You're listening to Civic Media.
You can tune into any of our live shows on any radio station across the state with the Civic Media app.
Find us in your phone's app store and listen anytime,
anywhere.
phone number that's the text line but you don't want to use that text line now you want to get your civic media app out because it is time for the first word of the day in the break into spring multi-state text to win contest that's a mouthful what it means is you're going to text a word on using your app and you are going to qualify for a chance to win $200 today
or an unbelievable grand prize that we will give away after the end of the week, Jamie, which includes what?
Oh, this is a good one.
It is a new mattress set, courtesy of Verlo.
It is about almost a $1,400 value.
That's going to include your queen V3 plush medium mattress.
You're going to get your set of sheets.
You're going to get a mattress pad protector to fit and two of those queen size active dough pillows.
So a very nice grand prize.
And so I think without further
we should probably give the word that people need to text.
I will give you the honors this first go around this
morning.
Oh, well, thank you so much.
The word is check.
Check.
C-H-E-C-K.
Five letters today.
Don't panic.
Check.
Like, check your text.
messages c-h-e-c-k check is the word you'll have until eight o'clock to use that and then be listening throughout the rest of the day because the word changes every couple hours and you can enter more than once for your chance to win oh here
we go
texting in already remember you have to use the civic media app
which you can
download anywhere for free so get there and do that so we will remind you a few more times but the word for this hour is
Check, C-H-E-C-K.
Our listeners are always right on.
Check
your spelling if you have big thumbs like me.
Our listeners are always right on top of this.
You guys are awesome.
So keep those texts coming.
And without further ado, I'm so excited to hear this
because
we've got some headlines, which means it's time for stuff you need to know.
Well, we can't say that but you know the big-voice guy who can't we can say it once
Which is fine
Why, Parker, you don't know where the dump button
is?
No, I know where it is.
I just worry.
All right.
We'll get ready.
All right, let's
start things off.
Governor Evers signed a bill that shores up food share, but oh, it also bans that sugary food.
Wisconsin will ban food share or snap recipients from using benefits to buy candy and soft drinks under a new bipartisan law signed by Governor Evers.
The law also includes funding and staffing for the state to meet new federal requirements, which shift more costs.
and rules on to the states to enforce the ban.
The state must get federal approval and create a system to track which foods are eligible for purchase.
Supporters say the change promotes healthier eating while critics argue that it limits personal choice and could affect people who rely on certain foods for health or energy.
And I will put myself in the latter column.
Yeah,
I don't think limiting people's choice is a good move.
The governor also didn't think it was a good
move, but because of everything else
that
goes with the federal government and the strings they have put on the funding, it kind of forced his hand.
Absolutely.
In other headlines, if you've been paying attention to the plane crash at LaGuardia that happened earlier this week, there's some updates.
A runway warning system failed to sound an alarm moments before that Air Canada jet and that fire truck collided while the plane was landing at New York's LaGuardia Airport, according to federal investigators.
Transportation Safety Board Chairwoman Jennifer Hammendi said during a news conference that the system didn't work as intended because the fire truck did not have a transponder.
While the NTSB hasn't recommended that vehicles on airport grounds have transponders, they should, according to Hammendi.
Investigators don't know yet whether the two people in the fire truck heard the control tower's frantic last second warnings to stop before pulling into the plane's path, according to the Secretary.
to the chairwoman.
Wow.
And to paraphrase Obi-Wan Kenobi, the hypocrisy is strong in this one.
President Trump voted in Tuesday's Florida State House special election
by mail.
That's right, even as he suggested on Monday that mail-in voting means mail-in cheating.
You know, this is a quote from the president.
You know, it was brought to my attention today that we're the only country that does mail-in voting.
He said it around table in Memphis.
He went on to say mail-in voting means mail-in cheating.
I call it mail-in cheating, and we got to do something about it.
I'm going to vote first.
According to Palm Beach County records, Trump voted in the special election for House District 87, which includes his Mar-a-Lago residence, which we reported earlier, has now flipped to a Democrat.
So he mailed his ballot in early.
He was mailed earlier
this
month.
Somebody mailed it for him.
I don't know if he knows where a mailbox would be, but Trump also voted by mail in the primary for the election in January.
weird, isn't it?
Trump has repeatedly questioned the veracity of voting by mail claiming without evidence that it's a significant source of election fraud.
He has made the elimination of no excuse mail voting a top priority through the Save America Act.
It's good enough for me, but not for the is the I think he has that tattooed on his chest because man, oh man, you couldn't you
If you were trying to write a dictionary definition of hypocrisy, you couldn't write it better than this last story.
Well, let's be clear.
Even in the days when he has been so against any sort, when he's talked about election fraud, when he has talked so much about all of the fraud in the election, this is not his first time doing a mail-in voting,
as you
rightly pointed out.
He's done it in multiple elections and it's always worked for him because he's always in Florida, but he's still registered to vote in New York.
So just in case anybody's wondering why and how that's working out in his favor.
Again,
he can do it, the rest of us should not be allowed to though.
It's okay.
Right.
Because it's, you know, and again, just, you know, sometimes, sometimes I know we're repeating.
Yeah.
But it's, sometimes you have to
repeat.
It's worth
repeating.
It's like when kids are learning how to do so.
You, you repetition, repetition.
Yes, there is no, there has been no proof of any kind of fraud.
Right.
So he's gotta, you won't stop.
But we're not going to put up with it.
Every time he says it, we're going to remind you that there is there is no fraud.
Very, very less than
What's
the 1%?
Yeah, it's so minuscule.
And let's also be clear, every accusation that he has made that has been taken to the courts has been proven false by the court.
So they haven't been able to find anything at this particular point.
And when you re-litigate something that many times and you still haven't found anything, I mean, give it up for his tenacity, though.
Well, what's the definition of insanity?
Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
So if you want to go that way, I think we know.
We also know here in Wisconsin and across the country and across the globe probably, farming is a tough business.
We talk about it all the time, what farmers are going through and now they've been dealing with these tariffs.
So it's very hard.
Well,
More bad news for farmers.
The USDA is cutting hundreds of millions of dollars from a program that helped farmers, especially new and underserved ones,
buy and keep their land.
The program funded by the American Rescue Plan had about $300 million set aside for around 50 projects across the country, which sounds great.
Funding was meant to last five years that started in 2023.
Well, these projects will run by nonprofits, tribal governments, and local groups to help farmers with things like access to land, loans, markets, planning for the future.
focused heavily on farmers who have historically faced barriers, including black farmers, indigenous farmers, immigrants, veterans, and other underrepresented groups.
But now it is canceling the funding because it believes the program relies too much on, here it comes, buckling for the buzzwords of the day.
It's almost like pistol people wrote this because everybody hates diversity, equity, and inclusion.
So because of that, all right.
The whole program is based on underserved people.
There's no way to help underserved people without having diversity.
It's part of the definition.
So stop with this DEI garbage.
But that's the justification they used.
So farmers, sorry.
But we tried to help all farmers, not just white farmers, and so that makes us
woke.
Right.
And officials say that they are reviewing grants to make sure that they align with this new policy focus on merit-based and colorblind funding, as they like to call it.
Now, how do you help certain groups by being colorblind?
It's the antithesis of what the program is set up for.
you know, and when you look at what farming is and how it's changing and evolving, like think about Wisconsin for just a moment, right?
When we talk about these DEI policies, the growth of women in agriculture just here alone in the state is overwhelming.
Almost over 37,000 female producers, about 35% of farmers in the state are female right now, and they're one of the fastest growing groups, especially in areas like your organic and your specialty farming.
So when you roll back
programs that are meant to help underrepresented farmers, that's also going to include women.
Well, they have no problem rolling back things for women.
This is true.
We know this.
We've seen this happen time and time again.
But it's just another example of, you know, here in Wisconsin, I look specifically because we are such an agriculture or agricultural state.
The number of minority farmers in this state is only in the few hundreds.
But it is growing among other groups like your females.
And so if you're going to roll back these DEI programs in order to make it easy.
year for them, then you're essentially taking away.
areas for them to expand their farms.
And the other part about this is that I think is really interesting is farming is no longer when we think about it, right?
We think of cows and pigs and growing the crops.
And that's not exactly what it is, especially here in Wisconsin.
I mean, you think about the fact that we have our cranberry farms.
There are specialty farms that grow things like that raise alpacas for the wool.
We have our lavender farms in this
So this actually undiversifies, which I know is the goal, but it also undiversifies a lot of what we're able to do.
And it takes away a large part of the economy as well that we are starting to see and grow here in the state of Wisconsin.
And maybe we wouldn't need these kind of programs if underserved factions of society had been taken care of in the first place.
Right.
But...
It just it's maddening just like everything else.
There's really that There's nothing that comes out of this administration that makes you feel better about yourself, right?
There's nothing going back to what I said earlier.
There's nothing that comes out of this administration that really helps People just just regular citizens and as much as we rely on agriculture to cut this because of again
It's this culture war thing that they blame the Democrats for all the time, but they are the party that hangs on to this stuff non-stop.
it's stop there aren't there aren't transgender people going into bathrooms to molest people there's just because you give an indigenous farmer a loan because their community has not been served or you give a female farmer or a farmer of color a loan doesn't mean you're taking it away from everybody else
You gotta stop with this culture war stuff all the time because it's tiring, it's lazy, and it is nobody is buying it anymore except for your died-in-the-wool cult followers.
But I think that's just it.
It's always about creating some sort of them against us kind of mentality.
And that's what this administration did during the first presidency.
And that's what they've been trying to they've wanted to do and have been successful at doing, especially among a lot of their their more fervent voters.
There are a lot of
agreed, aggrieved people out there.
Everybody.
Oh, everybody's got somebody who's coming after them and keeping them down.
Maybe you're maybe you're down because bad luck, bad planning.
It's not always somebody else's fault and sometimes it's out of your control, too.
Things just happen.
It's not always somebody else's fault.
All right, no soapbox for at least to the bottom of the hour because we're going to swipe or stay after this on the Civic Key Network.
You're listening to Civic Media.
Stay up to date on the latest news and information for your local community and Wisconsin by signing up for our free email newsletter.
Visit civicmedia.us slash email to get
started.
Thank you so much for joining us today on the Civic Media Network.
It is time to put away the political headlines for just a few moments and talk about something that has nothing to do with politics.
And we will always take that moment.
Our producer Frank joins us.
It's another edition of Swiper's Day.
How are you today?
I'm doing well.
Parker just asked me if we have great stories for today's Swiper's Day.
Well, yesterday you
undersold it.
Yesterday you were like, oh, they're fine.
Did you think they were
good?
No, we thought they were good, but you
said
at the beginning of the segment, they're fine.
You pretty much add them.
You were like, yeah.
Yeah, you didn't you didn't build it up yesterday.
So Parker's question is apt
based on
your past performance.
You know, it's a valid question.
It is.
Today's story is good.
I'm going to let you guys decide.
Okay.
Nice.
Good.
I like
it.
Swipers say if you've never listened before, I'm going to give Brian and Jamie some vague pop culture headlines.
They're going to have to decide whether to
Stay or swipe on to the next one in the case that they can't make up their minds.
Parker will be our tiebreaker.
Let's move on to story numero uno.
Stephen Colbert has a new job.
Oh,
I know this one will stay.
I'll stay anyway.
Um, yeah, I'll stay.
I like Colbert.
So Stephen Colbert is moving on after his last show on CBS and is set to become a co-writer for a new Lord of the Rings movie.
Oh,
really?
Well, I know
the big Lord of the Rings.
Today also National Tolkien Reading Day.
Is it really?
Yes.
I'm gonna be honest, I've never seen a movie.
Not one.
I've never read a book.
Oh, you just hurt Parker.
My goodness.
Parker is hurting genuinely
right now.
Parker can finally yell at me for not watching the movie.
Yeah, how about it?
I understand
though, because it is a major time investment.
Those movies are long, very long.
I've watched, I went and saw the movies in the theater when they came out, but
they are
long.
I real real quick sidebar, and I know I shouldn't do this, but this is a good story.
Yeah, it's your bit.
It's, I'm reclaiming my time, Brian.
All right.
It's such a time investment that on my flight home from Paris, there was a man in front of me in line to board the plane, mansplaining to a woman in front of him about the Lord of the Rings movies and the order and why they're good and why she should watch them and how it will take up her entire plane ride.
Nerd.
Another thing, they're very, very, the characters are very intricate.
And Soren is evil.
And so what about Gollum?
He's very fun.
Great work, Parker.
At least it
wasn't aimed at me this time.
It
wasn't.
I think that might be a first.
That was groundbreaking.
That might be a first.
An
anonymous man in the airport.
But yeah, this will be Lord of the Rings, Shadow of the Past, and this will come after Lord of the Rings, the Hunt for Golem, which is already in production.
Peter Jackson, who wrote and directed the first trilogy, will also be working on these movies.
Very cool.
I know this is like his dream come true.
So good for Colbert.
Yeah.
All right, we have a former SNL cast member throwing shade at the new cast.
Swipe old news.
I'm going to swipe.
OK.
Steve Carell says an A-list actor told him not to do the office.
Oh, interesting.
Stay.
Yeah, I'll stay.
That's bad advice.
Horrible advice.
So we almost didn't have Steve Carell as Michael Scott, the titular character in the US version of the office.
The fun part is his friend Paul Rudd was the one to tell him to not audition for the US version.
Why was Paul Rudd auditioning for it?
He was not.
So Steve Carell said on a podcast recently that Rudd pulled him aside and said, don't do it, man.
Don't don't audition.
There is no way.
And the reason he said that is because he felt that Steve Carell could never live up to the performance by Ricky Gervais in the UK version of the office.
Interesting.
Valid concern.
Yeah.
Did not pan out that way.
But.
But also.
And I'm not a huge fan of the office, so take that for what it's worth.
But I do know that it ran a super long time, I think, during my entire formative years.
And the UK version is only like three seasons long.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Well, that's most most UK shows are not very long, a couple of seasons.
Did you watch the UK version, Brian?
I made it through the first two seasons, and then I bailed.
I'm
one of those.
I
was like,
all right, I get it.
Did you watch the US version?
Yes.
OK, see?
So would you say the US version was better?
Frank, I'm American.
What do you think?
That's right.
That's right.
We did not throw you into the harbor.
I love this
country, Frank.
Don't get it twisted.
Uh, we have a lot of comedians in the news today.
We have a comedian taking aim at late night television.
Swipe.
I want to hear this, Parker.
You're up to
debate and swiping.
Wow.
I knew it.
Two swipes.
All right.
We do have three stories.
Sweatin.
This is the last one, guys.
So take that for what it's worth.
We have a popular spin-off that premiered this past weekend with much success.
I guess we
have
to
stay.
You're staying now.
Back to UK versus US television.
Saturday Night Live UK premiered this past weekend with Tina Fey as its first host.
It's the exact same format as the American version, including a monologue, skits, weekend update, and musical guests.
The only difference is all curse words are allowed.
Yes.
Yeah.
Did you guys watch it?
I did not.
I have not yet.
Awesome.
Is it?
OK.
It's really good.
I think one they haven't done it yet in the UK.
So you have so many fresh ideas to play off of.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Like they did a skit with a bunch of like UK icons at dinner like Princess Diana and Freddie Mercury.
So it was.
Like I said, there's so many things that they can do.
And the fact that they can just say whatever they want.
I was surprised they hadn't
done it
before.
I mean, 50 years of Saturday Night Live in the United States.
And you would have thought that it would have rubbed off sooner than later, but
better late
than ever.
UKSNL is like the in and out rumors.
Like there's a new rumor every year that in and out's coming this way.
And I feel like SNL UK was like that for years, except they finally did it.
Parker has given me the wrap up sign.
That's why per se.
Thank you Frank.
Always a pleasure.
We do it every day at 722 30 if you want to be exact if not somewhere around 720
Good morning and thank you so much for joining us today on the civic media network.
My name is Jamie Martenson
And I'm Brian Noonan and we want to remind you you've got about 25 minutes to enter the break into spring multi-state text-to-win contest here on Civic Media.
We are giving away $200 cash a day.
It might be a check.
I don't know how it comes.
It's money.
It's real money.
You'll get that.
And then you are qualified if you win or even if you enter, you're qualified.
to win the grand prize, which is a new mattress set from Verlo.
It's queen size mattress.
You get the sheets, you get the mattress protector, you get two active dough pillows.
That's worth almost $1,400.
So do that and Jamie.
The word has not changed
since
we did it at seven o'clock, correct?
It has not changed.
And so get your civic media app pulled out because you can only enter through that, which is a little reminder that even if you don't have it available to you right now, you need it for the rest of today and for the rest of the week because you only have a couple of more days to qualify for this contest.
But your word this hour is check.
C-H-E-C-K.
Check.
That is the word that you need to text us before eight o'clock.
So you have about 24 minutes to get us that word if we want to be exact in how that's going to
go
down.
And you can qualify for, as Brian said, some cash or maybe even that grand prize mattress set.
But again, your word until eight o'clock is check, C-H-E-C-K.
And while we're waiting, we're going to talk to Charles Franklin about the New Mar Cut Law School poll that came out yesterday.
But while we're waiting, and in a generous mood, we need to tell you this, too.
Jamie, I'm excited about this because you know tomorrow's opening day.
It is.
Now, tomorrow we don't have opening day tickets.
but tomorrow we are going to give away two pairs of Brewer's tickets for we're not going to tell you what game we know what game
we
do but we're not
going to tell
you until tomorrow but it is a good game so we're going to give you two pairs of tick give away two pairs of tickets we're going to do that with another game Frank has concocted a game that
Sounds fantastic.
We're going to test it out later today off the air.
We actually have to do it.
It's so good we have to do a rehearsal because Frank
doesn't
trust us to just do it for the first time on the air.
That's probably, that's probably for the best.
Yeah.
And these are not, I mentioned this yesterday, these are not shrub seats.
No.
These are not budget, budget-friendly seats.
You're
sitting, well, you've sat in these
seats before.
Yes, they're great
seats.
I am not bougie.
I am
a
man of the people.
They are the club seats at Amfam Field, which means you're going to be elevated a little bit, and you're going to be able to see the entire field from a little bit of a higher level, which is really, really fun.
You get the nice backing and all of that good stuff.
And these are also the really great seats that if you have that MLB Ballpark app, which
you will need to win tickets tomorrow too, by the way.
So that's a little reminder to sign
up for that.
Remember the
email and all of that good stuff because that's how we'll transfer you those tickets if you happen to be a winner tomorrow.
But you can sit down, you can order some food from the ballpark and they'll bring it right to the seat.
So it's a very nice way to watch a game and watch the Brewers at Amfam Field.
So be ready for that tomorrow.
Yes, and speaking of the Brewers, we're going to talk to Marty Ronsky at 8.35.
She is the COO for the Brewers, a lot of new stuff coming up, and we will answer some of your pressing questions, hopefully, but mostly tell you all the new things that are coming this season at Amphanfield.
Parker, what's the situation?
I keep trying to find some
updates in
our chat.
I'm not seeing any,
so you're going to have to
actually tell us what's going on.
I'm
not 100%
sure right now.
Charles, can you hear us?
Yeah, I've got you now.
Can you
hear me?
Yes, we can.
We
were having a few technical issues there, so we were letting everybody work through that.
But we're so glad that you're here.
Of course, we are joined this morning by Charles Franklin.
He is the professor of law and public policy and the director of the Marquette Law School poll.
You had a new poll that dropped yesterday about the Trump presidency, about the Supreme Court races.
And Charles, we'll just dive right in here.
actually joined us just a few weeks ago when your February poll came out and at that time about two-thirds of voters were undecided.
Now here we are in March, nearly half still haven't made up their minds.
Is that number surprising to you given how close we are to this current election for the Supreme Court justices?
Yeah, it's a higher number undecided than what we normally see two weeks out from an election.
As we said in February, people have been slow to tune into this race.
However, they have begun to tune in between February and March.
Attention to the race went up.
That undecided fell from two thirds undecided to about half.
Still, that's a lot of undecideds at this point.
But people are beginning to tune in to the to the race.
It just doesn't come close to comparing to where we were a year ago in that massive spending of the 2025 race.
At that point in February last year, 39% had heard or read a lot about the election.
This year, even now in March, it's only 12% that have heard a lot.
That's double.
It was only 6% a month ago.
And about 50% say they've heard a little about the race.
We're not completely in the dark about it.
Still, there's a big difference between $100 million being spent in last year's race, and I don't know what it'll end up being, but it's a whole lot less this year.
Charles, is it just the awareness of the race that's driving this indecision?
And also, is it split the indecision between by parties?
Is one party more indecisive than others?
Yeah, if we look at all registered voters, then Republicans are kind of noticeably less decided than Democratic voters.
But if we narrow it down to likely voters, which I think makes sense two weeks out, is to look at likely voters.
Then we have a little more indecision for Republicans, but not a lot more.
It's
43% undecided among Democrats.
It's 48% undecided for Republicans with likely voters.
Excuse me.
So a five point difference.
Where we really see a big difference is in enthusiasm and certainty of voting.
Democrats have a substantial advantage in being sure they're going to vote.
77% of Democrats saying they're certain they're going to vote.
Only 59% of Republicans do.
Now, as I warned people yesterday, it is still two weeks out.
This number can change.
Republicans can tune in and turn out at a higher rate, and that would tighten the margin in the race.
On the other hand, where it stands right now,
Democrats have a significant turnout advantage.
They're also more enthusiastic about the election.
They also are more likely to say the race is important.
So all of these things point to why Democrats have been so successful in April elections for the last several years.
Charles, do you think at this stage when we're talking about the Supreme Court races, and we'll talk about the gubernatorial race in just a few moments, but do you think voters are just wanting more information at this point?
I mean, it's only two weeks out, or are the campaigns just not breaking through like they did because of the spending last go-around?
I think some of it is not breaking through.
Folks like us and the audience out there, we pay attention to this stuff all the time.
But for a fair number of people, and especially for spring elections, they find out that an election's coming on when a commercial interrupts their favorite TV show.
They find out inadvertently, rather than as a result of going out and seeking information about the race.
So when you have huge spending like last year or even in the election before that,
more people become aware of the race inadvertently and then pay some attention to it.
This year with that much lower ad volume, I think less of that has been taking place.
We're talking to Charles Franklin, professor of law and public policy and the director of the Marquette Law School poll.
Charles, one of the
criteria, for lack of a better term, that I'm always interested in is the favorability rating.
So how are these two Supreme Court candidates doing as far as favorability?
And what goes into the favorability rating?
It's a simple question.
Here's a list of names.
And in the case of the court candidates, we preface it by saying, here are people who are running for the state Supreme Court.
So we know we're letting people know that that's what these names mean Do you have a favorable or an unfavorable view or haven't you heard enough to have an opinion yet?
And on that question Like stick with likely voters 46% say they haven't formed an opinion yet So it's still quite a high number on the
favorability for each of them, there's a net favorability of minus five for Lazare, meaning five points more unfavorable than favorable.
For Chris Taylor, it's a five point positive favorability rating.
So the result is about a 10 point gap between them in favorability.
Looking at this back to October, both of them were just a point or two net negative in October.
Taylor has become positive over time.
Lazar has trended negative, but neither of them are hugely negative.
And again, about half are failing to have an opinion saying they haven't heard enough about either one of them.
Charles, let's take a look at the governor's race.
Even some of the leading candidates are still largely unknown, especially when we look at the Democratic pool.
How much does name recognition matter at this stage, knowing that we don't have primaries until August, and then we're looking at midterms, not until November?
Yeah, I think it doesn't matter in one sense.
We are in awful long ways from August and the primary.
Also, whereas attention to the court race did tick up some over the last month, attention to the governor's race is completely flat.
It has not changed from where it was in February with just 8% having heard a lot about the governor's race.
So that's a perfect example of how folks
genuinely are not tuned in to the governor's race yet.
I think the paradox here is that...
There are a couple of candidates that are fairly well known.
Mandela Barnes has a name ID, meaning people recognize the name and have an opinion, just a little over 50%.
And Tom Tiffany on the Republican side, right at 50%.
Sara Rodriguez is the third most recognized candidate, but her name ID is only in the 30s.
And then all of the other candidates are in the 20s or the teens.
So I think the flip side to being unknown is everybody's on a pretty level playing field with the exception of those two or maybe three candidates.
So there's still room to break out because nobody is particularly well established outside of, you know, the current and former Lieutenant Governor and a current member of Congress.
Charles, one of the things I found interesting, and we only got a couple minutes left, another finding in the poll shows that.
the job approval for the president had dipped from February and the net approval hit its lowest point for either of the terms.
But then I read something that you said that this was kind of misleading because overall his
favorability is not down.
Can you explain that?
No, I think his favorability is down.
The main point I was trying to make, well, there are two points.
One is he's at 42% approval.
That's down from where he started in office.
His net approval has gone from net negative three, more unfavorable than favorable, to now a net minus 14.
And that minus 14 is the lowest he has ever been, including in his first term or his second term.
So it is definitely down.
Now there were a couple of polls in the first term that he hit 40 or 41 percent approval but his disapproval wasn't as high back then and so that's why the net is the worst ever.
The approval is not quite the worst.
I think the other thing that I said and I say repeatedly is headlines like to write that his approval is cratering, collapsing, abysmal.
It's down and it's important that it's down but I don't think we should exaggerate how rapidly it's decreasing.
declining
perfect
well Charles we appreciate your time Charles Franklin is the professor of law and public policy and he is the director of the market law school poll always enlightening to talk to you Charles thanks for your time again today
have a great one when we come back there is problems
at the
supermarket you're listening to civic media
Find the latest news, information, and archives of all your favorite shows on the Civic Media website, civicmedia.us.
on the Civic Media Network.
Gonna be a gorgeous day as we get near 70 in lots of areas of the state.
I think we can take that, especially as we're getting ready for opening day baseball, which is very exciting and also would be remissed if we didn't remind you that you have about eight more minutes to jump into this round of the break into spring multi-state text to win contest.
that's right the word is check check so get that in use your civic media app to text the word check check you have till eight o'clock but don't panic because new words will come throughout the day and you can enter as many times as you want chance to win two hundred dollars for today and then you're qualified for the big grand prize of the verlo queen mattress set with a mattress pad pillows sheets the whole kitten caboodle and those are that will quote you'll be
qualified once you enter.
So do that at your leisure.
That's right.
Don't
take too much leisure because you have six and a half
minutes.
Six and a half minutes to get the word check in C-H-E-C-K.
you know roundies roundies owns pick and save metro markets they're the big corporate umbrella for the grocery stores well roundies is in trouble they're being sued by the federal government for allegedly firing a nursing mother who requested to keep drinking water at her workstation and that sounds very decency and doesn't it's a please i may have some water but
That and that's basically what happened so a former employee worked at a Metro market store in Shorewood Hills in 2024 now according to the lawsuit from the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or as I like to call them the EEOC Because I love brevity the lawsuit alleges that roundy supermarkets which operates as I said pick and save in Metro Violated the pregnant workers fairness act that sounds like more woke DEI
to me
that
That act ensures that pregnant workers receive reasonable accommodations needed to protect their health and remain employed.
That's according to a statement from the Acting EEOC General Counsel.
Well, the lawsuit went in Monday and Jamie, the details of this are incredible.
I'll just say that the mother requested management to allow her to
to her break every four hours so she could pump her breast milk.
She also requested management allow her to have access to drinking water at her workstation in order to, quote, maintain hydration and milk supply.
And how did that work out for her?
Well, not so well, because the manager at the store allegedly approved that request for the break.
They offered her two locations in which she could take her break, a manager's office or a workroom at the store.
Now, according to the lawsuit, those locations weren't suitable though for pumping breast milk.
The manager's office was difficult to access.
It was frequently locked and the workroom was dirty and lacked any sort of privacy.
The lawsuit also says that the manager also did not grant
her request to keep water at her workstation.
The manager did allow her to store water at the manager's office, though, according to the lawsuit, which doesn't really seem convenient or like she's able to do her job if she has to move away from her workstation to get water.
But what do I know?
Didn't
we already establish the manager's office was locked?
Right.
What do I know, though?
In July of 2024, the lawsuit said that the store manager saw the former employee with a bottle of water near
her
workstation in the bakery, asked her to
remove it, but the mother explained that adequate hydration was medically necessary to maintain milk supply, according to the lawsuit.
The manager said it was company policy that prevented employees from keeping water at or near bakery workstations.
Now, the lawsuit said that the human resources manager for the company told the former employee that if she wanted to have a water bottle at her station, she'd have to sign a release of her medical record so they could communicate with her health care provider about this request.
It's water.
The former employee didn't actually sign
the
release and cited the invasion of her privacy and informed the human resources manager that she was considering filing a complaint with the state regarding the lack of access to drinking water and to the impact it was having on her infant's health.
Well, a few days later, when she know it, she was placed on unpaid suspension after a manager saw her with her water bottle at her workstation.
She was later fired by the company in August of 2024.
How much harder could we make it?
for working mothers.
Let me ask this, before I weigh in,
I
want to try to get, and you're the only woman on the show, is hydration, constant hydration, that crucial?
And I ask this in all seriousness, because I have a number of thoughts, but
I believe it is.
I want to temper them
with fact.
I believe it is.
Now, I will be honest and say that both of my boys, which is going to be highly controversial for some people, were formula-fed and bottle-fed because of my health issues that I had in
order to have
them.
My kids turned out fine, by the way.
Everybody does what they have to do, but I do have friends who have been
adamantly have had breastfed babies and they drink.
I drink almost like 96 ounces of water a day.
I have a couple of friends because when they're breastfeeding, they actually drink almost a gallon of water a day.
So I'm going to say yes would be my answer.
Well, yes.
And I think, I mean, hydration is important for everybody.
I'm wondering if it's like gerbil bottle need where it has to be hanging over you all the time because here's the thing.
I fully support this woman's right to have water.
I also know in a workplace with OSHA, there are,
if
you're in the bakery, do you want a water bottle right by a mixing bowl?
Do you
want a water, can the water be in the
back?
Somewhere where it's two steps,
three
steps away where you can grab a quick drink.
I don't think you need, and again, if you are an OBGYN or a woman who is breastfeeding,
Please correct me.
I don't believe you need an IV drip of fluids constantly to keep you hydrated.
So while it doesn't sound like roundies did enough to make it easy for her, it also sounds like maybe there were some accommodations that
she could have made or there was a compromise that could
have been reached before
it got to this
point.
It feels like there should have been some sort of compromise and it feels like neither side was really, to me as I read this, obviously not there to have to know all the ins and outs, but it feels like there was more that could have been done from both sides and they both could have budged, maybe just.
a smidge right like because we also
know there are workers who a sip of water should take point six seconds
and
some workers are going to want to sit down
and
drink their water yes every every sip is a break and that's not acceptable when we come back there's more as you need to know as we move on to the final hour if you're listening on wmdx see you
the national news cycle never stops
But it can be hard to find news about your local community.
Civic Media is dedicated to providing quality local and state news coverage across Wisconsin.
With the Civic Media app, you can get notifications about local stories that matter to you and your community.
Find the free Civic Media app in your phone's app store and choose notifications from the menu to tell us what kind of news you want to hear about.
