July 15, 2025 • 34 mins
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Plus or Josh Blackman joins the program again our legal
(00:04):
expert aka mister smarty pants. We have had a busy
Supreme Court session with some important rulings as it affects
the Trump administration's ability to do their job and hence
this country. And you, professor, let's start with the Trump v. Cassa, Inc.
(00:24):
Case or Kasa Ink regarding whether district courts can simply
decide in anywhere America. Oh you know what, Trump can't
do that That ended up at the Supreme Court in
an expedited fashion. Talk about that case if you would.
Speaker 2 (00:41):
This is probably the most important case from last year.
It involved Trump's birthright citizenship order. Well, Trump said that
we will not give any sort of citizenship papers to
children of legal aliens. But the quot can decide whether
that order itself was lawful, and so they decided it's
kind of a procedural issue, that is, how can it
(01:04):
be challenged in court? Moments after Trump signed the order,
judges in Washington and in the Northeast issue these universal
injunctions that basically applied to everyone everywhere. So even though
Texas hadn't challenged the policy, children of aliens in Texas
would still be protected by it, and that's not how
things were supposed to work. So we have a six
or three decision. Justice Barrett wrote the majority, and the
(01:26):
Court held that, no, you can't issue these injunctions, but
we won't talk about whether Trump's order is legal. We'll
do that later.
Speaker 1 (01:34):
That was the upshot, leaving President Trump the ability to
be the executive which our constitution empowers him to be fair.
Speaker 2 (01:45):
Right, yeah, I mean you have these district court judges
who are truly intruding on the powers of the executive
and going beyond the powers of the judicial branch.
Speaker 1 (01:55):
Do you recall ever seeing that in the modern era?
Speaker 2 (01:58):
Before you know, it started in earnest during the end
of the Obama administration, ramped up during the first Trump administration,
got even more during the Biden administration, and then during
the second Trump administration went off the chain. You had
more universal injunctions in the first few months of Trump
(02:19):
than all of Biden combined. So I think the Supreme
Court really has to intervenu tell the judges, chill, you
can't do this. This is not how we're supposed to
run a system.
Speaker 1 (02:30):
Well, my concern throughout all of this is that the
Supreme Court should not be as important to our daily
lives as it is and continues to be. And that
is because they are engaged in legislative and executive actions
in instead of simply judiciary behavior. And that concerns me
(02:52):
because we don't elect a Supreme Court. But in any case,
the case of Free Speech Coalition Inc. Versus Paxton, State
of Texas restrictions on porn and and age verification. Talk
about that if you would.
Speaker 2 (03:10):
This is an important case for Texas and many states.
As I'm sure people know, the Internet has a lot
of pornography, and some of it you have to pay
to get. So it's like porn hub have always required
people to register, but they didn't really do much to
verify that they were actually adults. So it was unsurprising
that children and miners were able to access material. Texas
(03:33):
enacted what I think is a pretty common sense law
that if you want to provide pornography online you have
to have a verification. You and I old enough, you remember, Michael.
Back in the day, if you wanted to go to
the video store, you had a little beaded curtain, right,
and you'd go there and you'd show your idea to
get those other not they ever did this, but you
would go there to get your adult videos. If you
(03:56):
want to go by a Playboy magazine, there is you
wrapped in that plastic and you have to go show
your ideas to the cashier. Online, there's no cashier, right,
there's no video clerk. So the way you verify your
age is by uploading a copy of your driver's license.
Is how you buy wines, how you buy tobacco, and
lots of things. But people said, oh no, no, this
will a chill or access to pornography. People will be
(04:17):
afraid of sharing the information online. So it goes to
the Supreme Court, and the Court rules six to three
that this policy is constitutional and Texas can use age
verification that even though this might burden some adults from
accessing their porn, it's a very useful means to protect
children from this material.
Speaker 1 (04:35):
So I think fair to say false under constitutional authority
because it's narrowly limited with a with a real purpose,
or narrowly tailored with a real purpose, as opposed to
an outright ban on pornography, which could be argued as
free speech not conclusive.
Speaker 2 (04:54):
Right. Just as Thomas wrote, the majority and he said that, Look,
this isn't a ban, it's a restriction, and it doesn't
make a difference. And there's a long tradition of governments
using age verification for accessing adult materials goes back forever.
It's different because it's online and there's a risk that
you know, people's credit cards might be you know, released
(05:15):
in people's you know, what kind of point did it
like to watch that's blackmail material? That risk does exist,
but I think it was enough to override the Texas
and Acted law well.
Speaker 1 (05:25):
And I think what we can take from this is
there has long been an American jurisprudential tradition that a
law should be as narrowly tailored as possible and for
a specific lawful purpose. And in this case, when you
can make the argument that it is for the protection
of children, that would be relatively consistent with American jewisprudence.
(05:48):
The case of Mahmood versus Taylor, the public school said
to have violated the First Amendment religious freedom rights of
parents by eliminating an opt out option for elementary students
exposed to LGBTQ plus inclusive story books in the curriculum.
Make that make sense? Please?
Speaker 2 (06:08):
This is such a common sense case, Michael. In Montgomery County, Maryland,
which is not Texas, they decided that children were not
open enough to learning about gays, lesbians, and transgender people,
and they need to bring books into the curriculum, even
for five year olds in kindergarten to learn about this.
(06:30):
And I hope was this would simulate discussion and break
what they call heteronormativity. If you know what that is,
you're you're normal, right have you asked us to note
that is when you're kindergarten? But this was designed to
break this idea of what gays and lesbians and transgender
people are. Some of these books talked about children, you know,
(06:50):
saying I don't feel like a boy, I feel like
a girl, and the parents said, well that's okay. So
you can imagine that parents objected to their kids having
this material. Initially, Montgomery County let kids opt out of
this if their parents opted them out, but turned out
almost everyone opted out, and so then they got really
opt out and the children had to sit through this instruction.
(07:13):
So this was a case really about religion, and these
are religious parents, as the case suggests, Mahmoud was not
a Christian. It was a Muslim parent, but Mahmoud family
didn't want their kids seeing this material which directly undermines
what they teach about religion and morality and gender. Again,
the courts put six to three on this one, and
(07:34):
the Court said, yes, parents be able to opt out
their kids from this sort of instruction. There's a very
vigorous assense thing that this is harmful for transgender people,
and then that the Supreme Court shouldn't play school board.
But there's a very deeply rooted right of parents to
direct how their kids are taught.
Speaker 1 (07:50):
Right one moment. Professor Josh Blackman, aka mister smarty Pants
is our guest. More Supreme Court cases.
Speaker 3 (07:56):
Coming up nowadays can actually break you bon are you
not at the time the Michael Berry Show, there's not
why Your Half?
Speaker 1 (08:05):
Josh Blackman, mister smarty Pants of the South Texas College
of Law, Supreme Court expert, is our guest. Professor. I
would love to keep you on for the hour, but
there is a lot of donut talk yet to be had.
Would you like to contribute? Do you have a favorite
donut joint?
Speaker 2 (08:21):
I like Shipley, That's where my kids like to go.
Speaker 1 (08:24):
Okay, A Houston tradition. Let me, let's rush through a
couple of these. We did have some rare unanimous decisions.
One of them Ames versus Ohio Department of Youth Services,
which is referred to as a reverse discrimination case. What's that.
Speaker 2 (08:41):
So? Ames was an unusual case where you had basy
heterosexual woman who alleged issues to discriminate against for BC
being a heterosexual woman, and the Low Court takes she said, oh, well,
she can't bring a claim because she's basically a heterosexual woman.
And the court reversed that anytimes a discrimination to eat
(09:04):
against someone a majority of minority sexual orientation, that still applies.
You don't see a member of a majority group. This
was a nine oz decision by Justice Jackson, and I
think it was, you know, a high order mark to
the court that not all these cases split sixty three.
They often have nine hour results.
Speaker 1 (09:21):
It also builds credibility if you don't rule like a
crazy person every time, at least someone can say, see,
she's not totally crazy. Gun makers liability the Mexican government
suing Smith and Western Brands to claim US liability over
gun violence by drug cartels.
Speaker 2 (09:44):
Yeah, this is an unusual isn't a usual case, Michael,
there's a federal law that prevents people from suing gum
manufacturers because their guns are dangerous. The reason why is it, well,
guns are dangerous, that's what they exist for. But Mexico
tried to sue Smith and Wesson, saying, oh, well, the
problem is they marketed these guns improperly. They tried to
(10:05):
appeal to all these gang members and these cartels they
named guns after, like you know, drug runners and stuff,
and the Supreme Court said, no, you can't do that.
There's a federal ban on sooon gun manufacturers and Mexico
can't get around this. This is a case of the
lower courts allow of the suits to go forward. It
got to bankrupt is Smith and West and put these
gun manufacturer on a business So again the court had
(10:27):
some high watermarks where they were nine to ozer realizing
that you can't you can't do.
Speaker 1 (10:30):
This another nine oz ruling on May fifteenth, police use
of excessive force in the Barnes versus Felix case.
Speaker 2 (10:40):
Right, this is one of these issues that sort of
pops up over and over again about when you're able
to sue police officers for engaging in excessive force. And
I think that Again, the court was pretty unanimous here. Right,
It's generally the police get defference, but sometimes a little
bit too far. They they have to be such a
liability and I think even we all agree sometimes and
(11:03):
you're a lot of work, you screw up and people
get treated poorly. She get some releef in court.
Speaker 1 (11:09):
Another Nino decision, Regulation of flavored vapes FDA versus Wages
and White Lion investments.
Speaker 2 (11:17):
Right, this is really even about vaping. It's more about
sort of the process that can go forward before you
sort of make these regulatory changes. It's kind of a
nerdy decision, but again not about vaping, but kindous about
the administrative process that you go through.
Speaker 1 (11:36):
Why do you think they took that case because they
don't have to.
Speaker 2 (11:41):
Usually it's to settle what's called a split where the
lower courses are divided on the issue. Also, it's an
issue of importance where a lot of people in the
vape industry were really, you know, wanting to get this
issue settled. But when to nine to zero, especially nine
zero reversal, that doesn't mean the lower court got it wrong.
It just means that the court says, here to the
national standard here's we're going to do it.
Speaker 1 (12:02):
The case of ghost Guns Garland versus vander Stock seven.
Speaker 2 (12:08):
Yeah, this one sucked. I was no lawyers on this
on this case. My colleague Chash Flora is another lawyer
in Houston. We legated this case for for several years.
For the longest time, people have been able to make
their own guns at home, you know, the eighty percent
receiver kids. People have done this for years and then
recently decided no, no, no, you can't. You can't. You
(12:28):
can't make these guns at home. Even having a block
of metal itself as a gun. You can do it
through a background check. When the government changes are positioned
on short notice, it's usually signed some things up. But
we lost this one. I think the government, both Biden
and then Trump, persuaded the court that these ghost guns
are dangerous and we can't have them. So I'm still
a little a little bitter on this one. When you
(12:49):
lose a case of the spam important out of.
Speaker 1 (12:51):
Good Field TikTok versus Garland, Supreme Court unanimously upheld a
law that sought to ban the wildly popular app talk
in the US unless it were sold. That's the New
York Times description.
Speaker 2 (13:06):
Yeah, this is a this is an unusual case because
Congress bipartis and vote to band TikTok. The Supreme Court
said this law is constitutional, that it can go to
an effect. Yet I'm sure people listening have TikTok on
the phones right now. Why because before Biden left office,
he said I'm not going to enforce this law. And
Trump has said I'm not going to enforce this law.
(13:26):
So with this law on the books, the Supreme Court
have held it, yet TikTok continues, and I guess Trump's
trying to work out some big beautiful deal to sell
TikTok because it's owned by the Chinese. But it's one
of these weird keys where the court spoken it didn't
really matter the law. The law still never went to effect.
Speaker 1 (13:43):
Which is interesting because they don't have a self enforcing mechanism.
So for everyone who says, well, the Supreme Court ruled
this about Trump and they're so upset about it, you know,
he is disregarding the ruling. Well, who was the president
who said I've heard your ruling, now enforce it. I'm
trying to remember who that.
Speaker 2 (14:01):
Well, people say with Jackson, but he never actually said
it's kind of miss okay, but it got the gist right.
Speaker 1 (14:07):
United States versus Scrimmetti.
Speaker 2 (14:09):
The Tennessee case, Oh this is a big one, Michael
so Tennessee, like Texas, enacted laws that banned what they
call gender transition medicine for minors. This is puberty blockers,
cross sex hormones, and then even you know, operations to
change genitals. People said that no, this law is unconstitutional,
(14:32):
it's for sex discrimination, and that it infringes in the
rights of parents to provide this medical treatment to their kids.
The courts put six to three in this one, and
the opinion was by Chief Justice Roberts. It was kind
of a narrow decision. All Roberts said is this is
just a regulation on age, because if you're over the
(14:53):
age of eighteen, you can get this treatment, but if
you're age eighteen you can't. I'm not sure if that's
quite right. I mean, it's pre much about sex that
if you are a boy and you want to get
these drugs and you're trying to become a girl, you can,
But if you're a boy trying to say the boy
you can get these drugs. It's kind of a weird ruling.
And it kind of avoided the underlying issue. I think
the basic issue here is the state can have an
(15:14):
interest in saying we don't want miners changing their genders,
and we think that this is something that could be
harmful to them later on in life, they might decide
to de transition that the science is far from settled
and we don't want this. So the court I think
got the right result, but the reasoning was not as
tige as it should have been.
Speaker 1 (15:31):
Talk us all the way up to the break. I'm
going to give you talk through the music until we
cut you off. How has this court been different than
you expected.
Speaker 2 (15:38):
It to be? Well, so far, I think the Court
had a fairly decent term, and I think more recently
they sort of said to the lower courts, you need
to stop the rate at which they're ruling against Trump
and basically stopping from doing anything as too much. A
lot of these cases will eventually get to the court
in a couple of years. We can't have these lower
courts issued universal injunctions. Uh. And after the we overo
(16:01):
talk about the Trump appointees. This was Kavanaugh's best term.
I think he did a pretty good job this term.
Gorcich okay, Barrett, okay, but Cabanat good one.
Speaker 1 (16:10):
Good Professor Josh Blackman, mister money fans, thank you?
Speaker 2 (16:15):
Is this low can't last long? So hurry into cricket City.
Speaker 1 (16:20):
All right, John, let's get right to it. We've got
a lot of donut talk yet to do. Let's start
with James. Let's see if I can pot him up. James,
you and Michael Berry show your favorite.
Speaker 4 (16:32):
It's Shipley in McAllen, Texas, right in the corner of
Kan and Tim Street. Hey, us is my favorite?
Speaker 1 (16:41):
All right. I don't know if you're on a speakerphone
or a bluetooth, but please stay off of those. We're
already in a m medium and that means the listener
can't hear your call. Dustin, go, this is Dustin.
Speaker 4 (17:00):
My favorite is probably the Shirley's Donuts and Friends with Texas.
I actually used to own it. Uh, and since I'm
a donut lover, there's not a donut in there that
I wouldn't eat. Uh. The Colotchis are fantasticday. I actually
do the fruit Colatchi's in there. But uh, you know,
everybody's got to check out Shirley's Donuts. It's also kind
(17:22):
of a hangout spot. We call the crew in there,
the coffee crew, same group of people coming there, about
nine to twelve people every almost every single day. So
did you see awesome spot? Yeah? So I sold it,
and me and my partners are actually gonna purchase it
back this coming August. So basically, it was one of
(17:47):
those Godfather's situations. Somebody came in and it was an
offer we couldn't refuse, So me and my family sold it.
Speaker 1 (17:57):
Mean a lot of different things. Was it so much
money you couldn't refuse it?
Speaker 4 (18:03):
Yeah, it was like we uh, we purchased it at
a fairly good price, you know, ninety thousand, sold it
for probably fifty thousand more just a couple of years later.
And considering we had other donut shops too, it's kind
of the way to go.
Speaker 1 (18:19):
So tell me about the business. What what about the
what's the hardest thing about the business that people wouldn't expect?
What is the cost you wouldn't expect? What is the
profit you wouldn't expect?
Speaker 5 (18:30):
Uh?
Speaker 4 (18:31):
Sue, the profit is in the food, I mean, fairly
fairly cheap to make. But some of the some of
the oddball expenses are definitely like the ac goes out,
your mixer goes out, you got to get that repaired,
or you got to go to the other shop or
a buddy shop to get something going and sliding some
(18:53):
extra cash just to you know, make him happy. Sure, yeah, yeah,
and you can you can say that you can have
that kind of stuff budgeted to the side. But there's
stuff you just would never expect to happen. You know,
it might somebody might you know, accidentally bust the front
(19:14):
door wind out here, like who who would have expected
that to happen that day? But you know, just small
stuff like that is the unexpected stuff. But the what.
Speaker 1 (19:23):
We're sales on a day, I'm assuming Saturday was your best.
Speaker 4 (19:27):
Day, uh, Thursday through Sunday, And it just depends because literally.
Speaker 1 (19:33):
Of course, it depends what's in what's an average day?
Give me a day that if that number came in,
you go, yep, that's a typical day on a on
a Saturday.
Speaker 4 (19:42):
On a Saturday, twelve twelve to sixteen hundred.
Speaker 1 (19:47):
And then on it where y'all open seven days a week?
Speaker 4 (19:50):
Yep, seven days a week?
Speaker 2 (19:52):
Yeah, right, what would.
Speaker 1 (19:53):
Be what would be a Monday or a Tuesday? What
would be sales on a day like that typically, Uh.
Speaker 4 (19:58):
You could, you could have a horror day at like
four hundred at typical day seven hundred.
Speaker 1 (20:05):
So in a week you're doing five orders and stuff.
Speaker 4 (20:09):
So a week, yeah, yeah, probably I would say that
seven to nine on average, because that's not really including Yeah,
that's not including your church orders, you know, stuff like that.
That's just a regular walk in the door cut.
Speaker 1 (20:30):
Yeah. No, I'm talking about what you ring up total.
You think you'd make seven a week, three fifty a
year grosser?
Speaker 4 (20:37):
Yeah, probably probably fifty grosser year.
Speaker 1 (20:40):
Yet and then were you in the shop all day
or was it completely all employees?
Speaker 4 (20:49):
Uh, considering I had other business going on, I was.
I was at least walked in there every single day.
There are some sometimes out I miss, like a like
a Friday or something like that where there was something
going else on in my other businesses. But I was
there almost every single day, or one of my family
(21:10):
members which were a family owned company.
Speaker 1 (21:13):
So, and what would you guess profit in the year.
Speaker 4 (21:20):
Profit? I would say fifty fifty five to seventy five,
just depending, So that's not looking at numbers, I'm.
Speaker 1 (21:33):
Just yeah, no, no, no, Did you have a manager there.
Speaker 5 (21:37):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (21:38):
Good.
Speaker 4 (21:40):
Uh, so we trained everybody to be a manager, so
everybody should know how to do everything besides the baking
and mixing. No, you know, everyone kind of had a
head on their shoulders there. We just don't hire anybody
within our company.
Speaker 1 (21:56):
So you had coffee donuts? What else will coti Colachi's
What was the Colachi donut mix?
Speaker 4 (22:09):
What do you mean?
Speaker 1 (22:10):
I mean? Was it ninety percent donuts? Ten percent? Colachis
fifty to fifty?
Speaker 3 (22:15):
Oh?
Speaker 4 (22:15):
Prop? Yeah, prop fifty fifty. They're pretty they're pretty equal.
Speaker 5 (22:19):
Yeah, you avery interesting, Yeah, you might have you might
have a day like on Sunday where churches order donuts,
where you're you would have a bigger donut day.
Speaker 4 (22:32):
But they were basically fifty fifty because almost every single
day you have your regulars come in. And which is
a Colachi is like the main seller to your everyday customer,
or a croissant Familich or something like that.
Speaker 1 (22:45):
And what percentage would you say you threw away of
what you made? Because that seems to be managing managing
inventory like a bake, like any bakery, seems to be
the biggest challenge.
Speaker 4 (23:00):
Yeah, So from the start, I'll shoot I was. I
think I was twenty four twenty five when we purchased
our first shop, So at the beginning I was we
would go by trays, and now you're probably throwing away
at cost I would say twenty dollars one hundred.
Speaker 2 (23:20):
Dollars a day.
Speaker 1 (23:21):
Okay, that's not horrible.
Speaker 4 (23:25):
Yeah, And back in the day when I was so young,
it was just like I'll just toss them and keep
on making you build it they come kind of thing.
But I learned that's not the way to go.
Speaker 1 (23:34):
But well, I guess it depends on the profitability because
if it's if it costs you ten percent product costs
to what you sell, then you're willing to risk what
three to five being too many, because it's a bigger
loss by not having what someone wants when they come
in than it is a loss of throwing a couple
(23:55):
of things away on average. But I guess you get
pretty good at figuring out what the what the sales
are going to be in a given day.
Speaker 6 (24:02):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (24:03):
And then my family got into the food manufacturing. So
now that we're in the food manufacturing, it's like we
we know the back end all the way till when
the customer's taking the bite. So we got it completely
figured out. Now super efficient. Uh you know, and your
most your most expensive donut is like your blueberry donut,
and it's like, you know, twenty six stands or something
(24:25):
like that. But that's the that's the cost of the materials.
That's not it.
Speaker 1 (24:29):
And what do you sell that donut?
Speaker 4 (24:33):
About a dollar?
Speaker 1 (24:34):
Okay? So it's twenty five percent labor costs, I mean
twenty five percent product costs. But I would guess labor correct,
labor equipment you buy? I guessing your you bought all
your equipment. You didn't lease any of it?
Speaker 4 (24:49):
Oh, yeah, we're doing this. Yeah, no lease.
Speaker 1 (24:51):
And then and then your your probably triple net rent
and everything that goes with that. I mean, that's not
nothing that that adds up. Try to make that a
dollar at a time, Kirk, Kirk Michaels told me that,
you know that what he was doing was thirty million
dollars a year, and I said, man, it's amazing, Kirk,
and he goes, yeah, and that's sixteen cents at a time.
(25:14):
Think about that.
Speaker 5 (25:17):
Michael Barry, you are.
Speaker 7 (25:19):
More to Ring the King's English.
Speaker 1 (25:22):
I wonder how many people my age know that song
and that Dusty Springfield sang it because of Tarantino's film.
Be interesting to know it's not one hundred percent is
not zero either. At some point we're going to talk
(25:44):
about bagels, and I don't think we'll get nearly the
response for bagels we did for doughnuts, but it is
a conversation worth having. I tend to be more of
a savory guy than a sweet guy at this point
in my life, and that wasn't always the case. I
(26:05):
have read or heard that we generally gravitated towards savory
and away from sweet the older we get. Now that
may not be true for you, but I'm just telling
you it's true for me, and I've heard that. But
I would like to have a bagel discussion at some point.
I saw a Jewish Deli advertising how great they're bagels
(26:28):
and cream cheese were. The other day. They're running a
smear campaign, Jim, A smear campaign. Yeah, I'll be here
all week for that one. I'll be here all week
a cyper. You know, it seems like every year we
get this story. I don't know that there's a way
around it because we love football, and I don't know
(26:51):
that we're doing the kids a favor by doing away
with football, and you do have to get in shape,
and this is the time before football all season to
do it. But it just breaks your heart to see it.
A Cypress Springs high school football player remains in a
coma after suffering a heat stroke following an outdoor training
session for the football team. ABC thirteen with a story.
Speaker 6 (27:16):
A week ago, the future looked bright for seventeen year
old Jarvis Spires, a defensive nose tackle on the Cypress
Springs High school football team. He was eyeing colleges and
dreaming of the big leagues.
Speaker 7 (27:27):
He is going to the NFL.
Speaker 3 (27:29):
And I say going because when he speaks, he says,
one I make it to the NFL.
Speaker 6 (27:35):
Well Saturday, those dreams seem to be in jeopardy. Spires,
so coming to a heat stroke during an outdoor training
session when.
Speaker 3 (27:43):
There's a lot of athletes out here who you know,
don't understand the importance of being hydrated and staying hydrated.
Speaker 6 (27:52):
By the tom Spires made it to the hospital. His
mom says he was already in a coma. Doctors managed
to resuscitate him, but then more complications.
Speaker 7 (28:02):
This kidney's liver, all his organs have failed.
Speaker 6 (28:05):
That's when doctors transferred him to Texas Children's Hospital after
his heart and lungs failed Tuesday. His mom says he
had to be put back under in a sense undergone
emergency surgery.
Speaker 7 (28:16):
Well, the last thing that he said was Jesus is
my best friend.
Speaker 3 (28:22):
And when he said that, I just it just made
me feel so good because I know, I know he's
in good hand.
Speaker 6 (28:27):
Doctors can't predict when Spis will be healthy enough to
breathe on his own. Two Coma's an emergency operation and
who knows how long hooked up to a machine.
Speaker 3 (28:37):
Going Jarvis and the leader he is, he's going to
start spreading awareness. He's going to use his testimony to
spread awareness.
Speaker 6 (28:45):
A day they can't come soon enough for Spiss family.
Already impressed by the progress he's already made.
Speaker 3 (28:53):
But the fact that he's still breathing, and he's still here,
and there's still a chance and I know he's going
to pull through. That's much as you're saying, this is
a miracault, just.
Speaker 1 (29:03):
As I felt with every missing child from Camp Mystic.
I will say it again there but for the grace
of God go I. Every parent knows that could be
your kid. Every time you see an auto crash, every
time you see a suicide, every time you see a
drug overdose, every time you see a kid at camp
(29:26):
and the storm takes them away. Every time you see
any kind of accident, food, allergy, death, you name it.
You know, this one hits home for me because Michael
t the summer of his senior year was you know,
they were at their practices there two days before the
(29:49):
season started. It was an insanely hot summer, which that's
what summer is. And they have something called Hell Week
and they have it's led by the seniors and then
the younger first couple of days to build camaraderie on
the team. These are things football teams have done for
one hundred years. I'm not opposed to it. And so
(30:09):
there he is, and and you know he had trained
before practice, so he could be in good shape. And
the coach comes flying into our driveway and my wife
is outside playing pick a ball and I was at
the station. So they didn't they didn't, they didn't call
(30:30):
me first, and she said, he said, I need to
decide whether we take Michael to the emergency room, and
she's what's wrong? And so it turned out that it's
called rabdo my my losis or I'm going to get
the part after rabdo wrong. But what rabdo is, which
is a condition that is diagnosed much more often now,
(30:52):
is it is where your body sweats too much and
does not replenish what's going on, and you can go in.
I'm sure that's what happened with this kid. I feel
certain that's probably what happened to him. And the body
is not sufficiently hydrated, and even if it is, you
can lose enough of the electrolytes because you can't just
replace water. You can push out all your minerals. And
(31:17):
he was hospitalized for several days, and the doctors, you know,
warned us if he ever plays again, which he did.
You're not going to tell an eighteen year old I'm
not going to play football, but this is what you
need to do. So we started researching it and I
call doctors and I talk to different people, and you
look online. There are professional athletes who have this problem.
(31:38):
And now it is diagnosed much more often and teams
are much more conscious of it. And it got me
to thinking, you know, Bear Bryant and the Junction boys
at Texas A and M and their training was thought
to be, you know, legendarily difficult, and part of the
(31:59):
differenceficulty of the Junction boys training at A and M
was in the heat. You weren't allowed to drink water
all day. That's how you toughened up the boys. That's
how you kill somebody. It turns out that water isn't
just an indulgence or a pleasant thing. Your body needs
(32:21):
that and the kidneys are what ended up shutting down,
and Michael's body had begun the shutdown process. And it's horrifying.
It is absolutely frightening to think how fast this thing
can go south. And some kids are more prone to
actually some human beings are more prone to it than others.
(32:44):
And it's just your body makeup. It's just like any
number of other things. But as I started studying more
about rabdo and how often that this happens, there are
more young people high school and college, particularly by the
pro those You've got trainers who are keeping an eyes
because these guys are assets. You know, you can't have
a professional athlete you're paying whatever it is, ten billion
(33:07):
dollars a year, you know, die on you. Whereas in
high school and in college they're probably a little less
sensitive to it, but even his high school after that,
they started pushing a lot harder on, you know, eating
the oranges and doing those sorts of things. So that
(33:27):
is your wake up called. Every parent out there, if
you're sending your kid off, whether it's band practice or
football or whatever else they're doing, make sure they're hydrated.
My wife has the stern, steadfast belief that over ninety
percent of Americans are dehydrated all the time. And I
thought she was crazy before, but I'm now increasingly of
(33:51):
the opinion that she is right. Don't We don't generally.
I mean, heck, for most of my life I didn't
drink any water, so whatever water I got was out
of a few vegetables. I don't anyway. I hope this
little fellow, Jarvis Spires, does come out of it and
has a great story to tell.
Plus or Josh Blackman joins the program again our legal
(00:04):
expert aka mister smarty pants. We have had a busy
Supreme Court session with some important rulings as it affects
the Trump administration's ability to do their job and hence
this country. And you, professor, let's start with the Trump v. Cassa, Inc.
(00:24):
Case or Kasa Ink regarding whether district courts can simply
decide in anywhere America. Oh you know what, Trump can't
do that That ended up at the Supreme Court in
an expedited fashion. Talk about that case if you would.
Speaker 2 (00:41):
This is probably the most important case from last year.
It involved Trump's birthright citizenship order. Well, Trump said that
we will not give any sort of citizenship papers to
children of legal aliens. But the quot can decide whether
that order itself was lawful, and so they decided it's
kind of a procedural issue, that is, how can it
(01:04):
be challenged in court? Moments after Trump signed the order,
judges in Washington and in the Northeast issue these universal
injunctions that basically applied to everyone everywhere. So even though
Texas hadn't challenged the policy, children of aliens in Texas
would still be protected by it, and that's not how
things were supposed to work. So we have a six
or three decision. Justice Barrett wrote the majority, and the
(01:26):
Court held that, no, you can't issue these injunctions, but
we won't talk about whether Trump's order is legal. We'll
do that later.
Speaker 1 (01:34):
That was the upshot, leaving President Trump the ability to
be the executive which our constitution empowers him to be fair.
Speaker 2 (01:45):
Right, yeah, I mean you have these district court judges
who are truly intruding on the powers of the executive
and going beyond the powers of the judicial branch.
Speaker 1 (01:55):
Do you recall ever seeing that in the modern era?
Speaker 2 (01:58):
Before you know, it started in earnest during the end
of the Obama administration, ramped up during the first Trump administration,
got even more during the Biden administration, and then during
the second Trump administration went off the chain. You had
more universal injunctions in the first few months of Trump
(02:19):
than all of Biden combined. So I think the Supreme
Court really has to intervenu tell the judges, chill, you
can't do this. This is not how we're supposed to
run a system.
Speaker 1 (02:30):
Well, my concern throughout all of this is that the
Supreme Court should not be as important to our daily
lives as it is and continues to be. And that
is because they are engaged in legislative and executive actions
in instead of simply judiciary behavior. And that concerns me
(02:52):
because we don't elect a Supreme Court. But in any case,
the case of Free Speech Coalition Inc. Versus Paxton, State
of Texas restrictions on porn and and age verification. Talk
about that if you would.
Speaker 2 (03:10):
This is an important case for Texas and many states.
As I'm sure people know, the Internet has a lot
of pornography, and some of it you have to pay
to get. So it's like porn hub have always required
people to register, but they didn't really do much to
verify that they were actually adults. So it was unsurprising
that children and miners were able to access material. Texas
(03:33):
enacted what I think is a pretty common sense law
that if you want to provide pornography online you have
to have a verification. You and I old enough, you remember, Michael.
Back in the day, if you wanted to go to
the video store, you had a little beaded curtain, right,
and you'd go there and you'd show your idea to
get those other not they ever did this, but you
would go there to get your adult videos. If you
(03:56):
want to go by a Playboy magazine, there is you
wrapped in that plastic and you have to go show
your ideas to the cashier. Online, there's no cashier, right,
there's no video clerk. So the way you verify your
age is by uploading a copy of your driver's license.
Is how you buy wines, how you buy tobacco, and
lots of things. But people said, oh no, no, this
will a chill or access to pornography. People will be
(04:17):
afraid of sharing the information online. So it goes to
the Supreme Court, and the Court rules six to three
that this policy is constitutional and Texas can use age
verification that even though this might burden some adults from
accessing their porn, it's a very useful means to protect
children from this material.
Speaker 1 (04:35):
So I think fair to say false under constitutional authority
because it's narrowly limited with a with a real purpose,
or narrowly tailored with a real purpose, as opposed to
an outright ban on pornography, which could be argued as
free speech not conclusive.
Speaker 2 (04:54):
Right. Just as Thomas wrote, the majority and he said that, Look,
this isn't a ban, it's a restriction, and it doesn't
make a difference. And there's a long tradition of governments
using age verification for accessing adult materials goes back forever.
It's different because it's online and there's a risk that
you know, people's credit cards might be you know, released
(05:15):
in people's you know, what kind of point did it
like to watch that's blackmail material? That risk does exist,
but I think it was enough to override the Texas
and Acted law well.
Speaker 1 (05:25):
And I think what we can take from this is
there has long been an American jurisprudential tradition that a
law should be as narrowly tailored as possible and for
a specific lawful purpose. And in this case, when you
can make the argument that it is for the protection
of children, that would be relatively consistent with American jewisprudence.
(05:48):
The case of Mahmood versus Taylor, the public school said
to have violated the First Amendment religious freedom rights of
parents by eliminating an opt out option for elementary students
exposed to LGBTQ plus inclusive story books in the curriculum.
Make that make sense? Please?
Speaker 2 (06:08):
This is such a common sense case, Michael. In Montgomery County, Maryland,
which is not Texas, they decided that children were not
open enough to learning about gays, lesbians, and transgender people,
and they need to bring books into the curriculum, even
for five year olds in kindergarten to learn about this.
(06:30):
And I hope was this would simulate discussion and break
what they call heteronormativity. If you know what that is,
you're you're normal, right have you asked us to note
that is when you're kindergarten? But this was designed to
break this idea of what gays and lesbians and transgender
people are. Some of these books talked about children, you know,
(06:50):
saying I don't feel like a boy, I feel like
a girl, and the parents said, well that's okay. So
you can imagine that parents objected to their kids having
this material. Initially, Montgomery County let kids opt out of
this if their parents opted them out, but turned out
almost everyone opted out, and so then they got really
opt out and the children had to sit through this instruction.
(07:13):
So this was a case really about religion, and these
are religious parents, as the case suggests, Mahmoud was not
a Christian. It was a Muslim parent, but Mahmoud family
didn't want their kids seeing this material which directly undermines
what they teach about religion and morality and gender. Again,
the courts put six to three on this one, and
(07:34):
the Court said, yes, parents be able to opt out
their kids from this sort of instruction. There's a very
vigorous assense thing that this is harmful for transgender people,
and then that the Supreme Court shouldn't play school board.
But there's a very deeply rooted right of parents to
direct how their kids are taught.
Speaker 1 (07:50):
Right one moment. Professor Josh Blackman, aka mister smarty Pants
is our guest. More Supreme Court cases.
Speaker 3 (07:56):
Coming up nowadays can actually break you bon are you
not at the time the Michael Berry Show, there's not
why Your Half?
Speaker 1 (08:05):
Josh Blackman, mister smarty Pants of the South Texas College
of Law, Supreme Court expert, is our guest. Professor. I
would love to keep you on for the hour, but
there is a lot of donut talk yet to be had.
Would you like to contribute? Do you have a favorite
donut joint?
Speaker 2 (08:21):
I like Shipley, That's where my kids like to go.
Speaker 1 (08:24):
Okay, A Houston tradition. Let me, let's rush through a
couple of these. We did have some rare unanimous decisions.
One of them Ames versus Ohio Department of Youth Services,
which is referred to as a reverse discrimination case. What's that.
Speaker 2 (08:41):
So? Ames was an unusual case where you had basy
heterosexual woman who alleged issues to discriminate against for BC
being a heterosexual woman, and the Low Court takes she said, oh, well,
she can't bring a claim because she's basically a heterosexual woman.
And the court reversed that anytimes a discrimination to eat
(09:04):
against someone a majority of minority sexual orientation, that still applies.
You don't see a member of a majority group. This
was a nine oz decision by Justice Jackson, and I
think it was, you know, a high order mark to
the court that not all these cases split sixty three.
They often have nine hour results.
Speaker 1 (09:21):
It also builds credibility if you don't rule like a
crazy person every time, at least someone can say, see,
she's not totally crazy. Gun makers liability the Mexican government
suing Smith and Western Brands to claim US liability over
gun violence by drug cartels.
Speaker 2 (09:44):
Yeah, this is an unusual isn't a usual case, Michael,
there's a federal law that prevents people from suing gum
manufacturers because their guns are dangerous. The reason why is it, well,
guns are dangerous, that's what they exist for. But Mexico
tried to sue Smith and Wesson, saying, oh, well, the
problem is they marketed these guns improperly. They tried to
(10:05):
appeal to all these gang members and these cartels they
named guns after, like you know, drug runners and stuff,
and the Supreme Court said, no, you can't do that.
There's a federal ban on sooon gun manufacturers and Mexico
can't get around this. This is a case of the
lower courts allow of the suits to go forward. It
got to bankrupt is Smith and West and put these
gun manufacturer on a business So again the court had
(10:27):
some high watermarks where they were nine to ozer realizing
that you can't you can't do.
Speaker 1 (10:30):
This another nine oz ruling on May fifteenth, police use
of excessive force in the Barnes versus Felix case.
Speaker 2 (10:40):
Right, this is one of these issues that sort of
pops up over and over again about when you're able
to sue police officers for engaging in excessive force. And
I think that Again, the court was pretty unanimous here. Right,
It's generally the police get defference, but sometimes a little
bit too far. They they have to be such a
liability and I think even we all agree sometimes and
(11:03):
you're a lot of work, you screw up and people
get treated poorly. She get some releef in court.
Speaker 1 (11:09):
Another Nino decision, Regulation of flavored vapes FDA versus Wages
and White Lion investments.
Speaker 2 (11:17):
Right, this is really even about vaping. It's more about
sort of the process that can go forward before you
sort of make these regulatory changes. It's kind of a
nerdy decision, but again not about vaping, but kindous about
the administrative process that you go through.
Speaker 1 (11:36):
Why do you think they took that case because they
don't have to.
Speaker 2 (11:41):
Usually it's to settle what's called a split where the
lower courses are divided on the issue. Also, it's an
issue of importance where a lot of people in the
vape industry were really, you know, wanting to get this
issue settled. But when to nine to zero, especially nine
zero reversal, that doesn't mean the lower court got it wrong.
It just means that the court says, here to the
national standard here's we're going to do it.
Speaker 1 (12:02):
The case of ghost Guns Garland versus vander Stock seven.
Speaker 2 (12:08):
Yeah, this one sucked. I was no lawyers on this
on this case. My colleague Chash Flora is another lawyer
in Houston. We legated this case for for several years.
For the longest time, people have been able to make
their own guns at home, you know, the eighty percent
receiver kids. People have done this for years and then
recently decided no, no, no, you can't. You can't. You
(12:28):
can't make these guns at home. Even having a block
of metal itself as a gun. You can do it
through a background check. When the government changes are positioned
on short notice, it's usually signed some things up. But
we lost this one. I think the government, both Biden
and then Trump, persuaded the court that these ghost guns
are dangerous and we can't have them. So I'm still
a little a little bitter on this one. When you
(12:49):
lose a case of the spam important out of.
Speaker 1 (12:51):
Good Field TikTok versus Garland, Supreme Court unanimously upheld a
law that sought to ban the wildly popular app talk
in the US unless it were sold. That's the New
York Times description.
Speaker 2 (13:06):
Yeah, this is a this is an unusual case because
Congress bipartis and vote to band TikTok. The Supreme Court
said this law is constitutional, that it can go to
an effect. Yet I'm sure people listening have TikTok on
the phones right now. Why because before Biden left office,
he said I'm not going to enforce this law. And
Trump has said I'm not going to enforce this law.
(13:26):
So with this law on the books, the Supreme Court
have held it, yet TikTok continues, and I guess Trump's
trying to work out some big beautiful deal to sell
TikTok because it's owned by the Chinese. But it's one
of these weird keys where the court spoken it didn't
really matter the law. The law still never went to effect.
Speaker 1 (13:43):
Which is interesting because they don't have a self enforcing mechanism.
So for everyone who says, well, the Supreme Court ruled
this about Trump and they're so upset about it, you know,
he is disregarding the ruling. Well, who was the president
who said I've heard your ruling, now enforce it. I'm
trying to remember who that.
Speaker 2 (14:01):
Well, people say with Jackson, but he never actually said
it's kind of miss okay, but it got the gist right.
Speaker 1 (14:07):
United States versus Scrimmetti.
Speaker 2 (14:09):
The Tennessee case, Oh this is a big one, Michael
so Tennessee, like Texas, enacted laws that banned what they
call gender transition medicine for minors. This is puberty blockers,
cross sex hormones, and then even you know, operations to
change genitals. People said that no, this law is unconstitutional,
(14:32):
it's for sex discrimination, and that it infringes in the
rights of parents to provide this medical treatment to their kids.
The courts put six to three in this one, and
the opinion was by Chief Justice Roberts. It was kind
of a narrow decision. All Roberts said is this is
just a regulation on age, because if you're over the
(14:53):
age of eighteen, you can get this treatment, but if
you're age eighteen you can't. I'm not sure if that's
quite right. I mean, it's pre much about sex that
if you are a boy and you want to get
these drugs and you're trying to become a girl, you can,
But if you're a boy trying to say the boy
you can get these drugs. It's kind of a weird ruling.
And it kind of avoided the underlying issue. I think
the basic issue here is the state can have an
(15:14):
interest in saying we don't want miners changing their genders,
and we think that this is something that could be
harmful to them later on in life, they might decide
to de transition that the science is far from settled
and we don't want this. So the court I think
got the right result, but the reasoning was not as
tige as it should have been.
Speaker 1 (15:31):
Talk us all the way up to the break. I'm
going to give you talk through the music until we
cut you off. How has this court been different than
you expected.
Speaker 2 (15:38):
It to be? Well, so far, I think the Court
had a fairly decent term, and I think more recently
they sort of said to the lower courts, you need
to stop the rate at which they're ruling against Trump
and basically stopping from doing anything as too much. A
lot of these cases will eventually get to the court
in a couple of years. We can't have these lower
courts issued universal injunctions. Uh. And after the we overo
(16:01):
talk about the Trump appointees. This was Kavanaugh's best term.
I think he did a pretty good job this term.
Gorcich okay, Barrett, okay, but Cabanat good one.
Speaker 1 (16:10):
Good Professor Josh Blackman, mister money fans, thank you?
Speaker 2 (16:15):
Is this low can't last long? So hurry into cricket City.
Speaker 1 (16:20):
All right, John, let's get right to it. We've got
a lot of donut talk yet to do. Let's start
with James. Let's see if I can pot him up. James,
you and Michael Berry show your favorite.
Speaker 4 (16:32):
It's Shipley in McAllen, Texas, right in the corner of
Kan and Tim Street. Hey, us is my favorite?
Speaker 1 (16:41):
All right. I don't know if you're on a speakerphone
or a bluetooth, but please stay off of those. We're
already in a m medium and that means the listener
can't hear your call. Dustin, go, this is Dustin.
Speaker 4 (17:00):
My favorite is probably the Shirley's Donuts and Friends with Texas.
I actually used to own it. Uh, and since I'm
a donut lover, there's not a donut in there that
I wouldn't eat. Uh. The Colotchis are fantasticday. I actually
do the fruit Colatchi's in there. But uh, you know,
everybody's got to check out Shirley's Donuts. It's also kind
(17:22):
of a hangout spot. We call the crew in there,
the coffee crew, same group of people coming there, about
nine to twelve people every almost every single day. So
did you see awesome spot? Yeah? So I sold it,
and me and my partners are actually gonna purchase it
back this coming August. So basically, it was one of
(17:47):
those Godfather's situations. Somebody came in and it was an
offer we couldn't refuse, So me and my family sold it.
Speaker 1 (17:57):
Mean a lot of different things. Was it so much
money you couldn't refuse it?
Speaker 4 (18:03):
Yeah, it was like we uh, we purchased it at
a fairly good price, you know, ninety thousand, sold it
for probably fifty thousand more just a couple of years later.
And considering we had other donut shops too, it's kind
of the way to go.
Speaker 1 (18:19):
So tell me about the business. What what about the
what's the hardest thing about the business that people wouldn't expect?
What is the cost you wouldn't expect? What is the
profit you wouldn't expect?
Speaker 5 (18:30):
Uh?
Speaker 4 (18:31):
Sue, the profit is in the food, I mean, fairly
fairly cheap to make. But some of the some of
the oddball expenses are definitely like the ac goes out,
your mixer goes out, you got to get that repaired,
or you got to go to the other shop or
a buddy shop to get something going and sliding some
(18:53):
extra cash just to you know, make him happy. Sure, yeah, yeah,
and you can you can say that you can have
that kind of stuff budgeted to the side. But there's
stuff you just would never expect to happen. You know,
it might somebody might you know, accidentally bust the front
(19:14):
door wind out here, like who who would have expected
that to happen that day? But you know, just small
stuff like that is the unexpected stuff. But the what.
Speaker 1 (19:23):
We're sales on a day, I'm assuming Saturday was your best.
Speaker 4 (19:27):
Day, uh, Thursday through Sunday, And it just depends because literally.
Speaker 1 (19:33):
Of course, it depends what's in what's an average day?
Give me a day that if that number came in,
you go, yep, that's a typical day on a on
a Saturday.
Speaker 4 (19:42):
On a Saturday, twelve twelve to sixteen hundred.
Speaker 1 (19:47):
And then on it where y'all open seven days a week?
Speaker 4 (19:50):
Yep, seven days a week?
Speaker 2 (19:52):
Yeah, right, what would.
Speaker 1 (19:53):
Be what would be a Monday or a Tuesday? What
would be sales on a day like that typically, Uh.
Speaker 4 (19:58):
You could, you could have a horror day at like
four hundred at typical day seven hundred.
Speaker 1 (20:05):
So in a week you're doing five orders and stuff.
Speaker 4 (20:09):
So a week, yeah, yeah, probably I would say that
seven to nine on average, because that's not really including Yeah,
that's not including your church orders, you know, stuff like that.
That's just a regular walk in the door cut.
Speaker 1 (20:30):
Yeah. No, I'm talking about what you ring up total.
You think you'd make seven a week, three fifty a
year grosser?
Speaker 4 (20:37):
Yeah, probably probably fifty grosser year.
Speaker 1 (20:40):
Yet and then were you in the shop all day
or was it completely all employees?
Speaker 4 (20:49):
Uh, considering I had other business going on, I was.
I was at least walked in there every single day.
There are some sometimes out I miss, like a like
a Friday or something like that where there was something
going else on in my other businesses. But I was
there almost every single day, or one of my family
(21:10):
members which were a family owned company.
Speaker 1 (21:13):
So, and what would you guess profit in the year.
Speaker 4 (21:20):
Profit? I would say fifty fifty five to seventy five,
just depending, So that's not looking at numbers, I'm.
Speaker 1 (21:33):
Just yeah, no, no, no, Did you have a manager there.
Speaker 5 (21:37):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (21:38):
Good.
Speaker 4 (21:40):
Uh, so we trained everybody to be a manager, so
everybody should know how to do everything besides the baking
and mixing. No, you know, everyone kind of had a
head on their shoulders there. We just don't hire anybody
within our company.
Speaker 1 (21:56):
So you had coffee donuts? What else will coti Colachi's
What was the Colachi donut mix?
Speaker 4 (22:09):
What do you mean?
Speaker 1 (22:10):
I mean? Was it ninety percent donuts? Ten percent? Colachis
fifty to fifty?
Speaker 3 (22:15):
Oh?
Speaker 4 (22:15):
Prop? Yeah, prop fifty fifty. They're pretty they're pretty equal.
Speaker 5 (22:19):
Yeah, you avery interesting, Yeah, you might have you might
have a day like on Sunday where churches order donuts,
where you're you would have a bigger donut day.
Speaker 4 (22:32):
But they were basically fifty fifty because almost every single
day you have your regulars come in. And which is
a Colachi is like the main seller to your everyday customer,
or a croissant Familich or something like that.
Speaker 1 (22:45):
And what percentage would you say you threw away of
what you made? Because that seems to be managing managing
inventory like a bake, like any bakery, seems to be
the biggest challenge.
Speaker 4 (23:00):
Yeah, So from the start, I'll shoot I was. I
think I was twenty four twenty five when we purchased
our first shop, So at the beginning I was we
would go by trays, and now you're probably throwing away
at cost I would say twenty dollars one hundred.
Speaker 2 (23:20):
Dollars a day.
Speaker 1 (23:21):
Okay, that's not horrible.
Speaker 4 (23:25):
Yeah, And back in the day when I was so young,
it was just like I'll just toss them and keep
on making you build it they come kind of thing.
But I learned that's not the way to go.
Speaker 1 (23:34):
But well, I guess it depends on the profitability because
if it's if it costs you ten percent product costs
to what you sell, then you're willing to risk what
three to five being too many, because it's a bigger
loss by not having what someone wants when they come
in than it is a loss of throwing a couple
(23:55):
of things away on average. But I guess you get
pretty good at figuring out what the what the sales
are going to be in a given day.
Speaker 6 (24:02):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (24:03):
And then my family got into the food manufacturing. So
now that we're in the food manufacturing, it's like we
we know the back end all the way till when
the customer's taking the bite. So we got it completely
figured out. Now super efficient. Uh you know, and your
most your most expensive donut is like your blueberry donut,
and it's like, you know, twenty six stands or something
(24:25):
like that. But that's the that's the cost of the materials.
That's not it.
Speaker 1 (24:29):
And what do you sell that donut?
Speaker 4 (24:33):
About a dollar?
Speaker 1 (24:34):
Okay? So it's twenty five percent labor costs, I mean
twenty five percent product costs. But I would guess labor correct,
labor equipment you buy? I guessing your you bought all
your equipment. You didn't lease any of it?
Speaker 4 (24:49):
Oh, yeah, we're doing this. Yeah, no lease.
Speaker 1 (24:51):
And then and then your your probably triple net rent
and everything that goes with that. I mean, that's not
nothing that that adds up. Try to make that a
dollar at a time, Kirk, Kirk Michaels told me that,
you know that what he was doing was thirty million
dollars a year, and I said, man, it's amazing, Kirk,
and he goes, yeah, and that's sixteen cents at a time.
(25:14):
Think about that.
Speaker 5 (25:17):
Michael Barry, you are.
Speaker 7 (25:19):
More to Ring the King's English.
Speaker 1 (25:22):
I wonder how many people my age know that song
and that Dusty Springfield sang it because of Tarantino's film.
Be interesting to know it's not one hundred percent is
not zero either. At some point we're going to talk
(25:44):
about bagels, and I don't think we'll get nearly the
response for bagels we did for doughnuts, but it is
a conversation worth having. I tend to be more of
a savory guy than a sweet guy at this point
in my life, and that wasn't always the case. I
(26:05):
have read or heard that we generally gravitated towards savory
and away from sweet the older we get. Now that
may not be true for you, but I'm just telling
you it's true for me, and I've heard that. But
I would like to have a bagel discussion at some point.
I saw a Jewish Deli advertising how great they're bagels
(26:28):
and cream cheese were. The other day. They're running a
smear campaign, Jim, A smear campaign. Yeah, I'll be here
all week for that one. I'll be here all week
a cyper. You know, it seems like every year we
get this story. I don't know that there's a way
around it because we love football, and I don't know
(26:51):
that we're doing the kids a favor by doing away
with football, and you do have to get in shape,
and this is the time before football all season to
do it. But it just breaks your heart to see it.
A Cypress Springs high school football player remains in a
coma after suffering a heat stroke following an outdoor training
session for the football team. ABC thirteen with a story.
Speaker 6 (27:16):
A week ago, the future looked bright for seventeen year
old Jarvis Spires, a defensive nose tackle on the Cypress
Springs High school football team. He was eyeing colleges and
dreaming of the big leagues.
Speaker 7 (27:27):
He is going to the NFL.
Speaker 3 (27:29):
And I say going because when he speaks, he says,
one I make it to the NFL.
Speaker 6 (27:35):
Well Saturday, those dreams seem to be in jeopardy. Spires,
so coming to a heat stroke during an outdoor training
session when.
Speaker 3 (27:43):
There's a lot of athletes out here who you know,
don't understand the importance of being hydrated and staying hydrated.
Speaker 6 (27:52):
By the tom Spires made it to the hospital. His
mom says he was already in a coma. Doctors managed
to resuscitate him, but then more complications.
Speaker 7 (28:02):
This kidney's liver, all his organs have failed.
Speaker 6 (28:05):
That's when doctors transferred him to Texas Children's Hospital after
his heart and lungs failed Tuesday. His mom says he
had to be put back under in a sense undergone
emergency surgery.
Speaker 7 (28:16):
Well, the last thing that he said was Jesus is
my best friend.
Speaker 3 (28:22):
And when he said that, I just it just made
me feel so good because I know, I know he's
in good hand.
Speaker 6 (28:27):
Doctors can't predict when Spis will be healthy enough to
breathe on his own. Two Coma's an emergency operation and
who knows how long hooked up to a machine.
Speaker 3 (28:37):
Going Jarvis and the leader he is, he's going to
start spreading awareness. He's going to use his testimony to
spread awareness.
Speaker 6 (28:45):
A day they can't come soon enough for Spiss family.
Already impressed by the progress he's already made.
Speaker 3 (28:53):
But the fact that he's still breathing, and he's still here,
and there's still a chance and I know he's going
to pull through. That's much as you're saying, this is
a miracault, just.
Speaker 1 (29:03):
As I felt with every missing child from Camp Mystic.
I will say it again there but for the grace
of God go I. Every parent knows that could be
your kid. Every time you see an auto crash, every
time you see a suicide, every time you see a
drug overdose, every time you see a kid at camp
(29:26):
and the storm takes them away. Every time you see
any kind of accident, food, allergy, death, you name it.
You know, this one hits home for me because Michael
t the summer of his senior year was you know,
they were at their practices there two days before the
(29:49):
season started. It was an insanely hot summer, which that's
what summer is. And they have something called Hell Week
and they have it's led by the seniors and then
the younger first couple of days to build camaraderie on
the team. These are things football teams have done for
one hundred years. I'm not opposed to it. And so
(30:09):
there he is, and and you know he had trained
before practice, so he could be in good shape. And
the coach comes flying into our driveway and my wife
is outside playing pick a ball and I was at
the station. So they didn't they didn't, they didn't call
(30:30):
me first, and she said, he said, I need to
decide whether we take Michael to the emergency room, and
she's what's wrong? And so it turned out that it's
called rabdo my my losis or I'm going to get
the part after rabdo wrong. But what rabdo is, which
is a condition that is diagnosed much more often now,
(30:52):
is it is where your body sweats too much and
does not replenish what's going on, and you can go in.
I'm sure that's what happened with this kid. I feel
certain that's probably what happened to him. And the body
is not sufficiently hydrated, and even if it is, you
can lose enough of the electrolytes because you can't just
replace water. You can push out all your minerals. And
(31:17):
he was hospitalized for several days, and the doctors, you know,
warned us if he ever plays again, which he did.
You're not going to tell an eighteen year old I'm
not going to play football, but this is what you
need to do. So we started researching it and I
call doctors and I talk to different people, and you
look online. There are professional athletes who have this problem.
(31:38):
And now it is diagnosed much more often and teams
are much more conscious of it. And it got me
to thinking, you know, Bear Bryant and the Junction boys
at Texas A and M and their training was thought
to be, you know, legendarily difficult, and part of the
(31:59):
differenceficulty of the Junction boys training at A and M
was in the heat. You weren't allowed to drink water
all day. That's how you toughened up the boys. That's
how you kill somebody. It turns out that water isn't
just an indulgence or a pleasant thing. Your body needs
(32:21):
that and the kidneys are what ended up shutting down,
and Michael's body had begun the shutdown process. And it's horrifying.
It is absolutely frightening to think how fast this thing
can go south. And some kids are more prone to
actually some human beings are more prone to it than others.
(32:44):
And it's just your body makeup. It's just like any
number of other things. But as I started studying more
about rabdo and how often that this happens, there are
more young people high school and college, particularly by the
pro those You've got trainers who are keeping an eyes
because these guys are assets. You know, you can't have
a professional athlete you're paying whatever it is, ten billion
(33:07):
dollars a year, you know, die on you. Whereas in
high school and in college they're probably a little less
sensitive to it, but even his high school after that,
they started pushing a lot harder on, you know, eating
the oranges and doing those sorts of things. So that
(33:27):
is your wake up called. Every parent out there, if
you're sending your kid off, whether it's band practice or
football or whatever else they're doing, make sure they're hydrated.
My wife has the stern, steadfast belief that over ninety
percent of Americans are dehydrated all the time. And I
thought she was crazy before, but I'm now increasingly of
(33:51):
the opinion that she is right. Don't We don't generally.
I mean, heck, for most of my life I didn't
drink any water, so whatever water I got was out
of a few vegetables. I don't anyway. I hope this
little fellow, Jarvis Spires, does come out of it and
has a great story to tell.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.