Trump Gets His Big Beautiful Bill To Restore American Dignity (7-4-25)

05:0 There are excellent critiques of Donald Trump
10:00 Video: After the “Hammer”: Postwar Opportunities and Risks for U.S. Policy in the Middle East, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9w5Vn8ko-4
25:00 The best way to have a safe community and safe country is high trust & cohesion
26:00 If we have nice things, we have groups who will destroy them. Australia has lovely public goods that would be destroyed in America.
29:00 Was it obliteration? https://seymourhersh.substack.com/p/was-it-obliteration
32:30 Video: Iran’s paranoia has ayatollahs turning on each other after Israeli spy infiltration, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQ9jC8QTo9w
40:00 Yoram Hazony: The Iran Strikes and the Trump Doctrine, https://www.thefp.com/p/the-iran-strikes-and-the-trump-doctrine
1:07:00 Video: Was JD Vance Right About Europe? | Christopher Caldwell, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1MB-jI1aVM
1:13:30 Charles Lipson: Major Global Impact from Israel’s Short, Decisive War Against Iran, https://www.charleslipson.com/
1:19:30 Video: Here’s what would happen if China invaded Taiwan, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4E943TsA-bw
1:22:00 Christopher Caldwell: Why everyone is talking about Bill Belichick, https://thespectator.com/topic/everyone-talking-about-bill-belichick/
1:33:30 MC: From Iran to the Supreme Court, the president is on a roll. How long will his winning streak last?, https://www.thefp.com/p/this-is-peak-trump-politics-policy-matthew-continetti
1:36:00 Mike Johnson is the most effective House Speaker in a century, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6l66iTxfPXQ
1:56:30 Gadi Taub and Mike Doran on Israel’s deep state vs Bibi Netanyahu, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tg1_k29R33k
2:06:20 Video: The Price of Comfort: How We Traded Freedom for “Free Stuff” in the West | Christopher Caldwell, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TqZeQHxFuBA
2:14:00 CompactMag: The Costs of the Foreign Student Influx, https://www.compactmag.com/article/the-costs-of-the-foreign-student-influx/
2:20:00 Video: The Real Reason CBS Caved to Trump, with Mark Halperin, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TuiuRkO09Vo
2:34:20 Book: Why Your Religion Went Obsolete, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UmsM8O_P76k,
2:40:40 Why Industrial Policy Matters | Ian Fletcher, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiTHqm6EMI4
3:02:00 NYT: Why China Isn’t Lecturing Trump About His Costly Bill, https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/04/world/asia/trump-bill-debt-china.html
3:04:50 Video: Kyle Bass: China’s Economic Spiral and the Coming Taiwan War, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vsEv8yFfNYY
3:16:30 How Much Money Has Trump Raised Through Tariffs? https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=161676
3:33:00 Video: Is William F. Buckley’s Still Relevant?, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xT5W4We1CCs
3:39:00 Ricardo joins
3:50:30 Dooovid joins, https://x.com/RebDoooovid

Grok says:

The host of the video, Luke Ford, demonstrates a lack of self-awareness in several key areas, which can be identified through an analysis of his commentary and the themes he discusses. These areas of unawareness stem from inconsistencies in his reasoning, failure to critically examine his biases, and a tendency to overlook the broader implications of his statements. Below, I outline the primary areas where this lack of self-awareness is evident:Failure to Recognize Personal Bias in Political Commentary:Luke Ford passionately supports Donald Trump’s policies, particularly on immigration and tariffs, and celebrates actions like the bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities and Israel’s military successes. However, he admits to being emotionally biased toward Israel due to his identity as an Orthodox Jewish convert and a Zionist (e.g., “I emotionally love it that Israel pounded Iran”). Despite this acknowledgment, he does not consistently account for how this bias shapes his analysis, presenting his views as objective truths. For example, he dismisses critics of Israel’s actions as “blinded by hatred” without considering that his own emotional attachment might similarly skew his perspective. This lack of critical reflection on his biases undermines his claim to prioritize “understanding reality” over pushing a specific agenda.

Inconsistent Stance on Nationalism and Group Interests:The host advocates strongly for nationalism, emphasizing “America first” policies and praising Israel’s nationalist approach to survival. He argues that nations should prioritize their own interests, even if it involves extreme measures like deporting immigrants to harsh conditions (e.g., South Sudan) or Israel’s military actions against Iran and Hamas. However, he fails to critically examine the tension between his support for universal nationalism and his specific advocacy for Jewish nationalism (Zionism). For instance, when challenged by Duvid about whether he would support Israel manipulating U.S. policy to its detriment, he insists on being “America first” but does not explore how his unwavering support for Israel’s actions might conflict with American interests. This suggests a lack of awareness about the potential contradictions in his nationalist framework.

Overemphasis on Emotional Appeals Over Evidence:Luke Ford frequently appeals to emotions like pride, dignity, and patriotism, particularly when discussing Trump’s “big beautiful bill” and its impact on immigration and American identity. He celebrates policies like taxing remittances and deporting immigrants as restoring “dignity” to Americans but does not rigorously engage with data or counterarguments that challenge these claims. For example, when discussing the claim that over a million illegal immigrants self-deported under Trump, he initially accepts it enthusiastically but then acknowledges ChatGPT’s assessment that the number is likely inflated, without fully grappling with the implications for his narrative. His reliance on emotional rhetoric over substantiated evidence reveals a lack of awareness about the need for a more balanced, evidence-based approach to bolster his arguments.

Uncritical Celebration of Violence and Winning:The host expresses excitement about military victories (e.g., Israel’s dominance over Iran, Trump’s bombing of Iranian facilities) and frames them as demonstrations of “winning” and “excellence.” He aligns with the idea that people are drawn to winners, particularly in violent contexts like war or sports (e.g., “The world loves a fight”). However, he does not reflect on the moral or long-term consequences of glorifying violence as a measure of success, especially when discussing controversial actions like Israel’s strikes or Trump’s deportation policies. This uncritical stance suggests a lack of awareness about how his enthusiasm for “winning” might alienate those who see these actions as ethically problematic or destabilizing.

Contradictory Views on Individual vs. Collective Identity:Luke Ford critiques the liberal emphasis on individualism, arguing that people are primarily members of collectives (e.g., tribes, nations) and that group actions have collective consequences (e.g., Gazans paying a “reality tax” for Hamas’s actions). Yet, he also emphasizes individual dignity and the importance of personal responsibility, particularly in his support for policies that incentivize work and punish “antisocial” behavior. He does not address the tension between his collectivist view (e.g., punishing entire groups for the actions of some) and his advocacy for individual merit and dignity. This inconsistency indicates a lack of self-awareness about how his ideological positions may conflict.

Underestimating the Impact of His Own Platform:The host acknowledges receiving harsh criticism in his live stream chat (e.g., being called a “propagandist” or “not important”) and admits to struggling with maintaining energy and volume during long streams. However, he does not fully reflect on how his platform, despite its relatively small audience, contributes to the polarized discourse he critiques in others (e.g., “hot edgy takes” by pundits like Richard Spencer). By dismissing his own influence as negligible (“I am not important”), he fails to consider how his rhetoric, particularly on sensitive topics like immigration and Israel, might reinforce divisive narratives or attract extreme audiences, as Duvid notes with his own experience of attracting anti-Semitic viewers.

Selective Engagement with Sources and Perspectives:Luke Ford praises certain commentators (e.g., Christopher Caldwell, Matthew Continetti, Ian Fletcher) for their insights while dismissing others (e.g., Tucker Carlson, Douglas Macgregor) as less coherent or overly emotional. He does not acknowledge that his selection of sources aligns closely with his own ideological leanings (pro-Trump, pro-Israel, pro-nationalist), which limits his exposure to alternative viewpoints. For example, he criticizes the “elite media” for downplaying the success of U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iran but does not critically assess whether his own sources (e.g., Seymour Hersh, Yoram Hazony) might also have biases. This selective engagement suggests a lack of awareness about how his information diet reinforces his existing beliefs.

In summary, Luke Ford’s lack of self-awareness manifests in his failure to critically examine his biases, reconcile contradictions in his ideological positions, and fully engage with the implications of his rhetoric. While he positions himself as a commentator seeking to understand reality, his emotional investment in certain outcomes (e.g., Trump’s policies, Israel’s military actions) and his selective use of sources undermine this goal. To address these blind spots, he would need to more rigorously question his assumptions, engage with opposing viewpoints, and reflect on the broader impact of his commentary, particularly in a polarized online environment.

Posted in America | Comments Off on Trump Gets His Big Beautiful Bill To Restore American Dignity (7-4-25)

What were the biggest battles over reality in America this past week?

Professor Darel E. Paul wrote in his 2019 book, From Tolerance to Equality: How Elites Brought America to Same-Sex Marriage: “The fight is over nothing less than who shall have the power to define reality. All the combatants know as much. No wonder they fight so hard. To lose is not just to be consigned to the wrong side of history. It is to have the weight of the dominant culture pressed firmly against you, peeling away members and undermining the ability and willingness of the remainder to resist. It is to be denied access to elite institutions and networks, and to all the material and social benefits they confer. It is even to have the force of law and thus ultimately the power of the state used against you.”

Grok says:

Here’s a breakdown of notable developments that align with this theme, based on recent trends and sentiments:Transgender Rights and Policy Debates Context: The Trump administration’s executive orders targeting transgender individuals, particularly in federal prisons, have sparked intense debate. Reports indicate transgender women in federal facilities face isolation, threats of transfer to men’s prisons, and loss of gender-affirming care, framed as a response to “gender ideology extremism.”

Battle Over Reality: This reflects a clash over defining gender—whether it’s rooted in biological sex or self-identified identity. One side insists on traditional binary definitions, backed by policy and law, while the other fights for recognition of gender identity as a fundamental truth. The stakes are high: access to healthcare, legal protections, and social acceptance hang in the balance, with each side accusing the other of distorting reality.
Why It Fits: The quote’s mention of “the force of law” and “elite institutions” applies here, as federal policy shifts signal who holds power to enforce their version of truth, marginalizing dissenters.

Immigration and Deportation Rhetoric Context: Trump’s executive actions and rhetoric around mass deportations, particularly targeting “resident aliens” involved in “pro-jihadist protests,” have escalated tensions. His administration’s narrative frames undocumented immigrants as threats, while opponents argue this distorts reality by ignoring economic contributions and humanitarian concerns.

Battle Over Reality: The fight is over who gets to define “American” and “threat.” One narrative casts immigrants as invaders, justifying state power to exclude them, while another sees diversity as integral to national identity. The dominant narrative shapes public policy, law enforcement, and cultural attitudes, with losers facing social and legal ostracism.
Why It Fits: The quote’s reference to “the weight of the dominant culture” and “the power of the state” is evident in how deportation policies aim to enforce a specific vision of national identity, sidelining alternative perspectives.

Posted in America | Comments Off on What were the biggest battles over reality in America this past week?

How Much Money Has Trump Raised Through Tariffs?

Grok says: The revenue generated from tariffs imposed during Donald Trump’s presidency, particularly in his second term starting in 2025, has been significant but varies based on different estimates and timeframes:First Term (2017–2021): During Trump’s first term, tariffs on goods such as steel, aluminum, and a broad range of products from China generated substantial revenue. In fiscal year 2020, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection collected $74.4 billion in tariffs, more than double the amount collected before Trump took office. Over the seven years from 2018, total collections from China, steel, aluminum, and solar panel tariffs amounted to $257 billion.

Second Term (2025): Since taking office in January 2025, Trump has imposed new tariffs, including a 10% baseline tariff on most imports and higher rates on specific countries and goods. According to the U.S. Department of Commerce, as of April 25, 2025, the U.S. collected $285 million per day in customs and excise taxes, totaling over $16.1 billion for April alone. This is an increase from $128 million per day on January 17, 2025, the last day of the Biden administration. The Treasury Department reported $68.9 billion in tariffs and excise taxes collected in the first five months of 2025, a 78% increase from the same period in 2024.

Projections: The Tax Policy Center estimates that Trump’s tariffs from 2025 onward could raise about $3.3 trillion from 2026 to 2035, plus $190 billion in 2025, though this is roughly half of the $6–7 trillion projected by Trump’s trade advisor Peter Navarro. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that if tariffs remain in place, they could raise $2.8 trillion over the next decade, potentially reducing the federal deficit. However, these projections account for reduced import demand due to higher prices, which could lower revenue. The Penn Wharton Budget Model estimates $5.2 trillion over 10 years on a conventional basis and $4.5 trillion dynamically, factoring in economic effects.

Posted in Tariffs, Trade | Comments Off on How Much Money Has Trump Raised Through Tariffs?

Is Dennis Prager Still Paralyzed Below The Neck?

Grok: Yes, according to the most recent updates, Dennis Prager remains paralyzed below the neck due to an “incomplete” spinal cord injury at the C3 and C4 levels from a fall in November 2024. His son, David Prager, noted in May 2025 that while Prager is making progress in other areas, such as breathing and speaking, he is still unable to move below the shoulders. However, the “incomplete” nature of the injury suggests potential for some neural recovery, and he is undergoing aggressive rehabilitation at a specialized facility.

Injury and Initial Recovery: Prager suffered an “incomplete” spinal cord injury at the C3 and C4 levels, which affected his diaphragm and left him paralyzed below the shoulders. There was no brain injury, and his cognitive functions remain intact. He was hospitalized for several weeks, with a focus on regaining breathing function, and showed promising incremental improvements.

Posted in Dennis Prager | Comments Off on Is Dennis Prager Still Paralyzed Below The Neck?

From Tolerance to Equality: How Elites Brought America to Same-Sex Marriage (6-29-25)

01:00 Book: From Tolerance to Equality: How Elites Brought America to Same-Sex Marriage, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=161625
04:00 Diversity: A Managerial Ideology, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wX6CGuJ2U3g
30:00 I try to find empathy for the pain of Iran’s mullahs after they lose their nuclear program to Israeli and American bombing
57:00 Hero systems, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=146534
darel paul, 3:30 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUzaG6UAXDA
1:13:20 Michael joins to discuss Elon Musk, https://x.com/Michaelmvlog
1:28:00 Michael Wolff’s latest book: All or Nothing: How Trump Recaptured America
1:32:00 How much of a role does Melania play in Trump’s politics and life?
1:34:00 Fight: Inside the Wildest Battle for the White House, https://www.amazon.com/Fight-Inside-Wildest-Battle-White/dp/006343864X
1:37:00 Is Trump post-sexual?
1:40:00 Trump & Elon get their energy and courage from not nice sides of their personality
Does Israel support the kurds because it is nice? No, because it weakens other arab states.
2:20:00 Everybody wants to change the world, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=158213
2:26:00 Academics are defined by peer review
2:28:00 I Ask AI To Write Me Some Jokes, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=161651
2:40:00 Why would Israel want to wreck their Arab neighbors? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTzILjAtZAc
2:42:50 Will Russia or China give Iran nuclear weapons? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhmguIBPxqY
2:46:20 The Enforcer: ISRAEL PREPARES TO STRIKE IRAN! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ru3r51oA62U
2:53:00 The Israeli press has just had their own Yom Kippur, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SS9yV3TQabc
2:58:00 The most important week in US politics in 30 years, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dp75wqOrtBs
2:59:00 America’s economy, technology and military are firing on all cylinders
3:01:20 America is back, baby! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxcYunTg3XE
3:06:60 What are America’s Judeo-Christian principles (gay rights?), https://www.youtube.com/live/wRjzpNrrDCc
3:08:45 Why is America pro-Israel? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6Zisl4_VpU
3:19:00 Podcast: The Victory of the LGBT Movement – Darel E. Paul, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUzaG6UAXDA
3:24:00 The Left uses homosexuality as a marker that we on the Left are good and you on the right are bad

Grok says:

The host of the YouTube video, Luke Ford, demonstrates a lack of self-awareness in several key ways throughout the discussion of Darel E. Paul’s book From Tolerance to Equality: How Elites Brought America to Same-Sex Marriage. This lack of self-awareness is evident in how he frames his arguments, his selective focus on certain issues, and his failure to critically examine his own biases or the implications of his rhetoric. Below are specific areas where this lack of self-awareness manifests, grounded in the transcript provided:Conflating Personal Experience with Universal Truths:Ford frequently interweaves personal anecdotes (e.g., his conversion to Orthodox Judaism, his past in the adult industry, his car accident) into his analysis of broader cultural and political phenomena, such as same-sex marriage or elite influence. For example, he connects his emotional attachment to his first car and subsequent disillusionment after an accident to the Iranian regime’s potential feelings about their nuclear program (29:48–30:46). This analogy is highly speculative and anthropomorphizes a geopolitical entity in a way that lacks empirical grounding, revealing a tendency to project personal experiences onto complex, unrelated issues without acknowledging the subjective lens he’s applying.

This approach suggests a lack of awareness about the limits of personal anecdotes in explaining systemic societal shifts, potentially undermining the rigor of his analysis.

Selective Critique of Evidence and Sources:Ford praises thinkers like Steve Sailer, Charles Murray, and Christopher Caldwell for providing “abundant evidence” for their positions, while dismissing others like Curtis Yarvin, Peter Thiel, and the late Zman for making “sweeping statements” without sufficient evidence (47:48–48:58). However, he does not consistently apply this standard to his own claims or those of his favored sources. For instance, his assertion that “gay rights and traditional Judaism and Christianity are playing a zero-sum game” (7:06–7:13) is presented as self-evident without engaging with counterarguments or data that might suggest areas of coexistence or nuance.

His critique of others for lacking evidence contrasts with his own reliance on unverified assumptions, such as the claim that corporate America’s embrace of diversity is purely ideological and lacks evidence of promoting efficiency (22:48–23:00), without providing specific studies or data to refute corporate claims. This inconsistency reveals a blind spot in recognizing his own selective use of evidence.

Unexamined Antisemitic Tropes:Ford expresses concern about antisemitism resulting from perceptions of Jewish elites driving social change, citing a comment from Steve Sailer’s blog about Jewish influence in legalizing same-sex marriage (1:22–1:41). He suggests that this perception could fuel antisemitism but fails to critically reflect on how his own framing—emphasizing Jewish elites as a monolithic force—might reinforce the very tropes he claims to oppose. His proposal to replace “antisemitism” with “anti-Jewish” to “level the playing field” (1:54–2:17) ignores the historical weight and specificity of antisemitism as a term, potentially trivializing its implications.

This lack of awareness about how his rhetoric might perpetuate harmful stereotypes is particularly striking given his identity as a convert to Judaism, which he acknowledges but does not fully interrogate in the context of his arguments.

Overgeneralization of Elite Motives:

Ford repeatedly portrays elites (e.g., in universities, media, and corporations) as a cohesive group with a unified agenda to impose left-wing ideologies, such as support for same-sex marriage or DEI initiatives, to consolidate power (11:07–12:00, 25:28–26:02). He frames this as a deliberate strategy to undermine traditional values, yet he does not consider alternative motivations, such as genuine ideological shifts, economic incentives, or social pressures within elite circles. For example, he dismisses corporate diversity initiatives as lacking evidence of productivity gains (22:53–23:00) without exploring studies that might support or complicate this claim, such as those showing diversity’s impact on innovation or market reach.

His failure to acknowledge the complexity of elite motivations or the diversity within elite groups (e.g., not all elites are uniformly left-wing) indicates a lack of self-awareness about the oversimplification inherent in his narrative.

Contradictory Stance on Power and Self-Interest:Ford critiques elites for pursuing self-interest through ideological agendas (e.g., 11:14–11:21, 14:21–14:26), yet he later defends self-interest as a natural and evolutionary trait, estimating that people are “95% self-interested” (14:40–15:18). He applies this to figures like Elon Musk and Donald Trump, excusing their self-interested behaviors as necessary for their energy and accomplishments (41:04–42:14). However, he does not reflect on how his own arguments—such as his admitted lack of empathy for Palestinian suffering due to his allegiance to the Jewish state (49:28–49:49)—might also be driven by self-interest or group loyalty, mirroring the elite behaviors he criticizes.

This contradiction highlights a lack of awareness about how his own biases and group affiliations shape his worldview, even as he condemns similar dynamics in others.

Failure to Recognize the Impact of His Platform:As a live streamer and blogger, Ford wields influence in shaping narratives, yet he does not reflect on how his rhetoric—such as framing gay rights as inherently opposed to religious freedom (27:19–27:49) or describing progressive ideologies as a “cultural purge” (1:53:45–1:54:05)—might contribute to polarization or reinforce the very cultural battles he describes. His call for conservatives to “litigate and legislate ruthlessly” (2:10:18–2:10:31) mirrors the aggressive tactics he attributes to the left, yet he does not acknowledge this parallel or its potential to escalate conflict.

His lack of reflection on his role as a narrator of reality, especially given his past in controversial industries and his current platform, suggests a blind spot regarding his own contribution to the cultural dynamics he critiques.

In summary, Luke Ford’s lack of self-awareness is evident in his tendency to project personal experiences onto broader issues, his inconsistent standards for evidence, his unexamined use of antisemitic tropes, his oversimplification of elite motives, his contradictory views on self-interest, and his failure to recognize his own role in shaping cultural narratives. These blind spots undermine the coherence of his analysis and reveal a gap between his stated desire for a “level playing field” and the biases embedded in his rhetoric. For a more nuanced engagement with these issues, he could benefit from critically examining his own assumptions, engaging with countervailing evidence, and reflecting on the broader implications of his public statements.

A friend says:

A friend of mine asking about coverage of Israel asked me when it was that the American press dropped its pretense of neutrality and started writing more advocacy journalism pieces.

I told him that I thought it dated from when gays became such a large part of the newsroom, that newspapers became vehicles to promote not only acceptance of homosexuality but also of same sex marriage. Richard Berke made some conference in the early 2000’s (or perhaps the 1990’s) to the effect that 75% of the reporters and editors deciding what would be front page news in the NYT were gay. The NYT sets the agenda for the rest of the newspapers and electronic media. That is why when the example you brought up about how a book describing some negative things about how same sex marriage affected children, was in effect suppressed in concert by the rest of media.

The discussion about tolerance and acceptance also rings true. My own theory is that Gays recognize that there is something “wrong” with them. This is not surprising. Any minority group, including Jews and non whites, also feels on some level there is something “wrong” with them because they don’t share the same beliefs or skin color of the dominant group. How they deal with this however, differs from how gays deal with this. Gays demand that their same sex relationships be as valued, cherished and promoted as opposite sex relationships. They want people to believe that two parents of the same sex are a beneficial for children as a heterosexual couple. They always like to point out that a stable homosexual union is better than an unstable heterosexual union, but don’t compare a stable heterosexual union to a gay union.

What drives gays in their attempt to get the rest of society to not only tolerate, or understand, but embrace gay “values” or gay “culture” is that Gays believe on some level that homosexuality is “wrong.”

Whenever any group feels that its behavior, or immutable characteristics such as skin color, or religious beliefs are out of the mainstream and therefore “wrong” the question is how do the individuals as well as the group deal with that. The big difficulty that any outsider has to come to grips with is whether that person or group needs outside validation. Gays definitely believe that they need outside validations, hence all the articles, lawsuits, legislation and outright propaganda to compel non gays to accept them as “normal.” The reality should be that there are huge variations among humans in terms of their sexuality and that although gays may not be normal in the sense that they are a relatively small minority, that there is nothing wrong with them. That should come from within, but Gays are hung up on needing outside validation.

(You can contrast this as to how Jews achieved normalcy. They did this through economic power, and through success in the professions and arts despite discrimination (less than commonly believed) against them. They also did achieve elective office. Blacks who never understood that real power lay in achieving economic success, relied on civil rights laws and elections of black officials with the exception of creating a large black middle class who were either the beneficiaries of government jobs or DEI initiatives at large corporations. Has electing black mayors and having them select black chiefs of police had a positive impact for blacks?

Jews and Blacks (as examples) have a right to demand that they not only be tolerated, but understood and accepted in a way that recognizes them as part of the essential fabric making up America. It is not difficult to accept that some men prefer to have sex with other men rather than with women (and the same is true for Lesbians as well). However, as long as that is behind closed doors that is very different than showing pride parades, and asking ordinary folks to think of that as reasonable behavior.

Grok:

Dive into a riveting podcast episode where a speaker, an Orthodox Jewish convert, unpacks America’s cultural battles with sharp wit and insight. Drawing on Daryl E. Paul’s *From Tolerance to Equality*, they reveal how elites in media, academia, and professions drove same-sex marriage’s rise, sidelining religious freedom in a zero-sum clash. The discussion explores diversity as a managerial ideology, empowering professionals while marginalizing traditional values. In 2025, conservatives, led by Trump and DeSantis, fight back, reshaping institutions and narratives. The speaker also delves into Israel’s strategic moves, like supporting Kurdish nationalism, to counter regional rivals. Blending humor, personal anecdotes from a colorful past, and incisive analysis, this episode is a must-listen for anyone curious about culture wars and power dynamics.

– **Elite Influence**: How professionals shaped same-sex marriage acceptance.
– **Zero-Sum Conflict**: Gay rights vs. religious freedom.
– **Conservative Pushback**: Trump and DeSantis challenge left-wing dominance.
– **Israel’s Strategy**: Supporting Kurds to weaken rivals.
– **Personal Journey**: Humor ties speaker’s past to cultural critique.

Bob writes: I ran the transcript by Grok and asked for factual errors.

1. **Claim about Anti-Sodomy Laws (12:54-13:05)**

**Transcript**: “by the year 1970 virtually every state I think 49 of America’s 50 states had anti-sodomy laws where effectively it was illegal for men to have sex with with men but by 1993 only a minority of states had anti-sodomy laws and then eventually in the 1990s anti-sodomy laws were ruled illegal…”

**Error**: The timeline and specifics are inaccurate. In 1970, most U.S. states did have anti-sodomy laws, but the claim that “49 of America’s 50 states” had them is likely an exaggeration, as some states had begun repealing or modifying these laws earlier. By 1993, more than a minority of states still had anti-sodomy laws; approximately 24 states retained such laws. The U.S. Supreme Court did not rule anti-sodomy laws unconstitutional until 2003 in *Lawrence v. Texas*, not in the 1990s as claimed. The transcript’s timeline is off by about a decade.

2. **Claim about the Hawaii Court Ruling (13:25-13:30)**

**Transcript**: “in December 1996 there was a Hawaii state circuit court judge who ruled that a strictly opposite sex definition of marriage violated the state’s constitutional commitment to equal protection…”

**Error**: The date and context are slightly misleading. The Hawaii case referenced is likely *Baehr v. Lewin* (1993), where the Hawaii Supreme Court (not a circuit court) ruled that denying same-sex couples marriage licenses could violate the state’s constitutional equal protection clause unless the state could show a compelling interest. This was not a final ruling legalizing same-sex marriage but a preliminary decision requiring further justification. No definitive ruling in December 1996 declared opposite-sex-only marriage unconstitutional; instead, subsequent legal and political actions (e.g., a 1998 state constitutional amendment) restricted marriage to opposite-sex couples in Hawaii until later changes. The transcript oversimplifies and misdates the legal event.

3. **Claim about Corporate America’s Support for Same-Sex Marriage (14:15-14:21)**

**Transcript**: “one curious facet of the growing recognition and support for same-sex marriage is how corporate America has been way ahead of the American people when it comes to equality for gay lesbian bisexual transgendered people…”

**Error**: The claim that corporate America was “way ahead” of the public is overstated and lacks nuance. While some corporations began adopting inclusive policies (e.g., domestic partner benefits) in the 1990s and early 2000s, widespread corporate support for same-sex marriage largely followed public opinion shifts, not preceded them. Polls (e.g., Gallup) show public support for same-sex marriage reached a tipping point around 2010-2011 (about 50%), aligning with when many corporations began vocal advocacy, often in response to market pressures and employee expectations. Corporate America’s actions were often pragmatic, not pioneering, and closely tracked elite and professional class trends rather than leading public sentiment.

4. **Claim about the New York Times’ Shift on Same-Sex Marriage (16:10-16:25)**

**Transcript**: “approximately between 1992 and 1994 the New York Times went from refusing to publish same-sex union announcements to in the words of its public editor presenting the social and cultural aspects of same-sex marriage in a tone of cheerleading…”

**Error**: The timeline and characterization are inaccurate. The New York Times did not begin publishing same-sex commitment ceremony announcements until 2002, not between 1992 and 1994. The decision to include these announcements followed internal debates and reflected broader societal shifts, not a sudden change within two years. The claim about the public editor’s statement also lacks a specific citation and seems exaggerated; while the Times’ coverage became more supportive of same-sex marriage over time, no public editor statement from that period explicitly describes the paper’s tone as “cheerleading.” The transcript compresses and misrepresents the timeline of the Times’ evolving stance.

Posted in America, Homosexuality | Comments Off on From Tolerance to Equality: How Elites Brought America to Same-Sex Marriage (6-29-25)