Fresno Fights Trump Over DEI Cuts

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
This is one of those stories that's a little hard
to sink my teeth into having like a day job
and doing this on the side. However, there is brew haha,
brew haha federal lawsuit brewjaja happening right now where the
City of Fresno has joined another of a number of

(00:22):
other jurisdictions from northern California, including I believe, the County
of Sacramento and the City of Eureka to sue the
Trump administration. This with the full throated support of Jerry Dyer,
and it seems to have the support of the city
council as well. About the Trump administration putting conditions on

(00:44):
certain kinds of federal grants that the city is receiving
or due to receive. Federal grants for various kinds of
housing and transportation related things, including money for the airport.
The Trump administration has imposed a bunch of requirements relating

(01:06):
to DEI and various kinds of equity requirements. Basically some
of the grant language that the City of Fresno has
used for getting these grants, it's just loaded with DEI stuff,
loaded with DEI crap. And the position that the Trump

(01:31):
administration has taken fundamentally, is that dei is unlawful. That
dei as it is, as that term of art is
utilized in practiced, necessarily involves violations of federal law and
involves violations of the Federal Civil Rights Acts. So let

(01:53):
me explain what I mean the whole concept of equity
as it has been used in twenty twenties political parlance. Okay,
twenty tens to twenty twenties political parlance. If you look
up the definition of the word equity in a dictionary,
it means something fairly similar to equality, something you know,

(02:16):
giving to everyone what is their due, or you know,
something like that. But that's not what equity means equity
in modern day political discourse, equity has a certain kind
of term of art, meaning that came out of academia
and has infiltrated politics and public policy. Equity means a

(02:38):
kind of equality of outcomes, not an equality of opportunity.
That's what equality means, everyone has an equal opportunity. Equity
means a forced mandated equality of outcomes, meaning that you
give greater opportunities to certain people than you do to others.

(03:00):
I mean, you treat people differently on the basis of
certain kinds of statuses. An equity approach to, for example,
criminal law enforcement takes a microscopic view of a magnifying
glass view of crime statistics and says, well, if we're

(03:26):
arresting or prosecuting or convicting black people in a way
that's disproportionate to their share of the population, this is
a violation of equity. The only explanation is that there's
racism somewhere in the system, and an equity based approach

(03:50):
to criminal justice is to not prosecute some of those crimes,
or do not police some of those crimes, to do
something to game the system to achieve equality of outcomes.
If African American populations have worse health outcomes in this
or that area, or Latinos have worse outcome health outcomes

(04:10):
in this or that area, then bym by golly, we
got to do something different with our distribution of health care.
Healthcare equity, we give preferential healthcare treatment to black people.
Some of this happened in a few places with COVID. Well,
we're going to offer COVID to black people first? Why, Well,

(04:33):
because of the historic injustices they've experienced. Okay, that makes
no sense. You're just and what you see is happening
is that this equity approach is flatly illegal. It's flatly
in contrast with long standing, well established principles of American law,

(04:55):
as expressed in the Fourteenth Amendment's equal Protection Clause and
the various civil rights acts pasted at the federal level
and at all the state levels, which are all structured
like this, there shall be no discrimination against persons on
the basis of and then you have a laundry list

(05:20):
of categories race, sex, national origin, this, that the other.
That's how the federal Civil Rights Acts are structured. Businesses
are not allowed to engage in discrimination in the customers
they serve on the basis of and then you get
a laundry list of categories on the basis of which

(05:41):
businesses aren't allowed to discriminate. And the thing is, the
way they're structured is they are genuinely color blind. If
you just read the Civil Rights Acts as they are written. Okay, well,
let's let's take the example of a grocery store. All right,
this was the common, bad, horrible outcome of Jim Crow

(06:04):
era laws in the South. Here's a grocery store and
it says we're not serving black people. Black people can
go to a different grocery store. The federal Civil Rights
Acts or the various kinds of civil rights acts stopped
grocery stores from doing that. It said businesses may not

(06:25):
discriminate in their operation of their businesses on the basis
of race. End of story. The you know Jim Crow
era racist against black people, Southern grocery store is no
longer allowed to say no black people. However, that same

(06:45):
law applied the exact same way would work in the reverse.
Let's suppose there's a black run grocery store and they
have a sign up in the window that's say that
says we don't serve white people. Now that's not super plausible,

(07:06):
but why don't we do something like, I don't know
a Middle Eastern grocery store with a sign up that
says we don't serve Jews, a Jewish deli that says
we don't serve Palestinians. You know, an Armenian bakery that
says we don't serve Azaris and a Zari. I don't
know a food place that says we don't serve Armenians.

(07:27):
Whatever it is, whatever your combo of racial classifications is
it doesn't matter if you're white, it doesn't matter if
you're black, it doesn't matter if you belong to a
racial group that has experienced historic oppression or not. The
federal Civil Rights Acts and the various state level civil
rights acts, they don't care. They're just structured as don't

(07:48):
discriminate on the basis of race, end of story. Don't
do it. Don't discriminate against white people, don't discriminate. We're
dealing with this in the level of college admissions, where
affirmative action, which is the Supreme Court is pretty much
effectively put the kibosh on doing it legally. I'm sure
universities are still trying to find, by hook or by

(08:09):
crook ways to continue racially discriminating without being caught. But
that was the whole idea of affirmative action was we're
actively discriminating against white and Asian applicants to get some
better results. And for some people, for some reason, people thought, well,

(08:33):
you know, you're just discriminating against white people, and so
you're helping out black people. Discrimination to help out black people,
Well that would be fine. You know, in the back
in the old days, in Jim Crow, the discrimination was
hurting black people, but today the discrimination's helping black people.
So it's okay, No, that's not how the Civil Rights
Acts are worded. That's not if Look, if the people

(08:56):
who drafted the Civil Rights Acts wanted a system to
allow for affirmative discrimination in favor of black people, well
they would have worded the Civil Rights Acts that way.
They didn't. They just say no discrimination on the basis
of race. End of story. Because and then that that's

(09:17):
the ridiculous thing is that this affirmative action it gets
to a point of discriminating against white people, but also
in college admissions, it wound up discriminating against Asians who look,
I mean the I'm not saying the experience of Asian
Americans in the United States was it wasn't worse than

(09:39):
the experience of African Americans. Okay, there wasn't a several
hundred years tradition of enslaving the Chinese or the Japanese
or something. But it's not like the Asians had like
the easiest time in the United States. I'd say that
they had about as difficult a time in the United
States as Latinos did. For some reason, Latinos are a

(10:01):
protected class that receives various kinds of race based preferential
treatment in it, or there's a desire to provide them
with race based preferential treatment. Why in college admissions are
we allowed to discriminate against Asians but not to discriminate
against Latinos. Well, the Supreme Court came down and said
you're not allowed to You're not allowed to discriminate against,

(10:23):
for or against anybody. So that that fundamental bedrock principle
of American anti discrimination law was always in tension with
these new fangled liberal efforts at equity, at diversity, equity

(10:45):
and inclusion. The anti racist thrust of DEI measures was
as follows, we affirmatively discriminate in favor of black people
against white people today to correct discrimination in favor of

(11:07):
white people and against black people that happened yesterday in
times past. That's the whole thrust of DEI is giving
preferential treatment to whatever kind of minority group we are
somewhat artificially fashioning, whether that's LGBT people. Also, how how

(11:31):
uh how officially do you do you get inducted into
LGBT land. No, you're a girl who gets drunk one
night and makes out with one other girl. That then
then you're a protected class legally, we're gonna treat you
as a legally protected class. Had one experimental phase in college.

(11:54):
I mean you can see. I mean you might think
I'm being flippant here, but like, if we're going to
say LGBT person are some kind of protected class that
deserves a special kind of treatment legally, then how you
qualify someone as a member of that class is a
fairly important thing. I mean that that also has to
do with race. If we're going to do things like

(12:15):
affirmative action in favor of African Americans, uh legal legally
preferable treatment towards African Americans or Latinos, well, how African
American do you have to be? Or if you're one
quarter African American, does that count? If you're half does
that count? Like again, this seems flippant, but do you

(12:36):
qualify or not? It's a that's a legal question. So
these city grants have a lot of this equity language
in them. They're grants that the city applied for got
got secured in the Biden era when that sort of

(12:56):
thing was in vogue, not viewed as a thing, and the
Trump administration is trying to stop it. Now. I guess
this is the point where I wish I had kind
of all day to sink my teeth into this. I

(13:25):
wish I had all day to sink my teeth into this.
You know, the complaint, the legal complaint, the legal pleading
from the City of Fresno is this big, long thing,
and it's basically it's basically the grants of the City
of Fresno applied for include a lot of this Dei language.
It includes this Dei language and a lot of factors.

(13:46):
The Trump administration was telling Fresno, you need to get
rid of all this Dei language before we give you
this money. Fresno's taking the position of well, the this
is to sudden, We're not sure sure that you, the
Trump administration, have authority to do this, because this money
has already been allocated by Congress. We're not sure that you,

(14:08):
the Trump administration, have authority to demand that we remove
all this language. We need this money for different things.
But even as I'm reading some of the things that
the city is talking about, the city is not willing
or wanting to change. Some of these things include the

(14:29):
stuff like health equity, particularly focusing healthcare efforts on disadvantaged communities,
giving priority to certain people, Well, if you're talking about
a category that you're allowed to discriminate on, for example,
if you try to provide preferential healthcare treatment programs on
the basis of income income, household income is not a

(14:54):
category that's protected by the Civil Rights Acts. Yes, you're
allowed to focus certain kinds of social programs to particularly
assist those who are poor. That that's a perfectly legitimate
grounds to discriminate on. But if you're talking about equity
for particular disadvantaged peoples, and you're talking about providing that

(15:16):
to people on the basis of the fact that they
are African American, first, well, there could be a problem
with that that, oh, this is just a government program
for black people, this is just a government program for Latinos. Well,
then that's not really equity. That that is not equal.

(15:39):
There's something there that could be violating federal law. So
I guess here's my concern. On the one side, here's
Jerry Dyer suing the Trump administration over this. Rather than Jerry,
why not just accede to this these wishes? Why not,

(16:01):
excuse me, why not just exceede to the Trump administration's
wishes here, why not remove these references to DEI stuff?
Why do you want to keep that in? I guess
from where I'm standing, the Trump administration is saying, facially,
we think DEI stuff violates federal law. And as a result,

(16:30):
so whatever appropriation Congress may have made, they can't do
that that. They can't whatever appropriation Congress may have made,
it has to be interpreted as being consistent with federal law,
with the fourteenth Amendment and its equal protection clause. So

(16:51):
we don't care what Congress allocated, you can't spend it
on DEI stuff because the whole modern day term of
our notion dei inherently means stuff that violates federal law.
I don't know why Jerry Dyer would say, Ah, you know,
I agree with the President that that's not how federal

(17:13):
programs should be run. I believe in equality, not equity,
And frankly, it's another kind of disappointing thing about Mayor Dier.
When we return my sort of theory of Jerry Dyer
the perfect rolesy and politician that's next on the John
Gerardi Show. One thing I like to say, having been

(17:36):
a philosophy major and then studied philosophy at a graduate level.
A lot of people would say that they don't care
about philosophy, or they don't even understand what it is,
or it's not an important thing. It seems like a
subject that you completely waste your time on if you
study it in college. And this is the thing with philosophy.

(17:58):
Philosophy is to human life what water is to fish.
It's something that actually completely surrounds your structures of how
you think about the world, about existence. So many of
them are premised on certain kind of philosophical presuppositions that
you don't even think about, that you're not even really questioning. Again,

(18:21):
it's as ubiquitous to you as water is to a fish.
A fish doesn't really It might not necessarily realize, ah, yes,
I am entirely dependent on water. My existence is surrounded
by water. He might sort of take it for granted
and just think, well, this is just the way the
world is. Well, you know, for us non aquatic beings,
it isn't. I feel like Jerry Dyer's kind of one

(18:42):
of those people. Dire came into office as a pretty
explicitly avowedly publicly I'd say proudly non ideological person. He's
not a hardcore partisan in any sense. I think he'd

(19:03):
tell you that. And so much of his governorship sort
of seems of excuse me, of his mayorship, mayor raality,
whatever his time as mayor, it seemed to me to
be this very Rawlesian things. John Rawls was very influential

(19:29):
political philosopher in the twentieth century who sort of looked
at the art of governing as basically a sort of
technocratic work of where sort of all the decisive questions
were answered by basic premises of liberalism and sort of

(19:51):
would exclude ideological social conservatism. I guess from anything having
to do with the role of governing that that governance
is this totally non ideological thing. The problem is that
the premises from which Raws operates are very left wing,
and so it takes the presuppositions of liberalism to their
logical extremes, and it sort of manifests itself in the

(20:16):
character of say dire Asdyer wants his time as mayor
to be about building roads and building airports and getting
infrastructure for Fresno and filling potholes. He doesn't want to
be fighting with people over ideological things. Well, the problem
is that ideological things happen. Ideological things are all around you,

(20:39):
and you have to take a certain ideological side. As Dire
learned with the whole Pride flag thing, he had to
ultimately throw in his lot with the LGBT movement and
these DEI initiatives where basically City of Fresno applied for

(21:00):
all these federal grants through housing and urban development, all
these federal grants. They're getting all this federal money to
help build up the airport, to do this, that and
the other. And now the Trump administration is saying, hey,
these grants have a lot of stuff about DEI in them,
Your grand applications a lot of stuff about DEI, and

(21:20):
you need to get rid of it because we think
DEI fundamentally violates federal law in all these different ways.
And Dier said, well, no, I don't want to do
that because he thinks that that would screw things up.
And then he doesn't get money for his airport. So
I don't know what it is. If this is purely

(21:42):
from Dire. I just need money for my airport and
this Trump thing is holding it up, or if it's
just why not just comply with these Trump demands? Why
not why not just get rid of these DEI requirements
and get that money secured. Why are we spending the

(22:04):
city's time and energy to fight this in federal court?
And of course we're joining a lawsuit that's in the
Northern District of California, which we know is going to
be the most favorable venue possible to this claim. I'm
sure they will win in the Northern District. Unclear. What
will happen in the Ninth Circuit unclear if it will
rise to the level of the Supreme Court. Why is

(22:29):
DIYer fighting this out? Why is he duking this out
rather than just saying, okay, we'll get rid of this
DEI stuff. Dire allegedly a Republican, this should be easy
for him. I don't know. Maybe it's a fight with
the city council he doesn't want to have, and the
city council wants to fight this city council is dominated
mostly by Democrats now and they want all his DEI

(22:51):
stuff in. And Ashley Sweringen's nonprofit Swaringen's kind of liberal
leaning her nonprofit, well, yeah, Frisman Community Foundation. I think
it hurt nonprofit sort of the pass through entity for
a lot of this money. They don't want to get
rid of their DEI stuff. Maybe that's what's going on here.

(23:12):
I just think it's a bit of a disappointing thing
from the dire administration again, like why are we going
to be Why is he wanting to fight against Trump
on this? On this of all issues, on DEI stuff,
where there's a very cognized I mean, whether you think

(23:34):
on a constitutional level, Trump adding these kinds of requirements
after the fact, after Congress has already allocated this money.
The idea of Trump adding these requirements after the fact,
whether you think that's legal or not, and overstepping a
federal authority, why not just comply with it to get
the money? What does it hurt? Oh no, we don't

(23:58):
use the words DEI and stuff. Oh no, we distribute
care and all these programs on the basis of equality
rather than equity. I don't understand why we're fighting this
when we return. An interesting question is burning the American
flag an expression of free speech? That's next on the
John Girardi Show. The Trump administration issued an executive order

(24:22):
relating to flag burning and saying that it will try
to prosecute people for burning the American flag. This has
led to a whole bunch of storm and drum about
the First Amendment and what it means now. The problem
is that conservatives are very conflicted about it over the

(24:50):
fact that Antonin Scalia was in the majority of a
Supreme Court decision about flag burning called Texas feed Johnson Okay.
Texas v. Johnson was again at case in Texas. It
was decided in nineteen eighty nine, and Scalia joined all
of the liberals on the Court to hold that burning

(25:12):
the flag is expressive conduct and that it was protected
under the First Amendment. I think there are some conservatives
who there's this thing called the Mandela effect, which it's
basically like when a large group of people have a

(25:33):
false memory of something like a lot of people have
this false memory that the stand and Jan Berenstein, who
wrote the Berenstein bears that their name is spelled with
an ei n at the end. It's not spelled with
like an ai in at the end. The other Mendela
effect thing is that people think that the logo for
Fruit of the Loom involves a cornucopia. It doesn't A

(25:55):
lot of people have that thought that it does. It
does not, never has. And as a result, there's this
guy I follow on Twitter, Jeremy Christensen, as it's saying, ah,
I think a lot of conservatives are having their Mandela
effect about Justice Scalia's powerful opinion majority opinion in Texas v. Johnson.

(26:16):
And it's funny because Justice Scalia did not write the
majority opinion in Texas v. Johnson. He joined a majority
opinion written by Justice Brennan, who was one of the
most one of the more liberal justices on the Supreme
Court over the course of the twentieth century, and Chief

(26:38):
Justice Rehnquist was in opposition to this, along with Justice
Byron White and Sandrade O'Connor. Now, when you read Renquist's
opinion his descent in Texas v. Johnson from nineteen eighty
nine about whether or not the burning of an American

(27:00):
flag is protected speech in the First Amendment, one of
the things we have to remember is protected speech. We
have the right to freedom of speech. But that word
freedom of speech is a kind of term of art.
It's a term of art that encompasses certain kinds of speaking,

(27:22):
certain kinds of communication, but not all kinds. And there
are various kinds of speech that are not protected under
this First Amendment, freedom of speech. There's certain kinds of
expressive conduct that can be punishable by the state, can
be punishable through lawsuits, that can be legally prohibited. Libel

(27:46):
and slander, defamation. Okay, that stuff is speech. It is expressive,
and you can get in trouble for it, you can
get sued for it. And there's different standards with libel
and speech, and that's a pretty well developed area of
American law. And there's a certain standard for libel and
speech when you're talking about a public figure, and there's
certain standard of libel and speech when you're talking about

(28:09):
someone who's a more private individual. So the burden that
you have to show to prosecute me for libel or
slander about, you know, Donald Trump or Gavin Newsom public figures,
you would have to show something really high before you
would prosecute me or assume me rather for libel or

(28:31):
slander against Gavin Newsom or Donald Trump. Whereas if someone
engaged in libel or slander against my wife, the showing
you'd have to make would not be as great. Why
Gavin Newsom and Donald Trump are public figures talk to
public figures political figures. Talking about them publicly and politically
without fear of retribution advances the interests of freedom of

(28:54):
speech and the core normative values that the first men
in Freedom of speech is designed to protect speech, discourse,
free speech, and discourse on questions relating to politics, to
public policy, to culture, to religion, et cetera. Saying nasty
things about my wife does not really advance that saying
nasty things about Donald Trump might advance that. Okay, why

(29:15):
Donal Trump's a public figure and my wife isn't. Now
we also have this problem between speech and expressive activity.
Is pornography speech Well not really. It's kind of an activity,

(29:38):
and I think there are ways you can distinguish it
from speech. But certainly a lot of people want to
very forcefully argue that pornography is speech, and prohibiting pornography
is violating the First Amendment freedom of speech, in spite
of which, though we do agree, there's been developed law
over the course of time for what we call obscenity.

(29:59):
Obscenity is not protected speech. All right. If I get
on this radio and I start dropping a bunch of
f bombs, well, the FCC is gonna call up Agent
Squire's and we're gonna get in trouble over here. At
iHeart all right, the FCC censors obscenity, or at the

(30:23):
very least they punish it after the fact with fines
and prohibitions and stuff. And we don't think that that
violates the First Amendment freedom of speech. Why because we
deem obscenity to not really be vindicating those core normative
values that the First Amendment supposed to protect. The closer
you get to this core of advancing political and social discourse,

(30:46):
the more protected your speech gets, the farther way you
get from that to talk about things that are kind
of scatological in nature poop and pea, or to talk
about things like advertising. For example, the rules surrounding advertising.
There are some restrictions around false advertising. States have laws

(31:08):
regulating false advertising. Advertising speech has less protection than core
protected political speech. These are some of these doctrines surrounding
free speech that have developed over the course of the centuries.
So free speech is not does not cover any and
all expressive conduct. It also doesn't cover what we call incitement.

(31:34):
Incitement is where you're standing in front of an angry
mob who wants to lynch somebody, and you yell, this
guy molested a kid, let's get him. When you get
arrested and you say, well, I was just speaking my

(31:54):
rights a freedom of speech. No, that's incitement. Speech that
you know reasonably leads to violent conduct, reasonably and imminently
leads to violent conduct. That's incitement. And incitement is not
a protected form of speech. So there are all these

(32:17):
different kinds of expressive things that aren't protected by the
First Amendment freedom of speech and justice. Ranquist, I think
very convincingly argued in Texas F. Johnson that burning the
American flag is kind of similar. That it's not really

(32:38):
saying much of anything about politics other than a hatred
of America, of this uniquely this unique non ideological symbol
of America. That it's not really saying anything all that expressive,

(33:02):
and that the prohibitions that have stood, that had stood
for years and years and years and years prior to
nineteen eighty nine against violations of the American flag. I
mean that there's all kinds of rules about the American flag. Oh,
it's not supposed to touch the ground, and it's supposed
to be folded a certain way like, there's all kinds
of law stuff that's in law. Now. A lot of
that stuff's not, like, you know, criminally enforced or anything,

(33:22):
but it's on the books. This idea, though, that burning
the American flag is something expressive and therefore protected by law,
I guess I just don't I don't comply. I don't
agree with it. And a lot of modern day conservatives
are just very tied up about the idea that, well,

(33:46):
Justice Scalia agreed therefore when it's like, well, you know,
I think you can respect Justice Scalia plenty, God knows,
I do, and think that he was wrong about a
couple of things. I don't think this, and this was
not the only thing where I think Justice Scalia was wrong.

(34:06):
I think Rehnquist was right. So the Trump administration, now,
what is the Trump administration done. I don't know how
much the Trump administration is really actually challenging Texas v. Johnson.
It seems like the Trump's Trump's Executive Order is saying, hey,
if you engage in flag burning, we think that that's incitement.

(34:28):
Remember the thing I talked about, the incitement stuff that's
designed to reasonably leads to imminent violent activity that they
want to prosecute flag burning as incitement. Now, I guess
it depends on it. Will they try to give a
sentencing enhancement for it. I don't know if they could
do that necessarily, if that would necessarily conflict with Texas v. Johnson.

(34:50):
I don't know how much the Trump administration is necessarily
in conflict with Texas v. Johnson. Vice President Vance is
saying he tweeted out that he had actually a pretty
good tweet about it that I think kind of encapsulates
my views on the subject. One, he thought he thinks
Justice Scalia was a great justice. I agree that Justice

(35:11):
Scalia is very historically, really critically important justice for the
history of the Supreme Court. Two, that this executive order
does not conflict with Texas v. Johnson, and that's Justice
Scalia was wrong in Texas v. Johnson and Chief Justice
Ranquist was right. And I think that's a good summary
of it. So I guess we will see. I don't

(35:31):
think this executive order from President Trump is really that revolutionary.
I don't think it's trying necessarily to overturn Texas v.
Johnson or challenged Texas v. Johnson. But I think there's
this this kind of annoying instinct from sort of federalist
society ish types to want to reflexively say that Trump
is wrong in terms of like, well, he's disagreeing with Scalia.

(35:54):
So and they have a much deeper affinity for Scalia
than they do for Trump. I understand that, and a
lot of these federalist society types knew Scalia were close
to Scalea, et cetera. But I think they have this
sort of sense of that they're conventional wisdom. The Scalia school,
if you will, is always right, and anything against it

(36:16):
is either stupid or obviously wrong. And I just don't
know that it's obviously wrong. When we return my ode
to college football, I'm so glad it's back. That's next
on the John Ferardi Show. Guys. I know there's a
lot of problems in the world. I know that times

(36:37):
are tough. I know that Gavin Newsom's still trying to
build a high speed rail train that costs billions of dollars.
I know he's, you know, worst governor in the world.
I know California has high gas prices. I know there's
a lot of problems. But college football is back, thank God.
This past weekend, I turned on Iowa State, Kansas State.

(37:03):
They were playing in Ireland, and I experienced happiness I
haven't known for about eight months. Oh, I'm so glad
it's back. So many months in the wilderness not having
college football around my fighting Irish start this Saturday. It
was pretty painful seeing President of State get their brains

(37:25):
blown in by Kansas, by University of Kansas. However, I'm
so glad it's back. Notre Dame Miami this weekend, We've
got a whole long Labor Day we I'm loving how
college football has just completely taken over Labor Day weekend.
How they've got games Saturday, they've got games Sunday, they've

(37:46):
got games Monday, and they're awesome games. I love how
college football has been doing this last several years over
Labor Day weekend. It's great. Go Irish beat the Hurricanes.
That'll do it. John Jardy Show, See next time on
Paratop