2.26.2025 -- NLS -- Idaho Athletics, Antitrust, and School Choice

 On this episode with Neal and Julie, they dive into the complexities of high school athletic transfers and the new bill that could change how student-athletes move between schools mid-year. They discuss concerns about fairness, potential antitrust lawsuits, and the unintended consequences of allowing transfers for athletic advantage. The conversation also touches on broader issues, including government accountability, school choice, and Idaho's evolving political landscape. Neal and Julie engage with listeners, legislators, and local leaders to unpack the implications of these policies, raising important questions about fairness, competition, and the role of governance in education. 

Let’s talk advertising. When you want to advertise on the radio, you call the station, right? But what about Facebook, Instagram, Hulu, Disney+, Peacock, and other streaming platforms?

You could try clicking around, reading books, or taking online courses to figure it out—or you can let us handle it. At Sandhill Media Group, we’re your local experts in both radio and digital marketing.

Visit SandhillMediaGroup.com today.

Sandhill Media Group
The Sandhill Media Group LLC consists of 7 radio stations in East Idaho

Disclaimer: This post contains affiliate links. If you make a purchase, I may receive a commission at no extra cost to you.

Transcript

And I think it's quite despicable to see many networks in this room who have had Karens on their television screens, labeling Mr. Bongino as a far right podcaster. This could be a padded bra. It could be a belt. It could be leggings or tight leotards. I've been targeted for four years longer than that. So you don't tell me about targeting.

We will continue to rotate a radio pooler and add other radio hosts who have been denied access, especially local radio hosts who serve as the heartbeat of our country. Yes. But. Yes, exactly. Amen. Caroline Leavitt. Welcome, everyone. It's Wednesday, and this, of course, is the Neil Larson Show. And I'm happy to be here today. But we have lots and lots of irons in the fire.

A lot of stories, too. We're going to try to get to we are not going to get to all of it today. I want you, though, to take your mind back to July of last year. Butler, Pennsylvania. Some of you, I need to warn you, will think I am being over the top. And that's fine. You're entitled to your opinion, but we all either watched it live or we saw the endless replays of Donald Trump turning his head at the very last moment as that round whizzed past, nicking his ear millimeters away from a JFK head blown up moment.

God saved Donald Trump that day. I believe, as we all know, God sees everything from the beginning to the end. What we're watching today with our Republic, the intelligence community, the Justice Department, Dodge, all of the things that are happening, I believe are not unconnected to that day, that we're witnessing at least to some degree. Part of the reason why God preserved Donald Trump in July of 2024, and maybe later on the golf course tomorrow, we can't forget that assassination attempt as well.

Luckily, not a shot fired, but it appeared now to be a very, very serious attempt to take out Donald Trump. There was a gun, there was ammo. There was an angry liberal behind the gun. All of the things were in place to try to take out, Donald Trump. And they couldn't. They didn't succeed. Whatever shadowy motivations led to Butler, Pennsylvania, and later, and it wasn't Mar-A-Lago.

It was, what was it? Anyway, one of his golf courses. And, it doesn't matter. We're we're witnessing something incredible right now. The left is losing it. I am seeing the manifestation of the left losing it all over the place. We played clips earlier. You have Rachel Maddow and Hakeem Jeffries who are making a comparison to this is as serious as the Civil War.

You know, in one way they might be right, but the side they think they are on is not the side that they are on. If we're going to look at the Civil War and say, which side wants to preserve the Republic, I have been, rather astounded. And I'm going to get to these stories. I'm going to rattle them off in just a moment.

But I am astounded at how apathetic. And it's not just the left. You have establishment loyalists who are just. They think Trump's moving too fast. The way he's doing it is wrong. No, no. Look, it's it's ugly, I will say, but there's no pretty way. You know how sometimes there's no pretty way to do it? If if your kid is drowning in the creek, you're going to get wet trying to save your kid.

You're going to get muddy. You're you might get injured because you're going to slip and fall on the rocks while you're saving your kid. It's never going to be. There's some things there's just no pretty way to do. There's no smooth way to do. You got to get in there and do it. And Trump doesn't care about pretty.

He doesn't go in saying, you know, I'm going to do this in a way where everybody's feelings don't get hurt. There's no way to do that. So if you're y and I've seen this, I've had this come across our text line a couple of times and they're saying, well, I, because you can't argue against getting rid of waste, fraud and abuse.

All right? You can't. I've heard no one defend all, although that's not true. You had Smerconish the other day thinking we ought to spend millions on Sesame Street in Iraq like I. Okay, the whole soft power myth is just ridiculous to me. But, if you get to that point, then you've missed the point. So they're queasy. These are the hand ringers.

These are the people who want everything to be smooth and pretty and orderly. Well, when you have a loud a corrupt element, sometimes we call it the deep state to metastasize in the hidden corners of our government. These are bureaucrats whose names we don't know. Then to extract that is not pretty. Their power they don't deserve and should not have, and they don't let go of it easily.

So they make lots of noise. There's weeping. There's wailing. There's gnashing of teeth. Which brings me to. So when you go and you look at USAID and you look at the billions that are being spent on things that have absolutely no benefit at all to the taxpayer, they are pet agenda products of the leftists who have taken over that agency.

They they cry like little babies when you take their their cookie away. We have in the FBI, their whistleblowers. We still don't have a lot of details. I hope we'll have more. But a whistleblowers coming forward and saying that this these deeper elements inside the FBI are actually destroying digital evidence on servers in the FBI. There are others who are reporting.

And again, it's early. It's it's murky and shadowy. But these things are being reported now that elements within the CIA. They are threatening to sell sensitive information to Russia. Ana, let me understand this. And someone explain this to me, because I'm going to tell you exactly what will happen. Trump comes in and he's cleaning house and he needs to clean house.

It's been a long time since the house has been. It's I don't know if it's ever been cleaned. It's time to clean the house. He comes in, and he has long been accused of being too friendly to Russia. Okay, am I wrong? No, no. That's sort of been this ongoing narrative. Oh, Trump loves Putin. Trump loves Russia. Trump.

They built an entire hoax on the idea that Trump was, playing footsie with Russia. And some of them just keep going with it. Like, they just they don't upgrade their firmware at all. The facts don't matter. Anyway, they keep going with it. So now you have elements who hate Trump and hate America inside the CIA. Well, how about this?

They hate Trump more than they love America and are threatening reportedly to sell our sensitive information to Russia. So here's what you're going to have. If they do, you will have people in America that maybe not quite overtly, but they will cheer these people in order to spite Trump. They will cheer the selling of state secrets to Russia in order to deepen their their level of hatred for Trump.

How does that work? How does that work? They'll be viewed as patriots. Look, I, I'm I'm looking into my Neil Strydom crystal ball here. Whatever Nostradamus looked into. And I'm telling you right now, if there are CIA members that sell America's secrets or just give them away to, Russia because they hate Trump, and they're making a threat and they have access to this information.

Number one, it's treason. They had to go to prison for the rest of their lives. If not, we know the punishment for treason in the Constitution. A review. I'm trying to understand this. We know that they would be cheered as patriots. It's like the Mangan dude who killed and shot the health care CEO. He's got sycophants out there.

He's a murderer. He's an open in your face, open, brazen killer. And he's got a contingent of supporters that are getting behind him, even in the mainstream media. If this is true, that CIA, it's not the CIA, it's it's it's corrupt agents within the CIA that would they would give our secrets to Russia. They will be cheered. I promise you, they will be the left will cheer them because it's all done in the in the context of Trump hatred.

And we all know anything you do in the context of your hatred for Trump is not just allowed, but encouraged and cheered. It's it's such a sad thing. Meanwhile, so we got the FBI, the whistleblower is saying there's a destruction of evidence. You have the CIA elements within that, reportedly. And I'm being very careful with the language here.

And it's very early, and it's still quite murky that there are threats that they would sell or give, our, our sensitive secrets to Russia. James Comey now apparently is under investigation because he allegedly was involved, if not orchestrated, a plot to infiltrate Trump's 2016 presidential campaign with a couple of honey pots that were plainclothes FBI agents inside.

I'm sure they were. They're gathering intelligence, maybe putting important Trump people, or perhaps Trump himself into a compromising situation, which they could then later use to derail his campaign. Now I have a lot of trust that Kash Patel and soon to be Dan Bongino, if not already, will investigate this. And it makes you wonder, does this investigation have something to do with the aggressive alleged destruction of FBI evidence on the servers?

You have to wonder. And you you hear these things, they're presented as separate stories. However, can you put two and two together and wonder? It does this uncover so much more? It was Barack Obama that weaponized so many of our federal alphabet agencies, the IRS, the DOJ, the FBI, the CIA, and there was already some of it going on.

We know that Edgar Hoover years that stretches way back that that he we knew that he was misusing and abusing the FBI for his personal purposes. But so it's it's not a new phenomenon, but I believe that it was Barack Obama that institutionalized this weaponization of our agencies. And I don't know, I don't know if there can be a complete repair of it.

I, I really don't. I you can you can root it out. You can do everything that you can. But it's been probably 15 years now of this culture where it just becomes the norm for you. It's it's like a life of crime. If, if you're living is made in organized crime, after a while, it doesn't feel like crime.

It just feels like this is the work I do. And I'm worried that the culture inside these agencies has become so normalized to using the assets of the American government and the American taxpayer to choose winners and favor one political side over the other. We we have a lot and I mean, a lot of work to do to uncover this, but Trump's devoted to it in a way I like.

I have never seen, and he has picked people that appeared devoted to it in a way that we have never seen. It has been a fascinating five weeks in America. Don't. Please do not. We we have a hand to day. Not even a handful, like 2 or 3 of our listeners in our text feed. They are completely hypnotized by the mainstream media.

They think this is the end. They think Trump's a totalitarian. They think that Donald Trump and I had to point this out to one of our Trump deranged texters yesterday. Reducing the size of government and scope of government is a really novel way to get to totalitarianism. In fact, that's a lousy way. That's an impossible way. That's like saying, you know what?

I'm going to go to Japan. Which way are you going through? Wapello. That's not how you get to Japan. So the way you get to totalitarianism is not by limiting the size and scope of government. It just isn't. Meanwhile, we have yet another, tantrum going on at the white House press room where Carol Leavitt made an announcement about how whoever's in the white House press room gets chosen.

As you all know, for decades, a group of DC based journalists, the white House Correspondents Association, has long dictated which journalists get to ask questions of the president of the United States in these most intimate spaces. Not anymore. I am proud to announce that we are going to give the power back to the people who read your papers, who watch your television shows, and who listen to your radio stations.

Moving forward. The white House press pool will be determined by the white House press team. Legacy outlets who have participated in the press pool for decades will still be allowed to join. Fear not. But we will also be offering the privilege to well-deserving outlets who have never been allowed to share in this awesome or responsibility. Okay. Just like we are.

So there, there you have that. A great announcement. This comes on the heels, you know, this beautiful. This is just a beautiful thing. It sort of reminds me of the overturning of Roe v Wade, that you had liberals pushing the issue all the way to the Supreme Court, and then the Supreme Court said, oh, yeah, that was a terrible law.

We're tossing it. The AP went to court because the white House said, you're reporting fake news. It is not the Gulf of Mexico. It's the Gulf of America. So why do you keep reporting the fake news? And they were disinvited from the white House because they're reporting fake news. And you don't want fake news that lacks credibility to occupy a coveted seat in the white House.

So they got booted. They went to court. They said, do you know who we are? Where the AP and we. The universe just knows. The AP is entitled to a white House press seat. Well, the judge said, okay, so who makes this determination? The answer to that at that point was the white House Correspondents Association. And the judge said, why does the white House correspondents Association make that decision?

Who authorized that? I don't know the answer to that, but I know what the answer isn't. The answer is not a law. The answer is not an active executive order. The answer is not I don't know. It's just been tradition. It's it's been it's one of those things where you say, well, that's the way we've always done it, at least for the last several decades.

Well, there's no law that requires it. So what is the white House still? They said you don't even have the right to do this. We've let you, but you don't have standing. You don't have the you don't you. You can't just entitled to this because you've been doing it for a while. And so they ended this tradition. And now the white House press team is going to decide who gets to say.

And I've had someone text in, did she say local broadcasters? Yes. And it will I apply for credentials to be in the white House press room? Yes I will. If I get approved, then will. We'll find a sponsor. And I mean, who would pass up that opportunity? I'll fly to D.C. and and ask them. That'd be great. So.

Yeah. Now, the what's funny. And this is what I find. And they've been there. There are people in the media, of course, who have been dousing their hair in lighter fluid so they can run around some more with their hair on fire. And, once you become entitled to something and this story, this template, this pattern is repeated over and over once you feel entitled to it.

You think it's lawlessness. If someone challenges what you feel entitled to and it's just not the case. Expanding. Who gets to be at the white House? Press briefings? No. That's in the spirit of the First Amendment. It's not against it. It's 829. We'll be back.

It's 833 on Newstalk 1078. Neil Larson and Julie Mason. I want to issue a quick correction. Earlier I referenced Louis Jumanji own and, said that he murdered, health care CEO in broad daylight. I mean, it was early morning, but it was on the streets. And, I do need to say he's alleged to have committed that that murder.

So he has not yet been found guilty or pled guilty. Yes. So. Yes, sir, I stand corrected. Okay. Or. Claire? Yes. You know what? You've never been wrong. About what? Grand peaks. That's. These are not allegedly good stakes. No, these are just good stakes. We've had them. We know. Yes. It's not allegedly good fajitas. No. It's amazing. Fajitas that are quick and easy to prepare for your family.

The dogs, like the brats that they have. Those are not suspected to be delicious. Those are proven in a court of law to be delicious. That chuck roast. We're not thinking it might be good for a family dinner. Yeah. We know. It's been proven. I'm not even suspicious that. The French dip is amazing. I just know it's a slam dunk.

You know what? You left off the ribs. That's. You're right. That's an open and shut case that they're delicious. Absolutely. All right, Grand peaks, primates, GPS, primates.com is their website. That's Julie and Neil's go to when we want to fill up our freezer with delicious cuts of, beef and pork and chicken. And it ought to be yours, too.

Their prices are affordable. They have free delivery in the Idaho Falls area for all orders over $75. It's a very affordable nominal fee if it's below that. So make them your go to as well. GG primates.com. All right. Should we take a break. Let's do it. And when we come back, Representative Barbie Hart will join. Actually, no.

You know what? We're going to keep the bumper music going because representative Hart's already on the on the line. Oh. She's there. So let's do this. I don't want to keep her waiting because she is a busy lawmaker, so we're just going to bring her directly on Representative Hart. Welcome. How are you? Hey, guys. I'm well, you are correct.

I am incredibly busy. So. So thank you, but good to be on. Okay, so, Barb, I've got to ask you, house Bill 93, it is sitting on the governor's desk. Is there any scuttlebutt, any, like, rumors, whispers around the Capitol, how the governor's going to fall on this? Absolutely. None of which I'm aware. Okay, so he's he's keeping a pretty tight about how he's going to vote, or I think solid vote is not the right word or whether he's going to sign it or not.

Right, right. Okay. Yep, yep. Heard nothing. Nothing at all. No. And I sit next to Wendy on the floor. And so this is obviously nerve wracking for her. I'm sure it is. I, I, I, I'm feeling confident, but sometimes I'm wrong. My confidence is just not good. I feel like the governor is talking to Julie about this earlier.

I feel like the last few months, the governor, because of the water fiasco, has had to really play to the right. He's he's going to get the the votes of the Democrats. He's going to get the votes of the moderates almost no matter what. And so he really has to do things that satisfy people on the right. And so that's why that's one of the reasons why I think he's probably going to end up signing it as well.

So but I'm sure Wendy's just the worry. Yeah. Yeah. Until the well know soon that's for sure. All right. Yeah okay. We we we asked you to come on specifically because there's an introduction of a new bill, and you have been meeting with the Idaho High School Athletic Association about this bill. I believe it's 237 House bill. 237.

It will change the ability for high school athletes to transfer from school to school mid-year. So that's a very small explanation of it. Will you explain the bill a little bit further to us? Absolutely. First, let me give a little bit of a background. And that is Representative Crane. He is freight train, the State Ferries chairman.

He and I have kind of been the, liaisons to the Idaho High School Activities Association for the last 4 or 5 years. We are the ones in 2001, I mean, 2021, right after Covid that we have pushed HCR two to open things up. And that's where then the governor open things up because as you remember, only ten people could be in the stands at games, which was ridiculous.

Like no one was in the stands. And so we pushed to open things up. And then we started interacting with the Ty Jones and the Idaho High School Activities Association and just kept running into these funky roadblocks. And, you know, since that time we had been meeting, we met with Ty Jones, you know, some of the things that needed to happen, needed to change.

Last year, Chairman Crain and I went before the Idaho High School Activities Association board, and we laid out some things. And so one of the things that I mentioned that needed to change is the appeals process, because if you have an appeal and you appeal, you appeal to the very people that just rejected your appeal. So you don't really have an appeal.

So they've been working on that. But I specifically had said that at some point we needed soon to address the transfer process, because I felt that its application was unfairly, well applied when they, when they, you know, allowed kids to transfer, not transfer. And so it's, it's been part of the conversation. Now Chad Williams is newly from our area.

You know, I think he's a great guy. They have been working on things. But this is something that's been on the radar. So then this bill got introduced in it. It came without any conversation with Representative Kramer myself. And so then we started getting calls from Chad and from, you know, other board members like, wait, wait, I thought you were working with us and and which we were.

And so as I then had spoken and found out, this is really something from, you know, the speaker and part of the concern is that if we didn't do something that because of some other situations, he knew that we had some major lawsuits coming and some antitrust lawsuits, because we had changed the ability for students to transfer academically.

Now it's not completely open. The school has to agree, you know, etc., etc. but because that was there, we didn't have that same policy, which we shouldn't, in my opinion, with kids transferring schools for, for sports. And, and so the there's been an ongoing conversation. I think the conversation has been good because, again, I do feel something has to be done.

I think most people feel something has to be done. But what was going if what has been proposed takes place? I it essentially was it'll be it'll be just like the NCAA. It's ridiculous. And I think it'll ruin, the continuity of sports and just the specialness that we have of sports. So we've been talking a great deal, I think, that represent Crean.

And I had met with, Chad Williams and, well, at least with Chad Williams, sometimes with board members. But four times in the last week we can half. And so we've been actively engaged and and then in same, you know, engaging with our speaker speaker's been at a couple of the meetings and I and I think he's still in satisfied to avert an antitrust lawsuit and and we're not just talk we're talking multiple multiple families with with another situation at the school.

I mean, usually isn't that what drives so many things? Somebody has a personal situation and, and, you know, some people have the means to make sure that they're heard. So, my hope is right now, but I don't know, my hope is that this particular bill will get held and that the conversation for change is absolutely under way.

How quickly that happens. You know, I know the board and superintendents in the, in schools throughout the state would like to be able to respond. But I think that at the very least, they understand that time is of the essence. It won't necessarily have to be an and I say this very cautiously because I'm not in charge of somebody, someone else's legislation.

Right. But with the conversations we've had, I had, the hope is that that this particular legislation could be staved off and that we can allow the board to take the actions that need to be taken to, you know, address, some of this situation. And, and then we can have a new policy to, to, you know, to start the school year and, that, you know, 2526 will part of that discussion, Barb, because this is a little bit complicated, but, we would not want a situation where schools could just start recruiting players, and players could just transfer easily.

If you do know that they you do know they do that. That's part of my frustration, right? Well, I know they do. But but this would actually expedite that, that it would mean well that that is true. But I just want to be clear that that, it this has happened and hence part of my concern and why to address this issue anyway.

So yeah, but no that that that that is correct where a kid could in theory under this play football at one school, basketball or another, in baseball at another, you know. So yeah. Yeah. Yeah. We, we that is part of our concern with the legislation. I mean, this is the speaker's bill. So it, it, it, you know, has a certain feel to it that maybe another bill doesn't do you get to get a feel among the larger body in the house where, where they're at on this?

Do they share a lot of the concerns that you have so. Well, I think what's happening, and it is starting to come back to representing Crane and I are the other legislators who maybe are not so in tune, you know, all of this have our little niches, right? And this happens to be ours. And so those who aren't in this niche are now hearing, though, from their superintendents, and you know, they could be teachers, coaches and, and so people are quickly becoming aware, and nobody really wants to go against the speaker.

But but I'm not sure that this legislation as is would hold up anyway. You know what I mean? Yeah. But the the conversation is taking place in, in my opinion, because like I told you, I have told them and have for a couple of years that we need to address some of this transfer rule. And so, you know, whether it's, you know, basically giving someone a new one free transfer and then you have to apply for the hardships and, you know, but it is true, the speaker is correct that if, say, especially in light of what the NCAA has done, but if they're if you have some families, especially collectively, you know, bring a

large antitrust lawsuit because of what's happening to their kids. And then if we lost control of that, we would lose control of what we could do anyway. So I do believe the speaker is correct in that. So he's he's trying to address it. Maybe without living in the high school athletic world that we do. How's that? Yeah. All right.

So where does it stand now? It's made it through committee. Is it about to head to the the floor. Is it in the rewrite process where where is the. No, I think I think it was just introduced. And and, you know, Chairman Pickett, I believe, I think it's, it's still awaiting a hearing. And so he's been involved in the conversations, too, and and he's, you know, he's obviously he's he's carrying the legislation.

And so he's been involved in the conversation. And I think, I think he's sensitive to the nature of what this would, would cause. But but we're, we're we're trying we're trying to hopefully wait on that and, and hold off on that hearing. All right. So I'm going to ask you a question that doesn't actually have to deal with the legislation, but you might be able to answer for some of the concerned people, our listeners who are texting it.

We clearly have people who don't want to play it, the school district that they live within. They've got kids that maybe they're not happy with the athletic program or the culture of that program. Whatever is going on, is there a current remedy without this bill going through a like a pathway you can send these parents to to help remedy the individual situation that they have for their athlete?

Well, currently they have to apply to the board and seek a hardship, you know, and and, you know, Chad Williams was sharing with us some numbers on how many of those that granted in a good deal are granted. But, you know, one of the proposals that we're bantering about is that everybody would be given a free one and it wouldn't count.

Like as we are talking, they kept so well, they can go where they want their ninth grade year. And I said, I don't consider that like a transfer because they weren't actually at the school. They're entry the school. So maybe I should go to skyline and I decide to go to Bonneville. I don't consider that a transfer going into my ninth grade year.

So they go where they're going to go. And then after that, you know, one of the probably what has had the most traction is this idea to allow for this idea of a, you know, these special and unique circumstances. You could have one free. Basically, I say free, but you'd get one transfer before your junior year. Because remember, people may transfer and and it can't be in the middle of the season.

See that's what this current legislation would allow. And I'm just like, you cannot do that. You can't come and say, because you had your Tim practices and basketball over here, and now you come in that you you can just come onto this new basketball team and make it in the middle of the season and displace everyone else. And so, you know, we're trying to put some sideboards on it.

But but right now, those who are wondering, they're going to need to go through the hardship process. Yeah. All right. Our guest this morning, Representative Barbi Hart, last minute here. Barb. Anything else you're working on that you'd like to let our audience know about? Oh, guys, you know, we've never really talked about the legislation I'm carrying, but today, three of my bills could come up.

And two of them are pretty big. One is, the the re the deregulation and rewrite of the daycare ordinance throughout the state, basically preempting cities that we've become so overregulated and certainly in city of Boise and other cities are not happy. That one. I also have the, kind of a big one having to do with the judges and the removal of, children.

And we did working with Judge Ellis, you know, to rewrite that. So kids can't. So we're trying to keep kids in the home, and we moved the parent that the other big one would be the privacy for women in prisons, domestic violence shelters and it would be, university dorms, which means it would affect the bathrooms on university.

So that had a big hearing on Friday. And so that's all back to back to back. If it if it gets if it comes up today on the floor bar. Barb could you work a little harder place on that. And we did just get the shield law for media if you guys heard that. Yeah. And I carried that.

Yeah we got that off and headed to the Senate. So that was another good one. Yeah I've had some things as of late. So yeah yeah yeah. So wish me luck. Can an anonymous source told me about that bill. So just not. That's it. That was very good. Don't reveal that source. Yeah, I liked it. All right. Okay, Barbie hard.

Thank you for joining us. All right. Thank you guys okay. Bye bye. 848 now on Newstalk 1079. We'll be back. Barb thank you. Hey you're welcome. Thank you guys I hope that helped. Yeah. No, it was great. The Chadwick. Hey. The chat Williams you referenced. Is that the superintendent for Shelley? Yep. Okay. All right. I'm just making sure I had the right guy.

Yep. That's him. Okay. He's been great. Okay, okay. Thanks. You guys. Bye bye. Bye. Bye. All right. It's 854 on Newstalk. One certain. You know what, Charlie? Maybe we should have a high school draft. Like I said yesterday on Facebook Live, it's all filtering down. If it happens in the pros, it filters through the college, it happens on college.

It filters to the high school. That happens in the high school. It filters to the Little League. Yeah. The great kid. Can high schoolers get nil money? I have no idea what their payment options are, but I bet it's been on the table that we talked about. I, I think so too. I think so too. So I, you know, I don't know, like, I was just telling you, I could craft very compelling arguments for both sides of this.

Absolutely, absolutely. If your kid's in a really toxic environment and you don't like how the coach is handling it and it's not good and you want to in the spirit of parental choice, you want to take your kid out of a toxic or damaging environment and give them a better option. But at the same time, you don't want to create an environment where when things get a little hard, your kid just wants to go to a different program.

Exactly. So I don't I don't know how you navigate all of that. It's a tough thing. Yeah, I real quick I will say this. The one thing that's a killer for me in this bill transferring within the same year that can't exist. Yeah I think I'm with you on that. But you're going to get people who argue against that.

I'm sure they're like them. Sure. But you can't play for the state championship football team at one place, and the baseball team and another all in the same year. Yeah, right. That could create chaos, for sure. But all right, we'll be back. It's 856.

It's 907 on Newstalk 109. Our two. And if you'd like to reach us on the program, 208 5421079 and, Julie, I have no idea where to begin. We've got so many fires burning in Trump land right now with the FBI, the CIA, the DOJ. Eppes, Steen, James Comey. We also have big changes, I think, at the in the white House press briefing.

Yeah, process, where the white House said, you know what, white House Correspondents Association, you've enjoyed lots of power for way too long. You're not going to be the gatekeeper anymore. Power that was just there by tradition, not power that you ran for that position or you you know, it was nominated like it was just kind of a we're running this show and everybody else sit down and be quiet.

I also want to point out that when the AP is mad that they got removed, both Biden Obama removed people from the tweet or from the press briefing room all the time. This is not a Trump thing. I know that there's people out there that want to sign this authoritarian concept to him. He's doing what's been done before.

Yeah, well, he has. And I remember during his first term, remember when he kicked Jim Acosta out of the house because Acosta was out of control? Absolutely. He was disruptive. He was rude. In fact, I think they pride in publicly say this. But I think other journalists were probably happy when when Trump told Jim Acosta, you're not welcome.

Now, CNN could send someone else. They didn't bar CNN completely. But but they're yeah. So an AP is just flat out reporting fake news like they insisted on un, continuing to call the Gulf of America the Gulf of Mexico. And it's just it's fake news just because they don't like him. That's it. That's the reason they don't want to make the switch.

The. Yeah, vocabulary switch. So everybody's swapped over now to the Gulf of America. You know what I'm going to do during a commercial break? I'm going to go to, like, Royal Caribbean website and see if they're still calling it. Did I do this before I said I was going to do it? I don't think I did.

I don't think you've done it, not when I was here anyway. So I'm going to see if they're if they're cruises crossing that body of water are still referring to it as the Gulf of Mexico. All right. We'll see. And then we will launch a massive and damaging boycott campaign. If they haven't shifted over to Gulf of America.

I am never going to be on a Carnival Cruises again. I, I didn't plan on being Carnival Cruise. You do you can't I now, maybe I'm we don't follow the media in Mexico. Too close. But do you feel like Mexico is like, okay, whatever. They don't seem to be that bothered. Yeah. They don't seem to be all that upset by it.

Like I didn't see this massive outrage by it. So. Yeah. Anyway, you you got that going on? Also, Julie, you have this this clip by Pete Hegseth. I want to play this. Really? Yeah. He was on the USS Thomas Hudner and spoke to the crew over the over the loudspeaker. Oh. Hold on, Julie made me go to a YouTube page, and now there's music playing, and that is actually my fault.

He's right. I really did make him go to. They. It's. It's okay. Here's Secretary Hegseth, on behalf of the commander in chief, on behalf of President Donald Trump, I want to thank you for everything you do for our nation, for our republic, for the security of so many Americans who are grateful for what you do in far off places in the middle of the night, with a high threat level and a lot of uncertainty.

Sometimes with the mission, it's clear, sometimes with a mission, it's not so clear. And no matter what you execute, and I am humbled to have the opportunity, to help lead you to give advice to the commander in chief and to make sure that when you are put in harm's way, you are given absolutely everything you need to overwhelm and destroy the enemy, hopefully to deter them.

So we don't have to fight these wars. But when we do that, we have overwhelming capabilities. It's not a fair fight. You're trained properly with the equipment that you need. You're as lethal as possible, so that we can end the fight and bring you home, to those you love. I love it for so many reasons.

I love it. It's a boost. Morale. It's a very visible and obvious message to our troops. Your commander in chief has your back, and and we're focused on one mission, and that's defending the United States of America. I also like this is just esthetic. That's all it is. But I love the when Pete Hegseth goes and visits our military, he doesn't show up in a suit.

He goes and he works out with them. In this clip. He's in every like he's like in civilian clothes with a baseball cap on. Yeah, he's one of them. Yeah. Can you imagine how that feels? If you're serving to know that he is like me, he's not this guy who's sitting behind an oak desk in a suit, making decisions that aren't relevant to me.

Pete Hague says is one of them. Yeah. Yeah. He, he is, he, he just fits in I, I like that I you know what else I like about Pete Hegseth. He is proud of our military's lethality in fact. Absolutely. That's a word that he uses a lot. And I think the left feels apologetic. They feel icky. If we talk about the lethality of our our our military.

And I'm like, no, you need to brag about it. You need to put it front and center. You need to remind our would be enemies and attackers. We will absolutely decimate you if you try anything against us. Yeah, this is so dumb. Think of any kind of. I'm going to say combat sport, but any any direct connection sports.

The person doesn't come and go. Yeah. I'm not very good at this. I don't think I'm going to win. Like, that's not how you approach competition. No. Why? Why do we think that that that's the appropriate way to go to America, to the other countries and apologize for America? Yeah. You know, you you walk in and never be ashamed of what you're good at and you're Trump.

You don't stand at the back of the room when there's a group photo being taken. You find your way to the front and the center, and you take the photo. When you handshake a foreign leader, you show them the power with your handshake. When you control a meeting, you control a meeting. But we haven't even talked about this yet.

Today, it appears now that Zelinski is meeting with Trump either today or tomorrow, and we are going to get minerals, we're going to get paid back with those those wonderful minerals that are in the land in Ukraine. Yeah, there's no apology. There's no oh, we need to keep writing blank checks for you. I went down a bit of an X rabbit hole this morning reading some.

I don't even remember the guy's ex handle, but he was going off about this deal with, with Ukraine and the minerals, and he painted Trump like he's a loan shark. Like he took advantage of Ukraine in a vulnerable situation. And we're taking as much as we can. And that, you know, we're going to leave, that there's no mutual protection agreement in this or whatever.

And I'm I'm like, you've got to be kidding. Our job is to look out for the United States of America. That's our job. That's the job of the secretary of state. We want to support democracy and peace around the world, but our primary job is to stop things like a gravy train of treasure going to Ukraine to fight what appears to be an endless war.

We are not going to harm the people of Ukraine. Get that clear. America is not going to harm the people of Ukraine. This power position that Trump is taking is putting Zelensky back where he was supposed to be. Yeah, he was showing up those last two and a half years with his hands out, demanding, walking around people, treating him like he's royalty.

That is not the position Zelensky should have been in, ever. Yeah. Trump is realigning the leadership positions here. The people of Ukraine are going to be taken care of. Yeah. Yes they are. They're going to be fine. And we're it's and furthermore, we this is what I'll just say it like this. If we are able to extract minerals and other valuable resources from Ukraine for our interests, a peaceful Ukraine begins to be our interest.

Yep. Then it makes sense for us to want a peaceful Ukraine. It's a natural existence. Yes, it is absolutely in Ukraine's interest for us to have a vested interest in their minerals and their natural resources. We're not going to plunder at all, but we it is going to be a source that will be part of our, our national interest.

Then it then it does make sense that it's in our interest to have a peaceful Ukraine. How do you think we're going to get these minerals? We're going to have I'm sure we'll use Ukrainian, like citizens to work to get the minerals. But there's also going to be Americans there. When you put Americans in a country to benefit America, America naturally starts to take care of that country.

Yeah, yeah. So that and I think Zielinski knows that. And I think that's why he, he agreed to this, that it may not be a formal mutual protection agreement, but there's some natural law built in mutual protection. Absolutely. So, okay, I found the I found the report. Julie. It's Idaho. I had news that reflected Governor Little's comments recently.

It was a Q&A session with reporters yesterday and said he's still reviewing House Bill 93, and, he's got to act by 11:46 a.m. tomorrow. So that's the deadline. Okay. That's when it was delivered to his desk, and that's when the clock started. So tomorrow morning, we'll know at 1146 exactly what is going to happen, if not before then.

So, here's what he said. I don't get very many perfect pieces of legislation. The only thing this perfectly fit into was my $50 million box. Little has said he would only support a private school choice bill that is fair, responsible, transparent and accountable. And on Tuesday, he suggested that House Bill 93 fell short on at least one measure.

There's not enough accountability in it, said little, who promptly pivoted to state spending on early literacy and college and career readiness. But I don't think there's enough accountability in the money we give public schools, either. So again, it's very vague. He's saying, I this doesn't meet my accountability expectations. But before you think I'm not going to sign it, I sign funding for public education, which I don't think has enough enough accountability either.

Okay, so according to the reporting, there is five things that he wanted a $50 million price tag. He wanted it to be fair. He wanted it to be responsible. He wanted it to be transparent. And he wanted accountability. Out of the five things, he feels like it fell short on accountability. But so does public education. Yeah, that's a pretty good deal.

Yeah, I know, I look, I could be totally wrong on this. I think he's going to sign it. I think he's going to sign it. I think he's done. Now this is me saying everything's political, everything's optics, everything. So I don't know that that's true or not, but I think this hotline was set up so that everyone feels like they.

Have you ever had a situation where things didn't go your way but you felt listened to? Yeah, absolutely. And you appreciated the fact that you were listened to, even if the outcome wasn't what you had hoped. Right. I think the governor wants everyone to feel like they've been listened to. But I don't think the outcome of the hotline is the determining factor for him.

I think he just wanted Idahoans to feel like we're listening. We want your opinion. Please give us your opinion. But if I look at this from a purely political context, the governor has been very, publicly doing things to shore up his his right. The political base on his right. He took a huge hit last year with the water situation.

And I think there was a big political seismic recalculation of his political, standing, I guess. And so, I have seen him play to the right a lot more, probably the last eight months or so. I don't think he can afford to veto this bill politically. Yeah. And as we mentioned, and you may not like this if you're a moderate or if you're a lefty, you're going to vote for him anyway.

If the choice is between him and Raul Labrador, you're going to vote for Brad Little, even if he makes you mad on this one. But I think he's got to try and protect as much as he can on the right. So politically I don't think he can afford to veto this one. This time. There's a chance he may just not sign it and it just goes into law.

I think that would be punting on the politically punting on the issue, which, you know, could be just maybe keep things where they are and just not do anything. But I, I don't think he can I don't think a veto is something politically he could afford. I don't think so either. There is a quote a little bit further down that says anything that disrupts the trajectory, trajectory of training high quality doctors.

I'm going to have an issue with. I just want to know all the details. He's he's going on about other key legislation. They're basically the what I'm getting from this speech that he gave is he's the Brad Little that we were used to in, in Covid, that super neutral stance of I'm just the governor. I'm going to stand back and let all of this happen and we'll see how it goes.

I feel like that's the tone of his remarks. He's he's not stepping completely out there and saying he doesn't like the whammy, medical education bill that went through. That's his quote there when he's talking about HB 93. He says it fell a little short, but it's okay. Like, I think he's playing that super neutral position that we got during Covid.

Yeah, yeah, I, I did too because we're in a pretty volatile political environment. Right. So yeah, he talked about launch and he said there's a whole class of families in Idaho that this is going to change their life. Legislators are taking another run at the two year old program last week. House Assistant Majority Leader Josh Tanner introduced a bill that would eliminate launch in 2026.

Asked if the proposal was a hostage bill, a bargaining chip floated by legislative leadership, little was cagey. Hostage identification is part of the stock and trade around here. Again, he's playing a super neutral spot right there. Yeah, yeah, I see even the reporter said he was cagey on. Yeah. So, well, you know what? And here's the thing.

The 2026 gubernatorial race in Idaho has already begun. Yes. Not officially, but unofficially. It's already begun. And he knows these decisions that he makes between now and May of next year could determine his political future. So yep. That's why he's cagey. Yeah, twice. Plain neutral. He's got to keep all the sides happy. Yeah. Yeah for sure. So, there's another piece here that the governor has stalled the release of the public comments on House Bill 93.

He said his office has received thousands of public comments weighing in on House Bill 93, but his staff has yet to release data verifying the volume or showing how many people have supported or oppose the private school choice. Bill. Now sitting on his desk, Idaho Ed News asked the governor's office three times since Friday for a tally of comments received so far, and Joan Vacek, Little's press secretary, said we're still working to count them all.

Thanks for all your understanding with this process. Little's deadline to take action on the bill is around noon on Thursday. So they're not they're not telling us how it turned out. No, I, I didn't expect to get that information. I didn't either. Yeah I, I, I didn't either. Will we ever you could you might be able to do a public records request maybe.

I don't think the government can hide that because it's not a it's not in a category of info you could hide, but I don't see that where it was such an unofficial thing. Who even knows that the if the information was kept correctly? Well, that's true too. I would also add I don't think you can trust the results.

Yeah, I it it was pushed heavily at all of the schools. The teachers were told to call the number. You're skewing the results. Okay, I have a question. I want to put this out there because we got a message or a text or something that superintendents were sending emails to teachers, were these being sent on school district emails during school district time?

I have no idea. And did the emails encourage them to vote a certain way? If or was it just a blanket call? The call this number and express how you feel about House Bill 93. Yeah. Even then, I don't know that. I think it gets a little a little dicey. It would be interesting to see one of the emails I came from.

So if you're a teacher or you have a copy of the email being sent, forward it to us. And by us, I mean Julie at Sand Hill radio.com. What that phrase happens a lot. And by us I mean that's that's true. All right. We have to take a break. (208) 542-1079 that's the Stones Automotive Group call and text line on this Wednesday edition of The Neil Eisen Show.

We'll be back. Okay. You know what's happened to Julie? Julie's turn turned into the world's biggest cynic. You're a little cynical. Every bit of information that comes across I just roll my eyes and go, okay, I don't believe a darn thing until I look into it. Yeah. Here's one. We just got a text. This person says, this is interesting.

Why the increase? And it's listing the 2000 to present measles cases in 2000. Measles was eliminated in 2021. 49 cases, 22 121 cases 2359 cases, 24 285 cases. Then it poses the question why the resurgence? Well, there could be lots of reasons there. I, I mean, we automatically go to the dun dun dun. Well, part of it is because we had a massive influx of immigrants over that time who were carrying diseases with them.

Part of it's because people don't trust the government anymore and vaccination rates are down. Yeah they are. And when vaccination rates are down you're going to have more cases. Yeah it's true I think part of it could be different reporting. Did they change the reporting standards between 2000 and 2024 possibly. Yeah I can't I just am so tired of the gotcha.

Yeah. Because nobody bothers to look past the gut. Yeah that's true. And I don't even, I don't even know what the why this person I think is legitimately asking a question like what's going on. I think it's a I don't think this person's trying to do a gotcha. Yeah. I'm referring to the post. As for gotcha, someone asked us and I knew this was coming.

Can you be for school choice? But against the transfer bill, the high school athletic transfer bill? Yeah.

930 on Newstalk 1079, Neil Larson and Julie Mason. So, can I poke a hornet's nest here? Julie. Sure. Are we good at that? It's kind of our finer one of our finer qualities. It is. We're we're really good. We're good. Hornet's nest pokers. But someone said, because we talked with Barbie Hart last hour about the high school athletic transfer bill.

Yes. Essentially the bill that would allow midyear transfers. So, football player could play for one school in the fall and then in the winter, could go play basketball for a different school. And obviously people have some concerns about about this. I have I have the same concerns. But I said this to you earlier this week when we were talking about it.

If you oppose this bill, are you being a hypocrite when it comes to school choice? And so since then I've actually and someone messaged in that exact thought, can you be for school choice and against this transfer bill? And if I were in a debate class and I wanted to explain a disparity, how you could be for school choice.

But against this, in our civic society, it's even baked into our state constitution that all kids are entitled to a state funded education. However that is. Yep. No child is entitled to have state funded sports. They're not. We don't allocate the same level of entitlement to athletic activity that we do to providing an academic education to kids.

So the rules are different. In fact, I actually have to pay to have my kid in a sport. Yeah, it's called pay to play. Yes. So I don't I don't think you it's not an apples to apples comparison. And we discussed this briefly on Facebook Live after the show was over yesterday. And I'm going to bring up my point with this is that, I have been very consistent with this thought, which is if we're going to provide parent choice and the child can go to whatever school they would like to, meaning a charter school, a private school, a public school, homeschool.

And we want the money to follow the child. One of the boundaries or barriers I want to that program is that the child has to make a yearlong commitment. You. I don't want the child bouncing back into public education after being in homeschool for two months and not having it work. The parents need to commit that if they're going to homeschool, they're going to do it for a full year, and they're going to figure out the problems that come along with it, because there's going to be problems, just like there's problems with public education.

And if your child goes to private school, you've got to commit. You've got to go for a year if you want to move back into public education after that point, I believe that's the only fair way to treat this process because they're not at her beck and call. Yeah. And I say the same thing about high school athletics.

You're not there to bounce from school to school to school so you can be on the state championship teams at various schools if you need to make a change, because it's great for the child. You decide after the school year, figure out how to make that change, whether it's you buy a new house somewhere else, whether it's you, appeal to the high school athletics association with, what did she call it, a hardship appeal.

Whatever it is that happens, and then you commit for the full year. Yeah. Because if you're going to ask that, you be given the best possible solution, the best possible schooling solution, the best possible support solution, you better provide that back in return that you're going to commit to that. Yeah. Yeah, I, I think I am in general agreement with that.

I think there may be dire situations if dad dies, mom's got to go back to work. Homeschooling is not an option. You're clearly going to fall in the hardship. Yes, absolutely. I think there are exceptions to this. Well, I love the I love the text line. You guys are completely wrong on all of this. Great. And I agree with you.

We're I think we're looking at I think we're looking at this from all angles. We do have opinions about this, but okay, you know what? What I would say to the person who just texted that it is you're really, really, really close to the situation. Yeah. And maybe there's emotion coming into play instead of looking at it from all angles.

Well, it's because that's what a legislator has to do is look at it from all angles. And I would I would just say maybe dial it back a little bit. All right. This is kind of new where we can see both sides. We've made that very clear that I think I opened one of our segments with I can make really compelling arguments for both sides of this.

So what did I say when we got off the phone call with representatives heart, I would say call it a dust storm. I said wow, she's in the middle of a dust storm. Yeah. Because there is going to be opinions all over the place. It just did juice. I did, I did I'm just asking this person like, we this person is really close to the situation.

We know who you are. I understand you have really strong feelings. Acting like this is not coming to a good solution that is beneficial for the majority, right? Not allowing anybody else to have a differing opinion probably is not going to work out the best for you. Yes. So we're trying to look at it from all angles. If the legislature motion has been presented, that's what you have to do because it's there now, the My Way or the highway approach might be okay for the athletes to play under you.

It's not going to work on a radio show. Okay. Or at the In Light at the Capitol. Yes, because the legislation has already been presented. And by the way, been presented by the speaker of the House. Yeah. You have got to look at the legislation and make sure it works the best it possibly can to keep everybody in mind.

Yeah, not just your position. Yeah, yeah. Agreed. This this is no different than the way we addressed parent choice. Yeah. I didn't like some of the boundaries that a Representative Horman had to put on her bill. Yeah, but I had to be put that way in order for it to get passed. Do you think I was happy with the watered down library porn bill?

I was not, but you'll take what? But we got what we could. Yeah, yeah, I yeah, I agree 285421079 as someone said, what if we homeschool and we don't believe in government involved education? Do we have to report to the state of how we're teaching our children? No. If you take the money, you do. You only become accountable if you say, I'm going to I'm going to take the tax credit.

Yes. Okay. That's that's when you're going to have that accountability relationship with the government. I heard a lot of, Chicken Littles running around about this. This is going to ruin homeschool. I think. Brian, Lenny's a good example of how he evolved on this issue. If you're homeschooling your kid, you get to keep homeschooling your kid and nothing will change.

However, if you claim the tax credit and the state sends you a $5,000 check to help educate your kid, that's when you're going to have to go, okay, they want accountability here. So yeah, that's going to come with a, a reporting requirement of some kind. I don't know if they even know what it looks like at this point, but yeah, but if you don't take the money, then you don't have to be accountable to it.

You can keep going the way you have. And I know by talking to some local leaders that the same thing happened with, like the Bonneville County Republican women. Representative Horman came and spoke to them, explained the boundaries that she put on there. They softened, much like Senator Lenny realizing, oh, we understand why that one needs into place, and it's not really that threatening.

So this is great. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. 938 (208) 542-1079. And we'll take a quick break and be back after this okay.

Word boundaries at one. And then the one about that starts the transfer law would be okay. Where's that one. It's down a ways probably six. We can't read it on here.

Can we tell our Facebook audience. Sure. This is the transfer law would be okay. But for boys, after each transfer, they lose a testicle after the third transfer, they can participate in girls sports. Okay. Okay. We're I actually I, I just wow. Eric here's how I would answer that. You said wouldn't a full year just hurt the kid if it's not working at home.

Probably. But here's the deal. The reason to pull your child from public education and make a decision like homeschool should have enough significance, enough weight that you made a decision like that. Yes, that after two months at home, all of a sudden you're changing your mind again. Well, can I also add this? I think because I had that same thought too.

You're just going to hurt the kid if you force them to stay in home school. But if you put that kid in the classroom after 3 or 4 months and the teacher has to spend extra time to catch that kid up, you're hurting the other kids. They're going to have to slow down so the teacher can get that other kid caught up.

So you're just you're transferring the damage to other kids at that point. And I love Julie's thinking it's got to be a, homeschooling is not something you should just dip your toe in. Yeah, it's not a oh, I think we'll give it a shot. I just don't think that that's the way it should be addressed. And by having that, you can't come back after two months concept.

I think it makes the decision a little more weighty. Can I propose a happy medium? Sure you can. If you want to homeschool your kid, I think you would know after 2 or 3 weeks if it's going to work. What about like a three week time frame where you could enroll that it didn't start? The instant you do that and you get in a couple of weeks and you're like, this is not working.

Probationary period. Yeah, just a short amount of time. So they're not that far behind. Sure, sure. Okay. Or, you know, yeah, I don't know. I don't know how big of a problem it is. So I don't know, I, I and Eric, let me tell you, I've gotten this from two teachers. This was not an idea I came up with on my own.

I have two teachers that I see on a regular basis, and I've asked them extensively about House Bill 93. It even before it was House Bill 93 about the legislation that went through last year. We've had discussion after discussion, and I want to be clear, one of the teachers is very workable and understands parent choice is going to happen.

Her one specific concept is you have got to treat the child with more respect than that. You can't bounce them back and forth. There needs to be a strong commitment in what you're doing, and if that is the culture that is cultivated, then potentially the parent is investing more in the public education as well that their child is getting.

So this was not a Julie idea. This was, something that teachers have talked about, understanding that parent choice is they all have signed off, that it's going to happen. The teachers that I'm talking to believe there will be a money will follow the child in Idaho. They they don't think this is going to be stopped. No.

And on it and I'll be upfront. That's what I hope happens. I hope ultimately the the dollars follow the kids. We're going to have to change the Constitution because in order for that, the full version of it to happen. Yeah, yeah, yeah. But we live in when you compare when the Idaho Constitution was written to now we're in a much more nimble environment with tons more possibilities than we had before online.

I yeah, so much. 945 on Newstalk 1079, Neil Larson along with Julie Mason and we'd love to hear from you today. If you'd like to reach out on the Stones Automotive group calling text line 20854210. So, Julie, you know what I'm going to do? I think there's a lot of passion out there about this. Let's just do an impromptu flagpole, okay?

And I want to ask our audience because this is this is an emerging issue. Should student athletes be able to transfer midyear? Is that the basic question we're looking at? Yes. Okay. So they could play football at one school, basketball at at another. And let's just, let's just go ahead and do that. 285421079. That's the number I'm trying to find.

My, flagpole. Here we are. Okay, give us a call. I believe we have a caller on the line. They may or may not be participating in the in the flagpole. The caller go ahead. What are your thoughts? Yeah. Can you hear me? Yes, I can hear you. Yeah. So, my brother's actually in high school currently, and he had to go through the whole entire hardship process, and, I just think that this new bill, if it does allow athletes to go wherever they would, it would essentially ruin high school sports and the competitiveness of it.

You'd get schools like rugby that would who are already dominant. You get schools like rugby winning year after year and then you get smaller schools like sugar and first. And if I went to those smaller schools, I'd be like, hey, I'm just going to go to rugby where it's more competitive and I can win. Sweet. Yeah. And essentially you would possibly see those smaller schools not even have football programs or sports programs anymore, so they'd be losing students.

So I think this bill would be very, very bad. Yeah. High school sports in Idaho. Okay. We're going to count yes or no. I think that was very well articulated. The the competitiveness disparity would be massive. Oh and yeah I think he's right. You would you would absolutely destroy a lot of schools, athletic programs. Yeah I look I there's a reason that this needs to be reworked.

That was the purpose for the interview with Representative Arts. Yes. She's trying to rework it with the Seattle High School Association. Yeah, I'm, 208542107. By the way, Julie, I find it fascinating, the caller that's so passionate. We're on the same side. We would vote no on this bill with the way it's written. Absolutely. Yeah. So I don't know what what the big disagreement is.

The disagreement is, is that we're we're actually looking through the options of how could it be, right? How could the bill be altered? How could it change? We were we're talking about why does Mike Boyle support the bill? Yeah. It's okay if you don't look at the bill as a whole. Yeah. You're walking in unarmed. Yeah. It's true, it's true.

(208) 542-1079 and I think you should always try to understand the other side. Absolutely. Well, you're not going to first stuff. You're not going to know the battle you're fighting. Yeah. This person's a coach. Do you walk into a football game or a girls basketball game and not know the offense that the other team is going to play? Yeah.

Good point. You got an 020 8542 1078. We're asking our audience this morning, should student athletes at the high school level be allowed to transfer mid-year to us and keep playing and keep saying someone says no unless emergency situations occur or parents have to move for work? Need proof? There's already a system for that. The appeals system exists. Now, I'm not saying it works fast.

Yeah, but it does exist, right? But in health care, we call it a qualifying event. I think. I think there should be qualifying events, but just because Timmy wants to play for a state championship football team and across town, a state championship basketball team, no. Yes. Next caller. Caller. Go ahead. What say you on this? Yes or no?

Should student athletes be able to transfer mid-year? No, I think it's a bad idea. I think it's going to create a lot of confusion. And I think coaches and staff need to know what they're dealing with on a daily basis. And yeah, their strengths and weaknesses per team. But anyway thank you. All right. Thank you for the call.

Overwhelmingly people are saying no overwhelmingly. And they're also clarifying the absolutely only way that they feel like a child should be able to switch, as far as sports is concerned, is if the parent makes the sacrifice and actually moves houses. Yeah, yeah. Good point. 285421079 and, we'd love to hear your voices calling in the text line is blowing up, and, but, someone said I believe it should be open enrollment anywhere at any time, just like we're pushing for alternative schools.

But the parents must approve a physical move and that they live in the boundaries of that high school. So. Okay, 285421079 and, asking you about this bill, if passed, it's the speaker's bill that would allow for arbitrary transfers, even if the purposes are for athletics. Yeah. We're currently at a 17 to 2. Yeah, it's pretty overwhelming. Yeah.

Let's go to the next caller. Yes or no? Should arbitrary transfers be allowed in high school sports? I would answer no. And for a reason that a lot of parents might not consider, there's a lot of, camaraderie that can turn into violent rivalry between high school age boys, especially boys. Yeah. And, a student, a student transferring from one school to another who then competes with the school they left.

Can be targeted violently on a field to play it. I don't care whether it's football, baseball or basketball. You're setting your kid up for sports career ending caliber injuries just because of the animosity. That's true. Teammates do feel like he was a traitor who left their team. So something they're pretty pretty serious. Thought I'd rather see a kid shine on a team that's mediocre and be destroyed on the team bus chase chasing the championship.

Yeah, that's a good point. Thank you for the call. 285421278. Caller what say you? Arbitrary athletic transfers in high school mid-year. How about it? And Neil? Julie, this is Brian's answer. So I deal with lawsuits on this 3 or 4 year. And I would vote no on this bill the way it is written, but I would be in favor of perhaps some states have tried one transfer per year, because the cases I see some of these kids, there are real issues.

They can't afford to move. But there are other issues that I think justify it. So something has to be written. But I would vote no for this bill. Okay. All right. Thanks for the call. I actually think that how we are right now, I think that there there needs to be some sort of a clarification because it is happening.

Yeah. I cited an exact situation that is less than three miles from my current home. Yeah, that it happened over the last two years at that high school. I cited that yesterday on Facebook Live. So it is already happening and I think some clarification is needed. Yeah, I do, I do too. It's it's impossible to detect motivation and I would never support legislation that tries.

But if the reasons are solely athletic, do you have problems with that. So the what Brian Zeilinger just called in love here is his opinion. He's an attorney. He's a legislator. Former he's been there. Yeah. I would hate to see if you allow one transfer per year if they're toggling from football to basketball, back to football to basketball, back to football to basketball, because then you're just running into the same problem we've talked about.

Yeah. Barb, iHeart did it a little bit differently. She said one, her high school career. Yes. Okay. I feel a little more comfortable with that than one per year. Yeah, yeah. You're going to get hate from her. I probably am. All right. 285421079I see a recurring theme here. One of the biggest lessons that we can teach student athletes is how to deal with a coach, how to deal with things when they aren't going their way.

Not to run away. Not to run away. And I think that that's loyalty is also sometimes loyalty requires you isn't always warm and fuzzy. Sometimes you got to play through adversity and and learn how to deal with conflict. And so yeah, I don't know, I and I feel like our culture and society at large right now is we run away from the uncomfortable stuff way too early.

So yes, I want to teach kids to be more resilient. Yes. But there's a limit to it too because it can turn into an abusive situation. It absolutely can. I would love you know what I, what I feel like I need knowledge about right now is how does the hardship process work? I did ask Barbie Hart that question, but you know it.

I I'm sure it's much more in depth than that. I want to know how long does it take? And, and what is their rubric? How do they judge what is a hardship and not a hardship? I feel like that needs to be answered here, because a lot of these scenarios that are being presented, if they're truly as dire as they are, the hardship process should be able to facilitate that change.

Yeah, yeah, I would agree. All right. 954 let's take, really quick phone call. Caller go ahead. If you can make it quick. Yeah, yeah. I was just, sorry I called earlier as a first caller, but I was just going to address the hardship question that Julia. So my brother went through that hardship process. And, basically, you have to be able to prove some sort of discrimination or some type of, like, bullying or harassment or like they're just not doing very well at school itself.

And then you have to submit the letter to SA, and then you also have to get like other letters from your principal or superintendent or athletic director or something like that, saying, yeah, these kids struggle in. We think this move would be good for them. And so okay. And the process can take anywhere from like six months to a year.

So that's at least what my brother went through okay. All right. Thank you for the call. 285421279. Actually we're probably out of time, but we'll be back. We'll wrap it up after this. Okay. Thoughts? I don't know.

I'm really struggling because okay. Remember the text we read on Facebook Live yesterday and I said that I don't visit Yellowstone National Park and expect the park rangers to take care of me. I don't go about my daily deeds and expect the police department to take care of me. I expect me to take care of me. Yeah.

I would like to say that to the people who are demanding that a child can switch in the middle of the year. Yeah. If this is that important to you, if this is going to make or break your child's college opportunity. Yeah. Evaluate what it means to you. Yeah. If it's if if your child is in such a toxic situation at home, evaluate what it means to you.

Yeah, I know not everybody functions the way I do. Yeah, but you know me. If my child was in a toxic situation, I would make sure my child got out of the toxic situation. Right. And if that meant selling my home, it meant selling my home. 958 on Newstalk 1079 Julie, the the texts. Holly yes, yes a lot, have come in.

We can't possibly share all of them with you, but thank you all. I did notice President Trump is holding his first cabinet meeting and he's live streaming at least some of it. I just saw Elon Musk talking to look at this. It's happening right now. Biden didn't even show up for his. We'll have a lot to talk about.

Tomorrow. Every day is a new day with crazy new developments. So have a wonderful Wednesday. Julie and I back tomorrow right here on Newstalk 179.