In recent years, one name has become synonymous with the reshaping of America’s legal system, Leonard Leo. For those not already familiar, Leo is the mastermind and architect behind much of the conservative movement success in remaking the judiciary as the key figure in the Federalist Society. Leo’s helped guide the careers of right wing legal minds who now sit in the highest courts of the land, holding down its conservative majority up there on SCOTUS. But now Leo has his sights set on a new mission, reshaping American culture itself. The 59 year old billionaire says that he intends to crush liberal dominance in Hollywood, Silicon Valley and the media, the very industries that many conservatives seem to think are dominated by left leaning ideologies. Leo’s announced the creation of something called the T Neo network, a conservative talent pipeline designed to recruit and deploy rising stars who can influence content creation, entertainment and business. Think of it as sort of a Federalist Society, but for the cultural and tech sectors. Now, on the surface, Leo’s ambitions might sound like a modern day attempt to enhance the national conversation, but we should all dig a little bit deeper. Leo’s vision isn’t just political, it’s cultural. It’s about the broader push to change the very fabric of American society, to change what it means to be American, and that should concern us all, regardless of where we fall on the political spectrum. Leo has made it clear that he wants to build a network that can shape what we see, hear and think in Hollywood, Silicon Valley and beyond. He’s not interested in a free, diverse marketplace of ideas. No. His aim is ideological control, ensuring that conservative voices are not just heard, but dominant. What’s particularly dangerous here is Leo’s use of dark money. He employs a well worn playbook that proved fruitful when it came to stacking the courts, that is, fund a network of like minded individuals, recruit the right people, get them into powerful positions, and over time, change the landscape to reflect one narrow view of the world. Of course, it’s an insidious takeover, though, that’s through networks that quietly steer people toward positions of influence, ensuring that the right message, and that’s the rights message, gets out. This isn’t just infusing ideology. It’s about creating an ecosystem where dissenting opinions are squeezed out. If Leo succeeds, we could see a future where Hollywood only produces Family Centered content that aligns with conservative values, where Silicon Valley caters to tech giants that toe the ideological line, and also where media outlets are controlled by powerful interests pushing messages keyed to a single viewpoint. Imagine an America where most of what we consume, culturally, politically and economically, is shaped by one ideology that kind of sounds eerily familiar to how authoritarian regimes have historically maintained control. Hmm. Mussolini knows, as I’ve said, this isn’t just about Hollywood or Silicon Valley. It’s about the broader push to change the very fabric of American society, to change what it means to be American. If Leo succeeds, the landscape of American culture could look very different, more ideological, less diverse, and far less open to debate. It’s a vision where one set of ideas dominates the public sphere and the voices of those who disagree, well, they’re nowhere to be found because they’re drowned out. So the question is, are we the people ready for this? Will we stand by while the cultural and tech giants that shape our daily lives are hijacked for a political agenda? Ultimately, Leo’s latest move is a reminder that the quiet power is there shaping our world. You know, there are people pulling strains behind the scenes, operatives who craft the future of our society, and right now, Leo’s vision looks like a future where control over the conversation is firmly in the hands of the few

Well, the issue of immigration is more complicated than it looks take the concept of mass deportations. It seems everyone has an opinion on that subject. Too bad, most of them are wildly uninformed. President Elect Donald Trump insists that he’s going to keep his promises, including his outrageous and unworkable pledge to quote launch the largest deportation program in US history. Speaking of ignorance, there’s a whole truckload of it in just that one quote I get that Trump is mainly pandering to the crowd that wants to make America white again when he threatens to get rid of all the brown folks. But trying to reverse demographics through deportations is a tricky business, and what Trump has in mind is easier said than done. I ought to know. I’ve been writing about immigration for 35 years, guided by nuance, honesty and common sense. I still haven’t figured it all out, given the twists and turns that are baked into this issue,

I still see shades of gray. Blame it all on my roots. Both my parents were born in the United States. Three of my grandparents were born in the United States, in Texas, and the fourth came from Mexico to the United States as a boy with his family around 1915 during the Mexican Revolution,

their whole family came legally. I know this for a fact, because except for the Chinese who were barred from entry by the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 no one could come illegally until after the immigration act of 1924

Meanwhile, my father is a retired law enforcement officer who spent 37 years on the job, whether on the US Mexico border or on The steps of the US Capitol. I don’t take lawlessness lightly. I don’t make excuses for it. I’m about accountability, just like the Republicans used to be before the January 6 riots turned them inside out. I want to lock up scofflaws and throw away the key. That includes foreign nationals who commit crimes on US soil and who should serve out their prison time here on US soil. I’m not interested in deporting them back to their home country where they can roam free and wreck habit and maybe even come back across the border.

I bet most Americans who reflexively call for mass deportations never think about that. Here are three more things they probably never think about. One, the price immigration and customs enforcement says each removal costs $10,000

per deportation, and the nativist insists that there are 20 million illegal immigrants in this country. Do the math the price tag to deport them all, $200 billion we don’t have it.

Two, the violation of civil rights. It is guaranteed that in any sweep, the civil rights of us Latinos will be violated, especially if Trump uses local cops as his henchmen, thereby destroying public trust in local law enforcement for 50 years, which will, of course, increase crime rates. And

number three, the futility. It’s adorable that so many Americans think that migrants was removed won’t come back to reunite with their family and their friends, paying smugglers even higher prices to bring them across, thereby making the bad guys even stronger. Good plan. I get it really. I do. A lot of Americans are sick and tired of what they consider an invasion by a bunch of uninvited house guests. Now I’d argue that these folks were, in fact, invited, that there is no invasion, and that the invitation took the form of a giant help wanted sign along the US Mexico border. You see us employers keep hiring these people anyway. Suffice to say, there are lots of ways to get rid of house guests. You could, for instance, burn your house to the ground. Problem solved. That’ll teach them. My fellow Americans, please calm down, come to your senses and step away from the matches and.

All right, I want to talk about the mass exodus that is happening from corporate news media since the election. There’s about three different parts to it that I think are important to mention. Number one, what’s happening on independent media? Well, I told you, in the few days following the election that shows like mine, started seeing a decline in subscribers. It ended up being temporary, lasted somewhere between two and three days, and has since recovered and kind of gone to new record highs. On corporate media, there is C N N at least as far as cable news is concerned, we’ve got C N N, M, S n, b, c and Fox. Comparatively speaking, Fox is doing the best. MSNBC and CNN have seen significant ratings declines, and this is raising questions about, is this the end of cable news? Is this a temporary post election law? Is this about the losers going home to lick their wounds versus the winners rallying around Fox News. I think there’s a lot of interesting stories here to talk about. It is not rare for there to be a post election kind of drop off. The losers do kinda go and lick their wounds for a little bit. The winners will take their victory lap, and they’ve been taking their victory lap. I’m seeing it on social media as well. And then you’ll see a little bit of a tune out where people say, I don’t know that I need to be consuming this stuff as frequently as I was at some point, but I believe that there’s more to it this time around. This is more than just let me take my normal quick break from politics and then everything goes back to the way it was. There does seem to be an exodus happening from corporate news media where people are tired and disillusioned, but more importantly, they’re realizing, I don’t know, that corporate media is where the truth lives in general anymore, and this is making me feel like actually, we’re doing well, and people seem to be realizing it is independent media where the future is now. I’m not saying anything particularly groundbreaking here, because we’ve seen for a while that the networks seem unsure as to what is the right way forward for us. They want to access power rather than challenge it. We saw it with Joe and Mika’s Morning Joe pilgrimage down to mar a Lago. But more people seem to be catching on that the shiny graphics and that there’s a logo that spins and says live and breaking news, it doesn’t necessarily mean that what you really want R corporate media pundits recycling the same talking points 24/7 that seems to be losing its grip with the good news. Here is a lot of those viewers, I believe, are going to come to us in independent media, rather than going back to cable, they’re going to come to creators who are beholden to corporate sponsors or dictated by party lines, where they can say, or I can say, hey, here’s where I agree with one side or the other, or they’re both lying to you, or whatever the case may be. That is different than just I’m taking a break from CNN and january 20, I’m going right back to it. It’s more than a temporary ratings dip, and it’s part of this longer term trend where the gatekeepers of old school media aren’t as relevant anymore. And I think that overall, this is a very good thing. What’s the caveat? The caveat, as I’ve told my fellow liberal friends, the caveat is that I’m all for more independent media. That’s what I do. I’m all for growing the pie, the share of people who get their news from us rather than c, n, n, for example, R comment, their commentary from us, I should better say the problem for the left is that the right is way better at it. The right is far better funded when it comes to independent media, with organizations like the daily wire Turning Point USA, with both media and in person events, we don’t really have anything like that on the left. And so there are, there is a goal of building it and the risk right now, you know the the first challenge, so to speak, was, how do we get people to consider turning something like The David Pakman Show on rather than just flipping to CNN or MSNBC or Fox or whatever you normally watch? That was the first hurdle. That hurdle, to a great degree, has been cleared. Now the hurdle becomes people are accepting independent media as the place to get this sort of content. We don’t want the right to just absolutely crush and destroy so whether it’s a consortium, what, there’s so many different ways it could be done, but the point is, we can’t let them now run away with what we were actually trying to do all along, which is get more people to tune into our stuff. Finally, there are sort of questions as to whether any independent media shows would be big enough to get on the radar of Trump such that he. Might try to shut us down. I think the answer, as far as Trump is concerned, is no, but there is no doubt that there are people that Trump has nominated whose staffers certainly are aware of the adversarial left wing shows to Trump. And so there is some concern there will they now start targeting independent media because it’s gotten so big that remains to be seen. I.

Matt, Okay, Matt Gaetz, you know, the guy that Donald Trump picked to be the Attorney General of the United States. But that guy, Matt Gaetz, decided to withdraw his you know, candidacy. Matt gates, made a video saying that Donald Trump has been declared not guilty because Jack Smith, special prosecutor,

decided to withdraw the motion for prosecution against Donald Trump. First of all, Matt Gaetz, you likely should be in prison your damn self. Secondly, you are simply happy that nobody is talking about the investigation against you and under age trafficking of a minor. All right,

the reality is this, Jack Smith, special prosecutor, prosecuting Trump, did file two motions to drop the cases against Trump. This effectively ends the Department of Justice and their prosecution against Donald Trump, citing a guideline from the DOJ that says you cannot prosecute a sitting president,

Mueller utilized a very similar approach as a special investigator. De facto, both of these gentlemen are incorrect about the Constitution, about the statutory reality, the Constitution does not make any claim whatsoever that a sitting president of the United States is somehow immune from criminal prosecution. As a matter of fact, the guideline that was given was given decades ago to protect who Nixon, that’s why the guideline was given in the first place. But see, a guideline is not a constitutional mandate. There is no constitutional dynamic here whatsoever. He’s citing Department of Justice guidelines. And I will also say this, the DOJ decided to drop the case while Trump is not President of the United States, but only president elect. Meaning, even if your argument Jack Smith was credible,

you would see the irony in the fact that the case is dropped before he’s president of the United States. And let’s also highlight the reality that statutorily, there is no law that says the president of the United States is, in fact, immune from any kind of prosecution. Let’s go back to the guideline, because I don’t want people to miss this if the reason why a president cannot be prosecuted is due to the Department of Justice guideline. Who’s in charge of the DOJ now? Ah, the Biden administration. Why is it that they cannot rescind such a ridiculous guideline that’s not rooted in law and not rooted in constitution. That is the question.

President Elect Donald Trump has been busy crafting his cabinet and building his cacastocracy. The appointment of Matt Gaetz as Attorney General has caught a lot of people off guard, but as far as I’m concerned, it’s low hanging fruit. There is a more insidious appointment at foot that’s Linda McMahon, the co founder of World Wrestling Entertainment she previously led the Small Business Administration under Trump’s first term, and it looks like the 76 year old who has no experience in education has been tapped to lead the Department of Education this time around. We should be afraid, very afraid, while McMahon’s business acumen may have served well in her other roles, her project 2025 infused vision for the Department of Education is myopic and dangerous. McMahon’s priorities appear focused on reshaping the education system to better align with the needs of employers, emphasizing career and tech education over traditional academic pathways. She’s criticized higher education and suggested that short term credentialing and workforce training programs could better prepare students for immediate job placement. Now, while her emphasis on aligning education with workforce demands may seem pragmatic on the surface, it ignores the complex and multi faucet role that education plays in our society. This is a bigger issue that must receive attention. As the Secretary of Education McMahon will likely erode equity, stifle intellectual development and deepen divisions between economic and social classes. Historically, the American education system has served as both an engine of economic opportunity and a pillar of democracy. For instance, there was the Moral Act of 1862 which had established land grant colleges. That act was aimed at not just preparing students for jobs in agriculture and mechanics, but also to create a more informed and capable citizenry. Education was never solely about workforce readiness. It was about empowering individuals to participate in meaningful civic life. McMahon’s singular focus on career and technical education, while valuable in certain contexts, threatens to reduce education to a transactional relationship between students and their future employers, her game plan is to create obtuse workers, not informed citizens. Let’s be clear, aligning education with workforce needs is not not I say, inherently bad. Programs like apprenticeships and certifications can open doors for students who might otherwise be left behind in a traditional academic setting. But when this approach becomes the dominant model, it risks creating a two tiered education system. History offers a cautionary tale as to this type of dual system during the early 20th century, tracking systems in schools sorted students along racial and socio economic lines, largely into vocational or academic tracks. This not only perpetuated inequality, but also locked students out of opportunities to reach their full potential, albeit couched in modern rhetoric, while McMahon’s vision echoes this troubling history by prioritizing workforce training over broader intellectual growth. Perhaps most troubling is McMahon’s lack of attention to the role that public education plays as an equalizer. 19th Century Education reformer Horace Mann, he called public schools the great equalizer of the conditions of men. Now this is inspirational or aspirational, I should say, or maybe both, but it’s a goal we’re striving for. Public education has historically been one of the few institutions capable of leveling the playing field for children born into poverty or disadvantage. Redirecting public funds toward private and charter schools, as McMahon intends, threatens to further destabilize already underfunded public school systems. When Public Schools falter, it is the most vulnerable students, those without the means to opt out, who suffer the most. The potential consequences of McMahon’s efforts will extend beyond individual students to the fabric of society itself. A narrow workforce oriented education system may produce skilled workers, but it risks neglecting the cultivation of an informed citizenry. Said another way, we, the people, won’t be in an intellectual position to know we’re being hoodwinked by the wealthy, and that’s what McMahon has set up. Think of how we handled things during the Cold War, 1957, when the Soviets launched Sputnik Well, the US responded by investing in education, sciences, humanities, our government recognized that fostering innovation required more than job training. It demanded critical thinking, creativity, a broader understanding of the world around us.

Those investments pay dividends, not just in technological advancements, but also in intellectual enrichment. Compare that with McMahon’s vision, which prioritizes immediate economic outputs over long term societal gains. Education is not just a means to a paycheck, it’s the foundation of a functioning democracy and a thriving society. There are significant challenges facing education today, rising inequality, outdated infrastructure, underpaid teachers and so on. These challenges require leaders who value education as a public good, not as a subsidiary of the labor market. McMahon’s vision is not the bold reform education needs. It’s a regression to an era where opportunity was doled out sparingly to the detriment of the masses and the nation as a whole. We cannot afford to go back the.

The President Elect, Donald Trump, it turns out, is quite a trickster. What is jokester? He’s always making mischief. Now he’s using his cabinet nominations to mess with the media and also, whether he realizes it or not, by extension, mess with the American people, with a Rapid Fire series of laughably unqualified nominees for various positions, each one more absurd than the previous one. Trump is creating distractions and making a mockery of something that Republicans were supposed to consider sacred merit. You remember merit? Sure you do. Republicans invoke that word all the time when they’re trying to deny opportunities to women and people of color and defend the rights of America’s one true victim class, those poor, beleaguered white men, Republicans absolutely worship at the altar of May the best man win, with an emphasis on man, whatever people like Trump whine about the unfairness of affirmative action programs to take race into account in college admissions, or the unseemliness of President Biden promising To choose a black woman as a running mate, or the awkwardness of that same black woman later running for president herself and threatening to break the glass ceiling, or dei programs that encourage clutch the pearls diversity, equity and inclusion. Whenever any of those issues come up, the first word out of the right wing is always the same merit. See in the eyes of many conservatives, particularly white male conservatives, if the job, the slot, the gig, the nomination or the appointment does not go to a white male Well, obviously the game is rigged. Move over God for Republicans seeking to maintain the status quo, their motto has always been in merit we trust. Well, not anymore. That’s over with. There’s no more need for merit in Washington. Trump killed it, and he did it through his Cabinet picks, which looked like they came straight out of the pages of Mad Magazine. You would be hard pressed to find a less meritorious, less qualified bunch anywhere what me worry? Yes, I damn well better worry. And you should worry too if the Republican controlled Senate caves in and gives up on its role of advice and consent, preferring instead to go with acquiesce and confirm see Trump wants former representative Tulsi Gabbard, Democrat from Hawaii, a known Russian sympathizer, to serve as director of national intelligence. He thinks South Dakota Governor Christie, no one whose state is 1400 miles away from the US Mexico border would make a swell Secretary of Homeland Security. Trump loves television and celebrity, so he can’t think of a better choice for secretary of defense than Cable News host and veteran Pete hegseth, and who has a better handle on our criminal justice system than Representative Matt Gaetz of Florida, an accused pedophile and sex trafficker who Trump believes would be a perfect fit for us, Attorney General. Finally, the Department of Health and Human Services protects public health, so who better to lead it than someone who made doctors consider a serious threat to public health? Robert F Kennedy Jr, the names kept coming all week long, and they were just getting worse. So I got to say, by the time we got to caddy at the end of the week, Noam was starting to look pretty good. She looked like Mother Teresa Margaret Thatcher and Sandra Day O’Connor all wrapped up into one person. What happened to the sanctity of merit? Where did that go? It looks like sometime during this carnival side show, Merritt caught the four o’clock train to get the heck out of here. It’s pretty obvious by now, the only qualification that Trump really cares about is blind loyalty to Trump and the President Elect’s motley crew of misfit toys is plenty loyal. They’re going to stand next to this guy come hell or high water. They can’t afford to let him get away. After all, given that they all lack merit, where else are they going to go? Who else is going to book this bizarre Act? As far as I know, the circus isn’t in town, or is it i.

You may recall that in the immediate aftermath of the election, there were many people using the words landslide and mandate to signal an overwhelming victory by Donald Trump, a victory so massive, in fact, that now he gets to do whatever he wants to do. Now, of course, anybody who looked at the data was suspicious of this, as we suspected that millions of votes had not yet been counted, and a lot of those votes were not going to go in favor of Donald Trump. Now I want, I want to be clear Trump won Trump one, fair and square, after looking at every claim I’ve received about different irregularities, they do not seem to have been substantiated empirically. And Trump won, and nothing I say here changes that. But I want you to think back to Barack Obama’s victories in 2008 and 2012 genuinely larger victories, winning both the Electoral College and popular vote, and the total lack of respect for whatever mandate Barack Obama might have been able to claim. And now consider the latest data from the 2024 election, Donald Trump has now dipped below 50% of the popular vote. He won the popular vote, but he won it with most voters voting for someone else. Trump won what’s called a plurality of the vote, not a majority of the vote. It’s very difficult to argue that you have a mandate and that you won in a landslide when most of the voters voted for someone else, that’s number one. Now number two, it’s also important to compare the latest numbers to those of Hillary Clinton in 2016 now, of course, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton lost electorally in 2016 whereas Donald Trump won electorally both in 2016 and in 2024 but recall that Hillary Clinton won by 2.1 percentage points in 2016 in the popular vote, and Trump’s lead right now is only 1.7 percentage points. Trump’s victory in the popular vote is even smaller than that which Hillary Clinton had in 2016 and even in the raw vote totals, Hillary Clinton won by about 2.8 million votes back in 2016 Donald Trump winning right now by somewhere between 2.5 and 2.6 million votes. What does this say? Well, it says two things. Number one, any policy, any executive order, any appointment, any you’ve got to let me get Matt gates confirmed at any justification, any claim whose justification is the mandate or landslide victory that Trump obtained, which supposedly says that everybody wants Trump to do whatever he wants must be rejected out of hand, because, empirically, it’s completely bogus, just completely and totally bogus, And we just say most of the people who voted voted for someone else. But there’s another sort of aspect to this, which is that I know that there are people who are demoralized and despondent, people on the left as a result of what took place in this year’s election, and I get that that makes sense. A lot of us say those four years under Trump were so crazy. We were globally humid, humiliated. He was the laughing stock of the world, and our fellow Americans have now chosen, he didn’t steal it, right? He won. Our fellow Americans have now chosen to give him another four years. That is demoralizing and depressing, and you would be right, but there is still great reason to stay engaged and to resist what it is that he is doing. And even though it can be difficult, even though it can be exhausting, we have to remember that even among voters, most of the people who voted voted for somebody else, other than Trump. So we set our sights on 26 we start to think about 28 but we don’t forget that we can still do a lot, even right now. And you know it some of these nominations that Trump made, it’s not clear they’re going to be confirmed. Continuing to turn public opinion against some of these unqualified selections is a worthwhile activity that could have real, tangible results. People will suffer if Matt Gaetz is Attorney General, if Robert F Kennedy Jr becomes Secretary of Health and Human Services, there will be real world suffering as a result of that. Now we’re already starting to see some voters regret their Trump votes. He’s not even been sworn in yet, and there are people saying Elon Musk seems to be in charge, or at least having a voice. I didn’t vote for Elon Musk. There’s a great media piece about that. Or people who were saying, you know, I voted for him. I didn’t think he was really going to start deporting anyone I know, but it’s. Seems like he’s really going to deport people. I know I regret voting for Trump. We’re going to hear more and more of these anecdotes, but we don’t need the anecdotes, because once again, if you zoom out with Trump, Trump dropping below 50% of the popular vote, most voters voted for someone else, and that is a very good reminder that we stay engaged and we stay active. Here. I.

Yeah. Okay. So Matt Gaetz selected by Donald Trump to become the Attorney General of the United States of America. However, Matt Gaetz then decides to withdraw, claiming that he is going to do this for the good of the Trump Vance team, and the DOJ needs to be ready on day one, sir, come on, let’s be real. Number one, you left the Congress so that you can avoid them having jurisdictional authority to release the investigation that they had done on you in reference to the alleged sex trafficking of minors and the alleged alleged cocaine use, so we know good damn well why you did it now you have successfully. Mr. Gates avoided that kind of smoke this week, and the news is about the Ag selection, because Trump decided to pick you. You have now withdrawn from consideration,

so you have no job in the Congress. You’re not going to be the AG, I’m sure, knowing you, Matt, you have made some kind of sweetheart deal to possibly avoid prosecution, maybe a Trump pardon, maybe something from the DOJ office, whoever actually holds the rank in the future. But that report, sir, is coming. It’s going to come out, obviously. And here’s the other dynamic, here’s what’s interesting.

I don’t think this is so much about you, Matt. It’s about the judgment of the

incoming commander in chief. You see Donald Trump is the one who made the selection. It is Matt Gaetz who decided to withdraw. You have to ask yourself the question,

the judgment of Donald Trump

is to blame, correct? Why would someone make such a decision? Why would a President of the United States literally appoint a man to be the top cop, knowing credible allegations are against him for some of the most horrific crimes you can imagine in the United States of America, why would that guy ever be considered to be in charge of the largest law enforcement apparatus in the nation? That is the actual question. You.

Today, let’s take a break from all Trump all the time, both because I think we could all use a second, and also because there is something else making me quite mad today, perimenopause. Wait, I know you’re thinking, this is a political opinion. Show what do the hormonal fluctuations experienced by middle aged women have to do with politics, sit down. Okay, so for the duration of well, my life anyway, menstruation has been a very dirty little secret held by half of the global population. I grew up tucking tampons into my sweatshirt sleeves. Girls, you feel me absolutely mortified by the mere thought that someone might know I was having my period, aka, a thing that literally has to happen for the perpetuation of the human race.

Menopause. I don’t know, we talked about it a little, I guess, but mostly in the well, that’s when women dry up and lose all their cultural value. Context, perimenopause, that’s what myself,

that’s what myself and many of that’s what myself and many of my friends are going through. It’s basically the multi year lead up to the cessation of your period. And again, it is something that fully half the global population will likely experience in one way or another. And yet, until recently, I have never heard it mentioned in polite company or on social media.

Now I drag social media a lot, but with the aging of the first wave of internet overshares, of which I’m a proud member, comes an interesting side effect. Women are talking about perimenopause loudly, celebrities, including Oprah, Gwyneth, Halle, Berry, Michelle Obama, they’ve all spoken openly about their experiences with perimenopause and menopause, and brands are starting to realize that all this newfound openness, of course, presents an opportunity to make money, so they’re busy creating all sorts of menopause targeted products, which is great, really, but what took so long historically and even now, the medical industry skews heavily male.

But what took so long historically and even now, the medical industry skews heavily male, and let me tell you, if men were dealing with hot flashes, reduced sex drive and the flotilla of additional potential health issues that come along with menopause, I’m guessing it would be more of a thing. There’d probably be a pill to stop it or delay it, and it would probably be readily available and free.

Now, thanks to all this new research, it turns out surprise that ovaries might actually be important, like beyond the baby making part, they’re really the only organs that we expect to one day just essentially shut down, creating a whole host of problems, including elevated risk of osteoporosis and heart disease. But we’re okay with that, because, come on, women,

except scientists, are discovering that studying ovaries may unlock exciting new developments in longevity research, money power, living forever, like a god. Obviously, ovaries have now become deeply deserving of our attention. The gender gap in health care in this country, exacerbated, of course, by the additional gap in the quality of care provided to minority women is 1,000%

a political issue. We’ve made strides in the direction of addressing women’s specific health care needs, sure, but the recent election, I think it showed just how far we have to go in.

Fight to be treated like,

well, like our bodies actually matter. I.

Now with Donald Trump heading back to the White House, it’s fair to say that much of America is bracing for impact, but some are doing even more. Namely, one gavid Newsom, once it became evident that Trump took the win, California’s governor took swift action, calling for a legislative special session to help protect the state’s policies ahead of the impending administration, and specifically, it’s the policies on climate change, immigration policy and even reproductive rights. Newsom’s actions to protect California from Trump’s project 2025 agenda are not just political posturing. They’re wise and statistically supported decisions that confirm how critical this leadership style is. More governors who wish to protect their constituents should be making moves like Newsom is right now, let’s look at the facts. First, California has a long, long history of being a leader in progressive policies, especially on issues like climate change, healthcare and immigration. Under Trump’s first administration, California, efforts to lead in these areas were consistently challenged and undermined. For instance, in 2019 Trump revoked California’s authority to set auto emission rules that were stricter than the federal rules, even though California standards were proven to be extraordinarily successful. In fact, according to the California Legislative Analyst Office, California had reduced carbon emissions by 13% 13% between 2004 and 2017, the national average during that time increased by 1% the numbers do not lie. Tail pipe pollution is the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. In California, maintaining a strict policy is a form of action. Those standards were critical to reducing harm to the climate, yet Trump sought to roll them on back. Why? So he could benefit big companies by taking action now, Newsom is helping California maintain the forward momentum it has built on climate leadership. Also, the California governor is wisely looking to shore up immigration protections, given Trump’s promise to deport undocumented individuals and even to try to boot out denaturalized citizens. California is home to more than 10 million immigrants, and the state has long been a safe haven for those seeking a better life. According to a 2020 Pew Research Study, 73% of Californians said that they supported creating a path for citizenship for undocumented immigrants. This shows a strong consensus that the state values and protects its immigrant population. Newsom’s push to maintain California as a sanctuary state is not just a moral imperative, but also a practical one. Immigrants are the backbone of California’s economy. It also happens to be what the fifth largest economy in the world. So we’re doing something right. The Public Policy Institute of California estimates that immigrants account for approximately 27% of California’s workforce, contributing more than 400 billion to the state’s GDP. So by ensuring that these contributions are not undermined by hostile and racist federal policies. Well, Newsom is protecting California’s economy. You know, those of us who’ve been paying attention, we know that Trump’s impending policies will do far more harm than good for the American people, and that includes the people in California. So nuisance proactive steps here. They’re not just political strategy. They’re backed by solid, good reason and also the will of the people protecting California from the anticipated overreach of a Trump administration and its project 2025, mission is crucial for maintaining the state’s democratic values, environmental leadership and our commitment to protecting vulnerable communities. And research shows that a majority of Californians support Newsom stances on these issues, from everything from climate change to immigrant rights. He is fighting to ensure that these values continue to define our great state and our governor’s leadership. Well, I would say it’s all about defend defending Californians and what we care about, freedom, opportunity, fairness. What is your governor doing? Hopefully it’s more than just bracing for impact