RADIOJanuary 20, 2023

Are risk-reluctant parents actually HARMING their kids?

Some parents have decided it’s time to cancel sleepovers. In this clip, Pat and Stu discuss all the reasons why sending your kid away for the night contains too many risks for some families. But, does a lack of risk in children’s lives actually HARM their development into able and free-thinking adults…?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

PAT: There's an interesting situation, I would like to know your thoughts on this, Stu. Because you still have young kids. My kids are grown now. So they don't do a lot of sleepovers. But I'm guessing that you -- yeah. They don't.

As adults, they don't sleep over friends' houses that often. It's weird.

But there is a thing apparently now, where a lot of parents are kind of giving second thoughts to sleepovers and not allowing them. For any number of reasons, one of which, I guess they're afraid of abuse.

STU: Is that --

PAT: I think that's one of the reasons. Because do you ever know for sure what's going on in somebody else's house?

STU: No. You never know for sure. But, again, this ties into the fact that despite the world being aimed statistically a much safer place from crime.

PAT: Then it was when we were young. Yeah. That's true.

STU: You know, this is -- Lenore Skenazy talks about this a lot, where we kind of put this bubble wrap around our kids. I'm totally guilty of this at some level.

PAT: Me too.

STU: Where my kids are young. And I remember when I was their age, you know, I would just wander out. The summer, my mom would go to work, and I would walk to my friends house, a mile away. And we would hang out and play all day. You know, this typical story, you come back when it gets dark. And maybe have dinner.

And people kind of new around the neighborhood. And people kind of kept an eye on you, a little bit.

But basically, we did whatever we wanted, which was most of the time eating Hostess products and playing Wiffle Ball.

You came back, and that was it. My kids don't do that. I'm not letting my kid walk around for a mile by himself with his friends. I don't do that at all.

PAT: No.

STU: I know. Because we think this way a lot. I'm a guy who likes numbers. I can look at them and say, hey. I know intellectually, this viewpoint makes no sense. I know it.

I live in a safe area. We are in a low crime period. While we've seen it tick up. The 2020 period was a little bit different.

PAT: Murder rate has gone up in some cities.

STU: There are some problems. Obviously, some drug abuse issues have risen over the years. But generally speaking, we are in a low crime period.

We are -- the most profound example of this, is I was more than double -- or twice as likely to be killed, in a mass shooting, at my school, when I was a kid.

PAT: Than kids are now?

STU: Than kids are now.

PAT: It's double?

STU: And that blows people's minds. It's more than double.

PAT: Oh, wow. Really?

STU: When I was in high school, it was in the '90s. And crime rates reason higher. And the difference between mass shootings. School shootings, I should say, back then and now, is what we see now, are very disturbed kids who get guns and try to essentially out-- take the leader board on their video game. Right?

They come in, and they decide, they're going to try to kill as many people as possible.

So we see mass shootings. What we saw in the '90s, were two or three people being shot in a fight.

We saw people get gangs, bring guns to school. You know, like -- but it wasn't as much -- it wasn't 20 or 30 people dying. But people were shot, at school, all the time, back in the '90s. It just wasn't noticed as much. And I find it hard to believe, that a mom in the '90s, who loses their kid. Because one person is shot at school. Feels better about it, than someone today, who loses their kid in a mass shooting. But what this also means is more schools go without any shootings at all. Far more schools, when you look at the percentage of schools, go without mass shootings, because when we do see a shooting, it's usually one of these larger spectacle shootings. People looking for attention. And look, that's a whole different problem hard to solve.

But the bottom line is, when you send your kids to school, in today's era, they're much more likely to survive and not be shot.

PAT: It's safe.

Yeah, and they've taken a lot of precautions too, the schools. They're usually locked. It's usually much, much harder to get in.

STU: Yeah, that wasn't the case back in the day.

PAT: It used to be, you just walked into a school, if you needed to give a note to your child. Or bring them something that they needed medication, or whatever.

And you were not stopped or asked, or frisked or --

STU: No. No security guards.

PAT: No security at all. It's a much different situation now. So --

STU: If there was a fight that broke out in a school, the gym teachers are coming down the hallway to help break that it up. That's how it worked. That's not how it works now.

PAT: No.

STU: So it is -- in some ways, it's so much better. And the sleepover thing I think is part of this.

We hear these terrible stories, and they do happen.

But generally speaking, these rates are a lot lower than they used to be. And that's positive.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: We don't need to bubble wrap our kids as much as we need to.

PAT: One of the concerns, apparently, in addition to the abuse. If you don't know the parents really well. And do you really know anyone well enough to trust your kids to be there over night?

I don't know. Because you just never know.

STU: It's so funny. We just talked about this. And it's not logical. It's not logical.

PAT: It's not. It's not. But here's how illogical I am.

My daughter -- my youngest daughter was 16. So this was a few years ago, because she's 22 now. When she was 16. She wanted to walk down -- my wife wasn't home. So she came to me and said, I'm going down to the pond. We have a pond like half a block from the house, she just wanted to go down there and hang out.

I don't know. Throw rocks, or whatever she was going to do with the pond. I'm like no. No, you can't.

STU: Wait. Wait.

Sixteen. She couldn't go to the pond, a half a block away?

PAT: Sixteen.

Half a block away.

No, I don't want you at the pond. Because who knows?

STU: Yeah.

PAT: So I'm illogical that way.

STU: I am too.

PAT: And I'm not sure why. Because logically, I do know that the crime rate is much lower. And what are the chances of being kidnapped or whatever, at 16? It's low. Really, really low.

STU: Very low. Very low. I think part of this is -- I can only speak for myself here. Part of it is I just don't want to be the one who approves the thing that goes wrong. It's almost selfish in a way. I know I would beat myself up until the end of time if I was like, yeah, sure, go down to the pond, and God forbid, something terrible happens. And so you just decide, no. Just eliminate every bit of risk from their lives. That's not how to build, you know, a healthy adult. Right?

PAT: It's not.

STU: I think we're seeing the effects of that. So I do try. When I realize this instinct in myself, I try to cure it. My kids do sleepovers.

PAT: They do?

STU: They do. However, I've noticed, there is their hesitance among parents now.

You know, I'm not in the parents group as much as my wife. But occasionally she talks to me about this, when she's talking to one of her friends. They don't really like to do sleepovers with their kids. Again, these are people that are friends.

And, you know, a lot of times, that they know. And I would think trust. But there is -- there is a hesitance. And I just -- I just think we jump to the worst-case scenario, a lot.

PAT: Yeah. We do. And according to this article, it's pretty prevalent now, where parents say no to sleepovers like this.

Yeah, they're worried about -- not only are they worried about crime. But they're worried about whether or not people have guns in their home, and whether they're locked away safe or whatever. So there's a gun fear.

STU: So let's say I'm a liberal. And my kid wants to sleep over at Pat Gray's house. Pat Gray probably has them all over the place.

PAT: I used to, of course. Yes. I leave them out on the kitchen counter. Yeah. AR-15s out there. A couple of 9 millimeters.

STU: Just hang out.

If you about it to the dog toy basket. There's an AR-15. And I don't want my kid in that environment. That's kind of the stuff you're talking about?

What else? Are there any other concerns?

PAT: COVID exposure.

STU: So I'm a COVID zero guy. I'm wearing a mask. Three masks to the gym.

PAT: Yep. I'm coming home. And I don't want my kid -- because you, as an evil conservative.

PAT: Not only do I have guns. I have the COVID virus, that's in petri dishes all over the house. All over the house. And they spill it a lot of the time.

STU: Instead of salt, you're sprinkling on COVID.

PAT: Yes. Also, are there alcohol or drugs in the home?

STU: Okay. Because, I mean, that's -- there's a -- some people have alcohol in their house.

Some people have it, and make sure that it's protected from their kids. And others, might just have an open liquor cabinet.

PAT: Might, yeah.

STU: I remember this back in the day. There were kids, that their parents would drink. Drank alcohol.

And they would -- they would have their ways of drinking some while the parents were at work. And filling the bottle with water. And trying to cover it. And like that stuff happened. That was a real thing.

PAT: Yep. What about older siblings? Is that a consideration? Did they have older siblings, where something could happen?

STU: Yeah, right. I could see that. Oh, my God. I'm never letting my kids go anywhere. Why are you scaring me like this?

Again, I think there are appropriate -- you have to think about these things as a parent. I think one of the big things is, do you trust that other parent? Is the parent going to be home?

PAT: Can they keep you safe?

STU: Are they going to make sure that things don't go awry in the middle of the night? You know, you don't want your kids sneaking out and vandalizing the neighborhood, right?

You want to make sure that they actually stay in the house. Maybe -- especially when they're younger. Do they actually go to bed at a decent hour?

We've had our kids sleep over their friend's houses a couple times, and they come back. And like, you said up until 2:00 a.m. I can tell. Because you're a different person today, and you look like you went on a bender for six weeks.

So you have to get that sense of not every parent has the same standards as you. You know, my kid, they will go to bed, basically at the same time every night. It's not going to be too late.

PAT: And speaking of that, some parents apparently, have come to a compromise, where you can stay there until, you know, late. Like 10:00. Or midnight.

STU: Yeah. And then go pick them up.

PAT: Yeah. They call that a halfover.

STU: A halfover.

PAT: Or a lateover. Stupid. Stupid.

STU: We are a weird group of people, aren't we?

PAT: Oh, man. It's amazing.

But I just find it interesting, because apparently a lot of people have just decided, it's not worth it. And so they just say no. Just because they don't want to mess with any of the risk. Who knows what could happen? Maybe nothing.

But I'm not going to take the chance. Which kind of makes sense to me. Being the -- probably oversensitive parent to those kinds of things as I am. So...

EXCLUSIVE: Chip Roy Explains His FIERY Rejection of Spending Bill

According to the media, there’s a big fight going on between Republicans over the House’s new slimmed-down continuing resolution spending bill. Some, including President-elect Donald Trump, wanted the bill to pass. But others, like Texas Representative Chip Roy, argued that it still wasn’t ready. However, is the Republican “unity coalition” really crumbling, like the media claims? Rep. Chip Roy joins Glenn to explain what’s really going on. He argues that he IS trying to give Trump and DOGE a 100-day “runway” to fix the country. But he makes the case that, by increasing the debt ceiling by $5 trillion without agreeing on other cuts, this bill gives bad actors the ability to be an “obstacle” to Trump’s agenda further down the line. Plus, he reveals to Glenn that he believes some of these bad actors LEAKED false information about his stance to Mar-a-Lago.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN:

I think we have a great opportunity today. To show you how to have a -- tough conversation, with friends, friends. Where you deeply disagree on something.

But you know that their intent is good. They know my intent is good. Or our intent is good.

And we actually have the same end goal, but we disagree on the path. And we're going to walk away friends.

Chip Roy is joining us today. And, Chip, I love you. And I always will. And I agree with your, we've got to cut spending. We have to. But Liz Wheeler is with me. And we've been talking about it all morning. It's the -- the -- the -- the system of DOGE and Trump, the call-out to the world, in saying, you've got to surrender the Capitol. You know, the bad guys are in and about to take all the money.

Surround, and tell them, come out with your hands up. And that happened. And we scored a massive win, in an entirely new way.

Ask then you stood on principle, one we both agree with.

And it failed!

And so here's -- here's what Liz and I were talking about. Here's what we want to say to you.

And then get your response.

LIZ: Hi, Congressman Roy, this is the way I see it. I want your take on it. I love you. I think you're one of the best members of Congress. I disagree with you on the process that's happening. And I think that is the difference. The process. We elected Donald Trump to be a disruptor. Because Republican members of Congress for decades have been telling they're fiscal conservatives. They want to decrease the debt SEAL. It hasn't happened.

It hasn't -- it hasn't been done. And so Donald Trump comes in with Elon Musk, and uses this DOGE process to first identify these pieces of garbage in the first 1500-page bill. And take those things to the people. We took them to members of Congress. Congress said, okay. We'll listen to you.

So that new process was very effective.

And my question to you is: Once that process was proved to be effective. Which I think is exciting and wonderful.

How do we bridge this divide, with you, to say, okay.

Let's put some faith in this new process. And trust Elon Musk and Donald Trump and the Dow Jones process, to eventually address the debt ceiling, but get this done right now?

GLENN: And not blind trust. Chip.

CHIP: So appreciate you guys. Appreciate being on the show. Particular order. I have to go through a couple of things.

GLENN: Yep.

CHIP: Number one, it's important to remember that my job and my duty is to the Constitution, to God, and the people I represent. I told them, when I came to Washington, I would not -- I would not let the credit card and the debt ceiling and the borrowing of the United States without the spending restraints necessary to offset it.

GLENN: Okay.

CHIP: Right now, all we have are promises and ideas and notions. What I know, that neither of you respectfully no, and that none of your listeners respectfully no are the people that are in the room, that I was in with yesterday. And the day before, who are recalcitrant.

And do not want to do the spending cuts that we need to do.

That I believe the president and the DOGE guys. And everybody want to do.

My job, is to force that through the meat grinder. To demand that we do our damn job. Okay?

GLENN: Okay. So hang on. Okay. So wait. Wait. You're right. You're right. You're right. Go ahead.

CHIP: Number thee, when we were going through the bill, I'm glad the bill dropped from 1,550 pages to 116 pages. Three-quarters of Twitter or X or whatever you want to call it, have been out there spreading false facts that we supported a bad bill and didn't like the better bill.

That's not true. But let's be Lear. The 1400 pages that were cut out. It's a panacea.

There were some good stuff in there. There were some bad stuff in there. There was a lot of disinformation.

There wasn't a $70,000 pay raise. There was a 3,000-dollar pay raise.

I didn't support any pay raise. I didn't support a lot of the stuff in there.

But there's a lot of misinformation. And here's the thing: The 116 pages that were left, and I opposed violently the first bill. I was leading the charge on fighting and killing the first bill.

GLENN: And I love you.

LIZ: The second bill for 116 pages. Turned off -- turned off the pay go requirement. That we slash 1.7 trillion automatically.

And added a 5 trillion that are increase.

My view was, I could not support that, without a clear understanding of what cuts we would get, in mandatory spending next year. And undo any of the Inflation Reduction Act.

The undoing of the student loans. The undoing of the crap with the food stamps.

And everything else. I yield back.

GLENN: Okay. I yield back.

Chip, you're not in a hostile room. We love you. And we agree with your end goals. It's our end goal too. We didn't make that promise that you made to the people that voted for you. So we have more wiggle room here.

But you say -- I think our big difference is, you say, I know the guys in the room.

You're right. You do. And we -- we ceded that earlier today on the show.

You are -- one of us is wrong on trust.

I don't trust any of the weasels in Washington.

But I think Donald Trump and Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy have earned enough trust, to get a grace period, here for the first -- maybe the first year.

Or at least six months.

To turn the economy around, and also reduce the size of the government.

And totally flip this thing.

And I know, as somebody who is -- you know, run a company, mainly into a ground. But run a company, and have to switch it, in the middle, and totally reshuffle. That -- that actually costs money, while you're doing it, to bridge the gap.

Because you have to fill up holes while you're filling in the gap.

You don't trust the people in the room. Neither do we.

But we do trust the system that worked on Wednesday with DOGE and Donald Trump.

Where do we disagree?

Can you give them --

CHIP: We don't disagree. And yesterday morning, I was making that precise argument in a room full of conservatives and then a follow-up room with people who will call it, less conservatives.

GLENN: Republican. Yes.

CHIP: And so we were making this argument. And then someone infamously. Something leaked out of the room, somehow out to Mar-a-Lago. That I was being resistant. Because I was negotiating trying to get the agreement to achieve the objective that you just said. I was trying to get, okay. In fact, yesterday morning, I made the argument to a group of conservatives. We need to give the president runway. We need to give him his first 100 days. We need to appreciate JD, and Vivek, and all the people -- and everybody involved. For the president to achieve the objective.

But to get there. We have to make sure that the guys in the room, that are an obstacle to that, don't have the ability to block it.

Because information flow matters. And when those guys tell the president, they can't achieve X.

Then the president will not achieve X. Our job was to force and demand, guys, we need actual understanding of what the cuts will be.

And because otherwise, we're asking us to accept a 5 trillion-dollar limit in our credit card increase. In exchange for nothing!

Literally, in exchange for nothing, but -- but hope.

So our job was to force that change.

Unfortunately, while I was trying to make the argument that we needed something in order to get the votes, someone leaked that down to Mar-a-Lago, and the president reacted.

But now I have to now manage that.

GLENN: Right. I know. I know.

CHIP: They're trying to enforce change in town.

GLENN: So hang on.

We have to leave this. Because I'm going to run against the clock.

I could talk to you all day about this. You were in a meeting this morning about J.D. Vance. Can you tell us anything about that meeting?

CHIP: That meeting happened, because despite what happened yesterday, I'm trying to get this done. Last night, talking to JD, we worked to get this meeting done. We had some good progress this morning.

But there still remains people concerned about spending. That we can work out, what agreement we can reach. On what spending cuts. We can actually get next year, in exchange for giving the vote on a debt ceiling increase.

So it remains fluid. Progress was made. But we have to keep working on it.

And I left that meeting to talk to you. Soil get an update in a minute.

GLENN: Thank you for that, by the way.

I hear there is a new bill that may be coming today.

Is that the one you're talking about?

Or is this another bill that could be another nightmare?

CHIP: Despite other people leaking crap, I refused. I can't say, because it's not been decided by the speaker.

And it's not right to talk about things they're talking about in private meetings.

GLENN: Yeah, but it's -- it's this speaker. I mean, is he really the speaker anymore, Chip, really?

CHIP: We need to hear what bill we need to get forward. And I can't talk about the private meetings. But, look, I'm going to keep fighting for what I promised people that I represent.

I'm going to fight to cut spending. I am going to represent article one.

I'm going to support the president's agenda, but we've got to do that together.

GLENN: Okay.

Chip, thank you.

I think we can -- I think we agree, but I await to see what that means to you. Because we may just have to agree to disagree on this.

But I love you. And I still want you to replace Cornyn.

CHIP: The short version is, for inflation's sake, we cannot increase the debt ceiling $5 trillion without knowing what we're getting for it.

And I don't think anybody should disagree with that.

GLENN: But you don't disagree that Elon Musk and Trump and Vivek are serious about gutting the system.

CHIP: I believe that is their objective. I believe there are obstacles to that objective. And I need to know the sincerity of how we deal with those obstacles, both structural, and human. And we have to figure that out. And that's my job.