Don't throne phone; meat is good again; and KBJ in town (09-04-2024--Hour3)

What's going on? Thank you so much for listening to this podcast. It is heard live every day from noon to three on WBT Radio in Charlotte. And if you want exclusive content like invitations to events, the weekly live stream, my daily show prep with all the links, become a patron, go to dpeteclendershow dot com. Make sure you hit the subscribe button, get every episode for free, write to your smartphone or tablet, and again, thank you so much for your support. Alrighty, so give you some advice. Now. I'm not trying to tell you how to live your life. Okay, that's not me. I'm a lowercase O libertarian. I'm a live and let live kind of a guy. But apparently, if you take your cell phone your smartphone into the restroom and you're using it on the toilet there, you're increasing the risk of hemorrhoids by like fifty percent. Look, don't blame me, it's science. Okay, they did a study a I don't know what her title is here, but she is Oh, she's a gastro enterrologist. So that sounds like she should know. Or she could be an influencer too, like a TikToker or YouTuber somebody who uses their phone a lot. But anyway, her name is Tricia Pastricia Pastrica, Tricia past Richa. She is at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, Massachusetts. She says, us gastro enterrologists, Okay, well that should say we gastro and terrologists. We always tell our patients don't spend too much time on the toilet. Now, I have never been to a gastro entrologist, so I've never heard this advice to not spend too much time sitting down. But apparently this is a bad thing, right, So if you're using the restroom as your respite in order to get away from the family, and you can lock yourself in there for forty five minutes until your legs fall asleep, this is probably not great for the hemorrhoids. Okay. They asked one hundred and twenty five people who were scheduled to have colonoscopies to fill out questionnaires about their toilet habits, their general health, and their physical activities, and then they took the images from the colonoscopies and reviewed them to determine if they had the hemorrhoids also known as piles, which is what Karl Marx had, by the way, so I guess he was doing a lot of doom scrolling on the throne as well. Two thirds of the participants, who were all aged over forty five years old, said they used their smartphone on the toilet, so two thirds only two thirds. The other third is probably lying and the phone users the two thirds were about five times as likely to spend more than five minutes on the throne. However, the participants did not seem to recognize this, so they did not realize that they were spending so much time on their phones on the throne, which is not a surprise either. So after they adjusted for factors like age and activity levels and such, the research team concluded smartphone use on the toilet is associated with a forty six percent greater risk of hemorrhoids. Quote. Obviously, our study did not prove causation, says Pestricha. To address this, they're going to do another study and that's going to be an intervention one where some participants will be asked not to use phone while on the porcelain chair there, which they think should be able to help gauge whether it really is a problem or not. The team also found no association between straining and the risk of the roids. No association, which was like, that's surprising to me because I had heard that before. I'd heard that like if you like, if you're straining like with a colander or something, that increases your risk too. The team speculates that this is because the pelvic floor muscles have less support whilst seated in that position than when you sit on a flat surface. Hmm. So if this conclusion is correct, if these two things are in fact connected, right, then wouldn't we see like this occurring all over the world. I suspected would right, Surely Americans are not the only ones doing this kind of behavior. And look, as I said, this is a this is a study. This is science speaking of which eating more meat could be beneficial for your body. Okay, wait, well, wait a minute, hang on, more meat is beneficial, Eating meat not linked to higher risk of death. That is not what I have been told. Okay, this is new information. In fact, it is like the exact opposite information than we have been told like literally my entire life, right, I have been told that oh, cooked meat, you cook it on a grill, and that's what gives you the cancer because like the cooking and the whatever, the charcoal and all of that. Recent research, though, from Canada's McMaster University, revealed that animals sourced foods are not linked to a higher risk of death, which, by the way, death occurs in one hundred percent of humans. The study discovered that animal proteins could also offer protective benefits against cancer related mortality. So not only does the animal meat not give you cancer, it also might help ward it off. Right, you guys in science, you guys really got to get your stuff together here. I'm telling you, like, this is all like, this is like the egg thing all over again. I remember we were told that eggs are you know, bed they're giving you the cholesterol and all of this. And then they were like, oh, but there's good cholesterol and bad cholesterol. And they're like, okay, eggs are good again. Oh my goodness. But maybe big beef has gotten to the researchers. That's possible too, right, Maybe they got their thumb on the skin like the butcher scalia. That's possible. Researchers analyzed data from nearly sixteen thousand adults age nineteen and older, considering how much animal and plant protein they typically consume. They also examined whether these diet patterns were associated with the risk of dying from causes such as heart disease and cancer. The results revealed no increased risk of death in association with eating more animal protein. The data also showed a modest but significant reduction in cancer related mortalities. No association were found. Associations were found between total protein whether it was animal or plant based, no association between total protein and the risk of death from any cause. But when plant and animal protein were analyzed, the results remain consistent, which suggests that plant protein has a minimal impact on cancer mortality, while animal protein may offer a small protective effect. So plant based protein not as good as the animal which anybody who has tasted this stuff could tell you. Lead researcher Yanni Papa nuc Luca I think is how he pronounces that, President of Nutritional Strategies, also commented that when both observational data and clinical research are considered, quote, it's clear that both animal and plant protein foods promote health and longevity. I'm telling you people, it's science. Like now science, we can eat meat again. I've been eating meat for a while but like that's yeah, it's all about the portion control really, that's I think what this comes down to. You know, you want to do like just two to three ounces of protein per meal and then you know one meal of like six ounce of lean protein. That's really the key. I learned that from PhD weight loss. So it's portion control people, and then like cutting out all the sugars and carbs. That stuff's crap. All right, you hear me talk a lot about incentives, right, Well, let's talk about incentive trips, the kind that companies offer employees to fire them up and reward their teams. If you own a business or you work somewhere that offers these incentive trips, first off, good for you, but also there is a custom app that's a game changer for these trips. It's called Incentive Tripkit. Private group messaging, shared photos, you're itinerary, travel details all built into a single, easy to use app. There's even a traveler locator so Carl from Accounting doesn't get left behind the best part about Incentive trip Kit it's totally private, no email captures, no sign ups, no cringe ads. It's simple, clean and secure, and when the trip is over Incentive trip Kit turns those highlights into a professional storytelling video. So think about it. When you launch next year's incentive trip campaign, that video becomes your greatest motivator. Talk about a return on investment. Right, you gotta check out incentive trip Kit for your business. Visit incentive trip kit dot com because great trips deserve even better returns. And I did get a text or two regarding some of this vital information that I provided. Question from the text line, reading a newspaper or magazine whilst on the toilet is not an issue. That is a good question, and it is I believe, actually addressed in here. Yeah, here it is. This is, by the way, from New Scientist dot com. The team found no association. Oh, I already read that part about the straining. This may be surprising giving how often the claim is bay blah blah blah. In fact, some studies have found right, that's not it hang on time spent to pelvic floor muscles. Prolonged time can be like pregnancy. Mm hmm, I thought they mentioned it here. Oh, here it is. The studies authors think it is best to leave smartphones outside the bathroom, but printed reading material might be okay. They say, read something that's not designed to be addictive and makes you lose track of time. So that's the key, right. So the key is that people on their smartphones don't realize how long they're on their phones because they just keep scrolling. It never ends. But when you're if you were to take out the newspaper or take in the newspaper, then you would read the newspaper, you would read the article, and then you would be done and you'd be like, Okay, time to go. I read the r I finished the article, right, So I think it's a time issue and not a not sort of a platform issue. Steven Charlotte says protein is essential, but in red meat and egg yolk have hydronic acid, not to be confused with hydraulic acid, which ups your homo cysteine levels, which is a booster of cancer. Well, but that's what I'm saying. Like they they found they just tested animal protein. I mean, look me personally, I mainly eat chicken. I eat chicken most days of the week for my protein. That's usually what I'm eating. I just ate some chicken as a snack. As a matter of fact, I take a boneless, skinless chicken breast. I throw them in the oven, I cook them all and then I shred them down. I throw it all in a tupperware. I stick it in the fridge, and then I just take little portions out of that and I eat that for my meals. That's how I do it. And then every now and again I eat some I'll eat a steak. I'll eat fish more roughen than I eat steaks nowadays, So Joe says, next they will say bacon is good for us. Well, I'm down with that. I mean, from then, you know what the documentary The Simpsons where Homer reported to following doctors' orders to drink eight cups of gravy a day. So why not bacon being good for us? Becky says, this story validates my threats. My kids take their tablets into the bathroom all the time, and they take forever. I started telling them what hemorrhoids are to get them out, and now science has confirmed, maybe loosely, my threats. I love it. Thanks for sharing. You're welcome, Becky. Anything to scare children, that's my motto. And then Glenn points out that printed material comes in handy if you run out of the toilet paper. That's true. Not that I advise that, but when in a pinch, let me be one of the many people to welcome KBJ to town. Just this KBJ, Katanji Brown Jackson. Yeah, she is in town tonight at the Carolina Theater in Uptown. It's a they had a sold out appearance, but then they then they had to make some adjustments because there were a bunch of like scalpers, bots and illegitimate sources. According to the Charlotte Observer, that scooped up all of the tickets that were I don't know what they were going. I don't know what the price of these things were, but yeah, she's in town. They they made one hundred and fifty tickets available again last week. I guess it was. I don't know if it's sold out. But when the scalpers and the bots and such got in, they they they scooped them all up and then were of course resign them for much higher rates. She's participating in a conversation with the former mayor of Charlotte, Harvey Gant, and she will just her memoir called Lovely One. I do not know if she's going to be doing sort of an encore abbreviated performance or reprising her role in Hamilton. But it's going to be seven o'clock at the Carolina Theater and there is an in person only box office hours to do people good bye to two tickets, So okay. So to me, the story there was that the Supreme Court Justice Katanji Brown Jackson is in town Hawk in a book, and that a bunch of scalpers bought up all the tickets. Like I said, I don't know if it has sold out or not, because that would actually be pretty embarrassing, right, Like, if the only reason she could sell out one hundred and fifty seats would be because bots bottom and scalpers bottom all up, that would be embarrassing. I don't think that's the case. I think she'll probably sell the tickets, but I'll be waiting to see if she does. And speaking of KBJ, Jonathan Turley, the Georgetown or George Washington University law professor, not a big fan of some of her recent opinions that she's been writing, and as a Supreme Court watcher as he is, has noticed some problems with what appears to be her relationships with the other members of the Supreme Court. He had a piece the other day called the Judicial Calvin Ball of Justice Katanji Brown Jackson. And so for people who don't know, for the utes among us, Calvin Ball is a reference to a comic strip by Bill Watterson called Calvin and Hobbes, which was actually rooted in philosophy. Calvin and Hobbes were philosophers, and anyway, they would play this pretend game. Calvin's a little child and Hobbes is his stuffed animal tiger who comes to life, but only in his presence. And so they would play this game. And the only rule is that there are no rules, so they make up all the rules as they go They called it Calvin Ball. Okay, that was the idea, and so Calvin ball is now a cultural reference point when anybody in any organization is making up the rules as they go along in order to give themselves the advantage at that particular moment that will be important in a moment. Game on Week one starts now, and every touchdown brings you closer to a payout. With Draft Kings sports book and official sports betting partner of the NFL. This isn't just football, it's first touchdown fireworks anytime TD Rushes live bets that ride every momentum shift that Draft Kings every play is your next shot to win. Will the Panthers win? Will we even get a touchdown? New customers bet just five dollars and get three hundred dollars in bonus bets instantly, plus get over two hundred dollars off NFL Sunday ticket from YouTube and YouTube TV. So your season starts now. Download the Draft King sportsbook app. Use code Pete to get three hundred dollars in bonus bets instantly when you place your first bet of five dollars or more plus over two hundred dollars off NFL Sunday ticket from YouTube and YouTube TV. But you got to use promo code Pete. In partnership with DraftKings. The Crown is yours. Gambling problem called one eight hundred gambler In New York call eight seven seven eight hope and why, or text hope and why four six seven three six nine. In Connecticut. Help is available for a problem gambling Call eight eight eight seven eight nine seven seven seven seven or visit CCPG dot org. Play responsibly on behalf of Boothill Casino and Resort, Kansas fees may apply in Illinois twenty one plus. Age and eligibility varies by jurisdiction, void in Ontario. Bonus bets expire seven days after issuance. See Sportsbook dot DraftKings dot com Slash promos NFL Sunday Ticket offer for new subscribers only and auto renews until canceled. Digital games and commercial use excluded. Restrictions apply additional NFL Sunday Ticket terms or at utube tube dot com slash Go Slash NFL Sunday Tickets Slash terms Limited time offer. In a message on Twitter, russ says preparation h was invented so people could use the restroom as their getaway. I don't know. It's not true for our generation with margarine, eggs, meat, fat, coconut oil, wine, coffee, et cetera, et cetera. The dietary experts have been so wrong. You would have been way better off doing the opposite of whatever new thing they suggest. All right, So let me get back to this piece by Jonathan Turley. It's an op ed at The Hill dot com, and Turley is a professor of public interest law at George Washington University. He is also the author of the indispensable right free speech in the age of rage and he quote. He starts the piece by quoting Supreme Court Justice Katanji Brownjackson, who was in Charlotte this evening, So welcome to the Queen City. Don't take the light reil. Here's what he starts with, quote, I just feel that I have a wonderful opportunity. Those words by Justice KBJ came in a recent interview wherein the justice explained how she felt liberated after becoming a member of the Supreme Court to quote, tell people, in my opinions, how I feel about the issues, and that's what I try to do. You see the problem here, right, That's not what your job is. You're not there to tell people how you feel about an issue. That's not what you should be trying to do, let alone doing it. Jackson's sense of liberation has increasingly become the subject of consternation on the Court itself, as she unloads on her copag in strikingly strident opinions. Most recently, she went ballistic after her colleagues reversed another District Court judge who issued a sweeping injunction barring the Trump administration from canceling roughly seven hundred and eighty three million dollars in grants in the National Institutes of Health. Again, writing alone, Jackson unleashed a tongue lashing on her colleagues, who she suggested were unethical and that they were unthinking cutouts for Trump. She denounced her fellow justices, stating, quote, this is Calvin Ball jurisprudence with a twist. Calvin Ball has only one rule. There are no fixed rules. We seem to have two that one, and this administration always wins. Remember she's not the only liberal on the on the court, she may be the only leftist. She herself is widely viewed as the very embodiment though of the Calvin bol rule. In her jurisprudence, it often seems like there are no fixed rules, there are only fixed outcomes. She then attacks her colleagues for a lack of integrity or empathy. Jackson has attacked her colleagues and opinions, shattering traditions of civility and restraint. Her colleagues have clearly had enough. She now regularly writes diatribes that neither of her fellow liberals are willing to sign on to Justices Alana Kagan and Justice Sonia Sotomagor. Neither one of them sign on to KB Jay's opinions. She has raged against opinions that her liberal colleagues have joined. Right, she is the outlier here. In Trump versus CASA, the Court was trying to reign in district courts that were issuing sweeping injunctions over the executive branch, and she went ballistic in her descent, and neither Soto, Mayor or Kagan would join her. Jackson accused her colleagues of blindly drifting towards a rule of kings governing system. She denounced the majority for enabling our collective demise. At the very least, she said, I lament that the majority is so caught up in minutia of the government's self serving finger pointing arguments that it misses the plot end quote Justice Amy Coney Barrett ACB. She apparently reached a breaking point, and she unleashed on Jackson in an opinion that was joined by her colleagues. She noted that Jackson was describing a quote vision of the judicial role that would make even the most ardent defender of judicial supremacy blush. She said, we will not dwell on Justice Jackson's argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself, we observe only this Justice Jackson decries an imperial executive while embracing an imperial judiciary. Jackson, according to Turley, has been criticized for making all sorts of other sensational claims dubious claims, and he cites her opinions supporting affirmative action in higher education, and what he goes on to conclude is that her version of jurisprudence is the very model of a judiciary that is now detached from the constitutional restraints or institutional restraints that have long tethered it. He says, quote. Not surprisingly, she is lionized in law schools for her rejection of judicial restraint and her pursuit of progressive outcomes. Yet her approach is becoming increasingly lawless. So I tell you that to tell you about a bunch of cases that are on the docket for the Supreme Court, and how we dodged a bullet with her own. I mean, she is the one Biden appointee, right, how many others could there have been like her had Trump not won like it is astounding to me. And by the way, the criticism of her as a DEI higher it doesn't have much to do with her performance, because her hiring wasn't due to her performance. And I can say that because Joe Biden said that, he said he went looking for a black female judge. That's who he went looking for, and he got her. And so now she's in there and we're reading this stuff, and we're reading her opinions. And when she says things like I want to tell people in my opinions how I feel about the issues, I will quote an old philosophy professor that I had at Winthrop University, doctor Craighead. And whenever anybody would start off with a response to one of his prompts and they would say, well, I feel like, he would say, stop, No, you don't feel, you think. And that's the difference here. She's just telling people how she feels about issues. That's not the law. So when I was a kid, my grandpa died with Alzheimer's, and before he died, my mom and my dad took care of him as he got worse. Forty years ago, there were no treatments and not much support for caregivers and family. But things are different today because of the work of so many people, including the Alzheimer's Association of Western Carolina. It's a great organization with awesome people with huge hearts. I've been a supporter for twenty five years. This cause means a lot to me. I participate in the annual Walk to end Alzheimer's and I'm leading a Charlotte team again this year, and it's called once again Pete's Pack. You can sign up and you can join the team and walk with us. It's on October eighteenth, that truest field. Sign up at alz dot org slash walk and then you can search for my team name Pete's Pack. There's also a link at thepetepod dot com. There's also a link in the description of this podcast. Also, I'll be am seeing the Gastonia Walk on October eleventh, and so you can make a team and join that one too, or make a donation and help me hit my goal of five thousand dollars. If you do, I really appreciate it. There are a bunch of other walks all over the Carolinas. You can go to alz dot org slash walk for all the dates and locations. We're closer than ever to stopping Alzheimer's. Can you help us get there? Will you walk with me? For a different future, for families, for more time for treatments. This is why we walk. I mentioned before the break there about Supreme Court cases that are on the docket. These are some of the big ones, as reported by the Daily Caller, Men and women's sports, race based redistricting, and campaigns spending. Those are the top three according to the Daily Caller. Limits on coordinated party campaigns spending could end, so right now there are caps on the amount of money that you can coordinate between parties and campaigns, so that could end. This is a case called National Republican Senatorial Committee versus the Federal Election Commission. There is the race based districts, which will also face scrutiny as the Supreme Court re examines an ongoing dispute over Louisiana's congressional maps. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on the matter way back in March, but then postponed issuing a ruling, and they asked for an additional briefing on whether the intentional creation of a second majority minority congressional district is constitutional, right, So think about that. The Louisiana was trying to make another district majority minority, right, and the question is are we allowed to do that? So that's before the Supreme Court. There is a case called bost versus Illinois State Board of Elections. The justices will decide whether a Republican congressman's bid to challenge state rules that allowed counting ballots after election day. So we may get a ruling that sets a precedent to determine whether that's constitutional or not to take in ballots and count them after the election day. And this has been a problem in North Carolina when they would accept absentee ballots for several days after election day because they were like, well, it's postmart the day of the election and it came in a week later, so we have to count. We have to count it, you know which. The state legislature addressed that by saying no from now on, and they went back to basically an older rule that we'd had. I want to say it was probably like ten or fifteen years ago. It got changed to we'll accept them after the election day. They then dialed it back to the law as it was prior, which was that, no, they've got to be in the board of Elections by the close of business when the polls close, I should say, on election day itself. If they don't have them in there by, then they don't count. What else They've got a case Idaho and West Virginia trying to ban men from competing in women's sports. The case involves challenges to the bands under the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause and Title nine. More than half of the states of America have passed similar bands, so they're gonna take that up. So I wonder if KBJ is going to have to recuse herself from this case because she does not know what a woman is because she's not a biologist, remember, So yeah, I'm guessing she's gonna well, Okay, maybe she has done some research since her confirmation hearing, and maybe she has now figured out what a woman is, So maybe she will be able to hear this case and talk about her feelings and what she thinks about a particular case now so she can express it in writing, you know, how she feels about men and women's sports. But if she hasn't done the research, and she still doesn't know what a woman is because she's not a biologist. Then I don't think she's going to be able to offer any kind of guidance on this issue. But we shall see. There's another case coming called Childs Versus Salazar, or maybe it's Chili's. I don't know Child's. Probably it centers on a Colorado law that restricts counselors from dissuading miners from pursuing gender transitions, but it allows those same counselors to encourage the transitions. So Colorado passed a law that said, if you are a counselor and a child comes to you and says they are not the gender they are, so they are under this delusion and they have this gender dysphoria, and they come to you and they're like, I want to be the opposite sex. You are only allowed to encourage transition. You are not allowed to say maybe you're not the opposite sex. You're not allowed to say that in Colorado. Kaylee Chiles, a Christian counselor, argues that this amounts to viewpoint based censorship, which it obviously is right. Obviously, So I saw I was watching an interview. I think it was Michael Malice who said that a friend of his is a psychiatrist and he moved or she moved from California to Texas because California has a similar law that if a child comes in and says I want to be the opposite sex, and this counselor or this psychiatrist thinks, you know what, maybe we should talk about this a little first, and you know, let's go through some questions. Let's find out if there's some underlying trauma or mental illness or something going on here that has prompted this gender dysphoria. And you're not allowed to do that. And so the psychiatrist is like, well that I'm out because now the state is telling me how to counsel somebody, and I can only counsel one direction towards transition, towards towards quote unquote affirmation. Right, So we're going to get a case on that. What else? In the First Choice Women's Resource Centers Versus Platkin, the Supreme Court is going to consider New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin's demand for a pro life pregnancy centers to turn over its donors in response to a subpoena. The question centers on whether this pregnancy center, a pro life pregnancy center, can challenge this subpoena before it gets enforced in state court. So it's a sort of a limited question there because obviously, like this is law fare where a Democrat attorney general says, here's a subpoena, give me your list of donors, and then that automatically becomes public, and what they're saying is, well, no, we want to be able to challenge that subpoena before it gets before we have to comply with it, because if the whole case is bunked and it all falls apart, the damage is done because now you've got the list of donors that the left can now target for harassment, cancelation, you know, verbal and physical attacks and the like. Birthright citizenship is likely going to return to the High Court this time for a ruling on the merits of the case. They are likely to consider the president's ability to fire executive officials at independent agencies, and tariffs could also be added to the dockets, So a very full schedule. Indeed, all right, that'll do it for this episode. Thank you so much for listening. I could not do the show without your support and the support of the businesses that advertise on the podcast, so if you'd like, please support them too and tell them you heard it here. You can also become a patron at my Patreon page or go to dpetecleanershow dot com. Again, thank you so much for listening, and don't break anything while I'm gone.