December 2, 2025 • 48 mins
Think missing Miranda warnings make cases vanish? Let’s test that belief against the law, the courtroom, and the consequences the public rarely sees. We break down what Miranda actually protects, why custody and interrogation are the hinge, and how a judge thinks about suppression versus dismissal. From the first contact to the first question, we map the narrow legal doorway where rights attach and show how a single procedural misstep can shake credibility without deleting reality.
We use the Mangioni motion as a case study: were officers merely detaining, or effectively arresting? That line decides whether his words survive. We lay out three credible outcomes—collapse, limp-forward, or clean admission—and the evidentiary mix that tips each scale. Then we widen the lens with a fast, clear tour of the jurisprudence that built these guardrails, from Brown v. Mississippi to Miranda v. Arizona, the Quarles public safety exception, and Dickerson’s constitutional reaffirmation. This isn’t trivia; it’s the scaffolding that keeps power honest.
Along the way, we press into a deeper tension that fuels modern outrage: how tiny numbers become giant culture wars. When a decimal point becomes a doomsday, politics sells protection while skipping the hard work of fairness—funding girls’ programs, enforcing Title IX, and expanding access. Outrage is merchandised; nuance is ignored. We argue for maturity over spectacle, precision over slogans, and a public trust built on consistent procedure. Rights are not loopholes; they’re promises. Good policing thrives under bright rules, and citizens get a system worthy of their consent.
If this conversation clarified how rights really work—and why they matter—tap follow, share this episode with one friend who loves legal myths, and leave a review telling us which outcome you’d bet on and why. Your take might shape a future deep dive.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
SPEAKER_06 (01:32):
Welcome to the Darrell McLean Show.
Independent media that won'treinforce tribalism.
We have one planet.
Nobody is leaving, so let usreason together.
We're gonna start this show offtoday with a show question.
Luigi Manny Gioni's lawyers areasking for the case to be tossed
out on the basis that policefailed to read him his Miranda
(01:55):
rights when they went throughthe actions of arresting him.
Your opinion, how will this playout?
Thank you, thank you for thequestion.
So um let me do it.
Let me do it like this.
Let me pull this uh chair uphere and get this scotch going
(02:16):
because now I get to go to astory that hits the crossroads
of law power and what I think isone of the most misunderstood
phrases in American policing,which is they didn't read me my
rights.
And yeah, those famous Mirandarights, the ones that people
(02:38):
treat like a magical shield thatmakes handcuffs fall off and
charges vanish like smoke from asunny altar.
But this time it's not somerandom street rumor.
This time it's showing up in acourtroom of Luigi Magioni,
whose lawyers are trying to tossout this case because they say
(03:00):
police arrested him withoutreading him said rights.
Now, look, as we discussed onthe previous episode, I've worn
the badge as a master at arms inthe United States Navy for
Federal Protective Services andunder the Department of West
Security.
I've been the guy doing thequestioning, and the guy reading
the rights, and the guy whoknows exactly why the courts
(03:23):
take this so seriously, and Iknow exactly why Hollywood lied
to everybody about how thisstuff actually works.
So here's what I'm gonna dotonight, and I'm gonna break
this down clean, sharp, with nosugar, no theatric, it's just
the truth, because this caseisn't just about mangiotte, it's
about what happens when thepublic understanding of policing
(03:44):
meets uh policing meets theactual legal mach uh mechanisms
behind the scenes.
It's about rights,responsibilities, and the thin,
fragile line between authorityand abuse.
And I'm gonna tell it in a waythat your uncle, your cousin,
your grandma, and your lawyercan all understand.
(04:08):
So, number one, they didn't readme my rights is a urban legend.
Somewhere along the way, Americaconvinced itself that no Miranda
rights equals no case.
Like if the police forget toread one sentence, this the
courthouse suddenly the doorsjust slide open, and like
(04:29):
Walmart at 8 a.m.
and everybody runs free and thecharges dissolve into the wind.
But that's not actually how thelaw works, that's just how
reality TV works.
And the truth is simpler and wayless cinematic.
Miranda protects your words, notyour charges.
It protects your statements, notyour circumstances.
(04:51):
Police actually don't have toread you your rights when they
detain you.
They don't have to read you yourrights when they arrest you.
They only have to read you themwhen two particular things
collide.
One, you're in custody, not freeto walk away.
Two, they're interrogating youand asking you questions meant
to get incriminating answers.
(05:12):
Now, these two conditions don'tmeet at the altar.
No Miranda wedding, noviolation.
And it's amazing how many peopledon't know that, includes uh
people who should.
But here's the other side ofthat coin.
When Miranda is required and thepolice fail to read it, oh
buddy, that's a cause for somelegal earthquakes.
(05:34):
No case, no ending newts, butquakes.
Now here's the second point.
Uh what Miranda actually does,and this is the part that nobody
wants to hear, so I'm gonna putit very bluntly.
If the cops failed to read youyour Miranda rights and
Miranderize you, the judgedoesn't erase reality.
Evidence doesn't vanish, andguns don't disappear, and videos
(05:57):
only evaporate, and witnessesdon't suddenly lose their
memories.
The court doesn't hit the deletecrime button, but what the court
can do, and what many onlylawyers are betting on is this
it will suppress everything hesaid after he was effectively
arrested.
So no statement, no confession.
(06:17):
No, I didn't mean to.
No, what happened was in hiswords, if his words were the
backbone of the case, then thespine collapses.
If the words were just seasoningon the case, then the dish will
still hold up.
But here's when it getsinteresting.
Courts also look at policecredibility.
Judges remember sloppy work,defense attorneys spell blood,
(06:40):
juries raise eyebrows, andMiranda violation is sometimes
just like pulling a loose threadbecause you don't know what
fabric unveils until youactually tug on the thread.
The next point is So what'sMangioni's lawyers actually
arguing here?
Mangioni's lawyers are basicallysaying, hold up, when police
(07:03):
approach him, they weren't justdetaining him.
They were performing the actionsof arrest, controlling his
movement, limiting freedom,issuing commands, acting like
the cuffs were already on,meaning he was in custody.
So when they questioned himabout Miranda rights, they're
acting is i i if so, then thatwould mean anything that he said
(07:24):
uh in that period of time wouldbe tainted.
Now that's a smart argument.
It's debatable, but it's still asmart argument.
If the it it because it forcesthe courts to answer one
question, at what exact momentdid the encounter become an
arrest?
Because let me tell you, uh, assomeone who's worn a badge,
police love the phrase, hewasn't under arrest, we were
(07:47):
just investigating.
That line there has saved moreconfessions than any miracle in
the book of Acts.
The defense, meanwhile, lovesthe phrase, a reasonable person
wouldn't feel free to leave.
So you got this uh thing wherepolice are gonna argue technical
procedure and the defenseattorneys are gonna argue live
(08:10):
reality, and a judge will haveto decide whose version of
freedom counts, and that is thewhole chessboard.
Now the the there are three waysthis can play out, and let me
give you only three scenariosthat matter.
And the the first one is therare when statements suppress
(08:30):
cases collapse.
If his statements are the case,the core, the heart, the
skeleton, then losing them gutsthe prosecution.
The judge won't dismiss the caseI write because of Miranda, but
they'll dismiss because theevidence becomes too weak to
stand on its own stood legs.
That's the defense's hailmarried.
(08:50):
Possible, yes.
Common, actually not.
The second scenario, the likelyoutcome is the statements are
suppressed, cases uh will limpforward.
Now, this is where my moneyusually lands.
His statements get tossed, theprostitution gets embarrassed,
the judge issues a sternwarning, and the cases survives
(09:13):
just a lot uglier.
Why?
Because if they got a video,witnesses, physical evidence,
prior reports, independentcooperation, his silence
actually won't save him.
The state bills around themissing pieces, and will just
keep marching towards a trialpart, possibly a guilty verdict.
(09:34):
Now the third scenario is thepolice win, and the judge says
Miranda was required.
Now, this is when the courtdecides look, he wasn't under
arrest yet, he was detained,questions were routine, and no
Miranda rights were needed.
If that happens, everything hesays comes into the clean and
shiny, and the defense is cookedmedium well.
(09:54):
So my personal and professionaltake is this this isn't actually
a slam dunk.
Manzioli's lawyers are doingwhat any good defense team would
do, which is attacking theprocedure, not the crime.
It's smart, it's strategic, butit is still an uphill battle.
Courts don't dismiss chargesfrom Miranda violations, they
(10:15):
just toss out words that wereillegally obtained.
So the real question is this howmuch of the state's case depends
on Maggioli's mouth?
If the prosecution can't standwithout his statements, then the
whole thing may collapse like apoorly built altar.
But if the prosecution has realevidence, then his legal team
just trimmed one branch off thetree, but the tree still
(10:38):
remains.
Now the bigger story behind theheadline is this, and this is
why this matters beyondMaggioli.
In a country where trust in thepolice is fractured, where
communities feel overpolice yet,underprotected, where the rights
are often uh recited but notrespected, the procedure matters
as much as the crime, becausethe constitution doesn't bend
(11:00):
for convenience, and Mirandaisn't a declaration, it's a uh
protection.
So when police cut corners, itjust doesn't endanger cases, it
endangers public trust.
And when the public doesn'tunderstand how rights actually
work, that misunderstandingbecomes gasoline in every
argument about justice.
(11:20):
Mangioni is just one man, butthe question raised by this case
it belongs to all of us.
What does freedom actually meanin the United States of America?
Who defies defines custody andhow do we balance safety and
civil rights?
How do we uphold the law withoutbreaking the Constitution?
(11:42):
So tonight we'll we're divingdeep into all of that, and we're
going to do it with clarity,with honesty, and a kind of
moral backbone the countryneeds.
This isn't Real McClain show,and we are just getting started.
Be right back in a moment.
(12:11):
Hey, here's the historical arcthat matters.
Sleep deprivation beatings,intimidation threats,
psychological manipulation.
The turning point was Brown v.
Mississippi.
1936.
The Supreme Court saidtorture-induced confessions
violate due process.
Hey, this case becomes the rootof everything the Mondiani
(12:34):
defense is now pulling from.
A two, the 1950s, 1960s policesought torture.
In secret interrogations afterphysical coercion became legally
risky, departments leaned on.
Prolonged questioning, denyingcounsel holding suspects for
hours or days trick tactics.
This forced the courts to expandprotections.
A Escabito v.
Illinois, 1964, required policeto honor requests for lawyers.
(12:57):
A three, Miranda B.
Arizona, 1966.
A the Miranda decisionformalized the warning so
suspects understood.
The right to remain silent, theright to an attorney that
statements could be used againstthem before Miranda.
You could be interrogatedwithout ever being told you had
choices.
A four, the 1970s, 1990, Ceph.
(13:17):
Police skirting Mirandadepartments experimented with
pre-Miranda questioning,non-custodial interviews, and
the infamous public safetyexception from New York v.
Quarrels, 1984.
A modern Miranda law was forgedthrough officers pushing the
boundaries and courts trying totether them back.
A five Dickerson VI UnitedStates 2000 Congress tried to
replace Miranda with a weakerstandard.
(13:39):
The court said no Miranda isconstitutional, not optional.
So when Mangioni's lawyers saypolice acted like they were
arresting him here, tapping into80 years of Supreme Court
rulings affirming that rightsaren't window dressing.
May they're inheritedprotections built out of decades
of abuses.
May his case isn't happening ina vacuum, it's part of a long
American fight about how muchthe state can pressure a citizen
(14:00):
before the Constitution kicksin.
SPEAKER_07 (14:02):
I know you don't say good morning.
Guess what tomorrow is?
SPEAKER_03 (14:05):
Well, it's not my birthday, so it's just another
Tuesday as far as I'm concerned.
SPEAKER_07 (14:07):
Okay, not just another Tuesday.
It's Giving Tuesday.
SPEAKER_03 (14:10):
That's right, that's forgotten.
SPEAKER_07 (14:11):
Yeah, and NPR celebrates this global day of
generosity every year, but we'venever had a year quite like this
one before.
SPEAKER_03 (14:17):
Right.
And everyone out there probablyby now has heard that federal
funding for public media waseliminated as of October 1st.
That means NPR is now operatingwithout federal support for the
first time in our history.
That's more than 50 years.
It's a big change, also a bigchallenge, but one that we
definitely can overcometogether.
SPEAKER_07 (14:31):
Right, overcome it because of our listeners.
You count on up first to bringyou the news you need to start
your day, and we're so gratefulto the listeners who have
already stepped up to donate forthis program.
Like Rika in Tennessee, who saysevery day I listen to Up First
in the car after I drop my kidsoff at school.
It allows me to stay connectedand informed with honest,
eloquent reporting.
Your show helps me stay educatedand engaged.
SPEAKER_03 (14:52):
She called me eloquent.
Thank you so much, Rika, andthank you for listening and
thank you for your support.
SPEAKER_07 (14:56):
And you can be like Rika too.
Please make your Giving Tuesdaygift right now by signing up for
NPR Plus.
Thank you for coming to us foryour news, for trusting us, and
for supporting us.
It's a simple, recurringdonation that gets you perks
across NPR's podcast, and you'llbe supporting public media while
you listen.
Join us at plus.npr.org.
SPEAKER_03 (15:15):
The White House is tightening illegal immigration
pathways after last week'sshooting of two National Guard
members.
SPEAKER_07 (15:20):
Because the suspect was Afghan, the administration
(17:15):
is now pausing all asylumdecisions.
How else is it limiting legalimmigration?
SPEAKER_03 (17:21):
This is the first from NPR News.
U.S.
rights of the Caribbean areunder bipartisan scrutiny
announced a lawmaker stateDefense Secretary Pete Hex said
that the may have violatedinternational law when he
reportedly gave an order to killeveryone aboard one of the
alleged drug votes.
This rises to the level of a warcrime.
If it's true, we'll hear how theTrump administration is
responding.
SPEAKER_07 (17:40):
And Ukraine heads into a new round of peace talks
without its top negotiator.
President Zelensky's right-handman resigned in a corruption
scandal.
So how will the shakeup impactUkraine's hand at the bargaining
table?
Stay with us, we'll give you thenews you need to start your day.
SPEAKER_11 (17:56):
This message comes from Grammarly.
They have features that aretailor-made for working
professionals, so you can getall your writing done from start
(19:56):
to finish, all in one place.
Grammarly is designed to helpprofessionals with real-time
writing support on any project,email, and more.
Sign up for free and experiencehow Grammarly can elevate your
professional writing from startto finish.
Visit Grammarly.com slashpodcast.
That's Grammarly.com slashpodcast.
This message comes fromBetterHelp.
That's a dad.
BetterHelp resident FernandoMadera relates to needing
(20:18):
flexibility when it comes toscheduling therapy.
SPEAKER_05 (20:24):
That's why BetterHelp more therapists try
to have sessions, sometimes atnine, depending on the therapist
or during the weekend.
So I think that's what we needto deal with.
We're not alone who we can helpyou out.
SPEAKER_11 (20:33):
If a flexible schedule would help you, visit
betterhelp.com slash NPR for 10%off your first month of online
therapy.
SPEAKER_07 (20:40):
The White House is moving fast to tighten legal
immigration reviews after lastweek's shooting of two National
Guard members here inWashington.
SPEAKER_03 (20:47):
The suspect is Afghan national Rahmanola
Lakanwal, who's been chargedwith first-degree murder.
He was granted asylum earlierthis year after coming to the
U.S.
migrate Biden era program thatfacilitated temporary legal
status for people who work withthe U.S.
military in Afghanistan.
SPEAKER_07 (21:00):
NBRC Menomastillo covers immigration policy for us
and joins me now.
Good morning.
Good morning.
What are the changes theadministration announced after
the shooting?
SPEAKER_09 (21:08):
We're going to be talking about a few different
types of immigration processes.
First, the administration pausedall asylum decisions and also
visa reviews for people fromAfghanistan.
An order from the StateDepartment also pauses the
special immigrant visa forAfghans, which is a specific
program for those who helped theU.S.
military and its allies.
To be clear, the suspect was noton that visa, but like you
mentioned, had been grantedasylum earlier this year under
(21:30):
the Trump administration.
Second candidate Joseph Ablo,the director of U.S.
citizenship and immigrationservices, said anyone who
applies for a green card fromone of 19 countries on the list
will face heightened scrutiny.
And that list includesAfghanistan.
Trump officials argue that thosewho came to the U.S.
under former President Bidenthrough these legal processes
were not vetted properly.
Still in an interview with NBC'smetaphor, Home and Security
(21:51):
Secretary, Christy Gnomes thatinvestigators have other leads.
SPEAKER_08 (21:54):
But I will say we believe he was radicalized since
he's been here in this country,but we do believe it was through
connections in his homecommunity and state, and we're
going to continue to talk tothose who interacted with him or
his family members to talk tothem.
So far, we've had someparticipation.
So it's unclear what priorvetting could have uncovered.
SPEAKER_09 (22:10):
Okay, what other restrictions is the
administration talking about?
These changes came days afterthe administration said it would
review refugee status if there'snobody living in the US.
A refugee is a person outsidethe US who is forced to flee
their home country due toviolence, persecution, or other
issues that put them in danger.
The process can take years ofvetting before someone is
approved to enter the US.
Now the administration isreconsidering those already
(22:31):
here.
I obtained a memo issued by thedirector of U.S.
citizenship and immigrationservices late last month.
That memo calls for reviewingall refugees admitted into the
country under the Bidenadministration, essentially
reopening their cases.
They may need to bereinterviewed and some may lose
their status.
The memo says the agency shouldquote only admit refugees that
can fully and appropriatelyassimilate.
Immigration advocates havecalled the recent changes on
(22:53):
refugee reviews, visa, and greencard applications deeply
destabilizing to familiesalready in the U.S.
SPEAKER_07 (22:59):
And that's very broad, refugees who can fully
and appropriately assimilate.
What about asylum cases fromother countries?
SPEAKER_09 (23:05):
Right.
Asylum, a different process.
And as I mentioned, all asylumapplications were paused after
the shooting.
During that interview yesterdaywith NBC's Meet the Promise, no
one said asylum reviews wouldrestart when the agency has,
quote, dealt with the backlog.
There is a one million casebacklog at USCIS.
For now, the administration islikely to continue to scrutinize
not just those who want to cometo the U.S., but also those who
(23:27):
are already here.
Thank you.
That's NPR's Jimena Bostillo.
Thank you.
SPEAKER_03 (23:37):
Some U.S.
lawmakers on both sides of theaisle say at least one of
President Trump's attacksagainst a boat in the Caribbean
Sea may have been a war crime.
SPEAKER_07 (23:44):
So far, U.S.
military forces have destroyed21 boats that the administration
says were trafficking drugs andkilled 83 people without
publicly releasing evidence thatthe boats were actually carrying
drugs.
Meanwhile, Venezuela is warningthat the U.S.
intends to invade the countryand seize its oil reserves.
SPEAKER_03 (23:59):
For more, we now go to John Otis, who has come in
the story from neighboringColombia.
John, the UN says these Americanstrikes violate international
law.
Some U.S.
lawmakers now have raised theissue of war crimes, but there
is no declaration of war againstVenezuela.
SPEAKER_02 (24:10):
Yeah, that's correct.
There's no formal war betweenthe two countries, but Trump has
said that he's waging waragainst Venezuelan drug
traffickers.
And as you mentioned, U.S.
forces have destroyed more thanuh 20 ledged drug boats and
killing more than 80 people.
But the Washington Post reportedthat following one of the first
strikes back in September, therewere initially two survivors
clinging to the poor wreckage.
According to the post, DefenseSecretary Pete Hickson had given
(24:33):
an order to kill everyone aboardalleged drug boats, and that
this order led to a secondstrike in which those survivors
were killed.
Senator Tim Caine, a Democratfrom Virginia, speaking on the
CBS news program Face theNation.
If that reporting is true, it'sa clear violation of the DOD's
own laws of war, as well asinternational laws about the way
you treat people who are in thatcircumstance.
(24:54):
And so this rises to the levelof a war crime, if it's true.
It's called the post report fakenews and Trump, but speaking
with reporters last night andairports went back to month.
But the post and servicescommittees have not to increase
oversight of the boat strikes.
Now, President Trump has beenwarning airlines to steer clear
of Venezuelan airspace.
What does that mean about apossible attack?
Yeah, you know, ever since hisfirst term, Trump has been
(25:15):
pushing for regime change inVenezuela.
It's President Nicolas Madurohas quenched the country's
democracy and its economy,prompting about eight million
Venezuelans to flee overseas.
And Trump has also confirmedthat he recently talked to
Maduro on the phone, though hedidn't provide any details.
On Sunday, Venezuela's vicepresident Delcy Rodriguez made a
statement from Maduro claimingthat this is all about oil.
SPEAKER_04 (25:37):
Venezuela, they don't make them a lot of people.
SPEAKER_02 (26:14):
But Trump has also been quick to defend former
presidents elsewhere in theworld who get into legal hot
water.
Woman or London Hernandez is aformer Honduran president who
was sentenced last year in theU.S.
to 45 years in prison forhelping to traffic more than 400
tons of cocaine into the U.S.
without providing any evidence.
Trump claimed that Hernandez wasquote set up by the Biden
administration and that hedeserves a full pardon.
Ms.
Genomotis reporting from theColombian capital of Bohemian.
SPEAKER_03 (26:36):
Thanks for letting him.
Thanks.
SPEAKER_07 (26:44):
This week sees the U.S.
again ramping up diplomaticefforts to end the war in
Ukraine.
SPEAKER_03 (26:49):
A senior White House delegation hosted Ukrainian
negotiators on Sunday, and moretalks are expected when U.S.
Envoy Steve Whitkopf heads toMoscow later today.
SPEAKER_07 (26:56):
Joining us to talk about the state of play is NPR's
Charles Mays, who joins us onthe line from Moscow.
Hi, Charles.
SPEAKER_10 (27:01):
Morning, Lemon.
SPEAKER_07 (27:02):
Okay, so let's begin with this weekend's
negotiations.
What can you tell us?
SPEAKER_10 (27:05):
Yeah, sure.
You know, so on Sunday, uhSecretary of State Marco Rubio,
along with White House envoySteve Whitkop and Jared Kushner,
who, of course, the son-in-lawof the president, hosted a
Ukraine delegation for talks inFlorida, uh, which has emerged
as kind of a nexus forUkraine-related diplomacy in
recent weeks.
Uh, discussions were focused onthis new U.S.
peace plan, uh, initiallycriticized as heavily tilted in
Russia's favor, but sinceamended with input from Ukraine
(27:27):
and Europe.
Now, Rubio called the meetingproductive, even as he made
clear there was plenty more workto do.
SPEAKER_00 (27:31):
He also had this to say we don't just want to end
the war, we also want to helpUkraine be safe forever.
So never again will they faceanother invasion.
And people importantly, we wantthem to enter an age of true
prosperity.
SPEAKER_10 (27:40):
Now, this meeting was also notable because of a
shift in the makeup of theUkrainian delegation.
(28:24):
That's after a corruptionscandal led to the resignation
of Ukrainian President VladimirZelensky's chief of staff, who
had been the lead negotiatorwith the U.S., how much that
influenced the talks is tough tosay.
Trump, in brief comments toJournalist Sunday, referred to
the corruption scandal as alittle problem.
Uh Rubio didn't mention it atall.
SPEAKER_07 (28:38):
Okay.
Now, White House envoy SteveWhitkoff is expected in Moscow
soon.
Any sense of what he can expect?
SPEAKER_10 (28:44):
Yeah, you know, he arrives later today and will
meet with Russian PresidentVladimir Putin either tonight or
tomorrow.
But Whitkoff has his ownbaggage.
You know, a recently leakedtranscript of an audio recording
recorded by Bloomberg Newscertainly appeared to show
Whitkoff actively coaching theKremlin on how to engage with
Trump and working with them toincorporate key Russian talking
points into the original draftof the peace plan.
With that said, uh, Trump hasdismissed this as basically
deal-making one-on-one.
(29:05):
And Putin also defended Whitkop,saying, yeah, he's a polite and
intelligent guy who tried towork with us.
And wouldn't it be strange ifhe'd come here and just insulted
us and expected to get anythingdone?
SPEAKER_07 (29:13):
So, okay, Whitkop and Putin have some rapport, as
he as I heard there.
Trump says he does as well withPutin, but has that translated
into any actual flexibility inthe Russian position?
SPEAKER_10 (29:23):
It's a good question, yeah, because Putin,
it seems, is trying to tempt theUS into upping the pressure on
Ukraine to accept the deal.
You know, on Friday he offeredan immediate end to hostilities
if Ukraine withdraws fromterritory Moscow claims, which
may sound appealing if youignore that it's Ukrainian land
that Russia hasn't been able toseize in more than three years
of fighting, although Putinargues it's just a matter of
time.
Meanwhile, Russia has beentempting the US in other ways.
Putin's negotiators, theyconstantly talk about how much
(29:46):
money the US can make whenRussia wants the war end and
sanctions were lifted, uh, whichis why some of these statements
out of Florida were interestingto hear.
You know, they suggest the U.S.
now sees prosperity and businessdeals as key to a lasting peace.
The question is to what degreeare they seen as a substitute uh
for Western security guaranteesfor Ukraine, that Kiev has
always sought and Moscow isalways rejected.
SPEAKER_07 (30:04):
That's NPR's Charles Maynes in Moscow.
Thank you, Charles.
SPEAKER_10 (30:06):
Thank you.
SPEAKER_07 (30:10):
And that's the first for Monday, December 1st.
I'm Lila Floaton.
SPEAKER_03 (30:14):
If you enjoyed starting your day with the first
in our radio show MorganEdition, and no that you do,
please consider donating to yourlocal NPR station.
It goes to supporting reportersin your communities and also
around the world to keep the NPRnetwork strong.
Visit donate.npl.org slash thefirst to contribute.
SPEAKER_07 (30:29):
Today's episode of The First was edited by on the
new homonym terminal common DCand Lisa Thompson.
It was produced by the muchmeeting on students toward
Thomas.
We had engineering support fromStacey Abbott and our technical
director is Carly Strange.
Join us again tomorrow.
SPEAKER_01 (30:49):
Want to hear this podcast without sponsor breaks?
Amazon Prime members can listento Upfirst sponsor free through
Amazon Music.
Or you can also support NPR'svital journalism and get
UpfirstPlus at plus.npr.org.
That's plus.npr.org.
SPEAKER_03 (31:03):
Public radio is American as Apple Pie.
This Giving Tuesday is our firstwithout federal funding.
We need you to keep thisAmerican tradition alive.
Give now at donate.npr.org.
SPEAKER_08 (31:15):
On the next through line from NPR, the mother of
Thanksgiving.
If every state should join inUnion Thanksgiving on the 24th
of this month, would it not be arenewed pledge of love and
loyalty to the Constitution ofthe United States?
SPEAKER_01 (31:29):
Listen to Throughline in the NPR app or
wherever you get your podcasts.
SPEAKER_06 (31:48):
If America is a house, then in my observation,
MPR and PBS are the last twowindows that aren't fogged up
with straight propaganda, withstraight corporate cash, and
with straight politicaltantrums.
They are the quiet place wherethe nation is can still think
(32:12):
before it speaks, wherecuriosity is still sacred, and
where the volume is low, youknow, that low-speaking voice
they have, but the death is veryhigh.
I have been listening to PBS andMPR for years, even when I was a
staunch uh neoconservative.
(32:35):
And in times like these, quiettruth is very powerful.
Quiet truth in k is uhrevolutionary because we live in
a moment uh where information isunfortunately treated like a
fast food meal.
(32:56):
It is cheap, it is addictive,and it is engineered to keep you
clicking on things instead ofthinking about things.
Outrage is merchandised.
Misinformation is monetized, andpoliticians play talk show
hosts, and talk show hostspretend to be prophets.
(33:20):
And in the middle of thatcircus, you have MPR and PBS
steady, unbothered, unpurchased,doing the unglamorous work of
real journalism and attemptingat real education.
MPR doesn't need to scare you tostay on the air.
(33:41):
PBS doesn't need to lie to youto keep their sponsors.
They don't chase controversy.
They chase clarity.
That alone, to me, makes themworth protecting.
They're the ones who stillbelieve in a conversation, and
that a conversation should belonger than a soundbite.
(34:02):
A documentary can still tell thetruth without the CGI
explosiveness, and children'sshows can build a character and
not just their attention span.
And a news story can be aboutfacts, not just pole-tested
talking points or poll-testedparty lines.
(34:25):
Now, PBS, personally, when I wasgrowing up, it talked me and a
lot of the other American peoplethe alphabet before Twitter was
a thing.
PBS raised half of thiscountry's kids on Sesame Street,
and Sesame Street served morefamilies than half of the
politicians who actually claimto care about your children.
(34:47):
And NPR is that friend whodoesn't show up yelling, they
show up quietly and slowlyexplaining.
They're the ones who say, holdon, let's walk through this
together, where every otherplatform is screaming, or every
other platform is panic, orevery other platform is fire
check, wherever the it's panicfirst, fact check later, or fact
(35:10):
check never.
Opinion, opinion, opinion,opinion, opinion.
And that matters.
See, a democracy or a republicisn't maintained by noise.
It is maintained by informedpeople.
And a republic doesn't surviveon slogans, it survives on
citizens who understand theirworld deeply enough not to be
(35:34):
played like violins every singleelection cycle.
PBS and MPR are safeguardsagainst ignorance.
Public service journalism andpublic education in their purest
form.
And yet they are constantlyattacked.
Not because they're biased, no,because they refuse to be
biased, because they refuse tobe bot, because they refuse to
(35:57):
take a left or right.
Right side.
Because they have the audacityto put the truth, public truth,
above profit.
Because they aren't loyal toparties or politicians, they are
loyal to the public that willalways rub against private
power.
You cut PBS, you're cutting offthe nation's early childhood
(36:20):
education.
You cut MPR, you're giving oneof the latest lanterns of
thoughtful reporting in adarkening media landscape.
Supporting them isn't aboutsupporting my nostalgia.
It's not about tote bag ortallions or soft jazz that they
play between segments.
It's about survival.
Intellectual survival, civicsurvival, moral survival.
(36:43):
And if we're serious, trulyserious, about passing down a
better country than the one weinherited, then we must invest
in the institutions thatcultivate the minds of people
and not try to manipulate them.
MPR and PBS don't just informAmerica, they elevate it.
(37:04):
So yes, I do support them, and Ihope that you would too.
Support them, fund them, defendthem, because the day MPR and
PBS go silent is the day we loseone of the most important and
last mirrors that shows us whowe really are, and who we might
(37:26):
want to become.
If you can, I know it's hard,but think about funding PBR uh
uh PBS and MPR.
(37:55):
Ten athletes half a millionfears How America turned a
statistical blip into aspiritual crisis to roll McLean
november thirteenth, twentytwenty five, the arithmetic of
fear ten athletes out of half amillion.
That's the real number, not theheadline, not the hysteria.
Ten transgender college athletesout of more than five hundred
(38:15):
zero zero zero NCAA competitors,a fraction so small it should
disappear into the margins ofstatistical noise.
And yet somehow this microscopicfigure has managed to set entire
legislatures ablaze, drivepolicy across dozens of states
and become a new front inAmerica's unending culture war.
(38:35):
It's worth asking, how does adecimal point become a doomsday?
The answer isn't about sports.
It's about the soul of a nationaddicted to fear of people who
no longer know how todistinguish a symbol from a
threat.
Because when America panics,math doesn't matter.
Myth does.
And the myth at the center ofthis new crusade is simple that
(38:58):
womanhood itself is under siege,that somewhere in the dark
corners of locker rooms andpodiums, civilization is being
rewritten by a handful ofconfused college kids.
Um that's not reason that'stheater and the audience keeps
buying tickets.
The anatomy of a panic if you'vestudied history, this isn't new.
(39:18):
Every generation invents ascapegoat to project its unease.
During the Cold War, it wascommunists in the classroom.
During Reconstruction it was theimage of the black man at the
ballot box.
Today is trans athletes theperfect villain for a society
teetering between oldcertainties and new realities.
Ten athletes, and suddenly weare meant to believe that
(39:40):
fairness itself is collapsing.
The moral panic doesn't flowfrom data, it flows from
symbolic contagion.
Ten athletes aren't dangerous,but the idea that categories are
shifting that biology andidentity are being renegotiated
strikes something ancient in us.
It reminds us how fragile ourdefinitions really and fear,
(40:02):
when properly marketed, isprofitable.
Politicians found they couldraise money, stir voters, and
score headlines simply byclaiming to protect women's
sports.
Governors and state legislatorsdiscover that a law restricting
a problem that barely existscould still make them look like
warriors for virtue.
They know exactly what they'redoing.
(40:22):
The protection isn't for women,it's for their own power.
Because in the modern politicaleconomy, outrage is currency and
the smaller the incident, thepurer the panic.
Trita.
The theater of protection, let'snot kid ourselves.
Some people in this debate arearguing in good faith.
They genuinely worry aboutfairness in competition, about
(40:46):
the physiological differencesthat may exist.
Those are valid conversations,but that's not what's happening
here.
This isn't a debate.
It's a ritual.
The phrase protecting women'ssports has become a kind of
secular liturgy.
It's recited not for clarity butfor absolution to convince the
speaker they still stand forsomething pure in a morally
(41:07):
polluted world.
The irony.
Many of the same lawmakerscrying about fairness in women's
sports have done next to nothingto fund women's programs,
enforce Title IX or pay womenathletes equitably.
They will defend a trophyceremony before they'll defend
maternity leave.
That's not protection.
That's performance.
(41:28):
And performance has always beenAmerica's favorite substitute
for repentance.
The crowd doesn't care whetherthe policy works, they just want
to see the spectacle of someonebeing cast out the symbolic
purge that says we are stillrighteous.
This is not new.
When Pilate washed his hands thecrowd cheered.
The washing wasn't justice, itwas theater.
(41:53):
The liberal feedback loop now,here's where progressives often
miss the mark.
Every panic needs an echo, andthe left provides it faithfully.
Each conservative bill sparks anequal and opposite overreaction.
Hashtags erupt, statements pourout, corporations issue rainbow
colored apologies, and suddenlythe entire discourse becomes a
(42:15):
mirror maze of moral preening.
The right thrives on the outrageof the left.
The left needs the moral horrorof the right.
It's a symbiotic hysteria.
And lost in the noise are theactual athletes, real human
beings who train, sweat, andcompete in good faith while the
(42:36):
country uses their existence asa political prop.
Both sides feed the spectacle.
Conservatives use trans athletesto stoke fear, liberals use them
to showcase virtue.
Neither side actually listens.
It's all algorithms now.
One side posts an image of abiological male towering over
girls at a metal ceremony, theother side replies with slogans
(42:58):
about liberation and tolerance.
Both images flatten the humanbeing in the frame into a
talking point.
We have turned flesh and bloodinto clickbait.
And that's the real sin.
V.
The idolatry of certainty everyage builds its own idols.
Ours are made of identity.
(43:18):
We no longer bow to goldencalves, we worship the
categories we've created.
Conservative, liberal, male,female, victim, oppressor, each
side clutching their label likea relic.
And in that worship we forgetthat truth isn't a possession,
it's a pursuit.
The transathlete controversyexposes our deeper sickness, the
(43:40):
collapse of shared moralimagination.
We've replaced discernment withdeclaration.
We don't ask what's right, weask which side are you on.
Scripture warns us about thistemptation, for we wrestle not
against flesh and blood, butagainst principalities, against
powers, against the rulers ofthe darkness of this world, but
we don't believe that anymore.
(44:00):
We've convinced ourselves theenemy is flesh and blood, the
athlete, the parent, theneighbor, the teacher, and so we
fight shadows, calling itrighteousness.
We demonize children and call itprotection.
We legislate fear and call itorder.
That's idolatry, plain andsimple the worship of our own
certainty.
(44:21):
The false idol of fairness,let's talk about fairness,
because every politician in thisconversation claims to be
defending it.
Fairness is the altar where bothsides pray but neither side
practices what they preach.
Fairness isn't just about whowins the race, it's about who
even gets to start it.
If fairness truly mattered, we'dbe talking about the
(44:43):
socioeconomic gap that keepsmillions of girls, cisgender and
trans alike from access tosports.
We'd be addressing inequity infacilities, scholarships,
nutrition, health care, butthose conversations don't trend.
It's easier to moralize about asingle podium photo than to
confront how poverty and policyshape athletic opportunity.
(45:04):
So fairness becomes a slogan away to sound virtuous while
doing nothing.
And that's why this panic feelsspiritual.
Because it's not about theathletes, it's about our hunger
for purity.
We want a world withoutcomplexity, without ambiguity,
without discomfort, but thegospel never promised us
comfort.
(45:24):
It promised us truth.
The seventh.
The mirror we refuse to face ifyou want to know why this panic
caught fire, look not at thetrans athletes, look at the rest
of us.
We're exhausted by uncertainty.
Gender, politics, technology,faith everything feels fluid.
So we reach for somethinganything that feels fixed.
(45:45):
The trans body becomes thebattlefield because it embodies
what terrifies us, change thatcannot be undone.
Conservatives call it moraldecay.
Progressives call it liberation.
Both are reacting to the sameanxiety that the old world is
fading faster than we canreplace it.
But beneath all the shoutinglies a question that no policy
(46:05):
can answer What happens to apeople who fear mystery more
than they fear lies?
Because that's where we are nowa culture that prefers clarity
to compassion, certainty towisdom, safety to truth.
And in that trade we have soldour soul for simplicity.
The eighth.
The call to maturity fear is achild's reflex.
(46:26):
Faith is an adult's discipline.
When Paul wrote When I was achild, I thought like a child he
was describing more than age.
He was describing the moralevolution from panic to peace.
America hasn't made that leapyet.
We still tremble at shadows.
We still mistake disagreementfor danger.
(46:46):
We still believe our safetydepends on someone else's
exclusion.
Ten athletes out of half amillion and the mightiest nation
on earth collapses intohysterics.
That's not moral strength.
That's spiritual infancy.
The mature response would be tosay this is complex but
manageable.
To recognize that policy canevolve without persecution, that
(47:09):
fairness and compassion aren'tenemies, but maturity doesn't
sell.
Rage does.
And so the circus continues eachside juggling scripture science
and slogans until the crowdforgets what truth ever looked
like.
The ninth, the kingdom versusthe crowd, there's an old truth
that should haunt us here.
(47:31):
The crowd that shouted Hosannaon Sunday shouted crucify him by
Friday.
Crowds are fickle.
They can be whipped intoholiness or hatred with the same
rhythm.
This current panic overathletes, bathrooms, pronouns,
flags is just the latest chantin that ancient cycle.
One week is drag queens, thenext it's vaccines, the next
(47:53):
it'll be something elseentirely.
The crowd never runs out ofenemies because fear never runs
out of fuel.
But the kingdom of God doesn'toperate on panic.
It operates on peace,discernment, and love that casts
out fear.
And that's the test before us.
Can a nation saturated in fearrediscover faith not in
(48:14):
politicians or parties, but intruth itself?
Ex The closing benediction, ifthere is any moral to this
madness, it's this truth doesn'tpanic.
The God of Scripture never oncetold his people to be afraid of
small numbers.
Gideon's army won with threehundred.
The disciples turned the worldupside down with twelve.
(48:35):
And yet we, with all ourtechnology and wealth, tremble
at ten college athletes.
That's not righteousness.
That's cowardice dressed asconviction.
The real battle isn't in lockerrooms or courts, it's in hearts.
It's the daily choice betweenfear and faith, between clinging
to our certainties or walkinghumbly into complexity.
To the conservatives weaponizingfear, you are building idols of
(48:59):
purity, not pillars of justice.
To the progressives chasingvirtue clout, you are turning
compassion into performance art.
Both sides have mistaken noisefor light.
The time has come for a deepercourage one that refuses to
build moral crusades on thebacks of children, one that
seeks understanding rather thanapplause.
Because if we can't handle tenathletes without collapsing into
(49:22):
moral hysteria, how will we everhandle the real tests that await
us poverty, war, climate,inequality, despair?
We cannot afford anothergeneration ruled by panic.
Fear builds walls, faith buildsnations, and only one of those
will stand when the crowd moveson to its next target.
(49:43):
Epilogue.
If you really want to protectsomething sacred, protect your
ability to see truth clearly.
Protect your neighbor'shumanity, protect your peace
from those who profit off youroutrage.
Ten athletes didn't breakAmerica.
Our fear did.
And only faith, not in our side,but in something higher, can
(50:04):
mend it.
Subscribe to Darrell McLeanlaunched six months ago cultural
critic and overthinkingintellectual with a theological
edge.
Writing sharp takes on politics,faith, and society always
questioning, always diggingdeeper.
Welcome to the Darrell McLean Show.
Independent media that won'treinforce tribalism.
We have one planet.
Nobody is leaving, so let usreason together.
We're gonna start this show offtoday with a show question.
Luigi Manny Gioni's lawyers areasking for the case to be tossed
out on the basis that policefailed to read him his Miranda
(01:55):
rights when they went throughthe actions of arresting him.
Your opinion, how will this playout?
Thank you, thank you for thequestion.
So um let me do it.
Let me do it like this.
Let me pull this uh chair uphere and get this scotch going
(02:16):
because now I get to go to astory that hits the crossroads
of law power and what I think isone of the most misunderstood
phrases in American policing,which is they didn't read me my
rights.
And yeah, those famous Mirandarights, the ones that people
(02:38):
treat like a magical shield thatmakes handcuffs fall off and
charges vanish like smoke from asunny altar.
But this time it's not somerandom street rumor.
This time it's showing up in acourtroom of Luigi Magioni,
whose lawyers are trying to tossout this case because they say
(03:00):
police arrested him withoutreading him said rights.
Now, look, as we discussed onthe previous episode, I've worn
the badge as a master at arms inthe United States Navy for
Federal Protective Services andunder the Department of West
Security.
I've been the guy doing thequestioning, and the guy reading
the rights, and the guy whoknows exactly why the courts
(03:23):
take this so seriously, and Iknow exactly why Hollywood lied
to everybody about how thisstuff actually works.
So here's what I'm gonna dotonight, and I'm gonna break
this down clean, sharp, with nosugar, no theatric, it's just
the truth, because this caseisn't just about mangiotte, it's
about what happens when thepublic understanding of policing
(03:44):
meets uh policing meets theactual legal mach uh mechanisms
behind the scenes.
It's about rights,responsibilities, and the thin,
fragile line between authorityand abuse.
And I'm gonna tell it in a waythat your uncle, your cousin,
your grandma, and your lawyercan all understand.
(04:08):
So, number one, they didn't readme my rights is a urban legend.
Somewhere along the way, Americaconvinced itself that no Miranda
rights equals no case.
Like if the police forget toread one sentence, this the
courthouse suddenly the doorsjust slide open, and like
(04:29):
Walmart at 8 a.m.
and everybody runs free and thecharges dissolve into the wind.
But that's not actually how thelaw works, that's just how
reality TV works.
And the truth is simpler and wayless cinematic.
Miranda protects your words, notyour charges.
It protects your statements, notyour circumstances.
(04:51):
Police actually don't have toread you your rights when they
detain you.
They don't have to read you yourrights when they arrest you.
They only have to read you themwhen two particular things
collide.
One, you're in custody, not freeto walk away.
Two, they're interrogating youand asking you questions meant
to get incriminating answers.
(05:12):
Now, these two conditions don'tmeet at the altar.
No Miranda wedding, noviolation.
And it's amazing how many peopledon't know that, includes uh
people who should.
But here's the other side ofthat coin.
When Miranda is required and thepolice fail to read it, oh
buddy, that's a cause for somelegal earthquakes.
(05:34):
No case, no ending newts, butquakes.
Now here's the second point.
Uh what Miranda actually does,and this is the part that nobody
wants to hear, so I'm gonna putit very bluntly.
If the cops failed to read youyour Miranda rights and
Miranderize you, the judgedoesn't erase reality.
Evidence doesn't vanish, andguns don't disappear, and videos
(05:57):
only evaporate, and witnessesdon't suddenly lose their
memories.
The court doesn't hit the deletecrime button, but what the court
can do, and what many onlylawyers are betting on is this
it will suppress everything hesaid after he was effectively
arrested.
So no statement, no confession.
(06:17):
No, I didn't mean to.
No, what happened was in hiswords, if his words were the
backbone of the case, then thespine collapses.
If the words were just seasoningon the case, then the dish will
still hold up.
But here's when it getsinteresting.
Courts also look at policecredibility.
Judges remember sloppy work,defense attorneys spell blood,
(06:40):
juries raise eyebrows, andMiranda violation is sometimes
just like pulling a loose threadbecause you don't know what
fabric unveils until youactually tug on the thread.
The next point is So what'sMangioni's lawyers actually
arguing here?
Mangioni's lawyers are basicallysaying, hold up, when police
(07:03):
approach him, they weren't justdetaining him.
They were performing the actionsof arrest, controlling his
movement, limiting freedom,issuing commands, acting like
the cuffs were already on,meaning he was in custody.
So when they questioned himabout Miranda rights, they're
acting is i i if so, then thatwould mean anything that he said
(07:24):
uh in that period of time wouldbe tainted.
Now that's a smart argument.
It's debatable, but it's still asmart argument.
If the it it because it forcesthe courts to answer one
question, at what exact momentdid the encounter become an
arrest?
Because let me tell you, uh, assomeone who's worn a badge,
police love the phrase, hewasn't under arrest, we were
(07:47):
just investigating.
That line there has saved moreconfessions than any miracle in
the book of Acts.
The defense, meanwhile, lovesthe phrase, a reasonable person
wouldn't feel free to leave.
So you got this uh thing wherepolice are gonna argue technical
procedure and the defenseattorneys are gonna argue live
(08:10):
reality, and a judge will haveto decide whose version of
freedom counts, and that is thewhole chessboard.
Now the the there are three waysthis can play out, and let me
give you only three scenariosthat matter.
And the the first one is therare when statements suppress
(08:30):
cases collapse.
If his statements are the case,the core, the heart, the
skeleton, then losing them gutsthe prosecution.
The judge won't dismiss the caseI write because of Miranda, but
they'll dismiss because theevidence becomes too weak to
stand on its own stood legs.
That's the defense's hailmarried.
(08:50):
Possible, yes.
Common, actually not.
The second scenario, the likelyoutcome is the statements are
suppressed, cases uh will limpforward.
Now, this is where my moneyusually lands.
His statements get tossed, theprostitution gets embarrassed,
the judge issues a sternwarning, and the cases survives
(09:13):
just a lot uglier.
Why?
Because if they got a video,witnesses, physical evidence,
prior reports, independentcooperation, his silence
actually won't save him.
The state bills around themissing pieces, and will just
keep marching towards a trialpart, possibly a guilty verdict.
(09:34):
Now the third scenario is thepolice win, and the judge says
Miranda was required.
Now, this is when the courtdecides look, he wasn't under
arrest yet, he was detained,questions were routine, and no
Miranda rights were needed.
If that happens, everything hesays comes into the clean and
shiny, and the defense is cookedmedium well.
(09:54):
So my personal and professionaltake is this this isn't actually
a slam dunk.
Manzioli's lawyers are doingwhat any good defense team would
do, which is attacking theprocedure, not the crime.
It's smart, it's strategic, butit is still an uphill battle.
Courts don't dismiss chargesfrom Miranda violations, they
(10:15):
just toss out words that wereillegally obtained.
So the real question is this howmuch of the state's case depends
on Maggioli's mouth?
If the prosecution can't standwithout his statements, then the
whole thing may collapse like apoorly built altar.
But if the prosecution has realevidence, then his legal team
just trimmed one branch off thetree, but the tree still
(10:38):
remains.
Now the bigger story behind theheadline is this, and this is
why this matters beyondMaggioli.
In a country where trust in thepolice is fractured, where
communities feel overpolice yet,underprotected, where the rights
are often uh recited but notrespected, the procedure matters
as much as the crime, becausethe constitution doesn't bend
(11:00):
for convenience, and Mirandaisn't a declaration, it's a uh
protection.
So when police cut corners, itjust doesn't endanger cases, it
endangers public trust.
And when the public doesn'tunderstand how rights actually
work, that misunderstandingbecomes gasoline in every
argument about justice.
(11:20):
Mangioni is just one man, butthe question raised by this case
it belongs to all of us.
What does freedom actually meanin the United States of America?
Who defies defines custody andhow do we balance safety and
civil rights?
How do we uphold the law withoutbreaking the Constitution?
(11:42):
So tonight we'll we're divingdeep into all of that, and we're
going to do it with clarity,with honesty, and a kind of
moral backbone the countryneeds.
This isn't Real McClain show,and we are just getting started.
Be right back in a moment.
(12:11):
Hey, here's the historical arcthat matters.
Sleep deprivation beatings,intimidation threats,
psychological manipulation.
The turning point was Brown v.
Mississippi.
1936.
The Supreme Court saidtorture-induced confessions
violate due process.
Hey, this case becomes the rootof everything the Mondiani
(12:34):
defense is now pulling from.
A two, the 1950s, 1960s policesought torture.
In secret interrogations afterphysical coercion became legally
risky, departments leaned on.
Prolonged questioning, denyingcounsel holding suspects for
hours or days trick tactics.
This forced the courts to expandprotections.
A Escabito v.
Illinois, 1964, required policeto honor requests for lawyers.
(12:57):
A three, Miranda B.
Arizona, 1966.
A the Miranda decisionformalized the warning so
suspects understood.
The right to remain silent, theright to an attorney that
statements could be used againstthem before Miranda.
You could be interrogatedwithout ever being told you had
choices.
A four, the 1970s, 1990, Ceph.
(13:17):
Police skirting Mirandadepartments experimented with
pre-Miranda questioning,non-custodial interviews, and
the infamous public safetyexception from New York v.
Quarrels, 1984.
A modern Miranda law was forgedthrough officers pushing the
boundaries and courts trying totether them back.
A five Dickerson VI UnitedStates 2000 Congress tried to
replace Miranda with a weakerstandard.
(13:39):
The court said no Miranda isconstitutional, not optional.
So when Mangioni's lawyers saypolice acted like they were
arresting him here, tapping into80 years of Supreme Court
rulings affirming that rightsaren't window dressing.
May they're inheritedprotections built out of decades
of abuses.
May his case isn't happening ina vacuum, it's part of a long
American fight about how muchthe state can pressure a citizen
(14:00):
before the Constitution kicksin.
SPEAKER_07 (14:02):
I know you don't say good morning.
Guess what tomorrow is?
SPEAKER_03 (14:05):
Well, it's not my birthday, so it's just another
Tuesday as far as I'm concerned.
SPEAKER_07 (14:07):
Okay, not just another Tuesday.
It's Giving Tuesday.
SPEAKER_03 (14:10):
That's right, that's forgotten.
SPEAKER_07 (14:11):
Yeah, and NPR celebrates this global day of
generosity every year, but we'venever had a year quite like this
one before.
SPEAKER_03 (14:17):
Right.
And everyone out there probablyby now has heard that federal
funding for public media waseliminated as of October 1st.
That means NPR is now operatingwithout federal support for the
first time in our history.
That's more than 50 years.
It's a big change, also a bigchallenge, but one that we
definitely can overcometogether.
SPEAKER_07 (14:31):
Right, overcome it because of our listeners.
You count on up first to bringyou the news you need to start
your day, and we're so gratefulto the listeners who have
already stepped up to donate forthis program.
Like Rika in Tennessee, who saysevery day I listen to Up First
in the car after I drop my kidsoff at school.
It allows me to stay connectedand informed with honest,
eloquent reporting.
Your show helps me stay educatedand engaged.
SPEAKER_03 (14:52):
She called me eloquent.
Thank you so much, Rika, andthank you for listening and
thank you for your support.
SPEAKER_07 (14:56):
And you can be like Rika too.
Please make your Giving Tuesdaygift right now by signing up for
NPR Plus.
Thank you for coming to us foryour news, for trusting us, and
for supporting us.
It's a simple, recurringdonation that gets you perks
across NPR's podcast, and you'llbe supporting public media while
you listen.
Join us at plus.npr.org.
SPEAKER_03 (15:15):
The White House is tightening illegal immigration
pathways after last week'sshooting of two National Guard
members.
SPEAKER_07 (15:20):
Because the suspect was Afghan, the administration
(17:15):
is now pausing all asylumdecisions.
How else is it limiting legalimmigration?
SPEAKER_03 (17:21):
This is the first from NPR News.
U.S.
rights of the Caribbean areunder bipartisan scrutiny
announced a lawmaker stateDefense Secretary Pete Hex said
that the may have violatedinternational law when he
reportedly gave an order to killeveryone aboard one of the
alleged drug votes.
This rises to the level of a warcrime.
If it's true, we'll hear how theTrump administration is
responding.
SPEAKER_07 (17:40):
And Ukraine heads into a new round of peace talks
without its top negotiator.
President Zelensky's right-handman resigned in a corruption
scandal.
So how will the shakeup impactUkraine's hand at the bargaining
table?
Stay with us, we'll give you thenews you need to start your day.
SPEAKER_11 (17:56):
This message comes from Grammarly.
They have features that aretailor-made for working
professionals, so you can getall your writing done from start
(19:56):
to finish, all in one place.
Grammarly is designed to helpprofessionals with real-time
writing support on any project,email, and more.
Sign up for free and experiencehow Grammarly can elevate your
professional writing from startto finish.
Visit Grammarly.com slashpodcast.
That's Grammarly.com slashpodcast.
This message comes fromBetterHelp.
That's a dad.
BetterHelp resident FernandoMadera relates to needing
(20:18):
flexibility when it comes toscheduling therapy.
SPEAKER_05 (20:24):
That's why BetterHelp more therapists try
to have sessions, sometimes atnine, depending on the therapist
or during the weekend.
So I think that's what we needto deal with.
We're not alone who we can helpyou out.
SPEAKER_11 (20:33):
If a flexible schedule would help you, visit
betterhelp.com slash NPR for 10%off your first month of online
therapy.
SPEAKER_07 (20:40):
The White House is moving fast to tighten legal
immigration reviews after lastweek's shooting of two National
Guard members here inWashington.
SPEAKER_03 (20:47):
The suspect is Afghan national Rahmanola
Lakanwal, who's been chargedwith first-degree murder.
He was granted asylum earlierthis year after coming to the
U.S.
migrate Biden era program thatfacilitated temporary legal
status for people who work withthe U.S.
military in Afghanistan.
SPEAKER_07 (21:00):
NBRC Menomastillo covers immigration policy for us
and joins me now.
Good morning.
Good morning.
What are the changes theadministration announced after
the shooting?
SPEAKER_09 (21:08):
We're going to be talking about a few different
types of immigration processes.
First, the administration pausedall asylum decisions and also
visa reviews for people fromAfghanistan.
An order from the StateDepartment also pauses the
special immigrant visa forAfghans, which is a specific
program for those who helped theU.S.
military and its allies.
To be clear, the suspect was noton that visa, but like you
mentioned, had been grantedasylum earlier this year under
(21:30):
the Trump administration.
Second candidate Joseph Ablo,the director of U.S.
citizenship and immigrationservices, said anyone who
applies for a green card fromone of 19 countries on the list
will face heightened scrutiny.
And that list includesAfghanistan.
Trump officials argue that thosewho came to the U.S.
under former President Bidenthrough these legal processes
were not vetted properly.
Still in an interview with NBC'smetaphor, Home and Security
(21:51):
Secretary, Christy Gnomes thatinvestigators have other leads.
SPEAKER_08 (21:54):
But I will say we believe he was radicalized since
he's been here in this country,but we do believe it was through
connections in his homecommunity and state, and we're
going to continue to talk tothose who interacted with him or
his family members to talk tothem.
So far, we've had someparticipation.
So it's unclear what priorvetting could have uncovered.
SPEAKER_09 (22:10):
Okay, what other restrictions is the
administration talking about?
These changes came days afterthe administration said it would
review refugee status if there'snobody living in the US.
A refugee is a person outsidethe US who is forced to flee
their home country due toviolence, persecution, or other
issues that put them in danger.
The process can take years ofvetting before someone is
approved to enter the US.
Now the administration isreconsidering those already
(22:31):
here.
I obtained a memo issued by thedirector of U.S.
citizenship and immigrationservices late last month.
That memo calls for reviewingall refugees admitted into the
country under the Bidenadministration, essentially
reopening their cases.
They may need to bereinterviewed and some may lose
their status.
The memo says the agency shouldquote only admit refugees that
can fully and appropriatelyassimilate.
Immigration advocates havecalled the recent changes on
(22:53):
refugee reviews, visa, and greencard applications deeply
destabilizing to familiesalready in the U.S.
SPEAKER_07 (22:59):
And that's very broad, refugees who can fully
and appropriately assimilate.
What about asylum cases fromother countries?
SPEAKER_09 (23:05):
Right.
Asylum, a different process.
And as I mentioned, all asylumapplications were paused after
the shooting.
During that interview yesterdaywith NBC's Meet the Promise, no
one said asylum reviews wouldrestart when the agency has,
quote, dealt with the backlog.
There is a one million casebacklog at USCIS.
For now, the administration islikely to continue to scrutinize
not just those who want to cometo the U.S., but also those who
(23:27):
are already here.
Thank you.
That's NPR's Jimena Bostillo.
Thank you.
SPEAKER_03 (23:37):
Some U.S.
lawmakers on both sides of theaisle say at least one of
President Trump's attacksagainst a boat in the Caribbean
Sea may have been a war crime.
SPEAKER_07 (23:44):
So far, U.S.
military forces have destroyed21 boats that the administration
says were trafficking drugs andkilled 83 people without
publicly releasing evidence thatthe boats were actually carrying
drugs.
Meanwhile, Venezuela is warningthat the U.S.
intends to invade the countryand seize its oil reserves.
SPEAKER_03 (23:59):
For more, we now go to John Otis, who has come in
the story from neighboringColombia.
John, the UN says these Americanstrikes violate international
law.
Some U.S.
lawmakers now have raised theissue of war crimes, but there
is no declaration of war againstVenezuela.
SPEAKER_02 (24:10):
Yeah, that's correct.
There's no formal war betweenthe two countries, but Trump has
said that he's waging waragainst Venezuelan drug
traffickers.
And as you mentioned, U.S.
forces have destroyed more thanuh 20 ledged drug boats and
killing more than 80 people.
But the Washington Post reportedthat following one of the first
strikes back in September, therewere initially two survivors
clinging to the poor wreckage.
According to the post, DefenseSecretary Pete Hickson had given
(24:33):
an order to kill everyone aboardalleged drug boats, and that
this order led to a secondstrike in which those survivors
were killed.
Senator Tim Caine, a Democratfrom Virginia, speaking on the
CBS news program Face theNation.
If that reporting is true, it'sa clear violation of the DOD's
own laws of war, as well asinternational laws about the way
you treat people who are in thatcircumstance.
(24:54):
And so this rises to the levelof a war crime, if it's true.
It's called the post report fakenews and Trump, but speaking
with reporters last night andairports went back to month.
But the post and servicescommittees have not to increase
oversight of the boat strikes.
Now, President Trump has beenwarning airlines to steer clear
of Venezuelan airspace.
What does that mean about apossible attack?
Yeah, you know, ever since hisfirst term, Trump has been
(25:15):
pushing for regime change inVenezuela.
It's President Nicolas Madurohas quenched the country's
democracy and its economy,prompting about eight million
Venezuelans to flee overseas.
And Trump has also confirmedthat he recently talked to
Maduro on the phone, though hedidn't provide any details.
On Sunday, Venezuela's vicepresident Delcy Rodriguez made a
statement from Maduro claimingthat this is all about oil.
SPEAKER_04 (25:37):
Venezuela, they don't make them a lot of people.
SPEAKER_02 (26:14):
But Trump has also been quick to defend former
presidents elsewhere in theworld who get into legal hot
water.
Woman or London Hernandez is aformer Honduran president who
was sentenced last year in theU.S.
to 45 years in prison forhelping to traffic more than 400
tons of cocaine into the U.S.
without providing any evidence.
Trump claimed that Hernandez wasquote set up by the Biden
administration and that hedeserves a full pardon.
Ms.
Genomotis reporting from theColombian capital of Bohemian.
SPEAKER_03 (26:36):
Thanks for letting him.
Thanks.
SPEAKER_07 (26:44):
This week sees the U.S.
again ramping up diplomaticefforts to end the war in
Ukraine.
SPEAKER_03 (26:49):
A senior White House delegation hosted Ukrainian
negotiators on Sunday, and moretalks are expected when U.S.
Envoy Steve Whitkopf heads toMoscow later today.
SPEAKER_07 (26:56):
Joining us to talk about the state of play is NPR's
Charles Mays, who joins us onthe line from Moscow.
Hi, Charles.
SPEAKER_10 (27:01):
Morning, Lemon.
SPEAKER_07 (27:02):
Okay, so let's begin with this weekend's
negotiations.
What can you tell us?
SPEAKER_10 (27:05):
Yeah, sure.
You know, so on Sunday, uhSecretary of State Marco Rubio,
along with White House envoySteve Whitkop and Jared Kushner,
who, of course, the son-in-lawof the president, hosted a
Ukraine delegation for talks inFlorida, uh, which has emerged
as kind of a nexus forUkraine-related diplomacy in
recent weeks.
Uh, discussions were focused onthis new U.S.
peace plan, uh, initiallycriticized as heavily tilted in
Russia's favor, but sinceamended with input from Ukraine
(27:27):
and Europe.
Now, Rubio called the meetingproductive, even as he made
clear there was plenty more workto do.
SPEAKER_00 (27:31):
He also had this to say we don't just want to end
the war, we also want to helpUkraine be safe forever.
So never again will they faceanother invasion.
And people importantly, we wantthem to enter an age of true
prosperity.
SPEAKER_10 (27:40):
Now, this meeting was also notable because of a
shift in the makeup of theUkrainian delegation.
(28:24):
That's after a corruptionscandal led to the resignation
of Ukrainian President VladimirZelensky's chief of staff, who
had been the lead negotiatorwith the U.S., how much that
influenced the talks is tough tosay.
Trump, in brief comments toJournalist Sunday, referred to
the corruption scandal as alittle problem.
Uh Rubio didn't mention it atall.
SPEAKER_07 (28:38):
Okay.
Now, White House envoy SteveWhitkoff is expected in Moscow
soon.
Any sense of what he can expect?
SPEAKER_10 (28:44):
Yeah, you know, he arrives later today and will
meet with Russian PresidentVladimir Putin either tonight or
tomorrow.
But Whitkoff has his ownbaggage.
You know, a recently leakedtranscript of an audio recording
recorded by Bloomberg Newscertainly appeared to show
Whitkoff actively coaching theKremlin on how to engage with
Trump and working with them toincorporate key Russian talking
points into the original draftof the peace plan.
With that said, uh, Trump hasdismissed this as basically
deal-making one-on-one.
(29:05):
And Putin also defended Whitkop,saying, yeah, he's a polite and
intelligent guy who tried towork with us.
And wouldn't it be strange ifhe'd come here and just insulted
us and expected to get anythingdone?
SPEAKER_07 (29:13):
So, okay, Whitkop and Putin have some rapport, as
he as I heard there.
Trump says he does as well withPutin, but has that translated
into any actual flexibility inthe Russian position?
SPEAKER_10 (29:23):
It's a good question, yeah, because Putin,
it seems, is trying to tempt theUS into upping the pressure on
Ukraine to accept the deal.
You know, on Friday he offeredan immediate end to hostilities
if Ukraine withdraws fromterritory Moscow claims, which
may sound appealing if youignore that it's Ukrainian land
that Russia hasn't been able toseize in more than three years
of fighting, although Putinargues it's just a matter of
time.
Meanwhile, Russia has beentempting the US in other ways.
Putin's negotiators, theyconstantly talk about how much
(29:46):
money the US can make whenRussia wants the war end and
sanctions were lifted, uh, whichis why some of these statements
out of Florida were interestingto hear.
You know, they suggest the U.S.
now sees prosperity and businessdeals as key to a lasting peace.
The question is to what degreeare they seen as a substitute uh
for Western security guaranteesfor Ukraine, that Kiev has
always sought and Moscow isalways rejected.
SPEAKER_07 (30:04):
That's NPR's Charles Maynes in Moscow.
Thank you, Charles.
SPEAKER_10 (30:06):
Thank you.
SPEAKER_07 (30:10):
And that's the first for Monday, December 1st.
I'm Lila Floaton.
SPEAKER_03 (30:14):
If you enjoyed starting your day with the first
in our radio show MorganEdition, and no that you do,
please consider donating to yourlocal NPR station.
It goes to supporting reportersin your communities and also
around the world to keep the NPRnetwork strong.
Visit donate.npl.org slash thefirst to contribute.
SPEAKER_07 (30:29):
Today's episode of The First was edited by on the
new homonym terminal common DCand Lisa Thompson.
It was produced by the muchmeeting on students toward
Thomas.
We had engineering support fromStacey Abbott and our technical
director is Carly Strange.
Join us again tomorrow.
SPEAKER_01 (30:49):
Want to hear this podcast without sponsor breaks?
Amazon Prime members can listento Upfirst sponsor free through
Amazon Music.
Or you can also support NPR'svital journalism and get
UpfirstPlus at plus.npr.org.
That's plus.npr.org.
SPEAKER_03 (31:03):
Public radio is American as Apple Pie.
This Giving Tuesday is our firstwithout federal funding.
We need you to keep thisAmerican tradition alive.
Give now at donate.npr.org.
SPEAKER_08 (31:15):
On the next through line from NPR, the mother of
Thanksgiving.
If every state should join inUnion Thanksgiving on the 24th
of this month, would it not be arenewed pledge of love and
loyalty to the Constitution ofthe United States?
SPEAKER_01 (31:29):
Listen to Throughline in the NPR app or
wherever you get your podcasts.
SPEAKER_06 (31:48):
If America is a house, then in my observation,
MPR and PBS are the last twowindows that aren't fogged up
with straight propaganda, withstraight corporate cash, and
with straight politicaltantrums.
They are the quiet place wherethe nation is can still think
(32:12):
before it speaks, wherecuriosity is still sacred, and
where the volume is low, youknow, that low-speaking voice
they have, but the death is veryhigh.
I have been listening to PBS andMPR for years, even when I was a
staunch uh neoconservative.
(32:35):
And in times like these, quiettruth is very powerful.
Quiet truth in k is uhrevolutionary because we live in
a moment uh where information isunfortunately treated like a
fast food meal.
(32:56):
It is cheap, it is addictive,and it is engineered to keep you
clicking on things instead ofthinking about things.
Outrage is merchandised.
Misinformation is monetized, andpoliticians play talk show
hosts, and talk show hostspretend to be prophets.
(33:20):
And in the middle of thatcircus, you have MPR and PBS
steady, unbothered, unpurchased,doing the unglamorous work of
real journalism and attemptingat real education.
MPR doesn't need to scare you tostay on the air.
(33:41):
PBS doesn't need to lie to youto keep their sponsors.
They don't chase controversy.
They chase clarity.
That alone, to me, makes themworth protecting.
They're the ones who stillbelieve in a conversation, and
that a conversation should belonger than a soundbite.
(34:02):
A documentary can still tell thetruth without the CGI
explosiveness, and children'sshows can build a character and
not just their attention span.
And a news story can be aboutfacts, not just pole-tested
talking points or poll-testedparty lines.
(34:25):
Now, PBS, personally, when I wasgrowing up, it talked me and a
lot of the other American peoplethe alphabet before Twitter was
a thing.
PBS raised half of thiscountry's kids on Sesame Street,
and Sesame Street served morefamilies than half of the
politicians who actually claimto care about your children.
(34:47):
And NPR is that friend whodoesn't show up yelling, they
show up quietly and slowlyexplaining.
They're the ones who say, holdon, let's walk through this
together, where every otherplatform is screaming, or every
other platform is panic, orevery other platform is fire
check, wherever the it's panicfirst, fact check later, or fact
(35:10):
check never.
Opinion, opinion, opinion,opinion, opinion.
And that matters.
See, a democracy or a republicisn't maintained by noise.
It is maintained by informedpeople.
And a republic doesn't surviveon slogans, it survives on
citizens who understand theirworld deeply enough not to be
(35:34):
played like violins every singleelection cycle.
PBS and MPR are safeguardsagainst ignorance.
Public service journalism andpublic education in their purest
form.
And yet they are constantlyattacked.
Not because they're biased, no,because they refuse to be
biased, because they refuse tobe bot, because they refuse to
(35:57):
take a left or right.
Right side.
Because they have the audacityto put the truth, public truth,
above profit.
Because they aren't loyal toparties or politicians, they are
loyal to the public that willalways rub against private
power.
You cut PBS, you're cutting offthe nation's early childhood
(36:20):
education.
You cut MPR, you're giving oneof the latest lanterns of
thoughtful reporting in adarkening media landscape.
Supporting them isn't aboutsupporting my nostalgia.
It's not about tote bag ortallions or soft jazz that they
play between segments.
It's about survival.
Intellectual survival, civicsurvival, moral survival.
(36:43):
And if we're serious, trulyserious, about passing down a
better country than the one weinherited, then we must invest
in the institutions thatcultivate the minds of people
and not try to manipulate them.
MPR and PBS don't just informAmerica, they elevate it.
(37:04):
So yes, I do support them, and Ihope that you would too.
Support them, fund them, defendthem, because the day MPR and
PBS go silent is the day we loseone of the most important and
last mirrors that shows us whowe really are, and who we might
(37:26):
want to become.
If you can, I know it's hard,but think about funding PBR uh
uh PBS and MPR.
(37:55):
Ten athletes half a millionfears How America turned a
statistical blip into aspiritual crisis to roll McLean
november thirteenth, twentytwenty five, the arithmetic of
fear ten athletes out of half amillion.
That's the real number, not theheadline, not the hysteria.
Ten transgender college athletesout of more than five hundred
(38:15):
zero zero zero NCAA competitors,a fraction so small it should
disappear into the margins ofstatistical noise.
And yet somehow this microscopicfigure has managed to set entire
legislatures ablaze, drivepolicy across dozens of states
and become a new front inAmerica's unending culture war.
(38:35):
It's worth asking, how does adecimal point become a doomsday?
The answer isn't about sports.
It's about the soul of a nationaddicted to fear of people who
no longer know how todistinguish a symbol from a
threat.
Because when America panics,math doesn't matter.
Myth does.
And the myth at the center ofthis new crusade is simple that
(38:58):
womanhood itself is under siege,that somewhere in the dark
corners of locker rooms andpodiums, civilization is being
rewritten by a handful ofconfused college kids.
Um that's not reason that'stheater and the audience keeps
buying tickets.
The anatomy of a panic if you'vestudied history, this isn't new.
(39:18):
Every generation invents ascapegoat to project its unease.
During the Cold War, it wascommunists in the classroom.
During Reconstruction it was theimage of the black man at the
ballot box.
Today is trans athletes theperfect villain for a society
teetering between oldcertainties and new realities.
Ten athletes, and suddenly weare meant to believe that
(39:40):
fairness itself is collapsing.
The moral panic doesn't flowfrom data, it flows from
symbolic contagion.
Ten athletes aren't dangerous,but the idea that categories are
shifting that biology andidentity are being renegotiated
strikes something ancient in us.
It reminds us how fragile ourdefinitions really and fear,
(40:02):
when properly marketed, isprofitable.
Politicians found they couldraise money, stir voters, and
score headlines simply byclaiming to protect women's
sports.
Governors and state legislatorsdiscover that a law restricting
a problem that barely existscould still make them look like
warriors for virtue.
They know exactly what they'redoing.
(40:22):
The protection isn't for women,it's for their own power.
Because in the modern politicaleconomy, outrage is currency and
the smaller the incident, thepurer the panic.
Trita.
The theater of protection, let'snot kid ourselves.
Some people in this debate arearguing in good faith.
They genuinely worry aboutfairness in competition, about
(40:46):
the physiological differencesthat may exist.
Those are valid conversations,but that's not what's happening
here.
This isn't a debate.
It's a ritual.
The phrase protecting women'ssports has become a kind of
secular liturgy.
It's recited not for clarity butfor absolution to convince the
speaker they still stand forsomething pure in a morally
(41:07):
polluted world.
The irony.
Many of the same lawmakerscrying about fairness in women's
sports have done next to nothingto fund women's programs,
enforce Title IX or pay womenathletes equitably.
They will defend a trophyceremony before they'll defend
maternity leave.
That's not protection.
That's performance.
(41:28):
And performance has always beenAmerica's favorite substitute
for repentance.
The crowd doesn't care whetherthe policy works, they just want
to see the spectacle of someonebeing cast out the symbolic
purge that says we are stillrighteous.
This is not new.
When Pilate washed his hands thecrowd cheered.
The washing wasn't justice, itwas theater.
(41:53):
The liberal feedback loop now,here's where progressives often
miss the mark.
Every panic needs an echo, andthe left provides it faithfully.
Each conservative bill sparks anequal and opposite overreaction.
Hashtags erupt, statements pourout, corporations issue rainbow
colored apologies, and suddenlythe entire discourse becomes a
(42:15):
mirror maze of moral preening.
The right thrives on the outrageof the left.
The left needs the moral horrorof the right.
It's a symbiotic hysteria.
And lost in the noise are theactual athletes, real human
beings who train, sweat, andcompete in good faith while the
(42:36):
country uses their existence asa political prop.
Both sides feed the spectacle.
Conservatives use trans athletesto stoke fear, liberals use them
to showcase virtue.
Neither side actually listens.
It's all algorithms now.
One side posts an image of abiological male towering over
girls at a metal ceremony, theother side replies with slogans
(42:58):
about liberation and tolerance.
Both images flatten the humanbeing in the frame into a
talking point.
We have turned flesh and bloodinto clickbait.
And that's the real sin.
V.
The idolatry of certainty everyage builds its own idols.
Ours are made of identity.
(43:18):
We no longer bow to goldencalves, we worship the
categories we've created.
Conservative, liberal, male,female, victim, oppressor, each
side clutching their label likea relic.
And in that worship we forgetthat truth isn't a possession,
it's a pursuit.
The transathlete controversyexposes our deeper sickness, the
(43:40):
collapse of shared moralimagination.
We've replaced discernment withdeclaration.
We don't ask what's right, weask which side are you on.
Scripture warns us about thistemptation, for we wrestle not
against flesh and blood, butagainst principalities, against
powers, against the rulers ofthe darkness of this world, but
we don't believe that anymore.
(44:00):
We've convinced ourselves theenemy is flesh and blood, the
athlete, the parent, theneighbor, the teacher, and so we
fight shadows, calling itrighteousness.
We demonize children and call itprotection.
We legislate fear and call itorder.
That's idolatry, plain andsimple the worship of our own
certainty.
(44:21):
The false idol of fairness,let's talk about fairness,
because every politician in thisconversation claims to be
defending it.
Fairness is the altar where bothsides pray but neither side
practices what they preach.
Fairness isn't just about whowins the race, it's about who
even gets to start it.
If fairness truly mattered, we'dbe talking about the
(44:43):
socioeconomic gap that keepsmillions of girls, cisgender and
trans alike from access tosports.
We'd be addressing inequity infacilities, scholarships,
nutrition, health care, butthose conversations don't trend.
It's easier to moralize about asingle podium photo than to
confront how poverty and policyshape athletic opportunity.
(45:04):
So fairness becomes a slogan away to sound virtuous while
doing nothing.
And that's why this panic feelsspiritual.
Because it's not about theathletes, it's about our hunger
for purity.
We want a world withoutcomplexity, without ambiguity,
without discomfort, but thegospel never promised us
comfort.
(45:24):
It promised us truth.
The seventh.
The mirror we refuse to face ifyou want to know why this panic
caught fire, look not at thetrans athletes, look at the rest
of us.
We're exhausted by uncertainty.
Gender, politics, technology,faith everything feels fluid.
So we reach for somethinganything that feels fixed.
(45:45):
The trans body becomes thebattlefield because it embodies
what terrifies us, change thatcannot be undone.
Conservatives call it moraldecay.
Progressives call it liberation.
Both are reacting to the sameanxiety that the old world is
fading faster than we canreplace it.
But beneath all the shoutinglies a question that no policy
(46:05):
can answer What happens to apeople who fear mystery more
than they fear lies?
Because that's where we are nowa culture that prefers clarity
to compassion, certainty towisdom, safety to truth.
And in that trade we have soldour soul for simplicity.
The eighth.
The call to maturity fear is achild's reflex.
(46:26):
Faith is an adult's discipline.
When Paul wrote When I was achild, I thought like a child he
was describing more than age.
He was describing the moralevolution from panic to peace.
America hasn't made that leapyet.
We still tremble at shadows.
We still mistake disagreementfor danger.
(46:46):
We still believe our safetydepends on someone else's
exclusion.
Ten athletes out of half amillion and the mightiest nation
on earth collapses intohysterics.
That's not moral strength.
That's spiritual infancy.
The mature response would be tosay this is complex but
manageable.
To recognize that policy canevolve without persecution, that
(47:09):
fairness and compassion aren'tenemies, but maturity doesn't
sell.
Rage does.
And so the circus continues eachside juggling scripture science
and slogans until the crowdforgets what truth ever looked
like.
The ninth, the kingdom versusthe crowd, there's an old truth
that should haunt us here.
(47:31):
The crowd that shouted Hosannaon Sunday shouted crucify him by
Friday.
Crowds are fickle.
They can be whipped intoholiness or hatred with the same
rhythm.
This current panic overathletes, bathrooms, pronouns,
flags is just the latest chantin that ancient cycle.
One week is drag queens, thenext it's vaccines, the next
(47:53):
it'll be something elseentirely.
The crowd never runs out ofenemies because fear never runs
out of fuel.
But the kingdom of God doesn'toperate on panic.
It operates on peace,discernment, and love that casts
out fear.
And that's the test before us.
Can a nation saturated in fearrediscover faith not in
(48:14):
politicians or parties, but intruth itself?
Ex The closing benediction, ifthere is any moral to this
madness, it's this truth doesn'tpanic.
The God of Scripture never oncetold his people to be afraid of
small numbers.
Gideon's army won with threehundred.
The disciples turned the worldupside down with twelve.
(48:35):
And yet we, with all ourtechnology and wealth, tremble
at ten college athletes.
That's not righteousness.
That's cowardice dressed asconviction.
The real battle isn't in lockerrooms or courts, it's in hearts.
It's the daily choice betweenfear and faith, between clinging
to our certainties or walkinghumbly into complexity.
To the conservatives weaponizingfear, you are building idols of
(48:59):
purity, not pillars of justice.
To the progressives chasingvirtue clout, you are turning
compassion into performance art.
Both sides have mistaken noisefor light.
The time has come for a deepercourage one that refuses to
build moral crusades on thebacks of children, one that
seeks understanding rather thanapplause.
Because if we can't handle tenathletes without collapsing into
(49:22):
moral hysteria, how will we everhandle the real tests that await
us poverty, war, climate,inequality, despair?
We cannot afford anothergeneration ruled by panic.
Fear builds walls, faith buildsnations, and only one of those
will stand when the crowd moveson to its next target.
(49:43):
Epilogue.
If you really want to protectsomething sacred, protect your
ability to see truth clearly.
Protect your neighbor'shumanity, protect your peace
from those who profit off youroutrage.
Ten athletes didn't breakAmerica.
Our fear did.
And only faith, not in our side,but in something higher, can
(50:04):
mend it.
Subscribe to Darrell McLeanlaunched six months ago cultural
critic and overthinkingintellectual with a theological
edge.
Writing sharp takes on politics,faith, and society always
questioning, always diggingdeeper.
Popular Podcasts
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by Audiochuck Media Company.
The Brothers Ortiz
The Brothers Ortiz is the story of two brothers–both successful, but in very different ways. Gabe Ortiz becomes a third-highest ranking officer in all of Texas while his younger brother Larry climbs the ranks in Puro Tango Blast, a notorious Texas Prison gang. Gabe doesn’t know all the details of his brother’s nefarious dealings, and he’s made a point not to ask, to protect their relationship. But when Larry is murdered during a home invasion in a rented beach house, Gabe has no choice but to look into what happened that night. To solve Larry’s murder, Gabe, and the whole Ortiz family, must ask each other tough questions.