Dems Hit Historic Low in Popularity

How did this happen?  Is it because of all these reasons ...?

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Scott Vorgiez, as the philosopher Calvin Brotis once said, better
known as Snoop Dogg, follow me, follow me, follow me,
follow me, but don't lose your grip. The umbrella on
the story is the Wall Street Journal says that the
greater share of voters they pulled voters in the upcoming midterm,

(00:24):
those who are likely to vote, and they say, what
do you think about the Republican Party? What do you
think of the Democrat Party? What do you think of
President Trump? And they had broken down in a number
of different issues. The punchline on all of this is,
at the at any point over the last three and
a half decades that they've been pulling this, the unfavorable

(00:48):
view of the Democratic Party has never been higher. Those
who say that they view the Democratic Party unfavorably is
at its highest level in the thirty five years the
Wall Street Journal has been asking these questions. Sixty three
percent say they have an unfavorable view of the Democrat Party. Now,

(01:12):
if we say that it's approximately fifty to fifty across
the country, obviously there are not going to be a
lot of Republicans, though they will be some. We have
a lot of them in the unicameral alleged Republicans who say, oh,
I've got a great I view them very favorably, and
there might be different reasons for doing so. I could

(01:34):
certainly see some nuance there where someone would, you know,
for both sarcastic and legitimate reasons. I could see were
someone who identifies as a Republican would have a favorable
view of the Democratic Party. But this is the highest
number that anyone's ever had the Wall Street Journal on
their polling, has ever had for those who say they

(01:57):
have an unfavorable view of the Democracredit Party.

Speaker 2 (02:01):
Now why might this be? Now?

Speaker 1 (02:07):
They didn't explicitly say it in this conversation about what
are we going to name this new elementary school in
this is the papillion Lavista school district. Now, again, there's
nothing that's explicitly said here. I don't want anyone to
come out and say, oh, man, that guy in the radio,

(02:28):
that blowhard on KFAB, he was whipping you guys to shreds.
When you're talking to members of the Papillion Leavista school
Board or they're superintendent. No one explicitly said anything negative.
But the idea that there was plenty of shrouding and
implication in the story I find very telling and very funny.

(02:53):
Here's the story. First of all, they needed a new
elementary school. This is going to be in the area
of Actually it already is in the area of Lincoln
Road and ninety sixth Street. I think when I was
in high school a billion years ago at Ralston, if
you went somewhere around ninety sixth the Lincoln Road were

(03:17):
you were getting stuck in the mud. In fact, that
might be in the vicinity of where we actually got
stuck in the mud, got my truck stuck in the
mud with a couple other people in the car. I'll
never forget the image of my friend Tony. He's like,
all right, I'm gonna get behind the truck and push you.

Speaker 2 (03:36):
Just floor it.

Speaker 1 (03:37):
When I push, We're gonna get you out. Now we
got out, but I'll look. I looked in the rear
view mirror and saw the illumination in my brake lights
of Tony just getting frosted with mud. He probably still
has mud in his nostrils and I mean all over.

(03:58):
He got absolutely frosted like a cake. But we got
out of the mud. That was probably in the area
of Lincoln in ninety six, but now the thriving area
of Papillion I do miss those backroads. So they have
a new elementary school there. They'd been tentatively calling it

(04:20):
Granite Creek Elementary because Granite Creek is nearby. Is that
there's probably an actual little creek that they call Granite Creek.
It's not exactly anything that people are like, let's go
down to Granite Creek and have a picnic, but there's
a neighborhood there that has that name. So they tentatively
called it Granite Elementary School because it's near the Granite Creek.

(04:43):
Granite Creek Elementary and they said, well, we don't know
about that, because we don't know that the name Granite
has as much significance to the community. So they settled
on a new name, and the name will be Lincoln
View Elementary School. They talked about calling it Lincoln Elementary,

(05:06):
but they said that could be confusing because there are
other Lincoln Elementaries in the state, Like in the community
of Lincoln, I imagine there's probably some, and maybe across
the state there are other ones. They said, we don't
want any confusion with other Lincoln elementaries. First of all,

(05:26):
what confusion? What what the what confusion could there be
if the idea is is that people in the area
of the school say, Okay, we start school here in
a few weeks, you'll be taking your kid to Lincoln Elementary.
Someone goes on their phone and says, this is the
new school. I don't know where this is. And they

(05:47):
go then the GPS and they type in Lincoln Elementary
and it says, yeah, your kid's school, Lincoln Elementary is.
Here's a lot of options, and they're looking going which
one is it? Is it but the one zero point
three miles from my house or is it the one
hundreds of miles away in Bruele, Nebraska, Probably the one
in Brule. And they take their kid out there and

(06:09):
they drop the kid off and they drive home. This
is a long way to drive my kid to school.
It is like five six hours. This is ridiculous. Out
here near Big Springs.

Speaker 3 (06:19):
Lovely it's lovely scenery though, Oh.

Speaker 2 (06:21):
Yeah, beautiful country out there. I've been out there.

Speaker 1 (06:24):
And the idea will there'd be confusion with other Lincoln Elementaries.
Probably not, not for the people who need to know
where to drop their kid off. They'll probably figure it out.
But the idea here is that, well, we don't typically
name our school buildings after individuals, but the name Lincoln

(06:49):
View Elementary has an implied connection. According to the story
here from Omaha World Herald, there's an applied connection to
President Abraham Lincoln.

Speaker 3 (07:03):
Wait, go back to the first thing. You said that
they don't name elementary schools after individual people.

Speaker 1 (07:09):
They said in well, they're talking about in the Papillion
Leavista school district.

Speaker 2 (07:13):
Okay, I couldn't believe.

Speaker 1 (07:16):
I couldn't tell you the names of all the different
elementary schools and Papellion Levista. I can't tell you how
many might be named. Now I could understand, because remember
there was a rush a few years ago to start
naming any new elementary school that popped up across the
country Obama Elementary. And we say, well, I know he

(07:36):
already has that Nobel Peace Prize, but you never know.
It could be a few years down the road and
next thing you know, he's being arrested by the Trump administration,
charged with treason against the country for throwing or trying
to throw the twenty sixteen presidential election. You never know
these things, so it's probably not a great idea to

(07:58):
start naming an elementary or anything after someone who's alive
unless they put up the money for it.

Speaker 3 (08:06):
So so sponsorship.

Speaker 1 (08:10):
No, I mean there's we got a few schools I
think around the area and have various names, including the
name Buffett Cha.

Speaker 3 (08:19):
Health Center Center Elementary School.

Speaker 1 (08:20):
Right, yeah, well that's not a bad idea. We could
have sponsorships. You drop your kids off at KinderCare Elementary
and then after school you could take them to KinderCare.
It could be confusing we go from KinderCare Elementary to KinderCare. Anyway,

(08:41):
they said there's an implied connection to President Abraham Lincoln,
but we put the name View in there. It's a
Lincoln View Elementary. Now it's a view of Lincoln Road.
Wasn't Lincoln Road named after President Lincoln?

Speaker 3 (08:56):
Well we.

Speaker 1 (08:57):
Have a view of the road. Well that's how beautiful
is that? It's a fine road. I don't know that
I would name a school after it. But they seem
to fall all over themselves saying well President Lincoln generally
has a good reputation historically, and we think that he

(09:20):
reflects the values of the district. This is one board
member Lisa Wood, who said that these values held by
President Lincoln and the Papilion School District would be unity, inclusion,
and diversity. But adding view to the name signifies progress
and moving forward.

Speaker 3 (09:41):
So Lincoln's long term view of what the country could be.
How about that, Maybe they could just change a couple
of letters, have a discussion with linked In, and change
it to linked in.

Speaker 1 (09:54):
They could get a lot of sponsorship for that Smoothie
King Elementary. People be going in there, going, yeah, I'll
have an Asie bowl. Like, no, this isn't a Smoothie King.
It's Smoothie King Elementary. Oh okay, so just like a
like a watermelon smoothie, Like, no, no, this isn't a restaurant. Well,

(10:16):
my GPS brought me here.

Speaker 2 (10:17):
I want a smoothie.

Speaker 1 (10:21):
I want to spend an audacious amount of money on
an Asie bowl since I got hooked on as a
E bowls aie my kids not being able to go
to college. They're very expensive, the osi E bowls. Anyway,
it seemed like, and they didn't exactly express this in
either conversations with the media or an open conversation in

(10:41):
the board meeting, but it did seem like they were
a little nervous about putting the name Lincoln on the
name of this elementary school, because sure, President Lincoln generally
has a pretty good reputation now, but you never know,
we might find some old tweets now they.

Speaker 3 (11:02):
Have valid actually, sure, I've seen them on Facebook.

Speaker 1 (11:07):
It is all right, So speaking seriously for just a moment,
and I promise it will just be a moment. There
are a number of people, including I imagine some of
the guilty white liberals on the Papillion school board. There
are a number of people who just don't like anyone
historically in this country who's an old white guy, the

(11:28):
founding father and now President Lincoln not a founding father.
Now try and get that information from some of the
graduates of various schools. I'm not just picking on Papillion,
though I'd love to, since I'm a Ralston kid, you know,
screw them.

Speaker 2 (11:41):
But there are a number.

Speaker 1 (11:43):
Of people who see, well, anyone who's an historical old
dead white guy probably not someone we need to learn
about their values. You know, they were all old racist
misogynists and all their sa these things. So we don't
want a school name for an old white guy. We

(12:05):
need to have the names off the schools off the roads.
We need to get their pictures off the money. There
are a number of guilty old white people, well guilty
liberal white people who just say, all right, old white
guy in America. No. Now, they don't say that specifically here,
but you could tell that they were wrestling with whether

(12:27):
or not it would be offensive to some to put
the name of an old white guy on the name
of a school. That's why they didn't go with Lincoln Elementary.
It's Lincoln View. It's a view of the road, Lincoln Road.

(12:48):
If you really kill up high, you can get a
view of Lincoln, Nebraska. Well, aren't all these things named
for President Lincoln? Aren't I spending my money? Some of
it has Lincoln's face on the money to pay for
these schools. This was paid for with a bond issue,
and also they needed a new school to relieve overcrowding

(13:08):
of a nearby elementary called Prairie Queen, which is, you know,
just after Pride Month. It's well, I don't know, I
don't know where that name is. So it's actually a
good thing that they did with Lucy's gonna lose it.
It's a good thing they did with the school because
there's a lot of military families in this particular area

(13:30):
of Bellpillion, and this is the first time that the
district has allowed active duty military families to keep their
kids at their current school. So if you've been going
to the new school, which had been called Granite Creek Elementary,
even if your district is Prairie Queen, you can keep
your kids going in the school where they've been going.

(13:52):
This is not something that area schools generally do. There
have been a few new high schools opened up in Omaha,
and even though some kids at one school, it was
to me it was like, Nope, you've got to go
to the other school, which is weird because in the
learning community we just bust kids back and forth all
over the entire area. But that's not the conversation I

(14:13):
really want to get into. I'm saying, good job for
the school, the school district for doing the right thing
for these families. That's that's a great thing for these
families and these kids. But I do think it's funny
that there was some consternation in what we were going
to call the school and attaching the name linking to it, well,

(14:33):
that might be offensive. I mean, sure, he has a
good reputation. Now it's been two hundred plus years, it's
been almost two hundred years.

Speaker 2 (14:43):
Not great at MATH.

Speaker 1 (14:46):
I think if they haven't, if they haven't completely demonized
the man by now, by the way, how do we
get this name?

Speaker 2 (14:55):
They did have a.

Speaker 1 (14:58):
I don't know if there was a poll or they
asked for feedback from the community and all the rest
of this stuff. There were discussions that started at the
end of last school year continued throughout the summer. They
talked to family, they talked to teachers, they talked talked
to staff, and they used all of that feedback to
narrow down the list of potential names.

Speaker 3 (15:16):
Or did school mixed schoolly Face come in?

Speaker 1 (15:18):
It was either going to be Granite Lincoln View, or,
as Lucy noted, schooly mixed schooly Face, which I don't
know for sure whether that was on the list, but
you know it was. Oh it was so yeah, school
mixed schoolly Face didn't make the cut. Though, that'd be great.
I'd go there, I'd buy a shirt, I'd buy a sweatshirt.

Speaker 3 (15:41):
What would their mascot be?

Speaker 1 (15:45):
A school with a weird face on it? So, as
they're having these conversations, in this particular school board about well,
I don't know about naming the school after an old
white man. We come back to the first point here,
sixty three percent of voters have an unfavorable view of liberalism.

(16:14):
Do we see it manifesting itself in these little conversations
at the local level with schools, whether it's even something
like what are we going to do in terms of
letting who be on what sports teams or bathrooms are
that kind of thing? Or what books are going to
be in these schools, or what we're gonna teach, or
whether we're going to give our kids the opportunity to
protest during the school day on the cause de jure,

(16:36):
or what are we going to name the school? Everything
has to be rooted in the progressive politics of the day,
and a lot of parents are like, look, I want
my kids to be safe in school. I want them
to be sitting next to kids who belong in the
school and aren't disruptive, aren't threatening, aren't having fights all
the time. I want these kids to be able to

(16:58):
graduate with some knowledge of how to read, write, and
do arithmetic. And we don't have any of that now
because we spend all this time getting into the progressive
argument of the day, and some of it ends up
being wrong. I'm not saying the Republicans are right all

(17:19):
the time, but here's a concrete example of something Democrats
did that said this is the best way to raise
these kids, and they've been doing it for a few
years now and the results are in and they were wrong.
And I'll tell you on what front next. In the
Zonker's custom was inbox, Scott atkfab dot com Monica says,
I so enjoyed the part of your program yesterday about

(17:41):
Tom LAIRR. I wanted to show it. I wanted to
share it with some friends who appreciate that type of humor.
But where can I listen to it? I looked at
your vintage for He's podcast, but it was not included. No,
and it can't be because we played three songs from
the late Tom Lair, a satirical music who passed away

(18:02):
this week at the age of ninety seven, and we
were celebrating his music, which is just so dark and creative.
But I can't put it on the podcast because I'm
not allowed to put music on the podcast.

Speaker 3 (18:14):
What did you cut the music out?

Speaker 2 (18:16):
Then? What's I mean? I know, but I thought about it.

Speaker 3 (18:20):
It was a good conversation.

Speaker 1 (18:21):
Yeah it was fun, but yeah, I would encourage you, Monica.
You can find all of Tom Lahr's stuff online. YouTube
is a resource, or you can give some money to
his estate and buy one of his albums. I would
suggest an evening wasted with Tom Lahr, but no, I'm
not allowed to. He here's the reason. And they even

(18:42):
tell us like, you can't even put that little bit
from the Doors song on your podcast because someone might say, well,
why would I need to buy this album from the Doors.
I can just get it for free on the Vintage
where he's podcast seven seconds of music on there. And
the reason why the company said no music on there,
it's because some people were like, Taylor Swift has a

(19:03):
new album and we're going to go through at track
by track and play the whole thing. And people are like, great,
I can just have this and not have to buy
the album. And the artist said that is something we
are going to sue over.

Speaker 3 (19:14):
Could you do it without the music? Could you go
through every track the lyrics?

Speaker 2 (19:18):
Sure you could? Now, Oh man, why do I waste
so much time? All right?

Speaker 1 (19:25):
Real quick? Because the other thing I wanted to get
to in my inbox. I just saw a notification from
the mayor's office that there will be a news conference
at eleven o'clock on Friday where the mayor is going
to talk about affordable housing in this town. Which brings
me to another thing that we're doing here that causes

(19:46):
some people, I think, to have a negative view of
the Democratic Party. Wall Street Journal polling finds at sixty
three percent unfavorable view of Democrats, highest in the history
of this poll for the last thirty five years. Now,
this might be one reason Democrats said, what we need
to do is when babies are born in low income families,

(20:08):
is we need to give money to a parent, And
Republicans said, we don't just this isn't socialism. We don't
just pay someone like, oh, your low income without looking
at why that might be the case. Here's a bunch
of money, there might be underlying issues that might need

(20:29):
to be treated or resolved. Just throwing money at this
is no guarantee that this is going to be enough
money to raise this kid, that any of the money
will actually go to the kid, or that will actually
help the kid. Because it's not about the money. Democrats said, oh,
you guys hate kids, so they started paying. This was

(20:50):
one thousand low income mothers in four US cities who
were randomly assigned to receive three hundred and thirty three
dollars a month. That's what half of these moms got,
it keeps saying, mothers, No dad's around. The other half
only got twenty dollars a month. And they used them

(21:11):
as guinea pigs to see, all right, at the end
of what was the timeframe here, two years, four years,
seven years, I don't know. At the end of whatever
their timeframe was, four years, they wanted to see how
the kids were doing with various areas of child development, language, behavior,
cognitive ability, health. And so they said, all right, let's

(21:34):
take a look at the half of the kids who
were moms were getting three hundred and thirty three dollars
a month and the other half getting just twenty dollars
a month. And you know what they found after four
years of this, no difference, No difference at all. Now
people said, well, this was also during COVID and you

(21:55):
had issues, fair enough, but it doesn't have to do
with the money. Last week, President Trump had an executive
order that said he wants to give cities the opportunity
to be more stringent, more effective in getting people off

(22:16):
of these streets. People who are living on the streets
are people who are living on public or private property,
people who are living in wooded areas, people who are
living under bridges. He wants to give cities the opportunity
to help these people get out of a horrible situation. Now,

(22:38):
I think most of us would say if someone is
running around in the streets with a gun to their
own head, we would say that person is a danger
to themselves and others, we need to intervene. But if
a person's living on the streets in a heat indexed
day of one hundred and fifteen and they're sitting there

(22:59):
with open sores and boils and all the rest of
this gross stuff, with a drug and alcohol problem, I
haven't had anything to eat, or completely dehydrated, and they're
going to die if you leave them out there for
a few more hours, few more days, few more weeks, whatever.
Apparently we don't take the same level of sympathy on that.

(23:21):
We don't say, oh, that person's a danger to him
or herself or others, we need to intervene. This guy's
name is David Marcus, and he's written a piece in
Fox News, and he has visited homeless encampments across the country.
What some people choose to do on their vacations may
be a little different than what you do. But he

(23:41):
is a homeless advocate and not one of those who advocates,
oh yeah, let people live on the streets. It's great,
it's humanitarian, it's okay. He's one that says we need
to do something. He tells a very specific story of
finding a man in the same edition as I just described,

(24:02):
passed out on the ground in a homeless encampment with
dozens of people basically all just passed out in the streets.
This guy had open medical issues and didn't seem to
be breathing very much. So he called the e EMT
and ambulance, you know EMT workers. They all get there
and they say they looked at this guy, and they

(24:25):
looked at the dozens of people passed out in this
homeless encampment, and they said, what do you want us
to do? There's nothing we can do about this. He says,
I want you to intervene in this man's life. We
think he is about to die. So they they brought
him back, basically brought him back to life. And he

(24:46):
comes to and he was furious because the Narkhan that
they gave him to save his life completely blew as
high that he had. He spent a lot of money
in whatever he services. I don't know what he did
to get the drugs fentanyl that he used to get
into this state that nearly killed him, That would have

(25:08):
killed him had they not intervened. But they brought him
back to life. They used Narcan to do so, and
he was all mad because they ruined his high. This
is someone we want to have just living out on
the streets now. President Trump told these cities, we're not
going to cause a problem for you.

Speaker 2 (25:28):
Now.

Speaker 1 (25:29):
And this this homeless advocate recognizes that there are arguments
out there opponents of intervening in someone's life, of who've
been living on the streets here in Omaha or wherever,
say you can't just take away someone's freedom. But he
points out the people who say this, they're not in

(25:52):
these encampments. They don't know what's going on. So he says,
freedom to do what, shoot fentanyl every day until they
die on a curb side, have their pockets rifled by
another desperate junkie. If it was your child, he says,
who was on these broken and brutal streets of death.
Would you want them to be left in freedom to

(26:12):
waste away and die or would you want them to
be taken somewhere they where they could be protected and helped.
He says, there's two levels of why someone is living homeless,
and it goes into what we just talked about here
with there was this project where they would give low

(26:34):
income or low income single mothers who were having babies.
They gave half of them money three hundred and thirty
three dollars a month. The other half only got twenty
dollars a month, which is pretty mean, by the way,
if they know what's going on, and they waited four years,
and then they studied how these kids were doing, were
they how are they doing cognitively? How was their health?

(26:57):
How was their overall behavior and disposition? And they found
no change. It's not really about the money. And when
it comes to homelessness. David Marcus, writing here for Fox News,
says there's two distinct problems why someone is on the streets.
One is financial, which is fairly easy to address. The
evicted mother living in her car can be given temporary

(27:20):
housing and job assistance. That's that hand up, that's that
bridge from where you are to where you need to
be again. And there are resources available that provide that.
And then there are those who just want to live
on the bridge. Because that homelessness, which he says is
the overwhelming reason why people are living on the streets

(27:41):
here in Omaha and elsewhere, is related to mental illness
and addiction. It's not a homeless problem, it's an addiction.
It's a mental illness problem. And he says, and I
quote from the article, shockingly, just letting people intents shoot
up in what was once a thriving commercial district doesn't

(28:01):
solve it.

Speaker 2 (28:03):
He said.

Speaker 1 (28:04):
It's not humanitarian to let someone die on the streets
of Omaha, Philadelphia, of Miami, of wherever, San Francisco, he says,
for decades. Now, now remember the start of this hour.
I'm sure you've been listening to every single word I've said.
Right the start of this hour was Wall Street Journal
did another poll of likely voters, and they found that

(28:25):
the highest number of respondents in thirty five years of
asking this question have given the highest unfavorable rating to Democrats.
In the history of the poll, sixty three percent of
likely voter see Democrats as unfavorable, David Marcus says, for
decades now, Democrats have spent endless dollars on fruitless efforts

(28:49):
to fix the homeless problem. In California alone, Governor Gavin
Newsom has spent twenty billion dollars on failing to fix
the homeless problem, and only recently he admitted the encampments
have to go. It's not solving the Pacification of the
problem does not solve the problem. It makes the problem worse.

(29:09):
You talk about mental illness, the media came out yesterday
and even early this morning and said, oh, this poor
former NFL player went to shoot up the offices of
the NFL because they created an environment where he got CTE,
this brain issue that causes all kinds of issues.

Speaker 2 (29:27):
They think they's it's kind.

Speaker 1 (29:30):
Of hit or miss, but it's a known brain injury
for those who participate in contact sports. And he appeared
to blame the NFL for what he said was CTE. Now,
you can't really be diagnosed with CTE until you die
and they study your brain. So he went to commit

(29:51):
suicide by cop and he wanted the officials to study
his brain for CTE, and he wanted the NFL to
be held accountable. That's why he went to the NF
offices in New York's to shoot up the place.

Speaker 2 (30:03):
A couple of.

Speaker 1 (30:04):
Problems, well, it's a lot of problems. A couple of
issues that ruined that narrative. First of all, he went
to the wrong office. There's a skyscraper there that's got
a financial office and the NFL offices. He went to
the financial office. Then they found the note on him
where he's blaming the NFL for his CTE and all

(30:26):
the rest of this stuff. And then they looked into
the life of this guy, twenty seven year old guy,
and found out he hadn't played football competitively since high school.
He didn't play in college, He certainly didn't play in
the NFL. Does he have CTE, I don't know, but

(30:46):
he has a history of mental illness. And every single
step along the way, no one did anything for this guy.
It's like, well, we just we hold him for as
long as we can, then we got to let him out.
So he took the life of an NYPD officer who

(31:06):
was working security in that location. Did dal rule Islam.
I believe is this man's name if I'm pronouncing it correctly.
This is someone who came to our country from Bangladesh
and has a couple of kids another one on the way,
and was described by everyone as exactly the kind of
person that you want to come to this country. He

(31:29):
brought his He wanted a better life for himself for
his family, true blue American who happens to have roots
in a foreign country and wanted to be here and
take advantage of everything this nation offers for opportunity. And
then he died in the lobby of what turns out
to be the wrong office by some crackpot who could

(31:54):
have been stopped several times just in the last few
years for all the run ins that guy had with cops.
Just let out, let out, Let out let out. Now
here's the part of the show where Lucy says she's
glad she doesn't have kids. There is a new style
of parenting that has been given a new name by
the social media crowd, and it is an acronym that

(32:16):
they call faffo fa fo. The other AFO stands for
around and find out fafo.

Speaker 2 (32:30):
Faffo and how does it apply well?

Speaker 1 (32:32):
When it comes to parenting, it is what they say
is a brand new way of raising kids. And that
is where you raise your kids and try and teach
them the difference between right and wrong, and you tell
them like, hey, don't do that. You make sure you
take your your coat today. It's cold and I might
not be able to pick you up right after school.

(32:52):
You might be standing outside and it's really cold.

Speaker 2 (32:54):
You just have a coat. I'll be fine.

Speaker 1 (32:57):
And rather than be helicopter parenting and take them there
to school, you let them stand there and shiver for
half an hour. Or hey, you know this is what
we're having for dinner, Well I don't want this. Well
that's what we're eating. Eat it, and if they decide
not to eat, you let them survive until breakfast.

Speaker 3 (33:18):
I don't think this is new.

Speaker 2 (33:19):
Yeah, no, it's not.

Speaker 1 (33:23):
For those of us who are raised in the sixties, seventies, eighties,
and in some cases the nineties, I think that was
just called parenting. But now that today's parents are like, hey,
wait a second.

Speaker 2 (33:36):
These would be.

Speaker 1 (33:37):
Those in their twenties right now having kids, twenties, early
thirties having kids, they say, yeah, we should ditch the
gentle parenting trend in favor of FAFFO turns out.

Speaker 3 (33:49):
The greatest news I've heard.

Speaker 1 (33:50):
It turns out the kids actually learn once in a
while when we let them learn, and we don't just
pave the road for them all the time. What a concept.
Fox and AFAB News updates next. Federal workers now have
broader leeway to pray and discuss their faith at the
office under new guidelines from the Trump administration. Immediately when

(34:13):
I said, hey, you can now this is federal workers.
It comes from the Trump administration. Now, I believe that
there will be some implication for private workers and local
businesses or whatever because of what the new federal dictation is.

(34:33):
Here's what it says. The changes outlined by the Office
of Personnel Management permit employees to share religious beliefs and
try to persuade others of the correctness of their own
religious views, as long as they don't cross into harassment,
which I'm sure will be pushed back on anytime. If

(34:54):
you even say anything like you know from I think
you ought to read the Karan to God bless you
after someone sneezes, someone could feel harassed. But supervisors can
encourage religious expression, including prayer, without fear of violating workplace rules.
So obviously there are those that say, oh, workers are

(35:20):
going to be harassed if you don't go along with
your supervisor's religious viewpoints, that you won't be hired, you
won't be promoted, you might be fired, you'll be mocked,
you'll be made to feel othered, and all the rest
of this stuff. Let me read a little bit here
from the White House It's Guidelines on Religious Exercise and

(35:44):
Religious Expression in the Federal Workplace. It talks about principally
addressing employees religious exercise religious expression when the employees are
acting in their personal capacity within the federal workplace and
the public doesn't have regular exposure to the workplace. In
other words, this is just workers at their desk or

(36:06):
in the workplace who shouldn't be made to feel like
if they have a Bible that they take out and
read at their desk during a break, that there would
be any kind of repercussions for that. Let's see here
expression among fellow employees. Employees should be permitted to engage
in religious expression with fellow employees to the same extent

(36:28):
that they may engage in comparable non religious private expression,
subject to reasonable and content neutral standards. And here's an example.
It gives employees are entitled to discuss their religious views
with one another, subject only to the same rules of
order to apply to other employee expression. In other words, hey,
if we're working, we need to be working. Don't try

(36:50):
and harass someone, and all the rest of this stuff.
Employees are entitled to display religious messages and items of
clothing so long as it does doesn't interfere with the
job and all the rest of this stuff. This is
from the White House, but not the Trump White House.
This was written in nineteen ninety seven. This was the

(37:15):
dictate from the Clinton White House in nineteen ninety seven.
So what Trump has done is they've essentially taken this
same language from the Clinton White House and they've reapplied
it because it's changed over the years. It changed under Obama,
changed under Biden. And this is basically saying if you

(37:41):
identify as whatever or no religion, that's okay. What it
doesn't say is that if someone else doesn't go along
with what you're saying, that you can fire them, you
can not promote them. The law still forbids discrimination when

(38:02):
it comes to any aspect of employment, including hiring firing, pay,
job assignments, promotions, layoff training, fringe benefits, in any other
term or condition of employment. It is illegal to harass
a person because of his or her religion. Harassment can
include offensive remarks about a person's religious beliefs or practices,

(38:24):
and anything that creates a hostile or offensive work environment.

Speaker 2 (38:28):
None of that has changed.

Speaker 1 (38:31):
No one's running around the federal office, or no one's
being encouraged at your private office to run around going
accept the Lord and Savior in your heart or die.
You know, no one's doing any of that, though I
have seen those signs on roadsides in the Bible belt
of this country. Is what's the problem with this?

Speaker 3 (38:59):
Uh? First of all, what are what is the Christian Faith?
What are we told? We are told to love, we
are told to dis to UH project in our actions,
in our words, in our lives the the goodness of Christianity.

(39:20):
We are told to be as gentle as doves and
wise as serpents. We are told not to cast our
pearls before swine. So I don't think that this is
a benefit of christian the Christian faith. This is setting
up the ability for other faiths to come in and

(39:41):
do the loud displays, because other religions have group displays
and they're they're loud, and they're demanding of they that
you follow everything. There are there Christians like that. Of course,
there are Christians that are off onto their own little
world and life.

Speaker 1 (39:58):
You're talking about. For example, at the Iowa State House
where they said, well, if they allowed an observance a
prayer for National Prayer Day or the break leading up
to Easter, for example, then we need to put the atheists.
Have you know some guy demon with horns coming out

(40:19):
of his head. We've got a special statue of him,
and we want to display that in the state Capitol.
They're already doing.

Speaker 3 (40:27):
That, well precisely. But what if now they can now
bring their candles in and light their candles around this
this idol and conjure up little demons or whatever they're doing.
I don't know what they're doing.

Speaker 1 (40:43):
You can't deface the property of the office by drawing
a pentagram on the floor.

Speaker 2 (40:48):
I know I've tried right now.

Speaker 3 (40:50):
No, that's what I'm saying. This is setting it up
for the future, whether the future is a month of
the future is ten years or it's fifty years from now.
You're setting up the idea that you can take this
idea of well, we're just exercising our religious beliefs, but
you are disrupting other people. But pretty soon it won't matter. No.

Speaker 1 (41:14):
Look, I get the slippery slope argument. I always despise
that argument because at some point adults need to step
in and go all right, just because we're the adults,
just because we're doing this, doesn't mean we have to
do all this, open the bloodgates and.

Speaker 3 (41:31):
All the rest, And it won't anytime soon.

Speaker 2 (41:33):
No.

Speaker 1 (41:33):
But what I think what this language does is if
someone does identify as Christian, maybe maybe they make a
comment in the workplace to say, oh, it's just so
horrible that we as a society don't value the unborn. Now,
this now gives an extra protection for someone to go,

(41:54):
I feel harassed. They brought up a Christian viewpoint in
the workplace and I felt belittled by it, and I'm
gonna suit. This gives that added protection. So the ultra
sensitive among us can't just go around being litigious and
uber sensitive.

Speaker 3 (42:10):
The ultrasensitive are going to do that anyway, and they're
not ultra sensitive, they're just ultra looking.

Speaker 1 (42:18):
Confrontational yeah, they're looking to pick a fight. In many instances.

Speaker 3 (42:21):
This isn't going to change any of that.

Speaker 1 (42:23):
Well, yeah it could. It could give protection against those
who the perpetually offended are looking to shout, shout down,
to belittle themselves, to quiet down, to stop, and all
the rest of the stuff. We're just saying, look, we
value all of this. But I think another part of

(42:44):
all of this is this is you know, during a
break or if you have like a cross pendent on
or a necklace or something like that, we're not going
to cause any problems for you.

Speaker 2 (42:56):
It doesn't it doesn't happen. It doesn't mean.

Speaker 1 (42:58):
It doesn't mean that during a Department of meeting that
we're all going to go around the table and we're
all going to have our various religious observances when we
should be talking about what to do with Russia. Sure,
you know, hey, we still need to get to work,
but let's just stop trying to find ways to pick
on other people, offend other people, and all the rest
that We're not harassing anyone, None of that is allowed.

(43:20):
We're just saying we're not going to let those who
are picking a fighter be perpetually offended, to be offended
when you walk in there with a Bible verse written
on your shoe or whatever. I don't have a problem
with it. And if the only reason that some people
have a problem with it is that Trump is doing

(43:40):
it now, of course Trump's going to say this is
the same thing that Clinton did, right, and then the
perpetually offended one we didn't know who to scream at.

Speaker 3 (43:48):
Look, I want to be clear, I don't have a
problem with this law or this guideline. I don't have
a problem with it as it stands. I have a
problem with what it's being it's going to be used
in the future with.

Speaker 1 (44:00):
Well, we'll see, we'll see what happens.

Speaker 2 (44:01):
Well this.

Speaker 3 (44:03):
Show, so you can go back and say you were right.

Speaker 1 (44:05):
But all those things that you're talking about are already happening.
I don't know, they're already happening.

Speaker 2 (44:13):
Some of them are.

Speaker 1 (44:14):
The Zen brings us to how this guy, who I
don't know if he describes himself or other people describe
him as mister Pinocchio, is apparently out of a job.
And some people say, well, here we go another blow
to the death of journalism. Not really, I'll explain next.
Scott News Radio, Len kfab only on the subject of

(44:40):
raising your kids not to there's a new term for it,
which is an old concept, and the term is faffo
f a fo around and find out is what that means.
It means that if your kid's going to do something,
it's not like going to do something that's going to

(45:02):
get them seriously injured or killed. But if you told
your kid not to do something and you see that
they're going to do it anyway, and you know that
they're going to be anything from slightly hurt to inconvenienced,
and you said, look, you need to do this, or hey,
if you keep doing this, this is the punishment that
goes along with this behavior, and then you actually then

(45:25):
meete out the punishment. What a concept, right right, We
talked about this. This is something that young parents now
in their twenties early thirties are raising their kids, going, hey.

Speaker 2 (45:36):
This stuff actually works.

Speaker 1 (45:37):
The kids seem to be learning, and the rest of
us are like, yeah, that's how we were raised. Only
Emails says, when my son was around six, he asked
his mom my wife to make him some French toast.
So we sat down, Yeah, that's fine, we can do that.
Sat down to have breakfast, and he decided he didn't
want to eat it, so he didn't eat anything for breakfast.

(46:00):
All right, My wife put it in a tupperware container,
and we did our usual Sunday family day until we
stopped to eat lunch. After my wife and I ordered
at this restaurant, she pulled out the container and put
it in front of our son and said, here's what
you're eating. He was not happy, and now you know, hey,

(46:21):
we're in a restaurant. I want to order, Like, no, no,
this is what you asked me to make you for breakfast.
You didn't need it, so this is what you're having
for lunch. So we sat there mad, arms folded. I'm
out stubborn. You guys didn't eat lunch. Okay, French toast
goes back in the tupperware container. Guess how things went

(46:42):
for dinner. Dinner time, they sit down and he ended
up finally eating cold french toast in the same the
cold container. Well, the bread's not going to go bad
in a sealed container. I don't know if he was
allowed to put syrup on there. How do you not

(47:03):
eat fresh toast? It's delicious. So we've been talking about
a number of things throughout the day is these some
of these email responses suggest. But one of the things
that has come up time and time again is the
Wall Street Journal just ask likely voters, what's your view

(47:23):
of the president Republicans, the Democrat Party? President Trump has
a mostly slightly unfavorable viewpoint. I'm based on what I
hear in the media. I'm surprised it's not one hundred percent.
The Republicans actually are on the plus side, they have
more people have a favorable view of them than not.
But the Democrats are an historic high for unfavorability. Sixty

(47:47):
three percent of respondents say they have an unfavorable view
of the Democrat Party. Now here's another reason why I
think this is, and it has to do with a
guy named Glenn Kessler. Now it's not his fault. He's
the latest journalist who's now been bounced out of the

(48:10):
Washington Post. And for years, I mean since I think
it's been about twenty five, almost thirty years, almost three
thousand of the Washington Post fact checks have been pinned
or edited by Glenn Kessler. He's the chief fact checker

(48:32):
at the Washington Post. They called him mister Pinocchio. He
was deciding. You know, when the president, any president said
something for the last almost thirty years, he would decide
whether or not it was a full pinocchio, like this
is a lie, or it's misleading, or it needs context
or whatever. Well, I don't know if they just don't

(48:53):
want to afford him anymore or whatever. But he has
accepted a buyout, meaning he's being forced out of his
job at the Washington Post. And people say, well, that's it.

Speaker 2 (49:04):
Here we go again.

Speaker 1 (49:05):
It's the death of journalism at a time when we
need someone like him more than ever, because President Trump
lies every single day. We need him there to tell
everyone that he's a liar. Well, first of all, I
think there are a number of people who are willing
to step up and take on that role. I don't
know if you're on social media, but every there are

(49:26):
a number of people who have taken upon themselves to
say President Trump is lying. But just because President Trump
says something, does it mean that he's lying. You've got
a number of people, including several with mainstream media Washington
Post included, who've just decided to come out and no

(49:47):
matter what is said, if it comes from the Trump administration,
it's got to be a liar, or we have to
frame it as such, or it has to go through
this lens of politics. Even if they didn't, now they
were to suddenly switch and maybe they are, I don't know,
but if they were to switch it up and just
do something crazy like actually print what a president says,

(50:09):
and you can go back to find, you know, Senator
Chuck Schumer or some detractor and say, well, I think
the president's wrong because and then we have this he said,
he said viewpoint in the news, and we just put
it out there rather than doing some of these things
that journalists do. Is the president said this, people on

(50:32):
Twitter seem to wait a second, you're just finding people
on Twitter who don't like what the president says, and
you've made that a news story. Here's all my liberal
friends on Twitter who are mad about something the president did.
Let's make that a news story. That's not a news story.

Speaker 3 (50:46):
I don't even think they're doing that. I think they're
just telling you what to think and they're putting it
on Well, we got this from a bunch of Twitter people.
Now this is just them telling you what to think.
Nobody listens to conversations. I'm guilty of it. Myself. I'm
watching news stories and I'm listening to some good some politicians,
and I want to hear what they have to say,

(51:08):
but I can't. I just can't get through it.

Speaker 2 (51:10):
But so I get it.

Speaker 1 (51:11):
But it doesn't matter anymore which part whether or not
someone with the Washington Post listens to something a politician
says and they've done their research, and let's let's give
this guy the benefit of the doubt. Let's say that
it's it's someone who's like, look, I truly don't have
a political bone in my body. I just look at

(51:34):
the truth or lack thereof, of everything any president says.
And I've been doing it for years. President Obama, Biden
would say stuff, and I would say that's not true.
President Trump would say stuff. I would say that's not true,
and I've been very fair, and people would look at
their work and say, Yep, this guy is absolutely the
most down the middle person. What a great journalist. It

(51:56):
doesn't matter anymore, because if you're trained to hate President Trump,
he could come out today and say it's Tuesday and
people be like.

Speaker 2 (52:06):
He's a lying pedophile. It's not Tuesday.

Speaker 1 (52:09):
And doesn't matter if someone comes along and says actually
we looked into it. It is Tuesday. Well it's not
Tuesday because Trump said this Tuesday. You know, it doesn't
matter anymore. And you know who put the name on
this was none other than Stephen Colbert. He called it truthiness.
This was on the Old Colbert Rapport on Comedy Central.

(52:32):
He said, there is no truth anymore. There's only truthiness,
and truthiness is we believe what we hear as long
as we want to believe what we hear. Doesn't matter
if it's true or not. If it sounds good to us,
then it must be true. And the antithesis, obviously is
a lie and false and shouldn't be allowed to be said.

(52:54):
It's not truth or fiction anymore. It is only truthiness now.
He said this on TV about twenty years ago. It's
more true every single year. And it's funny that people
are now applying that to Colbert being bounced out of
his late show on CBS. The truth is the ratings
are down. They're losing money on the show. It's not

(53:17):
a charity organization, it's a media organization, and so they're
getting the show out of there, not before they have
a giant months long going out of business sale. To
try and make a little money on the way out.
But they've been around the game long enough to know
that it's not going to get better, stay better and
make us a bunch of money. So we're just going

(53:37):
to eliminate the show. We're going to make some money
on the way out, but that's going to do it.
And people are like, they're getting rid of him because
he criticizes Trump. No, it has to do with the money.

Speaker 2 (53:53):
It's truth.

Speaker 3 (53:54):
You couldn't put that on. You couldn't say that about
him because if you did, you'd have to apply that
to a dozen of reporters and shows that are on
mainstream media that they just don't like Trump.

Speaker 1 (54:05):
So they're right right, Well, and if Colbert really cared
so much about I want a platform to be able
to criticize Trump every night, then he would say, look,
I've been making millions upon millions of dollar. I'm wealthy
beyond my wildest dream. Stephen Colbert is one of these
who came up through the Second City comedy troupe, and yeah,
he is actually a He's a brilliant comedian who's made

(54:29):
the mistake, like too many do, of believing their own
garbage and deciding it's more about the politics than the entertainment, sadly,
which is why his show is failing. It's failing because
every other night he's got some democratic politician on there
or left leaning journalist, and they decide they want to
be like MSNBC. No one watches that crap entertain me.

(54:50):
Every once in a while, put Pedro Pascal on there,
let him talk about the Fantastic Four, or have Gilmour,
you know, Happy Gilmore.

Speaker 2 (54:59):
On there.

Speaker 1 (55:00):
Politics not very often, not very often, not very often.
So if if he said, like, look, I have a
ton of money, if I never got one more penny,
I would be well off beyond my wiless dreams. I
care so much about what I'm saying every night, CBS,
you don't have to pay me. I'll work for free

(55:21):
because I believe what I'm doing. Is Stephen Colbert doing that?

Speaker 3 (55:25):
No, maybe he just hasn't thought of it.

Speaker 2 (55:27):
Yeah, you know who does do that?

Speaker 1 (55:29):
You know who says I believe in so much when
I'm doing, you don't have to pay me, President Trump,
Let that truthiness sink.

Speaker 2 (55:38):
In Scott Voices Mornings nine to eleven on News Radio
eleven ten kfab