Behold the great 3WHH fugitive episode. Although it was posted over the weekend, somehow an Internet gremlin or something disappeared it! But now it’s back, in its restored glory. (Well, almost restored. Steve had a problem with his mic that was undetected while we were recording, and we weren’t able to improve it much in post-production. We had to cut out a whole new segment on prog rock!)
And what glory there is: Lucretia hosts this week as we welcome a special guest, Prof. Phil Munoz of Notre Dame, though he is on assignment this semester at the University of Texas at Austin. Phil decided to try to outflank even Lucretia with the bold proposition that the Mahmoud v Taylor decision, which empowered parents to have their children opt out of phonics instruction in the LGBTQ alphabet, was actually a defeat for social conservatives.
It’s a lively discussion, as we did our best to make Phil regret his decision to join the show this week.
Phil Munoz and John phone it in from an undisclosed location.
Subscribe to 3 Whisky Happy Hour in Apple Podcasts (and leave a 5-star review, please!), or by RSS feed. For all our podcasts in one place, subscribe to the Ricochet Audio Network Superfeed in Apple Podcasts or by RSS feed.
Don’t your distinguished guests ever listen to the show before coming on so they would know what they’re getting themselves into?
You would think so!
Too late to edit out “during the break” banter from approximately 39:28 to 40:02?
I *think* I have fixed it, but with all the gremlins affecting this episode I can’t be sure. . .
Regarding the funding legislation apparently applicable only to Planned Parenthood, as Prof. Hayward noted, drafting legislation to apply to one entity only has a long history, especially in the tax code.
About fifty years ago the Irvine Foundation of Orange County, California, had to disband and redistribute its considerable assets because of a provision inserted into the tax code that applied to that foundation, and only that foundation. The code did not mention the name “Irvine Foundation.” The tax code provision used neutral-sounding terms such as the purpose of the foundation and the amount of real estate holdings. Terms that applied to the Irvine Foundation and only the Irvine Foundation.
The provision was inserted after extensive lobbying by a descendant in the family that had formed the foundation. The family descendant was unhappy with the slow pace at which the foundation was developing its real estate holdings. At the time, the Irvine Foundation owned more than 15% of all the land in Orange County, California. (I was a teenager in Newport Beach, and my family lived in housing we owned but on land leased from the Irvine Foundation.)