June 30, 2026 • 50 mins
Dan Barreiro opens the show discussing the news that Lebron James will not play for the Lakers next season. We dream about what he would be like on the Wolves before Dan reviews a couple Supreme Court decisions that came down this week.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Listen
Watch
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
Basis your Lebroniacs, you night.
Speaker 2 (00:09):
Leader fan Fan Radio Network and k f an dot Com.
Two minutes.
Speaker 1 (00:18):
And forty five seconds past the hour three o'clock Central
daylight time, we welcome you back to the UH. It's
a talker Tuesday edition of the Afternoon ardvark on a
pretty steamy although not quite as steamy as yesterday weekday
Afternoon here in twin cities, Minneapolis and Saint.
Speaker 2 (00:36):
Paul New Home to Lebron.
Speaker 1 (00:39):
I for some reason, I think Lebron James would be
an eastsider.
Speaker 2 (00:43):
I don't know why.
Speaker 1 (00:43):
I think a lot of people they assume Minneapolis, you know,
bright lights, et cetera. For some reason, I think, I
don't know. I'd say he's got.
Speaker 2 (00:55):
A blue collar sensibility, but I I think he might
be a Saint Paul guy.
Speaker 3 (01:00):
You think the kid from Akron, Yeah, might relate fits
a little bit more.
Speaker 2 (01:04):
Yea, with the Saint Paul's sensibilities.
Speaker 1 (01:06):
Akron is is to Cleveland what Saint Paul is to Minneapolis.
Speaker 2 (01:10):
You think, so, yeah, absolutely, Okay, I'll go with that.
I'm just saying, don't. I don't think you can rule
it out. I love to see it. Plus you can
get some really good deals.
Speaker 1 (01:19):
I mean, Lebron could buy an entire building in Saint
Paul for like eight bucks and turn it into his
own you know, Like, obviously his home base is always
going to be Los Angeles, right, but have a satellite
home the size of an entire building, basically, couldn't he?
Speaker 2 (01:36):
They can just hop on the light rail and get
to work.
Speaker 3 (01:38):
You wouldn't even have to drive, just live downtown Saint Paul,
right off the light rail.
Speaker 1 (01:42):
And rumor has it he attended more LA Kings games
than you think. He might be a sneaky professional hockey fan.
There's a lot of those, no question about it. Some
of them don't even want to admit it. I know
why there's so many closeted hockey fans.
Speaker 2 (01:57):
Alex one of them. I think he pretends to hate
the game.
Speaker 1 (02:00):
I think he does, and I think deep down everybody
knows he's got a little bit of hockey sensibility there.
Speaker 2 (02:05):
He's a grinder, wouldn't Johnny. Johnny would take.
Speaker 1 (02:09):
The description of being a grinder as a compliment, wouldn't he.
Speaker 2 (02:14):
I don't know, he's kind of holly. I know, well
he was. Oh you think he's you think he has
left that behind.
Speaker 3 (02:19):
I think he likes to think. I think he wants
to produce, kind of like Kessler. He wants to project
like he's this gritty, bootstraps kind of guy. But if
you describe him that way, I think he would like
to describe himself that way. But if you describe him
that way, like if we say Johnny's like a good
fourth line grinder for a hockey team, like dependable, reliable,
I think he would take that as a slight.
Speaker 2 (02:41):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (02:41):
I think he thinks he's more Quinnesota than whoever the
fourth liner?
Speaker 2 (02:45):
Well, do you have to be a do you have
to be a fourth liner to be a grinder? Kind of?
I think maybe people can correct me if I'm wrong.
I think I don't know why.
Speaker 1 (02:54):
I think you can be a talented grinder. Yeah, I'd
like to think that too, You know what I'm saying.
I'd like to think a lot of us here are
talented gard exactly.
Speaker 2 (03:01):
There you go. I mean I just say it's I
think it's a possibility. Guards he produces the show. My
name is Dan Barrero. For those not familiar with the program,
I before e except in Barrero, Am I right? Due point?
Speaker 1 (03:13):
I'm going to guess today I mangled the due point yesterday.
I'm gonna say the due point is down into the sixties.
Today it is sixty eight, so better. Yesterday was was
didn't you tell me? It's like seventy four, seventy seven,
seventy seven. Yeah, so that is better. It was Tim's
weather yesterday, it was. It was oppressive. It was extremely
oppressive all and yet no, we didn't really get any
(03:36):
boom bus here right there. Really there was a there
was a few passing clouds and it looked like it
would start threatening and then the clouds would break up.
And I don't really think we got not much. We
didn't get hammered with any storm, did we.
Speaker 2 (03:48):
I don't think so.
Speaker 3 (03:49):
Didn't Ian Leonard tell us yesterday that a lot of
them were up north and they just kind of died.
Speaker 2 (03:52):
Out over Lake Superior.
Speaker 3 (03:53):
That's correct. So up there there were tornado warnings there
and stuff there. Yeah, here, not so much down here,
not as much.
Speaker 4 (04:00):
Much.
Speaker 1 (04:00):
We'll be with you until six thirty this evening. It's
a talker Tuesday on a Tuesday, in this case Luigi
coming into studio again, which is great.
Speaker 2 (04:12):
Five oh two.
Speaker 1 (04:15):
Interestingly, that's about the I think five Central is when
NBA free agency officially begins. Is that right, sixth eastern.
I'm not mistaken five o'clock tonight, NBA free agency. Not
that I expect we're going to have any blockbuster. I mean,
and what everybody's going to be paying attention to early
is how quickly Lebron signed.
Speaker 2 (04:35):
That's true. That's true.
Speaker 1 (04:36):
And you've already seen the alleged clue that he's given
out right a video via was it Insta?
Speaker 2 (04:42):
I don't know what he's on. Maybe he's on TikTok,
He's on all of it.
Speaker 1 (04:46):
He's on all of it, and he was driving, and
it appeared the detectives put it together that he was
in Ohio driving. So they have assumed on that basis
that he's going to go back to the Cavaliers.
Speaker 2 (04:59):
For a third. That would be pretty funny.
Speaker 1 (05:02):
I think if I were him, I'd go to Golden State, Yeah,
or I'd come here.
Speaker 2 (05:07):
I agree now.
Speaker 1 (05:08):
He isn't going to come here, as much as I
think the fit would actually be tremendous because what everybody says,
what we what.
Speaker 2 (05:17):
Are we lacking right now? Now?
Speaker 1 (05:18):
He's not in the classic sense a long standing power forward.
Speaker 2 (05:23):
But guess what, as he gets older.
Speaker 1 (05:26):
He I think doesn't want want to move around quite
as much and likes the idea perhaps of playing inside
a little bit more, not all the time, because I.
Speaker 3 (05:33):
Don't think he wants to get hit. Does he shoot
well enough for the power forward that we need? Yes,
you think so?
Speaker 2 (05:38):
Yes?
Speaker 1 (05:39):
Okay, but he'd have to come here for what what's
the max we could pay him?
Speaker 2 (05:45):
Would it be? What did they pay you?
Speaker 1 (05:47):
Because we need Who's the swingman that we we acquired
along with LaMelo?
Speaker 2 (05:53):
His name escapes me.
Speaker 1 (05:54):
Yeah, my son just told me he has one of
his cards today.
Speaker 2 (05:56):
I can't even remember his name. We need his money.
Speaker 1 (05:58):
Yeah, right, So I don't know how we get are
are we still in line for for a mid level exception?
I'm not sure, but let me know via theratch on
Bridecavia text line where Lebron James would live in the
Twin Cities. Josh Green is who you're thinking, Josh Green.
Thank you East Sider, West Sider. This is fascinating. Yeah, yeah,
(06:20):
I mean, I you know, there's a lot of ways
to go with this. Unfortunately, it's all I guess you
could say, a dream. But we'll maybe we'll find out.
Maybe there'll be a big announcement right off the top.
Speaker 2 (06:34):
I'm not sure.
Speaker 1 (06:35):
The timing is interesting because his agent made it official
earlier today.
Speaker 3 (06:40):
He's out when we ain't going back to the Lakers.
All the graphics have been made, thank you. Correct, Luke
has done the goodbye.
Speaker 1 (06:46):
So now it's well, it's interesting that that announcement comes
on the day when free agency officially begins.
Speaker 2 (06:52):
Tampering has already begun. We know that, but you know
what I was reminded of today. This is It's fascinating.
Speaker 1 (07:01):
Now again, you could argue the punishment isn't that great,
but I would suggest that the punishment indicates that, as
someone who is against tampering back in the Joe Smith
days because of what it costs this team, I might
be pro tampering now because once upon a time the
New York Knickerbockers were penalized. They lost a second round
(07:24):
draft choice after being convicted of tampering on Jalen Brunson
before he left the Dallas Mavericks.
Speaker 2 (07:32):
That's right. You think the Knicks.
Speaker 1 (07:33):
Feel okay about the giving up the second round pick
for that is as the punishment today?
Speaker 2 (07:39):
Wow, I forgot about that.
Speaker 1 (07:41):
So I don't know if it was like minor tampering
or we're more missive in these days with Adam Silver,
David Stern. Yeah, like everything else. Yep, I don't know,
but I found that pretty interesting.
Speaker 2 (07:53):
I forgot about it. I did too.
Speaker 1 (07:56):
Yeah, I don't think in New York, I think they'd
say we'll take that trade off, and ours was for
Joe Smith.
Speaker 3 (08:01):
Again, that's what you say all the time. We always
get caught. Yeah, we always get hammered more than anybody
else does every sport and college amprov Yes, and it's
never for the ultimate payoff or even a payoff that's
worth it, a player that's worth it.
Speaker 1 (08:16):
That was the thing that always drove me in. Yes,
I understand Joe smith obsession. Joe Smith.
Speaker 2 (08:23):
I know, you know.
Speaker 1 (08:24):
I tried at Sam Mitchell about this because he used
to call him the Beast, and I said, Sam, that
makes him sound much better than he was the beast.
The beast because you think the beast, you're like Moses Malona,
the guy he gets, you know, might get on a
given night, twenty two rebounds, kill two opponents, a seven
(08:44):
block shots. That kind of thing, isn't that a beast.
When you think of the term beast.
Speaker 3 (08:47):
That's a beast. Joe Smith was a beast in college
at time. He was from Maryland. That's why he was
the number one.
Speaker 2 (08:52):
Pick, one overall pick.
Speaker 1 (08:53):
Yeah he was, although I don't even know looking back
on well, he certainly wasn't the best player of that draft.
I don't remember who else was in that draft, but
he was the number one pick. You're right because he
was a very very good college. I'm pretty sure that
was kg's draft. I'm pretty sure that was the KG draft.
So by definition, No. Six one two guy writes Eric
Sinek is a grinder and a bonifi top six player,
So there guards he you can be both a grinder.
(09:17):
He's got some I think you can have some grind
to you. Yeah, even if you are, you have some
some skill. I don't think. I mean a pure grinder
obviously is going to be a fourth liner or a
guy who maybe plays, you know, twelve minutes off the
bench and just gives you. I mean, I think of
who was the SlowMo. I think a SlowMo as a grinder.
(09:38):
And by the way, I love him. I love SloMo,
I do. But I've heard or read the suggestion that
he's among the guys that the Wolves ought to consider. Yeah,
come on, man, please let me not be Let's seeh
it's it was a sup We're going to play fast now.
Speaker 2 (09:56):
Yeah, there's there's no if.
Speaker 1 (09:58):
Let's put this way, if SlowMo ends up being the
closest we can get to a serviceable front court player,
it is going to be a gap year, right, and
it might be anyway. By the way, that's something you
and I need to discuss. We'll get into that a
little bit a little bit later.
Speaker 2 (10:15):
But a lot of good ideas coming in on where
Lebron might want to live. I mentioned Louis coming in.
Speaker 1 (10:21):
We've got done as Today we have two highly significant
and controversial Supreme Court rulings in which I think there's
a pretty good chance that I will annoy in one
case the Sharks and enraged the Jets in the other.
(10:42):
But we will get to those without necessarily legal expertise.
Speaker 2 (10:45):
Today. We're going to try to talk about.
Speaker 1 (10:47):
Those things without necessarily a Ron Rosenbaum kind of approach.
Speaker 2 (10:52):
But we'll see how it goes.
Speaker 1 (11:00):
Often, Lebron James does not strike me as a bath
house type guy. So Minneapolis is definitely out. He's thinking
more Saint Paul. Let me see, let me scroll down
here they're coming in again, fast and furious. I believe it,
very very fast and furious. Somebody else is saying, Lebron
is North Oaks.
Speaker 3 (11:20):
Yeah, I can see that absolutely next door to Charlie Swanson.
Speaker 2 (11:24):
How about this? This is again Alan.
Speaker 1 (11:26):
I finally got to scroll down and read the rest
of his text.
Speaker 2 (11:29):
Minneapolis is out.
Speaker 1 (11:30):
I see him finding a palatial estate in Sunfish Lake
near the Vikings Company.
Speaker 2 (11:35):
That's kind of where I was thinking too. That's the
sneaky And then.
Speaker 1 (11:39):
What you do is obviously then you also you rent
a penthouse condo downtown Minneapolis. You could, right, Yeah, you're
Lebron James.
Speaker 3 (11:48):
You can do both pretty easily, can't you? Definitely can
That not going to be a problem with it. It
should not be.
Speaker 2 (11:53):
Yeah, I'm with you on that.
Speaker 3 (11:55):
He might just live at the Four Seasons where they
typically stay the NBA teams. Now, yeah, they used to
stay across you know, it was the it was a
Hilton for a while. Uh what is it now?
Speaker 2 (12:06):
It was? Is it the Lofton?
Speaker 1 (12:08):
Still?
Speaker 3 (12:09):
I think it's a lot of the Cura. But now
since we got to four seasons. That's where all the
teams stay now so, but they have condos there, so
Lebron could get one.
Speaker 2 (12:16):
Day they have enough?
Speaker 1 (12:19):
What was it that uh day Day was complaining about
they don't have in Memphis hotels?
Speaker 2 (12:24):
Do they have enough? Was he? He was upset about. Yeah,
it was not just the hotel. It was whirlpools, was it?
Speaker 1 (12:31):
Yeah? Probably was a steam room. Yeah, maybe it was
a bath house.
Speaker 2 (12:35):
I don't know. Maybe that's one of the amenities. I'm
not exactly sure.
Speaker 1 (12:42):
What is the latest redfinner Zillow report of someone Abu Avenue?
Lebron could throw a hell of a garage sale howl?
Speaker 2 (12:49):
That's uh.
Speaker 1 (12:49):
John Lebron would live in a double wide on four
acres in Pine City.
Speaker 2 (12:54):
Wow, well you know, well, yeah, what's that about. I
don't know what. Maybe that's right for you. I don't know.
You'd love the pizza pub, Yeah, probably would, that's true.
Speaker 1 (13:06):
I asked this question the other day, did anybody ever
buy cats a state on It?
Speaker 2 (13:12):
Was it in a orno?
Speaker 1 (13:13):
It was on the lake, but I can't remember where
it was it was?
Speaker 2 (13:17):
I thought, so anybody buy it? I'm not sure. I mean,
that'd be a starter. Home for Lebron, but nevertheless it's
not his permanent place.
Speaker 1 (13:24):
I mean, he's going to be in La. What else
did I have on the menu that I wanted? Oh,
I'm going to start instituting a little more of Dan.
Speaker 2 (13:32):
Minnesota's on this day, not so much necessarily calendar of calamity.
I like it. So I'm gonna get to a couple
of those. We have a belated a way too long ago,
belated not done as we do have a done ass
oh to a dead guy that I've been meaning to
include into the conversation. And some World Cup. There's always
(13:52):
more World.
Speaker 1 (13:53):
Cup on the Bumper to Bumper program that continues to
be our pledge. And you can check this during a
break because this occurred to me as I was preparing.
Speaker 2 (14:03):
For the program. Has Olivia Miles thanked Caitlin Clark? Oh, yeah,
good one? Has she? I don't know what she has
played before? Help build it up?
Speaker 1 (14:14):
Didn't she build it to a place where Olivia Miles
gets to fly?
Speaker 2 (14:19):
What charter? Charter? You're right? Has she saved Caitlyn Clark? Yet?
I'm gonna have to look for it.
Speaker 3 (14:25):
But as I think I mentioned to you before, this
is today is my Brett Blakemore day because Serena is
going three. Serena just split sets, battle things on the
ropes had him match point down.
Speaker 2 (14:38):
She's going to trying anybody any good.
Speaker 3 (14:40):
No, the person she's playing has lost eleven straight tour
level matches. Was in the top thirty a year ago.
But it is completely cratered. So I'm like Brett Blakemore
on a Sunday morning right now with one eye up
and one eye on you.
Speaker 2 (14:51):
But I'll do my best bumper with Dan Burrero on
the fan from the one eight hundred ask Gary Traffic Center.
This three point it is sponsored by the News. What
(15:46):
did I What match that I watched last night? Worke up?
Was that Germany? When was Germany's loss? That was last night?
Wasn't it? Isn't that Germany? It was during our show.
That was during our show.
Speaker 1 (15:57):
Shootout, Yeah, shootout was during our show where you look like.
Speaker 2 (16:01):
Late in the shootout they got saved.
Speaker 1 (16:03):
They were looked dead in the water, but they survived
and then to go to the sudden death shootout.
Speaker 2 (16:10):
Correct, Yeah, they were down, they were down. They were down.
Speaker 3 (16:13):
I guess three two, two shots left exactly. And Paraguay
missed both and then so then they end up going
into this.
Speaker 1 (16:21):
Obviously Germany, they they are like, okay, this is this
is ours.
Speaker 2 (16:24):
We got to win this yestiny and they didn't. They
did not.
Speaker 1 (16:27):
As I recall it, were you watching Morocco in the Netherlands.
I was watching last night that was it, Morocco versus
the Netherlands, which was also ended up being went to
penalties too. I I will say this because I mean,
you'd think, like with hockey, the idea of penalty shots,
(16:48):
penalty kicks come on, man, especially when you're on the
grandest stage. But I don't know, I kind of I
found myself enjoying the drama yesterday during the day and
then at night two more than I thought it would,
in part because I assumed that nobody ever missed on
soccer penalty kicks and that's not true, right, So that
(17:12):
on the front end, I'm like.
Speaker 2 (17:13):
Well, it's kind of a farce. What's the point.
Speaker 1 (17:14):
I mean, it's gonna be one miss and that's but
it's actually, at least so far in the in the
two matches yesterday in which penalty kicks were used, I
thought there were there was more than that. There was
more drama to it then than I had expected. And
players not only miss, some of them miss Yeah, they
missed badly, terribly.
Speaker 2 (17:34):
Yeah. What shows you?
Speaker 3 (17:35):
I think the pressure that we can't even fathom to
have to be standing over that ball, trying to figure
out where the goalie's going, you know what, he knows that,
you know what where you want to go to try
to do all of that in four steps, it's pretty remarkable.
Speaker 1 (17:51):
Holland scores late. So Norway does knock off Ivory Coast?
Correct in the eighty sixth minute that was in Dallas,
that was earlier today.
Speaker 2 (18:00):
Correct, Yes, two to one? Two to one? Is our
game going on? Is there a match going on now?
Speaker 3 (18:04):
About to start in about a half an hour Sweden
in France a nice little matchup on Fox.
Speaker 2 (18:09):
We got We'll get to an interesting wrinkle regarding.
Speaker 1 (18:13):
Many people feel like the big favorite France to win
it a little bit later in the in the broadcast
bratch on Brian Cafey and text line is open at
six four six, eight six. There's I mentioned two. Oh,
I bet you I should actually first get.
Speaker 2 (18:35):
To some breaking news.
Speaker 1 (18:38):
Because I mentioned technically, well, this isn't a free agent move,
but this is a trade.
Speaker 2 (18:43):
Yeah, pretty big one, but a pretty big one. Free
agency apparently is official or can start post tampering at
five pm Central time. But I don't know that I saw.
Speaker 1 (18:56):
I mean, there were rumors about this, but I was skeptical.
But indeed the La Clippers are trading Tree Guy, or
they are, according to Sham's nearing a deal to send
Kawhi Leonard back to the Toronto Raptors for brandon Ingram
Grady Dick, two first round picks, one pick swap, and
(19:21):
two second rounders, sources tell ESPN Recall. With the Kawhi,
the Raptors won their only title. He is also a
two time NBA Finals MVP. I think this is close
to a no brainer if you're the Clippers.
Speaker 2 (19:43):
Because.
Speaker 1 (19:46):
Again, Kawhi played really well last year and stayed healthier.
But it's the old deal of how much tread's in
the tire? What's the punt? I mean, we all are
assuming the punishment is going to come down on the
Clippers more than it's going to come down on the player.
I think we can presume that given the Raptors are
(20:08):
making this deal for the salary cap circumvention, a secret
deal with the spire. And by the way, that report
still isn't out, much to the frustration of the current commission.
Speaker 2 (20:17):
I would imagine of the NBA who made that point
the other day. We've got to get this thing done.
Speaker 1 (20:21):
And is it possible that you know, we're just going
to avoid the Kahi contract.
Speaker 2 (20:27):
Chances are I'm not.
Speaker 1 (20:28):
Even sure the league was going to give the Clippers
an opportunity to extend him, right, I mean, who.
Speaker 2 (20:35):
Knows what the punishment's going to be.
Speaker 1 (20:36):
So I think from a Clippers standpoint, it's a good move,
even if you know you're not getting greatness back, You're
getting some interesting piece.
Speaker 2 (20:43):
You get a bunch of draft point picks back.
Speaker 1 (20:45):
But that's that is a very large deal, and it
does it change the landscape in the Eastern Conference a
little bit. Maybe that's Sam Mitchell Terrytoy by the way,
he still does a lot of raptors work.
Speaker 2 (20:57):
I should text him to see, yeah, what he thinks
of of that move.
Speaker 3 (21:00):
He was the coach of the Year when he was
at Toronto. That's right, That's exactly it.
Speaker 1 (21:05):
So more on ad a little bit later, And if
we get any lebron being spotted on the stone arch
in downtown Saint Paul will let you know that.
Speaker 4 (21:13):
Well.
Speaker 3 (21:14):
The other thing I got going is our guy Josh Brodden.
All he's doing now is just sending me Lake Minatanka
listings that he thinks Lebron might like. Hey, you know,
it's kind of our neighborhood. People always ask me, all
you live by the lake. I go no, I live
two miles and two million at least away from the lake.
But I'm familiar with the area, and so there's some
nice properties out there you can do well.
Speaker 1 (21:35):
Yeah, there's usually there's usually a few that you're not
going to go.
Speaker 2 (21:40):
I'm not sure if that's big enough. You know, if
you got that kind of doll, Lebron would do fine.
I think he would be fine. I don't know. Is
he a water guy. I don't know.
Speaker 3 (21:47):
I think he is because someone tweeted out a picture
of him on a boat somewhere today, not from today,
but yeah, I think he would be a good and
he likes to golf. Yeah, a lot of good golf
courses out west, but there's a lot of good golf.
Speaker 2 (21:59):
See.
Speaker 3 (21:59):
I'm thinking like still Water would be a good sneaky
spot for him, you know, a little quieter like North
Oaks obviously that east side. Yeah, that's sneaky good. You
hit the Saint Croix rather than a lake. I feel
like that would be a good spot for Bron Lebron.
Speaker 2 (22:15):
To Cleveland, World Cup, Bland, LaMelo, Trade, Grand Wolves, and five.
Speaker 1 (22:21):
So that he rhymed, you gotta say Cleveland different, Yeah, Cleveland, Yeah,
Lebron to Cleveland or black one.
Speaker 2 (22:30):
There you go Cleveland. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (22:31):
I needed him to emphasize the second soylable for me.
But you're exactly right, my bad. I apologize to two
and eight. Is that two and ai?
Speaker 2 (22:39):
Yeah?
Speaker 1 (22:39):
To a EU okay, Supreme Court massive decision involving the
President's attempt to curtail birthright citizenship, I'll read from the
Wall Street Journal update. The Supreme Court today struck down
the president's attempt to well, I just said it curtailed
birthright citizenship or rejection of his most AGGRESSI of crackdown
(23:01):
on illegal immigration. Decision rebuffs Trump's bid to upend the
deep rooted understanding that virtually everyone born on American soils
automatically US citizen. That understanding Chief Justice John Roberts wrote
was enshrined in the Constitution.
Speaker 2 (23:16):
In eighteen sixty eight.
Speaker 1 (23:18):
Citizenship then and now was the right to have rights
to freely participate in our political community. The framers of
the fourteenth Amendment extended that promise to every freeborn person
in this land. We keep that promise today. Six justices,
three Conservatives and three Libs ruled against Trump, though only
five did so on constitutional grounds. The course three most
conservative judges did indeed dissent. The case challenged if you
(23:41):
were calling executive order that Trump issued on the first
day of his second term, which he had declared and
declared that the future children born in the US would not
be considered citizens of their parents were living in the
country illegally or visiting the country on a temporary basis.
The executive order never indeed took effect.
Speaker 2 (24:03):
It is the timing of this is is interesting to me.
And one of the things that a Chief Justice Roberts
notes in his opinion is how the immigration debate hasn't
really changed all that. We think it's new, but it's
not really all that new.
Speaker 1 (24:23):
The argument that quote these people are too different to
join us end quote has failed socially, culture, economically, and
morally time and time again. Unfortunately, that's a lesson that
your guy Tom Emmer doesn't get or doesn't want to
get any longer, or doesn't care. He thinks that he's
(24:43):
mad as hell and he's not going to take it
any more. Some childish comments offensive for me, comments that
he made I think it was last week regarding the
Somali community. And that's always the basis of it. You
don't want to fit in, you know, a melting pot.
And the truth of the matter is, there is no
(25:04):
law that says you have to assimilate in a certain
amount of time or how far you have to assimilate,
whatever the case may be.
Speaker 2 (25:11):
And I can tell you it comes often, but it
takes time. I can talk about it in my own
family if my dad coming over from Spain, both grandfathers,
one from Argentina, one from Spain.
Speaker 1 (25:26):
For a long time, they held on even when they
came here, appreciating the opportunity. They held on to their
their culture. I grew up in a place called the
Spanish Society, the Spanish Castle is what we called it.
That was the nickname all kinds of social events, and
there wasn't not a mingling going on, quite frankly with
(25:46):
anybody outside the Spaniards.
Speaker 2 (25:49):
Eventually it got there, a very welcome ruling.
Speaker 1 (25:54):
I would put this under the classification of through the
tumultuous times in which we live. I mentioned Andy Leher
and I talked about this last time he was in
and I asked him that is that in the end
here to hold on to at least some of our norms.
Who have we counted on? It's been the courts at
varying levels. Now you can argue we need more of it.
(26:15):
You can argue there hasn't been enough of it, but
there has been a lot of stuff that this president
has attempted to do that has been reversed. And he's
not the only president that has had stuff reversed when
the executive one could argue, on the basis of our
separation of powers, attempts to test those limits.
Speaker 2 (26:34):
So I find this an outstanding outcome.
Speaker 1 (26:37):
I'm not going to pretend to analyze the legality out
well reasoned it is. Legally speaking, I will leave that
to others, perhaps on another day, with greater legal expertise.
But I find it heartening. I find it a fairly
large move. Has the president responded yet? Is this from today?
Speaker 3 (27:02):
Yes, this decision was quote too bad for our country.
Right and wrong is from the story and wrongly suggested
that Congress could easily address it with legislation.
Speaker 2 (27:14):
Hmm, this is from a Sociated Press story. That's that's light.
He My guess is the real fury will show up
about two in the morning later, don't you think, Yeah,
when he gets it, really gets the bile, really work.
You're a social post, don't you think that would be
the time?
Speaker 3 (27:33):
Usually is we get a lot of midnight runs or
early morning.
Speaker 2 (27:39):
Yeah?
Speaker 1 (27:39):
Interesting, Well, in any case, that's one there There have
actually were several. That's one of the ones I wanted
to mention early and UH, as expected, a number of
the a number of the sharks are not pleased with
my conclusion and my belief that this was an important
(28:00):
ruling reconfirming.
Speaker 2 (28:04):
A basic I think tenant.
Speaker 4 (28:07):
Of the way we have sort of grown up as
a nation, and that if that had that had been
successfully torn away by this president, I think it would
have been very damaging and very destructive.
Speaker 2 (28:22):
And the fact is, again in this case, there were
some you want to.
Speaker 1 (28:25):
Call them righty judges who are involved in UH for
various reasons in coming to this very conclusion.
Speaker 2 (28:32):
Now again we get into the game of in in
in the.
Speaker 1 (28:38):
Most at the purest level, it should be about whether
the law is being interpreted correctly. We've learned over the
many decades that even that can be more subjective than
folks in the legal profession. I want to think we
used to talk about that from time to time with
with Ron Rosenbaum. In any case, I thought that was
(29:01):
well played and encouraging.
Speaker 2 (29:04):
I think.
Speaker 1 (29:08):
The danger with an administration that is run the way
the president runs it is he does want to be
the king and he's going to continue to test his
limits in a way that not all that many have before.
And part of the reason is because he's been able
(29:29):
to get away with as much.
Speaker 2 (29:30):
As he has.
Speaker 1 (29:31):
He goes what do I have to lose at this point?
So I would say this is the perfect example of
why we have the separation that we do. And then
in this case it has worked as a very effective
check and balance. We could probably go to forty two. Right, Yes,
(29:51):
because you're wide open is a talker Tuesday on a Tuesday.
So again, as I mentioned, the sharks notw please with
me now there will be Here's where it gets interesting
on another ruling where.
Speaker 2 (30:07):
And this is. We've talked about this before, but.
Speaker 1 (30:14):
Among the lefties, among the jets out there, I guess
you could say there have been there has been, i
should say, disagreement on this issue. And that's always my
comeback to the hardcore progresses on this issue, the assumption
(30:37):
that if you're not on their side regarding this story
we're about to get to and this ruling, then you're
afraid of the whole transgender concept.
Speaker 2 (30:51):
You have a fear of it. There could be no
other explanation. You don't care.
Speaker 1 (30:57):
About those who are in that classification or have put
themselves in that classification. You're cruel, you're heartless, and you
don't even realize the damage you're doing. But the fact
of the matter is, and this shouldn't be the only
litmus test. There are a number of confirmed lefties in
(31:19):
the sports world, most notably would be Martina Navratilova, but
there are certainly others who said no, no, null on
this issue. I believe I am protecting a group of
people in this country, biological women, and that's been from
(31:42):
the start my annoyance about any of the conversations we've had.
Other people think they have a right to decide what
your motivation is and what you may be thinking on
a given issue. And we're talking about Supreme Court upholding
state restraintstions on transgender athletics. This decision the athletes, I
(32:04):
should say, this decision will let twenty seven states keep
bands on transgender women and girls playing for female sports teams.
This also, I think this is not such a broad
ruling that it in any way makes illegal transgender athletes
(32:26):
playing in those sports in states in which those are
the rules, like Minnesota, for example.
Speaker 2 (32:32):
This is not a.
Speaker 1 (32:33):
Ruling that I think now there are people clamoring for
we need a ruling, that we need a national standard.
But in this case, I think what it basically says
is if you're a state, if you're one of the
twenty seven states that has these bands in place, you
can keep them in place. I don't think it forces
other states that don't have these bands in place to
(32:54):
then put them in place. And let me get you
a couple more details on it. This is basically banning
transgender women and girls from playing on female sports teams.
Speaker 2 (33:10):
As the Wall Street Journal notes, a.
Speaker 1 (33:12):
Bitterly, bitterly fought issue that has become a political and
cultural crash point flashpoint. The court ruled against two young athletes,
one now in high school, the other finishing college, whose
sex was recorded as male at birth but do identify
as female. Brett Kavanaugh, writing for the court, Constitution does
(33:33):
not require the schools determine eligibility for women's and girls
sports based on gender identity rather than biological sex. And
as I mentioned, twenty seven states limit school sports for
women and girls to athletes whose biological sex is a female.
And by the way, for the record, it's basically that
(33:55):
is now the policy moving forward, the Olympic policy moving forward.
We talked about that. I think when it was confirmed
or maybe clarified.
Speaker 2 (34:03):
A little bit.
Speaker 1 (34:04):
I think there's a test involved now literally one test
that must be taken I think once in your life
to sort of different to distinguish, shall we say. And
now you could argue, well, at the Olympic level is
different because that's presumably athletic competition in those various.
Speaker 2 (34:23):
Sports at the at the highest level.
Speaker 1 (34:25):
N CIA has done the same thing along with the Olympics.
Speaker 2 (34:29):
It's frankly the.
Speaker 1 (34:33):
It's a if it matters to you, it's the majority
position in pretty much every poll of most Americans. But
it's become the classic flash point in that there are
some I guess i'd say some lefties, some jets who
(34:57):
under the classification of I can't give sus and it's
the enemy, are doubling and tripling down on the notion
that you are hurting people. You are putting individuals transgenders
in danger in some cases. And it's to me where
(35:18):
the argument that discussion goes off the rail because you
start using that.
Speaker 2 (35:23):
Language, it basically.
Speaker 1 (35:25):
Precludes you coming to any other conclusion than the one
that they prefer. The governor of the State of Minnesota
today creating, as far as I'm concerned, a straw man
argument the quote, I don't have the exact quote in
front of me, I heard it on audio today, basically
saying that this ruling allows some states to be crueler
(35:50):
and crueler to transgender individuals, while it allows us to
continue to be more and more compassionate with them. And
then there was also a throwaway line about how you
know why you know it's it's it's it's ridiculous that
(36:11):
this would become so important to people that you would
you would prevent them from participating on the bowling team,
for example, it's a for me, it's a disingenuous argument
because it makes it easier to dismiss the argument, Oh yeah,
you know some recreational bowling clean what's what? What are
(36:31):
we protecting there? Well, he knows, I think probably doesn't
care because again it's become a political flashpoint, so he
can't give on the issue. He can't give on the
issue that for some, even though the numbers are very
(36:51):
low at this point, it's about fairness and competition. And
that's where I think you can be someone who isn't transphobic.
Speaker 2 (37:04):
Want to do everything you can to let people be
who they.
Speaker 1 (37:07):
Want to be, and say, what about the possibility that
you're being cruel to individual participants female participants in this case,
in a sport in which they are keeping score, they
are We could say, well, if you're talking about high
school or you're talking about you know, oh, and what's
(37:29):
really it's I mean, come on, what's really at stake? Well,
we have competition that we if we keep score, it
matters to people, and we even this is how preposterous
has gotten. We have some individuals who actually with a
straight face, try to say there is no meaningful distinction
in performance between men and women, at which point I
(37:53):
know you don't want to be taken seriously on the subject,
or you've decided that you can't allow that argument because
you know you may lose the argument on that basis,
so you will pretend that there's no meaningful distinction there.
Speaker 2 (38:08):
I've said this a few months ago, and we talked
about it.
Speaker 1 (38:11):
If one competition, one in one sport, one time is
affected by this rule, I think there is a fairness
issue for biological girls or women. Invaulved, sorry, I do
(38:32):
and don't the rules. This is where there's this disconnect.
Don't the rules have been implemented at various levels. Does
do the same individuals think the people who run the
Olympics are transphobic or do you think it's possible they're
just more worried about the competition and the fact that
there are some distinctions there.
Speaker 2 (38:51):
I'm a little behind on a break.
Speaker 1 (38:52):
We'll take it and then I'll get to some texts
on this ruling as well as there were several others,
but these are the two big ones that are getting
a lot of attention today. It's a talker Tuesday. On
a Tuesday, Lunanni and Studio just past five you are
listening to Barrero. I'm doing difficulty finding the startubune dot
(39:41):
com story I'm looking for, but I will find it eventually.
On what I like, I said object to the most
regarding both these stories, but ruins, but especially the second
one is the language that is used that I think
is very deliberate and strategic, that almost prevents a reasoned
(40:07):
debate and discussion on the story relating to fairness in competition.
And I'll find an example in a minute of what
I'm talking about.
Speaker 2 (40:20):
This is from Bob is a lefty. I'm grateful for
your well reason argument for transgenders and sports. To me,
it should not be a left right issue. Chris writes
to me, there should be no federal, state or local
laws banning or allowing transgender sports participation. EA sports association
and governing body should be able to determine who is
eligible and who isn't.
Speaker 1 (40:42):
Well, I think, I mean the problem with that is
the obvious. I think in terms of competitions that bleed
over from one place, you know, one state to another.
As it stands this court ruling, in terms of what
each state does is each state is still on its own.
You could make the theoretical argument that having different rules
(41:07):
on something like this creates an element of confusion at
the very least, and perhaps unfairness of whatever side of
the issue that you might be on. Now there may
be a case coming in which it might be more global.
Speaker 2 (41:22):
I don't know. Let's see here, Dan.
Speaker 1 (41:30):
I don't normally agree with you in your political views,
but I really appreciate your stance on transathletes that should
be separated, and that they should be separated. Having a
daughter who plays competiti high school sports, I think it's
unfair she has to go up against a biological mail
or gets injured because of biological male who, for intensive purposes,
is going to be stronger.
Speaker 2 (41:43):
Injured my daughter.
Speaker 1 (41:45):
Now, do we have as many examples as some yes,
transphobic individuals who inject themselves as this debate believe about injury.
Probably not, because I think that argument runs the risk
of being oversold. However, I don't think it should be
out of bounds completely.
Speaker 2 (42:14):
I don't know that what what what.
Speaker 1 (42:16):
I'm hesitating because I don't I think that we're so
far on this story down the road that I'm not
sure there's ever going to come a unifying moment on
it now, what I will say, and I and you
and I have talked about this too. There was a time,
and we'd have to do some research on when this
(42:38):
period was where any discussion indicating a fairness part of
the equation was hardly ever said out loud under the
fear of you're done, it's over for you. You're trying, what.
Speaker 2 (42:53):
Do you have?
Speaker 1 (42:54):
What?
Speaker 2 (42:54):
Why do you care?
Speaker 1 (42:55):
Why are you threatened by individuals who want to make
these decisions or go these routes? And then what happened
is a couple of quote unquote left of center publications,
The Atlantic was one of them, started pushing back a
little bit and asking questions on these sorts of things.
And I think it had made it a little easier
(43:17):
for the public, which I think it sort of ducked
and hid a lot of time on this subject out
of fear for like I said, being if not canceled,
called out to a place where you're left feeling like
you're on an island of your own. But I don't
know if it ever I don't even know if it
ever gets to a better place because and you can
(43:39):
speak to this part of it too, I guess I
when we have in the name of I think protecting
the position. You have people testifying with a straight face saying,
we don't really know how much advantage males have in competition.
Then for those individuals in that camp, to me, they're
(44:01):
striking a they're a pose and a strategy that makes
it hard to take the position seriously. Does that make
any sense? No, it does, it does. But I think
the other thing that changed is there were more instances. Yes, yeah,
it's cropping up a little more often. Yeah, well, if
we had it in softball just this last summer, we
had it locally, there was obviously the one in the
(44:22):
Olympics a few years ago, and it just got harder
and harder to just say because there was also that
we're not talking about that many people, and we're still not,
by the way, We're still talking about a very small percentage,
Very absolutely true.
Speaker 2 (44:36):
And I think that's.
Speaker 1 (44:37):
Part of the issue too, is because there's not an
easy answer to.
Speaker 2 (44:41):
What what do compromise? Well, yeah, exactly what's the compromise?
Speaker 3 (44:46):
Because early on it was what if they did, what
if there's a separate division or this and that? Yeah,
well that's not necessarily practical because again we're talking about
a very small amount of people. So I think part
of the reason why people get tent pulled to their
bought so much because there hasn't been an easy middle
ground on an easy middle ground on well, where can
(45:06):
they play?
Speaker 1 (45:09):
And maybe they can't. I don't know that, but that
I think that's part of the part of the discussion.
Speaker 3 (45:12):
Maybe there isn't a place, maybe that maybe there isn't
right now, maybe there will be now.
Speaker 1 (45:16):
I know this is uncomfortable because again, as somebody who
you coached, you know, you coached kids before and you
know I've got one and anybody who does, it's you
want to encourage participation, especially at the younger ages, as
much as possible, right, I mean, that's just a given.
So it's not if you favor the position I'm favoring.
Speaker 2 (45:40):
I don't think you're reveling in.
Speaker 1 (45:43):
It because you understand it does have ramifications.
Speaker 2 (45:47):
But that's that's the irony here. Like I said, Martina, never.
Speaker 1 (45:51):
To leve will tell you I am a card carrying
lefty women's liver, full stop.
Speaker 2 (45:59):
Man in her case, right, that's it big time.
Speaker 1 (46:02):
And she's saying I am protect This is a Title
nine issue for me and I don't understand how now
Title nine is being used as no, no, that's why
you Title nine is why you can't prevent individuals, uh
a transgender who were born male who want to participate
(46:25):
in female sports. And and she's saying, yeah, this.
Speaker 2 (46:30):
Is rough, but that you're you're you are you are
denying a right.
Speaker 1 (46:34):
A fairness. The whole point of Title nine was opportunity
for everybody. But at that point it was biological girls
biological boys. That's basically what this ruling has taken place,
or what is what is said in effect, And that's the.
Speaker 2 (46:52):
Irony of it.
Speaker 1 (46:53):
She's not saying she's not exactly a hardcore writing in
this case, and she's sure as hell is not SI.
Speaker 2 (47:00):
Saying that she thinks these individuals that means they should
be mocked and ridiculed. But for her, it's a I
am protecting girls and women to give them the best
opportunity to compete against other biological girls and women. I
don't know if she's weigh in today on this subject,
(47:21):
but I know that she's she's done that before. I
think technically, by the way, what the Olympic.
Speaker 1 (47:30):
Charter now, well not charter, but the Olympic rules now
say is if you are born male and you identify
as a woman, you cannot participate in women's sports and
the Olympics. However, you can participate in men's sports. Sure, now,
a lot of people are gonna roll their eye and say, well,
(47:52):
how's that gonna work?
Speaker 2 (47:52):
And how's that?
Speaker 1 (47:53):
I mean, that's putting that person in a position where
he or she depending how you want to look as
gonna stand out right too much.
Speaker 2 (48:01):
But I believe when.
Speaker 1 (48:02):
I read earlier today I kind of went through some
of the Olympic stuff. I think technically that's what they say.
They say, no, you were not stopping it from participating, right,
that would makes sense, which would make some sense. And
I guess there are high school associations if they want
to it can make the same argument. Now that's going
to be uncomfortable for all the obvious reasons.
Speaker 2 (48:22):
So I don't know. And that's where the answer isn't easy.
Speaker 1 (48:25):
Because when you're talking about you know, grade school, you're
talking about junior high school, you're talking about adolescents.
Speaker 2 (48:32):
You want to encourage participation.
Speaker 1 (48:34):
You know, it's not like winning championship is everything, but
it matters. It's disingenuous to pretend the way the governor
did that. Oh you know, oh you're going to stop
somebody from participating with the bowling team.
Speaker 2 (48:47):
Come on, governor, You're not.
Speaker 1 (48:50):
To be taken seriously on this issue because you're changing
the argument.
Speaker 2 (48:54):
You are creating a straw man argument. At least have
the ability to argue where it counts regarding competition, and
he may have an answer, he.
Speaker 1 (49:07):
May say, I'm willing to give that up, whatever the case, but.
Speaker 2 (49:10):
At least don't just address it. Don't pretend that people
are talking about, well.
Speaker 1 (49:15):
They got this this, this bowling team, this bowling club team,
and they're not letting a biological girl who now identifies
as a guy.
Speaker 2 (49:28):
You know, I mean, come on, well, get, let's get Let's.
Speaker 1 (49:31):
At least have a serious discussion about what the debate
really should be about. And again, are there people in
the country still afraid of the whole identity issue?
Speaker 2 (49:43):
Yes, is that sad, one hundred percent.
Speaker 1 (49:49):
But the idea that those individuals exist exists doesn't mean
I have to see what I think is fairness.
Speaker 2 (49:56):
They may like it, but I'm not doing it for them.
Speaker 1 (49:59):
I'm doing it for the participants or what I think
might indeed be fair and as again in most polls,
I think most I think Americans have said literally by
minimum six of ten. Some polls it's been eight out
of ten. It just it feels like for many that's
the logical position. Our number two of Talker Tuesday, I
(50:21):
do have a done ass to get to that. I
don't know how I missed it. It's another sad story,
but not a particularly surprising story related to this administration.
And we'll get to some other stuff as well. Louis
in studio beginning about an hour from No.
Basis your Lebroniacs, you night.
Speaker 2 (00:09):
Leader fan Fan Radio Network and k f an dot Com.
Two minutes.
Speaker 1 (00:18):
And forty five seconds past the hour three o'clock Central
daylight time, we welcome you back to the UH. It's
a talker Tuesday edition of the Afternoon ardvark on a
pretty steamy although not quite as steamy as yesterday weekday
Afternoon here in twin cities, Minneapolis and Saint.
Speaker 2 (00:36):
Paul New Home to Lebron.
Speaker 1 (00:39):
I for some reason, I think Lebron James would be
an eastsider.
Speaker 2 (00:43):
I don't know why.
Speaker 1 (00:43):
I think a lot of people they assume Minneapolis, you know,
bright lights, et cetera. For some reason, I think, I
don't know. I'd say he's got.
Speaker 2 (00:55):
A blue collar sensibility, but I I think he might
be a Saint Paul guy.
Speaker 3 (01:00):
You think the kid from Akron, Yeah, might relate fits
a little bit more.
Speaker 2 (01:04):
Yea, with the Saint Paul's sensibilities.
Speaker 1 (01:06):
Akron is is to Cleveland what Saint Paul is to Minneapolis.
Speaker 2 (01:10):
You think, so, yeah, absolutely, Okay, I'll go with that.
I'm just saying, don't. I don't think you can rule
it out. I love to see it. Plus you can
get some really good deals.
Speaker 1 (01:19):
I mean, Lebron could buy an entire building in Saint
Paul for like eight bucks and turn it into his
own you know, Like, obviously his home base is always
going to be Los Angeles, right, but have a satellite
home the size of an entire building, basically, couldn't he?
Speaker 2 (01:36):
They can just hop on the light rail and get
to work.
Speaker 3 (01:38):
You wouldn't even have to drive, just live downtown Saint Paul,
right off the light rail.
Speaker 1 (01:42):
And rumor has it he attended more LA Kings games
than you think. He might be a sneaky professional hockey fan.
There's a lot of those, no question about it. Some
of them don't even want to admit it. I know
why there's so many closeted hockey fans.
Speaker 2 (01:57):
Alex one of them. I think he pretends to hate
the game.
Speaker 1 (02:00):
I think he does, and I think deep down everybody
knows he's got a little bit of hockey sensibility there.
Speaker 2 (02:05):
He's a grinder, wouldn't Johnny. Johnny would take.
Speaker 1 (02:09):
The description of being a grinder as a compliment, wouldn't he.
Speaker 2 (02:14):
I don't know, he's kind of holly. I know, well
he was. Oh you think he's you think he has
left that behind.
Speaker 3 (02:19):
I think he likes to think. I think he wants
to produce, kind of like Kessler. He wants to project
like he's this gritty, bootstraps kind of guy. But if
you describe him that way, I think he would like
to describe himself that way. But if you describe him
that way, like if we say Johnny's like a good
fourth line grinder for a hockey team, like dependable, reliable,
I think he would take that as a slight.
Speaker 2 (02:41):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (02:41):
I think he thinks he's more Quinnesota than whoever the
fourth liner?
Speaker 2 (02:45):
Well, do you have to be a do you have
to be a fourth liner to be a grinder? Kind of?
I think maybe people can correct me if I'm wrong.
I think I don't know why.
Speaker 1 (02:54):
I think you can be a talented grinder. Yeah, I'd
like to think that too, You know what I'm saying.
I'd like to think a lot of us here are
talented gard exactly.
Speaker 2 (03:01):
There you go. I mean I just say it's I
think it's a possibility. Guards he produces the show. My
name is Dan Barrero. For those not familiar with the program,
I before e except in Barrero, Am I right? Due point?
Speaker 1 (03:13):
I'm going to guess today I mangled the due point yesterday.
I'm gonna say the due point is down into the sixties.
Today it is sixty eight, so better. Yesterday was was
didn't you tell me? It's like seventy four, seventy seven,
seventy seven. Yeah, so that is better. It was Tim's
weather yesterday, it was. It was oppressive. It was extremely
oppressive all and yet no, we didn't really get any
(03:36):
boom bus here right there. Really there was a there
was a few passing clouds and it looked like it
would start threatening and then the clouds would break up.
And I don't really think we got not much. We
didn't get hammered with any storm, did we.
Speaker 2 (03:48):
I don't think so.
Speaker 3 (03:49):
Didn't Ian Leonard tell us yesterday that a lot of
them were up north and they just kind of died.
Speaker 2 (03:52):
Out over Lake Superior.
Speaker 3 (03:53):
That's correct. So up there there were tornado warnings there
and stuff there. Yeah, here, not so much down here,
not as much.
Speaker 4 (04:00):
Much.
Speaker 1 (04:00):
We'll be with you until six thirty this evening. It's
a talker Tuesday on a Tuesday, in this case Luigi
coming into studio again, which is great.
Speaker 2 (04:12):
Five oh two.
Speaker 1 (04:15):
Interestingly, that's about the I think five Central is when
NBA free agency officially begins. Is that right, sixth eastern.
I'm not mistaken five o'clock tonight, NBA free agency. Not
that I expect we're going to have any blockbuster. I mean,
and what everybody's going to be paying attention to early
is how quickly Lebron signed.
Speaker 2 (04:35):
That's true. That's true.
Speaker 1 (04:36):
And you've already seen the alleged clue that he's given
out right a video via was it Insta?
Speaker 2 (04:42):
I don't know what he's on. Maybe he's on TikTok,
He's on all of it.
Speaker 1 (04:46):
He's on all of it, and he was driving, and
it appeared the detectives put it together that he was
in Ohio driving. So they have assumed on that basis
that he's going to go back to the Cavaliers.
Speaker 2 (04:59):
For a third. That would be pretty funny.
Speaker 1 (05:02):
I think if I were him, I'd go to Golden State, Yeah,
or I'd come here.
Speaker 2 (05:07):
I agree now.
Speaker 1 (05:08):
He isn't going to come here, as much as I
think the fit would actually be tremendous because what everybody says,
what we what.
Speaker 2 (05:17):
Are we lacking right now? Now?
Speaker 1 (05:18):
He's not in the classic sense a long standing power forward.
Speaker 2 (05:23):
But guess what, as he gets older.
Speaker 1 (05:26):
He I think doesn't want want to move around quite
as much and likes the idea perhaps of playing inside
a little bit more, not all the time, because I.
Speaker 3 (05:33):
Don't think he wants to get hit. Does he shoot
well enough for the power forward that we need? Yes,
you think so?
Speaker 2 (05:38):
Yes?
Speaker 1 (05:39):
Okay, but he'd have to come here for what what's
the max we could pay him?
Speaker 2 (05:45):
Would it be? What did they pay you?
Speaker 1 (05:47):
Because we need Who's the swingman that we we acquired
along with LaMelo?
Speaker 2 (05:53):
His name escapes me.
Speaker 1 (05:54):
Yeah, my son just told me he has one of
his cards today.
Speaker 2 (05:56):
I can't even remember his name. We need his money.
Speaker 1 (05:58):
Yeah, right, So I don't know how we get are
are we still in line for for a mid level exception?
I'm not sure, but let me know via theratch on
Bridecavia text line where Lebron James would live in the
Twin Cities. Josh Green is who you're thinking, Josh Green.
Thank you East Sider, West Sider. This is fascinating. Yeah, yeah,
(06:20):
I mean, I you know, there's a lot of ways
to go with this. Unfortunately, it's all I guess you
could say, a dream. But we'll maybe we'll find out.
Maybe there'll be a big announcement right off the top.
Speaker 2 (06:34):
I'm not sure.
Speaker 1 (06:35):
The timing is interesting because his agent made it official
earlier today.
Speaker 3 (06:40):
He's out when we ain't going back to the Lakers.
All the graphics have been made, thank you. Correct, Luke
has done the goodbye.
Speaker 1 (06:46):
So now it's well, it's interesting that that announcement comes
on the day when free agency officially begins.
Speaker 2 (06:52):
Tampering has already begun. We know that, but you know
what I was reminded of today. This is It's fascinating.
Speaker 1 (07:01):
Now again, you could argue the punishment isn't that great,
but I would suggest that the punishment indicates that, as
someone who is against tampering back in the Joe Smith
days because of what it costs this team, I might
be pro tampering now because once upon a time the
New York Knickerbockers were penalized. They lost a second round
(07:24):
draft choice after being convicted of tampering on Jalen Brunson
before he left the Dallas Mavericks.
Speaker 2 (07:32):
That's right. You think the Knicks.
Speaker 1 (07:33):
Feel okay about the giving up the second round pick
for that is as the punishment today?
Speaker 2 (07:39):
Wow, I forgot about that.
Speaker 1 (07:41):
So I don't know if it was like minor tampering
or we're more missive in these days with Adam Silver,
David Stern. Yeah, like everything else. Yep, I don't know,
but I found that pretty interesting.
Speaker 2 (07:53):
I forgot about it. I did too.
Speaker 1 (07:56):
Yeah, I don't think in New York, I think they'd
say we'll take that trade off, and ours was for
Joe Smith.
Speaker 3 (08:01):
Again, that's what you say all the time. We always
get caught. Yeah, we always get hammered more than anybody
else does every sport and college amprov Yes, and it's
never for the ultimate payoff or even a payoff that's
worth it, a player that's worth it.
Speaker 1 (08:16):
That was the thing that always drove me in. Yes,
I understand Joe smith obsession. Joe Smith.
Speaker 2 (08:23):
I know, you know.
Speaker 1 (08:24):
I tried at Sam Mitchell about this because he used
to call him the Beast, and I said, Sam, that
makes him sound much better than he was the beast.
The beast because you think the beast, you're like Moses Malona,
the guy he gets, you know, might get on a
given night, twenty two rebounds, kill two opponents, a seven
(08:44):
block shots. That kind of thing, isn't that a beast.
When you think of the term beast.
Speaker 3 (08:47):
That's a beast. Joe Smith was a beast in college
at time. He was from Maryland. That's why he was
the number one.
Speaker 2 (08:52):
Pick, one overall pick.
Speaker 1 (08:53):
Yeah he was, although I don't even know looking back
on well, he certainly wasn't the best player of that draft.
I don't remember who else was in that draft, but
he was the number one pick. You're right because he
was a very very good college. I'm pretty sure that
was kg's draft. I'm pretty sure that was the KG draft.
So by definition, No. Six one two guy writes Eric
Sinek is a grinder and a bonifi top six player,
So there guards he you can be both a grinder.
(09:17):
He's got some I think you can have some grind
to you. Yeah, even if you are, you have some
some skill. I don't think. I mean a pure grinder
obviously is going to be a fourth liner or a
guy who maybe plays, you know, twelve minutes off the
bench and just gives you. I mean, I think of
who was the SlowMo. I think a SlowMo as a grinder.
(09:38):
And by the way, I love him. I love SloMo,
I do. But I've heard or read the suggestion that
he's among the guys that the Wolves ought to consider. Yeah,
come on, man, please let me not be Let's seeh
it's it was a sup We're going to play fast now.
Speaker 2 (09:56):
Yeah, there's there's no if.
Speaker 1 (09:58):
Let's put this way, if SlowMo ends up being the
closest we can get to a serviceable front court player,
it is going to be a gap year, right, and
it might be anyway. By the way, that's something you
and I need to discuss. We'll get into that a
little bit a little bit later.
Speaker 2 (10:15):
But a lot of good ideas coming in on where
Lebron might want to live. I mentioned Louis coming in.
Speaker 1 (10:21):
We've got done as Today we have two highly significant
and controversial Supreme Court rulings in which I think there's
a pretty good chance that I will annoy in one
case the Sharks and enraged the Jets in the other.
(10:42):
But we will get to those without necessarily legal expertise.
Speaker 2 (10:45):
Today. We're going to try to talk about.
Speaker 1 (10:47):
Those things without necessarily a Ron Rosenbaum kind of approach.
Speaker 2 (10:52):
But we'll see how it goes.
Speaker 1 (11:00):
Often, Lebron James does not strike me as a bath
house type guy. So Minneapolis is definitely out. He's thinking
more Saint Paul. Let me see, let me scroll down
here they're coming in again, fast and furious. I believe it,
very very fast and furious. Somebody else is saying, Lebron
is North Oaks.
Speaker 3 (11:20):
Yeah, I can see that absolutely next door to Charlie Swanson.
Speaker 2 (11:24):
How about this? This is again Alan.
Speaker 1 (11:26):
I finally got to scroll down and read the rest
of his text.
Speaker 2 (11:29):
Minneapolis is out.
Speaker 1 (11:30):
I see him finding a palatial estate in Sunfish Lake
near the Vikings Company.
Speaker 2 (11:35):
That's kind of where I was thinking too. That's the
sneaky And then.
Speaker 1 (11:39):
What you do is obviously then you also you rent
a penthouse condo downtown Minneapolis. You could, right, Yeah, you're
Lebron James.
Speaker 3 (11:48):
You can do both pretty easily, can't you? Definitely can
That not going to be a problem with it. It
should not be.
Speaker 2 (11:53):
Yeah, I'm with you on that.
Speaker 3 (11:55):
He might just live at the Four Seasons where they
typically stay the NBA teams. Now, yeah, they used to
stay across you know, it was the it was a
Hilton for a while. Uh what is it now?
Speaker 2 (12:06):
It was? Is it the Lofton?
Speaker 1 (12:08):
Still?
Speaker 3 (12:09):
I think it's a lot of the Cura. But now
since we got to four seasons. That's where all the
teams stay now so, but they have condos there, so
Lebron could get one.
Speaker 2 (12:16):
Day they have enough?
Speaker 1 (12:19):
What was it that uh day Day was complaining about
they don't have in Memphis hotels?
Speaker 2 (12:24):
Do they have enough? Was he? He was upset about. Yeah,
it was not just the hotel. It was whirlpools, was it?
Speaker 1 (12:31):
Yeah? Probably was a steam room. Yeah, maybe it was
a bath house.
Speaker 2 (12:35):
I don't know. Maybe that's one of the amenities. I'm
not exactly sure.
Speaker 1 (12:42):
What is the latest redfinner Zillow report of someone Abu Avenue?
Lebron could throw a hell of a garage sale howl?
Speaker 2 (12:49):
That's uh.
Speaker 1 (12:49):
John Lebron would live in a double wide on four
acres in Pine City.
Speaker 2 (12:54):
Wow, well you know, well, yeah, what's that about. I
don't know what. Maybe that's right for you. I don't know.
You'd love the pizza pub, Yeah, probably would, that's true.
Speaker 1 (13:06):
I asked this question the other day, did anybody ever
buy cats a state on It?
Speaker 2 (13:12):
Was it in a orno?
Speaker 1 (13:13):
It was on the lake, but I can't remember where
it was it was?
Speaker 2 (13:17):
I thought, so anybody buy it? I'm not sure. I mean,
that'd be a starter. Home for Lebron, but nevertheless it's
not his permanent place.
Speaker 1 (13:24):
I mean, he's going to be in La. What else
did I have on the menu that I wanted? Oh,
I'm going to start instituting a little more of Dan.
Speaker 2 (13:32):
Minnesota's on this day, not so much necessarily calendar of calamity.
I like it. So I'm gonna get to a couple
of those. We have a belated a way too long ago,
belated not done as we do have a done ass
oh to a dead guy that I've been meaning to
include into the conversation. And some World Cup. There's always
(13:52):
more World.
Speaker 1 (13:53):
Cup on the Bumper to Bumper program that continues to
be our pledge. And you can check this during a
break because this occurred to me as I was preparing.
Speaker 2 (14:03):
For the program. Has Olivia Miles thanked Caitlin Clark? Oh, yeah,
good one? Has she? I don't know what she has
played before? Help build it up?
Speaker 1 (14:14):
Didn't she build it to a place where Olivia Miles
gets to fly?
Speaker 2 (14:19):
What charter? Charter? You're right? Has she saved Caitlyn Clark? Yet?
I'm gonna have to look for it.
Speaker 3 (14:25):
But as I think I mentioned to you before, this
is today is my Brett Blakemore day because Serena is
going three. Serena just split sets, battle things on the
ropes had him match point down.
Speaker 2 (14:38):
She's going to trying anybody any good.
Speaker 3 (14:40):
No, the person she's playing has lost eleven straight tour
level matches. Was in the top thirty a year ago.
But it is completely cratered. So I'm like Brett Blakemore
on a Sunday morning right now with one eye up
and one eye on you.
Speaker 2 (14:51):
But I'll do my best bumper with Dan Burrero on
the fan from the one eight hundred ask Gary Traffic Center.
This three point it is sponsored by the News. What
(15:46):
did I What match that I watched last night? Worke up?
Was that Germany? When was Germany's loss? That was last night?
Wasn't it? Isn't that Germany? It was during our show.
That was during our show.
Speaker 1 (15:57):
Shootout, Yeah, shootout was during our show where you look like.
Speaker 2 (16:01):
Late in the shootout they got saved.
Speaker 1 (16:03):
They were looked dead in the water, but they survived
and then to go to the sudden death shootout.
Speaker 2 (16:10):
Correct, Yeah, they were down, they were down. They were down.
Speaker 3 (16:13):
I guess three two, two shots left exactly. And Paraguay
missed both and then so then they end up going
into this.
Speaker 1 (16:21):
Obviously Germany, they they are like, okay, this is this
is ours.
Speaker 2 (16:24):
We got to win this yestiny and they didn't. They
did not.
Speaker 1 (16:27):
As I recall it, were you watching Morocco in the Netherlands.
I was watching last night that was it, Morocco versus
the Netherlands, which was also ended up being went to
penalties too. I I will say this because I mean,
you'd think, like with hockey, the idea of penalty shots,
(16:48):
penalty kicks come on, man, especially when you're on the
grandest stage. But I don't know, I kind of I
found myself enjoying the drama yesterday during the day and
then at night two more than I thought it would,
in part because I assumed that nobody ever missed on
soccer penalty kicks and that's not true, right, So that
(17:12):
on the front end, I'm like.
Speaker 2 (17:13):
Well, it's kind of a farce. What's the point.
Speaker 1 (17:14):
I mean, it's gonna be one miss and that's but
it's actually, at least so far in the in the
two matches yesterday in which penalty kicks were used, I
thought there were there was more than that. There was
more drama to it then than I had expected. And
players not only miss, some of them miss Yeah, they
missed badly, terribly.
Speaker 2 (17:34):
Yeah. What shows you?
Speaker 3 (17:35):
I think the pressure that we can't even fathom to
have to be standing over that ball, trying to figure
out where the goalie's going, you know what, he knows that,
you know what where you want to go to try
to do all of that in four steps, it's pretty remarkable.
Speaker 1 (17:51):
Holland scores late. So Norway does knock off Ivory Coast?
Correct in the eighty sixth minute that was in Dallas,
that was earlier today.
Speaker 2 (18:00):
Correct, Yes, two to one? Two to one? Is our
game going on? Is there a match going on now?
Speaker 3 (18:04):
About to start in about a half an hour Sweden
in France a nice little matchup on Fox.
Speaker 2 (18:09):
We got We'll get to an interesting wrinkle regarding.
Speaker 1 (18:13):
Many people feel like the big favorite France to win
it a little bit later in the in the broadcast
bratch on Brian Cafey and text line is open at
six four six, eight six. There's I mentioned two. Oh,
I bet you I should actually first get.
Speaker 2 (18:35):
To some breaking news.
Speaker 1 (18:38):
Because I mentioned technically, well, this isn't a free agent move,
but this is a trade.
Speaker 2 (18:43):
Yeah, pretty big one, but a pretty big one. Free
agency apparently is official or can start post tampering at
five pm Central time. But I don't know that I saw.
Speaker 1 (18:56):
I mean, there were rumors about this, but I was skeptical.
But indeed the La Clippers are trading Tree Guy, or
they are, according to Sham's nearing a deal to send
Kawhi Leonard back to the Toronto Raptors for brandon Ingram
Grady Dick, two first round picks, one pick swap, and
(19:21):
two second rounders, sources tell ESPN Recall. With the Kawhi,
the Raptors won their only title. He is also a
two time NBA Finals MVP. I think this is close
to a no brainer if you're the Clippers.
Speaker 2 (19:43):
Because.
Speaker 1 (19:46):
Again, Kawhi played really well last year and stayed healthier.
But it's the old deal of how much tread's in
the tire? What's the punt? I mean, we all are
assuming the punishment is going to come down on the
Clippers more than it's going to come down on the player.
I think we can presume that given the Raptors are
(20:08):
making this deal for the salary cap circumvention, a secret
deal with the spire. And by the way, that report
still isn't out, much to the frustration of the current commission.
Speaker 2 (20:17):
I would imagine of the NBA who made that point
the other day. We've got to get this thing done.
Speaker 1 (20:21):
And is it possible that you know, we're just going
to avoid the Kahi contract.
Speaker 2 (20:27):
Chances are I'm not.
Speaker 1 (20:28):
Even sure the league was going to give the Clippers
an opportunity to extend him, right, I mean, who.
Speaker 2 (20:35):
Knows what the punishment's going to be.
Speaker 1 (20:36):
So I think from a Clippers standpoint, it's a good move,
even if you know you're not getting greatness back, You're
getting some interesting piece.
Speaker 2 (20:43):
You get a bunch of draft point picks back.
Speaker 1 (20:45):
But that's that is a very large deal, and it
does it change the landscape in the Eastern Conference a
little bit. Maybe that's Sam Mitchell Terrytoy by the way,
he still does a lot of raptors work.
Speaker 2 (20:57):
I should text him to see, yeah, what he thinks
of of that move.
Speaker 3 (21:00):
He was the coach of the Year when he was
at Toronto. That's right, That's exactly it.
Speaker 1 (21:05):
So more on ad a little bit later, And if
we get any lebron being spotted on the stone arch
in downtown Saint Paul will let you know that.
Speaker 4 (21:13):
Well.
Speaker 3 (21:14):
The other thing I got going is our guy Josh Brodden.
All he's doing now is just sending me Lake Minatanka
listings that he thinks Lebron might like. Hey, you know,
it's kind of our neighborhood. People always ask me, all
you live by the lake. I go no, I live
two miles and two million at least away from the lake.
But I'm familiar with the area, and so there's some
nice properties out there you can do well.
Speaker 1 (21:35):
Yeah, there's usually there's usually a few that you're not
going to go.
Speaker 2 (21:40):
I'm not sure if that's big enough. You know, if
you got that kind of doll, Lebron would do fine.
I think he would be fine. I don't know. Is
he a water guy. I don't know.
Speaker 3 (21:47):
I think he is because someone tweeted out a picture
of him on a boat somewhere today, not from today,
but yeah, I think he would be a good and
he likes to golf. Yeah, a lot of good golf
courses out west, but there's a lot of good golf.
Speaker 2 (21:59):
See.
Speaker 3 (21:59):
I'm thinking like still Water would be a good sneaky
spot for him, you know, a little quieter like North
Oaks obviously that east side. Yeah, that's sneaky good. You
hit the Saint Croix rather than a lake. I feel
like that would be a good spot for Bron Lebron.
Speaker 2 (22:15):
To Cleveland, World Cup, Bland, LaMelo, Trade, Grand Wolves, and five.
Speaker 1 (22:21):
So that he rhymed, you gotta say Cleveland different, Yeah, Cleveland, Yeah,
Lebron to Cleveland or black one.
Speaker 2 (22:30):
There you go Cleveland. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (22:31):
I needed him to emphasize the second soylable for me.
But you're exactly right, my bad. I apologize to two
and eight. Is that two and ai?
Speaker 2 (22:39):
Yeah?
Speaker 1 (22:39):
To a EU okay, Supreme Court massive decision involving the
President's attempt to curtail birthright citizenship, I'll read from the
Wall Street Journal update. The Supreme Court today struck down
the president's attempt to well, I just said it curtailed
birthright citizenship or rejection of his most AGGRESSI of crackdown
(23:01):
on illegal immigration. Decision rebuffs Trump's bid to upend the
deep rooted understanding that virtually everyone born on American soils
automatically US citizen. That understanding Chief Justice John Roberts wrote
was enshrined in the Constitution.
Speaker 2 (23:16):
In eighteen sixty eight.
Speaker 1 (23:18):
Citizenship then and now was the right to have rights
to freely participate in our political community. The framers of
the fourteenth Amendment extended that promise to every freeborn person
in this land. We keep that promise today. Six justices,
three Conservatives and three Libs ruled against Trump, though only
five did so on constitutional grounds. The course three most
conservative judges did indeed dissent. The case challenged if you
(23:41):
were calling executive order that Trump issued on the first
day of his second term, which he had declared and
declared that the future children born in the US would not
be considered citizens of their parents were living in the
country illegally or visiting the country on a temporary basis.
The executive order never indeed took effect.
Speaker 2 (24:03):
It is the timing of this is is interesting to me.
And one of the things that a Chief Justice Roberts
notes in his opinion is how the immigration debate hasn't
really changed all that. We think it's new, but it's
not really all that new.
Speaker 1 (24:23):
The argument that quote these people are too different to
join us end quote has failed socially, culture, economically, and
morally time and time again. Unfortunately, that's a lesson that
your guy Tom Emmer doesn't get or doesn't want to
get any longer, or doesn't care. He thinks that he's
(24:43):
mad as hell and he's not going to take it
any more. Some childish comments offensive for me, comments that
he made I think it was last week regarding the
Somali community. And that's always the basis of it. You
don't want to fit in, you know, a melting pot.
And the truth of the matter is, there is no
(25:04):
law that says you have to assimilate in a certain
amount of time or how far you have to assimilate,
whatever the case may be.
Speaker 2 (25:11):
And I can tell you it comes often, but it
takes time. I can talk about it in my own
family if my dad coming over from Spain, both grandfathers,
one from Argentina, one from Spain.
Speaker 1 (25:26):
For a long time, they held on even when they
came here, appreciating the opportunity. They held on to their
their culture. I grew up in a place called the
Spanish Society, the Spanish Castle is what we called it.
That was the nickname all kinds of social events, and
there wasn't not a mingling going on, quite frankly with
(25:46):
anybody outside the Spaniards.
Speaker 2 (25:49):
Eventually it got there, a very welcome ruling.
Speaker 1 (25:54):
I would put this under the classification of through the
tumultuous times in which we live. I mentioned Andy Leher
and I talked about this last time he was in
and I asked him that is that in the end
here to hold on to at least some of our norms.
Who have we counted on? It's been the courts at
varying levels. Now you can argue we need more of it.
(26:15):
You can argue there hasn't been enough of it, but
there has been a lot of stuff that this president
has attempted to do that has been reversed. And he's
not the only president that has had stuff reversed when
the executive one could argue, on the basis of our
separation of powers, attempts to test those limits.
Speaker 2 (26:34):
So I find this an outstanding outcome.
Speaker 1 (26:37):
I'm not going to pretend to analyze the legality out
well reasoned it is. Legally speaking, I will leave that
to others, perhaps on another day, with greater legal expertise.
But I find it heartening. I find it a fairly
large move. Has the president responded yet? Is this from today?
Speaker 3 (27:02):
Yes, this decision was quote too bad for our country.
Right and wrong is from the story and wrongly suggested
that Congress could easily address it with legislation.
Speaker 2 (27:14):
Hmm, this is from a Sociated Press story. That's that's light.
He My guess is the real fury will show up
about two in the morning later, don't you think, Yeah,
when he gets it, really gets the bile, really work.
You're a social post, don't you think that would be
the time?
Speaker 3 (27:33):
Usually is we get a lot of midnight runs or
early morning.
Speaker 2 (27:39):
Yeah?
Speaker 1 (27:39):
Interesting, Well, in any case, that's one there There have
actually were several. That's one of the ones I wanted
to mention early and UH, as expected, a number of
the a number of the sharks are not pleased with
my conclusion and my belief that this was an important
(28:00):
ruling reconfirming.
Speaker 2 (28:04):
A basic I think tenant.
Speaker 4 (28:07):
Of the way we have sort of grown up as
a nation, and that if that had that had been
successfully torn away by this president, I think it would
have been very damaging and very destructive.
Speaker 2 (28:22):
And the fact is, again in this case, there were
some you want to.
Speaker 1 (28:25):
Call them righty judges who are involved in UH for
various reasons in coming to this very conclusion.
Speaker 2 (28:32):
Now again we get into the game of in in
in the.
Speaker 1 (28:38):
Most at the purest level, it should be about whether
the law is being interpreted correctly. We've learned over the
many decades that even that can be more subjective than
folks in the legal profession. I want to think we
used to talk about that from time to time with
with Ron Rosenbaum. In any case, I thought that was
(29:01):
well played and encouraging.
Speaker 2 (29:04):
I think.
Speaker 1 (29:08):
The danger with an administration that is run the way
the president runs it is he does want to be
the king and he's going to continue to test his
limits in a way that not all that many have before.
And part of the reason is because he's been able
(29:29):
to get away with as much.
Speaker 2 (29:30):
As he has.
Speaker 1 (29:31):
He goes what do I have to lose at this point?
So I would say this is the perfect example of
why we have the separation that we do. And then
in this case it has worked as a very effective
check and balance. We could probably go to forty two. Right, Yes,
(29:51):
because you're wide open is a talker Tuesday on a Tuesday.
So again, as I mentioned, the sharks notw please with
me now there will be Here's where it gets interesting
on another ruling where.
Speaker 2 (30:07):
And this is. We've talked about this before, but.
Speaker 1 (30:14):
Among the lefties, among the jets out there, I guess
you could say there have been there has been, i
should say, disagreement on this issue. And that's always my
comeback to the hardcore progresses on this issue, the assumption
(30:37):
that if you're not on their side regarding this story
we're about to get to and this ruling, then you're
afraid of the whole transgender concept.
Speaker 2 (30:51):
You have a fear of it. There could be no
other explanation. You don't care.
Speaker 1 (30:57):
About those who are in that classification or have put
themselves in that classification. You're cruel, you're heartless, and you
don't even realize the damage you're doing. But the fact
of the matter is, and this shouldn't be the only
litmus test. There are a number of confirmed lefties in
(31:19):
the sports world, most notably would be Martina Navratilova, but
there are certainly others who said no, no, null on
this issue. I believe I am protecting a group of
people in this country, biological women, and that's been from
(31:42):
the start my annoyance about any of the conversations we've had.
Other people think they have a right to decide what
your motivation is and what you may be thinking on
a given issue. And we're talking about Supreme Court upholding
state restraintstions on transgender athletics. This decision the athletes, I
(32:04):
should say, this decision will let twenty seven states keep
bands on transgender women and girls playing for female sports teams.
This also, I think this is not such a broad
ruling that it in any way makes illegal transgender athletes
(32:26):
playing in those sports in states in which those are
the rules, like Minnesota, for example.
Speaker 2 (32:32):
This is not a.
Speaker 1 (32:33):
Ruling that I think now there are people clamoring for
we need a ruling, that we need a national standard.
But in this case, I think what it basically says
is if you're a state, if you're one of the
twenty seven states that has these bands in place, you
can keep them in place. I don't think it forces
other states that don't have these bands in place to
(32:54):
then put them in place. And let me get you
a couple more details on it. This is basically banning
transgender women and girls from playing on female sports teams.
Speaker 2 (33:10):
As the Wall Street Journal notes, a.
Speaker 1 (33:12):
Bitterly, bitterly fought issue that has become a political and
cultural crash point flashpoint. The court ruled against two young athletes,
one now in high school, the other finishing college, whose
sex was recorded as male at birth but do identify
as female. Brett Kavanaugh, writing for the court, Constitution does
(33:33):
not require the schools determine eligibility for women's and girls
sports based on gender identity rather than biological sex. And
as I mentioned, twenty seven states limit school sports for
women and girls to athletes whose biological sex is a female.
And by the way, for the record, it's basically that
(33:55):
is now the policy moving forward, the Olympic policy moving forward.
We talked about that. I think when it was confirmed
or maybe clarified.
Speaker 2 (34:03):
A little bit.
Speaker 1 (34:04):
I think there's a test involved now literally one test
that must be taken I think once in your life
to sort of different to distinguish, shall we say. And
now you could argue, well, at the Olympic level is
different because that's presumably athletic competition in those various.
Speaker 2 (34:23):
Sports at the at the highest level.
Speaker 1 (34:25):
N CIA has done the same thing along with the Olympics.
Speaker 2 (34:29):
It's frankly the.
Speaker 1 (34:33):
It's a if it matters to you, it's the majority
position in pretty much every poll of most Americans. But
it's become the classic flash point in that there are
some I guess i'd say some lefties, some jets who
(34:57):
under the classification of I can't give sus and it's
the enemy, are doubling and tripling down on the notion
that you are hurting people. You are putting individuals transgenders
in danger in some cases. And it's to me where
(35:18):
the argument that discussion goes off the rail because you
start using that.
Speaker 2 (35:23):
Language, it basically.
Speaker 1 (35:25):
Precludes you coming to any other conclusion than the one
that they prefer. The governor of the State of Minnesota
today creating, as far as I'm concerned, a straw man
argument the quote, I don't have the exact quote in
front of me, I heard it on audio today, basically
saying that this ruling allows some states to be crueler
(35:50):
and crueler to transgender individuals, while it allows us to
continue to be more and more compassionate with them. And
then there was also a throwaway line about how you
know why you know it's it's it's it's ridiculous that
(36:11):
this would become so important to people that you would
you would prevent them from participating on the bowling team,
for example, it's a for me, it's a disingenuous argument
because it makes it easier to dismiss the argument, Oh yeah,
you know some recreational bowling clean what's what? What are
(36:31):
we protecting there? Well, he knows, I think probably doesn't
care because again it's become a political flashpoint, so he
can't give on the issue. He can't give on the
issue that for some, even though the numbers are very
(36:51):
low at this point, it's about fairness and competition. And
that's where I think you can be someone who isn't transphobic.
Speaker 2 (37:04):
Want to do everything you can to let people be
who they.
Speaker 1 (37:07):
Want to be, and say, what about the possibility that
you're being cruel to individual participants female participants in this case,
in a sport in which they are keeping score, they
are We could say, well, if you're talking about high
school or you're talking about you know, oh, and what's
(37:29):
really it's I mean, come on, what's really at stake? Well,
we have competition that we if we keep score, it
matters to people, and we even this is how preposterous
has gotten. We have some individuals who actually with a
straight face, try to say there is no meaningful distinction
in performance between men and women, at which point I
(37:53):
know you don't want to be taken seriously on the subject,
or you've decided that you can't allow that argument because
you know you may lose the argument on that basis,
so you will pretend that there's no meaningful distinction there.
Speaker 2 (38:08):
I've said this a few months ago, and we talked
about it.
Speaker 1 (38:11):
If one competition, one in one sport, one time is
affected by this rule, I think there is a fairness
issue for biological girls or women. Invaulved, sorry, I do
(38:32):
and don't the rules. This is where there's this disconnect.
Don't the rules have been implemented at various levels. Does
do the same individuals think the people who run the
Olympics are transphobic or do you think it's possible they're
just more worried about the competition and the fact that
there are some distinctions there.
Speaker 2 (38:51):
I'm a little behind on a break.
Speaker 1 (38:52):
We'll take it and then I'll get to some texts
on this ruling as well as there were several others,
but these are the two big ones that are getting
a lot of attention today. It's a talker Tuesday. On
a Tuesday, Lunanni and Studio just past five you are
listening to Barrero. I'm doing difficulty finding the startubune dot
(39:41):
com story I'm looking for, but I will find it eventually.
On what I like, I said object to the most
regarding both these stories, but ruins, but especially the second
one is the language that is used that I think
is very deliberate and strategic, that almost prevents a reasoned
(40:07):
debate and discussion on the story relating to fairness in competition.
And I'll find an example in a minute of what
I'm talking about.
Speaker 2 (40:20):
This is from Bob is a lefty. I'm grateful for
your well reason argument for transgenders and sports. To me,
it should not be a left right issue. Chris writes
to me, there should be no federal, state or local
laws banning or allowing transgender sports participation. EA sports association
and governing body should be able to determine who is
eligible and who isn't.
Speaker 1 (40:42):
Well, I think, I mean the problem with that is
the obvious. I think in terms of competitions that bleed
over from one place, you know, one state to another.
As it stands this court ruling, in terms of what
each state does is each state is still on its own.
You could make the theoretical argument that having different rules
(41:07):
on something like this creates an element of confusion at
the very least, and perhaps unfairness of whatever side of
the issue that you might be on. Now there may
be a case coming in which it might be more global.
Speaker 2 (41:22):
I don't know. Let's see here, Dan.
Speaker 1 (41:30):
I don't normally agree with you in your political views,
but I really appreciate your stance on transathletes that should
be separated, and that they should be separated. Having a
daughter who plays competiti high school sports, I think it's
unfair she has to go up against a biological mail
or gets injured because of biological male who, for intensive purposes,
is going to be stronger.
Speaker 2 (41:43):
Injured my daughter.
Speaker 1 (41:45):
Now, do we have as many examples as some yes,
transphobic individuals who inject themselves as this debate believe about injury.
Probably not, because I think that argument runs the risk
of being oversold. However, I don't think it should be
out of bounds completely.
Speaker 2 (42:14):
I don't know that what what what.
Speaker 1 (42:16):
I'm hesitating because I don't I think that we're so
far on this story down the road that I'm not
sure there's ever going to come a unifying moment on
it now, what I will say, and I and you
and I have talked about this too. There was a time,
and we'd have to do some research on when this
(42:38):
period was where any discussion indicating a fairness part of
the equation was hardly ever said out loud under the
fear of you're done, it's over for you. You're trying, what.
Speaker 2 (42:53):
Do you have?
Speaker 1 (42:54):
What?
Speaker 2 (42:54):
Why do you care?
Speaker 1 (42:55):
Why are you threatened by individuals who want to make
these decisions or go these routes? And then what happened
is a couple of quote unquote left of center publications,
The Atlantic was one of them, started pushing back a
little bit and asking questions on these sorts of things.
And I think it had made it a little easier
(43:17):
for the public, which I think it sort of ducked
and hid a lot of time on this subject out
of fear for like I said, being if not canceled,
called out to a place where you're left feeling like
you're on an island of your own. But I don't
know if it ever I don't even know if it
ever gets to a better place because and you can
(43:39):
speak to this part of it too, I guess I
when we have in the name of I think protecting
the position. You have people testifying with a straight face saying,
we don't really know how much advantage males have in competition.
Then for those individuals in that camp, to me, they're
(44:01):
striking a they're a pose and a strategy that makes
it hard to take the position seriously. Does that make
any sense? No, it does, it does. But I think
the other thing that changed is there were more instances. Yes, yeah,
it's cropping up a little more often. Yeah, well, if
we had it in softball just this last summer, we
had it locally, there was obviously the one in the
(44:22):
Olympics a few years ago, and it just got harder
and harder to just say because there was also that
we're not talking about that many people, and we're still not,
by the way, We're still talking about a very small percentage,
Very absolutely true.
Speaker 2 (44:36):
And I think that's.
Speaker 1 (44:37):
Part of the issue too, is because there's not an
easy answer to.
Speaker 2 (44:41):
What what do compromise? Well, yeah, exactly what's the compromise?
Speaker 3 (44:46):
Because early on it was what if they did, what
if there's a separate division or this and that? Yeah,
well that's not necessarily practical because again we're talking about
a very small amount of people. So I think part
of the reason why people get tent pulled to their
bought so much because there hasn't been an easy middle
ground on an easy middle ground on well, where can
(45:06):
they play?
Speaker 1 (45:09):
And maybe they can't. I don't know that, but that
I think that's part of the part of the discussion.
Speaker 3 (45:12):
Maybe there isn't a place, maybe that maybe there isn't
right now, maybe there will be now.
Speaker 1 (45:16):
I know this is uncomfortable because again, as somebody who
you coached, you know, you coached kids before and you
know I've got one and anybody who does, it's you
want to encourage participation, especially at the younger ages, as
much as possible, right, I mean, that's just a given.
So it's not if you favor the position I'm favoring.
Speaker 2 (45:40):
I don't think you're reveling in.
Speaker 1 (45:43):
It because you understand it does have ramifications.
Speaker 2 (45:47):
But that's that's the irony here. Like I said, Martina, never.
Speaker 1 (45:51):
To leve will tell you I am a card carrying
lefty women's liver, full stop.
Speaker 2 (45:59):
Man in her case, right, that's it big time.
Speaker 1 (46:02):
And she's saying I am protect This is a Title
nine issue for me and I don't understand how now
Title nine is being used as no, no, that's why
you Title nine is why you can't prevent individuals, uh
a transgender who were born male who want to participate
(46:25):
in female sports. And and she's saying, yeah, this.
Speaker 2 (46:30):
Is rough, but that you're you're you are you are
denying a right.
Speaker 1 (46:34):
A fairness. The whole point of Title nine was opportunity
for everybody. But at that point it was biological girls
biological boys. That's basically what this ruling has taken place,
or what is what is said in effect, And that's the.
Speaker 2 (46:52):
Irony of it.
Speaker 1 (46:53):
She's not saying she's not exactly a hardcore writing in
this case, and she's sure as hell is not SI.
Speaker 2 (47:00):
Saying that she thinks these individuals that means they should
be mocked and ridiculed. But for her, it's a I
am protecting girls and women to give them the best
opportunity to compete against other biological girls and women. I
don't know if she's weigh in today on this subject,
(47:21):
but I know that she's she's done that before. I
think technically, by the way, what the Olympic.
Speaker 1 (47:30):
Charter now, well not charter, but the Olympic rules now
say is if you are born male and you identify
as a woman, you cannot participate in women's sports and
the Olympics. However, you can participate in men's sports. Sure, now,
a lot of people are gonna roll their eye and say, well,
(47:52):
how's that gonna work?
Speaker 2 (47:52):
And how's that?
Speaker 1 (47:53):
I mean, that's putting that person in a position where
he or she depending how you want to look as
gonna stand out right too much.
Speaker 2 (48:01):
But I believe when.
Speaker 1 (48:02):
I read earlier today I kind of went through some
of the Olympic stuff. I think technically that's what they say.
They say, no, you were not stopping it from participating, right,
that would makes sense, which would make some sense. And
I guess there are high school associations if they want
to it can make the same argument. Now that's going
to be uncomfortable for all the obvious reasons.
Speaker 2 (48:22):
So I don't know. And that's where the answer isn't easy.
Speaker 1 (48:25):
Because when you're talking about you know, grade school, you're
talking about junior high school, you're talking about adolescents.
Speaker 2 (48:32):
You want to encourage participation.
Speaker 1 (48:34):
You know, it's not like winning championship is everything, but
it matters. It's disingenuous to pretend the way the governor
did that. Oh you know, oh you're going to stop
somebody from participating with the bowling team.
Speaker 2 (48:47):
Come on, governor, You're not.
Speaker 1 (48:50):
To be taken seriously on this issue because you're changing
the argument.
Speaker 2 (48:54):
You are creating a straw man argument. At least have
the ability to argue where it counts regarding competition, and
he may have an answer, he.
Speaker 1 (49:07):
May say, I'm willing to give that up, whatever the case, but.
Speaker 2 (49:10):
At least don't just address it. Don't pretend that people
are talking about, well.
Speaker 1 (49:15):
They got this this, this bowling team, this bowling club team,
and they're not letting a biological girl who now identifies
as a guy.
Speaker 2 (49:28):
You know, I mean, come on, well, get, let's get Let's.
Speaker 1 (49:31):
At least have a serious discussion about what the debate
really should be about. And again, are there people in
the country still afraid of the whole identity issue?
Speaker 2 (49:43):
Yes, is that sad, one hundred percent.
Speaker 1 (49:49):
But the idea that those individuals exist exists doesn't mean
I have to see what I think is fairness.
Speaker 2 (49:56):
They may like it, but I'm not doing it for them.
Speaker 1 (49:59):
I'm doing it for the participants or what I think
might indeed be fair and as again in most polls,
I think most I think Americans have said literally by
minimum six of ten. Some polls it's been eight out
of ten. It just it feels like for many that's
the logical position. Our number two of Talker Tuesday, I
(50:21):
do have a done ass to get to that. I
don't know how I missed it. It's another sad story,
but not a particularly surprising story related to this administration.
And we'll get to some other stuff as well. Louis
in studio beginning about an hour from No.
Popular Podcasts
Betrayal Weekly
Betrayal Weekly is back for a new season. Every Thursday, Betrayal Weekly shares first-hand accounts of broken trust, shocking deceptions, and the trail of destruction they leave behind. Hosted by Andrea Gunning, this weekly ongoing series digs into real-life stories of betrayal and the aftermath. From stories of double lives to dark discoveries, these are cautionary tales and accounts of resilience against all odds. From the producers of the critically acclaimed Betrayal series, Betrayal Weekly drops new episodes every Thursday. If you would like to share your story, you can reach out to the Betrayal Team by emailing them at betrayalpod@gmail.com and follow us on Instagram at @betrayalpod and @glasspodcasts. Please join our Substack for additional exclusive content, curated book recommendations, and community discussions. Sign up FREE by clicking this link Beyond Betrayal Substack. Join our community dedicated to truth, resilience, and healing. Your voice matters! Be a part of our Betrayal journey on Substack.
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.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com