The Rod and Greg Show: Reaction to Utah Judge's Redistricting Decision; High Cost of Cashless Bail

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
We got local issues that we were waiting all day yesterday,
but after the show ended, a court ruling came out
that really, I will just tell you quickly, it just
absolutely dilutes and undermines the legislative branch in the state
in very concerning ways, and especially as we talk about
redistricting and reapportionment that states are looking at or considering
across the country. This is a major blow to Utah

(00:23):
and to its legislati branch and the voters who voted
Republican and it put a statewide government together the way
it is with the party it represents. This is an
end run that the judiciary and the Liberals have succeeded.

Speaker 2 (00:36):
Now we're going to so far, we're going to dive
into that today. As a matter of fact, State Senator
John Johnson will be joining us shortly. We'll talk about that.
Get his reaction coming up a little bit later on
this hour. Greg. There's a fascinating study out there done
by two researchers, and they're basically looking at how students
at the college level change their views so they can

(00:57):
get a passing grade from some whack job of a
professor instead of standing by their views. We're talking they
write these very liberal, progressive reports to satisfy the teacher,
but really they're conservative, but they're afraid to do so
because they're fearful the professor will give them a failing grade.
And it goes on often.

Speaker 1 (01:16):
Apparently my inside sources, you would say that that is
one hundred percent true, and that students are reacting to
what they believe is what their professors or their faculty
these faculty members want to hear. Yeah, and so they
will say things they patently don't believe or agree with,
but they're trying to get a good grade.

Speaker 2 (01:31):
Yeah, yeah, they are. And a little bit later on
in the show, we'll talk about the cost of casualist bail,
what that means to this country. The president is trying
to get rid of that. And we'll talk about behavioral
standards in schools today. What is disciplined like in our
public schools today? Does it even exist anymore? We'll get
into that as well. So we've got a lot to
get to today. As always, we invite you to be

(01:53):
a part of the program. Eighty eight eight five seven
eight zero one zero triple eight five seven eight zero
one zero on your cell phone dial Pound two fifteen,
say hey Rod, or join us on our talkback line.
Just go to download the iHeartRadio app. Type in knarrest
dot com. You'll see the little red microphone in the
upper right hand corner. You can leave a message there
and we'll share your thoughts on the show during during

(02:17):
this afternoon. So a lot to get to. Today's great
to be with you. Okay, I'm just waiting for you.
Go ahead, let me have it. I know, I know
you have. You have just you've been aching to let
me have.

Speaker 1 (02:27):
Four minutes into this program, and ladies and gentlemen, it
will be I will do my level best to keep
mister Swifty over here from making this a show only
about the announced engagement of Taylor Swift and Kelsey. I
don't really care, Margaret, Yes, I don't care at all.
Is a Jason? Which one? Which Kelsey?

Speaker 3 (02:46):
Is?

Speaker 4 (02:46):
This?

Speaker 1 (02:46):
We're talking about Travis. This is Travis Kelsey. That's right.
Jason's actually he's more normal, but he's retired now. He
was with the more normal. Yeah, but you know.

Speaker 2 (02:54):
They got engaged.

Speaker 1 (02:55):
Yes, oh, I know. You should have seen the text
I was getting my phone. You'd have thought it was
like I had a thirteen year old, you know, preteen
teenage kid call him like texting me.

Speaker 2 (03:06):
You were so a gift. I sent you a text.

Speaker 1 (03:08):
Oh my gosh, it was the news. Have you heard
the news? You can you believe it? He was just
he's just crazy about it, just to annoy you.

Speaker 2 (03:15):
I was doing that today. But this is big news.
You can't tell me when you've got major television reporting
this that it's not a story of interest to the
American people.

Speaker 1 (03:25):
It is not a story of interest in American people.
It is only a story of interest to you and
all the and all the TMZ and and who cares? Who? What? What?
Famous people? Marry who? I'm telling you a lot of swift.
Taylor Swift has measurably decreased my quality of life by
interrupting my football constantly. I mean, she you'd think she
was an owner. You know they already I already it's

(03:46):
already a pet peeve of mine that they got to
show the owners of the teams when you're watching the game,
like we don't care who's sitting in the.

Speaker 2 (03:52):
Be honest with you, I agree with you on that point,
because every time you watch a Cowboy game, they constantly
show Jerry Jones, who cares. Either he's happy or he's sad. Yeah,
who cares? Cherry sell the team and get a real
football manager.

Speaker 1 (04:02):
Well, somehow they replace the owners of NFL teams with
just Taylor Swift. That's all we see. They'll they'll cut in,
you're not even watching the Chiefs and they'll come and
show you a clip of her watching the Chiefs. You know,
it is beyond the pale. It is. It has affected
my quality of life. It has been diminished. And this
is not a good trajectory. I thought these I thought
he'd dump her like a bad habit. We could move on.

(04:23):
But no, they're gonna get hitched, or they think they are,
and then we gotta watch. We gotta endure this more.

Speaker 2 (04:29):
Oh well, you and I should have a bet because
this year on Thanksgiving, Okay, I'm looking way ahead because
I have the schedule memorized. Look at you, the Chiefs.
The Chiefs are in Dallas. The Chiefs are in Dallas,
Okay to play the Cowboys. Now the bet should be
who will get more exposure the Dallas Cowboys cheerleaders or

(04:50):
Taylor Swift In this Swift it's not.

Speaker 1 (04:52):
Even it's not even a bet. I mean, if you
want to take cheerleaders, go, But I'm telling you right now,
it's actually it's gonna be a Thanksgiving Day, What is
Taylor swif And then there's gonna be a football game
that they're going to show on the sides in between.

Speaker 2 (05:03):
Yeah, that's what it's going to be. It's just horrible,
that's what you're thinking. Well worse there was there was
an article I think you and I discussed this a
week or so ago about how liberal thinking, progressive thinking
women have a tough time dating right leaning men. Yes,
they don't want to do it. They're so fearful, right
they say that. Yes, well, Clay Travis today and I

(05:25):
agree with Clay, and I mentioned this to you. I
don't think I've ever said it on the air. I
think Taylor Swift is attracted to Travis Kelcey because he's
a real man.

Speaker 1 (05:35):
Yeah, I think he's I think I think that's why
she likes him. It's it's like every leftist cause there is.
You know, they wanted us to use everything plastica. They
didn't want to cut down trees. Turns out the plastics
bad for you. These women want men that they don't
want the toxic masculinity until they find out that that
means you just want some you know, I don't know,
no spined skinny jean wearing was wimpy, and all of

(05:58):
a sudden, you don't think he's gonna puture take care
of you, and you want a man again. Everything they
want when they get, they hate. Everything they put in
front of us and say is good policy ends up
being a disaster. These women do not want the very
men they say that every guy should be. It's it's
it's one hundred percent and.

Speaker 2 (06:15):
That's why she went for that. Of course he's a
real guy.

Speaker 1 (06:17):
It's it's not I yeah, it's just you know, you
can learn a lot from just watching Mutual of Omaha's
while Okay, this we are, we are just we are
a species. Okay, we all think there were just these
independent thinking people that were so unique. We get this.
Human nature is much like our our species acts very similarly.
You can predict human behavior as much as you can,

(06:38):
you know, uh, pride lines, whatever you get. I'm just
saying that, just watch the animals and you can. You
can pretty much.

Speaker 2 (06:46):
You're comparing Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom. So what happened
today between Travis Kelcey and Taylor.

Speaker 1 (06:53):
Swift Yep, oh you know what I would. I'd say
it's and it's the gorilla episode. That's what it is. Okay,
it's it's a gorillas. You need the big grilla that
he's got the kids calling climbing all over his head.
He's whipping them, throwing them around. They jump back on
Daddy's throwing them around. Anyone comes around those kids, he
goes right out. His teeth come out. You don't even
know that gorilla has those big teeth till someone messes
with the kids or the wife, you know. And she

(07:15):
she's pretty tough herself.

Speaker 2 (07:16):
See. I think she was looking for a protector and
she found it in Travis Kelsey. Of course, not that
she needed one. I mean, she's got an army of
security guards around her. But I think he's a real man,
maybe a little goofy at times. I do realize you
told me today he's.

Speaker 1 (07:32):
He's a Chaine smoker.

Speaker 2 (07:33):
He's got a change smoker. He's an You do you
say he's occasional. I mean, I looked it up. He's
try to hide it.

Speaker 1 (07:41):
They gotta he's gotta sigging out of his mouth going
to practice. He's he's dragging on a Marboro always Marlboro
red before he goes on the practice field. This guy,
it's a you know, it's fine, it's fine. You know
you be Hugh Travis. Who am I to say you
just go ahead and smoke and and be a good
NFL player? Why you had to pick this woman to
be your girlfriend? Now you're feeling and say, you're just
messing with my whole football world. And I didn't. I

(08:04):
didn't choose this.

Speaker 2 (08:05):
You think they got a prenup?

Speaker 1 (08:06):
Oh, you better well believe it.

Speaker 2 (08:09):
I mean, is she worth like a kazillion dollars?

Speaker 1 (08:11):
Yeah?

Speaker 2 (08:11):
I mean he makes good money, but nothing compared to
what she makes.

Speaker 1 (08:15):
That's that's that goes without saying yeah, I think that's
just smart. Yeah, because look, yeah, I just think that.
I don't know. I just I just wish it didn't
happen in the first place. And I certainly if I
had known they were going to like be more serious,
I really wish they hadn't met each other.

Speaker 2 (08:30):
No, I really, because you think it's destroyed football.

Speaker 1 (08:33):
It's made it so Yeah, we just don't have to
we're talking about Look, we're talking about right now, you
would talk about you're a swiftye. You talk about her
whether she was dating Kelsey or not, because that's as
you're obsessed with her, and you go to a concert,
you try to get your grandkids to go, so it
doesn't look awkward that you're going.

Speaker 5 (08:48):
Huh.

Speaker 1 (08:48):
But I am just done. I do not want more
of it. It's still worse.

Speaker 2 (08:53):
To get it. They won't get married till after the season.

Speaker 1 (08:56):
Oh sure, why not just make it three years from.

Speaker 2 (08:58):
Now, so you know we aren't going to get married
until after this season.

Speaker 1 (09:01):
And then if they break up, Oh, that's going to
be another whole psych We're going to talk about that forever.

Speaker 2 (09:06):
I will predict you ready for this prediction, Yes, one
of the networks will carry that wedding live and it
will be one of the most watched events in television.

Speaker 1 (09:17):
I have a worse prediction that I don't even I
wish I didn't see. I don't have the luxury of opinion.
I just know they're going to make a reality show
out of these two characters, and we're going to have
to stuffer through their daily lives. They're narcissists, they love
the attention they love it. You watch.

Speaker 2 (09:31):
Thank you for not jumping all over me today because
I thought you were just going to open the show
and start laughing at me.

Speaker 1 (09:36):
No, I was trying to delay the inevitable. I was
trying to hold that topic off.

Speaker 2 (09:40):
Bring it up.

Speaker 1 (09:40):
We got serious things.

Speaker 2 (09:41):
Bring it up. Yeah, when we come back on The
Roden Great Show on this Tuesday afternoon. The decision on
redistricting in Utah. You've heard about it in California, in Texas,
in Illinois and New York. Well, guess what, We've got
a decision not like those other states, but we have
one here in the state of Utah, and we'll explore
it with you coming up next right here on the
Tuesday afternoon edition of The Rotting Greg Show and Talk

(10:04):
Radio one oh five nine anrs. It's been forever, I think,
since we've had any rain. We had a pretty a
low shower this morning. We did. It's kind of nice,
kind of nice. All right, let's move on. Apparently now
you would think a university is a place for intellectual honesty, right,
an exchange of ideas, but apparently it is not. We'll
be talking about that coming up at the bottom of

(10:25):
the hour right here. On the Rotting Greg Show. But
the big story of the day the ruling by the.

Speaker 1 (10:29):
Judge yesterday, yes right after the show ended. We thought
it might happen during the show. Yesterday, judge ruled that
the redistricting maps that the legislature passed, threw them out
and gave the legislature thirty days to present new maps
of congressional districts. And I believe wants those maps to
look as the better boundaries or whatever. Group put maps

(10:51):
together and brought them to the legislature for their consideration.
But to sort all this out with us is Senator
John Johnson. He is a senator, he knows this issue.
He is a successful businessman. He was also a faculty.
He's a you know, university professor. Don't hold it against him,
he was in a university. But he's a very cerebral man.
He knows the law, knows knows all this as a

(11:13):
rock ribbed conservative senator. Thank you for joining us on
the program.

Speaker 6 (11:17):
Great to be here, Hey, Rod, Greg, thanks for having
me on. So let's get right to the point. Judge
Gibson's ruling is a constitutional crisis, I think, because our
constitution couldn't be any clear or Articles nine basically says
the legislats or shall do buy the state into congressional
and legislative districts. That's not a suggestion, it's a command.

Speaker 1 (11:42):
That's true. So that's right. Now, How does that fall
with the recent the Better Boundaries ballot measure that passed
which barely passed, but it passed. The prescribed a process.
It puts it into law. What happened with that process
where some people think that that you you're you should
have done what the what they told you versus what

(12:03):
ultimately happened.

Speaker 6 (12:05):
Well, you know, it's kind of funny when you look
at that Supreme Court decision along the what what I
call lefter boundaries actually, but what's what's interesting is that
is that they took a simple statute and concocted it
into a really constitutional amendment. And that's why I was

(12:26):
saying that the Constitution clearly states that the legislature shall
divide the state the congressional and legislative districts. That that's
that's not under debate, right, But for some reason now
we've elevated the statute and like you said, I mean
a passing four counties. Right, Basically, they're democratic you know counties,

(12:50):
and you know, magically, if you look at the margin
of victory, it was like seven thousand votes maybe across
the state, one percent right, And all of a sudden,
this is a constitution that elevated to the level of
a constitutional amendment. It's just to me, it's silliness.

Speaker 2 (13:08):
Senator Johnson. How did the judge get around what the
constitution says? How was she able to reason to get
around what the constitution of this state clearly states? How
was she able to get around?

Speaker 6 (13:19):
Well, well, I think you know it came out of
that Supreme Court decision that basically said, hey, this you know,
this voter initiative now has the weight of the constitutional amendment.
And you know, we did pass a law to two
hundred basically that that revised that what what the better

(13:42):
Boundaries law had said. And so it's it's interesting how
all of a sudden, now that's thrown completely out. They
the judge likes to say now that the left boundaries
law is the is the law of the land, and
all of a sudden, now it overshadows what the legislature

(14:03):
can do.

Speaker 1 (14:04):
So where we go from here, because I'm going to
tell you that the legislative branch of which you are
a member is not an equal and separate power right now.
It has been diluted, and you do not have, as
of right now today the same powers that you had
prior to that ruling. So where do you go? Where
does the legislative branch in Utah go from here?

Speaker 6 (14:23):
Well, I say, you know, we're going to have to
appeal this decision. I'm sure you know, at the end
of the day, this is bigger than maps or party politics.
It's about whether we follow the constitutions or whether we
let judges rewrite it. You know, like I said before,
the constitution clearly gives redistricting to the legislature, and the

(14:43):
legislature is accountable to the voters. You know, if the
people want to change that, the honest way to do
that would be through a constitutional amendment, not a judicial decree.
And so you know there's going to have to be
a you know, some kind of push back to this
judge's decision. I'm sure that you know, we haven't really

(15:07):
talked about it in caucus yet or or met we
I'm sure we'll meet in the near future to talk
about it. But I think it's pretty clear in the Constitution.

Speaker 2 (15:19):
Stor Jenson, let me ask you this question. We've already
had one listener call in today already and say, look,
it was the will of the people. It was voted
on by the people. The legislature cannot ignore the will
of the people. And that's exactly what you did. How
would you respond to comments.

Speaker 6 (15:35):
Like that, Well, I would say that the legislature is
the voice of the people. You know, when we talk
about the will of the people, what does the will
of the people actually mean When it's only passed by
seven thousand votes statewide, that's less than one percent of
the voters. That hardly rises to the level of a

(15:57):
constitutional amendment, which is the way that jud judge essentially
is treating this. What other statute do we have that
the legislature has no ability to amend?

Speaker 1 (16:09):
Yeah, you know, yes, And that's where I will say
that when you have these this is this is the
this is the gambit. You have a statewide initiative and
you have people and this better Boundaries is completely funded
from the left. So you know, you know this, but
I want the listeners to know this is exactly what
they're dealing with in Florida. This is what they've been
dealing with across this country, where if you're in a
red state and you can't win in elections and legislatures

(16:31):
or in the governor's office, this is the way you
do it. And so you got this law if if,
and it becomes a law, if it isn't subject to amendments,
like every law of the land, every bill you pass
is subject to future amendments. If it isn't and it's
some super statute that can't be touched, well then who's
ever going to go to the legislative branch for a law? Again?
Why don't they just drop if they're wealthy enough and

(16:53):
liberal enough ten million dollars in the state to pass
whatever they want on a ballot with false narratives and
somehow circumvent entire legislative branch. That's what they're doing with this.
And I think that you need to. I think that
the people won't accept this, and that if it takes
another ballot measure to get this right and right this ship.
I don't think the people of Utah want leftists coming
into this state and carpet bombing it with ten million

(17:15):
dollars of advertising misrepresenting an issue. So they don't have
to go through a legislative process.

Speaker 6 (17:21):
Well, you know, this follows the Colorado Blueprint to a t.
And the Colorado Blueprint was a you know, a list
of a initiative by a group of very wealthy Colorado
owns that put together a blueprint to basically turn Colorado blue,
and that they're playing by that playbook in the state

(17:43):
of Utah, and we need to push back. Hey, it's
really important to remember this initiative sailed in twenty five counties.

Speaker 2 (17:53):
Yeah, pretty amazing, pretty amazing. Thunder Johnson is always right
chatting with you. I know we'll be talking more about
this down the road. Thanks for joining us this afternoon. Okay,
all right, right on our Newsmaker Lines center, John Johnson
here on the Rod and Gregg Show, and we've got
a lot more to talk about this throughout the show today,
so we invite you to listen. We'll open up the

(18:13):
phones and get your reaction to this as well. All right,
more coming up on the Rod and Greg Show and
Talk Radio one O five nine knrs.

Speaker 1 (18:21):
This is a pretty important topic and it's as our
kids are going back to school high reed, it's these
liberal professors and how do students react when they know,
you know, when they know the tone and what the
liberal professors looking for. Are they going to uh prepare
their papers and their research as they see it, or
are they going to reverse engineer the agenda that they're

(18:41):
sensing or seeing from their or hearing from their professor.
It's a real issue.

Speaker 2 (18:45):
Yeah, students aren't maturing, they're being managed. They're managing just
to survive in college. And what we mean by that
is that there are professors on university campuses and the
students learn very quickly. I think Greg that if you
write a paper or are involved in a project that
supports the liberal professor's progressive views, you'll pass. If you don't,

(19:09):
you will get a failing. Great and you've had a
real life experience with.

Speaker 1 (19:13):
This, Yes, my inside sources confirm. In fact, I've heard
this prior to our guests, you know, peace coming out
and doing the research on it, I have heard this
to be the case. So it's not just anecdotal. This
is a This is very much happening in our institutions
of higher learning across the country.

Speaker 2 (19:28):
On our Newsmaker line forust Rahm, she is a researcher,
clinical and Applied Psychology and Kevin Waldman are researcher as
well both the Northwestern University. Forrest and Kevin, thanks for
joining us. I want to get your reaction. First of all,
your study got a lot of attention. What is your
reaction to the reaction you got on this study?

Speaker 7 (19:47):
Well, my an original response initially was not to be shocked,
because I've been on these campuses for quite a while
and I've experienced this firsthand. I think the thing that
surprised both Kevin and myself was the overwhelming response we
got from other professors at universities here and in Canada.
There's been basically an outpouring of support and emails from

(20:07):
professors who would prefer to remain anonymous, who are just
thinking us for doing this research and uh, you know,
expressing their own consternation and concern about what's going on
on campus.

Speaker 2 (20:18):
Kevin, how about you the reaction that you got to it?

Speaker 8 (20:20):
Yeah, I think I was a bit more surprised by
the results, but I do think, like Forrest, the shocking
discovery here is the the that the students and they
now we're learning, the faculty all seems to be afraid
of the same thing, which is to speak their minds

(20:41):
against any sort of you know, leftist narrative, ideological performance
that they do on campus. And it's we weren't expecting
the professors.

Speaker 1 (20:51):
Yeah, yeah, I think that's why big tech. My biggest
surprise is that the faculty themselves might identify this and
actually sympathize with your report and what you're showing. This
came to the Hughes home. I have kids that have
been to college. What you've described has been described to me,
my kids, to their their dad about writing reverse engineering
from the mindset that they believe would get them the

(21:12):
good grade, and then writing to that without one ounce
of it being a real sentiment or research that they did,
but just reverse engineering back to the to the professor.
If you're finding that there's members of the faculty that
are concerned about that, then then what because if they
because I would say, if they saw what your report,
then they'd say, okay, well, then are these kids aren't
really even They're just they're just playing a role. They're

(21:33):
not actually learning, They're they're just you know, trying to
mimic what they're hearing. How does this get resolved or
does it?

Speaker 8 (21:39):
I think that the resolve here is really just taking
a risk faculty members. I think when our data becomes
more available, I think certain faculty members will feel a
little bit more enabled to be honest in the classroom
and maybe even behind closed doors with other faculty members.
I think that a lot of the people that we've

(21:59):
heard from and faculty are not conservative, They're liberals who
are still feeling like this has just gone too far
in the leftist direction. And so I think to answer
your question, we think that fear is the catalyst here
and that in order for it to change, it's going
to require a little bit of risk on the faculty part.

Speaker 2 (22:18):
Forest, let me ask you this forcially benefittered, Yeah, it
doesn't sound like if Forest, let me ask you this question.
In the hill peage that we read, You're right, publicly
they can form privately they question can they even question
privately among groups of friends? Are they afraid to even
do that with other students?

Speaker 7 (22:35):
I think if there is one part of the data
itself that surprised me, it is that statistic that us
let's see it was I think seventy three percent concealed
their true values and beliefs even in their closest friendships,
so that just points to a whole new era of
social distrust and ultimately lack of social cohesion. If everybody

(22:56):
is hiding the truth from one another, then we're basically
living in, you know, a society that's constructed on false
premises and dishonesty. Is they call it pluralistic ignorance, you know,
where everybody is convinced that everybody else feels a certain way,
but privately they disagree. And as long as there's this
illusion of consensus, it's going to be frightening and sometimes

(23:20):
even professionally and socially dangerous for people to tell the truth.

Speaker 1 (23:24):
So Forrest and then I'd like Kevin's thoughts on this
as well. But let me just jump from your point
you just made. So I always assumed when I heard
these stories in my own home that we had professors
that kind of had a worldview, and they had they
had something that they were looking for those students to
ping back to and confirm what it is that they
were kind of the message or how they wanted it said.

(23:46):
And that's what these students were tracking. It sounds like
it might be coming up higher than the professor. The
professor themselves might be doing what the students are doing
or is that too far?

Speaker 7 (23:57):
No, I don't think it's too far, and you're not
sure yet, is the short answer. The bit of a
longer answer is that there absolutely are professors on campuses
who are ideological zealous. I'm not going to pretend they
don't exist, but what we're realizing is they are the minority,
and they're essentially being held hostage by the small but

(24:18):
very vocal, very over zealous group of activists who are
essentially just activists masquerading as professors.

Speaker 2 (24:26):
Kevin, your thoughts on.

Speaker 8 (24:27):
That, Yeah, I think for us is explaining it similarly
how I would, which is it's a very small group
of people that are dominating the culture, and at this point,
speaking out and just kind of you know, making that
risk in the classroom is going to be the only
way to change this because so many of these students
are feeling trapped, but the faculty are similarly so. I mean,

(24:50):
at this point, it's just a matter of who's going
to make the first move against this, you know, very
small but very very loud minority.

Speaker 2 (24:56):
Let me ask you both of this. Looking down the road,
after these students graduate and they apply for a job,
and there are potential employers starting to look at their background,
are looking at some of the very progressive papers or
may have written well attending college and say, wait a minute,
that's a little too far out from me. I'm not
even going to interview this person because their views are

(25:19):
so far around. Could this approach be affecting their employment possibilities?

Speaker 7 (25:23):
I mean, this is anecdotal, So I know people personally
who are employers who own businesses who just refuse to
hire from that generation for that very purpose. You know,
some of that can be weeded out through interviewing people
and actually talking them to assess the extreme the extremity
of their beliefs. But yeah, I do think that this

(25:43):
level of either indoctrination or essentially academic coersion is going
to have a detrimental impact of people's teacher employability.

Speaker 2 (25:52):
Kevin, you want to weigh in on this as well.
What are your thoughts on it?

Speaker 8 (25:55):
So just kind of piggyback off of what Forrest is saying.
I think that this really ultimately shows us that the
students are victims of this issue. And so if some
student wants to get an a in humanities course and
write something extreme in order to please the professor and
then it's found later. I mean, and they didn't even
believe it in the first place. It's a problem for

(26:16):
the kid's future. And I think that that's just proving
that they're a victim of the ideology.

Speaker 2 (26:21):
Fascinating study done by these two Northwestern University researchers. All Right,
more coming up on the Tuesday edition of The Rod
and Gregg Show, Oh the Power of Donald Trump. Charlie
Kirk corney to you, Ray, we haven't seen this yet,
but has just tweeted out that Cracker Barrel apparently is
going back to its old logo.

Speaker 1 (26:42):
One of the easiest decisions ever made. I don't know
what rocket scientists thought that he I think this whole
thing's gone wrong.

Speaker 2 (26:48):
Now, you remember yesterday they defended they said, hey, we're sorry.
Obviously we admire our faithful followers for sharing their opinion.
But basically they said, we're sticking with what we've got. Well,
apparently the President and weighed in on this, and apparently,
according to Charlie Kirk and a tweet he put out,
they've changed their mind. Now will get verification on that,
but apparently the word is that they are going back

(27:09):
to the old local.

Speaker 1 (27:10):
Well, you know, someone I saw a picture where they
just took a lot of different rest restaurants, even like
McDonald's and Taco Bell, where they they had some you know,
architectural design and uh, and then they just all went
boxy and they all went uh, they just went to
this design that has absolutely no no character to it,
no detail to it. Pizza huts don't look like they're
squared out now, and it's just, I mean, everything has

(27:33):
gone to this homogeneous you know, nothing, no character, no
detail you.

Speaker 2 (27:38):
Ready just pointed out to us. Now Fox News is
reporting it as well, so apparently they are going back.

Speaker 1 (27:43):
Well, can I say that our good Secretary of State
Mark Rubio, he knows the power of Donald Trump, and
he knows that whatever he says can he can make happen.
And he's got a serious issue. And this was a
major issue, folks, because this is one you don't want
to mess around with. And I think the secretarry State said,
I think only Donald Trump can fix this. Let's hear
what he had to say.

Speaker 9 (28:03):
This thing about people getting married on Saturdays during college
football season is a scourge, mister President.

Speaker 2 (28:09):
It's divided family.

Speaker 9 (28:10):
I know, we can have an executive order on this.
It's in saying, but it's really difficult. There's you know,
seven other months of the year that people can get married.

Speaker 2 (28:17):
So I just wanted to say, very, very difficult. So
he wants so he wants an executive order for the
president stopping all weddings during college football seat.

Speaker 1 (28:29):
That's right, he says, it's dividing families. You got seven
months you could look at. Why are you doing this
to our families during college football season? Please stop? Maybe
it takes an executive order. He's just trying to glean
on some of that that influence and power the president
has for a good reason. I don't disagree with the
Secretary of State there. I think that's a wise, uh

(28:50):
you know, observation.

Speaker 2 (28:51):
So it is confirmed. Now we're getting multiple new sources
reporting that Cracker Barrel is going back to the old logo.
You were real concerned about that old guy sitting in
the right.

Speaker 1 (29:00):
I thought it was ages and I thought it man
the whole band well, just being absolutely kicked to the
curve for no good reason. I thought he did a
good job.

Speaker 2 (29:06):
Well, apparently he's coming.

Speaker 1 (29:08):
He's coming back, that barrel.

Speaker 2 (29:10):
Sure it's all right. The UH Court decision that kind
of rocked Utah world yesterday. We'll get into that and
get your reaction to it coming up right here on
the Rotten Great Shows. Stay with us. So great to
be with you on this Tuesday afternoon. I brought our cat.

Speaker 1 (29:28):
I'm citizen Greg here.

Speaker 2 (29:29):
All right, we've got two big breaking news stories today
on top of what happened late yesterday. Cracker Barrel, if
you're just joining us now, has just announced guess what,
They're going back to the old logo, the old guy
sitting in the rocking chair.

Speaker 1 (29:41):
Good. You know, at first when this came out, I thought,
is it a bunch of ado about nothing? I mean,
are we just getting a little too hyper sensitive? But
as you as you dug it, as we dug into
the issue, or as they spoke about it, there is
a lot of things going on with that company and
with that restaurant where they were losing. What Cracker Barrel
is by that, I mean, it's it's it's you know,

(30:02):
I don't know if there's many restaurants like it. I
certainly haven't seen it, but it's it's really a country store.
It's got you know, you can play checkers on the
barrels sitting outside if you're waiting for your you know,
to be called in or whatever. It has a real
folksy theme to it. And it was all getting washed away,
and it was all getting changed, and there was a
lot of talk about the leadership, the CEO and everything
using implementing DEI policies and really starting to politicize that

(30:27):
restaurant chain.

Speaker 2 (30:27):
There was there was video today that surface Greg about
Cracker Barrels sponsoring a gay Pride parade in Atlanta that
was a bit risk gay. Let me just put it
that way so you can see where they were going.
And they got they got blistered. Well, the President made
a comment about it yesterday, and guess what happened today.
They're going back to the old logo, which.

Speaker 1 (30:49):
Is which surprises me because I mean they were dug in.
I mean they were saying, oh, we've gotten incredible responsor.
Our restaurants all want the upgrade, they want to change it,
they want to do all this. And today they're saying like,
no moss.

Speaker 2 (31:03):
No moss, no moss. And just another note that Taylor
and Travis are getting I just wanted to bring that up.

Speaker 1 (31:08):
I just not gonna I thought we dealt with this
in the four o'clock.

Speaker 2 (31:12):
They're just getting married. If you haven't heard today, Margaret.

Speaker 1 (31:15):
Yes, I don't, Margaret, I don't care. I don't know
why you have to bring up.

Speaker 2 (31:20):
Let me tell you what. I have three granddaughters a lot,
so don't give me that crap.

Speaker 1 (31:25):
It's an excuse, folks. He keeps bringing these granddaughters up.
He would go to that concert on his own, if
he could get if he could get any adult to
join them, if he get Rodeo queen, his good wife
to join him.

Speaker 2 (31:34):
She would would.

Speaker 1 (31:35):
No, she wouldn't. She would last time, Taylor's why didn't
she go? Last time?

Speaker 2 (31:39):
She did go? Last time she went with you. Yes,
you never mentioned grandkids. I didn't buy the tickets. I
won the tickets, but we both went.

Speaker 1 (31:47):
How did you win them?

Speaker 2 (31:48):
Here at the station? Whoa, there was a drawing.

Speaker 1 (31:51):
You told me I'm not to be in a contest.

Speaker 2 (31:54):
This was before they changed the rules. Yes, this was
years ago.

Speaker 1 (31:58):
This is not this.

Speaker 2 (31:59):
I remember the worse employee drawing.

Speaker 10 (32:01):
Yeah, it was an employee drawing. Was they had like
four tickets for the whole place. So it's when we
had a million more employees than we do. Now, Okay,
for the for the record, I did not put in
for those I was going to say, you are the
lucky winner. I want them all right, Well, you're very
smart what culture.

Speaker 2 (32:20):
Is doing, and that's why you gotta you gotta see
you got to dip your toe in every one culture
is going on, what social stuff is.

Speaker 1 (32:27):
Every time our good listeners watch football NFL football and
they and they the cameras go to her. We're all
going to blame you because you're so excited about thank you.
It doesn't really it's not really a positive thank you.

Speaker 2 (32:38):
All Right, we get down to business. The big story
of the day happened late last night. We were waiting
for it throughout the show yesterday.

Speaker 1 (32:44):
And I knew it was going to come the way
it did. But it's still and it came hit me hard.
It's still bugs.

Speaker 6 (32:48):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (32:49):
And we, like you said, Greg, we all knew that
this was where this was going. But you see this today,
You think more and more about this and it just
angers you or does me? And I know?

Speaker 1 (32:59):
Yeah, yeah, Well, folks. To frame the issue the A
court a judge yesterday, a district court judge ruled Utah's
redistricting maps as invalid and gives the legislature thirty days
to implement different maps. And this this stems from a ballot,
the state wide ballot measure that was passed. It said

(33:20):
that this fair commission. And you've got to remember that
this ballot passed when we weren't talking about redistricting as much.
The word fair sounds very intuitive when when when you
look at how that passed even without any the other side,
legislators don't have money for state wide ballots. They're not
putting in millions of dollars. They work inside the legislative

(33:41):
body in the branch. Yeah, they don't. They're not. So
this outside baseball. We're going to try and run things.
How we got Obamacare expansion, we killed it when I
was there in the legislature, so we didn't socialize more medicine.
They came out with a big, you know, rollout of
how it was apple pie and motherhood to have Obamacare
expansion in the state. Voted for it. But in that case,
even without a real robust or any kind of opposition,

(34:03):
it barely barely passed statewide, which it did pass, but
it passed on the way to the blue districts and
areas of the state where it was defeated widely across
the state by if you were to count senate districts
or legislative districts. But it's still the law of the land.
And I would tell you if you have the will
of the people that pass a bill or pass a
statewide initiative and it becomes law, it is law. That

(34:26):
is law. This is where I have the biggest problem.
When it is law, if the legislature goes in and
looks at that law, like any law that has ever
been passed through the legislative process, and they want to
amend it, they want with it. If in fact, you
feel like the legislature up ended ignored the voice of
the people, well then you have elections where out you

(34:48):
throw the bums out in the House of Representatives. I
remember this, every fourteen months they have to run for reelection.
So it starts in January of the even numbered year
and twenty so it's every fourteen months they're running and
they have to account to the people that they represent.
And there's candidates that want to run against them. There's
people that want to that want and so there's a race.
The Senate half the Senate's up one year and two

(35:11):
years later to the other side of the Senate's up,
so half and half. There was twenty nine of them,
so fourteen and fifteen. If you feel like they have
ignored the people that is your those are your levers
to go after those that have ignored your will. If
you decide, well, I'm too cynical. I don't think we
can do that, So I'm going to go to this
judiciary who how they got there? You don't know how

(35:31):
they vote or how they rule in court. You have
no idea because there's no transparency. They get these six
year retention elections, which is based on zero information, so
you don't know who they are, what they are. They
have no opponent giving you their record. You're voting on
no information at all. If you think that the way
to hold a legislative branch accountable is to go to
the judiciary, well I'm sorry you, it's not you are.

(35:55):
You are putting it in the hands of people that
are left of center. Sadly, look at what's happening to
Trump in his administration. This is not your lever to
see the right thing done. If you feel like the
legislature has reversed the will of the people. And by
the way, this bill that I just mentioned, everybody that
paid for that ballot measure. It's the ACLU, it's the

(36:16):
Campaign for Democracy, which is Gavin Newsom's pack, it's the SEIU,
that's the Healthcare Workers Union, it's the National Education Association,
it's the I mean, they're all left, everybody that paid
for that. Pretty let's be fair in our redistricting, better boundaries.
And if you look at their board, there are all
Democrats on their board. If you and by the way,

(36:37):
this fair boundary is going to amount to a district that,
miraculously in a state of Utah where we have a
super majority of Republicans and we have a Republican governor
where Democrats don't win statewide, they're going to get a
They're going to get a congressional district out of this.
Anybody who thinks that this is just deserts or that
we've really taught the legislature a lesson here because we
didn't vote them out. We just had these leftist judges

(36:57):
amen corner, a leftist map that's going to give us
a Democrat in Congress. We're missing it. And I'm sorry,
but the legislative branch is not a separate, equal branch
as of today.

Speaker 2 (37:08):
The water down, they have no power.

Speaker 1 (37:11):
Our state constitution clearly gives them the right to draw
these lines. If a statute has passed, it would inform
how to do that. And they amend that statute in
a way that you don't like and you don't want to,
then you go after them. Go after them the judges.
I'm telling you, you put your fate in the judges.
I don't know how we haven't seen this track record
already as the Trump administration has rolled out. Why the

(37:32):
judiciary is not where you go to seek accountability. You
go to the ballot box, you vote for accountability.

Speaker 2 (37:39):
Well, let's get down to the core issue here. The
Democrats have always wanted their own district in Utah that
they could always they would always win. Okay, that's what
they're shooting for. This redistrict's being there that way to them,
that's fair. Okay. So they want this district where they
can throw any Democrat in there, who, by the way,

(37:59):
will have absolutely no influence in Washington. Just be aware
of that. Oh, we've got a representative. Well, let me
tell you what the Democrats in Washington could give a
twit about a Utah Democrat and they think, well, the
representative people will have a say, not a chance, because
let's say the Democrats take control of the House next year.
Hope it doesn't happen. But if you have a Democrat

(38:21):
representing Utah, that Democrat's not going to have a say
in this. That Democrat is going to be told how
to vote and they will vote or else they don't
get any money from the National Committee. You know the
way it works. Do they are not going to get
if everybody, oh, we'll have representation of Washington, Yes, give
me a joke votes. I thought Democrats were smart in
this state. I don't know if I believe that anymore.

Speaker 1 (38:42):
Well, here's the issue too, And there's two things I
want to go to. I know we got to go
to a break. But if we want to talk about fairness,
the idea that you would it's called the donut hole
or the pie or the pizza pie. The way that
we and this is we did this when I was
doing redistioncting. We wanted with only four congressional districts, we
wanted every member of Congress to have an urban constituency.
A suburban constituency and a rural constituency. Because when we

(39:05):
have four, what the Democrats say is fair is we
want an urban donut hole. We want one district where
we control it and we for the left and then
everybody else the rest of the state. You get three,
but we're going to get this one. Well, we don't.
We think with only four. They should all be attuned
to the urban issues like homelessness, or the cartels and

(39:25):
the drug issues, or the suburban issues cost a living,
but even the rural issues with the federal lands. Every
one of our members of Congress should be attuned to
those things. And that's why we do the pizza pie.
We don't do the donut hole, or we haven't in
the past. But that all said, if you go to
their their process, it the word fair. It depends on
who you're talking to. I guess, because I don't think

(39:45):
that that's fair at all. I think it's myopic. I
think it's it's alienating the Democrats that might not live
inside that donut hole that you've given the rest of them.
It's a process that again we can talk redistricting, we
can talk how we got there, but it is the
legislature's duty to draw those lines as we're seeing happen
around the country. And the same cast of characters that

(40:06):
are messing with us here in Utah are the same
ones that are doing it in Florida, doing it all
over the country.

Speaker 2 (40:10):
And by the way, just a reminder that we want
to get more of your thoughts on this, and the
people are saying, hey, we voted for this, we should
do it right.

Speaker 1 (40:19):
Yeah, we'll get some talkback.

Speaker 2 (40:20):
We've got a response, we've got some other thoughts on this,
but we want to hear from you as well. Eight
eight eight five seven eight zero one zero on your
cell phone dial pound two fifty or leave us a
talkback message. And we've already got a few weighing in
on this today. So a lot to get to on
this right here on the Rod and Gregg Show in
Utah's talk radio one oh five nine KNR. Back to
October of twenty twenty one. You know what happened on

(40:41):
that day what former Congressman Rob Bishop, who is a
member of the Independent Redistricting Commission resign from the commission.
Why he basically said, it is not working, It was
not designed to work. It would design to create a
democratic district, a congressional district. You're in the state of Utah.
He could see right through it. Greg he could see

(41:03):
right through it. He said, you can't redistrict or you
can't jerrymander a governor's race, you can't jerrymander a Senate race,
but you can jerrymander a congressional race. And that's exactly
what this ruling did yesterday, allowing a jerrymandering congressional district
to give the Democrats a seat that they've wanted in
this state since they lost it how many years ago?

(41:25):
And he saw that this five years ago, six years ago.

Speaker 1 (41:28):
Show me who you know, I'll show you where you go.

Speaker 2 (41:30):
Uh huh.

Speaker 1 (41:31):
This this so called we're going to do a fair
fair boundaries when you're financed by the ACLU and the campaign,
Gavin Newsom's pack and the SEIU, the Union and the NEA,
and then this guy John Arnold. You know what he does.
He spends money on the redistricting process in red states
that the Democrats can't win. But he also pushes for

(41:52):
rank choice voting in Alaska. Justice reform that's cash, that's
the cashless bail. These are the issues. Tell me that
Utahns tells me that our listeners did they know any
of this. This is dark money that was in this
better boundaries, this initiative that passed. I'm not saying that
because these people funded it, that you should ignore the

(42:12):
law it becomes law. But what I am saying is
every law up until now is subject two amendments. We
see if I passed a bill this year, next year,
someone could come and propose an amendment and it has
to go through a process. Even the initiatives that become law,
they're subject to amendments. If you don't like the amendments
and you think that what they did is wrong, then

(42:34):
you throw the bums out. What you don't do is
have what we have now with the courts, And the
courts are saying no, these are super laws. These are
laws that if they if this dark money comes in
and they can pass across you and you don't know better,
and you if the Left gets something past you, you
can't go to the legislature and have them amended at all.
It's it becomes a super law that nobody can touch.

Speaker 2 (42:53):
You can't touch it at all. Well, a lot of
people are weighing in on this already on our talkback line.
So let's let do a couple that came in, because
this is an argument you're going to hear offro Greg.

Speaker 11 (43:02):
Yes, this is Darren here in the West Desert. My
comment is about the legislation ignoring the will of the people.
We are a government of the people for the people,
so when the people tell you we want these things,
it is the legislative's job to do that. I believe

(43:23):
the court was right on this decision. It is time
for the government to answer to the people.

Speaker 2 (43:30):
And here's a similar comment from another talkback listener.

Speaker 12 (43:33):
Judge telling the state that they have to redraw the
congressional maps. Too many times the state legislature overrides the
will of the people. Who is passing a referendum and
they just think they know better than everybody. And I
think it's damn good and it's good that they have

(43:57):
somebody's put a stop to it.

Speaker 2 (44:00):
The comments we're going to hear this. You know, we're
responding to the will of the people. The judge supported
the will of the people. Now let's go back to
what you were saying earlier, Greg, This passed by what
seven thousand votes? Stay wide seven thousand votes in Salt
Lake County, a heavy turnout in favor.

Speaker 1 (44:18):
Yeah, it's getting sixty five sixty Democrat district. It's like
sixty five percent of the vote. It's getting way, way,
way higher percentage.

Speaker 2 (44:26):
They swayed this election, there's no doubt about it. And
outside sources donated what two point two million dollars for
this effort. I don't know the will of the people really.

Speaker 1 (44:38):
Ninety one percent of the money spent to pass that
law where it came from out of state and from
left of center causes that we don't subscribe to. But again,
I would say this fair enough. It can pass by
one vote. It becomes the law of the land. And
to our to our talk Back Live, you know listeners
who left those messages, I agree that that if you

(44:58):
if you ignore the will of the people, the people
get to decide. But I'm going to tell you that
if you subcontract that out to a judiciary and say, hey, judge,
you know we spoke and they ignored us, will you
make a decision for us? Your power is in the vote.
Your power is to kick the bums out. You want
that to be your power, the people, not a judicial branch.

(45:19):
That you know nothing about that, you hope will make
it and if they have to, if they track what
you think, then you're okay with it. No, no, no,
it's the people who have to decide these things. And
if the legislature acts in a way that they can't
defend it to those that they represent, they got to.

Speaker 2 (45:34):
Get kicked out.

Speaker 1 (45:35):
And if you're cynical about that, I don't know how
you don't get cynical about a judiciary that we don't
do any of that, we don't have any transparency with
that branch. They're not the ones you go to, you
go get them.

Speaker 2 (45:45):
Yeah, well, we've got some thoughts on these judges. When
we come back on the Rod and Greg Show. Right
here on Utah's Talk Radio one oh five nine cannask
give us call eighty eight eight five seven eight zero
one zero on your cell phone dial pound two fifty
and say hey Rod, or leave us a talk back
line at CANA right more coming up, let's.

Speaker 1 (46:01):
Hear from you our great listeners. Let's go to Brian
who's been patiently waiting on woods Cross. Ryan, thank you
for holding. Welcome to the Roddy Gregg Show.

Speaker 5 (46:09):
Hi guys, good to talk to you.

Speaker 2 (46:10):
Again, good talk to you.

Speaker 10 (46:12):
Hey.

Speaker 5 (46:13):
I just wanted to make two quick points. The first
one is when this redistricting Commission was organized, I had
a real problem with the fact that it was basically
equal parts.

Speaker 6 (46:24):
Red and blue.

Speaker 5 (46:26):
If it was representative, it should have been more Republican
than Democrat. It should have been sixty five or seventy
percent to twenty four, thirty percent, whatever it is. And
so that was a big problem with it in the
first place. We shouldn't be giving the Democrats extra extra
help on that, but unfortunately Republicans kind of bend over
with things like that. And the other point that I

(46:47):
wanted to make is that people are whining and moaning
about our democracy and et cetera, et cetera, but they
forget about the fact that the Redistricting Commission was elected
by a pure democratic majority rather than representative majority, as

(47:09):
is our constitution. The state legislature is the representation of us.
So if we really want to have a representative redistricting,
it needs to be done through the legislature because that
is where the vote of the people is. We don't
like the way they did it, we vote them out,

(47:29):
but we don't do a pure you know, democratic vote
and suggest that somehow democracy in a commission like this
is acceptable when representative is the norm.

Speaker 6 (47:47):
For the country.

Speaker 2 (47:48):
Brian, every comment you are spot on. This is what
you've been saying, too great, That's exactly what we've been saying.

Speaker 1 (47:53):
And I just want to point out that what Brian
said is so true because even to the point he
made about the percentage of what how you would make
up a committee. That's how the legislative committees are made up.
It's by the percentage of the body that they're in.
So if you have a committee of ten people and
say the legislature has a seventy percent Republican majority, seven
of the ten are Republicans, three of them are Democrats.

(48:14):
They do this in Congress too, but that's how we
do it in the state. His other point, let me
give you an example of a pure democracy. We fought
our guts out to stop Obamacare expansion in this state
and it was not easy. It's one of the hardest
things we ever did, and we did it. They went
to a ballot measure. They said, it's apple pie, and
it's motherhood, and it's all those six The Obamacare expansion

(48:34):
failed in the state of Utah by sixty thousand votes. However,
in Salt Lake County it passed by ninety thousand, so
thirty thousand vote margin it wins. If you look at
the whole state, sixty thousand, you get outside of Salay
County sixty thousand, collectively sixty thousand, it's defeated. So Brian's
point about are we a republic? That you had sal

(48:57):
Lake County decide for this entire state Wamacare expansion because
the rest of the state's voters rejected it by sixty
thousand votes, that this thing went down, but ninety thousand
from the deepest red places and in Sola County made
the decision statewide for the whole state. And and he's
saying that's not a republic now, is it. So thank
you Brian for your comments.

Speaker 2 (49:18):
I concur can I bring up a point that Brian
made as well. Yeah, the makeup of this commission originally,
and I think he's right. Half we're blue, half we're red, right, Okay?
Is that representative of the state. I am getting so
sick and tired. There was a woman on Glenn Beck
the other day who said Utah is now been known
as the bluest red state. I am tired of this state.

(49:41):
Plain nice. Yes, Conservatives in this state are a majority.
Act like it, take charge of it. Quit trying to
be well. We want to be fair, we want to
be nice. I'm tired of that. We control the states.
Start acting like we do. And I'm just sick. And
by the way, that is be nice.

Speaker 1 (50:00):
You know Obama and the Democrats, they can elegantly lie, Okay,
we can tell the brutal truth. Okay, that is the difference.
I'm tired of fairness being misunderstood, is somehow hugging it
out or giving the other side what they want when
it's not a representative, it doesn't represent what the state
or it's electorate really feels. It's it's its capitulation, is
what that is. So I agree and I and I

(50:23):
think we have to start being stronger. Just take our
cues from I think this president. This president is actually leading.
You're seeing him take on tough issues that everybody avoids.
He's taking him on. He doesn't know the outcome when
he does, but he works on it, and he's willing
to spend the political capital. That's what our representatives and
those that are elected as Republicans need to do in
the state.

Speaker 2 (50:41):
Yeah, and there's so much they can do. But we've
got a lot of talkback comments coming in letsless to
a few of them.

Speaker 1 (50:47):
Rod.

Speaker 13 (50:47):
The fact that it took you this long to realize
that Democrats in the state aren't very smart kind of
blows my mind. I've been listening to you for the
last five six years, and it blows my mind they
just realize this.

Speaker 2 (51:04):
Well, he's probably right, but it dawned on me after
this ruling came down. I got thinking about it today.
To be honest with Greg, I'm saying, you know, the Democrat, Oh,
we've got a representative will be in Washington representing the
people of Utah. And guess what, Utah Washington Republican or
Democrats will pay little, if any attention to a Utah Democrat.
Do you honestly think Democrats that you're going to have

(51:26):
any say in what the Democratic Party is working for?
You get a chance.

Speaker 1 (51:30):
You get the memo, you get the memo on how you.

Speaker 2 (51:32):
Do you true to do? Yeah? Yeah, all right, let's
get another comment.

Speaker 4 (51:36):
My question is this, if the people voted for it,
then maybe they should get what they voted for.

Speaker 1 (51:45):
But in twenty twenty.

Speaker 4 (51:47):
We've also seen that they use the machines to fudge
the election. Who says that they didn't fudge this election.
They didn't bring people in that I didn't know what.

Speaker 2 (52:01):
They were wanting for and pay him to do what
they want. Oh, I'm interesting. Huh. Yes, let's go back
to the calls. Let's go to uh David in Cedar
Hills tonight, David, how are you welcome to the Roden
Gregg Show.

Speaker 6 (52:15):
Yeah, I just wanted to say that I know now
that the Republicans are getting somewhere else.

Speaker 3 (52:21):
Cat that he.

Speaker 9 (52:25):
To night.

Speaker 6 (52:26):
We are.

Speaker 1 (52:33):
That's right, that's right around here.

Speaker 7 (52:36):
David.

Speaker 2 (52:36):
Are you accusing me of being a little too soft?
Is that what you're saying?

Speaker 1 (52:39):
David? Don't make him answer that?

Speaker 2 (52:46):
All right, David, maybe I just need to become mean.

Speaker 1 (52:50):
You know what, I love the little you got a
little vimin vigor and right here you're too mean. You're
not too mean. What you're saying right now is really
we're true. Look at what Gavin Newsom's doing in California. Look,
Texas is redistricting, but they have the DOJ and a
court ruling that said that their districts were val out
of line they did it. You got Ohio that's gotten,
that's in the middle of one because of another court

(53:11):
telling them they have to redraw it. But you got
Gavin Newsom saying, Okay, if you guys are going to draw,
and we might really sell you this. We're going to
the mat on this. But while all of that is
going on nationally, we just had a judge tell our
legislative branch your maps actually don't count. There's a statute.
I maybe you have to go believe you had that
callback that talks about the Constitution versus a statute, And

(53:31):
I'd love to hear that comment shared on the program.

Speaker 2 (53:34):
And I've got another theory as to why the Democrats
are fighting so hard for this district. I'll explain that
when we come back how the electoral College could tilt
further from Democrats. They're looking at twenty thirty two with
population shifts, and it points out the deeply conservative Texas
in Florida could gain a total of five congressional seats,
and the red states of Utah and Idaho each could

(53:56):
add one.

Speaker 1 (53:57):
Yes.

Speaker 2 (53:57):
Now, the states of California, Illinois, New York, and Rhode
Island would lose seats all blue states versus all red states.
That's why they're fighting for we could have five congressional
districts here in about five or six years after the census,
and that's why they're so fighting so hard to keep one.

Speaker 1 (54:14):
Yeah, and they're just not using the It's just they're
using tactics that have nothing to do with the people.
I'm going to tell you. If you look at who
funds these things and how they frame it and their approach,
it's a it's it's a it's a problem nationwide. But
let's go to our We have some great callback or
talk back messages.

Speaker 4 (54:32):
Here's one. If the Constitution is the law, then we
need to follow the constitution, plain and simple. If we
don't like the law, we go and change the constitution
to the law that we want. But right now we
don't have a say of changing the law if the
Constitution says what it is, and a judge doesn't have

(54:53):
the right to overthrow the constitution, plain and simple and simple.

Speaker 1 (55:00):
So you have a statue that's true, but that statue
does not supersede the Constitution, and you need a constitutional
amendment to do that. That is not what that that
initiative was. That was a law like any other law passed,
and so you don't have a constitutional moment. So the
constitution should be how they're following, and they're not.

Speaker 2 (55:16):
Yep, exactly right. Here's another comment on our talk back
line from one of our.

Speaker 1 (55:20):
Listeners to the judge who made that ruling.

Speaker 6 (55:24):
The legislature ought to give a three word response, go
pound fan, thank you.

Speaker 2 (55:31):
I wouldn't.

Speaker 5 (55:32):
I wouldn't redraw anything until the state Supreme Court has
told me that I have to.

Speaker 2 (55:40):
And I don't believe that will happen.

Speaker 1 (55:44):
From there is I had to be the bearer of
bad news. Yeah yeah, But this selection process that we use,
it's not like the president who gets to pick who
he wants and then confirmed by the Senate. There's this
this convoluted selection process where the governor ultimately has given
names to choose from, and that the whole system needs
to be revisited. We have left of center judges in

(56:04):
this state. I'm telling you, folks, it's not a place
you want to place your hopes and the voice of
the people upon it isn't. They are so unaccountable. You
don't know how they rule, you don't know how they
make their decisions, and they do this by design. They
even have a paywall where you can pay to find
out how they vote. There's no sensible way to even

(56:25):
aggregate the way they rule on anything to know what
kind of judge they are.

Speaker 2 (56:28):
And if you're putting your faith in the Utah Supreme.

Speaker 1 (56:30):
Court, they're already made.

Speaker 2 (56:33):
They're pretty darn liberal up there, and they could side
with this judge. They really could.

Speaker 1 (56:38):
They already have in some ways by saying that somehow
a ballot measure is a super law that can't be amended.

Speaker 6 (56:44):
All right.

Speaker 2 (56:44):
When we come back our number three, the dangers of
cash list bail, we'll get into that, and we'll also
talk about behavior in classrooms and discipline. That's coming up.
Still a lot to come this hour here on the
Rod on Greg Show. A little bit later on, we'll
talk about the high cost of classroom disorder. But right now,
let's talk about the devastating cost of cashless bail. I mean,

(57:07):
it's an issue that the President is pushing for, Greg.
He wants to eliminate it, he's taking action against it.
Where it will go, We'll have to wait and see.
But joining us on our Newsmaker line to talk more
about this is our guest Jennifer Harrison, Executive Director the
Victim's Rights Reform Council. Jennifer, how are you and thanks
for joining the Rotten Great Show.

Speaker 14 (57:26):
Thank you, Hi, I'm very well. Thank you so much
for having me.

Speaker 2 (57:30):
Jennifer. You have had and you shared in an article
today about this. You have had to deal with the
devastating effects of cashless bail. Do you mind sharing what
happened to you?

Speaker 14 (57:41):
Well, I didn't have to deal with cashless bell on
a personal basis. Sadly, over twenty years ago, my boyfriend
and his best friend were both murdered in a bar
fight in New Jersey by three brothers. Two of them
had criminal records, one was a New York State parole
and they basically all got away with it and a
sweetheart plea deal. Two got completely off that those two

(58:03):
were the ones that have had records at the time,
and one that had no record got the sweetheart deal
and only served nine years for killing two people. So Ever,
since then, I've spent my life fighting for other victims
and you know, joining support groups across the country. And
then when we learned about bail or form in twenty seventeen,

(58:24):
and it type implementation across the country. That's when we
started becoming more politically active. And you know, I know
what I went through, losing the love of my life
at twenty seven years old, and the injustice that I
faced during that and getting to know all of these
mothers throughout the twenty years as an advocate that had
buried their children and now seeing their killers get out

(58:45):
of jail, you know, within hours, was absolutely infuriating.

Speaker 1 (58:49):
Jennifer. Here in the state of Utah, in twenty nineteen,
cashlest Bill was passed. I used to serve in the legislature.
Would not have believed that we would as a state
passor were a Republican state, passed casual Speale in twenty nineteen.
There has been some efforts to rewind that or try
to get bail back back, bail schedule back, but once
you let that toothpaste out of the tube, it has

(59:10):
been very, very difficult to see this happen. We still
have casual spelle in the state of Utah. What would
you say with all that you're seeing around the country,
what would you tell our listeners that they should be
communicating to lawmakers in terms of the danger and why
bail schedules make sense, and why releasing people with conditions
that they don't even have to really meet, why this

(59:31):
is harming public safety?

Speaker 14 (59:34):
Well, this is one of the reasons that I'm so
glad that you're having me on because I actually, you know,
to prepare for tonight's show, I tried to do some
research on Utah state laws, and all I could come
up with was that it was repealed. So that made
me very happy. So it's very disheartening to hear that
it hasn't been repealed totally and that, you know, people
in Utah are still suffering through this. But you know,

(59:56):
where is the media that's covering all of that, And
I you know, there are no visitctims that can be found,
no information that can be found on any of those
victims or how it's harming people in Utah and victims.
And all I could say is that I know that
in New York alone, we have around seven hundred people
that are dead because of bail reform, you know, So
while I don't know the numbers in your state, you know,

(01:00:18):
I can imagine that it's somewhere around there since it's
been passed, maybe a little bit less because of the
population different. But I mean, these are seven hundred families
that really that have empty tables that that people should
be laughing at during holidays and celebrating and making new
memories that are no longer with us. And what people
don't understand also is that these programs of supervised release

(01:00:41):
and to release violent recidivius back into the community are
taxpayer funded. So all of these criminals are getting the
support of tax payers, you know, to go out and
cause harm in the communities in which they live and reside.
And our families, the innocent victims and those of us
who really are the only people in this situation that
didn't choose to be in this situation. You know, the

(01:01:03):
prosecutors chose the career, the judges chose their career, the
criminal intentionally committed the crime against us. We're the ones
that aren't getting any support whatsoever when we're left to
pick up the pieces.

Speaker 2 (01:01:15):
Jennifer One about the victims. We spend, as you point out,
millions of dollars into programs designed to support criminals. But
is any is any money ever being spent on the
victims and helping them deal with their loss? What's going
on there?

Speaker 14 (01:01:29):
Do you feel no, I mean it's a bare minimum.
You know, in New York they give out twelve thousand
dollars for a funeral reimbursement, but belong you know, an
average funeral cost well over that. Nowadays, it's infuriating, and
that it's insulting to be honest with you, and offensive.
And a lot of the funds that had been set

(01:01:50):
aside or federally funded for victims actually went to other
programs like violence interruption, which is not helping at all,
and paid gang members not to you know, kill each other.
But meanwhile, it's just it's funding there. You know, whichever
group is lucky enough to get that funding and politically
connected enough to get that funding is actually in charge

(01:02:11):
of running the streets instead of not committing crimes. So
in New York we've seen it go towards illegals and whatnot,
and it's misappropriated on so many different levels, which you know,
is just another slot in the face.

Speaker 1 (01:02:25):
So my question is the whole At least in Utah,
the big premise on why this past was they said,
you know, people are poor and they commit a crime,
they just can't afford the bail. And if someone has
a higher household income, they can afford the bail, and
so it's a disparity or an injustice based on household income.
Maybe share with our listeners, maybe the household income is
I don't think it's actually related to holding people with

(01:02:48):
bail and what you would need to do to secure
bail or to get out or to be held. Does
does household income actually play a part in criminality? Should
we be paying attention to that that part of it?

Speaker 14 (01:02:59):
I mean, I don't really see that even still playing
a part in it. And you know, you have to
understand that the secured bail system was a very structured,
well organized system that actually got families involved in the
release process. So you know, bail bondsmen would sit down
with the families and work with them on a strategic

(01:03:20):
plan to get you know, little Johnny, as my friend
Michelle Esconazzi from the Bail Association likes to say, out
of prison. And you know, Grandma Aunty and Mommy were
very involved and you know signed over their money to
get him get Little Johnny released for whatever crime he committed.
So Little Johnny was then responsible to his family, which

(01:03:42):
probably scared him more than the judge or any police officer,
and that family structure and environment of accountability has now
been removed from the equation. So there's no accountability, there's
no there's no family involved and and you know, Johnny
has no reason to show back up the court.

Speaker 2 (01:04:00):
We're talking with Jennifer Harrison. She is the executive director
of the Victim's Right Reform Council, talking about cashal as
bail from a legal point of view, Jennifer, any ideas
to the kind of ground the president is on and
trying to get this change. I mean, how solid is
his footing and trying to get this changed.

Speaker 7 (01:04:18):
I mean, I think it's pretty solid.

Speaker 14 (01:04:19):
You know, he he is cutting off funding for municipalities
that support these programs, and you know, he was elected
on a huge part of the reason that he was
elected was the issue of crime, and it's a that's
still a major issue, especially in blue run cities and states. So,
I you know, the executive order is probably going to

(01:04:42):
be challenged by the ACLU and all of the other
leftists and seeing people out there who support criminals being
you know, let loose and allowed to harm their daughters
on the streets. But I'm hoping that the vagueness of
the language in this execut of order in particular, gives
him a very broad range and Pam BONDI a very

(01:05:04):
broad range of how they can go after these jurisdictions
and and also possibly hold you know, these Wolke activist
judges and progressive soro most funded prosecutors accountable.

Speaker 1 (01:05:15):
Finally, Jennifer, you you hit it. I thought your your
narration of a bail bond it's private sector. But the
way that they worked with the families that made sure
that if someone did get bail, that they had a
way that they would appear and be and come back
to court. And how those those individuals, those suspects were
accountable to their family, and how the cashless spale has
taken that away, all of that away, and and our

(01:05:38):
that free market that was doing that is pretty much
gone in the state of Utah now because of cashless bail.
Can we get it back? Do you have any models
of states that have seen the error of their ways
and have gone back to a bail schedule and even
a back to a bail bonds system that does work
with the families and works with the person that's looking
for bail and making sure that they come back and

(01:06:00):
they don't feel to appear. Is there any state that's
getting that's correcting this.

Speaker 14 (01:06:05):
I personally do not know of any. You would have
to talk to to Michelle, who I strongly advise you
have on but we you know, I work very closely
with them. I could, I could email your producer once
we get off and get the information to you. I do,
I personally do not know of any All that I
know is that everybody that has implemented these programs has
absolutely doubled down on them. And instead of admitting their

(01:06:26):
fault and seeing that it's causing bloodshed and you know,
people losing their lives, that you know, they're doubling down
on it, and and that that's what is baffling to me.
You know, everybody's human, everybody makes mistakes. They say that
these policies were well intended in the beginning and and
you know, meant to to create equality and make it

(01:06:48):
so that people who couldn't afford it were not held
you know on a uh maybe you know, robbing a
candy bar from a store and sitting in jail for
three years. That's a fallacy that never happened, but that's
why they say it was implemented. So if it was
really that well intended, then why aren't we working.

Speaker 7 (01:07:05):
Harder to fix it?

Speaker 2 (01:07:06):
Jennifer, keep up the great work. Thanks for a few
minutes of your time tonight. I appreciate it, Thank you,
thank you.

Speaker 14 (01:07:11):
Appreciate you guys, and I will get that information.

Speaker 13 (01:07:13):
To you all right.

Speaker 2 (01:07:14):
Thank you. Jennifer Harrison. She's the executive director of the
Victim's Right Reform Council, talking about the cost of cash
list bail. More coming up on the Tuesday edition of
The Rod and Greig Show and Talk Radio one O
five to nine. Okay, ns interesting the article today, Greg,
let's talk about crime. We just were talking with Jennifers
Harrison about the cash list bail article written by The Guardian.

(01:07:35):
The Guardian a very very liberal news outlet based in
the UK. Right, we'rete an interesting article today. I thought
Greg brought up that Trump is wrong about crime. No
he's not, but here's what he added. But he is
right about the fear of it. See, the Democrats don't
understand that. Well, the crime stats may be down or

(01:07:56):
maybe in question. We all want safe streets and the
Democrats don't understand that. And this is where they're so
off in this argument with Trump. I mean, if you're
the mayor of Chicago when you say, you know, we
do have a problem. We really do have a problem here,
and mister president, if you're willing to help, let's sit
down and talk about how you can help. But they

(01:08:17):
don't do that.

Speaker 1 (01:08:18):
No, in fact, it's such it is so on brand
for Trump to say I'm going to go in with
national guard, and then all the Democrats get their backup
and they say, we don't want you here, we don't
want you here. So you got JD. Pritsk here, the
governor of Illinois, saying we don't need it, We're fine.
They got five hundred homicides a year. You know, there's
three hundred and sixty five days in a year. They
get five hundred homicides in Chicago alone a year, and
he's saying to this president, we don't want your help.

(01:08:39):
So what does Trump say today if he wants my help,
I'm ready.

Speaker 2 (01:08:41):
To go, I'm are to help.

Speaker 1 (01:08:42):
So you know, it looked like he was going to
unconstitutionally invade Chicago. No, he's just letting them. He just
gave him rope to hang himself with. And then now
Pritsker's saying, we don't need any help. We're fine. Five
hundred homicides and we're going strong. Just leave us alone.

Speaker 2 (01:08:55):
Rum has backed these democratic governors and mayors into such
a corner. Yeah, they do not know how to get
out of it. I mean listed John Kasick, John Kasick
one time Kennyth for president president.

Speaker 1 (01:09:07):
Yes, well he was on NBC.

Speaker 2 (01:09:09):
Yeah, he was on NBC earlier today, and boy did
he go off on crime cities like Chicago and Baltimore.
After listening to a fellow MSNBC analyst called Trump's focus
on crime a manufactured crisis.

Speaker 15 (01:09:22):
Well, I mean, I have to tell you I have
such a different take than what we've just heard. They
talk about a manufactured crisis.

Speaker 6 (01:09:30):
Have you been in Chicago?

Speaker 2 (01:09:32):
Have you been in Baltimore?

Speaker 15 (01:09:34):
But my daughter went to school in Chicago. I remember
the day she graduated, there were shootings and killings right
outside of her building. And in Baltimore, I have friends
that go down to Johns Hopkins get treated for medical conditions.
I mean, they are nervous about ever going there. There
are parts of Baltimore that he tells me he wouldn't
go into. And this is not some right wing person.

(01:09:57):
This is somebody who wants to be able to go
into some of our great eight cities and be able
to be safe.

Speaker 2 (01:10:03):
They want to be safe, but apparently the Democrats don't
believe in safety.

Speaker 1 (01:10:07):
Yeah. No, he in that interview, he really went after them,
and he's he's been. I think he's been a bit
of a squish. I think he's been a bit of
a moderate. He has, and I don't know if they're
going to have him back. I'm sure that was a
nice little contract. He gets to go on there and
you know, and you know, bash Trump or whatever he does.
But he couldn't take it anymore. This is so counterintuitive,
This whole public safety becoming a part is an issue,
but blows my mind.

Speaker 2 (01:10:29):
Here's another example of the Democrats not being able to
read the room when it comes to crime. This was
a woman. Of course, the Democrats are all meeting as
some big summer camp up in Minnesota this week, but
this during a presentation on crime. Listen to what this
lady said about crime in America.

Speaker 3 (01:10:45):
Shees voters care about where does Trump go? Migrant crime, carjackings,
the really lurid, awful stuff. That is a crazy, crazy visual.
Don't take the bat because most Americans are more worried
about how are we going to address mental health issues,
the visible homelessness that we see on streets, and how
do we deal with mental health and other issues that

(01:11:07):
drive the sort of random incidents that scare all of us.
That's what you should be talking about. That's where you
should be focused. Don't take the bait and talking about
migrant crime or carjackings or the things that actually don't
matter to that many Americans.

Speaker 2 (01:11:21):
Did she just say that carjackings don't matter to many Americans?

Speaker 1 (01:11:24):
Yeah, Well, if you're at the and you're in the ACLU,
that's what you believe. You just think that it's about healthcare,
free health care, and you think it's about those things.
It's again, they want to socially engineer this country and
everybody in it. And I this sounds this sounds maybe
too crass, but I actually believe it. I think that
these leftist, elitist democrats see crime as crowd control. I do.

(01:11:49):
I think that it's a way to keep people at bay,
it's a way to keep people afraid. They operate in fear,
and I think that they're completely comfortable with crime. So
long as the killing fields stay in the poor area, not.

Speaker 2 (01:12:01):
Where they certain cities, in certain sections of those.

Speaker 1 (01:12:04):
Killing fields, in those poor areas, they are right as ragin.
They do not care. They absolutely don't care. And you
get to find that out finally about them. But that
is what I really think, that's a genuine moment that
she's speaking about. They don't care about the crime.

Speaker 2 (01:12:17):
One other thought, they keep on saying affordable housing. If
we had affordable housing, crime would go down. Yeah, will
someone show me in what city in America is there
affordable housing? And did crime actually go down?

Speaker 1 (01:12:28):
So I might assume that we're just seeing it in
the high rent district. It's all it's all so expensive.
That's why we have crime. It's not it doesn't have
The affordable housing is just like you know, the climate issue.
It's just a way to compel. You're going to you're
gonna pay for their home, You're going to tell them
what to do, You're going to keep them scared. It's
really what. It's really a plan that they used to
I think used to they wanted to do, but they

(01:12:49):
kept it kind of hush. They're just out with it now.

Speaker 2 (01:12:51):
Sure, all right, A lot more to come final half hour.
They're Roden Gregg Show on Talk Radio one O five
nine kay nrs. The high cost of classroom disorder. I mean,
can you even a imposed discipline in a classroom today
here in the United States or even here in Utah?

Speaker 1 (01:13:09):
Rag you know, I So I didn't know this was
a thing. I'm so glad we're doing this interview because
I know a teacher who really suffered an assault from
a student and could get no recourse. And the story
of this educator and what they've had to deal with
with what is I would argue illegal behavior from the
student in terms of the assault towards their their teacher.

(01:13:32):
You would think there would be an immediate and responsible
way to deal with that. And this teacher has been
left out there in the cold. And so I didn't
know that that the that there were these policies that
were just take the troublemakers and coddle them and don't
join to discipline them. And that's that's what's happened to
our schools who knew.

Speaker 2 (01:13:51):
Yeah it is, Well, let's talk about this right now.
Joining us on our Newsmaker line is need to arnold.
She is a policy analyst at the Manhattan Institute talking
about the cost of classroom disorder on NITO. Thanks for
joining us tonight from your research and talking to educators.
What are you hearing out there? How bad is it
right now?

Speaker 6 (01:14:10):
Yes?

Speaker 16 (01:14:10):
I mean, we're seeing student misbehavior get worse in our classrooms.
And what I'm specifically focusing on in my article for
City Journal is this thing called PBIS Positive Behavioral Interventions
and Support. And I feel like before I get into that,
I kind of need to share how I even thought
to investigate it. You know, for some time I'd been

(01:14:33):
hearing in teacher circles the same story. Teacher sends misbehaving
student to the principal's office, misbehaving student comes back with
a bag of chips, and students' behavior didn't change. And
so every time the story was told to me, teachers
would blame PBIS. And what we saw was after the pandemic,

(01:14:55):
teachers were leaving the field at records rate and they
can't and they're citing chronics didn't misbehavior as a top
reason for leading classrooms, And so I wanted to understand
how PBIS was contributing to chaos in the classroom. We
know that schools have been relaxing their discipline standards, and

(01:15:16):
oftentimes we think of restorative justice. But something that doesn't
get a lot of attention is PBIS.

Speaker 1 (01:15:23):
So need to here's here's what they'll say. They'll say, well,
we have this, it's been peer reviewed, it has you know,
it's been researched. This is, this is this has been
proven to be about best practice academically and through review
whatever it would be. But I don't think it when
rubber hits the road, that is actually the case. So
how do you combat to the narrative that this is

(01:15:45):
a highly researched best practice.

Speaker 16 (01:15:48):
Well, actually, one thing that was unique about my article
was I dove into the research because you know, the
US Department of Education Center on PBIS both more than
two hundred research cape which purport to it seems to
support PBIS, And you know, that's a big spelling point
for school that something is evidence space. Then schools have

(01:16:12):
an incentive to adopt the program. And I go into
a lot of detail at my City Journal piece, which
I think is vital for school leaders to read, especially
those who are thinking about adopting PBIS or who are
rethinking their strategies on school discipline. But One pattern that
I found, as I do through the research was that

(01:16:34):
it relies a lot on suspensions as processies for student behavior,
and so it's often assumed by the researchers that it's
suspensions go down that means student behavior has improved. But
the whole point of PBIS is to move away from
punitive measures like suspensions and expulsions, and so it's flawed

(01:16:57):
for the research to assume that when you see d
creases and suspensions that means PBIS is working and helping
students improve their behavior. And you know, something else that
was told to me by one of my interviewees for
this article was that schools might actually be cooking the
books on their suspension records because a lot of administrators

(01:17:20):
face pressure to make their suspension data look a certain
way so that they're not called out by their local
cities or.

Speaker 6 (01:17:26):
By their state need to.

Speaker 2 (01:17:28):
Why do I get the feeling this goes all the
way back to Barack Obama and his education secretary, who
felt that minority students in schools were being disciplined at
a higher rate than other students. Doesn't this go back
to all the way back to Barack Obama and his
education secretary.

Speaker 16 (01:17:44):
You know, the history with PBIS is actually quite interesting.
You know, originally it had it really was not about
student discipline for all students. It was really a measure
that was targeted for students who had severe behavior disorder.
But during the two thousands and especially the twenty tens,
I think as a nation, we started to become allergic

(01:18:07):
to student discipline. And you know, especially the case was
critics who were framing harsh discipline as leading students to
drop out of schools and somehow going to jail, which
is known as the school to prison pipeline. And you know,
I think that was a big narrative that was present
during the Obama years, and so it is highly political.

(01:18:28):
You know, lately, TBIs has been committed to racial equity goals,
and so you know, they've been been trying to make
sure that schools are using data to avoid racial disparities,
even if there is a behavior differences between groups.

Speaker 1 (01:18:46):
Need to None of this sounds very good to me
in terms of it was at first it was looking
at special needs students and some of those unique needs
and how to approach them. Then it fanned out for
reasons unknown to just general student population. Then they want
to be more in on minority students for almost I
think it that's almost racist in terms of not expecting
same standards. But the world does it look like even

(01:19:08):
in the Obama administration and the and the climate in
the classroom is one thing. You get into a pandemic,
and then you had students who hadn't been around each
other or in a classroom environment for a number of years.
And if you count the number of school years that
were interrupted, I I heard that when kids were coming
back full full time, they were having behavioral problems just
inherently because of the the gap of time that you know,

(01:19:29):
fourth graders are now coming back as seventh graders into school.
What does the what does public education look like post
COVID that maybe has exacerbated this this program here of
pbis I.

Speaker 16 (01:19:42):
Mean, many of the teachers that I interviewed for this
article had left education over the past couple of years,
you know, during the COVID years even after, And what
they were telling me was that they were dealing with
fights with Brett was just outright defiance and they often
brought it back to PB. And so, you know, and

(01:20:03):
I think one thing that was interesting when I was
speaking to the teachers, was that they repeatedly conveyed to
me that because of the presence of PBIS, administrators ended
up using the program as a crutch and they would
overlook student misconduct. And so, because administrators really wanted to
focus more on positive behaviors, they didn't really want to

(01:20:24):
get into the punitive measures. Teachers were spending a lot
more time dealing with unruly classrooms, and that was really
diluting the educational experience for other students.

Speaker 2 (01:20:37):
Need to let me ask you this question. You've got
teachers leaving, You've got students misbehaving. Is there a solution
to this? Does anyone offering pass forward?

Speaker 14 (01:20:47):
I mean I.

Speaker 16 (01:20:47):
Would like to see, you know, schools empowered to suspend
and expel students. I think we need to rethink how
we consider those measures.

Speaker 6 (01:20:57):
It's not just about being students.

Speaker 16 (01:21:00):
We should also care about students who are doing the
right things, who just want to go to class and learn,
and for teachers who want to teach. And so I
think schools and states should reconsider PBIS. They should look
into alternatives.

Speaker 3 (01:21:15):
One is that.

Speaker 16 (01:21:16):
Value policies that I would say escalates consequences as the
conduct gets worse. You know, there is a problem with
over punishing, but there is also a problem with underpunishing students.
And then I think the second thing we need to
see is we just need better data so that we
know what's happening in our schools. We shouldn't just rely

(01:21:37):
on suspensions or accept expulsions as proxies for student behavior.
We actually need incident data. I think that is a
good way to hold our schools accountable. And again to
know exactly what is happening in our schools so that
we can come up with the best solutions.

Speaker 2 (01:21:57):
On our news make a line to need to, are
should say thank you? Need to policy analysts talking about
violence in the classrooms, discipline can can a teacher even
disciplined a student anymore? I don't think they're allowed.

Speaker 1 (01:22:09):
What an eye opener. I thought it was just this
kind of DEI kind of leftist, this mindset or mind virus.
But it's actually got it's an acronym. It's actually got
a a form to it that you don't it's a
I was listening. We want to get rid of suspensions.
I know how we'll just stop giving out suspensions. Well,
that doesn't actually impact the student's behavior. That you just

(01:22:31):
got rid of suspensions. So your measure, it's like, I
want to have a high graduation rate, Well, then graduate everyone, yeah,
without regard to their academic performance, and then look, you
graduate every These stats can be really messed with.

Speaker 2 (01:22:44):
You were saying, in school suspensions are really the best.

Speaker 1 (01:22:48):
Oh yeah, Having done both, having been a having been
a veteran of all forms of school discipline, I can
tell you that the heights that out of school suspension
put a bow on it. It's a three day vacation,
Thank you very much. I'm out the in school in
one room, all your classes. Oh oh man, I'm telling
you what's brutal?

Speaker 2 (01:23:07):
That is?

Speaker 1 (01:23:08):
That's that is?

Speaker 4 (01:23:09):
Uh?

Speaker 1 (01:23:09):
You? That one? That one's things you kind of kind
of remember that one. Why do I think you're speaking
from experience? I am speaking but my kids that they
don't know any of this. This is stuff I can
say now that they're older. Yeah they don't.

Speaker 2 (01:23:21):
Yeah, they won't try it. Yeah, yeah, I get that,
all right, boy. Coming up, final segment of the Rod
and Greg Show, What is happening to Milania Trump? Wait
till you hear this story? Coming up on Utah's Talk
Radio one oh five nine Okay, NR, you'll love these stories.
A California school district greg enacting a new rule for
young girls who are uncomfortable sharing a bathroom with biological

(01:23:43):
males pretending to be girls. The district is requiring the
girls to file a mental health accommodation request.

Speaker 1 (01:23:52):
No, it should be the guy trying to get in
the girls room and he needs to file a mental
health accommodation request.

Speaker 5 (01:23:57):
Yep.

Speaker 2 (01:23:58):
The Temecula Valley Fined school district as reportedly enacted a
new rule that tells female students who feel uncomfortable sharing
bathroom space with biological males must file a mental health
request under federal law if they want privacy.

Speaker 1 (01:24:17):
I think Trump administration ought to get involved in that
because that's you know, well, that's just they're just torturing
those poor kids because there's a there's a peer pressure
deal with that. If you talk to some of these athletes,
female athletes in college that had boys on their team,
they felt a pressure that they couldn't speak up because
they didn't want to get in trouble.

Speaker 2 (01:24:33):
That's true story.

Speaker 1 (01:24:34):
You can't do that to kids.

Speaker 2 (01:24:35):
School districts throughout the US are ditching electric school buses.

Speaker 1 (01:24:39):
No this is a disaster.

Speaker 2 (01:24:43):
The Biden administration awarded a contract to a firm in
Quebec one hundred and fifty nine million dollars. They've not
gone bankrupt.

Speaker 1 (01:24:51):
Yeah yeah, because there their buses are garbage and they're
stuck with half an order filled and the buses now
they've gone bankrupt and they're broken. There's no one to fix.

Speaker 2 (01:25:00):
Going to fix them? Would you agree with me? Milania
Trump is a very beautiful woman. She is right. Well,
Vanity Fair's new boss apparently it's creating a rebellion at
the magazine because he wants to put Malania Trump on
the magazine's coveted cover.

Speaker 1 (01:25:16):
Yes.

Speaker 2 (01:25:17):
Well, she's a very classy first lady, she's very The
staff is threatening to walk out. This is their words,
the m f king door. That's terrible, that's terrible. Wants
to walk out if they in fact decided to put
Malania Trump.

Speaker 1 (01:25:32):
From the arrangement. Syndrome just keeps raging, doesn't it.

Speaker 2 (01:25:36):
Yep?

Speaker 1 (01:25:36):
Yep, yeah, no, I I she's she does. I think
history will one day remember her. I mean, she is
doing some great things and it takes sometimes. You got
to find on social media posts where she's meeting with kids.
You know, she has disabled kids. She goes and visits.
There's all these good things that she's doing as First
Lady that you wouldn't know anything about because this media
doesn't want to give her any attention or credit for

(01:25:57):
the role she's playing as First Lady. And she's doing
a great job.

Speaker 2 (01:26:00):
Not even on the cover of Vanity magazine. Yeah, pretty
sad coming.

Speaker 1 (01:26:04):
Who needs them?

Speaker 2 (01:26:05):
Ye forgetting? All right? That does it for us tonight,
as we say, eat it every night, head up, shoulders back. Hey,
God bless you and your family in this great country
of ours. Wing Man Wednesday begins tomorrow and more they'll
talk to you that

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

The Rod & Greg Show News

Popular Podcasts

Dateline NBC

Stuff You Should Know

Law & Order: Criminal Justice System - Season 1 & Season 2

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}The Rod and Greg Show: Reaction to Utah Judge's Redistricting Decision; High Cost of Cashless Bail

Episode Transcript

The Rod & Greg Show News .css-1q01m3q{margin:0 0 -2px 0;}

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}Dateline NBC

Stuff You Should Know

Law & Order: Criminal Justice System - Season 1 & Season 2

All Episodes