.jpg)
Seeing Red
The Seeing Red Podcast dives head-first into Texas politics with its hosts Garrett Fulce and Andi Turner, as they bring the facts, insights, and commentary on the issues that matter most to conservative Texans.
Our mission is simple: facts matter and an informed opinion is the key to making positive change in our great state.
Seeing Red
Biden's Full Frontal Attack on Women
On this episode of Seeing Red, the hosts discuss Joe Biden's impact on women's sports and the controversy surrounding the enforcement of Title IX. They also touch on the removal effort against Travis County District Attorney Garza and the recent Lincoln Reagan dinner in Fort Bend County. The episode concludes with a mention of the new Texas Scorecard Documentary, "Hubris."
0:03:49Potential consequences of allowing male athletes to identify as females
0:07:22The advantage of biological differences in sports
0:10:00Open competition for men’s sports, but not for women’s sports
0:12:12DOJ lawsuit against Sheetz for criminal history check on applications
0:17:26Mention of the Chevron deference and its potential impact on discrimination cases.
0:19:57Early voting and the importance of voting for county appraisal board members.
0:20:33Recap of the Fort Bend Lincoln Reagan dinner.
0:23:21Importance of turning out Republican voters in upcoming elections.
0:24:41Call for stronger party infrastructure and focus on Democrats.
0:25:40Diversity is a good thing when it’s organic.
0:26:12Effort to remove Travis County District Attorney Garza from office.
0:27:34Supreme Court of Texas is likely to opine on the constitutionality of the law.
0:32:12The law is good, but its defense remains uncertain.
0:35:17Discussion on the documentary “Hubris” and its relevance to Texas politics.
0:36:46Acknowledging imperfections in the podcast and fixing intro graphic.
0:38:18Closing remarks and call to action for liking, commenting, and subscribing.
Follow us on all socials at @theseeingredpod and online at our website Seeing Red Podcast. x.com/gwfulce
Biden unleashes a full frontal attack on women's sports, while DA Garza is in the fight for his political life and Fort Bend County GOP shows the rest of the Republican Party how to come together. All that and so much more on this week's episode of Seeing.
Speaker 2:Red. Welcome to the Seeing Red podcast with Andy Turner and Garrett Fools Checking up on Texas policies and politics, with some federal issues thrown in like the assault weapons ban, interest rate hikes, you get it, but it's mostly Texas, since we can't ignore the big stuff either. And now here are your hosts, andy Turner and Garrett Fools.
Speaker 3:Hey everybody, welcome back to this week's edition of Seeing Red. For those of you that were new joining us last week, we are delighted to have you. For those of you that are long-time listeners on the podcast or viewers on the YouTube, thank you. Thank you for rejoining us. We're always happy to have you and, gosh, we have a number of things to go over this week.
Speaker 1:Yeah, a lot happening out in the world this week. I think we're going to take more of a federal focus a little bit today on some stuff, because Joe Biden is really biting up a lot of things up in the just across the country, the country. It turns out that there's going to be a massive change to how the federal government wants to enforce Title IX, which is basically the education code that requires that men and women get equal funding from federal dollars For sports. Right, I think it's for anything, but it predominantly comes out most famously in sports. So the University of Texas has a lot of awesome sports programs, and then they were the number three football team last year.
Speaker 1:Football there is no women's football, and because UT has such a large football team, you know, one of the things that ends up happening at UT is having a lot more different sports available to women than the men, because there has to be an equal number of women athletes versus male athletes I'm not sure if it's total number of athletes or at least total number of scholarships. So you'll end up having, like, a lot ut and a lot of uh, powerhouse football schools don't have soccer programs. Um, still, there will be women's soccer, but they want to be a men's soccer team. Uh, there's obviously usually women's volleyball but there's not a men's volleyball team, etc. So you end up having more total sports for women than men on a lot of these like what are considered power conference schools, these big powerhouse football team schools. But what the Biden administration is going to be doing is basically saying that you have to. You have to look at gender identity and accept people's gender identity towards title IX requirements.
Speaker 2:So basically, who said that?
Speaker 1:The Biden administration I believe it was the Department of Education, but basically there's basically going to be they're starting a fight over Title IX dollars, whatever, and you know, when it comes to these issues of trans individuals engaging in athletics or anything like that, there's going to come a time where, like, there's going to be an issue long term for the democrats if they keep this up.
Speaker 1:So I have no real issue with them doing it. But one of the things that's going to happen is some school or some governor probably Florida but who knows is going to end up having all of their male athletes start identifying as females, because there's no issue on state law for most things and there's no rule against females playing college football. There just aren't females and women who play college football. You might see the occasional kicker. I think there's been one person who's one woman who's played special teams, but it's it's very, very few and very, very, very far between when it does occur. But but if you want to screw up title nine and screw up everything for women, just have your football team identify as all women.
Speaker 3:It won't change anything, and then boom like and somebody will do it as a protest to show how ridiculous like these rules have come to be well and my my issue with this is not like I don't care to get into a debate with an adult who believes they should be of another sex. Okay, that they feel like the opposite sex, okay, you feel how you feel, it ain't none of my business, I don't care. But when you are born a male, there are certain biological things, like upper body mass, that even if you are transitioned to a female, you still have an advantage. All of that body mass it may come down, but it doesn't come down to the same level as if you had been born a woman. So that gives you an advantage and I don't think that's fair.
Speaker 1:Oh, so, as far as sports go, that's my yeah like one of the primary reasons why you have men and women broken out, indigenders and most sports that advantage plays out to a degree. That's kind of crazy. I mean, look at sports like wrestling and boxing, which are done by the weight level in those sports, right, but you can't have a man fight a woman boxer, even at the same weight level, without there being serious risk to the woman or the female boxer.
Speaker 1:Because, because, it has less to do with weight. It has more to do with body chemistry Muscle mass. It has to do with bone density, has more to do with body chemistry it has it has to do with bone density versus muscle mass. Exactly, twitch my uh, twitch muscle reactions, all these sorts of things I mean. I mean riley gains, who was kind of the first athlete to be serious, seriously impacted by this issue in like a real way, when she tied for the championship of a I think it was the SEC championship and she ended up getting she didn't get the trophy, she they tied they came in the exact 1000th of a second as a her opponent, but they gave the trophy to the trans person to kind of get the publicity for it. Well, she's now gone on to. Riley Gaines has now gone on to become a person who talks about this issue at length and has testified.
Speaker 1:Serena and Venus Williams, who are two of the greatest athletes of all time, particularly women athletes, got beat by the 203rd ranked man 6061. And the big score story at the time when that happened was that the man gave up a point, like he even gave up a single point, like that was something, that that was the story, like. These are the two greatest women tennis players of all time and they couldn't barely do anything against the best, the 203rd best man. But that's just. That's to say that there is a level in which it doesn't matter. When you're talking about rec league certain stuff, yeah, women can beat men. When you're looking at the extremes and when we are, that's what you're looking at.
Speaker 1:When you're looking at a performance, professional or professional performance yeah, like college, like those levels where it becomes an issue where it's just women wouldn't have no opportunities in sports, or very few women would have that opportunity if everything was just open competition right. So so Right.
Speaker 3:And no, so no, you know, you are an adult, I you know, and you want to go and pay for your own surgery and do that. That is your business. I am not here to judge. I am not here to judge. But when it comes to college sports, pro sports, olympic sports, no, no, no, no, if you are a man, you do not get to compete with the females, you just don't. There is the reason why there is a female league and a male league in every sport acceptable, although I imagine like there's some female rec leagues, but, but, but, in.
Speaker 1:But, in college and in pro ball, there was no female football team or the intramural level, there are strict rules about how those leagues work like I remember some intramural leagues I played, there were requirements for how many women had to be on the field at any given time and how they had to if it was a kickball or softball league how they had to be put throughout the lineup, you know like.
Speaker 1:So that way there was a certain level of fairness and that you couldn't just have a. That's what made the league co-ed was that you had these requirements and there was actually rules on how many women had to be in the lineup, but there weren't rules for how many men had to be in the lineup. So you had to have a minimum of three or four women, but you could have 10 women on the team If you want to have that team dynamic that way, because there wasn't, perceived at least, an advantage to doing so. And these are things that people have figured out over the years, over the millennia, over the centuries, where it's like, yeah, there should be a separate league for these folks so that they can have that competitive, have a competitive time where they can excel and learn and do as best they can.
Speaker 3:But what's interesting?
Speaker 1:is that men's sports effectively is open, like the men's basketball league is open to women. Do you? Are you telling me that if caitlin clark, the the phenom, if she had the ability to play in the nba, that an nba team wouldn't draft her and put her in the league?
Speaker 3:but she can't right I'm.
Speaker 1:What I'm saying is why on earth would what? What do you think the Dallas Mavericks, you think the New York Knicks? Do you think they wouldn't draft Caitlin Clark today and put her on the field on the playing field right now, or on the court, like next season, if she was capable of playing at an NBA level?
Speaker 3:Right. I think my point was I don't think if you were born a man, you should be on a woman's team for anything but rec, whether it's collegiate or pro. I don't think you should do either one of those things. You should be allowed training because you have anatomical advantages, even if you've had all the surgery, and what we're seeing with trans folks is that they didn't necessarily have all the surgery, right, so not every person who's trying to play on a female team has had all the surgery. But even so, there are certain things you just cannot take away from the male body, and upper body strength is going to be in a naturally born male. It's still going, even with all the chemicals and this and the other thing. So that is my point on that.
Speaker 1:Well then, that's the Title IX issue. Right, so you have Title IX, the Biden administration trying to make it where it's your gender identity, and then let's not even talk about surgeries when it comes to that, because who knows what's going to end up being, uh, the benchmark for, for that issue? Um, they're also the biden doj um, I believe it was the doj is is looking into Sheetz, which is a convenience store that's based in western Pennsylvania. I think they did a discrimination lawsuit against them because they have a criminal history checkmark on their application. Now, before we get into this, are you a Sheetz or a Wawa person? You're from the Mid-Atlantic.
Speaker 3:If the two of them were next to each other, I'd go to sheets, but I have and I go to wawa.
Speaker 1:Uh, apparently this is, this is this is a hot button issue in some parts of the country. Uh, we have neither.
Speaker 3:Oh, that makes sense, I went to school in shepherdstown, west virginia, and I have fond memories of, like you know, going to the sheets after we'd been out socializing, um, socializing for the evening. So you know, for me it's sheets, but I mean Wawa's cool too. I, you know, have been there's, there's many, many Wawas, and so but if they were literally next next to each other I'd have to go to the one that I had college memories of.
Speaker 1:Yeah, fair enough. I mean I was more of a wah-wah person because there was more culture to Northern Virginia when I lived there and I liked the food better. It was always going to be cleaner.
Speaker 3:So DOJ is suing Sheetz or somebody. Let's just say Somebody in the government is suing Sheetz or somebody. Let's just say somebody in the government is suing Sheetz because they Ask you whether or not you have a Criminal record yeah, on the application Process.
Speaker 1:They're saying it's racist.
Speaker 3:Good luck.
Speaker 1:I mean, yeah, that's if 50% of. I mean there's all sorts Of issues when it comes to to the Whole ban the box issue. Right, Like, do you want to do? Is it the ban the box issue? For those who don't know is there is a box on a lot of applications that require you to check whether or not you have a criminal history and then to explain that criminal history one way or the other. Now, should that box be more specific to property crimes, like do you have a history of theft or embezzlement?
Speaker 1:or violent or violent crimes? Um, should your penchant for you know if you, if you got popped for a minor possession when you're 19, should that pop up as a something on a box or whatever the case may be? I don't. I don't know the answer to the question. I do know that when you're an employer, you're looking for certain kind of key indicators from a person to kind of tell whether or not that person will be successful. There's some data that suggests that having to check the box there ends up being a better applicant pool. Sometimes. You don't. I don't know.
Speaker 3:Here's the way I think they should deal with this, right. Sometimes you don't, I don't know. Here's, here's, here's the way I think they should deal with this. Right. So if you got popped while you were in college for I don't know, oh, drunken public or I think that's a misdemeanor in texas um, uh, let's say, let's say you, you had two joints on you and you, you got busted for that right. So you went to court. Whatever. Whatever the court said you had to do, you did do.
Speaker 3:I think that if that happened to you at 19 or 20, that should still kill a job for you 10 years later if you had nothing on your record. So I think the question should be more like in the last seven years or in the last 10 years, or pick, pick, pick what you think is reasonable, because we know well, I I can't speak to what you know, but I know people who, back when they were in college, did things that were not lawful, got busted for it, but now are contributing, you know, making great money, doing great jobs, contributing to society, and I'm sorry. And so I think the question needs to be one more of how long ago.
Speaker 1:Like, pick what you can live with yeah, I mean when you look at like certain um I mean there's a lot of stuff in place currently that I think they could probably mimic um, or at least you know kind of if they, if you want to get rid of the box but also not get rid of, and kind of have your implementation there are all sorts of things that are allowed to be looked at when it comes to fair housing.
Speaker 1:Certain types of crimes if there's been no repeat of it since your last adjudication, and you know, for property crimes it might be three years, for drug crimes it might be seven, for violent crimes it might be 10 or 15 or could be indefinitely for violent crimes. I don't know what exactly each one is, but basically anyone who has more than five properties, I think if they're renting out more than five properties, they have to abide by federal fair housing rules and at that point there are certain things that they can ask on an application about criminal history or they can look for when they're doing a background check, and those types of things can be flagged, as you know, as being something. I think that might be the kind of what the direction of if you're going to be for banning the box, something you can move in that direction where there is a time limit, where things kind of fall off your social record as well. They don't necessarily fall off your criminal record, but your criminal record can fall off your social record.
Speaker 1:But, just another case where the Biden administration is using administrative tools instead of trying to get this stuff done legislatively. Instead of trying to get this stuff done legislatively, they're trying to say that administrative tools exist currently to do whatever they want to do, when they almost certainly don't. And they're trying to get it done and one of the ways this is going to be looked at, where? Who knows how this is going to go, because the Supreme Court is looking at something right now called the Chevron deference, which I think we touched on in this.
Speaker 3:Yes.
Speaker 1:But basically the Chevron deference was something clear-cut in the law. Whenever there's an interpretation that the agency has to make from a given statute, they are given deference towards their interpretation. So we'll see if they roll back the Chevron deference at all. They've heard a case on it and they likely will address it one way or the other the Supreme Court, that is, and that will influence how the federal courts, the district and the appeals courts end up looking at these Title IX and these discrimination cases. Because effectively, on the Title IX case, the Biden administration is arguing that for a particular view of gender identity, that probably wasn't intended when the Title IX was originally passed. Though, who knows, we never know what the court's going to decide and I'm not a lawyer so I don't know much.
Speaker 3:But you play one on.
Speaker 1:TV yeah, I don't even play one on TV, but that's just to say there's going to be issues there where I'm not necessarily the best person to analyze it in particular, but I am going to highlight to our audience that's something to kind of look out for. That's going to be on the radar as things that you might see in the news.
Speaker 3:Right, right, and speaking of things that are happening, this week is early voting. This is the first time that we are getting to vote on the members of our county appraisal boards. Um, so you can vote this week and you can vote last day. To vote is saturday, may 4th get your butts out there it's yep, get your butts out there and and and pick you a candidate. They all have websites. They all have social media. Get her done. That's an important thing.
Speaker 1:Yeah, these are nonpartisan elections. And like in my district, we also have our school board and city council races going on, so you know, ours is separate, Well, I think. So you know, some places will have their local elections in November and some will have them in May. So, depending on your jurisdiction, look up your ballot, Go to your local election administrator so your you know Fort Bend elections, Travis elections, wherever and see what's on your ballot. They'll usually have a tool where you can look it up.
Speaker 3:Speaking of Fort Bend, I heard you went to the Fort Bend dinner.
Speaker 1:Yeah, I went to the Lincoln Reagan dinner. I've been to most of them. Since I've moved back to Texas here in Fort Bend. But you know, fort Bend County is a diverse, diverse county. There's a lot, I think it's. You know, depending on how you want to measure it, it's either like the first, second, third, fourth most diverse county in the country and that's just looking at proportion of whites, black, hispanic and Asian, a large number of Asian folks, but it ends up being about a quarter each. So it's just a very, very diverse county and it wasn't like that when I lived here 20 years ago and it was mostly white, hispanic and black. A lot of Asians have moved here since and it's a booming county, lots of industry, lots of stuff going on. But you know, and it's also kind of a split government Six or seven, like we have one fewer Republican judge than we have Democrat judge and those are elected countywide. So like we had an election this last election where half the judges ended up being Republican and half the judges ended up being Democrat. There was 250,000, some odd votes and a lot of these elections were decided by less than a few hundred. I don't think anything was decided by more than a couple thousand.
Speaker 1:You have this county that's largely split, and one of the things that I notice is that when we go to LRD we have very contentious primaries. We had a friend of the show on back in February, jc Chaton. He lost his primary. There were some other contentious primaries for county commissioner and different judgeships and whatnot and the party mostly came together. I mean, largely speaking, the party has coalesced and we're ready to go get our Republicans elected in November because the margins are so small. You have to do it, or the Democrats are going to be in power and they're way, way worse. You have to do it, or the Democrats are going to be in power and they're way, way worse no-transcript, and and and this is exactly what's supposed to happen, duke it out.
Speaker 3:During the primary and one day after the primary, we're all singing kumbaya you know you don't have to be best friends with everybody, but we all got to be moving in the same direction. And golly, wouldn't it be nice if some other republican entities that we've spoken about before were doing that. Gee, wouldn't that be a nice thing.
Speaker 1:I hope they do it after the, at least do it after the convention and after the runoffs, right, because there are still some races that are going to be contentious and those people are the battle. Paint is still on and whatever, but you know they're still going at it. Um, so hopefully at the very least we can focus on democrats for a few months because, like we said last week, the, the democrats, don't have a lot of opportunities other places. They're going to be coming after senator cruz and oh sure it's not.
Speaker 1:It's not good. It's not a particularly close race if you look at just past results, but Beto was within three points in 2018. Trump's going to be on the ballot. We need to make sure that Republicans win up and down.
Speaker 3:Right, we've got to turn out our voters and they've got to stay home. That's how we win.
Speaker 1:That's how we keep that speed. I think Republicans win, even if it's a high turnout both ways. But I think, like if Republicans even some Republicans stay home, democrats have a chance at flipping some seats in Texas statewide. They always have I mean technically always a chance, but they have a slightly better chance. Basically, you can't be complacent. You just can't be complacent. We have to run a good team, we have to have a strong party. So hopefully the new party chair since Rinaldi is thankfully not running again whoever that party chair is can go out and fundraise and build up some party infrastructure to really make sure that we get our federal candidates across the board, across the board and that we and that we do the work necessary to hold the same majorities we have today at the very least, if not expand them, in the texas senate, in the texas house so we have to start coming together.
Speaker 1:We have to start talking like over a party. We need to start looking at more at democrats, um. But you know, one of the things about the text the fort ben ballad is we have a lot of um. It's not there's all is. We have a lot of minority candidates on the Republican ticket in Fort Bend County, the county assessor spot council spot, some other spots throughout. Those are the ones that are most notable. We have a ton of minority activists and whatever else. We don't have a lot of, you know, asian clubs, though there are some that exist, like in the state. Whatever the case may be, they're just part of the party and that's fantastic. Diversity is a good thing when it's organic. You, you don't need to have quotas, right, we don't need that sort of thing.
Speaker 1:But, I think it's just good to highlight that there are a number of Muslim Republicans just non-Christian Republicans, because there's a lot of Muslim and Hindu Sikh individuals in the county. So just naturally, the party's going to have more of those here in Fort Wayne County, the county, so just naturally, the party's going to have more of those here in Fort Wayne County. But there's also a huge thing going on, kind of making news. It's starting to make news is that there's the removal effort to remove District Attorney Garza, who's the Travis County District Attorney, to remove him from office is going forward. So there was a law that passed the last, the last session, that basically states if a district attorney is categorically not prosecuting a certain type of law, um, so if a da decides he's not going to prosecute any drug crimes or property crimes or any misdemeanors whatsoever, whatever the case may be marijuana, like if he just says I'm not prosecuting any marijuana law, then a petition can be filed from a removal process to start.
Speaker 1:It's been determined I guess well enough that that removal effort for the petition that was filed in Travis County can go forward and the Bell County District Attorney has been appointed to lead the prosecution of that case, which is going to be interesting to see how it goes.
Speaker 1:The I believe the supreme court of texas will likely opine early in the process over the constitutionality of the law. Um, I don't know how involved they're going to get in it. Uh, they didn't get involved a lot in like kind of certain types of issues, kind of local control issues during COVID, and I noticed that commentary on Twitter, I think, from Adam Lowy. But it's going to be interesting to see like there's going to be a lot of filings that happened before any court case actually happens, because that's just how the nature of how these things work, especially when it's the first time something has been prosecuted. So it's going to be interesting to see how the Supreme court of Texas rules on it, but something that you should start to keep an eye on. But it's interesting A lot of people who are advocating for Garza's removal, kind of ignoring the fact that he just won a big primary and will almost certainly be reelected in six months, and people know full well what he's running on and these same folks were very much against the impeachment proceedings for Ken Paxton.
Speaker 1:Now, I'm kind of okay with the removal legislation law, I think it's okay that we have this process to to have it worked out. But I I think there's some cognitive dissonance going on among some, uh, our friends, um, who were this against the pax and impeachment from a matter of you. You know, quote unquote, the voters knew already and that we were, quote unquote, trying to overturn, um, an election. Um, I, I don't, I think that there's some some stuff going on there where they just they're looking at the D next to the guy's name and you know so.
Speaker 3:So here's the thing about Garza right and and and N any da right. So there is such a thing allowed as the da or, depending on what you know where you live, state's attorney, whatever you want to call them. Okay, the county, the head, county, prosecutor, so they do and should have the right to determine. Um, I'm not going to prosecute this case.
Speaker 3:I agree with the law that if they say, for instance, um texas does not recognize marijuana except for glaucoma, and I think there's one other, one other thing, um, I haven't looked it up in a while, uh, but I fully am not going to prosecute any marijuana case ever at all. Like, it doesn't matter if you've got two kilos in your garage, I'm not prosecuting it. Right, your backyard is nothing but pot plants and got a joint, I'm not going to prosecute that. If that's all you have and you have a clean history, then I'm fine with that. I am absolutely fine with you making decisions on a case-by-case basis. But no, you don't get to make law if you will by refusing to prosecute. Now I know of sheriffs across the country who have said if X law passes, we're not enforcing it.
Speaker 1:It's kind of the whole sanctuary thing. Now there can be cases where, like, if you look at it, it's like I'm not going to have a state agency enforce a federal law. There's no requirement for them to do so, it's not their jurisdiction. You're basically arresting somebody and then let the feds come in. You don't want to spend resources for that kind of thing. That's a different question, but it's a different question altogether.
Speaker 1:But if you are charged, if you are mandated by the state or in your role to enforce the laws of that land whether it be the state or a local thing or whatever you have an obligation to enforce those laws, um, to arrest folks when you see a crime being committed, if you're a prosecutor, to prosecute those crimes as necessary, um, for the you know common welfare, and that's if we're, if we're having an issue where there's too many people in jail or too much, too much whatever being prosecuted, then that needs to be fixed legislatively. There needs to be an issue where, like, the legislature needs to go in and, you know, modify those rules. It shouldn't be done by the prosecutor, it's not, that's not, that's not the rule. So, um, I think the law overall is good. I don't know how well it's written and I don't know how well it's going to be defended by our illustrious Office of the Attorney General.
Speaker 3:Yeah, I don't know how you defend a DA who and I don't know, did Garza say this I am not going to prosecute any cases under this law.
Speaker 1:I think he campaigned on certain like not prosecuting certain drug crimes and certain theft crimes. I don't want to say I don't know for sure, I think so.
Speaker 3:Like I said, you know there's a difference between one joint in your pocket and two acres of pot grown in your backyard.
Speaker 1:Well, sure, and that's it. I don't know if he said he was only going to do small drug possession things versus all marijuana. I don't know the case.
Speaker 3:Yeah, yeah.
Speaker 1:So yeah, there's a big difference between having a couple joints on you versus having a grow operation or trafficking several pounds of narcotics. Like there's always going to be a difference. That's why you have different laws that prosecute them differently.
Speaker 3:And there's no, and there's no way that he went and that they win a case that says the DA declines to enforce this whole law. Right, they went, they keep. No, that's not discretion, that's ignoring the law. And so there's no way they win that case.
Speaker 1:There's always the argument of the people know he was going to do it and they voted for him to do it anyway.
Speaker 3:So people knew what they were getting. This is not about the people.
Speaker 1:Oh, I know, but it is an elected position, so there's already the argument to be said that the people are that check. I lean towards the deference towards you know, you have to uphold the Constitution and the rule of law and if you're in a position where you're not doing that, then you're supposed to be and like that's your job, then you should be able to be removed.
Speaker 3:Speaking of hubris.
Speaker 1:Oh yeah, there's the new scorecard. Uh, documentary. I didn't watch it saw some, some clips, I think I've seen a few seconds of it here and there it didn't look like it was particularly compelling to watch. I'm sure, like I saw the reaction from the texans for law lawsuit for a form who put out some stuff before and after about their record and whatever else, I think that most of what it is is going after TLR. Based off the commentary I'm seeing, it's inter-party fighting, it's the insidest of inside baseball.
Speaker 1:The only people who really care are like people, the swamp, whether it's michael quinn, sullivan or the reps or the lobbyists and as you know, as I assume some of those folks listen to us, so I assume they care, but they already have their opinions on it. So if anyone has like a hot take about whether hubris was good, whether hubris was bad, um, let us know in the comments. Uh, I don't really want to waste my time listening to Michael Quinn. I try not to listen to people from Sherman, um, as somebody from Denison do my level best, just to not, and that's just that's just a rule I live by.
Speaker 3:You don't listen to people from Sherman.
Speaker 1:For those of us, no, no, so that's our sister city. We hate each other. So I mean I just why would I? I'll do my best just to ignore OU fans, anyone from Sherman, okay, and used to, anyone who supported the Washington football team, but you know.
Speaker 3:But you love me in spite of myself, right?
Speaker 1:So you know, maybe he'll say something interesting enough that I'll actually go watch it.
Speaker 3:But I don't really have any interest we're running a little bit long.
Speaker 1:Yeah, we're running a little bit long, so I do want to make a couple just kind of announcements here. First announcement we don't have, you know, we, we work on this is all volunteer work, right, we're all doing this volunteer. I have to do the editing on this and sometimes my kid cries in the background, my dogs bark, or we have a technical issue or one of our cameras stops working while we're streaming. That's usually the reason why we end up having a cut in the show. I used to try to put a transition there. So you see that we made a cut. But someone has asked me. He's like hey, why is there cuts? And it's like. You know it is what it is. You know it's imperfect podcasting technology. We have here doing this the way we do it. So, until you know, we start making some money from this. If it ever happens, as we're doing this for free and out of our own pocket, there's going to be some of those kind of little awkward transitions.
Speaker 1:Number two we did get some commentary about our intro from last week and we didn't notice that. So we got a comment and I also got a comment from my mom, who called me and told me that she noticed that Colleen was misspelled, so we tried to fix that. Apparently, the person who made our graphic used some stock footage and that was just how it was spelled, so we had to kind of cut that graphic out. So you're wondering why the graphics changed.
Speaker 3:That's why that would be why.
Speaker 1:But you know we make bringing that to our we make mistakes um we try to own them or, you know, acknowledge them when they happen.
Speaker 3:So thank you for pointing it out.
Speaker 1:Um, and we did get it fixed. Um, well, hopefully I remember to download the new file and add it into the file, not use the old one but let us know what you think once again the new intro yeah, uh, so thank you so much for liking commenting, subscribing as you do, um, and we hope to get some more stuff to you early next week. Uh, but until then, until next wednesday, um, thank you so much and we'll see you then bye guys you've been listening to the cn Podcast.
Speaker 2:It's always Texas politics and beyond. We present the facts and opinions the CN Red Podcast, with your host, andy Turner, and Garrett Foles. Thank you and tune in next week and please do us a favor, hit the subscribe button so you don't miss a single episode.
%20(1).JPEG)
