2 POGs Save the World Podcast
Two Army veterans—one left, one right—unite for the ultimate mission: tackling real-world problems with common sense, logic, and a healthy dose of military humor. 2 POGs Save the World isn’t your typical political podcast. Hosts Kj Bradley & Lance O'Neil bring unfiltered discussions, sharp debates, and tactical solutions to the chaos of modern society.
From politics and national security to sports and pop culture, no topic is off-limits. With battle-tested insights and zero tolerance for BS, these two POGs (Personnel Other than Grunts) prove that you don’t have to agree on everything to find real solutions.
Join the fight every Sunday at 8:30 PM EST, where the only thing sharper than the takes is the wit. Mission: Common Sense. Execution: Hilarious. Victory: Inevitable
🎙️ Listen. Debate. Disagree. Laugh. Take Notes.
2 POGs Save the World Podcast
East Coast Chaos & The Collapse of Common Sense
KJ returns from his trip up the East Coast with stories from the ground—including a sobering stop in Washington. The POGs break down the shocking closure of the Department of Education, the quiet and mysterious removal of minorities from DoD sites, and the unraveling of the Democratic Party from the inside out. Buckle up for this extended episode packed with real talk, raw perspective, and a whole lot of common sense. We got a lot to catch up on so join us live tonight for an extended episode of 2 POGs Live!
What do you want to do tonight?
Speaker 2:The same thing we do every night. Pinky, try to take over the world. Alright, yo, let's get into it. Try to take over the world, you're preaching freedom.
Speaker 1:Try to take over the world.
Speaker 2:And bring this chaplain in the world, Mr Lance O'Neal, Trying to take over the world Yo yo, yo what up.
Speaker 2:What up, what up world. It is your boy, the Post, Back after a short hiatus. We are back in Magalane, and holy skimolas, what did I miss? I am so glad to be back Once again. It's your boy, kj Bradley, and the greatest chaplain in the world, mr Lance O'Neal. What up, chappy? Hey, how are you? I'm good man. I'm glad to be back from my excursion up the East Coast last week. Thank you for being patient with me, allowing me to make that travel. That was eye-opening.
Speaker 2:I had to go run down my senators who, well, fortunately and unfortunately, were having a serious vote that I kind of heard about the day after Washington, so they didn't have much. At least my senators didn't have much time for me. I was able to talk to a couple of other senators who were there and then a couple of house reps, which was pretty cool, so I really enjoyed my time on the Capitol. Man, trying to get into that place is like Fort Knox Holy school Constituent, be damned. You literally have to have a reservation months in advance to be able to get in to see a representative. And I get it. You know, I understand from a security standpoint, but it just seems a little point defeating right.
Speaker 1:Yeah, it's tough when the person you represent doesn't talk to the people that they represent, and that's not, I mean who knows. I mean, we don't know if you know Senator XYZ or House Rep Snuffy is actually doing a lot of meetings with constituents or whatever. But I would be really curious to see what the breakdown. Maybe we need to see what their five accomplishments for the week are. But the bigger thing, I'd like to see some of those stats.
Speaker 2:How many of your?
Speaker 1:constituents did you meet with this week? What was the total time you met with them? How many hours were you in committee? Much time you know from votes? How much travel time Because DC I mean, if you're going from one side of the city to the other in DC that could take anywhere from 30 minutes to an hour and a half. Yeah, and you know they. And then you get all the important people who shut down the entire city because they're driving around and you know, I kind of laugh. I remember a story and I'm trying to think of who it was. It was one of the. It might have been like Tony Blair and he had a meeting in the US and DC and he just flew commercial.
Speaker 2:Wait, yeah, oh man, I think we lost. I think we lost. Am I back? Yeah, you're back.
Speaker 1:Yeah, I mean I get you need security if you're the president, when you've already had two assassination attempts and you know, maybe you have a reason for a third or fourth, or you know whoever the crazies are going after. But does the junior senator from South Dakota really need a full protection detail? And you know? Or the mayor of some of these cities? And you know Greg I go back to Greg Easterbrook a lot We've had Greg on the show. We've got to get it back, yeah, but a lot of the stuff that Greg writes I agree with.
Speaker 2:There are things that I don't agree with.
Speaker 1:But one of the things he used to harp on were the low-level government officials that would have these bodyguards and all that, and it's just to make him feel good. It makes him feel important, like in a normal football game. Does Nick Saban really need six or eight troopers running around him so he can walk across the field and shake the hand of Bob Stoops and Bob Stoops? Well, he only has two, so Nick Saban is four. You know, three times as important. I'm going to clean my. There we go. But you know, stuff like that it's kind of silly and I get it to a degree, but that's what it is. It's just about them feeling important. Um, could the sergeant major in a in a battalion or brigade drive himself? Sure?
Speaker 1:of course, same with the commander. Uh, it's a little different. You know, if they're using blue force tracker in their, in their m? Uh oh, what are the big trucks?
Speaker 2:m oh my gosh, some of the lmtvs the big are the big trucks. Oh man, oh my gosh, Some of the LMTVs the big ones.
Speaker 1:No, not the LMTVs, but the ones that they switched over MRAP, mrap, right, right, right. So you know, it's one thing if they're tracking Blue Force Tracker and the MRAP and they're actively doing something, you know Okay. But there's a lot of times where it's like, oh, we're just going to drive from here out to the firing line and I get it. You know, you don't want the sergeant major necessarily driving by the same time.
Speaker 2:Does he really?
Speaker 1:need someone to be driving him. Probably not um, but a little bit different again. When you have mayor, mayor smith from I'm trying to think of a little town around, you know, from waynesboro, and he's got a, he's got a police escort. Like really, do you really it's important? No, you're not, you're not that important, you're just not. Or the student board, the student board meetings, when they have all the police. Or Utah just had I was reading one, saw a little bit of the video two of the reps from Utah held a town hall and it was funny because the first complaint was you need a ticket but there's no tickets. The tickets were gone within like a minute of the thing opening up. It's like, well, yeah, how fast do you think Taylor Swift concert sells out in Atlanta?
Speaker 2:Yeah, do you think Taylor Swift concert sells out in Atlanta? Oh man, I lost you mid talk. All right, chappie's out, hopefully he'll be back. Waiting, waiting, dramatic, awkward pause. Waiting, waiting, dramatic, awkward pause. Waiting, dramatic, awkward pause. All right, so chappy might be out for a minute. So, um, until he gets back, I'll kind of talk about something there you go, you're back.
Speaker 1:How long did you lose me? I think it's my internet right after right after taylor swift right after taylor swift. So if, if, okay, so taylor swift tickets go quick. So who's to say? And there were only like 300 tickets, maybe really active people.
Speaker 2:But at the same time.
Speaker 1:You know when you have these events. You don't think that the debate is randomly open to people for the presidential debates. Of course it's loaded. They already know who's going to be there for the most part so, but the Utah one I don't think that was the case, because they got shouted down and all that by. Let's just say, um, if you can read a book by the cover, a lot of the people that were in that meeting were not conservatives.
Speaker 2:I don't know. Your Senator got into a little bit of hot water with with his.
Speaker 1:Who's my Senator? I'm not sure who my Senator is.
Speaker 2:No, Senator from Utah. I gotta go look up his name again. Oh, Mike Lee.
Speaker 1:No, no, I don't think it was Lee. Oh, the other one, yeah, burgess Burnett, something like that. I'll claim Mike Lee. Mike Lee is absolutely a conservative, yeah. The other one Burgess or something like that. I don't really know him, dude.
Speaker 2:I haven't lived in utah since 2004, 5, 2005 no, I know it's like well, yeah, but utah is still your home, right?
Speaker 1:it's like yeah, but I'm a utahn, yes, although the army has tried to turn me into a texan, really Well, yeah, I've been stationed almost ten full years at different times Three years in Houston, three years in El Paso, three years in San Antonio, and each with change.
Speaker 2:I will say this is not bad. No, I can't find his name now. It's like Burgess, I think.
Speaker 1:Yeah, he did something to his name. Oh, no, gosh, I think it's Murphy, but he was a in 2000,. He was a Democrat. He led the Utah Democrat Party in like 2000. Yeah, and then he switched. There's a lot of that yeah.
Speaker 1:So there was a switch, I think. When people are in dead red states, they, I think they kind of do the Trojan horse thing. Oh well, you know, I still, I'm still kind of more left leaning, but I can't get elected here. So I'm going to, because I'm a politician, I'm going to lie about what I believe in, about what I believe in and then end up switching over and then strategically picking those more left-leaning policies that make more sense to them.
Speaker 2:So you're saying this guy's name is John Curtis Curtis, is that his name? Okay, he's a Republican out of Utah.
Speaker 1:So anyway, he was on. What did he get in trouble for?
Speaker 2:He was on Meet the Press talking about Social Security or whatever Not necessarily getting in trouble, for he was on Meet the Press talking about Social Security or whatever, not necessarily getting in trouble, just kind of going against the talking points with Social Security. And he just played out like, hey, we're not being honest about, we're not being honest with our constituents about Social Security and that's what's causing all the pushback. If we were just to give them an open, honest conversation about what we're doing, they wouldn't be as pissed off about it. But because we're not being honest about it and because we got guys like Elon Musk, you know, putting out all this crazy stuff about it and we're not taking charge of the conversation when we do go home to these town halls, you know we're causing a lot of undue stress for ourselves.
Speaker 1:So you know, and you just keep keep going.
Speaker 2:I'm just changing location and he was just basically saying, like you know, hey, you know I'm not. I'm not saying that, you know, I'm not saying that. You know we're, we're out, we're out, flat out, lying, anything like that. What I am saying is we're not, we're not being honest when we're saying we're not going to touch the social security. We have to do something to get the social security under control. We have to. You know, if there's, if there is indeed fraud and stuff like that in it, we have to look at it and we have to be honest our constituents. But if we let you know, if we let guys like elon musk say that we're gonna cut it out completely, that's gonna cause a widespread panic and we have too many people in our districts who depend on it and if we don't take control of the narrative, you know that's going to cause us more hurt in the whole world.
Speaker 2:So, which is which I thought was a, you know, a great conservative response. I'm like, yeah, just be honest with it. You know, if you say, hey, this is what's going on and again, I've never had a problem with it, like I said, I've been pretty consistent, like, hey, never had a problem with it, bring, bring it to Congress. Let Congress be accountable for it, because they're the ones got to vote on it anyway, and just let them. Let them. Let them live or die with it, because eventually they're the ones that got to go back and justify it with their constituents. But you know, he's getting pushed back about it or whatever, saying oh you know, I think a couple of more hard line Republican senators came out and said well, he doesn't speak for everybody and you know you know, it's just just a bunch of talking points and bullshit rhetoric.
Speaker 2:But it's just well, it's funny. You find those. You find those true moderates and those true conservatives and those true, you know those true traditional liberals. And they get, they get cannibalized by their own party by being sure man, and it's just like well, on both sides.
Speaker 1:I mean how, how many people now are? I read there was a cartoon today. It was like I think it was a political. It might have been just something like how far left has the democrat party gone when chuck schumer isn't far enough left? Well, you know that's Schumer made his own bed man.
Speaker 2:No, I'm not a fan of Schumer. I knew he was going to cave. Schumer knew he was going to cave, he shouldn't have never came out and said he wasn't going to poke him. If he just came out and been honest from the get-go, what he did was he got caught up in the watch and I and I always like don't be who you are, be unapologetic, right, don't get caught up in the watch. Schumer always knew he was gonna vote for it. He's never been one to fold the government. That's never been his style his whole career. So to get up there and say I'm you know my vote is no, you're lying. I know you're lying, everybody knows you're lying, you know I'm. So now you don't got the whole Democratic, you ain't got these young Democrats who like, yeah, schumer's going to do it. You know when Schumer does what he always does, it was like, hey, man, we should probably keep the government open because that's in the best interest of the government. Now he looks like he's two.
Speaker 1:Faced it when in, in actuality, that's who he's always been. You get what I'm saying. So, oh, yeah, I was. Yeah, it's like I was talking to, uh, I, I was talking to him and this this will be right along with what you, and tell me if you think this is what it is for schumer, because I I think it's very similar. It's two sides of the coin. I was talking with the older veteran at walmart. We we talked to vietnam and he had we ended up chatting his, his chaplain was horrible, horrible person, did not do his job. Well, anyway, as we were talking, he came around to politics. He said you know the one person I don't like. You know my senator and I was like lindsey graham. He goes, yeah, that lindsey guy.
Speaker 1:He just I said because it's because he does this, which way is the wind? And he goes oh you, oh, that's exactly what it is. That's why I don't like it. He just whichever way the wind blows. And Schumer? To be fair, I think Schumer is more committed to the leftist cause than Lindsey Graham is to conservatism, but I do think Lindsey Graham is very committed to whatever makes money go into his pocket. Exactly so, and that's true probably of all of them yeah, I mean, but that's lindsey and tim.
Speaker 2:That's lindsey and tim from the gate. Those are two of the griftiest is tim scott like that hell yeah, tim scott, don't have a damn.
Speaker 2:you could ask Tim Scott what color is the sky? Blue? He's going to tell you. Tell me what color it is, and I believe you. He doesn't have a fucking policy to stand on to save his fucking life, and that's what pisses me off about him. He's a brilliant dude if left to his own devices, but he's so. I mean, he's the first black senator in God knows how fucking long, so he's the only.
Speaker 1:He's the only black republican senator in the in the senate so he's so locked into that that he's afraid.
Speaker 2:you know, I don't know if he's afraid or he's just hell to to speak his mind to the point to where it's like whatever, whatever you, whatever you say is what we go. You know what I'm saying and it's like dude, yeah.
Speaker 1:Well, I mean to be fair. You know, there there is something to be said for all of these. All of them doing it, very few of them are going to say something that goes against the party and secondly, more importantly, goes against them that is going to be used in the next election. So, I think a lot of them, a lot of them, when they have been calculating in 2022, oh, is Trump going to come back we better start being a little more careful about what we say, and and so then, with 2004, because that's that's part of the reason is, a lot of them were very anti-trump and and then, when the republicans showed up and actually voted, a lot of these guys lost.
Speaker 1:Um, but ultimately, I think we're on the same page, and this goes, you know, to the, to the tupac motto is like we just want people who are honest and are there to do the job to make the world better. If you go for two years and you accomplish nothing and you get voted out, so be it. If you go there for two years and you just bend over backwards to get reelected and do nothing, that's worse. And if you go for two years and you go against the party because you think the party's wrong and you lose? Well then, good, at least you lived up to your morals. But it's such a money driver. You know, I've seen that thing, that AOC, and I don't know what I honestly I have no idea what her net worth is. But if you think she came out as a bartender didn't have somebody backing her that was full of money, you're crazy, because you can't but her backer, her backer, her and her backer.
Speaker 2:I think we talked about this a couple episodes ago. Her and her backer had it out because she completely abandoned her district.
Speaker 1:Oh, with the jobs, wasn't it?
Speaker 2:Yeah, she was chasing national clout. You know what I mean. It's like alright, hey, thanks for getting me there. I got it from here once I'm in the seat I'm going to pivot on, and then her district kind of fell to the wayside and that's unfortunate.
Speaker 1:But then you know what falls by the wayside. But then she wins because it's the name recognition Right. And you know, I really it's tough because it's not just the name recognition, right If AOC was doing this in a purple area, right. If she was in New York that was, let's say, right on the border between West Point and the city. So you got, you know it's still up for grabs, she's probably not going to be quite as hardline, right? But because she knows she's in a safe blue district, she can go crazy.
Speaker 1:And it's true for Republicans too. Yeah, that's why you have so many. What the conservatives would call rhinos is because you don't get rhinos in New Mexico. You don't get rhinos. You get rhinos in the places that are pretty safe Republican spots like Utah. You again, you've got this guy who switched over Curtis, who was in the high up, if not leading, the Democratic Party, and then, if they don't like where they're going, and then you have the shopping you have. Who was it? Who's the other one that you're? Marjorie Taylor Greene, You're your favorite one next to her. Bobert was that her name? In colorado, over bobert?
Speaker 2:yeah, over she's so yes well, she lost the primary in one district, switched to another damn district and then she won.
Speaker 1:Yeah, that bothers me right like me, and meanwhile if your kid wants to go play with his friends in a different school high school it's jumping through every hoop in the world because well, you don't live in the boundaries and so well we can't allow you to move from this school to that school because then it's going to throw off the balance. It's like what are you talking? Like we literally were on the border from one junior, one middle school to the to the next one, and the one middle school that we're assigned to is a good 10 minutes away. The middle school here is about a five minute drive, but the borders there and unless we have a compelling reason they're not going to let. Let us change your daughter over there, even though the high schools basically in the same complex. You have the, the elementary school, middle school and high school all right there, walking distance, but instead we're at two. We're at an elementary school eight miles down the road and or six to eight miles down the road and the middle school is way down there too.
Speaker 1:But but a Congress person can switch just by getting the signatures. And then, even then you wonder how are they getting the signatures? Cause they have people that they're able to pay and go out. Well, it's, it's, it's okay, they can do it, they follow the rules. You'd think about getting like signatures, because I've had people come and knock on the door and I've talked to people. Um, and, real fast, they, they don't, they understand when I'm like dude, I'm not even registered here, I'm, I'm military, I'm registered in texas, like, oh, okay, but I still talk to them.
Speaker 1:Um, but when you're able to switch, like that, I, I don't know, I, unless the district is redrawn, do you, can you really put a rule in place that says if you ran in one place, you can't run in another? Cause then, not really, you can't really do that. But at the same time, it's almost like you just wish people would go quit carpetbagging. Don't, don't come over to our district, don't? You know? You don't need to be here. You lost. Try again in two years. Go on Fox News for the next two years. Go make your money and be happy and be a crazy girl, that's who knows you might even be a secondary or a sec death.
Speaker 2:if you go to Fox, you'll be all right.
Speaker 1:Well, wasn't Bobbert like caught performing a sexual act with a boyfriend?
Speaker 2:An old-fashioned in the movie theater.
Speaker 1:Is that what that's called? I mean handy. I was trying to say you know, but in the theater it's like really Meanwhile. Remember Pee-wee Herman theater, and it's like really meanwhile, remember peewee herman, peewee, he lost, he lost everything for years because he was uh gratifying himself in a in an adult theater no way in. An adult theater. Did you? Did you see the biography? It came out that, uh, he, since he passed away. What was a year ago? The biography came out and it said paul rubens was gay.
Speaker 2:No, no, I don't know right, it's like I'm shocked, I'm shocked, I that's oh, I never would have, but does that take away from anything as far as his comedy and his persona is peewee herman.
Speaker 1:No, not, of course.
Speaker 2:Not, he was, I'm starting to realize, especially being in Washington DC, I realize there isa different game being played up there. That's the majors. It's mind-boggling how it gets disseminated through the airwaves. Man, if people it's hard, man, but if people were to just turn off media and just just turn it off, they would. They would realize that they're being played both sides, up down, left and right, the, the manipulation that's going on.
Speaker 1:Isn't that the? Isn't that the catch-22,? Though? Because without the media, how do you find out on? Yeah, like you and I, you know, growing up in Utah, the closest I could have gotten to DC was getting. You know, we didn't have money. I would have had to get in the car and drive 24 to 30 hours non-stop to get to dc if I wanted to do anything, and it just it's so impossible to to do that, and so, um that that asks a great question. So media is a problem. Media is absolutely a big part of the problem, um, and that's that's something I think.
Speaker 2:That question is literally years that that question is more complex than than it seems on the surface. Right, because on the surface, media is not the problem. Right, media is supposed to be the, the, the bastion of truth, right? Um, you look at some of the guys like you know some, some of my heroes, tom brokaw's. You know I'm saying some of the guys like you know some some of my heroes, tom Brokaw, you know I'm saying some of the, the stalwarts of media. Right, they were champions of truth and integrity. Right, there was a time when, before he, before, later, later, brokaw had his situation.
Speaker 2:I'm saying let let he, without saying cast the first stone Right Real journalist, thank you. He was out saying cast the first stone right Real journalists, thank you.
Speaker 1:Thank you Like so journalistic integrity was a thing right Before there were individuals that had journalistic integrity.
Speaker 2:There's a difference between journalism and journalism to media and entertainment. They went from reporting to news to making the news for news entertainment. The more we shifted to news entertainment, the more it became sensationalized and scandalous and we stopped focused on what, we stopped focusing on what was really important and started focusing on, you know, all of the BS rhetoric and this and the other. And then that's when you kind of had your tribalistic news channels kind of emerge and this, that and the other. Right, because that was a time where you could turn on CBS and get a little bit. You could turn on NBC and get a little bit, you know, and then even even Fox back in the day you were able to get a little bit. And then the tabloids were where you went to go get all the crazy stuff. But now you just I mean, you turn on any news channel and, depending on what show you're watching, you're liable to get all kinds of crazy stuff, right?
Speaker 1:you're watching, you liable to get all kinds of crazy stuff, right? Yeah, I think that, thad there, thad you, you make a good point. This is something I've been arguing for a long time is that it went from who what, where, when, why, to who what, where, when. We are going to tell you the why that we think, and we're going to manipulate the story to fit the why we believe. Yeah, as far as journalism goes, though, yellow journalism has been around forever.
Speaker 1:I mean hearst, william hearst made his money off of the tabloids the new york times. The new york times was burying information about the holocaust and about what was going on with the Jews, and the New York Times forever. The New York Times in America has kind of been the mouthpiece of what the news is going to be, and that was true. That's true Going all the way back to radio, and when TV first started, they were getting the we call them the talking points now, but the bullet points is probably more the way to say it. They were getting the bullet points from the New York Times, and so historically it was the same.
Speaker 2:I mean, you can go back and look at the you know. You go back and look at like we talk about the Lincoln-Douglas debates a lot, right, we can go back and look at, you know, the presidential races, the congressional races. Hell, ben franklin used to use propaganda in the media all the time. That was like the thing. So. So you know, media is in itself was not without it. It's you know what uh hamilton used to do it on the. Uh hamilton and burr used it all the time to to to slander one another.
Speaker 2:So the media as a propaganda vehicle is not nothing new. But what I'm saying there was a line where you had journalistic integrity when it came to reporting the news. Right, I mean, there was opinion pieces where you were able to kind of sway the public with your own hearsay, this, that and the other, and that was left for a section. But when it came to reporting the actual news, that was kind of left as a unwritten. You know say, okay, here's the black and white, you know, and then we'll let you kind of decide, and then we'll. Here's the opinion pieces of it.
Speaker 1:You kind of decide and then we'll. Here's the opinion pieces of it. I, I guess you can say that, but there are definitely examples of where that's not true either. Now, I know I've used this example lots of times, but the ted offensive during the vietnam war. The ted offensive was a ceasefire over christmas which coincided with the Tet holiday in Vietnam, and there was a truce called a you know no fire and we're going to pay during the holiday. We're going to stop. And the night of I believe it was the night of Christmas Eve and Tet were the same the North Vietnamese launched a massive, massive attack against the US troops and the US was completely caught by surprise and still absolutely dominated the North. The body count was 40 to one or, I'm sorry, 20 to one. So for every one US soldier that was killed, 20 North Vietnamese and Chinese, but mostly North Korean, I'm sorry. North Vietnamese Tim Brokaw, now Vietnamese Tim Brokaw Now you've got Brokaw in my head. No, no, no, walter Cronkite, uncle Walter got on the news that night and said this is a new war.
Speaker 1:This is because of this. The United States was completely caught off guard and this is now the turning point and this might not be a winnable war. Now you can say, well, cronkite was just sharing his opinion, he was just sharing the news. If Cronkite had gone on, though, and been honest with the American people and said the US was caught off guard, however, they absolutely held their own and they dominated the North Koreans, and this is just another battle that the United States has won. The United States has never lost it. The US never lost a battle in Vietnam. They lost the war, and, in part, what he said that night turned public opinion against that war more than pretty much anything else. And so, yeah, there are circumstances, but you can go from there to it wasn't Brokaw, who was the other one that got fired for lying about George W Bush's record.
Speaker 1:He used the false records, records from the national guard. He was trying to get george w bush in 2004. Not brokaw, the other big um, rather, dan, rather. That's what he got fired for, remember. And then you've got uh, I mean you, you've got williams, who lied about. He did the hillary clinton thing. Oh, we flew in and sniper rifles, and Look at me.
Speaker 2:Look at me, I'm black. You don't have to convince me that the media, I get it Right.
Speaker 1:Yeah, but I'm not talking just to you.
Speaker 2:I mean from a black, from a black man, stole my baby to you know. I'm saying to the welfare queens like we can go all the way. I get it, I get it. I think you ate my baby, you know like we can go all the way I get it, like I get it.
Speaker 2:I think you ate my baby Like the media has never been a friend of ours and I get it, but there is still a respect. You know what I'm saying and that that's that weird dichotomy that we have with this this love hate relationship.
Speaker 1:I call it. You know that's, that's interesting. I'd be curious if you went back and you looked at and I'm going gonna use this word because that was what they were called back then the negro newspapers. Right, the negro papers that um washington wrote for that, you know, before du bois came on the scene, uh, but but some of the uh frederick douglass wrote for. I'd be curious to go back and see how much of that was propaganda versus here's what's going on and how much they were covering, because I know a lot of these black newspapers were definitely reporting on things that were going on in the black community. That white newspapers sure weren't.
Speaker 2:I mean from from the research that I've done independently, there was a certain cast of of there. There was two competing thoughts within the black community around around the time, right, and a lot of it kind of bounced off of the whole dubois versus versus, uh, washington line of thinking, right, um, and, and it's basically, do we know, do we acquiesce and blend, or do we, you know, separate but equal, and that's kind of always kind of been the case, and then, depending on where you fell in line, that was kind of where you went, you know, for your media, immediate, I would say. You know, before this administration, the National Archives had a very robust catalog. That was really dope. If you get a chance, though, the South Carolina Museum of African American History has an amazing catalog on that stuff. If you guys ever get a chance, man, go check it out. That stuff is super dope.
Speaker 2:But Frederick Douglass wrote some really amazing opinion pieces on the matter about how reconstruction, his idea of reconstruction, how he saw it work out, which is really I didn't realize how, behind the scenes, he was intertwined with the lincoln white house, right. So, like he was he, he was to yeah, he was to lincoln. What eli is to trump on an unofficial yes yes, you don't agree, absolutely, yeah, he was able to.
Speaker 2:He was able to. Hey, mr lincoln, you should probably use black troops. Hey, mr Lincoln, now be a good time to use black troops. You know what I mean Like. So I was even even in learning that, I was really impressed with the way, like I was surprised with the way that he, with the way that he was able to to at least voice his opinion, and not saying that, that, you know, not saying that lincoln listened to him all the time because he, you know, he had his own thing, but he was still able to have a, a respected voice in the administration to an extent, I mean to, to, yeah, to an extent, uh, which?
Speaker 1:and really and, and he founded I'd forgotten I the black star was what was throwing me off he founded the north star, yeah and so, yeah, so he was, he was in charge of that and published that at the editor for a long time. The first black newspaper was Freedom's Journal, established in 1927. I want to say it was in New York, yes, in New York, and it had a weekly circulation of about 50,000 by Samuel Cornish and John B Russworm were the first owned and operated. So I'm curious, like if you went back and went through, let's say, the North Star, how much of that was. And I'm sure Frederick Douglass was using it to push the Black cause, which understandably so but I also wonder how much they were reporting on things that were going on in the black community that, just, you know, wasn't covered.
Speaker 1:You know whether it's a murder or rape or, you know, assaults or whatever It'd be, interesting to see kind of what they had that wasn't in the white newspapers, because, again, the New York Times the New York Times absolutely being the, you know, being the standard bearer yeah, they were still picking and choosing and very actively not reporting things. So it's been going on forever. And that's where there's so few. I really like and I've said this on here several times Cheryl Atkinson. I really like her.
Speaker 1:I think Greg Meesterbrook counts. He might not count himself as a journalist, but I think he qualifies as a journalist. He does a lot of things that things that at least kind of fall under journalism. He's, yes, he's an opinion writer and a story writer, but he covers stuff in a way. He writes about things that are, I think, pretty interesting. I think Drudge I'd like to think that Drudge kind of started off with a journalistic mentality, but I think there was a point where Drudge I don't know who pissed him off, but there was a point where he went I'm going anti-MAGA, and maybe it's just because it makes him more money, but Matt Drudge for a long time was seen as a kind of a middle ground where you had both sides, kind of a middle ground where you had both sides and, and now you go on dredger report and it's it's definitely um, center left, much more than it was, I think, dead center.
Speaker 1:Uh, and you had bright bart he, you know, absolutely a conservative right. But one of the things that I thought was interesting was how you only have you know the, the certain media is one way or the other. So print media and and uh, especially the networks and all that, before fox news came around, almost all of them were left-leaning right, center left. And then fox news come along, pushed it on the right, and that's fine, but again, again, one versus how many? And with talk radio, though, it was the complete opposite. It was almost impossible to hear any left, and it still is.
Speaker 1:You talk about AM radio, the equivalent of AM radio between Rush Limbaugh and Hannity, and those guys Dominated radio, and they still kind of do I, I mean I've, I mean yeah, well, the podcast is interesting. Did you see that one that went around that was saying the podcast, the left needs to get better with podcasts. And here's the right and here's the, the blue and the reds, and it was how big they were. And they had Joe Rogan. Is this big red one in the middle? It's like Rogan is not a conservative, rogan, at best, is libertarian. And they had Russell brand. They had Russell brand as red Russell brand.
Speaker 2:Russell brand. Yeah, that was a stretch.
Speaker 1:Oh really, I Limbaugh. Yeah, I mean I'm 52, so I probably would. I didn't listen to a lot of I don't remember a lot of talk radio. I remember Paul Harvey. That was about it, with the rest of the news.
Speaker 2:No, yeah, limbaugh was kind of like my introduction, like coming into talk radio.
Speaker 1:I was local radio before then, so well, yeah, before that, I mean in the 80s, if you listen to am, you weren't listening to am for anything, to me at least, other than sports. Um, well, that's interesting. Yeah, liberty, I I I gotta admit, like I mean, you know, in the 80s, was also a teenager so I wasn't exactly jumping online to listen to the stock reports, so it wouldn't surprise me if there was. But again, that's where I say the media, yeah, and Limbaugh definitely was a pioneer in pushing conservative and becoming arguably the biggest voice in radio. I mean for years, him and Stern, but even Stern never got to the level of Limbaugh.
Speaker 2:Yeah, stern was cool, cause Stern like Stern was like unabashed, like hey, I'm an entertainer.
Speaker 1:Limbaugh was crazy. He was a shock jock.
Speaker 2:Yeah, I like, I like Limbaugh, because Limbaugh was. He would tell you that I am a entertainment commentator, like he will. He will straight up tell you hey, I am, I am an entertainment commentator, you know what I mean. Like, like, this is what I do and I do it for entertainment purposes. And people will take it as long Like I loved Rush Limbaugh, like I loved listening to him because the dude could deliver a story man, like he was a storyteller Like heavy, that was another, was it? Was it? I can't remember Speaking of me. You bring me up. Yeah, larry King, too, was what. I only remember hearing stories. I never really heard him on the radio, I only heard stories of Larry King, so I don't remember what his content was. Yeah, I remember the.
Speaker 1:TV. Yeah, Larry, Larry was on TV since he was 115 to 190 years old, so he was there for a while. But yeah, I think it's interesting just in terms of the radio. Guys like Limbaugh yeah, he came on, I'll tell you when I said Limbaugh lost me a little bit and it was the part and I get it, it was his job to do this. But when they were about the Brady Bill and they were saying we need to pass something, so you need to have a time to be able to do a FBI check right, A 72-hour cool-down FBI check, and all that, and Limbaugh was just ranting and raving about that.
Speaker 1:And here I am going, I'm in my early 20s, thinking but what's wrong with that? What's wrong with making sure that somebody who's a felon isn't going into a gun shop and buying a gun? What's wrong with somebody who is freaking out because they just found out that their girlfriend was cheating on them, needing 72 hours to go in and cool down, and so it just kind of went from there. And Hannity was the same way. I used to listen to Hannity too, and the funny thing now is when people accuse me oh, you get all your news from Fox News. I literally have not watched a minute of Fox News outside of watching election results in probably the last 20 years I'm sorry, the last probably five years. And I don't think that I am missing out anything on Fox News because, honestly, I can read the New York Times and know what the conservative argument is going to be, because I'm a conservative. There's very few things. Now there might be some more in depth some of those things, but even some of the conservatives blow me away with how weird they got with the whole Trump thing becoming anti-Trump. I left the Republican Party over Trump when he was first nominated but then I was like, OK, as policies go in his first I liked what the economy was doing, I liked how he was treating soldiers, all that stuff, and so then I vote, and especially the Supreme Court.
Speaker 1:And I think that when we're looking at what's going on today, we talk about the media being divided between the right and the left, and it's the same thing with the, with the Congress to take a full Circle to the Congress, to take a full circle to the Congress. My sister texted me today and she said do you know any good military sources that are just deliver the news like kind of right down the middle, I was like no, there aren't any. There just really aren't. And so and part of that is because, even if you try to deliver the news down the middle, you're getting all your news from one of two slants, right? So if you're going to say, okay, here's an article about what Elon Musk is doing this week, and you were to take one from Fox News and one from the New York Times, and then you printed them next to each other, I think that's about as close as you can get to down the middle, because there's nobody going in.
Speaker 1:And as much as people say, well, AI, you know AI is going to be straight down the middle. Well, unless you're programmers, unless you're, if you have people who are programming it to be one way or the other, we Google's. How many times have we seen Google caught with their hand in the cookie jar? Well, it's like oh well, if you ask for the Trump assassination news on the Trump assassination, none of the results come up. Or attempted assassination, None of the results come up, and you can't tell me oh well, that was just a small issue with the algorithm. No, that is somebody going in and programming it to say we're not going to cover that.
Speaker 1:So, yeah, I think somebody I don't know who's going to do it Somebody's going to crack the code for the media at this point, and it'll probably be AI merging and saying I'm going to create an algorithm and I'm going to create an AI that reads any story that comes out. It then reads both sides and then it comes up with a who, what, where, when, why, how, to the most basic, simple terms. And even if it's who, what, where, when, which is not disputed, here's the facts of it and the why. From the New York Times this is their synopsis. And from Fox News here's their synopsis. If you do that, I think you could have ads all over the place and you would make an absolute ton of money from it.
Speaker 2:Dad, I don't know if you're listening, but Chappie just gave us a million-dollar AI idea. We can get a developer on that.
Speaker 1:That's a billion dollars.
Speaker 2:I think that will. That will absolutely slap, because you have a treasure trove of independence and people in the middle who are just tired of the bullshit on both sides. It's just like yo, I'll make the decision. If you just give me the bottom line, I'll make the decision on my own. Just give me the decision, if you just give me the bottom line, I'll make the decision on my own.
Speaker 1:Just give me the information. And if you're you and if you're using the AI to do it, so if you think about it like you have such a broad spectrum Right, so far left it used to be Washington Post and the Washington Post, with Bezos, I think, kind of did the Trump correction. So while they're still left, they're not as far left right. But I think if you had an algorithm that could go in and say here's, and you could probably do it, because the way AI works, like you could even do it on a local level. Let's say Salt Lake.
Speaker 1:Okay, salt Lake City has the Salt Lake Tribune, which is definitely a left-leaning newspaper, and the Deseret News, which is definitely a right leaning newspaper. So if they both cover, let's say there is a shooting in Liberty Park in downtown Salt Lake City and AI is able to go in and say here's what the Tribune says, here's what the Deseret News says the who, the what, the where, the why are all the same. And. And then it synopsizes this is what the Deseret News has as its synopsis and here's what the Tribune has as its synopsis. Then you as a person are able to go OK, here's what they both are.
Speaker 1:That means this is probably what's true about the why. This is probably what's true about the why, because if I can get what they both what they both think, I can probably find out. I can probably think about it for myself, and that's true for now. Maybe it's going to be tougher if you're in, you know, bfe Georgia that doesn't have more than one newspaper, like I don't. I think the Augusta Chronicle is here. I don't know if there's another newspaper than here. I think that's it.
Speaker 2:Yeah.
Speaker 1:So, yeah, well, and that is the prompt. So the question would be, yeah, if you could do the prompting to where you are generating it in terms of finding the sourcing. And you have to get the right combination, I think, of the sourcing, because you can't have Fox News on everything like Fox News can't be the only conservative because Wall Street Journal I think the Wall Street Journal does a pretty good job of being fairly center based. I think they're probably more center than just about any other major news organization but at the same time, you still can read things in the Washington Post, I'm sorry, in the Wall Street Journal, that are pretty far right and pretty far left. It's not always right down the middle.
Speaker 2:I'll read the Wall Street Journal and balance it with the Financial Times and then, like between the Wall Street Journal and the Financial Times, I get a pretty good, robust picture of everything and then kind of branch out after that.
Speaker 1:And then that is kind of where I go left to right um, so I I don't know, I I don't know liberty, I think the the as far as for hard yeah, they slam.
Speaker 2:Yeah, the wall street journal slammed hell out of the left a lot I don't know yeah and so it was.
Speaker 1:And I think what you also find is that as you go up the ladder from local to national, the more leaning you get. Right, if you want to go, if you open up page 13 of the New York Times about the city section, right, there's not a lot of, there's not a lot of slant about the fire that happened in on the 13th block in Manhattan. That happened on the 13th block in Manhattan. Same thing with Los Angeles, the LA Times. You go on and the stuff about the fires is pretty straightforward and it's when it starts getting into some of the hot button issues, there you go. So that's a great one, that's a great example. So when you look at immigration and if you're saying, ok, here's the numbers that came across the border and here's some of the challenges, then you can get straight up information, straight up numbers. But then when you start saying the why and that's where the problem comes in, the why If you want to say, here's the numbers, here's what's crossed up, here's what, and then when you get to the why is, well, who's to blame? Is it law enforcement? Is it the policies? Is it not only that, but what's drawing people here? So the Biden administration would say, oh no, the increase. We shut down the faucet and there were. You know, by the end our numbers were lower than Trump. Yeah, after three and a half years because you let everybody in that said, I have a problem with the country I'm in, can I come in? And they said, yeah, come on in, right?
Speaker 1:So when you get to kind of the more political stuff but again the Wall Street Journal is not going to have issues, when you say here's what Google did today, here's what Tesla announced for their next quarter, this is what we're forecasting I don't think the Wall Street Journal is 60% and I do think the editorials, that's where you get into a problem. Even seeing it in sports, a lot of people I know a lot of people on the right, are saying that I don't watch SportsCenter anymore because it's become a left-leaning. I got to admit I haven't watched SportsCenter in 10 years, but I know some of the stuff. You read some of the things that have gone on with some of the reporters and you got to wonder about even things like ESPN, which should be just sports. But the politics have played a part there. What just flashed? The end of the Department of Education? Let's go the Department of ED ED.
Speaker 2:You ready? All right, yeah, so DOE is energy. So I learned that. I learned that in my research Department of.
Speaker 2:Education is ED, education is ed. So, um 47 signed an executive order essentially stripping down the, the department of ed, to its bare bones. Um, most are signaling, thinking that it may be the end of um the department of education as it stands. Um, I don't know. I don't know. I got my thoughts, man, but as the educator, I will, um, I will acquiesce and let you take the lead and then I'll come in. I'll come in behind you, based off your thoughts, man, and see what you got going on. So how do you feel about it?
Speaker 1:um, I think that the report card from the national went in 1979 nationally to it was somewhere around a C to C minus for the overall education of our country, and then we spent how many trillions and trillions of dollars and now we're at a D plus, so we've gone down. So you got to wonder what is it about? The Department of Education obviously didn't help. What is it about? The department of education obviously didn't help.
Speaker 1:Um, I think there's a lot of problems with the school systems. I think there's a problem with the unions. I think there's a problem with the way that our schools have increased non-teachers uh, disproportionately compared to teachers, where the enrollment has gone up. What is it? The overall enrollment of students has gone up in the last 30 years, something like 18%. The number of teachers has gone up 20% and non-teachers has gone up 600% some ridiculous number.
Speaker 1:But then the question and this is where perception comes in, and this is where perception comes in and this is where, uh, we need more information because those numbers that go up for the non-educators, when I've been in the high schools, they now have these specialty teachers, specialist teachers who they are in charge of two or three kids that are autistic or some level on the spectrum, and so they basically are there to make sure they get to class and they sit in class too, right? They don't teach, they are student herders. I've got these four kids. They're on an imaginary leash. Let's go. We're going to class. Hey, all four of you, we're going in, going to class. All right, all you four sit down. This is what we're doing. Listen to the teacher and and this is elementary school, middle school and high school, I don't know where where those come in. As far as the funding goes, I don't know if those count as no, those are your idea.
Speaker 2:Those are your idea, students.
Speaker 1:No those are your idea. Those are your idea students. So those are funded by the DOE. So, but my question is, as far as the number of hires, when we're talking about the hires, do those count as teacher hires or do those count as non teacher hires? Because while I sit there and go, well, how do you have so many? Because, hey, I've been in these high schools. They have four or six media experts in the library. These kids aren't checking out books. They sit in the library and they eat their lunch in there and it otherwise it's a desert. I I've walked through during the planning hours and there's no kids in there. They're not using any. You know they're not. They're certainly not checking out books. But now you have four to six media experts and then you know it, just it. That's.
Speaker 1:My question is where's the breakdown as far as where does the money go? Because you also, you go back to well, you go back to Malcolm Gladwell, right, and you look at some of his books and some of the interesting arguments he makes. It's, it's not about just throwing money or the class size, some of those things Like, is there really a big difference between? So let me ask you this, kj, if you have a teacher that is teaching 15 students and you have a teacher who's teaching 25 students in their classroom. What should the teacher that has 25 students in her classroom make? More than the teacher that has 15?
Speaker 2:Well, it depends, and I don't think either one. I don't think it should be based off a class size.
Speaker 1:I don't either, I don't either, but then was moments.
Speaker 2:But then again it gets into what was the performance, what's the performance evaluator? And then if we go into I'm not a fan of standardized testing, I don't because I think, you know, when we got into the whole standardized test thing, I kind of I think we got away from, I think we got away from educating as a whole to teaching for the test, teaching to the test. Yep, I think that's kind of what affected the downward slope. But that's beyond the point. I don't think people have a fundamental grasp of what the Department of Education role is. Right, and it's smoke and mirrors, and this, this administration, is doing a masterful job with smoke and mirrors when it comes to confusing the populace. Right, they love to make a boogeyman out of everything Right in the populace. Right, they love to make a boogeyman out of everything right. Everybody likes to talk about funding and, oh, the Department of Education is getting in the way of funding and this sort of thing. The Department of Education at its best is responsible for 10% of your school's funding At best. At most. At most, it's responsible for 10% of your children's funding at best. At most, at most is responsible for 10% of your children's funding. What they are responsible for is what you talked about, those ideas, right? Individuals with Disabilities Act right, that's what they're responsible for making sure children who are disabled or children who have special needs can be accessible to schools, basically. So, if I could break it down, what the Department of Education is essentially there for is to say, hey, you can't discriminate against people with disabilities, you can't discriminate against people because they're a different race, color, creed or gender, right, and we're here to make sure that you don't do it. And oh, by the way, hey, we need you to report to us every year so that we can keep a track of what you guys are educating. That's your job. We take that report, we give it to Congress and then Congress says, ok, cool, you guys are doing your job. That is it.
Speaker 2:The primary responsibility of the Department of Education is to push out loans to college students. To push out loans to college students, right, so, on a local level, k through 12, and then I posted links for you guys who will find a loan, the links if you click the links inside the book, it'll tell you exactly how K through 12 is funded and the percentages, right? Basically, the Department of Education is essentially there to make sure one. Hey, discrimination is not taking place in these state schools. Right, that is our primary focus. Our secondary focus is to make sure that students who need access to college can go to college, and we do that by providing funds. So those are their two main responsibilities. Everything outside of that belongs to your district and state level, right, so your state and local are responsible.
Speaker 1:Let me ask you, let me ask you a potentially unpopular question. Should there be discrimination? Absolutely not. Should there be discrimination? Absolutely not. Okay, here's why I say that when you have children, again the feds are not in your schools.
Speaker 2:Did you not hear anything? I just told you the feds are not in your schools. That is a local and state requirement.
Speaker 1:Click on the links. Hold on Hold on KJ.
Speaker 1:Let me ask you this and, in liberty, give it a second, see if, see if this makes sense. That hold on. I, I know you're you're jumping to the racial that's. That's not my point, though, and it could come into play. So let me ask you this, though if you have a child who is on the bottom of the intellectual scale, who potentially has, um, behavioral issues, who is does not, uh, is really not able to regulate their behavior in a, in a way that makes it conducive to them to be in a classroom, should they be in a classroom? Because I'll tell you right now, they are right and I understand, I now, I understand the thought of well, now you're discriminating if you say they can't be in the classroom. No, no, that's not discriminatory at that's not discriminatory at all.
Speaker 2:That's not discriminatory at all because if the if it, if you, if the school board is allowed to do their job as they're supposed to, what they're supposed to do is identify the behavior problems reported to the social worker and the social worker, in tandem with that parent, is supposed to come up with a individual education plan for that student. Right, if it's done properly, if it's done properly, however common, what's happening is there is a lapse, it's not being done properly. So what you got is you got a bunch of bad-ass kids disrupting the students and the learning in the school. So yeah, no, I'm completely for me. So, no, that's not discriminatory at all.
Speaker 1:Absolutely, it is, because if you say, as this kid shouldn't be in school, and you don't give them every hoop that has to, if you're not following every federal regulation. Now listen, I recently spoke to somebody who is in education at the principal level, principal level. One of the biggest problems they have is that they have to. They are so worried about so many what you just said federal guidelines and federal regulations, because they're so worried about the funding being strict if they don't meet all of those regulations Right now.
Speaker 1:So that I'm not saying anything about the boys, that it being skin, I don't think it's necessarily based on skin color. I think it's much more based on socioeconomic, because if you have white, black, brown, whatever, if the kids are generally, generally poor, they don't have some of the benefits that go along with good nutrition, with good leadership in the school, two parents in the house, all those things that go along right. But what we've done is by saying every kid, basically every kid, no matter who they are, no matter how they perform, no matter how they they act, has to have the right to be in elementary school, middle school or junior high, because if you don't put them in regular elementary, the regular elementary school, down the, down the hill. And look, I'm not talking about the ones that just need a little bit, I'm talking about the ones that just need a little bit.
Speaker 2:I'm talking about the ones that really, again, again, let me stop you because that's not a federal. Again, that is not a federal mandate. That is not. That is not what is a federal mandate. Is the food program that was that was amended by this president, right? So when we talk about the nutrition issue, that is something we can talk about because that is a federal food program, right? The federal funding for food, however common that, is dependent on your state requirement, right? So you're talking about this kid having to be oh, he has to be in school. Those truancy policies are set by your local school boards.
Speaker 1:I'm not talking about truancy. No-transcript, no hold on.
Speaker 1:You're talking about him having to be in school. That's not what I'm talking about. What I'm talking about is the parent says hey, I got to go to work. The single parent says I got to go to work, my son, he deserves to be in the school, I don't care if he can. Friends of ours, okay?
Speaker 1:Military family Military family White military family military family white um, their daughter took a pair of scissors and, while the teacher wasn't looking, cut up the teacher's coat. Now, this was years ago, this was 15 years ago. They would not kick her out, they did not suspend her, they didn't do anything because, well, you know, we, we have to let everybody, everybody has. And she was a massive destructive, destructive force to the learning of all the other kids, right? So what point? Because you can't just go oh well, these kids are performing well, these kids aren't these kids, and separate them that way. We, we go by age and then you have the educators who are so scared and so worried about failing kids. You're right and I I get it. We're talking about, we're talking about a whole wide thing here between the do department of education and low right.
Speaker 2:But that's still. That still falls on the state requirement. Because the state says, hey, you have to maintain this, this enrollment level, to be, to be access this funding Right. And then on a local, on a local tax, on a local tax level. If your enrollment level drops below you know 500 kids, for you know third grade level, you're not going to get this tax. So again, people will blame that, people will blame that and say, oh well, the feds are doing this, that and the other one, and when in reality that's not really a federal issue, but aren't the feds setting the guidelines to start?
Speaker 2:No no, they're not. That's a state, that's a state guideline, that is state regulation and a local guideline that is based off of your state and local. And then that's why I tell people a lot of people, just smoke and mirrors thing has it confused so what keeps?
Speaker 1:okay, so then, what keeps the federal if you remove the department of education and it's gone, poof or poof, but there's this much left because you know it's a department that was created by the legislature and therefore it can't be poofed completely away, but it can be staffed and it can be neutered to to a degree that it's not going to come back. What stops the state of Georgia from basically doing all the things that the federal mandates from basically doing?
Speaker 2:all the things that the federal mandates had in place. The only federal mandate, the only federal mandate that that is beholden by the state, is to report every year that you have tested your students to a certain criteria set by the NAEP Right. And then this so hold on, get this. The federal department of education doesn't even dictate what state you get to pick. The states get to pick the test. So Georgia and Alabama have two separate tests. Florida has a separate test. The tests aren't even equal, so all they do is maintain the accountability so that they can send it to Congress and say hey look, this is where Georgia is based off of the test that they pick right and you know what that sounds like.
Speaker 1:You know what that sounds like. That sounds like on office space. When they say when, when the bobs are there, and they say, so, what do you do here? He says, well, I take the specs from the customer and I give them to the engineer and they say so again.
Speaker 2:That's not their role. No, no, no, that's not their role. That's like getting mad at. That's like getting mad. That's like getting mad at what damn? That's like getting mad at a fish, because the fish can't climb a tree. You're upset at the Department of Education for something that is not the part. The Department of Education was set in place so that there could be non-discrimination. Their job is to sit back and say, hey, state, stop discriminating against those little kids in those rural, in those rural areas. The kids in the rural areas and the kids in the metro areas have to have the same level of education. So you have to maintain you have to maintain a level of testing that is equivalent. You have to maintain a level of testing.
Speaker 1:That is equivalent, and this is the same thing. Liberty's point is and I tell you right now, this is Liberty's point let's say Georgia. Why can't Georgia do that on their own?
Speaker 2:Why can't Georgia say? Because prior to 1979, we have proven time and time again states left alone Look at Mississippi, look at Alabama States left alone to their own devices can't do right. That's like, that's like asking well, hell, if we, you know, if we don't need a civil rights bill because you know people should be able to do right on their own. People can't even put their own chakram cards back, you know what the right thing is.
Speaker 1:Do you think things have gotten better, though, since 1979?
Speaker 2:No no.
Speaker 1:So how much money has been spent on education in part, controlled in part by the standards of the Department of Education, in the past 45 years? And if it hasn't gotten better, well, I mean, I don't know. Your argument is well, don't put it back on the states, because historically the states have sucked at it. No, I'm not saying that. Well, the federal government sucked at it too.
Speaker 2:No, no. What I'm telling you is it's never been away from the state. You guys are blaming the boogeyman that does not exist and that's the. That's the main. I'm saying. The main issue of this, this administration, is they. They're set up a boogeyman Once again. This is the DEI argument. All over again. You're falling for the boogeyman, when the fact, when you're, you're fighting a fight that does not exist. The states have always been the main. The states have always been the main driver of education. Your smoke is not with the Department of Education, your smoke is with your state.
Speaker 1:What you said was that the federal government's job is to limit discrimination in part between the, in part between the big cities and the rural districts, and then to report that they tested Right.
Speaker 2:And you asked me about the Department of Education.
Speaker 1:You asked me about funding. Ok, hold on, but what you just said was those are the two things is making sure that the students in the rural and the urban, the white and the black all get the same opportunities and that they do a test right, that's right. Okay, georgia, why can't the Department of Education in Georgia have those same rules in place and says hey, especially since we're now 45 years past that, we're 60 years past the Civil Rights Act. Right of saying hey, we are evolved in us as a state and as a culture now that we are not going to discriminate against white kids and black kids. We're going to say that if you're a kid that lives in Waynesboro, go ahead. So we're going to at Georgia, we are going to uphold the standards. So, if it doesn't matter, if you're in Waynesboro or in Atlanta, you are going to have access to the same level of school and you're going to pass the same or you're going to take the same Georgia state test. And then, at the end of the year, georgia is going to report to the Georgia senator or the Senate or whoever you want, and say we did it. Do you need an entire department, cabinet level, department to do that, or can it be done by the states?
Speaker 1:Because this is where I look at it. Let me finish the thought. This is where I look at it. The 10th Amendment was there for a reason, and I understand the arguments against the 10th Amendment because that's why we had a civil war to some degree. But we are now 160 years past the Civil War. We're 60 years past the Civil Rights Act. We are at a point where, in general, I would argue, we are much more tolerant of each other as people, racially especially. Now politically not so much. I think politics has kind of replaced the racism right the blue hates the red, much more than the white hates the black and the black hates the white. I think that's much more the case these days. But I think that that's why, when you go back and you say the states are the ones that should be doing this, that's what the problem is right, dick get.
Speaker 2:I'll get back to that in a minute which I'll be back to that. That one right there. Our fear is that future leftist presidents will use DOE to make all schools work, so again chasing the boogeyman, but go ahead. Go ahead and finish it up, because I want to know.
Speaker 2:So here's the thing Right, your, your, your. Your issue is twofold. Right, you say well, how, how do we know the states are going to do the right thing? Because we have forty, five, forty plus years of case studies saying that they won't. Right, you said since 1979. Our scores, our score levels have been going down, right, right. And I just told you, you, everybody wants to blame the DOE. Right, oh, it's the DOE. Well, the DOE done it, the DODE did it. No, all the DOE Not me, by the way.
Speaker 2:No, I'm just saying no, the the, the national, the national rhetoric is oh, because of the DOE, all test levels have been going down. The only thing the DOE, all test levels have been going down. The only thing the DOE done since its inception is saying, hey, every year, report your findings to us so that we can give it to Congress, so that we can have accurate reporting. So we can't sit back and say, well, how do you know states are going to do the right thing? And then sit back and say, well, you know, it's the DOE's fault. All the DOE does is report the data that the states are in charge of implementing. The states have a.
Speaker 2:Now, if we were to blame the DOE, you would have to. You would have to say okay, doe, we have one standardized test for all 50 states and then we have empirical data to say, cool, this is the one standardized test now we can make. Now, all the matters factor. But because you have 50 individual tests that are that are based off, that changes with the wind, depending on how they want to do it, and the stats matter and the stats bounce, based off administration, you, you know, wherever, wherever, regional, whatever, there's no way you can do it. You know what I'm saying. It's all state led.
Speaker 2:So you can't be mad at the DOE for something that the states control and you say, well, how do we know the state? You know, how do we know the states can't control it? Well, the states have been controlling it since the inception of the DOE. All the DOE has done is compiled the data and reported it. So everything that you're upset about being the DOE nationally, you're really upset that the states have been mismanaging it. The states have been mismanaging the funding the states and the districts have been mismanaging. The states have been mismanaging it. Yeah, none of that is controlled by the DOE. None of that, none of that. That's all states and school boards.
Speaker 1:Ok, so the Department of Education has 41. As of now, they're cutting it, of course, when President Trump was inaugurated, the department workforce for the department of education, student 4,133. Sure, um, after recent quote, unquote, it said today's action. So the recent actions, uh, the workforce will be roughly 21,083 workers. Okay, so about half with a 68 billion dollar budget.
Speaker 1:Okay, okay, so to me if the states can do everything that the department of education can do, and that means you're saving, let's say, let's say they're only going to cut half of the employees, like the numbers go from 41 to 21, and the budget goes from $68 billion to what's that? $34 billion is half of that. Sure, to me that's still a win for the American people, because what you said is it's still at the state level and things for education, the failure of education, is at the state level.
Speaker 2:Yeah.
Speaker 1:Now I would say this, though, because of there's so much that goes in on why the school system is failing, and I don't want to blame you, don't want to blame the kids, right, and I don't think it's necessarily the kid's fault.
Speaker 1:But the kids are part of the problem. But the other big problem and I think this goes back two generations you had the kind of the hippie generation that was breaking away from the traditional 1950s nuclear power or nuclear family. You know the, you button up your shirt and you go to work at the bank. And to the hippie, and, and you, how dare you, how dare you um smack your kids, right spanking and dr spock and all that stuff. And you had, and that's now the grandparent. Those are now the grandparents because they raised parents who didn't push education for their kids, didn't push the right way to raise your kids, who said I'm going to just have the kid go to school and, hey, it's the school's job to educate. And now you're one more generation down from that. That makes it even worse, so that, yes, the parents are a huge, huge problem, if not the number one present.
Speaker 2:We got a little bit, a little bit of different dilemma in our, in our, in our society. But yeah, so so we were systemically. So just to give you a little context, right, Because America likes to do that from time to time, right? America likes to throw a stone and then pull their hands back and be like, oh, what the hell happened, right? So in the 1980s, this guy named Reagan, this guy named Reagan not sure if you're familiar with him, right?
Speaker 1:By the way, post that. That's dead on with that one. Yeah, the most recent. Yeah, yeah, Absolutely yeah absolutely Get rid of critical thinking.
Speaker 2:Yeah, so I'm going to be your peek behind the curtain, right? So in the 70s and 80s, right In the 70s and 80s, the government did this thing in our community and communities of people that look like me, right, they, they paid, they paid mothers, right, and they took the fathers and they put them in jail and they say, hey, you don't need fathers, you don't need fathers, We'll take care, we'll take care.
Speaker 1:That was 10 years before Reagan. No, no, no, no. This is all about poverty.
Speaker 2:Hold on, we ain't got there yet. I'm just giving you the back story. Before we get there, oh so, all right. So now, now that all the fathers are in jail, right? So, now that all the fathers in jail, and you got these, you got these delinquent teens with nothing to do, right so, all the fathers in jail.
Speaker 2:So in the 1980s, what do we do? We hit them with this thing called crack, right? And then we go in and we systematically try to wipe out the Black community, right, and we devastate an entire generation in 1980, right, that 1980, well, you look at it now, that 1980 generation, those are our grandparents, those are our parents, right? Those are our parents, right? Those kids from the 1980s, those are our 40-year, 40 year olds. So now you got a bunch of 40, 30 and 40 year olds who grew up without parents, trying to learn how to be parents. Right, so we grew up without parents and all we knew was survival, because our parents were strung the fuck out on drugs, right, we didn't know. We didn't know about school. We was trying to figure out how to survive, right? So now we're trying to figure out how to put our kid in school.
Speaker 2:We didn't have structure. We had to put structure together, and it's not an excuse, it is a result, it is a cause and an effect. Because this happened, we are now left with these effects, right, and you have to deal with that you have. You can't throw a stone and be like, oh well, why can't they figure this out? Why are all their kids bad? Because we didn't have that. So now it takes a generation, of course correction, right. So this generation is like all right, cool, hey, we're going to figure it out.
Speaker 2:So next generation, I suppose the Gen Z guys. They're a little loopy, but their generation will be washed out. Their generation is getting washed out, right. So my kids are growing up with structures. You're starting to see that course correction from the 80s. You're starting to see more fathers back in the house Right, but that took 40 years, of course correction, right. So America is implicit in their cause. You can't, you can't systemically wipe out a generation of fathers and families for 30 years and then come back and be like, oh well, hell, why are they schooled so bad? Why are their kids so bad? Why are their families so bad? Why are their communities so bad? Because for 30, 35 years you systematically tried to eradicate them from the face of the earth. That takes time to course correct and now you're starting to see it get course corrected. So those are the effects of what happened and now we're starting to see it get course corrected.
Speaker 1:So that that sort of stuff takes time, right? Ok, let me ask. Let me ask you a question.
Speaker 2:I need to ask you a question.
Speaker 1:Yeah, if that's OK and I'm not saying that's not the case in the black community Right, yeah. And then why are the test scores down for the white kids too? Because we didn't have crack, we didn't know no, you didn't have track.
Speaker 2:But what you guys caught, what you guys caught, what you guys caught because crack wasn't contained, right, crack wasn't contained, it spilled out. But then, when it spilled out, you guys ran into that thing called what was it? What was before meth? No, no, fentanyl. Now it was meth before then it was meth in the trailer parks before then. Because it, because drugs drugs isn't, and that's the thing. Drugs isn't, isn't a, it isn't a race issue, it's a class issue. Right, poor is poor. At the lowest common denominator, poor is poor. But what I'm saying? We get that, we get that. But what you'll see on TV is they won't show poor white. What you'll see on TV and what you'll hear is you'll hear ghetto queen rhetoric. Right, what you'll hear is you'll hear ghetto queen rhetoric. What you'll hear is our ghettos are being destroyed. What you'll see is you'll hear ghetto queen reddit. What you'll hear is our ghettos are being destroyed. What you what you'll see is you'll see my face. Right, I'll be the face. I'll be the face of poverty.
Speaker 2:You won't see that other side yeah, you won't see that other side is it possible?
Speaker 1:is it possible that you see that face on tv and say that looks like me because you're more sensitive to that, because you are black? Absolutely, not Absolutely. Cause. When I I mean okay, cause when I'm watching, I'm not like oh my gosh, look at all the, look at all the poor black kids that are just running on running a mock, and they're just horrible. I look at it and go. Our school system is broken for white kids and they're just horrible.
Speaker 2:I look at it. Go, our school system's broken for white kids, black, yeah, but then again brown kids, whatever right, but then again you're also tone deaf to the dog whistles that I told you about a couple of months ago. I said, hey, dei, is a dog whistle for black? You was like no way. You were like no way. I said, hey, woke, is a dog whistle for black? He was like no way. No, I don't think woke is.
Speaker 1:I'll agree that TEI has become that, but I don't know what.
Speaker 2:I'm telling you, but I'm telling you these things, these things, these things, these things, all that they are, I get it. I get it. Liberty, you can say that, right, it's that hundred, it's that hundred snake it that? Right, it's that 100 snake theory. Right, it's that 100 snake theory. Again, it's that 100. You never heard the Muhammad Ali 100 snake theory? No, what's that?
Speaker 2:If I'm locked in a room, right, if I'm locked in a room and there's 100 snakes waiting out there to get me, and out of those 100 snakes, 10 snakes mean me good, 10 snakes aren't going to bite me Should I open the door and let all 100 snakes in, knowing that 10 snakes is going to protect me, or should I just lock the door and keep all 100 snakes out for my well-being? What's the best course of action? Of course, lock all out, right. And what I'm saying is yeah, you may not hear you when you hear DEI. You may not hear, you may not hear, you may not hear that. But I'm telling you that's what it is. That is the tool. That is the tool that they use Right.
Speaker 1:That is the tool that they use for discrimination.
Speaker 2:It is what it is. So, ok, hold on. So we've talked about this before. I have just got, we've got, we've that's.
Speaker 1:OK, we've talked about this before that that woke originally came from the black community and now the one of the ladies that I go when I do my plasma her mom was one of the founding members, basically like the pre black Panther, and so we had a long discussion. It was really cool to actually talk to her. She was there with her mom talking when her mom was talking about the black Panthers and the woke and all that. So we were talking about all that, but I think that the average person, when they hear woke, does not think black. I really don't think that's the case. I think the average person says woke is leftist, now DEI. I think DEI, like you said, has become kind of the, the racial. Hey, di, they're black. Therefore, and we've seen examples, unfortunately, uh, like removing the black medal of honor recipient from the website, removing jackie robinson, like you're removing jackie robinson. Who is doing this? You idiots.
Speaker 2:Whoever the lowest level is removing this needs to be fired okay, okay, they're blaming it on the computer algorithm doing that Okay.
Speaker 1:Well, that again who was. But then the question becomes who programmed the algorithm?
Speaker 2:Okay, Right, that's what I'm saying, yeah.
Speaker 1:So, but let's go. Final thoughts here. We only have about four minutes, right. So I do want to make one point on the education, and it's the teachers and this and that. And part of the problems is we've gotten to the point where we misunderstand things like Well, I don't want to be tracked, I don't want the government to know what I'm doing, and so how dare the government have any way to know where I am or what I'm doing? That, just gosh. If the government just stayed out of my business.
Speaker 1:Okay, I make that point because, personally, I would like to see a camera in every single school classroom that the parents of that student Now just like I, can go on and I get the code and I can see my kid's report card school classroom. That the parents of that student now, just like I, can go on and I get the code and I can see my kids report card. I should be able to go in and log in and bloop there's the history class. There's my son, what is he doing or not doing? Absolutely, I go in, but you, but they won't allow it because of the privacy stuff, and it goes both ways.
Speaker 1:A lot of them will say well, it's, the teachers don't want them in there because then they can indoctrinate. Look, it doesn't matter. I want parents to be able to go in at any point, to drop in on their kid's classroom and know what's going on and that it's never been done. I don't think you can do it, I don't think there's anyone that, unless you're talking about something else. But I don't think they allow any cameras in because, like, realistically and I hate to say this and this would be super unpopular but if some pedophile is logging in and somehow hacks into the system and is able to watch the kids class and does whatever they do, that's not harming the kids. Nobody, I don't want it. Of that, of of parents being able to see what's going on in the classroom, outweigh the very small possibility that somebody with bad intentions is able to hack in and watch little jenny or little bobby scribbling on their paper and somehow is sexually gratified by that. So, kj, you've got the last word.
Speaker 2:We've only got about 90 seconds boom, man, I actually think that's a dope idea. I'm all for it. I think, if you get, if you can, if you could at least play video back, like for a parent teacher conference, of your child's behavior, or at least be able to send a video to the parent at the end of the day to say, hey, look, this is your, this is the way your child was behaving in class. That would stop a lot of that rhetoric of, no, my child doesn't behave like that. And that would prompt the parent to try to clean up. Right, yeah, that's right. Yeah, we really don't have a lot of that. And then no final thoughts, man. And then no final thoughts, man. No, that's not what I'm telling you, Liberty. What I'm telling you is the administration is telling you that DEI is racist by their actions, brother, that is, that is what the, that is what the administration is telling you, and I will leave it at that for final thoughts.
Speaker 2:Man, as always, thank you guys so very much. Hey, we are going to start having guests. Man, us, man. As always, thank you guys so very much. Hey, we are going to start having guests, man. Listen, we got a lot of guests lined up next week or in the next couple of weeks. A lot of guys are showing interest, so be on the lookout for that, guys, we're going to bring in a lot of fresh faces in the next coming weeks. Man, we can't wait to get back to you guys. I will see you guys next week. Boom Last thought All right and we are out of here Next week. Next week Next week Boy. Next week, chaplain you good. Next week Three, two, one. See you guys next week we out.
Speaker 1:Chief man, what do you want to do tonight?
Speaker 2:The same thing we do every night. Pinky, Try to take over the world. All right, yo, let's get into it. Try to take over the world.
Speaker 1:You're preaching treating the cops. Try to take over the world.
Speaker 2:And bring this chaplain in the world. Mr Lance O'Neill, Try to take over the world.
