All Episodes

May 25, 2024 38 mins
Mark as Played

Episode Transcript

Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
This is a topic that's near anddear to my heart and something my wife
and I really care about and aremonitoring sort of in the background closely as
a long term trend and specifically sortof wondering how California will start to address
this. It's a topic of homeschooling. And we've always sort of said to

each other, you know, Igrew up here. I'm I grew up
in the San Joaquin Valley. Myfamily moved here when I was three,
and I love it here and Ilike how I've been able to establish my
career here. And we've basically sortof agreed with each other like, where
would if we ever were to moveor to move on to different career options

or something, you know, wherewould we go? And probably our limitations
would be, well, we wouldprobably only want to go to you know,
either you know, someday if youever moved, or I ever got
a new job or something. We'dever only ever want to go to Minnesota,
where Holly's from, maybe go backto Notre Dame or either something at

the university or around the university,whatever. But the other reason we thought
that could prompt us to leave Californianot an affirmative reason for going to somewhere
else, but an affirmative reason toleave to abandon here would be if California

screwed around with homeschooling, if Californiastarted to stick its nose into the business
of homeschoolers regulate homeschooling in such afashion as to make it unfeasible for us.
So we homeschool our kids, andour kids are doing really, really

well homeschooling. I was homeschooled growingup, My wife was homeschool growing up,
and we're homeschooling our kids, andwe're really happy with the situation we
have with their homeschooling. It's notperfect. I don't think any educational situation
is perfect, but I think thelevel of education they're getting is really good.

They're very smart kids there. Youknow, I've got nine, seven,
and five year old in school,and then a four year old is
about to be kind of maybe preschooling. But yeah, we got a nine
to seven five year old and they'rereally really smart. All three of them
can read, all three of themcan do math at pretty high levels.
They're learning cursive, they're writing,they're reading history. My seven year old

was reading Little Women and has readit, has read it a bunch of
times they've read they're reading like voraciously. So I'm really happy with homeschooling,
But every so often I see theseindividual posts or I see like before the

pandemic, there was a big conferenceat Harvard Law School. This Harvard Law
School professor was looking at homeschooling andthe relative levels of non regulation and basically
arguing that we need more government regulationand oversight for homeschoolers, which I find

to be ominous. And I seethis tweet from come out from this woman,
Jen Jennings's a professor at Princeton,sociology professor at Princeton who does a
lot of work in education research,is noting that one out of every seventeen
kids in America is now homeschooled,but lacks state regulations mean we know little

about whether they're receiving the education theydeserve. And this just leads me that
it's astonishing to me how liberals cansay this with a straight face given the
dire state of public education in America. We know we have test scores in

California, for example, whose jobis to measure are you at grade level?
Are you on track for college.Okay, And we know, for
example, within Fresno Unified that aboutseventy percent of the kids are not reading

at grade level and seventy percent ofthe kids cannot do math at grade level.
That they are not going to beable to do college level English language
literature stuff, so reading comprehension,actual reading, writing skill, et cetera,

and also math. But the ideathat well, because we don't have
total control over the homeschooling regime,therefore we don't know the educational attainment level
of these kids, and these kidsmight be subject to educational neglect. How

many millions of kids in California publicschools are subject to educational neglect it amazes
me. I guess it's this sensethat because the public school system is a
system, it has this official stampor this official insignia to it. It's

a known quantity with a known structureand known outcomes that is just deemed to
be And it's only I guess,in when you're comparing it with homeschooling,
the idea of and yes, Ihave seen instances of families homeschooling their kids

and not doing a very great jobof it, or doing a lax job
of it. I very vigorously though, would dispute the notion. And again
I'm doing this on anecdotal evidence here, I would highly dispute the idea that

the outcomes from homeschooling are any differentfrom the outcomes of normal high school schooling,
of normal public schooling. Are theresome families who homeschool their kids and
the kids are kind of not reallylearning much of anything? Yeah, but

are there not millions of kids goingthrough California? You have public high schools
who can barely read, Yes,that is one hundred percent happening. Who
can barely do any functional math,yes, who are who are completely unprepared
for the workforce, yes, that'shappening, Or who are just dropping out

altogether. I mean, the dropoutrates within California public schools are also,
in various cases incredibly distressing. Sothe idea that I mean, those have
to count, Okay, those haveto count for the public schools in our
If we're comparing the effectiveness of educationwe got we have to look at height

normal public school high school dropouts tooand compare them to homeschoolers who maybe their
parents opted for homeschooling for reasons thatdidn't have really a very positive of pro
educational reason for homeschooling. I thinkwith Holly and me, we have a

very positive vision of what homeschooling isas a positive educational choice designed for us
to achieve certain positive, superior goalsfor our kids and for their education.
We're not resorting to it because ourkids because of some negative reason or because

maybe you know, it's not somethingwhere we're choosing homeschooling to be uninvolved.
We're not choosing homeschooling to be uninvolved. We're not choosing homeschooling to have less
involvement. We're choosing homeschooling because wewant more involvement, we want more oversight
of our children's education. And Ithink it gets to this fundamental disagreement between

the left and the right, thepublic school loving left and the less enthusiastic
for public school right, which iswhose kids are they? Whose kids are
they? There's a certain kind ofmythology with public schools that it has this

critical role in the formation of Americancitizenry, the formation that public school uniquely
has, this the inculcation of certainkinds of particularly American values, that it
has a role in America as themelting pot, that it has this certain
role of producing a certain kind ofproducing a certain kind of positive civic outcome,

and that the nation as a wholeshould take a particular interest in her
public schools in that sense that itinculcates the values of the nation, that
it inculcates the values of the country. The problem is that today, I
think those values are chiefly not reallythe values of America historically. Whatever those

values are, whatever those historical,in many cases very quite good values are,
we're inculcating the values of the modernday American left, which has completely
captured all of the public school unionsand has in large measure captured the public
school curricula from sea to shining sea, even in most red states. I

think there are a couple of redstates that are belatedly taking aggressive steps to
roll all that back. But thevalues being inculcated are fundamentally, I think,
those of the left. But fromthis sort of attitude of that public
schools have this role in the formationof the country. If you take those

kinds of ideas and that kind ofhigh falutin attitude, at a certain point
you can cross into thinking that thesekids belong to the state, that these
kids belong to the government, thatthese kids belong to the country, and
that a parent who would deprive theirchild of that of that inculcation of national

civic values is doing something wrong.And my retort for all of this is,
well, to whom does this childbelong? Fundamentally, the first,
foremost educator of a child is theparents. Fundamentally, this kid belongs to

parents. It is only when theparent engages in I mean, I would
say the only time the govern womanshould step in to interfere with the parent
child relationship is if that parent childrelationship gets to the point of flat out

abuse, physical abuse, abuse.I guess. However, then the problem
is that we have differing definitions ofwhat abuse is. And I guess that's
the problem here. I think thisis my fear. You're a homeschooler.

You're doing so in part because youreject and I'll be frank, I'm a
homeschooler in part because I reject thekinds of values that would be inculcated in
my kids if they were in anormal public school. I don't want my
kids to be assaulted with every youknow, every ideological position of the LGBTQ,

I A whatever. I don't wantthose values inculcated. I want my
beliefs on marriage and sexuality and thedignity of the human body. I want
my values to be inculcated in mychildren, not the public schools. At

a certain point, I am afraidthat that will be deemed child abuse.
And if there's ever going to bea state where that's going to happen,
it will be here in California.Unless, unless, unless, maybe homeschoolers

have enough of a numerical significance thatthey can stand up to it and liberals
will not mess with it. Iguess I'm amazed that the liberals haven't done
more to mess with homeschooling up tothis point. I wonder if COVID sort
of interrupted plans to do so becausepeople saw what an absolute you know what

show. The people saw what anabsolute you know what show things were because
of COVID and all these people havingto basically homeschool their kids because the public
schools just kind of abandoned their job, abandoned their responsibilities. But I don't

know, I think it's the oneIt's one of the things that would really
prompt you know as and look,there's a lot of stuff about living in
California that's hard and not great.Your dollar goes a lot, it goes
a lot less far, it goesa lot shorter in California than it does
in other states. Housing is reallyexpensive here. All this stuff is difficult

about living in California. But ifthey screw around with homeschooling, that might
be my an Holly's breaking point.When we return, we'll talk about the
wonder full successes of California public schoolsand how maybe I would fix them or
maybe they're just completely insoluble problems.That's next on the John Girardi Show.

So there are a lot of fundamentalproblems with American public education. One of
them is that children are sexually abusedwithin American public schools, both more children
total and more children per capita thanin Catholic schools than in Catholic churches.

Ever, that is not cap thatis actually facts. Okay, so that's
a little problem, but let's justtalk about the educational side of things.
On the educational side of things,American public schools are basically guided by a

certain American mythology about college education,and this mythology I think was largely true
up until maybe fairly recently. Collegeeducation is the gateway to success in America.
You know, my great grandfather,my great grandfather came to America on
a boat from Italy as a boyinto Ellis Island. He was like a

shoemaker and a grocer. His sonbecame a CPA, his son became a
doctor, his son me became alawyer, slash nonprofit director, slash yapper
on the radio. So now thingsare starting to now things are starting to
decline. But college education, highereducation was this pathway to really very quick

success for going from you know,a you know, someone coming from South
Italy coming from Calabria with not alot of money to his grandson being a
very successful doctor. Like that's apretty quick turnaround, all right, College
education was the pathway to success.And so we idolize college education. We

idolize you know, being the firstin my family to graduate from college and
first generation college graduate, like allof that stuff is super important still and
it's still part of this American mythology. And I think this the problem is
that this American mythology about college educationand college attainment and all that we're about
fifteen years past a point where thisis shifting. Maybe we're twenty years past.

Maybe the shift happened even before Istarted in college, where college has
now become so expensive and weighs peopledown, and especially if you're trying to
get graduate degrees on top, becausethere's been a sort of degree inflation.
There are jobs that today requires amaster's degree that in you know, a

generation ago, would have required abachelor's degree. And then even there's some
jobs that required a bachelor's degree thatmaybe only needed a high school diploma before.
I've used this example before. Myfather in law is an engineer with
Cummins engines and generators and stuff likethat, and he's very successful, the

very impressive engineer. He's got severalpatents to his name, different kinds of
things he's done. I think actuallya lot of his work has been you
know, he lives in Minnesota,has been producing patents to help engines and
generators and stuff remain in compliant withCalifornia emissions regulated sort of unique California missions

regulations. So he's a very successfulengineer. Does not have a college degree,
high school degree, and I forgetexactly how old he think he's about
late fifties, early sixties like thatdoes not exist anymore. So you have

this sort of degree inflation, wherethe kinds of jobs that And how did
he learn to be an engineer?Well, he learned to be an engineer
by you know, taking taking aparttractors and putting them together again, and
taking apart engines and putting them togetheragain. And he learned, you know,
he learned by doing. And Iguess that's the sort of way of
becoming an engineer that I don't thinkis possible today. So you've had this

degree inflation, You've had each ofthese degrees is more and more expensive.
You're weighted down by this massive freightof debt. Is this really the best
thing for our American public high schoolsto be college education or bust for all
these kids? That that's the goal, that's the educational goal towards which the
high school curriculum in California public schoolsis ordered. Every one college for all,

college for everybody? Is that reallywise today? Is that really wise?
I don't know. I don't thinkit is. I think you wind
up having a lot of kids whocould be doing something who are never going
to go to college. That's thething. If you say college education for
all is the goal of high school, then you know you're going to fail

with a huge significant percentage of thesekids who are just not going to graduate
college. It's still a very significantpercentage of the American population is not going
to graduate college. So what arewe saying then to those kids? Sorry,
guys, you're screwed. And veryoften it's guys, by the way.

That's the other dynamic here is thatthere's this massive shift of declining success
rate for high school and college agedmales, which if it were happening the
other way, would be a nationalcrisis. But because it's boys and no
one gives a crap, it's nota national crisis for some reason. So

I guess the thing is, howwould I fix American public high schools?
I mean, there are huge culturaland social problems as far as the values
that are being inculcated through the curriculum. All of the modern day basically all
of the all of the beliefs ofmodern day American left liberalism are that those

are the guiding beliefs that are beinginculcated into kids. So we shouldn't be
surprised that generation after generation of Democratvoters are just being churned out of American
public schools. But beyond that,I think even the strict educational goals are
totally whack and totally off track,and I'd rather opt out. I'd rather

have my kids be educated through homeschooling. And I'm so grateful to my wife
for the energy and effort in timeshe puts into it and the incredible successes
we're already seeing with our You know, nothing makes me happier than seeing my
nine year old, my seven yearold, and my five year old all
reading and loving books and doing mathand just being smart, happy little people,

and all the credit in the worldto my wife for all of that.
When we return, I reveal thetop secret reason why Gavin Newsom is
actually trying to repeal the Second Amendment. The answer is money. Next,
on the John Girardi Show, there'sthis hilarious clip that I just saw on

Twitter, which I don't think Ican play because I think he uses a
word that I am not allowed tosay on the radio. It's Governor Chris
san Nunu, the Republican from NewHampshire, who is talking about yeah,
you get along with most governors,but they're a couple who are just take
terrible, terrible to get along with. And the interviewer asked, well,

well, who do you mean.He's like, you really want me to
say? All right, So hesaid the two in his time, the
two governors, because I think Americangovernors that go to different conferences or things
where they interact with each other.So Sununu said, the two governors that
nobody liked were Andrew Cuomo it's terrible, and then Gavin Newsom. He said,
you know, I get along withDemocrats. I get along with Republicans.

Some are good guys, you know, so we disagree on politics,
but Gavin Newsom is just a bleep, And he said, and other Democrat
governors think the same thing. Theywon't say so in public, but behind
closed doors they'd be like, ohman, he's coming by. Oh.
I just thought it was so fun. I'm gonna I retweeted it at my
Twitter account if you want to hearit again. I think he uses a

word that I can't play on theradio. But anyway, Twitter dot com
slash President Johnny at President Johnny ifyou want to hear it. I just
thought it was so funny. Allright, Gavin Newsom, let's talk about
him. About a year ago,Gavin Newsom did something that I thought was
at least interesting. Not that Iagreed with it, but I thought it

was interesting. Throughout all the guncontrolled debates, the problem that Democrats run
into, and the reason why thegun controlled debate is more or less at
a stalemate, is the Second Amendment. Democrats basically just faced an insurmountable problem

that the Second Amendment is there,and the policy preferences that they would like
to have the Second Amendment effectively makesimpossible. I mean, frankly, even
if they got everything they wanted asfar as assault weapon bans and things like
that, even if the Supreme Courttook sort of more and more their view

of the Second Amendment, I thinkit would be hard just to get rid
of the Second Amendment altogether now atthe very least, and maybe from their
perspective, they say, well,there's nothing wrong with the Second Amendments,
just that the Supreme Court has interpretedit in a radical way, which I
don't think the Supreme Court is interpretedin a radical way. I think the
Democrat interpretation of the Second Amendment kindof beggars belief. The Democrat interpretation of

the Second Amendment is that the onlythe only people with a right to keep
in bear arms are militia's because inthe text of the Second Amendment says a
well ordered militia being necessary, theright to keep in bear arms shall not
be abridged. Now, I think, even grammatically speaking, that argument doesn't
hold weight. The fact that theSecond Amendment notes the importance of well regulated

militia does not thereby limit the scopeof the right to keep in bear arms
to militias. Okay. And it'salso I think kind of historically inept.
The idea of a militia is thatit is a raised city, is in
body responsible for defense, a raisedcitizen body where you're assuming this citizen has

a gun. Okay, So privategun ownership is almost antecedent to militia existing.
Okay. So anyway, so Ithink the right to keep in bear
arms does and are at the veryleast if we're doing this thing where we
apply the Bill of Rights against theStates, I do think it is sensible

that it protect individual gun ownership.So, nonetheless, gavenusom is up against
whether you want to argue it's thecurrent Supreme Court's interpretation of the Second Amendment
or the Second Amendment itself. Democratsare up against this constitutional wall. They're
sort of in the position that prolifers were in after Roe v. Wade,

where pro lifers want to pass lawslimit abortion. Whole bunch of states
willing to pass laws to ban abortion, restrict abortion only to the first trimester
or whatever, but they couldn't passlaws because the Supreme Court had issued this
decision saying no abortion has to belegal as a mandate of the Constitution.
So Democrats are in a similar placewith gun control. And the thing that

I've always been a little annoyed atDemocrats for is just ignoring the Second Amendment
issue and just sort of saying,well, just like kind of pretending like
it's not there, or pretending likeit doesn't need to be addressed, and
just sort of said, well,we're just gonna ban us. We're gonna
be we need to ban AR fifteen. So it's like, Okay, well,

it's the most common gun in America. Do you really think you can
ban the most common gun in Americaand still stay clear of the Second Amendment?
Is you know, still be incompliance with the Second Amendment, and
so many of the Democrats solutions Ithink will would not. Maybe this is

the better way of phrasing all this. Most of the Democrat gun control solutions
I don't think will meaningfully make asingle dent in gun violence. Getting rid
of quote assault weapon do it,reinstating there quote assault weapons bands isn't going

to do much. Most gun violencein America, The overwhelming majority of gun
violence in America is not perpetrated withquote assault weapons. Even though I mean
gun people will tell you, bythe way, I do not characterize myself
as a gun person. I don'tactually I don't actually own a gun,
not out of any hostility. I'vesort of always It's a thing I've always

sort of thought I should do,but I just haven't gotten around with it.
So I'm not super knowledgeable about firearms. I'm sure many of you listening
are far more knowledgeable than me.But what most intelligent gun people that I
listen to would say is that theterm assault weapon is not really a real
category of gun. It is athing that lawmakers It is a term that

lawmakers attached to certain kinds of featureson certain kinds of firearms. Firearms that
have certain kinds of features that inmany cases are cosmetic and don't actually enhance
lethality. Regardless regardless of how youdefine or what is an assault weapon,

I think it usually seems to referto long guns. Most gun violence in
America is perpetrated with handguns with nonautomatic I mean automatic weaponry is largely regulated
and regulated and banned for private individualownership in America. Anyway, Most gun

violence is perpetrated by revolvers or semiautomatic pistols. We have some of these
explosive stories about like the Las Vegasshooter or something, certain individual mass shootings
that catch the public attention where someoneused maybe in AR fifteen, but that's

not most gun violence in America.Most gun violence is one person dead in
shooting gang bangers using a handgun.So the idea of well, let's let's
ban you know, we're gonna we'regonna ban assault weapons, We're gonna have
more criminal background checks, we're gonnado this, we're gonna do that.

Most of the gun control regulation,we're gonna we're gonna do stuff to limit
concealed carry. Concealed Carrie permit holdersare not the people going out and committing
gun crimes. Tightening up the ruleson people who've already committed themselves to jumping
through a whole bunch of hoops andfollowing a whole bunch of rules makes no

sense. The concealed carry permit holdersthat have already sort of made this public
declaration of I want to follow therules. I want to go through the
process of getting this permit to clandestinelycarry this gun round on me like they're

not gonna commit crimes. So I'vealways been baffled at all the Democrat gun
control legislation. Well, Gavin Newsom, finally I thought was somewhat sensible within
the context of gun control advocates.He gave this proposal, I propose that
we try to amend the Second Amendment. Okay, I don't agree with it,

but at the very least I thought, this is a gun control advocate
who is actually somewhat sensible. Theonly thing I have always thought that could
actually make a dent in limiting gunviolence would be massive wholesale banning of guns,
nationwide buyback of guns, banning gunsaltogether, something that massive reduces the

supply of guns in the country.Now, is that a good idea?
No. Are there probably a lotof really bad side effects of that idea?
Yes? Am I advocating it?No? But I am saying that
that's the one thing I could thinkof that maybe would have a discernible effect
in limiting the amount of gun violencein America is if you had a massive

expansive policy that obviously violates the SecondAmendment. That's the one way I could
see an actual dent in gun violencehappening, not this stuff that Democrats keep
proposing, which is just playing aroundat the edges, and that's really all
that's mostly doing is limiting law abidingpeople. So I thought, Okay,
here's Gavin Newsom. He's going totry and he, you know, finally

an intellectually honest liberal. He recognizesthe limit that the Second Amendment, you
know, puts on gun control efforts, and he's actually proposing a reasonably he's
actually proposing reasonable within his own content. Again, don't agree with him,
but within from his starting premises,seems reasonable. Okay, Gavin Newsom is

proposing the actual thing that would maybemake a dent in gun violence, amend
the Second Amendment. But then inhis proposal, all he's proposing is all
the same sort of little things thatDemocrats have been proposing forever. With gun
control, he's not actually proposing massivegun buybacks. He's not actually proposing massive,

you know, the UK style banningof private gun ownership. It's all
the same stuff, background checks,banning assault weapons, et cetera. What
are we doing that for? Andthen I realized what it was. I
realized what it actually was. Obviously, amending the Constitution in almost any case,

especially for any controversial issue like guncontrol, is never gonna work.
Amending the Constitution requires massive nationwide consensus. You need two thirds of the House,
two thirds of the Senate, andthree quarters of the state legislatures.
All degree, All right, We'renever going to get that with gun control.

And then I came across a poston Twitter that explained the whole thing.
It's a post from Gavin Newsom's privateaccount, not his governor's account,
his private account, and it saysthis, if you support mandating background checks,

banning civilian purchases of assault weapons,raising the federal minimum age to buy
firearm from eighteen to twenty one,then please sign our petition today and join
the movement to pass a new amendmentto the US Constitution today. It's a
small act that can make a bigdifference, and it says it's paid for
by his super pack. Gavin Newsomis not proposing amending the Constitution and banning

the Second Amendment, or revising theSecond Amendment, amending the Second Amendment,
whatever. He's not proposing that becausehe actually wants to do any of that.
Well maybe he wants to, butthe chief motive is fundraising. His
pack is doing this. What isa pack for super pac is basically an

entity that exists to raise funds andspend them without restrictions on political candidates.
There is a pack that's affiliated withhim. Sign our petition, Now,
what do you think that is?By the way, any of you who
sign a petition online, you're beinghad. All it is is someone trying

to get your email address and yourphone number so they can spam you with
ads. That's all Newsom's doing.He's collecting email addresses and phone numbers so
he can spam people, or hissuper pac can spam people with ads for
campaign contributions. Newsom isn't doing thisbecause he wants to you know, and

gun control. He wants to imposegun control. He's doing this to build
up his donor base for when heruns for president in twenty twenty eight.
When we return my ode to aheroic Catholic priest from Orlando who bit a
woman trying to steal the Eucharist fromhim. That's next on the John Girardi
Show. All right, this isa hilarious story. In Florida around now,

a lot of young Catholics in aboutsecond grade or so are receiving their
first communions. So the first timeyou receive communion as Catholic, it's a
very special, lovely little ceremony.It's just a normal mass, and you
receive communion for the first time.And usually girls receiving community for the first
time wear frilly white dresses and boyswear suits, and family members come and

it's a lovely little sort of milestoneride, a passage your development in the
Christian life. Now, the problemwith these masses is that often family members
come who have little or no connectionto Catholicism and behave in somewhat indecorous ways.
So a mass like this was happeningin Orlando and a woman, I
guess it was a family member ofsomeone else who was there for mass in

a lesbian relationship with her lesbian partner, presents herself for a receiving communion.
Now the priest is I'm guessing Idon't know this, but I'm guessing the
priest is of Cuban descent. Englishis his second language. Clearly he's an
older priest does not give her communion, and I think it's probably because she's

obviously in a lesbian relationship. He'snot sure what to do. He doesn't
give her communion. She tries tograb the host from the ornate sort of
golden bowl that the priest is holdingit in, and the priest is sort
of struggling with her and winds upbiting her arm. I am pro the

priest biting the woman's arm, firstto defend the blessed sacrament. Secondly because
it sort of reminds me of JohnVoight biting Kramer's arm on that one episode
of Seinfeld. Good for you,Father. That'll do it for John Glady
show. See you next time onPower Talk
Advertise With Us

Popular Podcasts

1. Start Here
2. Dateline NBC

2. Dateline NBC

Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations.

3. Amy and T.J. Podcast

3. Amy and T.J. Podcast

"Amy and T.J." is hosted by renowned television news anchors Amy Robach and T. J. Holmes. Hosts and executive producers Robach and Holmes are a formidable broadcasting team with decades of experience delivering headline news and captivating viewers nationwide. Now, the duo will get behind the microphone to explore meaningful conversations about current events, pop culture and everything in between. Nothing is off limits. “Amy & T.J.” is guaranteed to be informative, entertaining and above all, authentic. It marks the first time Robach and Holmes speak publicly since their own names became a part of the headlines. Follow @ajrobach, and @officialtjholmes on Instagram for updates.

Music, radio and podcasts, all free. Listen online or download the iHeart App.


© 2024 iHeartMedia, Inc.