John showing off his gourmet dinner.
Getting together at the bar was a bit tricky this week since we’re all scattered to the wind and John Yoo thought it essential that he swing through a McDonald’s takeout window for the double-cheeseburger special with large fries, so he was late joining us. We were halfway through learning about the newest acronym in higher education—AANAPISI—when he finally turned up, but we managed to get though a lot of material, including:
• Fetterman and Feinstein, fit as fiddles, if you believe that faddle!
• What’s up with a weird new verbal tic Biden appointees display in their confirmation hearings (especially when Sen. John Kennedy is politely eviscerating them)?
• Answering a listener question from last week’s episode: what are the three clauses of the original Constitution that offered protection for southern slave interests (even if the word “slave” was purposely excluded from the text). Our discussion of this may have extended a bit beyond what our listener wanted, but this is one of the risks you take when you ask questions!
• What’s up with the Supreme Court dropping the Title 42 case, and what’s up with the forthcoming suit against Google that may rein in Section 230 immunity?
• And of course our Kamalaism of the week.
Finally, just for grins and giggles this week I decided to add a “name that tune” contest for the closing bumper music, for listeners who persevere to the very end. It’s a tune from 50 years ago, from an artist little known at the time and near unknown today, though the vocalist on this track is much better known today, but was quite unknown in 1973. Bonus points for listeners who can pick out the vocalist and puzzle out the instrumentalist who wrote the song. No fair using music recognition aps! Put you guesses or answers in the comment threads. (I have a hunch a couple of our listeners who are prog rock aficionados may know the answer. . .)
You know what to do now: listen here, or ride your favorite acronym over to our hosts at Ricochet.
Notice: All comments are subject to moderation. Our comments are intended to be a forum for civil discourse bearing on the subject under discussion. Commenters who stray beyond the bounds of civility or employ what we deem gratuitous vulgarity in a comment — including, but not limited to, “s***,” “f***,” “a*******,” or one of their many variants — will be banned without further notice in the sole discretion of the site moderator.