Sometimes Kasie Whitener sits in for Fran Halloran on The Afternoon Drive with Keven Cohen on 100.7 The Point, local talk radio in Columbia, S.C. In this episode, she interviews Nicole Sanchez, South Carolina Chair for the Better Ballot SC initiative which promotes ranked choice voting.

Learn more about Better Ballot SC here.

Learn more about the South Carolina Libertarian Party here.

Thanks to Parenting Porcupines for letting us use their channels to publish this content. 

Sometimes Kasie Whitener sits in for Fran Halloran on The Afternoon Drive with Keven Cohen on 100.7 The Point, local talk radio in Columbia, S.C. In this episode, she interviews Nicole Sanchez, South Carolina Chair for the Better Ballot SC initiative which promotes ranked choice voting. 

Learn more about Better Ballot SC here.

Learn more about the South Carolina Libertarian Party here.

Thanks to Parenting Porcupines for letting us use their channels to publish this content. 

Check out Part 2 on Episode 65.

Benjamin Franklin once said “There are only two things certain in life: death and taxes”. With the 2021 tax deadline just behind us in our rearview mirrors it seems fitting to talk about the other certainty, death. Or, more specifically the death penalty. 

This has been a topic of conversation in South Carolina for several months now. Last year, 2021, our legislature passed, and our governor signed, a bill that would allow for Death Row Inmates to choose how their execution would be carried out if lethal injection drugs were not available. They could choose either the electric chair or a firing squad. Yes, you read/heard that correctly- a firing squad. On March 18, 2022 (last month) the South Carolina Department of Corrections announced that it had finished its preparations, and that it is now able to carry out execution by firing squad. 

And so here we are. It was announced on April 15 that Robert Bernard Moore, who was convicted and sentenced to death in the 1999 killing of a convenience store clerk, had chosen the firing squad as his method of execution and the date was set for April 29. Yesterday the South Carolina Supreme Court issued a temporary stay of execution, blocking South Carolina from carrying out its first ever execution by firing squad. Moore’s attorneys cited pending litigation in which they are challenging the constitutionality of the State’s execution methods. As they should. 

So I (Kasie) wrote two blogs on this for the SCLP. One, last February (2021) I was crazy pissed. Here’s the link. The second was today, and while I was less angry with lawmakers, I was just as angry with the hypocrites (link). This afternoon, sitting by my neighbor’s pool, I talked about the topics of both blogs with H. A very astute nearly 14-year-old, HB observed:

• The state gets shit wrong a LOT. So how can we trust them to get this right? (I, Jessica, personally know a Death Row survivor. Charles Wakefield, Jr. was framed, charged, convicted and sentenced for a crime he did not commit. He spent 35 years in prison waiting to be executed before finally being paroled. He is actively working with a group of attorneys to clear his name. You can read more about his story here, and be sure to check out the Murder Etc Podcast)
• The punishment doesn’t fit the crime here. Why haven’t we appealed the sentence?
• Addiction is a sickness. Shouldn’t we try to help people who are sick?

Okay, so on the taxes bit, we just want to mention this having been the week we supposedly rendered unto Caesar what is Caesar’s. And yet …

Read more on our blog

However rewarding, being a mom can at times feel overwhelming. Kids don’t come with instructions, but they do each come with their own unique and individual personalities. Navigating parenting challenges can at times seem nearly impossible and even more lonely, but as the Turkish Proverb goes- “No road is long with good company.” With that in mind, the idea behind tonight’s episode was born.

Support for one another:

• What do we mean when we say “support one another”
• Have you been supported by other moms, and how?
  • Kasie – my best friend Jessica had a daughter almost 10 years before me so I go to her for almost everything: “Is this normal?” I haven’t always been great at supporting others. I am working on making myself more available and making time to reach out and connect.

Provides support for our children: Supporting one another creates a network by which we can better support our children.

• “Indirect support” can create an environment where a mother is encouraged and empowered by other moms, which can have a positive impact on the mental health of the mother. What are some examples of indirect support you have received?
  • Melissa – I’m a member of a few parenting FB groups. They can give you reassurance that you are not the crazy one. Especially when you are trying to do things differently than everyone else. I.E. limits on screen time, free-range, home/un schooling.
  • Kasie – our neighborhood moms have a good amount of dialogue around schools, teachers, activities, and other suchness. Sharing the things we learn and hear and know gives us a wider (longer?) list of possibilities for our kids.
• “Direct support” creates an environment whereby “the village” has a more constant and visible role in the childrens’ lives.  Examples may be friends and family who actively participate in the lives of the children, providing role models and reinforcement. What are some examples of direct support you have received?
  • Kasie – we have coaches and dance instructors (hired help?) but also neighbors who have a sense of who Hollie is and what she’s good at and what our values are. My mom and sister are influential in H’s life, too.
  • Melissa – My mom and Grandmother take my kids for sleepovers quite often. When #3 was born my MIL stayed at my house for 3 months to watch her while I adjusted and went back to work.

– How do you build your village? 

– How do you  invest in your “village”? 

– How does this support/encourage us to live the message of liberty? 

• Kasie – we built our village with Friday afternoons on the driveway. We invited neighbors over to join us and they became our network. It’s a valuable activity to invest in friends and spend time with them. Our monthly SCLP meetings I LOVE for Hollie to come so she can get to know ya’ll and Casey Crowe and we saw Victor at Beef’s on St Patrick’s Day and she greeted him like an old pal.

It is easy to get wrapped up in the neverending day-to-day hustle and bustle, but building and investing in your village is absolutely one of the most beneficial things we can do for ourselves and our children.

Read more on our blog

As we were planning our episodes to celebrate Women’s History Month we wanted to devote one episode to our “Founding Mothers”. We hear a lot about the Founding Fathers, but we usually do not hear about the women who worked alongside them in their fight for liberty, and their efforts to establish and build our Nation. 

Of course we all know the names like Martha Washington, Harriet Tubman and Betsy Ross, but there is a long list of women whose names you will not find in any history book, but whose contributions to liberty and freedom were just as (if not more) valuable than some of the “big names”. So let’s talk about them, shall we?

During the American Revolution George Washington managed to build a robust network of spies within townships to observe and report on the goings-on of the Tories and the British armies. One of the most notorious of these spies is Hercules Mulligan, a tailor, and his slave. While working as a tailor to the British soldiers and officers he would gather valuable intel, which he would then use his slave, Cato, to transmit to Washington. On more that one occasion this saved Washington and the troops. But we are not here to talk about the men.  

What is not commonly talked about is that the success of these networks was a result of the women who used their roles as homemakers to gather intelligence to pass through their network all the way to the General. Among these notable women are Anna Strong and Agent 355 (which translates from the code they used into “Lady”) of the Culper Ring. Some believe they may have been one and the same person, but some speculation is that Agent 355 was perhaps a servant or slave of either the Strong family or someone else from Sautucket (where the Strongs were from). To this day no one knows for sure because the identity of Agent 355 was never disclosed.

Anna Strong was an important part of this ring. While her husband was imprisoned she is credited for assisting Washington’s couriers and smugglers, signaling them by hanging a specific petticoat on her clothesline which was visible from the sound where they would row into Setauket. 

Agent 355 is believed to have been a young woman, or perhaps a servant/slave, as she allegedly had ocassion to gather intelligence from Major John Andre. It is unfortunate that we will never know her identity. 

Lydia Darragh is perhaps the most badass of the lady spies. In the Fall of 1777 the British forces had gained some big wins over Washington’s troops. Lydia used her comfort within her community to spy on the British troops and officers. She would give the intel to her younger son who would then smuggle her coded notes to her older son, who was a soldier. In December of 1777 some British officers took quarter in the Darragh home. During one of their meetings, where they had ordered all the family members away, Lydia hid in a closet in order to spy on the meeting. She learned of the British intent to attack Washington and his troops, and used her role as homemaker as a cover to make a journey “for flour”, during which she evaded checkpoints to get word to Washington’s troops about the plan. Talk about one cool mama!

Nancy Hart is another name you likely do not know, but should. In addition to serving as a spy Nancy Hart is credited for capturing multiple British loyalists, killing at least one, and overseeing the hanging of several others. She would dress as a man and pretend to be incapacited to gain entry to British camps in order to spy on them, and many historians believe that she may have been present in at least one battle during the war. She stole and smuggled weapons belonging to British troops, and captured at least one Tory spy. The legend is that the Cherokee referred to her as “Wahatche”, which translates to “War Woman”.

Not only were there women who were instrumental as spies for George Washington, but some were also soldiers. Legend tells us that  Prudence Wrightwas a commander of an all-women Militia, which dressed as men and carried their husbands weapons into battle. 

Catherine Barry, a South Carolinian, is another woman who defied the societal gender roles to fight alongside her husband. She is credited with being a spy and a soldier, and according to history was instrumental in the Battle of Cowpens. 

There are so many more incredible women in the history of our Country. Women who fought alongside their husbands in the name of Liberty. Women who were willing to risk everything for the cause. These women were just like us. They were wives, mothers, and daughters, and they should be an inspiration to us all. 

Read more on our blog

This link (and a google search) and you’ll get the gender-neutral definition of the phrase: what is okay for one person to do, should be good for another. But the “goose” is the female and the “gander” is the male, so the real meaning here is that whatever benefits the woman, also benefits the man. Or, in southern terms, “If Mama ain’t happy, nobody’s happy.”

Thing is, gender roles are inherited via the patriarchy and many (if not all) have no basis in physical, mental, or emotional truisms. So we’re going to talk about that tonight, since it’s Women’s History Month and anyone thinking, “when is it men’s history month?” the answer is, “literally every other month. Even February.”

So, gender roles are the social expectations for how individuals are supposed to dress, act, speak, and conduct themselves based on their assigned sex. For example, females are expected to be accommodating and nurturing – motherly – simply because they are women.

This study organizes those characteristics into two categories: 

1) agency: assertiveness, independence, instrumental competence, leadership competence, and 

2) communality: concern for others, sociability and emotional sensitivity

The challenge with gender role stereotypes is that they are broad – general – and rarely apply in their entirety to any single individual. Because individuals are unique. As early as we recognize the social “norm” gender roles, we also experience negative consequences for refusing to conform to them. This articletalks about the gender reinforcement, punishing, and modeling that perpetuates the roles.

• What are some traditional gender roles in place in your home?
• What are some non-traditional gender roles in your home?
• Are gender roles limiting (dangerous?)? If so, how?
• How do you talk to your children about gender roles?
• Does the recent social media rejection of gender as social concept play a part in your family conversations?

Gender role reinforcement is a patriarchal technique to maintain a male-dominated social structure. This article talks about the negative effects of strict patriarchal reinforcement on both girls and boys, in terms of identity, relationships, and even self worth and future mental health.

• Is there a sense of “the patriarchy” in your house? How is it treated? How is it discussed?
• What’s the answer? Should we reject patriarchy in all its iterations? Recognizing the poison of assigning superiority to one gender based solely on a characteristic they cannot take blame for? Or should we work within this dominant (default) system and just try to raise better humans regardless of gender/role?

Read more on our blog

Every mom who’s sent kids to government-run schools has had the valentine’s day card exchange challenge. Buy a box, get the class list, fill them all out, attach a candy, and send them on the school bus hoping it’s a fun day and not an anxiety-ridden fair-fest where kids are intentionally mean to the smelly and the ugly among them while heaping praise on the pretty ones.

Sigh.

As parents we can all agree that there are certain things we hope for our children, and that we try our best to instill in them. Among them are that they are respectful, kind, and generous. So let’s go ahead and address the elephant in the room. FORCED SHARING DOESN’T WORK. Yes, you read that correctly. Yes, we said it. No, we are not sorry. 

We have all been there, at the play date with the kid who has more “things” than they know what to do with, and a mom that intently reminds them to share every toy they pick up. Depending on the age and developmental maturity of the child, they may not even fully understand what they are being commanded to do. The truth is that children begin to learn the concept of sharing at around age 3, but are not developmentally capable of truly grasping the concept of sharing until roughly 4-5 years old according to most child psychologists. 

There are plenty of articles available where there are suggestions for age-appropriate methods to teach your children to share over time, but that is not what we want to chat about. Let’s talk about what happens when you force your children to share, whether before they are capable of understanding the concept or simply because they do not want to. 

• Consent is not important
• The child is not being given an opportunity to benefit from the positive feelings that stem from being generous or voluntarily doing something good
• The child may be viewed as a “bad kid” if they don’t share with other children
• The child is not allowed to control the property that may be important to them

So let’s talk about why these are important. Consent is a topic we have discussed before within our “Boys will be Boys” series. While that conversation was more specifically geared toward sexual assault and other physical touch, consent is something that is learned very early, and that is learned in these fundamental concepts. Respect for consent (whether received or given) is an important lesson. 

Sharing is not generosity if it is forced, but rather it is simply a mandated reallocation of the use of certain goods and resources. This is why government (entitlement) programs are not beneficial to society as a whole. Instead of creating a society in which people who have extra share freely with those in need, a system is created where a government determines how much of what you have is enough, then takes the rest to distribute to those it deems “in need”. There is nothing voluntary about something that is forced. 

In past episodes we have talked about the importance of extending the same liberty to others that we wish to have for ourselves. By giving our children opportunities to make decisions as to how they will use or share their things allows them to experience the benefit of generosity and empowers them to share as they see fit. 

Generosity is one of the best qualities we can instill in our children. If you have been around for a while you know we talk a lot about concepts of cooperation, accountability, and personal responsibility. These things, combined with generosity and the non-aggression principle (the NAP), are the building blocks of voluntaryism. Voluntaryism is a rejection of the State whereby members of a community self-regulate to ensure the success of the community as a whole. 

Teaching our children these foundational principles ensures that we are raising the next generation to be free-thinking individuals capable of being independently generous without being mandated to do so.

Read more on our blog

During our time off Jessica made an appearance on “Mr. ‘Murica, The Bearded Truth” with Jason Lyon over on Muddied Waters Media to have a discussion about empowering women. It was a pretty lively conversation, touching on several different pieces of the conversation around inequality. 

It is a big conversation, and one that cannot be condensed into an hour long podcast episode. While we don’t plan to tackle the entirety of the issue in our episode either, we can certainly discuss one piece of it, which is gender inequality and the pay gap. 

There is a great blog post on Salary.com that summarizes various pieces of the conversation, and that provides links to various sources of information such as the Department of Labor blog, reports from the World Economic Forum, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics. 

According to most studies, which rely on data related to similarities in education and years in the workforce, most women are shown to make roughly $0.80-$0.85 per dollar compared to  their male counterparts. Some show ranges of 28%-33% roughly.

What are some of the possible causes of this?

• Women less likely to negotiate a higher salary?
• Women taking more time off to tend to family obligations?
• Women entering lower-wage fields (like education)?
• Women getting behind in their careers with extended time out of the workforce?

While the overall statistics and general data comparisons in most of the studies available do support the existence of a significant pay gap between women and men, they do not account for specific metrics which are also used in the overall valuation of an employee’s contributions. This 256-page report by the US Congress Joint Economic Committee really dives into various measurables used in these studies, but also acknowledges that some of the differences are still unexplained. 

While two persons may have the same level of education and/or hold the same job title, the salaries associated with their positions can vastly differ based on various criteria such as job performance and overall profitability related to the work they do, which may account for some of the unexplained differences in statistics from various studies. 

• What has your professional experience been?
• Have you experienced this in your career, or have you seen it first hand?

In that same report by the US Congress Joint Economic Committee there is a list of suggested solutions for fixing the pay gap. It is no surprise that all of them involve legislation and regulation, but is that the answer? There is undoubtedly discrimination in many workplaces and companies, so what can we do to change the dynamic?

This gap was exacerbated by COVID and women make up a higher percentage of those 2021 exits from the employer workforce (link). They also make up a higher percentage of new businesses being created. So what does that tell us about women and the traditional work environment?

How are you talking to your kids about this topic to prepare them to enter the workforce one day? How are you teaching them to be part of the solution?

Read more on our blog

The story begins with all the buzz around Sound of Freedom, a film released by a small(er) studio called Angel Studios, that made use of social media in a uniquely dishonest way. There were two narratives around Sound of Freedom:

1. The film the left doesn’t want you to see; blows the lid off what’s reallyhappening in the child sex trafficking (Hollywood customers, Democratic Party donors and operatives)
2. Q Anon conspiracy-riddled fabrication, distorts a very real issue and exploits the children who are truly victims of the heinous crime of trafficking; glorifies one operative (Tim Ballard) with questionable credentials.

The truth is, it’s just a film. Yes, there’s a glorified hero. Yes, there are children depicting the trauma and tragedy of child sex trafficking. Is this the match to light the pyre on the democrats child-trafficking-youth-extension-plot-of-supreme-evil? No. This is clever (?) marketing.

Get the right to claim it’s a “real” story, that it reveals truths only whispered about in conspiracy echo chambers; get the left to claim it’s right-wing propaganda. Both sides will shout until they’re hoars and then they’ll all go see the film.

Meanwhile, Jess and Melissa didn’t see anything about the film because it wasn’t in their internet neighborhoods. We recently talked about how the internet is a wide enough place with smart enough algorithms that we are all living inside customized echo chambers. These are your internet neighborhoods. Mine (Kasie) are:

• Heavily GenX
• Libertarian politics
• Taylor Swift
• Drinking. Lots of Drinking.

The second separate-but-equal internet brew-ha-ha is Barbieheimer. The release of both Oppenheimer and Barbie on the same day (July 21) spawned an internet frenzy around seeing both films to get the film equivalent of sweet-and-savory. Again, this was only part of certain internet neighborhoods. Me and Charlie never saw it, but it was everywhere for Hollie. Who, incidentally, isn’t old enough to see Oppenheimer.

So how does it work? It’s a little bit like the Crisis Cycle in a prior episode. Movie promoters (savvy marketers) identify specific internet neighborhoods through influencers and podcasters. They put the movie’s talking points in those influencers’ space (some of them are probably paid) and then let the frenzy begin. And the more likes, shares, and discussions spawned, the more traction the idea of the film gets. This, as it turns out, translates into ticket sales.

Not convinced? Sound of Freedom – an indie film – has grossed $155 million since its July 4th release. Barbie is on the cusp of $1 billion globally and Oppenheimer is close with $500 million. Like they say, sooner or later that adds up to real money.

Harnessing the echo chambers, it turns out, is a winning marketing strategy. It’s a strategy that will likely shift into high gear as primary season approaches. We’re already seeing Robert Kennedy Jr. make the podcast rounds since mainstream media (MSM) is ignoring him but good. And we’re waiting for the deep bench of Republican primary candidates to get a clue as to how to put themselves in the right echo chambers with Trump sucking up all the air in MSM.

So what’s the appeal? Most listeners believe the niche operatives (podcasters and influencers) are more honest and less biased than MSM. You read that right. Even when they know they’re listening to a podcaster with a lean (er… Meghan Kelly) listeners believe the podcaster is more fair. More truthful. And not beholden to big corporate interests. And YET where are the rules and regulations determining who pays Kelly (Joe Rogan, Russell Brand, all of Barstools)? There aren’t any. So our podcasters are beholden to advertisers just like traditional media and yet we still claim they’re honest, direct, and trustworthy. Why?

Because we want to believe them. We agree with them. And so we want to believe them.

Content creators stoke the rage fire to keep you engaged. They want eyeballs. They want likes, shares, followers, patrons, supporters, and merch buyers.

Content creators make money three ways:

• Streaming itself – YouTube and TikTok both pay creators, Twitch enables in-app tipping
• Merch – popular creators have t-shirts, coffee mugs, hoodies, plushies, etc.
• Patrons – behind the scenes, exclusive interviews, etc. Patrons support for extra access to the creators.

If you’re not buying merch or paying as a patron, you’re at least contributing to some metric that gets the creator paid.

AND until FTX (the digital currency exchange that imploded) we haven’t seen content creators have to pay for saying crazy shit. 

Read more on our blog

Photo by Sachin Bharti on Pexels.com

The Libertarian Party is a big tent. Someone told me last week he thinks everyone’s a libertarian, they just don’t know it. The Party appealed to me (Kasie) because it’s a place to be socially liberal (marry who you want, wear what you want, etc) and government-conservative (we don’t need laws for every damn thing, ya’ll). But here’s the thing: all big tents got clowns and ours like to show their asses.

Twitter controversy, LPNH is ridiculous. Explain the basics.

Our biggest problem in elections, cycle after cycle, is voters not knowing enough about Libertarian principles to support our candidates. When social media messaging like LPNH’s bullshit hits like it did this week, it’s the rest of us that have to sweep up the shrapnel.

At a time when we need real leadership, what we have is memes and hot takes. Is social media really a place for leadership? For discovering new ideas and exploring potential political fixes?

Every party has fringe members – the extra-woke left, the racist-as-hell right, and our big tent isn’t any different. But shouldn’t we be?

Shouldn’t our principles about granting liberty to others as well as ourselves mean we’re tolerant of the worst of us? Or should those principles mean we don’t accept people who reject others on racist, homophobic, or sexist reasons?

How do we get the right message out when so many wrong messages are louder? More obnoxious? More inflammatory?

Read more on our blog