The Bogosity Podcast, early and ad-free!
Become a subscriber at Patreon, SubscribeStar, or Discord.
Use the links at donate.bogosity.tv.
Welcome to the Bogosity Podcast for the week of August 24 2025,
the podcast that shakes its pale fist at the angry stars.
This is your host, Shane Killian.
Next week is the fifth weekend in the month, so no podcast next week;
this will be the last podcast for August. Let's decollate the News of the Bogus.
For those of you who are wondering when prices are going to start coming down after Bidenflation, well,
you're gonna have a while to wait yet, because although the inflation rate has gone down,
that just means that prices are still going up, just not as fast.
In fact, that's only going to get worse if Jerome Powell caves to the demands for a rate cut.
It's the usual Keynesian approach: let's just make a policy of getting easy money
so stock prices and real estate prices can skyrocket ever upward!
And no one ever seems to remember what the inevitable result of all of that is.
In particular, ordinary homeowners and first time homebuyers feel the pinch,
not only in the price of housing but also increased property taxes.
The increase in housing prices results in a higher property tax bill even if the tax rate hasn't gotten any higher.
And the knock-on effects are felt by renters,
since that expense has to ultimately be included in the price of rentals.
Making matters worse is the fact that they're talking about doing this as CPI and PPI keep ticking upward again.
With the S&P 500 near all-time highs, and gold and silver and even crypto experiencing new highs,
the problem with this economy is not a lack of liquidity!
In fact, along with both increasing consumer and producer prices,
we have employment ticking lower, meaning we're beginning to experience stagflation.
Now, according to the media, tariffs are to blame for this, but tariffs,
although they do make prices of many if not most products higher for us, don't actually cause inflation.
It's extremely unlikely we'd see this, even with tariffs, if it weren't for all the excessive liquidity.
The year-on-year CPI has risen for three months in a row,
and month-on-month CPI has risen four months in a row, despite employment stagnating.
When Trump took office, these rates went down—which again means prices weren't going up as fast—but the fact remains,
even that has been undone and we're starting to see CPI increases comparable to what they were back in January.
And as Ron Paul pointed out in an article on mises.org, quote:
"Of course, the CPI numbers are manipulated to understate the true rate, and effects, of inflation.
One way this is done is by 'Chained CPI.'
This is where the government does not consider consumers impacted by price increases
that make their favorite products unaffordable if there are affordable substitutes available—
as if government bureaucrats can determine what is and is not an adequate substitute
for a good made unaffordable by the Federal Reserve."
He also mentions "shrinkflation,"
where product sizes are reduced or products are reformulated to have cheaper ingredients,
meaning consumers aren't getting value for their money but in a way that doesn't show up in the statistics.
And he pointed out that you're probably better informed
if you watch TikTok than if you listen to the government, quote:
"There they will find videos of parents highlighting the burden placed on the family budget
by the skyrocketing price of school supplies.
A survey by Bankrate found that 29 percent of family budgets were strained by the growing costs of school supplies,
while a survey by Intuit Credit Karma found that 44 percent of parents were going into,
or increasing, their family's debt in order to buy their children school supplies.
School supplies prices have even risen at big box retailers like Wal-Mart and Target.
Even Dollar Tree has raised some prices to over a dollar!"
He quipped that this might renew the efforts of politicians to ban TikTok.
The real fix to this is for the Fed to take a hands-off policy and let this liquidity do its job in the market,
even if it means interest rates go up a bit and stocks, gold, and crypto stop their rally.
Consumers are still struggling with the fact that their dollars have lost 25% of their purchasing power since 2020.
They need prices to come down!
Keep your hands off until the inflation rate goes negative.
Presenting: the greatest game this side of Yuggoth!
You are H.P. Lovecraft's cat, and your name is Ni***
...Right. We can't say that on a podcast. Anyway, that's the point: Your name is a joke to him.
So now, you are out for revenge!
Using the Necronomicon, you come to the present day to buy a gun
to vanquish him once and for all.
But the Necronomicon is devious, and it summoned Lovecraft's monsters as well.
Now, in a crumbling world, you must fight for the revenge you seek.
Fight monsters. Gain allies. Buy guns and armor for yourself and your team.
Defeat the bosses of each level.
Then get your revenge against Lovecraft himself.
Play Lovecraft's Cat! The link is at cat.bogosity.tv.
Yeah, we're doing cat.bogosity.tv, not...that other one.
What, you want me to get kicked off the Internet or something?
Okay, good news: Kohls v. Bonta is finally over!
This is the lawsuit over the California law passed in response
to online satire videos poking fun of Kamala Harris and Gavin Newsom.
You know, the one that is such an obvious First Amendment violation it should never have been let in the door?
This suit challenged the constitutionality of the Defending Democracy from Deepfake Deception Act of 2024
and the Deceptive Media in Advertisements Act.
The main video targeted was a deepfake of Kamala Harris saying, quote:
"I was selected as the ultimate diversity hire so if you criticize anything I say you're both sexist and racist."
Despite the fact that the video was explicitly labeled as a parody, Gavin Newsom acted to ban it,
because the real criteria is whether or not you hurt their fee-fees.
Notice they've had nothing to say about the season premiere of South Park,
which featured a deepfake of a fat and naked Donald Trump shambling through a desert.
The lawsuit was filed in September of last year, and was only thrown out a few days ago.
Judge John A. Mendez granted summary judgement to the Plaintiffs
saying that the California law violates and is preempted by Section 230.
He ruled: "It is hereby ordered that Defendants are hereby permanently enjoined from enforcing AB 2655,
in its entirety, against X Corp and Rumble.
Final judgment is entered pursuant to the terms of this Order. It is so ordered.
Now get the hell outa my courtroom!"
Actually, it's not the whole lawsuit that's thrown out.
He didn't rule on the first and third causes in X Corp's complaint, which are that it violates the First Amendment
and it's void for vagueness under the First and 14th Amendments because, quote:
"the statute's requirements and prohibitions are so unintelligible
that X and the other covered platforms cannot understand what the law prohibits."
Just the second, that it violates Section 230.
In a case that, again, should never have been let in the door!
Likewise, counts one and two in Rumble's complaint, free speech and void for vagueness, remain
and only their third count, Section 230 again, was ruled on.
So the question is, where do we go from here? The law should be kaput,
since if it violates Section 230 you don't need any of the others, but that's not the only question here.
There's also the question of the Plaintiffs recovering costs and attorneys' fees.
And then, of course, there's the likelihood that California will appeal.
What else is there? I'll keep you posted, since I'm still subscribed to the RSS feed,
but although it would be nice to have a solid First Amendment ruling against it,
again, this law seems to be dead in the water. And good riddance.
If you're on the Wi-Fi in a coffee shop or hotel,
anyone on that network can get access to your traffic.
Do you really trust all of those strangers?
For that matter, do you really trust your ISP?
A VPN can protect you from prying eyes, disguise your location, and even foil government censors.
It's essential in this day and age, so go to vpn.bogosity.tv and you'll be taken to BoxPN.
Starting at just $2.99/month,
you can get unlimited high-speed connections to VPN servers all over the world,
and they don't log connections so your privacy is assured.
Travelling abroad, just VPN home and don't worry about what those other governments are doing.
Back at home, stop your ISP from traffic-shaping
and messing with the quality internet access you're paying good money for.
You can connect from multiple machines at once, including your smartphone or tablet,
and it supports all the secure standards including OpenVPN and SSTP.
Bypass censors and surveillance with your own secure VPN connection. Go to vpn.bogosity.tv.
And another court decision that took way too long:
the appeals court in New York finally threw out the ridiculous judgement against Trump.
This is that insane case we covered that was brought by state AG Letitia James
and presided over by the completely unhinged Arthur Engoron, the "nipple judge."
Jonathan Turley posted on X:
"There are reports that the New York appellate court has tossed out the absurd civil judgment against Donald Trump.
If true, it is great news for the New York court system
in regaining some of the credibility lost during this litigation.
Notably, both AG Letitia James and Judge Arthur Engoron did their level best
to effectively block an appeal by demanding a ridiculous bond."
The appellate court found that the half a billion dollar penalty,
to be paid to the state of New York even though they weren't damaged in any way,
was excessive and violated the Eighth Amendment.
Turley wrote: "The grotesque award of Judge Engoron will stand as the pinnacle of lawfare in New York—
the utter abandonment of both any reason or restraint in the pursuit of political adversaries."
This is coming as James's disgrace grows since, as we covered, she's facing indictment for mortgage fraud.
It's only a partial win, because although they threw out the penalty,
they upheld Engoron's ridiculous finding that Trump was exaggerating his wealth—
you know, when he said that Mar-A-Lago was only worth $18 million?
In fact, the only judge who made any sense—
who was therefore derided by the other judges, who couldn't even agree on a majority ruling—
was Judge David Friedman, who wrote: "This action essentially turns section 63(12) on its head.
The leniency with which the courts have construed the requirements for pleading and proving fraud—
a leniency that has been extended for the purpose of facilitating the use of the provision
to prevent the exploitation of unsophisticated consumers, investors and small businesses—
is here being used by Attorney General Letitia James
to apply it to a scenario to which that provision has never before been applied, or even thought to apply.
Specifically, to unwind complex financial transactions that were negotiated, face-to-face and at arm's length,
between a privately held real estate organization
and ultra-sophisticated banks, insurance companies and government entities,
which were advised by equally sophisticated lawyers, accountants, and other business professionals.
The Attorney General complains, and Supreme Court found,
that the statements of financial condition that President Trump provided to the counterparties
in connection with the transactions at issue overvalued certain of his assets.
However, each of the SFCs included written disclaimers advising, in no uncertain terms,
that President Trump's valuations of his various properties
were estimates that had not been audited and were not beyond dispute.
Each counterparty was further warned that it should do its own due diligence
and draw its own conclusions about President Trump's net worth, which each counterparty actually did,
as it was obligated to do for its own protection as a matter of New York law.
Moreover, President Trump paid all the principal, interest, and premiums he owed,
and no counterparty ever registered any complaint about the deals
before the Attorney General began publicly accusing President Trump of issuing fraudulent SFCs.
Had any counterparty been dissatisfied with its transaction,
it would have had the incentive and resources to seek redress
for violation of its rights through private litigation— litigation that, according to the Attorney General,
would have yielded scores of millions of dollars of damages in some cases. No such lawsuit was ever filed."
And all of that should be more than enough for any reasonable person to realize how ridiculous it is,
and how, if this case is allowed to stand, practically anyone in the state could be charged with fraud.
And remember: when a law is so broad that it can catch so many people that they can't all be prosecuted,
they inevitably will be selectively prosecuted.
Of the other judges, Friedman wrote:
"Two of my colleagues have cited scores of cases in an attempt to shoehorn this case into section 63(12).
They have gone so far as to claim that the Attorney General, by bringing this action,
has possibly saved the world from a replay of the financial meltdown of 2008; how this might be is not explained.
Despite their efforts, they are unable to point to a single precedent—not even one—
for the use of section 63(12) to target transactions such as those at issue here.
The Attorney General simply failed to prove her case.
Accordingly, I would reverse the judgment and dismiss the complaint.
Thus, while I concur in the decretal's vacatur of the constitutionally unsound
(and otherwise defective) half-billion dollar disgorgement award,
I respectfully dissent insofar as the decretal affirms the judgment as to liability
and as to the award of nonmonetary relief to the Attorney General."
And that's a weird thing that can happen when you don't have a majority opinion, quote:
"I find it remarkable that, although a three-justice majority of this five-justice panel believe
that the judgment in favor of the Attorney General should not stand,
as she has not carried her burden of proving a violation of the statute,
the result of the appeal is the affirmance of the judgment, albeit as modified to eliminate the disgorgement award.
To draw a sports analogy, it is as if a team is awarded a touchdown without crossing the goal line."
But as Turley pointed out, quote:
"The court will allow injunctive relief to stand. Trump can now appeal the residual elements left in the case.
However, James's trophy catch has now gone from a mounted Marlin to a guppy."
But they really need to do more than that if they want to make New York at all attractive to businesses again.
If lawfare that blatant is allowed to stand, what person in his right mind would start a business in the state?
Friedman made that very point, quote:
"The precedent for arbitrary, selective, politically motivated use of section 63(12)
this Court is creating by placing its stamp of approval on the judgment in this case
will deter those doing business in the state from opposing the Attorney General and her party politically,
whether through speaking out, running for office, making political donations,
or any other form of political involvement.
Moreover, as several of the amici point out,
our approval of the Attorney General's unprecedented use of section 63(12)
is likely to deter business investment in our state.
This case shows that this concern is not just theoretical."
So once again, if you were cheering on this lawfare because Orange Man Bad, you are part of the problem.
And you are pretty much the definition of the label "fascist" you would put on to him and his supporters.
I want to tell you about the eyeglasses I've been wearing for years.
As people can see on my videos, I have a very strong prescription,
which makes glasses more expensive, especially when I need computer glasses,
reading glasses, prescription sunglasses,
and most expensively, progressive lenses for general everyday wear.
To save money while still getting quality glasses, I get them from Firmoo.
In fact, I just got a pair of progressives with high index aspherical lenses
in a nice pair of frames my wife loves, for just over $100.
It would have been $500 to get them through my eye doctor.
Not only do they look good, the glasses are durable.
I've worn many pairs for several years without problems.
All orders come with a 30-day return policy,
a 3-month warranty, and one-on-one customer service.
Go to firmoo.bogosity.tv any time you need quality glasses at a low price.
Once again, that's firmoo.bogosity.tv.
And now it's time to precontemplate this week's Biggest Bogon Emitter.
And it's another one for content cartels such as the MPA and the RIAA, this time through other intermediaries,
but still going after Cox because they wouldn't bend the knee to their holy DMCA decrees.
We've been covering the case as it's been going on over all these years,
with some ways that Cox has won and other ways they've lost, and this is another win.
This is regarding a shortcut the content cartels like to take to the DMCA subpoena requirement.
Under the DMCA, they don't have to file a lawsuit directly against the infringer,
because they often won't know who they are initially.
So the law allows them to request a subpoena, signed by a court clerk,
with no judicial oversight, unlike every other subpoena.
This horrendous travesty of justice lets them obtain
the personal details of alleged infringers from third-party services,
including ISPs and social media platforms,
basically for no other reason than because the media company says so.
But apparently, even that isn't good enough for them.
Within just a couple of years of the DMCA's passage,
the RIAA used a shortcut around this process to go after tens of thousands of alleged pirates all at once.
Instead of trying to get a subpoena against specific alleged infringers,
they use this process to get a subpoena against a service provider,
forcing them to turn over the identities of thousands of users all at once.
The ISPs countered, saying that they were mere conduits and don't actually store any content.
Several courts such as the DC Circuit Court agreed, and the practice was pretty much banned.
So then, if they want to go after downloaders, they have to file a complaint and get a proper subpoena.
Now, these rightsholders are trying to resurrect the practice.
Court clerks, ignoring circuit precedent, are back to granting subpoena requests
requiring ISPs to identify hundreds or even thousands of alleged pirates.
Cox is now once again defending against such a subpoena, saying that these subpoenas don't apply to mere conduits.
The Hawaii District Court agreed with Cox last year and quashed the subpoena.
So a bunch of film companies including Capstone Studios and Millennium Funding appealed to the Ninth Circuit,
who smacked them down yet again.
They ruled that a DMCA subpoena is "inextricably intertwined" with the notice-and-takedown practice.
So such a subpoena can only be issued following a takedown notice.
And since ISPs don't actually store any content,
there's nothing for them to take down, so takedown notices don't apply to them.
The film companies argued that the mere act of assigning IP addresses and routing traffic
constituted "linking" subscribers to infringing content.
The Court rejected that, saying that it would completely undo all of the safe harbor protections.
They also rejected the film companies' argument that Cox could disable access via port blocking or null routing,
because that wouldn't actually remove infringing content from anywhere.
This also allays concerns of the EFF,
who submitted an amicus brief saying that allowing such subpoenas would empower copyright trolls
and lead to coercive settlements against innocent Internet users.
The MPA and the RIAA wanted the court to issue a more narrow ruling
that would allow an ISP to function as a link under the DMCA and pierce safe harbor.
But the Ninth Circuit wasn't playing along with the cartels.
They affirmed that a mere conduit such as an ISP doesn't link to or refer any user to any infringing material. Quote:
"Capstone cites to no case or other authority that outlines the types of service providers
that 'refer or link' users to infringing material within the meaning of § 512(d),
but a basic understanding of IP addresses and P2P networking defeats Capstone's argument.
Connecting a user to the Internet and assigning the user an IP address does not 'link' or 'refer' the user anywhere,
much less to a particular location containing infringing material.
Following Capstone's logic, an ISP's assignment of an IP address to a user
would also 'link' or 'refer' that user to all locations on the Internet,
including all those containing illicit and illegal content.
If every ISP 'links' or 'refers' its users to infringing material
merely by assigning an IP address and providing Internet service,
then the § 512(d) safe harbor would completely swallow the § 512(a) safe harbor.
We reject Capstone's argument."
Now, this decision applies to a residential ISP,
and not necessarily to, say, CDNs such as Cloudflare, but all in all, a good ruling.
If you want to allege that someone committed a crime and get their personal information,
you have to actually file in court to get a subpoena. That's as it should be.
That's not as the authors of the DMCA wanted it to be, but fortunately, less tyrannical heads are prevailing.
If only they would do that with the rest of the DMCA as well.
So all of that makes the content cartels this week's Biggest Bogon Emitter.
Do you have children? Or nieces or nephews?
Are you homeschooling, or just want to counter
some of the socialist indoctrination most children get in school?
If so, go to bogosity.tv/tuttletwins, and you'll be taken to a website
where you can get some great books for elementary-aged children.
The Tuttle Twins books are books about liberty and free market economics
that include children's versions of Bastiat's The Law, Leonard Read's I, Pencil,
and Hayek's The Road to Serfdom, as well as books about the Federal Reserve
and how regulations protect business cronies.
They'll learn about the harm caused by eminent domain,
or regulations passed in the name of safety, and fundamental concepts of liberty.
And as you can see from the sample pages on the website,
they're all easy to read and nicely illustrated.
They're just $9.99 apiece, or get a special discount
as well as free bonuses when you purchase all five.
You can even buy in bulk to donate to schools and local libraries.
So get the Tuttle Twins books at bogosity.tv/tuttletwins.
And now let's perambulatorificationalify this week's Idiot Extraordinaire.
I haven't been to Cracker Barrel in decades, but I remember the experience.
To be honest, the experience is probably better than the food, unless you stick to breakfasts.
But oh, man, that chicken fried steak!
But as it is, I don't think I'll be going again as long as this current crowd is in charge.
I'm expecting the food to be as bland and as ordinary as fish 'n' chips.
At least, if the graphic design is anything to go by. They've released their new logo,
where they've basically taken away everything that makes Cracker Barrel Cracker Barrel.
No more man leaning against a barrel, no more "old country store,"
just the words Cracker Barrel against an unimaginative background shape.
It's just one in a series of completely bland brand makeovers that seems to be the trend these days.
It's like the Brutalism movement, but for logos!
It's done under the "leadership" (and I use the term loosely) of CEO Julie Felss Masino,
who could not possibly have misunderstood her company's product any more,
or how her customers would react to it.
Inside and out, Cracker Barrels sing of the old-time rural south.
The rustic architecture, the gift shop you have to go through on your way to the restaurant,
to even the wooden tables and chairs are like joining in a piece of Americana.
And now, they've even unveiled the look of their new stores! And it's actual Brutalist architecture!
Seriously, it's like a sterilized piece of a skyscraper
with flat grey walls and large panes of glass, with plastic chairs and tables.
Hell, if we wanted that, we'd just go to Denny's!
Almost immediately, the stock tanked 10%!
As one Xer posted: "Cracker Barrel didn't just lose its logo. It lost its soul.
Under a CEO more obsessed with DEI quotas than country charm,
they've: Scrubbed the iconic logo; Remodeled 70+ stores into sterile showroom knockoffs;
Pledged $700 million to erase every trace of what made it feel like home;
And according to a civil rights complaint, they're openly discriminating against white employees.
This isn't modernization. It's extermination of Americana, of warmth, of memory.
Congratulations, Cracker Barrel. You're now Woke Barrel. Nobody asked for this."
To show you how clueless Masino is, she said in an interview:
MASINO: Honestly, the feedback's been overwhelmingly positive that people like what we're doing.
I'll give you another soundbite. I actually happened to be in Orlando last week with all of our managers.
We bring them together every other year.
And the number one question that I got asked, Michael, was,
how can I get a remodel? When can I get a remodel? How do I get on the list?
So, because the feedback and the buzz is so good, not only from our customers,
but from our team members. They want to work in a wonderful restaurant.
So, we're doing everything for our guests and our team members.
KILLIAN: Lady, you lost over $100 million in shareholder value in one day! How clueless can you get?
As more than one person observed: Did they learn nothing from Bud Lite?
Other restaurants like Steak 'n Shake joined in. They posted to X:
"It is convenient for the company to blame the logo and the historical decor for its woes
rather than address its underlying problems— service, portion size, product quality, and price.
The CEO talks about the great 'buzz' generated by changing the decor, but she cannot point to improving results.
Until she is replaced, a great American brand will continue to decline."
In other posts, they called for the CEO to be fired
and said that the execs don't understand their customers or their product.
It got the ire of people like Sean Davis, who wrote in The Federalist:
"The stupid rebrand in which executives stripped
every last bit of charm and character from the company and its restaurants and stores
was just the latest in a long line of attempts to set money on fire
by breaking what didn't need to be fixed and refusing to fix what was obviously broken."
He pointed out how, like so many other places, the quality of the food and service took a nosedive after COVID,
thanks to a combination of supply chains being permanently destroyed,
together with 100 years worth of quality improvements and now having to start over,
to a generation of people who think this "work" thing is just too much to ask of them.
Quote: "Those are admittedly tricky problems to fix,
especially given how service quality everywhere has sucked after COVID.
It's hard to find wait staff and cooks who always show up when they're supposed to and take pride in their work.
Cracker Barrel executives refused to address those problems—
problems that any customer would've pointed out had they bothered to ask.
Instead, the executives went all-in on woke alphabet BS: DEI this, BLM that, LGBT whatever.
Because that's what people want at an old country diner:
gay race communism shoved in their faces."
But lest you think this is just an anti-woke thing, even the Democrats are joining in the roasting!
The Democratic Party posted on X an image of Norman Rockwell's
"Freedom of Speech" painting (that's been memed to death), and said:
"We think the Cracker Barrel rebrand sucks, too."
And even Gavin Newsom joined in, quote:
"What is wrong with Cracker Barrel? Keep your beautiful logo!!!
The new one looks like cheap Velveeta 'cheese' from Walmart!"
(Huh, he thinks Velveeta is the cheap cheese...)
But that's how much of a bad idea this is:
the complaints are coming regardless of religious or political affiliation.
Either that, or the Democrats figure that's just what the cool kids are doing.
Either way, it's not good for Cracker Barrel.
As Davis put it: "Cracker Barrel had the simplest restaurant model possible,
and it was one that made people fall and stay in love with the brand for decades:
comfort food in a setting that reminded you of your grandparents' home.
The food was good, the people were kind,
and the setting felt like a loving home filled with people who cared about each other. That was it.
And the moronic executives who've now destroyed something like $2 billion worth of that company's value since 2020
have decided the last little bit of charm left in the place needed to have its soul ripped out
and covered up with shiplap and geometric artwork and consultant-approved off-white paint."
I guess at "Haaaahvard" they don't teach you thinks like,
understanding your customer base, understanding your business model,
or having any sort of concept of what your business is even for.
Just make everything all the same. That's good business somehow.
So all of that makes Cracker Barrel this week's Idiot Extraordinaire.
Well, that wraps up this "We need no uncouth interloper from the north" edition of the Bogosity Podcast.
I hope you enjoyed it; if you did, please go to donate.bogosity.tv for several ways to support,
and discord.bogosity.tv to join the discussion.
Subscribe at the Discord, Patreon, or SubscribeStar and you can listen early and ad-free.
Thank you for listening. Remember: no podcast next week, so we'll see you in September.
Until then, here's a quote from Milton Friedman:
"Inflation is the one form of taxation that can be imposed without legislation."
The Bogosity Podcast is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives
4.0 International license.