makes me so angry all over again. But this kind
of credentialism will plague them throughout their civil war that
(24:21):
they're going to have to have, and they're going to
have to find smart people who understand that people outside
of Harvard can be smart.
Speaker 2 (24:30):
Yeah, it's going to be a tough sell.
Speaker 1 (24:33):
Are we going to find those? And speaking of.
Speaker 4 (24:35):
Harvard, Yeah, what's going on in Harvard?
Speaker 1 (24:37):
Oh my gosh. Our friends at Not the Bee said like,
this is the reason that not the Bee exists for
this headline, which is Harvard professor fired for being dishonest
in study about honesty. Amazing, So she was this lady
was paid a million dollars a year. Don't study.
Speaker 4 (24:58):
We're in the wrong field.
Speaker 2 (25:00):
A million dollars for study.
Speaker 1 (25:02):
It's crazy. Million dollars a year to study ethics and honesty.
Harvard revoked the tenure. This is the Harvard crimson reporting
from Francesca Gino, the Harvard Business School professor who had
been fighting data fraud allegations for nearly four years and
ended her employment at the university last week. A Harvard
spokesman set spokesmans set as you can imagine, having seen
the behavior of tenured professors at Harvard, up until now.
(25:25):
This is pretty hard to get fired there. The move
concluded Gino's two year battle to keep her position at
the school and marked a historic penalty for a faculty
member at Harvard. No professor has been known to lose
their tenure since the nineteen forties. She was a behavioral
scientist who became famous for studying honesty and ethical behavior,
but she was accused of manipulating observations to better support
(25:47):
her conclusions. She was you might have Maine. You won't
be surprised Carol to find out. Despite all of this,
she was a prominent researcher in her field and the
highest paid employee at Harvard in twenty eighteen and nineteen.
Because the credentials don't actually matter. What is Yeah, this
is what the lack of trust and institutions comes from.
(26:08):
And it is deserved. It is deserved.
Speaker 2 (26:12):
Yeah. People in that article, uh not the bee they were.
People were asking Roc to explain it in simple terms,
and Rock would explain in simple terms. But there was
one really good explain this to me and caveman Uga
booga speak and Rock said Uga booga. Smart woman Francesca
make number stories at big school Harvard.
Speaker 4 (26:34):
So We'll say she cheat, change number to lie.
Speaker 2 (26:37):
They kick her out, say no more teach Francesca med
say me no cheat. She fights school with big law talks.
Speaker 4 (26:43):
Say they mean to women.
Speaker 2 (26:44):
Number checkers outside school also say her story is fake,
but Francesca keeps saying she true want court to fix
big fights.
Speaker 4 (26:52):
Still go Nobody's sure?
Speaker 5 (26:53):
Who right?
Speaker 2 (26:54):
Uga booga truth pre find you know.
Speaker 1 (26:59):
What all news updates should be in that? Can we
just I usually now on.
Speaker 2 (27:06):
Fully agree, and I think we should have an Ooga
booga section on normally.
Speaker 1 (27:11):
Perhaps we could just feed it into the old AI
and read it to you guys. Look, I'm glad that
she's actually paying a price that seems to rarely happen
and is actually the path toward regaining trust. Yeah, but
this one's a real doozy lying about your ethics research
quite is.
Speaker 4 (27:27):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (27:28):
I hope she does not win the twenty five million
that she's trying to win for saying that Harvard is sexist.
Speaker 4 (27:34):
But you just never know what these court cases.
Speaker 1 (27:37):
Usually the bad people are rewarded, so I'm guessing she's
probably gonna win a nice junk of change.
Speaker 4 (27:42):
Again, what are we doing here?
Speaker 2 (27:44):
Mary Catherine Man differently.
Speaker 3 (27:47):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (27:47):
Perfect, Yeah, if.
Speaker 1 (27:49):
You want to send an ideas, feel free.
Speaker 2 (27:52):
Well, thanks for joining us on normally. Normally airs Tuesdays
and Thursdays, and you could subscribe anywhere you get your podcast.
Speaker 4 (28:00):
Thanks to get in touch with us at normally theepod
at gmail dot com.
Speaker 2 (28:03):
Thanks for listening and when things get weird, act normally
Hey, guys, we are back on normally to show normal
it takes. But when the news gets weird.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
I'm not half of him, and I am Carol Marco.
It's hi, Mary Catherine.
Speaker 3 (00:10):
How are you.
Speaker 1 (00:11):
I'm all right. It's the end of the school year,
and you know that, like just everything stacks up, stacks up,
stacks up, so running around, but good things.
Speaker 4 (00:19):
Are good, all right?
Speaker 2 (00:20):
Yeah, do you have a lot of like they have
all those days, like you dress up like this today
and like.
Speaker 1 (00:26):
Yeah, they have like end of the year parties and
end of the year ceremonies and in the year performances and.
Speaker 2 (00:32):
Yes, yes, yes to all that. I had to buy
napkins for my youngest son's class party. I always choose napkins. Yes,
I am that mom.
Speaker 4 (00:43):
But I was.
Speaker 2 (00:45):
Very pleased to learn that grown ups were not invited
to that party, something I only learned this morning.
Speaker 1 (00:53):
So yeah, we love a drop It's great. We love
a drop off. When they get old enough for the
drop off, I'm like, go forth, children and enjoy.
Speaker 4 (01:01):
Have so much fun. So elon Musk.
Speaker 2 (01:06):
We haven't talked about him in a while, ever since
our number one fan. My husband said that we were
talking about him too much. See we respond, Yeah, we're
very responsive to listener needs, especially if I sleep with you.
Speaker 1 (01:25):
There you go.
Speaker 2 (01:26):
Well, yeah, he thought we were doing too much Doge.
And then Doge itself stopped being in the news so much,
so we stopped talking about it as much. But it's
still happening. They're still dozing away and Elon Musk is on.
Speaker 4 (01:42):
He's going to be on I believe.
Speaker 2 (01:45):
A Sunday show this weekend, and he is not thrilled
with the Big Beautiful Bill.
Speaker 4 (01:53):
We have this clip for our listeners.
Speaker 5 (01:56):
I was like disappointed to see the massive spending bill, frankly,
which increases the bunch depths that not doesn't decrease it,
and that reminds the work that the Noge team is doing.
Speaker 2 (02:09):
I actually thought that when this big Beautiful Bill came along.
I mean, like everything he's done on Doge gets wiped
out in the first year.
Speaker 5 (02:16):
I think, I think a bill can be can be
can be big, or it can be beautiful, but I
don't know if it could be both.
Speaker 4 (02:24):
Same same agree.
Speaker 2 (02:25):
I like some things in the Big Beautiful Bill, like
the tax cuts. I feel like there's also this sense
online that if you criticize the bill, then.
Speaker 4 (02:33):
You don't like the tax cuts.
Speaker 2 (02:35):
No, I like the tax cuts.
Speaker 4 (02:36):
I just don't like a lot of the other stuff.
Speaker 1 (02:39):
Well, and people who criticize Elon will lump the tax
cuts in as a cost as spending. Just spending, maintaining
the tax codes for people as they are is preventing
a giant tax hike on them and must be done.
The government has a spending problem. It does not have
a collect money from us problem, exactly.
Speaker 2 (03:01):
So Stephen Miller, who is an advisor to Trump, he
had this.
Speaker 4 (03:06):
I'm going to I'm going to read.
Speaker 2 (03:07):
It's kind of a long tweet, but I feel like
it does a good job explaining some stuff that I
don't think is clear to some people. DOGE cuts are too.
Speaker 4 (03:16):
Discretionary spending e g.
Speaker 2 (03:18):
The federal bureaucracy under send a budget rules, you cannot
cannot cut discretionary spending, only mandatory in a reconciliation bill.
So DOGE cuts would have to be done through what
is known as recisions package or an appropriations bill. I'm
not going to read the rest, but you get that right.
Speaker 1 (03:35):
So those Yeah, reconciliation is a very specific process and
basically no one except for the parliamentary and understands what
can go in this bill, right, I'm willing to give
some leeway. I understand that, in order to maintain the
tax package from twenty seventeen and not give everybody a
giant tex hyke, that this bill was probably going to
get big and obnoxious. I understood.
Speaker 2 (03:57):
Yeah. The fact that dog cuts have to happen through
the recision package though, and apparently that requires a letter
from the President with the instructions to what recisions he wants.
As of this recording, no.
Speaker 4 (04:12):
Letter has been sent.
Speaker 2 (04:14):
So if anybody wants to be mad at spending, I'm
afraid the book stops with the President on this one.
Speaker 1 (04:21):
Well, and Speaker Johnson has also signaled today, given that
people are upset about this, that they would he would
move to consider this quickly. I do think that so
the President is welcome to write it, and I think
it sounds like he would he would be on that.
But I do worry that, like, you know, how much
(04:43):
do they actually have time for and actually complete during
this basically first year that you have to do things.
I think they're looking at possibly getting this big, beautiful
bill through the Senate, probably big leer by the time
it will be big by maybe July, or like keeping
(05:05):
people until the August recess and trying to do it
by then. So you got to have steam to get
the other stuff done and not have ticked off everybody
while doing the big bill.
Speaker 4 (05:15):
It's quite a tough process.
Speaker 2 (05:17):
Eric Erickson clarified a little bit about the recision letter.
He tweeted, if Congress does it without a decision letter
from the President, it follows the normal process and is
subject to the filibuster. If the President sends a letter,
it follows the Impoundment Control Act of nineteen seventy four
and bypasses a Senate filibuster. It's so confusing to the
(05:39):
average person, like recision letters and filibusters. It's really not
a process that we should be proud of.
Speaker 1 (05:48):
No, it's on one hand, it's supposed to be tough
to get stuff through the Congress, so I like that.
Right when Democrats were blithely like, let's just get rid
of the filibuster, a move which they would definitely regretting
had they done it right now when they wanted to
get rid of it, dumb dumbs. Yeah, I was like, no,
(06:08):
because the bar is supposed to be high, for passing things,
but it does sometimes end up looking like in order
to pass the things, you got to make the things big.
Speaker 2 (06:20):
I do like that Elon is speaking out on this
because I think that they will listen to Elon in
a way that they won't listen to a lot of
other people. I don't know that they would even be
trying to minimize spending if it wasn't for Elon, I think,
and again, you know you and I have talked about
it on here before. Trump is a spender. This is
(06:42):
his impulse. Take care of everyone, you know, make sure
everyone is taking care of it is part of his message,
and that is.
Speaker 4 (06:52):
Not a conservative philosophy.
Speaker 2 (06:53):
So here we are with this big, not that beautiful
spending bill as he on side. It can be big
or beautiful, it cannot be both. Although, just to add
a little bit more to what Stephen Miller was saying,
he says it includes the single largest welfare reform in
American history, along with the largest tax cut and reform
(07:14):
in American history, the most aggressive energy exploration in American history,
and the strongest border bill in American history. But then
he adds all while reducing the deficit, and yeah, we'll
see about that one. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (07:29):
I also would say the Medicaid reforms, which the Democrats
are going to call cuts, is simply asking able bodied,
like totally normal aged people with no dependence to try
to work part time. That's the requirement rights. That's pretty normal.
Talk about an eighty twenty issue. There's one right there.
(07:50):
So Republicans should be sure to characterize it the proper
way as I hope they do. Yeah, because that's quite popular.
I also want to note the sort of undercovered was
that the Congress did accomplish something last week, which is
that they struck down a key aspect of the administration's
(08:11):
nationwide electric vehicle mandate under the Congressional Review Act. We
love to see it, not to see this was a
California invention, which, you know, why not nationalize all of
those because they're doing so great. A California innovation that
was to put all like thirty percent of new cars
would have had to be electric cars in like eleven
(08:32):
or twelve states, and then would expand to the rest
of US by like next year, and then at some
point it was supposed to phase out to zero gas
powered cars could be sold new in all these states.
People don't want this, Let the market do what the
market does. Let people have gas powered cars if they
want them, let them have choice, and to have this
(08:55):
be top down from the federal government as guided by
the writing life of California. No, thank you.
Speaker 2 (09:02):
Most most importantly, let Californians keep their Californian policies in California.
Speaker 1 (09:08):
Yes, no thank you about them, guys. I wish you
the best. Did you see the picture the other day
with Karen Bass, who's the mayor of Los Angeles. She
tweeted a picture overhead view of one house built in
the Palisades and was like, look at all the work
we're doing to build houses and cut red tape and
(09:30):
I was like, you're building house.
Speaker 4 (09:32):
It's amazing.
Speaker 2 (09:32):
Yeah, building built a house.
Speaker 4 (09:35):
That house.
Speaker 1 (09:36):
The number of permits is scandalously low that they have
managed to give, and it's just yet another example of
why exporting their way of doing things is not a
good idea.
Speaker 3 (09:45):
Right.
Speaker 2 (09:45):
Meanwhile, like Ron DeSantis has probably built like ten bridges
during that time period of that one house.
Speaker 4 (09:51):
So it's some days don't learn, No, they won't. They
won't learn. I don't know will they learn? Do you
think they'll learn? I don't think so.
Speaker 2 (10:01):
I think they'll just continue down this path. I don't
think abundance Democrats are going to win this.
Speaker 1 (10:07):
Well, this is the thing. It's causing this pretty big
rift in the Democratic Party. Jonathan Chate was writing in
The Atlantic quite sensibly that like, hey, if liberal cities
and liberal governance headed by progressives in places like Chicago
or LA does not give the people we were supposed
to give people better jobs, more housing, cheaper options, and
(10:29):
more prosperity, like, what are we doing? And I would say, yeah,
but as for quite a long time, what are you doing? Yeah,
But that's causing the progressives in the party to be like,
oh my gosh, they're trying to purge us and our
government for the sake of government. What are we going
to do now? So that's going to be the fight waging,
you know, into twenty twenty eight, and I think I'll
(10:50):
enjoy it.
Speaker 2 (10:51):
I agree with you that that will be their internal fight.
But I just wonder, like places like California or New York,
they have an appeal to people, and so they will
continue to draw in, you know, the twenty somethings who
are trying to make it even as it's just a true,
you know, dumpster fire all around. And so that's why
(11:14):
the lesson's so tough for them to learn, because they're like,
people still love us, look at this, you know.
Speaker 4 (11:21):
So I don't know, I don't know if.
Speaker 1 (11:22):
How do Democrats love to pivot from more government to
less government? Like that's not their brand, that's right, the
brand of the other guys. So even though they don't
do it half the time, I would love if they
did it more. Yeah, but how do you become Democrats
for less government?
Speaker 2 (11:39):
Well, it's like or any sane policies. Actually, this this
segs very nicely into our second topic.
Speaker 4 (11:45):
Will be right back on normally.
Speaker 2 (11:51):
Pete Bootage Edge went on the Bulwark podcast and was
asked he's been doing a media tour. I think in
Prepper of running in twenty eight he comes off as
rather sane in an insane party for sure.
Speaker 4 (12:08):
But you know, he was asked this question.
Speaker 2 (12:10):
What he would have done differently five years ago, and
this was his.
Speaker 3 (12:14):
Response, one, for the love of God, figure out a
way to get the schools open sooner. We got very
new knee jerk about this, and the costs were not
just politically but in a profound way. I think for
the generation, the costs were profound, and I think anybody
who's involved, who was, by the way, obviously doing their
best to deal with the crisis that killed million Americans,
(12:36):
But I think most people involved would like to be
able to have found a way to safely get more schools,
more open, more quickly.
Speaker 2 (12:42):
That was a great first answer. I had no idea where.
I mean, there's so many ways you could have gone
with that.
Speaker 3 (12:46):
But obviously pay more attention to the border. That's real,
and that's going to be something that you can't just
like take your time to deal with. Three, even though
you spent your entire political lifetime believing that the economy
and jobs are the same thing, and if you have
lots of jobs, it's a good economy, and if you
have a problem with jobs as a bad economy. Remember
(13:09):
that prices is just as big a part of the economy.
It just hasn't come up much in the last forty years.
Speaker 1 (13:14):
So what would you have done?
Speaker 4 (13:15):
What would you have donen differently on prices?
Speaker 3 (13:17):
Then no country was able to save their economy from
COVID without getting into some inflation, so serious and painful inflation.
But I do think that there were a lot of
moments where people kind of waved it away in the
first year or two, even just like the conversation about
it the focus. It is true that we had no
(13:37):
choice but to bring back the economy by any means necessary.
I mean, we forget how grave the threat of a
depression was in twenty twenty or twenty twenty one. I
mean when I came in, I spent a big part
of my time as Secretary of dealing with getting airlines
to treat their passengers better. You could almost forget that
the entire first year our biggest focus was making sure
airlines didnt go out of business. And that's just to
(13:58):
use the airline sector as the right So again a
lot by definition you set up this exercise. It's easy
to say now, but like since it is, those are
the things I'd be whispering into my twenty twenty year
if I had the chance, If I.
Speaker 2 (14:12):
Had to specify the three topics that I wrote about
the most from twenty twenty to twenty twenty five, that
would be opening the schools, the border, and how people
were suffering with the economy even though we quote unquote
were not in a recession and things were you know,
(14:33):
technically going. Well, so welcome pee boota judge to the
Carol Markowitz brand of conservativism. We're really glad to have
you here, and we'll accept you on normally as one
of our own.
Speaker 1 (14:48):
Right, not so fast. I didn't. Part of what he
misses here in this discussion, particularly with all three of them,
is they've done it deliberate. The opening schools was not
some like oh yeah, oh goodness, we oops, we tried
(15:10):
our best, because he, you know, he uses those weasel
words to say, these are people trying their best and
they needed a way to safely open schools. Perhaps that's
more forgivable than the inflationary spending and the border, both
of which were definitely on purpose. They were just like,
these are our values, open the border, spend four trillion dollars,
those are our values. Yeah, but their values also were
(15:33):
and the design of their party was made to give
Randy Wingarden and all of her teachers union buddies, oh yeah,
giant ransom in order to open the schools. And he
still says safely open. The answer was open. That that
was the whole answer. It was safe. It was right
(15:55):
in front of your eyes. And two things happened is
we demonized rational risk analysis, so you couldn't have anyone
else pop their head up and say, hey, by the way,
perhaps you're getting this wrong, because they were all like,
why do you want to kill all the teachers?
Speaker 2 (16:09):
Right? And then public school teachers, yeah, you know.
Speaker 1 (16:13):
And then we incentivized Winegarden by giving part of the
giant inflationary handouts to her for keeping schools closed. Congratulations everyone.
So like if you if you missed the part where
a lot of this was just known what they were
doing and it was on purpose and it was aligned
with their values, you don't get to just be like, oops,
(16:35):
you're gonna have to deal with that part. By the way,
someone noted that's husband said at the time something along
the lines of like, all these teachers are going to
be in the grave if this happens. And it's like, okay, well,
the rhetoric was coming from inside.
Speaker 2 (16:54):
The house, outside your house.
Speaker 1 (16:58):
There's already a flight risk of teachers fleeing the profession.
I don't want to see teachers leaving the profession. On
Gurney's that was a totally normal thing to say.
Speaker 4 (17:08):
Do you have a date on that.
Speaker 1 (17:10):
I don't know what the date was, Yeah, that was
July twenty twenty, but that was a normal thing to
say until twenty twenty one.
Speaker 4 (17:16):
Oh, yeah, for sure.
Speaker 3 (17:17):
No.
Speaker 2 (17:17):
The thing is, you know, we say July twenty twenty,
and it sounds it was early because America kept schools
closed for so long, schools were open in Europe.
Speaker 4 (17:26):
By July twenty twenty, there.
Speaker 2 (17:28):
Were schools open in various places in Europe, and the
idea like, oh, Europe was just doing it differently than us.
Speaker 4 (17:35):
No, they weren't. No, they weren't. And you know how
I know that because private.
Speaker 2 (17:38):
Schools opened in blue areas while public schools stayed closed.
The private school teachers did.
Speaker 1 (17:45):
Not die in mass they did not.
Speaker 2 (17:47):
You know, Governor Gavin Newsom sent his kids to an
open private school while public schools stayed closed in California,
and I swear I will never forget that as long
as I live.
Speaker 1 (17:58):
No, nor should you. He was eating at the French
laundry and sending his kids to private school. No, it
was just obvious the kids that the school that my
children currently go to is zero point five miles from
the public school that wasn't open for two years, and
it was open virtually the whole time. It closed during
the spring and went virtual, and then its parents were like, no,
(18:19):
we need and it's leadership. It was like, no, we
actually need to have these kids in school, and so
they did what was necessary to make that happen because
they were not run by wandy Winegarden. They were not
answerable to teacher genes. They were answerable to students and parents.
And it turned out that like that was a much
better solution that those kids didn't fall back, fall behind
(18:41):
and didn't get hurt nearly as much. There's a thing
about Footagage is good at talking Newsome's good at talking.
Anyone who's good at talking Republicans should be wary of
because they're pretty good at talking themselves around these issues
and sounding normal, right, And many people are so starved
for normal they're like, Okay, I'll listen to that guy, right,
(19:05):
But they're skipping the part in all of this where
you actually take accountability for the thing that went wrong.
I hear you that you would do things differently. How
would you do things differently? Who would you listen to?
Listen to me? Three people who were correct about schools,
who you would bring into your circle?
Speaker 4 (19:22):
Right? No, longer welcome on normally buddhage edge.
Speaker 1 (19:27):
But like I would Kay convince me, but I would
like to know. I don't want to disincentivize people admitting
this because it's important, but I would like to know,
moving forward, how would you change your little bubble so
that you get more information so that you don't make
this mistake in the future.
Speaker 4 (19:43):
Right, And it's hard.
Speaker 1 (19:44):
If your bubble's randy, it ain't gonna it ain't gonna go.
Speaker 4 (19:47):
And it is randy, it's still randy.
Speaker 2 (19:49):
But you know, it is interesting how we're giving credit
and I count myself in this to to buddhaj Edge
and to news some and to the abundance Democrats for
sounding like Republicans. That's all they're doing is saying Republican things.
(20:11):
And I'm in for them moving to the right, and
I'm in for them being more sane.
Speaker 4 (20:17):
But is this really where they're going.
Speaker 2 (20:19):
To end up when they when they're running in the
primary in a few years, are they going to stay
this person?
Speaker 1 (20:26):
I mean, I think it's going to be very hard.
Taylor Lorenzo's response to Budajem shows.
Speaker 2 (20:32):
That what did she say?
Speaker 4 (20:33):
I didn't see?
Speaker 1 (20:34):
Oh, she says he's participating in right wing eugenics to
even suggest that they should have opened schools.
Speaker 2 (20:41):
I mean, it's wild, right, Well, he's raw dogging that air,
so it.
Speaker 1 (20:45):
Is definitely, I mean, it's it's wild. There are some
pretty amazing dead enders on that side on this issue.
But look that the left flank of the party will
be yelling at you in those terms on Blue Sky
as soon as you start expressing those things in public,
and god forbid on blue Sky, where I hear people
(21:07):
just get abused in amazing ways over there for stepping
out of line. Yeah, they're going to get freaked out
as soon as that starts happening in.
Speaker 2 (21:15):
Mass That's it. That's the problem. They're going to have
to get those people on board and stay sane. And
I just don't see it. I know one of the
it's not about education. But one of the things that
I point out is that in twenty twenty, all of
the candidates raise their hands when they were asked if
their healthcare plan would cover illegal immigrants, and obviously right
(21:40):
all of them, one of them, And that is such
a bananas crazy thing to say, because if you're an
illegal immigrant to the country, you could have just got
here today on a plane, right, So why wouldn't everybody
come to America for the free healthcare that you all
raised your hands to offer them.
Speaker 4 (21:57):
Once you've gotten to.
Speaker 2 (21:58):
That place, I think it's very hard to retreat. And
so we'll see. We'll see in a few years whether
they're able to walk a more normal line or if
they'll be pressured into making insane statements like that on
a debate stage. We're going to take a short break
and come right back with normally.
Speaker 1 (22:18):
I wanted to run over this little contretemps on Twitter
today where Batia was talking to Mark Halprin and Bridget
Fetasy and she's Battia Unger Sagan, and she was noting
the dripping contempt for the uncredentialed at elite universities like
Harvard and Connor Friedersdorf, who's an Atlantic writer who's the
(22:40):
moderate centrist issue used to be a little bit right.
He demanded proof that elite university alum and attendees were
dripping with contempt for the credentials Alli and it's like
it's one of those things like masks for two year olds,
where it's like, do we even need to make a
(23:01):
case for this like it's just it's just out there
for everyone to see. Nonetheless, I thought the school argument
was a good place to point out to Connor that
like everyone who was non credentialed, non scientists, non educators,
amateur statisticians, were one hundred percent right about this vital
(23:23):
issue that allegedly was very important to Democrats. You know,
public schools. They're very into that.
Speaker 4 (23:27):
They care a lot.
Speaker 1 (23:28):
They care so much about the people who are economically
disadvantaged and behind academically to begin with, right, so they
want a really important issue to them. Nonetheless, the rhetoric
the entire time was outrageous. I would say, dripping with
contempt for sure. In Alexandria and nearby here the school
board school board member just said like, well you can
choose do you want your kids educated or dead? Like
(23:51):
that was the.
Speaker 2 (23:51):
Time the two options was then you went to private school.
Speaker 1 (23:56):
This is the way they talk to parents. The results
were bad. People still haven't reckoned with it. Many of
those people have been promoted and are working in academia now,
still having contempt for all of us who were correct.
And I can barely read David Swyge's book because it
makes me so angry all over again. But this kind
of credentialism will plague them throughout their civil war that
(24:21):
they're going to have to have, and they're going to
have to find smart people who understand that people outside
of Harvard can be smart.
Speaker 2 (24:30):
Yeah, it's going to be a tough sell.
Speaker 1 (24:33):
Are we going to find those? And speaking of.
Speaker 4 (24:35):
Harvard, Yeah, what's going on in Harvard?
Speaker 1 (24:37):
Oh my gosh. Our friends at Not the Bee said like,
this is the reason that not the Bee exists for
this headline, which is Harvard professor fired for being dishonest
in study about honesty. Amazing, So she was this lady
was paid a million dollars a year. Don't study.
Speaker 4 (24:58):
We're in the wrong field.
Speaker 2 (25:00):
A million dollars for study.
Speaker 1 (25:02):
It's crazy. Million dollars a year to study ethics and honesty.
Harvard revoked the tenure. This is the Harvard crimson reporting
from Francesca Gino, the Harvard Business School professor who had
been fighting data fraud allegations for nearly four years and
ended her employment at the university last week. A Harvard
spokesman set spokesmans set as you can imagine, having seen
the behavior of tenured professors at Harvard, up until now.
(25:25):
This is pretty hard to get fired there. The move
concluded Gino's two year battle to keep her position at
the school and marked a historic penalty for a faculty
member at Harvard. No professor has been known to lose
their tenure since the nineteen forties. She was a behavioral
scientist who became famous for studying honesty and ethical behavior,
but she was accused of manipulating observations to better support
(25:47):
her conclusions. She was you might have Maine. You won't
be surprised Carol to find out. Despite all of this,
she was a prominent researcher in her field and the
highest paid employee at Harvard in twenty eighteen and nineteen.
Because the credentials don't actually matter. What is Yeah, this
is what the lack of trust and institutions comes from.
(26:08):
And it is deserved. It is deserved.
Speaker 2 (26:12):
Yeah. People in that article, uh not the bee they were.
People were asking Roc to explain it in simple terms,
and Rock would explain in simple terms. But there was
one really good explain this to me and caveman Uga
booga speak and Rock said Uga booga. Smart woman Francesca
make number stories at big school Harvard.
Speaker 4 (26:34):
So We'll say she cheat, change number to lie.
Speaker 2 (26:37):
They kick her out, say no more teach Francesca med
say me no cheat. She fights school with big law talks.
Speaker 4 (26:43):
Say they mean to women.
Speaker 2 (26:44):
Number checkers outside school also say her story is fake,
but Francesca keeps saying she true want court to fix
big fights.
Speaker 4 (26:52):
Still go Nobody's sure?
Speaker 5 (26:53):
Who right?
Speaker 2 (26:54):
Uga booga truth pre find you know.
Speaker 1 (26:59):
What all news updates should be in that? Can we
just I usually now on.
Speaker 2 (27:06):
Fully agree, and I think we should have an Ooga
booga section on normally.
Speaker 1 (27:11):
Perhaps we could just feed it into the old AI
and read it to you guys. Look, I'm glad that
she's actually paying a price that seems to rarely happen
and is actually the path toward regaining trust. Yeah, but
this one's a real doozy lying about your ethics research
quite is.
Speaker 4 (27:27):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (27:28):
I hope she does not win the twenty five million
that she's trying to win for saying that Harvard is sexist.
Speaker 4 (27:34):
But you just never know what these court cases.
Speaker 1 (27:37):
Usually the bad people are rewarded, so I'm guessing she's
probably gonna win a nice junk of change.
Speaker 4 (27:42):
Again, what are we doing here?
Speaker 2 (27:44):
Mary Catherine Man differently.
Speaker 3 (27:47):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (27:47):
Perfect, Yeah, if.
Speaker 1 (27:49):
You want to send an ideas, feel free.
Speaker 2 (27:52):
Well, thanks for joining us on normally. Normally airs Tuesdays
and Thursdays, and you could subscribe anywhere you get your podcast.
Speaker 4 (28:00):
Thanks to get in touch with us at normally theepod
at gmail dot com.
Speaker 2 (28:03):
Thanks for listening and when things get weird, act normally
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show News
Hosts And Creators
Clay Travis
Buck Sexton
Show Links
WebsiteNewsletterPopular Podcasts
Boysober
Have you ever wondered what life might be like if you stopped worrying about being wanted, and focused on understanding what you actually want? That was the question Hope Woodard asked herself after a string of situationships inspired her to take a break from sex and dating. She went "boysober," a personal concept that sparked a global movement among women looking to prioritize themselves over men. Now, Hope is looking to expand the ways we explore our relationship to relationships. Taking a bold, unfiltered look into modern love, romance, and self-discovery, Boysober will dive into messy stories about dating, sex, love, friendship, and breaking generational patterns—all with humor, vulnerability, and a fresh perspective.
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com