America's Criminologist 11 4 25 Guest Nick Giordano

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:05):
Col steals weight just as fate, shadow of secresy, Americans
gram anologist co.

Speaker 2 (00:22):
Sales of law, alasy, break and jagru.

Speaker 3 (00:35):
And here's America's criminologists, Doctor Kerry Myers.

Speaker 4 (00:41):
All right, all right, all right, welcome to America's Criminologist.
Happy election Day. By the way, I'm your host, doctor
Curry Myers, retired sheriff, applied criminologist, ethicist, and federalist. On
this election day edition, we explore the true weight of
our civic choices, how elections affect public safety, urban stability,
and the cultural soul of our nation. But first, hey,

(01:04):
do you want deeper insights on crime, culture and virtue
based justice. Visit my substack at doctor Currymeyers dot substack
dot com. It's the home of America's criminologists, weekly essays, analysts,
and unapologetically grounded takes on public safety and moral clarity.
My friends, today, as citizens cast their ballots, we must

(01:25):
ask what are the real world consequences of who we elect?
In cities like New York and Minneapolis in particular, today
we're witnessing what happens when leaders embrace ideologies divorced from
American constitutional values, radicalism, foreign allegiances and socialist frameworks that

(01:45):
foster lawlessness, social decay, and the loss of civil order.
Socialists and communist ideologies often emphasize structural inequality and state control,
leading to a redistribution of recent and systematic restructuring. While
such models may claim to pursue equity, the real world

(02:06):
application in urban governance, particularly in crime policy, reveals substantial pitfalls.
This is why New York City is probably most probably
going to elect a socialist mayor with enhanced executive authority.
It's a super mayor in New York City. Minneapolis may
very possibly do the same thing. Now, I'm not predicting.

(02:27):
I hope that's not true, but we must prepare for it.
There are ideological conflicts with public safety. Socialism re orients
itself and criminal justice policy from individual responsibilities systematic culpability.
Crime is reframed as a byproduct of economic inequality rather
than moral failure or poor formation. Consequently, policies shift towards decriminalization, decarceration,

(02:55):
and leniency, undermining both the terrence and moral clarity. Joining
me now, is Nick Giodano? Am I spelling that correctly?
Or my pronouncing that correctly? Jdano Jiodono Okay, professor of
political science and host of the PAS Report podcast. It's
a good one. I encourage you to do it. It's

(03:17):
a pasreport dot com. Nick works dot and dissect political
dysfunction with razor sharp clarity. Again. You can find him
on PSA report dot com or follow him on x
at PSA Report. Nick my friend, welcome to the show.

Speaker 5 (03:33):
Yeah, thank you, fattery doctr MEAs you.

Speaker 4 (03:35):
Bet you heard my riff. Did I go wrong anywhere?

Speaker 1 (03:38):
No?

Speaker 5 (03:38):
When we look at it, I mean, it's not an
experiment that we haven't witnessed before. We've seen all around
the world socialist experiments, and those socialist experiments usually fell,
and the usually turns and morphs into communism, which is
always a failure. The idea of democratic socialism has always
been a myth. You know, a lot of Democrats will

(03:59):
talk about Scandinavian nations or the Nordic nations, and they'll
talk about how wonderful it is. But those nations actually
rank higher on the capitalist scale than the United States does.
That's the interesting thing. We are a heavily regulated country,
and we've seen this shift amongst the population to gravitate
towards socialism, even though they don't know what it really means.

(04:21):
And the only thing I would disagree with is that
we're about to elect a socialist mayor here in New York.
I would say he's a communist. The reality is that
his policies are more inclined of the central planning system
than socialist policies are. And even call Marx argued socialism
is simply the first phase of communism. But when we're

(04:42):
talking about rent control, when we're talking about the New
York City government taking over the real estate market to
develop housing units for people to live in. When we
talk about government run grocery stores controlling the means of
production and who distributes the p here in New York City,
the reality is that's in line with communism. When we

(05:04):
talk about free transportation, well, who's going to run those
transportation systems? Of course, it's not going to be the
private sector. It's the government sector that does it. So
his policies, and he is open about it, He's actually
honest about it. That's the one thing I will give mom, Donnie.
But this reflects a major shift in the Democratic Party,

(05:25):
a party where the progressives have taken over. Whether it's
now the Democratic Socialists of America Party. It's no longer
the JFK party or the Clinton Party. They won't be
welcomed in that party today.

Speaker 4 (05:38):
How do you envision where public safety in particular is
going to be affected. Is there going to be an
impact on potentially what New York does if they elect
this person on the national policy? Is there some unattended
consequences or even perhaps intended consequences as a result of
this person being elected.

Speaker 5 (06:00):
Well, I think that it's interesting because this has become
a national mayor's race, and we rarely see that here
in the United States, where a local government race actually
ends up becoming national, But that's exactly what it's become.
You know, what is the pathway that New York City
is going to go down? Are they really going to
elect a communist to run the financial capital of the

(06:21):
United States of America. It's an interesting test case. And
when it comes to crime, I would actually argue, you
know a lot of we don't know what the turnout's
going to look like today. So this is while the
polls show that Mamdani is going to win, we don't
know if that's true because we are seeing a massively
higher turnout. So in the last four New York City

(06:43):
mayor races, only twenty three to twenty six at a
local population turned out to vote. Of the voter age
eligible population. In this election, I've seen estimates as high
as forty five percent turning out to vote. Well, if
we see that large of a turnout, which is still
athetic when you look at it, forty five percent of
the voting age population, it should be closer to eighty

(07:04):
percent in a healthy republic. But we don't know if
the larger than expected voter turnout is the pro Mamdani
people coming out to vote or the anti Mamdani. It's
a combination of both. But we don't know what is
going to be the higher turnout model, and that throws
us off. And given that it's a three person race

(07:26):
between Mamdani Andrew Cuomo and Curtis Sliwa, we don't know
how Cuomo and Sliwa are going to split the votes.
There's a lot of talk about Republicans supporting Cuomo simply
because they don't think Sliwa's going to win, and we
don't know how that's going to shape things. I would
argue that if we look at both Mamdani and Cuomo.

(07:46):
We will see crime increase on the Cuomo, we have
a proven track record. This was the guy that actually
championed bail reform when he was governor of New York State.
He was someone that called the twenty twenty riots and
the looting a righteous cause. He was someone that closed
down I believe it's sixteen prisons during his term as governorship,

(08:08):
not because those prisons weren't needed, but because of the
left wing idea of decriminalization. So we already have Cuomo's
track record where we see that his stance on crime
is very to the left, that a political spectrum, and
crime increased when he was governor. As far as Mount Donnie,
crime is going to only get worse. We know that
why well, because he has explicitly stated his disdain for

(08:33):
the NYPD for law enforcement. He believes that law enforcement
is simply a racist institution that should be abolished, that
we shouldn't have police officers responding to every single call,
every single domestic disturbance, and that nine one one operators
should be able to distinguish whether to send a social

(08:54):
worker to an incident or the police department to an incident.
He has notoriously attacked police time and time again. And
not only is he going to cut the budget of
the NYPD to fund some of his socialist and Marxist programs,
the truth of the matter is if he gets elected,
I'm hearing from people I know that a lot of

(09:16):
officers that are at retirement age are done. They're just
going to retire. They don't want to deal with it,
they don't want to bother it. They're going to go
enjoy their lives. And then the question becomes, well, how
are the recruiting class is going to be Because would
you want to join the New York City Police Department
if you have a mayor that openly despises you, that

(09:37):
openly makes your job one hundred times more difficult, and
so it's going to be difficult to attract quality candidates
to become police officers. So I think it's a double
edged short. If he gets elected, there's no doubt crime
will increase, but that's part of the socialist and communist way.
As crime increases, people get more and more desperate, and
they seek to give the government more power in stea

(10:00):
that crime. And when you seek to give government more
power to solve a problem, that it's essentially created. Well,
that's how communists gain more power and expand their influence.
And he's got a city council that's thoroughly on board
with him. I believe there are five Republicans in the
New York City Council out of forty one, so they're
severely outnumbered. So he'll be able to do whatever he wants.

Speaker 4 (10:24):
Yeah. The interesting part is for the law enforcement side
of it is when you have that kind of breakdown,
you're absolutely correct that you because we've already seen this
manifestation occur in liberal cities where people take early out.
They're going to take early retirement. Some are going to
separate early ten to fifteen years on senior patrol officers,

(10:44):
and the most important people in an organization are those
ones with ten fifteen years on that really have some
good field experience that can help mentor younger officers they're
going to leave, or they're going to just you know,
pay their dues to get the next five years so
they can get the heck out of there. Uh. And

(11:05):
then you know, it does affect recruiting and bandwidth coming in.
And then one of the things that you see in
these communists, which I agree with you, I was being
probably too nice in my in my initial riff. But
in these communists manifestos that that that go on and
it's written down, is that a lot of the jobs
in law enforcement then become patronage type appointments. So the

(11:28):
there's certainly going to be people that's going to go
work there because they want to earn one hundred thousand
a year, but they're not going to do anything because
they're all patronage appointments with the power of the badge,
and then they're going to go out and actually enforce
things that Mondami wants to have enforced. That probably is
going to be more cultural and then you could get

(11:50):
into potentially at what point does the uh the does
the communism communism obeyed and then go back to potentially
even Sharia law are the roots of the Islamic part
that he has in his in his life skill sets.
So there are some other things that you know, maybe

(12:13):
you're getting elected because you're adopting these socialistic, communistic theories,
but behind the closed doors there's this there's this linkage
to Sharia law and some other things that may very
well potentially come into play.

Speaker 5 (12:30):
Is that possibility well, I mean it certainly is to
a degree. I mean, first of all, when you talk
about patronage, the audience needs to understand that when you
start getting into the patronage positions, the big problem is
that they govern through ideology. You know, So if we're
talking about the NYPD, well, now you're going to see

(12:50):
individuals that infuse their ideology rather than actually believing in
the mission of law and order and protect and serve.
And when you are driven solely by ideology, we see
how dangerous that could become. As far as Mamdani goes,
there is the idea of the watermelon theory that has
existed for over two decades, where it's green on the

(13:11):
outside for radical Islam and then read on the inside
for communism. And it's an interesting dynamic because when we
look at Islamists and we look at the far left progressives,
socialist slash communists, they are different in a lot of ways.
Like you know, I always found them bizarre, the whole
queers for Powellstein thing that never made any sense to me.

(13:33):
And you know, but we see what's going on in
a place like the United Kingdom, right, we're seeing unrest,
We're seeing a clash of civilizations taking place. You have
a culture that's coming into that country that doesn't have
any respect or loyalty to the country it came to.

(13:53):
You see, the locals in that country are very worried
that their culture is being eliminated, it's being raised, it's
being down, it's being disrespected. And in the United Kingdom
it's like a powder keg. You look at London. You
know you have Mayo Cdcono over there and what he
has done where you've driven out the native populations into
the other areas and so you create your own enclave.

(14:16):
Will we see that same thing here? I have no
doubt that if Mandani does get elected, we are going
to see some radical legislation. The codes coming out of
the New York City Council one of the things that
concerns me. But at the same time, the Constitution is
the supreme law of the land, So that gives me comfort.

(14:37):
Is I have a feeling they're going to try and
regulate speech, what people post on social media. They're going
to make it similar to the United Kingdom, where if
you post something that's deemed it might incite others, well,
the government can then target you. Luckily, that will be
totally unconstitutional, will be thrown out in the Supreme Court,
but they will try to do things like that. New

(15:00):
York State, there's already been proposals statewide to eliminate single
family housing. And that's where we see the communism, right,
I mean, because you try and eliminate single family housing,
you're dictating that type of houses that could be built
and sold. Well, I like my property, I like my
individual house. I don't want to have to live amongst others.

(15:20):
And we see how entrenched these people want to get
in your life, determining what appliances you could use in
your home, how many carbon emissions can you possibly admit
in a single year. Who deserves to be more attaxed more?
I mean, you know Mandani's tax structure is based on discrimination.
He basically said, I want to tax the wealthy zip codes.

(15:43):
I want to tax what tax white people more than
others in our city. So basically a form of reparations,
backdoor reparations. But at what point does it then begin
to morph into the idea of sharia lorgue, which is
something that people should be concerned about. Let's face it.
I mean, it's anathema to the Constitution, and that's why

(16:07):
the Constitution is so important. There's no higher authority than
the Constitution of the United States here. But we have
seen efforts to try and slowly erode constitutional values throughout
the year where many people are just completely unaware of
what the Constitution stands for. And so will he start
building out enclaves and will they move to Sharia law?

(16:30):
I can't answer that question. I don't know what battle.
Is it going to be the communist wing or is
it going to be the Islamis wing. We don't know yet.
If it's Minneapolis, I think it's going to be the
Islamis wing where you have that huge Somali population about
to elect Fata as their mayor. But in New York City,
I'm not sure which way it's going to go.

Speaker 4 (16:52):
In these two cities in particular, mentioned Minneapolis in particular,
but these two cities, New York and Minneapolis, have had
Muslim community officers that are that are actually go into
the Muslim communities and represent the police department in some
of those cities. So it's it's a snap to be
able to make them sharia law enforcement officers at some

(17:15):
point down the road. And this brings me to the
question for you about multiculturalism. I mean, America has been
a place where people come to the United States to
become free, bringing their own culture with them, but they
adopt the American sense of values, sense of justice, sense
of laws, and righteousness, and we're not doing that. In

(17:39):
the last maybe decade or so, we're seeing multiculturalism take
over where the where the culture has become the centerpiece,
and we're no longer an American society. We are little
cliques of multiculturalism that exists in different pockets throughout the
United States.

Speaker 5 (17:58):
Well, that's a great point that you bring up before.
Of all, when it comes to diversity, America has been
diverse from the very beginning. Most people have no idea
of a person named Felipo Mazzi, who was an inspiration
for the Declaration of Independence, and Thomas Jeffson gave the
Italian credit for that. Two hundred years later Congress would
recognize him. But Thaddeus Kashusko, Polish, Ham Solomon, another Polock,

(18:20):
you had, Peter Salmon, Lambert Latham. So many people coming
to this country, and it speaks to our national motto
e pluribus unum edited many different people from many different
places forms one nation where the only country in the
world that's ever been able to make that successful. The
problem now is we've had about two to three decades

(18:42):
of people dismantling the concept of the melting pot, where
people from all over the world will come here, they'll
shed part of their culture, as you rightly stated, they'll
adopt the tenants of the American creed. They'll start adopting
parts of the American culture and American traditions in the
American idea identity, and basically we see e merging of

(19:02):
the two. Their native cultures and American culture merged together. Well,
the melting pot by the academia, by the intelligentsia, was
deemed as a racist concept, that the melting pot is
culturally insensitive. So it used to be that people that
came here had to capitulate to American culture, American values,

(19:23):
they had to learn the American way. Well, once academia
decided that the melting pot concept is racist, then it
seems like America had a bout down to all the
cultures coming and provide individual programs to all the cultures
coming that we had to be opening and welcoming and
that's never the case. If you don't have an assimilation process,

(19:46):
all you're going to do is create micro nations within
a major nation, and it's just going to be tribal.
There's going to be tension in tribal societies never work out.
Just look at Afghanistan, look at Libya, look at Syria.
They're plagued and marred by violence until a strong arm
dictator takes control and rules with an iron fist. But

(20:06):
that's exactly what's been pushed in our higher education system,
and every bad idea from higher education ultimately filters out
into the rest of society.

Speaker 4 (20:17):
Well, what's the I mean the one hundred thousand dollars
question here, it's even worth more than that's. What's the
potential answer to try to mitigate that issue.

Speaker 5 (20:28):
Well, the answer is not too difficult. It's the system
has to be reformed. We obviously have to stop illegal immigration. Obviously,
we are a sovereign nation that gets to determine who
can come into this country and who cannot. But we
also have to reform the legal immigration system. We have
to impoor people that provide value within our society, that
are going to be able to contribute and produce for society.

(20:51):
So one of our big problems is change migration. You know,
let's just say someone we need comes here, a computer
engineer that could really contribute to our society. Once they
gain their citizenship, well then they could start bringing over
their family. Well should the United States be importing a
seventy five year old male who, let's face it, at
seventy five, you're not going to be able to contribute

(21:11):
to our society. You're not going to be able to
produce for our society, and are you going to be
assimilated into the system. So the first part is we
got to reform the legal immigration system. But the second part,
the more important part, is we got to reform our
education system. The truth of the matter is most Americans
don't even know about their country. Most Americans have never
read the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution of the

(21:34):
United States. Most Americans have no idea how the concept
of federalism works and the separation between the federal and
state governments. And this is why every time something goes wrong,
people look to the federal government to solve the problem.
The truth of the matter is that we don't even
educate Americans on America. And if Americans don't have an

(21:54):
a love and appreciation for their own country that they're
living in. How can we expect those that are coming
here to have a love and appreciation? And it becomes
really dangerous because our public education system was built on
the idea that we are all these different peoples and
the education system has to link us together as Americans.
And so we're going to teach about the United States

(22:16):
and American values. Well we haven't done that for decades.
And instead of teaching about America and American values and
the greatness of America, students are actually taught the opposite.
They're taught about America being a horrible nation, that America
is responsible for all these different sins that America was
built on solely the idea of slavery and racism and evil. Well,

(22:38):
imagine you have a bunch of Americans that begin to
hate themselves and the culture they come from because that's
what they're being taught. But you also have all these
newcomers being taught that the new country that you arrived at,
this land of opportunity that you've been told about, this
idea of exceptionalism that has been preached around the world. Well,
you now get here and are told that the country

(23:00):
you came to is a horrible nation and you're only
going to face racism and discrimination, and you're going to
be kept down and the systems work against you. How
can we expect newcomers to have an appreciation for a
country they're basically taught to hate.

Speaker 4 (23:13):
Well, you're absolutely right, and one of the one of
the social contagions or phenomenons that is occurring as a
result is okophobia, which is that phobia that you basically
don't have a connection to your own country anymore, your
own culture, sometimes your own family at the micro level.
And so that goes back to formation not only in

(23:35):
the schools, and we're going to get into the schools
on the second half of this show, but it's also
formation at home.

Speaker 5 (23:42):
We have an answer it is, but before you get
to that, doctor Mai, I just want to bring up
one thing and tie it back to Mamdani. Here's a
guy whose family came to the United States and achieved
the American dream. They became ultra successful here in the
United States. They wouldn't have been able to do this
in Uganda or many other countries. His parents come over.

(24:03):
Mamdani lives a life of privilege, Zoran. He goes to
the finest schools. He is someone that has lived the
life of privilege and wealth. And what does he do
rather than go out there and preach about the American dream, like,
this is amazing my country. My parents came here as
immigrants and they worked hard and they made it. They
made the American dream possible and praise the United States,

(24:25):
what does he do well? He continues to bash it,
call it a country that's built on racism and evil
and slavery. And that's the thing that really frustrates me,
because you have people like Mamdani that could really tell
a great story about America and really bring home the
notion of America being the exceptional nation, but they constantly

(24:45):
want to denigrate America.

Speaker 4 (24:47):
What brings up a point is there, have you been
able to ever see any linkage towards any kind of
full time job for this cat?

Speaker 5 (24:54):
I mean no, he's a fraud, and he's a fraud.
He's someone that has live the life of privilege and
he's living in a rent control department at twenty three
twenty four hundred dollars a month for people that don't
know in New York city that is extraordinarily cheap, and
you're it's not even the great place that you get.
But here is someone that could afford to pay full

(25:14):
rent prices because his family has the money to do it.
And you could give that rent control department to a
single mother or a family that's just getting by on
the skin and the teeth. But he doesn't do that,
and it shows how fraudulent they are. Do as I say,
not as I do.

Speaker 4 (25:32):
What do you think voter apathy? What kind of impact
voter apathy has in New York City? You already mentioned
that turnout as extremely low in New York City. Why
what's happened there? Is it just because again multiculturalism, they're
not taught that the importance of voting. Of course, across
the nation we're seeing less people vote. Where's that voter

(25:52):
apathy coming from?

Speaker 5 (25:54):
I think it's a number of factors. Americans aren't engaged
in the system because many Americans don't know the system,
and so they don't get engaged. They don't go and vote,
they don't care this. I mean, if you go on
the streets today and ask how many individuals what is today?
I could guarantee you they'll be about forty percent that
have no idea an election is taking place at least

(26:15):
forty percent, and so we're willfully ignorant within our society.
Then you have the group that says, well, I'm in
New York City, my vote doesn't matter. I may be
a Republican, my voice isn't heard, and so there's no
point in me going out and voting. Well, if everyone
that thought that way actually went out and voted, you
can make a difference. If only twenty five to thirty

(26:39):
percent of the people actually turn out and vote in
local elections, well, if you could increase that number by
ten percent, you changed the entire dynamic of the elections
that are taking place. But I also think we've gotten lazy.
We have it too easy. And I compare to Afghanistan
when we overthrew the Taliban, you had the Taliban. The

(27:01):
Afghani people come out and drove sixty seventy eighty percent
of them were coming out to vote, even though they
faced warnings about possible seward bought side bombers, they could
be killed by voting, but they still turned out because
they never had that opportunity. In America, we've gotten too comfortable.
If it rains. We don't want to get wet. Oh,
we're too busy. We you know, I want to vote,

(27:22):
but I don't have time. And that's part of a problem.
We think liberty will always be there. We don't realize
how quickly liberty could disappear.

Speaker 4 (27:30):
Well, you're so so true. I've enjoyed this. Can you
come back for the second part?

Speaker 5 (27:35):
Absolutely?

Speaker 4 (27:36):
All very good. We'll be right back. We'll return when
we'll tackle the battleground of higher education and how truth, virtue,
and conservative thought are surviving on campus. Stay with us,
We'll be right back.

Speaker 6 (28:06):
Take KMET Radio with you everywhere you go by downloading
the new, updated, free iPhone, Android, phone and tablet remote
app found in the Apple App Store or Google Playstore.
Listen live to your favorite shows on all of your
remote devices. Information can be found on the KMET Radio
website at KMET fourteen ninety am dot com. That Weapon

(28:30):
Dress Again km e T fourteen ninety am dot com.
Download your free new KMET Remote app today. Go to
the Apple App Store or Google Playstore for your free
new KMET Radio Remote mobile app today.

Speaker 7 (28:52):
As you know, I've been talking about standing up for
our country, doing something. He's big box store state open
WELLO little Guy's quote, will our voices be heard? Does
voting with our dollars work? Patriotswitch dot com gives patriots
the power to walk away from the big box stores forever.
Stop supporting the enemies of freedom now. That's why patriotswitch

(29:14):
dot com was created for those who support America. Patriotswitch
dot com.

Speaker 5 (29:23):
Our records indicate that you've been lied to. Listen to
the Truth Constitution Radio with Douglas V. Gibbs Saturdays at
one pm on KMET.

Speaker 3 (29:37):
If you've been waiting to go solar, don't wait any longer.
Propose legislation ending the thirty percent federal tax credit could
pass this summer and go into effect by December thirty first.
With utility rates rising year after year and summer hikes
with no end in sight, now is the time to
walk in fixed energy costs for years to come. As
Guard Energy is a local, family owned company that serves

(29:58):
southern California since two two thousand and eight. With over
four thousand flawless installs and personalized service you can trust.
Call eight five five seven six zero Energy. That's eight
five five seven six zero three six three seven before
waiting costs you thirty percent more as guard energy, local, trusted, proven.

Speaker 8 (30:21):
Hi folks, Doctor Curry Myers here to let you know
that my new show, It's called America's Criminologist with doctor
Curry Myers every Tuesday at one pm between the Dave
Ramsey Show and the Kevin mccolla Show. Is a former
state trooper special agent share for a major county. I
will offer sharp insights into the pressing issue shaping American
society today. I'll have guests, news and my insights as

(30:42):
an applied criminologist throughout the one hour show. So criminals
and the progressive politicians that allow them to fester beware
because this show is directed at you. America's Criminologist every
Tuesday at one pm on km ET.

Speaker 4 (31:01):
Hey, my friends, this is doctor Curry Myers. Remember to
subscribe to the Saint Michaels Group dot substack dot com,
home of executive guidance for faith driven professionals, law enforcement leaders,
and the defenders of truth. We talk about the three
important pillars of society, which is faith, family, information. I
have weekly podcasts when it comes to that work and

(31:22):
feel free to join us on Saint Michael's group dot
substack dot Com. We're back with Nick Giodarno the PAS Report.
Let's pivot from politics to teaching and higher learning. What's
happening in our colleges is just as crucial as what's
happening at the polls. So Nick, what's it like being

(31:43):
a conservative professor in today's academic environment.

Speaker 5 (31:47):
It's fun. You get to torture so many people, especially
when you're surrounded by the lefties over in academia. And listen,
politics in academia do go hand in hand. But at
my college, the people largely respectful. We obviously don't disagree.
It's obviously overwhelming to the left of a political spectrum,

(32:08):
but there's actual respect there, which is always nice to have. However,
academia as a whole is thoroughly broken because it's no
longer based on intellectual growth academic rigor. Colleges have moved
far away from what college is supposed to be all about,
and that's learning and critical thinking. And the problem begins

(32:30):
in the K through twelve system. We have now created
a system where students are simply cycle through. Many of
them are just trained to be activists. It's not based
on knowledge, it's about based on making them believe a
political opinion. We see failure after failure, and the question
is why don't we see more outrage. I mean, let's

(32:51):
look at this logically. If I take local, state, and
federal spending in education, that's one point four trillion dollars
a year, by far and away more than any other country.
The second closest country is Germany at about three hundred
million dollars a year, and yet we rank twenty sixth
in the world when it comes to proficiency levels. When
it comes to the OECD Piser rankings. If we look

(33:14):
here in the United States, I mean, only less than
a third of students can read and write at grade level.
Twelfth grade textbooks have to be written at eighth grade
reading levels because they can't read at twelfth grade reading levels.
Only thirty six percent of graduating seniors can read, write,
or do mathematics at the college level. Over fifty percent

(33:34):
of incoming college freshmen will have to take at least
one remedial course for topics that they should administered in
high school. When we look at civics, only twenty two
percent of students demonstrate a a proficiency in civics. Only
thirteen percent demonstrate proficiency in American history. I mean, the

(33:55):
numbers are dire. What other industry is there where you
would spend one point four trillion dollars a year and
say that these results are acceptable. That they're not. And
the numbers are actually misleading because they are far worse
than what's being reported out there. In the nineteen nineties,
the average GPA was about two point seven. Today the

(34:17):
average GPA is three point three. If students are less
proficient today, while why are GPAs climbing up? Why is
grade point averages increasing? And it's because we have redefined
what proficiency means. We have dropped standards. The standards have
hit the floor. There is no standards anymore. A lot

(34:40):
of schools built in what's called equitable grading systems, where
if a student doesn't hand in an assignment, you can't
give them a zero because they didn't do the assignment,
you have to give them a fifty. Well, why are
they getting half credit for putting in zero effort? And
it's stupid things like that that have allowed the education
system to creater on it itself. In my state of

(35:01):
New York, students performed twice below the national average when
it came to proficiency levels. And so the New York
State Board of Regions redefined what proficiency means so that
more students would be deemed proficient. And they said it
was to reflect the new normal. So the people in
tragedy education system don't have faith that students can actually learn.

(35:23):
They think students are imbeciles, and so they're going to
lower the standards, as opposed to the Pygmalion effect, where
you raise standards and students will rise up to achieve
those new standards.

Speaker 4 (35:34):
It seems like, for instance, probably you and I were
in college. I'm older than you, but when you and
I were in college, it seemed like the student makeup
was the students that wanted to go and wanted to learn,
and then the other side were people who, I've got
to go to college, I'm not sure what I want
to do. I might or might not go to class.

(35:56):
I'm probably going to concentrate on drinking beer and chasing
the opposite sex or whatever it may be. That seemed
to be kind of the you know, the the litmus
test back back then. We still have those those two today.
But the interesting, the bigger part is we have a
huge number of people who are illiterate that come to college,

(36:21):
especially through the use of sports that's going on where
people get very good scholarships and end up going to
college and they they really can't even speak the English language.
They have learning skilled problems. Sometimes they don't go to
class and still get to your to your point that
they get graded on a certain way. And then the

(36:42):
the other half that is out there are coming because
the they have some ideological thing that they want to
foster when they're when they're coming on to campus. And
of course it depends on the colleges that you go to.
And I think today we're seeing even this more separation
in so society. Just like we talked about multiculturalism. It's

(37:03):
almost like we have these hot pockets of different worlds
of academia. For instance, I teach it at a Catholic
college and we're focused on faith and formation and Catholic theology.
It's interwoven into our curriculum, and the students there are
potentially very well mannered and in their standards and things

(37:27):
like that. And there's people from all over the country
who are sending their kids to this school because they
want to be grooted in that, grounded in that and
then you have others where they, you know, place especially
on the Ivy some of the Ivy League schools, where
they're sending them to these elite colleges and the grounding

(37:48):
is totally different. They're not even seen, they're not even
able to understand what the possibility of what good formation
should be. And of course a lot of this starts
home in the home where they're not taught some of
these important Sibby lessons. We're not even teaching children by
you know, this kind of goes back. I don't want

(38:08):
to go on too much of a rant here, but
it goes back to fatherlessness in America. Fathers are not
teaching their children how to behave. They're not teaching them
right or wrong. They're not teaching them how to treat
the opposite sex. These are the things that are not
being done because we have fatherlessness in America. Is all
of those things when it comes to faith and family

(38:29):
and formation affecting kids as they're coming into school. And
why are so many professors is it? Because the second
part of this question is do many of them are
they attracted to the world of academia because it's really
not In many ways, it's not based on meritocracy.

Speaker 5 (38:54):
Well, I'll take the second part of the question first.
I think that one of the biggest problems in act
Arda has been the faculty and the changing of the
guard of the faculty. And what I mean by that
is when I went to college, I had fall left professors.
I mean, some of them were Marxists, some of them
were Communists, but they loved education. They respected education. They

(39:15):
had an appreciation for education and debate and dialogue in
the classroom. Like my Communist professors loved me because I
would always challenge them, and so they respected the conversation,
they respected what learning was all about. Those professors retired out,
you know, they got older. And so going back to
the earlier point where you talk about people just going

(39:35):
to college just because they're told to go to college,
or going into tacademia because it's a good career and whatnot, Well,
there's a lot of them that were trained to be ideologues.
They weren't trained to be educators. They went to college,
they may have majored in sociology or agenda studies or
something like that, and the only job that available to

(39:56):
them when they graduated was going back into higher education. It's,
you know, basically the self fulfilling loop that occurs, and
they don't have yeah, exactly, and they don't have the
basis in education that a previous generation did. Like my
professors were confident in the material that they taught. Well,
because standards have dropped, a lot of students graduate, they

(40:19):
get these education degrees, but they're not trained in the
subject material of what they're teaching. Right, because we shifted
what it takes to become a teacher. It used to
be that you had to have a degree in history. Well,
now you need to have a history education degree. And
so we're going to cut out a lot of history courses.
So you can take these education courses and you're not

(40:42):
going to be deeply rooted in history to be able
to be confident in what you're teaching. And if you
don't know something, what happens is they replace it with ideology.
And that's what's happened with faculty. They become very ideological,
and then it becomes the litmus test do you adhere
to why our ideology? I mean, if you look at sociology,
I think the number is the ratio of liberal professors

(41:04):
to conservative professors is sixty five to zero. If you
look at anthropology, it's about forty eight to zero. You
could just go down the list. Political science isn't that bad.
It's only thirteen liberals for every one conservative professor. I mean,
we see how it's become so ideological. So that's the aspect,

(41:25):
that's the framework we're now working in, is the ideology
of it? And what do many of them do? Not all?
And there are more college professors that are conservative than
people could imagine out there. You know that there are
a lot of us that do exist. We just don't
have the loudest voices. But there are a lot of
fall life professors that not only will they push this ideology,

(41:49):
what do they do? Will they attack faith? They attack
the family. They say, destroy the patriarchy, that you don't
need the family. The community can raise the children, which
means the government raising the children, and so they promote
unhealthy societal habits. We know that family is an intact
family unit makes communities better, It makes communities stronger. We

(42:12):
know that someone and a child that comes from a
family that's intact, we know they're much less likely to
ever engage in criminal activity in their life. And the
numbers are staggering. I believe it's something like seventy percent
less likely to ever commit a crime in their life.
We know faith gives us purpose in life. We have

(42:32):
a mental health crisis right now amongst youth. Right the
majority of those between the ages of sixteen to twenty
nine years old suffer from depression or anxiety, a combination
of both, and in a lot of cases it's severe.
Why because a lot of them don't have purpose in life.
They've been taught, they've been taught this illusion that materialism

(42:53):
stuff is what's going to make them happy. Well, now
they have all this stuff in the world and they're
not happy, and they don't have anything there. So when
you look at it, it's the attack on faith that
came from the higher education institutions, the attacks on family,
the activist ideology that's been pushed on the student body

(43:13):
that has led to this transformation of American society. And
it is detrimental to our society. Is zero doubt about that.

Speaker 4 (43:21):
And there's a lot of think tanks now and what
used to be legitimate organizations that did research that now
have gone woke and have gone left. In fact, a
lot of the I write policy papers quite a bit
on criminal justice issues, and very seldom do you ever
see somebody contact me to say we want to go

(43:43):
further with that. Is there a way that we can
do a grant or something because it's rooted in conservatism,
and it's rooted on a different aspect. And yet if
I was deciding to write on the impact of transgender
crickets on society, I'd get a five hundred thousand dollars
grant from, you know, from an organization. So it seems

(44:05):
like the funding, the funding in particular of a lot
of not for profits that give grant money out or
actually further trying to monopolize liberalism or wokeism in academia
as well, just through the impact of money.

Speaker 5 (44:25):
Well absolutely, I mean, first of all, if you look
at the scholarly journals, if you are a conservative, it's
very difficult to get published in a lot of scholarly
journals simply because of ideological points of view. And sadly,
we've seen this filter out beyond the social sciences. It's
not just happening in social sciences. We're now seeing it
in the hard sciences, the natural sciences. You know, if

(44:46):
you look at organizations like the American Medical Association or
the American Pediatric Association, right, like, the American Pediatric Association
is there for kids. Yet during the coronavirus they sat
there and said, no, we need to isolate kids, we
need to put masks on kids. And we knew this

(45:07):
wasn't healthy, We knew this was going to have consequences.
Yet these organizations they were pushing an ideological doctrine and
they tried to force it on others. So, yes, academia
has been completely hijacked. But it's not just the hijacking
of academia. It's also the dropping of standards. At the
same time, it's also the failed curriculums. You know, when

(45:30):
we moved to this common core idea, well, what did
we do? We changed it where all right, we're going
to put less value on history, government and civics and
geography to spend more time on mathematics, on reading. Well,
that hasn't really worked that way. And we also sold
everyone admit that the only way to be successful in

(45:52):
life is to attend the college. And so you had
all these people going to college that let's be honest here,
there's many of them that have no business in college. Okay,
many of them, which would be much better served learning
a trade or starting a business, or taking a civil
service test and going to work for government. Yet they've

(46:13):
been sold the bill of goods, spend all this money,
tens of thousands of dollars, hundreds of thousands of dollars,
because that's the only way you could achieve success. And
then they offered these dumb degrees where you have no
real hope of getting a job, and students fell for
the bill of goods, and these colleges should be held
liable for them.

Speaker 4 (46:33):
And what happened to the structure of society where a
degree could go back to potentially job opportunities. It used
to be that they would study things and colleges would
teach out something if it, you know, if it wasn't
of any real value. Well, liberal arts agree program and
there wasn't a value, they would go, Okay, we tried that,

(46:55):
it's time to teach it out. But they don't teach
out anything anymore. They just doubled down on it, like.

Speaker 5 (47:00):
Well, here's the amazing thing. So when we look at
if you're going for an engineering degree, you're going into engineering.
If you go for medical, you're going into the medical field.
If you go to become a lawyer, well, you go
to law school, you're probably going to become a lawyer
or a politician. But when we look at it, a
lot of people actually used to graduate with liberal arts
degrees and they used to be able to find a

(47:22):
job very easily. Why well, because if you were able
to go through a college education with a robust curriculum,
it showed your dedication and your commitment, something that companies like.
You don't need to know every little detail about how
a company works, They could train you for that. It's
more about the commitment, the understanding, the ability to solve problems,

(47:46):
the ability to think critically. And so you used to
be able to graduate with a liberal arts degree, and
you used to be able to find a job and
lead to a fulfilling Korea. It's become more difficult. The
reason it's become more difficult is because the students that
are graduating are not don't have the values that the
previous generation does. They don't have the ability to think

(48:08):
critically that the previous generation does. As a matter of fact,
the Business survey came out amongst the business leaders and
you look at over one hundred major companies did away
with four year degree requirements for a lot of their
positions within their companies because the businesses are saying, well,
if they're not going to be coming in with critical

(48:29):
thinking skills or anything like that, we might as well
just take them right out of high school and mold
them any which way we see fit, rather than put
it let them go through college. They get despoiled entitled
brad attitude when they go to college, and then they
take it into the workplace and the workplace becomes toxic.
So you have a lot of small businesses that say
that the new generation is very difficult to work with.

(48:53):
They have to bring in We spend over a billion
dollars a year. Companies spend over a billion dollars a
year bringing in remediated writer trainers to train new employees
how to write. They shouldn't have to spend that money. Yeah,
that should just come naturally. And so that's why it's
much more difficult today graduating with a liberal laws degree
to find a job because it's not telling the employer

(49:15):
that you accomplished anything. You will simply cycle through the system.

Speaker 4 (49:19):
And in many places they've taken away literature in the
being able to mandate to be able to go back
and look at great literature, the great books for instance,
that we're out there. I tell you every time I
to this day, every time when I spend time reading
and writing in detail, I feel like I grow as

(49:40):
a person because I'm spending time researching and reading something
and I'm also writing about it, and it helps expand
the mind greatly. And those are the things that we're
missing in college today, as we don't sit down and
spend time to help develop the mind further and discern
because when you read the great books, it can help

(50:04):
you discern things better because in many ways, discernment is
woven into those those great paragraphs that have been written.
And we don't have that anymore because great books are now,
you know, deemed as being either you know, too conservative
or they're too religious or whatever it may be. So
they just throw them out. The Western Yeah, too western

(50:26):
in philosophy. So we're almost banning you know, we're in
the Land of the Free. Is banning books?

Speaker 5 (50:33):
Well, there's a few things with that that's important. So
if you go back forty years, the average American spent
forty eight minutes a day actually reading, and I'm talking
about reading a hard book, you know, with actual words
and paper and you could feel it, and if it's
a newspaper, your things get black and we actually read.
What's happened, though, is reading is down to about six

(50:55):
to eight minutes per day, and unfortunately, I've seen it first.
The writing abilities of students have collapsed. They don't know
how to formulate cohesive thoughts, they don't know good sentence structure,
they don't know how to put together an essay. And
a lot of it has to do not because they
weren't taught, because they never read. They're not being forced
to read books. When you're reading, you're gaining critical thinking skills,

(51:19):
you're learning how to write, you're learning how to formulate
a grammatically correct sentence when you go to write it,
and you learn these things. You're learning about citations, all
these important things. Well, if they're not reading, they're not
learning those things. It's not being reinforced and we're not
absorbing information like we used to. And part of it
is not actually academia is full. A big part of

(51:40):
it has to do with the technologies that have really
revolutionized Listen, we can't govern that students don't read things
on electronic devices and they pick up an actual hard book.
A lot of students will read on their phones. Well,
we have every study showing that you're not actually reading,
you're just perusing that article. If you printed out that
article and read it, it will take you a lot

(52:01):
longer to read. So you have that aspect. When they
are sitting down reading, they have the phones right next
to them. Every beep, every buzz that distracts them. They're
not thinking about the words on the page. They're thinking
about what's going on in that virtual world. Who just
sent a text message, who sent the snap, who'd posted
on social media? And so they're just looking at words

(52:21):
on the page. They're not absorbing anything. But that's something
academia can fix. We could fix curriculums, we could fix
bias teachers, we could fix standards, but we can't fix
good parenting. We can't fix making sure parents sit with
their kids to do their homework, to help them and
educate them. We can't legislate students putting away their phone

(52:45):
when they're home doing their school work because they should
be focusing on their school work. So you have a
very difficult road ahead of how these technologies are changing
everything and now we get hit with AI. Where AI
could be really resourceful, right, I mean, you know my
class political science, there are pieces of legislation out of
two thousand pages. No students going to read that, and

(53:08):
even if they did read it, they wouldn't understand the
damn word it's saying. It's referencing other laws, previous laws.
It uses jargon that's more law speak than it is
in normal human being talk. So AI could be great
where it could synthesize that information and summarize it. But
what students are doing today is they're outsourcing their education

(53:29):
to the AI models. So it's making it even more difficult.

Speaker 4 (53:32):
Yeah, it needs to be treated as a research assistant,
and you have to tell it exactly what you're looking for,
what you do, or it's going to go left if
you don't first and foremost. But we're not using it correct.
I mean, most people are just saying, write write a
paper for me on this topic, and then they sit
back and let it. You're right then, and they won't

(53:53):
even read it. They won't even know they didn't turn
it in. And of course, as part of our responsibility
is academicians is to look at it and then be
able to see whether or not there's telltale signs of
that being gone on. But I'd like to have you back.
We can talk about that forever. Nick. How can we
follow your work?

Speaker 5 (54:10):
Everyone go to pasreport dot com, may follow me on
social media at PAS report, and the PAS Report is
available on every single podcast platform. I encourage everyone to
check it out out well.

Speaker 4 (54:22):
Thisten do it to a rockstar, my friends, please follow
his work. Nick, What a great job you did coming
on so I appreciate it very much. That's it Today's
for Election Day edition of America's Criminologists. Remember elections are
not just about politics. It's about the future of our country,
especially public safety, virtue, civilized continuity. Again, thank you Nick

(54:43):
for joining us so you can follow his work on
pasreport dot com. Until next time, Stay vigilant, stay virtuous,
and always keep your eyes on our truth. And Hey,
tonight I'm guest hosting. I'm setting in for for Loudesmond
on the Loudesmond and Company Show. My guest is retired
FBI special agent John Nan. See you later.

Speaker 1 (55:07):
Col Steal shoots the Camel's wage shots. Just touch the
man as a fage a man because shadows.

Speaker 2 (55:15):
A secret light.

Speaker 1 (55:16):
Doctor curry Las cuts through the scott amer and a
square anologist calling to.

Speaker 2 (55:26):
Sells of the law. In the atmosphere, cantles and cries,
breaking the change through fun to start through the fame.