Matt Connarton Unleashed 4-28-23

You own. Hello, everybody, welcome, here we go. It is

that time again, Happy Friday. It is Matt Connerton Unleashed and we are

live from the studios of w m n H ninety five point three FM in

Glorious Downtown Manchester, New Hampshire. Also on Comcast ninety seven. If you're

in Manchester and hello to Oliver on and listeners across the nation and around the

globe. You can go to my website Matt Connerton dot com for all of

your live streaming options, social media links, contact info, show archives,

etc. Etc. Today is Friday, April twenty eight, two thousand twenty

three, so nice to have you all with me. By the way,

I played that for I saw j fed in the chat. I said,

oh, I haven't played that in a while. Dark Brandon's think about what

you'd think about remix from the Remix Bros. If you're looking for that on

YouTube. And I also played before that band I was in called Chemical Distance.

I played our song. We had a song called the Carnival and I

happen to hear I guess as a carnival coming. Maybe it's every year.

I haven't paid attention to that stuff really since I was a kid. But

I heard on the morning show Peter White and and Matt and Kyle was there

too, talking about the carnival coming, and DJ Steve was there as well

talking about the carnival, and I was like, oh, you know what,

I was on a song I played based on a song called Carnival.

Maybe I'll maybe I'll once again open with something from one of the bands I

was in. Why not it's Friday. It's Friday, So that's why I

played that. If you're wondering, it's it's unconventional, it's a I always

had a very hard time in that band. We all did, all three

of us, that we were a trio, and then we added a live

drummer, so then we became a what not a trio a quatro? I

don't know, but I always had a hard time in that band describing it

to people. Of any of the bands that I've been in, that one

was easily the most unique in terms of our sound. You know, it

was like a mix of hip hop and industrial and I don't know, there

was no real genre for us to fit in, but anyway, that's why

I played that. If you are curious, so welcome everybody on this glorious

Friday. You know, Friday is my favorite day of the week. It's

my long day here at WMNH because not only do I do this show,

but then I'm back later from eight to eleven PM for retro Spectrum Ideo with

Paul ec I have the honor and privilege of being one of Paul's co hosts

on that show, along with our friends DJ Steve and Mike from Queen City

Cabinetry, who I also see in the chat room. Queen City Cabinetry of

course one of our great sponsors here at WMNH in the Historic sunb Maall and

Mike is also one of our co hosts on Retrospectrum Radio. So perhaps we'll

see Mike this evening, and he's been out with an injury, but uh

yeah, So Fridays are a lot of fun here at WMNHUM Today on the

show too, in the coming up at in the second hour, at the

top of the hour at five PM, we're gonna do Eric Pilcher's classic film

review, as we do every Friday, and this week the subject is the

film Double Indemnity, and again it's a case of a movie that I've never

seen. I've always been aware of Double Indemnity. It's uh, it would

be in it is in the film noir genre, but I've never actually seen

the movie, and as is so often the case, listening to Eric's review

makes me want to see it, so now I'll have to see it.

Got to add it to the list. But yeah, it sounds really good,

and I feel like Eric too has really improved a lot on the reviews

and in terms of the sound quality, and also because he records them at

you know where he is in Cedar Rapids, Iowa and then sends them to

me, but also in his confidence and his delivery and so forth, I

think he's come a long way with that. So we're very happy to have

him as part of the family here on the program if you'd like to.

So that'll be coming up at five pm if you'd like to join us.

In the meantime, the studio line is open six ZO three two five h

six zo seven six Z three two five oh six O seven. You can

also text me at six one seven nine one seven four four seven six.

I'm on social media at Matt Connerton. You can email me Matt at Matt

Connerton dot com, and of course you can interact endo Pine in the Facebook

live chat. We love when you do that, and we encourage that.

But the best thing to do so that we can hear and enjoy your dulcet

tones is to give us a call all at six zoo three two five zero

six O seven. Oh. Paulic is in the chatman says, tonight's a

theme on Retrospectrum Radio. We're featuring number one songs of April twenty eighth,

from nineteen seventy to nineteen ninety five. Excellent, that'll be fun. I

like, uh, I like when we do when we do shows like that,

so that'll be great. So that will be tonight on Retrospectrum Radio this

week. Of course. Uh we also have granted State of Mind at six

pm, as we do every Friday. I heard Peter saying that this week's

show is going to be a replay, but they'll be back with new shows

next week, and they will be of course during the warm weather now that

we're into not summer, but the summer, the summer half of the year,

the warm weather half of the year, although it hasn't been that warm

lately. Actually today I got up to sixty. But they'll be back in

the barn or back in the bond, as some in this uh in this

region would say, at Pembroke City Limits recording the shows and those are those

are a lot of fun to listen to, so we look forward to that.

But again, the studio line is open six zo three two five six

seven six zo three two five six seven. I do have a specific subject

that I want to bring up today that I had hinted at. I give

you a little teaser yesterday. I told you a little bit about it,

but which we'll get into in a moment. But I do want to say

hello to everybody in the Facebook live chat. But there are some bipartisan legislation,

my friends, see the two parties can work together. Unfortunately, the

thing that they're working together on is something that's not good. But we'll get

to that in a moment. And by the way, some of you might

disagree with me, some of you might think that it is good, so

we'll see. I look forward to facilitating the discussion. Eric Pilcher, Eric,

we were just talking about you in the film review. Eric joins us

in the chat room and says, good afternoon from work everyone, Good afternoon,

Sir j fat Is in the chat and says good afternoon everyone, and

he uh, he quoted some lyrics from that think about what you'd think about?

Is it what you'd think about? Yeah, it is what you'd think

about. Although I think in the song you actually said. Yeah. He

does say that, doesn't he He does say those exact words. J fed

quoting some lyrics from the song. Let's be honest, I'm serious about it.

Let's see Mike from Queen City Cabinetry I did mention is in there as

well, and Paul se joins us. But let's get into it, shall

we. So this is what I was referring to yesterday. I think it

was yesterday. I'd mentioned this yesterday or the day before. Oh, by

the way, if you miss yesterday's show, please check it out. Peter

PAPIs was here with us. He performed live in studio during the second hour

with his acoustic guitar and his harmonica. Just phenomenal. And I've heard so

much positive feedback on yesterday's show. Of course, we archive all the shows

at WMNH Radio dot org. You can download its, stream it, do

whatever, and it's on Facebook and we'll get it up on YouTube and everything

too. But was just amazing. What a voice that guy has. He

does a lot of really good covers, but I really like his originals to

his originals are amazing. But all right, but we must focus on the

now. This is from Wired dot com. A bill would ban kids under

thirteen from joining social media. The legislation would insert the government into online platforms

age verification efforts, a move that makes some US lawmakers squeezy, and it

makes me queasy as well. My friends, you do not have to be

a US lawmaker to be queazy about this. You can just be a normal

citizen like myself. I object to this. I think this is a very

bad idea. I've got a few different reasons. We'll look at the article

in depth in a moment, but I've got some problems here, just a

few things off the top of my head. And by the way, some

of you may disagree with me on this, or you may have some ambivalence

about this. I'd love to hear your thoughts on it at six three two

five h six O seven and we can facilitate some discussion up Jenny joins us

in the chatterman says, shalom, peeps, I don't like this. I

think this is a bad idea. So number one, and we'll get into

the details in the article in a moment. But number one, if you

are a longtime listener of the show, you know that I am very,

very nervous anytime the government wants to do something new in terms of regulating the

Internet, specifically social media. There's always these different ideas about how to how

the government can regulate social media, you know, for our own good.

Maybe some of this is the libertarian in me coming out, but I don't

like the idea of the government getting involved in social media. I oppose the

repeal of Section two thirty. For example. We've discussed that many times on

the show. If you repeal section two thirty, then that would allow you

could actually sue social media companies for content on their platforms that are content posted

by individual users. These companies would then become liable for anything that has posted

on their platform. I think that would be the end of social media if

you were to do that. And listen, these companies already police what goes

on their platforms anyway, we might not always agree with how they do it,

how they approach it, what the rules are, what goes, and

what doesn't go etc. But they do do that. So you know,

I oppose all of that. I think Section two thirty should remain in place,

et cetera. And also in a broader context, my attitude has always

been has always been, please government, keep your hands off our Internet.

The Internet should remain as free and open as possible. Obviously, there is

some regulation of the Internet in terms of laws. You know, you can't

defraud people on the Internet legally, right, you can't. You can't distribute

things that are illegal on the Internet. Uh, you know, like a

you know, child pornography, things like that. Um, there are there

are some common sense things that from an ethical and moral standpoint of course,

need to be prohibited on the Internet obviously, but we have to be very

careful about not letting not letting too much of that. In terms of regulation

and the government sticking their noses in on the Internet, we should not allow

that beyond the bare minimum necessary. In my view, Um, I don't

want the government ruining the Internet. So I get very very concerned. And

again with social media, I get very very concerned about the government coming in

and um, you know, there are people, some people are on the

other end of the issue. Like all the way. On the other end

of the issue, some people say that that these um social media companies like

face Book and Twitter and others, that they should be that we should actually

nationalize them, that they should become a part They should be treated as utilities

because because they are considered public square, they have become such a mode for

people to communicate and express themselves and disseminate information publicly that the government should take

over, which I absolutely object to. Again, I don't want the government

controlling, you know, because people will say, oh, well, you

know, right now, you have people posting reckless and irresponsible things on the

internet. On Facebook, for example, you might have people posting election misinformation.

You might have people posting COVID misinformation and so forth. And are people

posting hate people using Facebook to recruit for their hate groups. And we do

see a lot of that go on, absolutely, and I think Facebook does

what they can to try to try to tamp that down. But what makes

anyone think I guess if you're someone who thinks that these being treated as utilities

on the government nationalizing them and taking them over, I guess my question you

would be what makes you think that or what makes you trust the government.

Let me put it that way, What makes you trust the government anymore with

that? Yeah? Yeah, they might stop. They might do a better

job in some ways, I don't know than these companies themselves of controlling certain

things that are dangerous on their platforms. But do you really trust the government

to I mean, once you've got once you've treated one of these like a

utility and you've got full control over it, you can really control the messaging

like never before that goes out there? Do you trust the government that much?

I don't so anyway, I say keep the government's hands off the Internet.

I've also I've brought up many times on the show, and again I

would invite you if you don't believe me, if you're someone who does trust

the government in terms of making laws and rules and restrictions about social media or

the Internet in a broader sense, again, I would just invite you,

go to YouTube. Not right now, stay with the show, but afterward,

go to YouTube and look up, look up any hearing where you've got

somebody like I'll often use Mark Zuckerberg on Facebook or I'm sorry Meta as an

example. Right when he goes and testifies before Congress and listen to some of

the questions that these that our elected lawgivers and overlords ask, Mark Zuckerberg.

Just listen to some of the questions that they ask, and then some of

the follow up questions that they ask, and ask yourself as you're watching this,

do these people have any idea what they're doing and what they're talking about?

And I always say, too, listen a perfect example, I try

very very hard not to be agist. I find myself saying that a lot

the these days. But I try very hard not to be agist. But

I don't particularly want ninety year old Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa to be making

decisions that effect how I and you and everyone else uses the internet. I

don't. I'm sorry he doesn't get a vote as far as I'm concerned.

Or ninety year old Diane Feinstein, who I realize is currently not able to

come to work anyway. That's a that's another subject. She absolutely should resign,

But we're not gonna get into that right now. It's I yeah,

that's a whole other subject. But but I digress. Um Again, I

don't mean to be agist, but I don't want I'll just say it.

I don't want very old people making decisions about very young technology. And I

don't mean you, I mean young in terms of the user base up there

are very old people who you technology. I mean young technology in terms of

technology that we haven't always had in the grand scheme of things. These things

are still social media is still relatively new. You know. We certainly didn't

have it when I was growing up. So so anyway, that's my first

issue. I don't want the government doing any more than the bare minimum necessary

in terms of the Internet and more specifically social media. That's my first problem

with this bill that would ban kids under thirteen from joining social media. Problem

number two. And again, this is kind of the libertarian in me coming

out, but also the free market capitalist and or you know, conservatives might

agree with me on this part too. I don't this this would be another

example of the government getting involved in how you raise your kids. I think

you, as a parent, and I realize as someone who is childless,

it's easy for me to say these things. I get that that's not lost

on me. But having said that, acknowledging that I do not want the

government telling you, as a parent, whether or not your child is ready

to engage on social media and whether they have the maturity and the sense of

responsibility and the sophistication and so forth to make good choices on social media and

in terms of who they interact with and content, etc. Etc. I

want you to make that decision as a parent. I don't want the government

making that decision for you. Again, this bill would be in kids under

thirteen under thirteen. So if your child is twelve years old or maybe twelve

and a half or twelve and three quarters, and they're they're they're bright,

and they're mature for their age, and you think you would be perfectly fine

with them having a social media account, a Facebook account, Nope, the

government says you can't, and the government is going to hold you criminally libel

if you allow your child to have such an account. So that's my that's

my second problem, and we'll get to the third problem is a big one,

and we'll get to that in a moment. But Mike Doyle is on

the line him Mike, Hey, Matt, how goes it good? How

are you very good? Thanks? Very good? Hey. I just popped

John there and I was listening to your subject and ask the question I have

do you trust parents right right now, they're pretty much failing right because kids

it's almost like an epidemic online where kids can get pretty much anything they want,

from drugs to guns, to ways to make bombs, to on the

and on the social media is I don't know. I'm not on them,

but I hear about all the shaming going on causing you know, so ten

percent of young women to commit suicide or think about suicide. So I guess

what they're trying to do is put a band aid on a cut, which

is better than just letting the cut ooze. Um, So I understand your

theory. I'm for a smaller government and I really don't want him in my

living room, but we've got to how do we stop? What's the answer,

I guess there's a question. The alternative answer, Well, I gotta

tell you, Mike, you surprise me because some would say, and I'm

not necessarily saying this myself, but some might hear you and think that that

if you're more comfortable with the government making these decisions, you, my friend,

you're sounding kind of like, don't take this wrong, but you're sounding

kind of like a liberal. Well no, but who else can do it?

And unless you put it on the unless you put it on the companies

themselves. Yeah, I'm half kidding, by the way, only half though,

No, I understand, I understand, I'm not No, don't dude,

I don't take anything personal. I know I'm just having trying to have

a nice conversation with it. But no, I know who else? So

what do we do about the problem? I guess it's the question there's three

factions, right, there's the parents, government, and then there's a company

that's putting this out, that's allowing it to happen. So should we put

more pressure on the companies to say, only the only thing you can a

thirteen year old can do online is educational? Is art wise? You know

what it means? Something something non pornography, non, bomb building, non

non? How do I get a gun? Non? How do I get

ston all in the shape of candy? So I get And that's a big

problem. So we've got to figure out a way to So maybe maybe go

after the companies and say, hey, but how would they do that?

I guess the other question, well, they I mean you got to do

something. I think that well, first of all, I like the idea

of putting more pressure on the social media companies. That's a free market solution.

And uh, if you know, someone hearing me say that might think

I'm a Republican but talking about a free market solution. But see it's we're

all over the place, Mike, it's great. But no, again,

I'm half kidding, but no, But um, I think that. Yeah,

I think that I trust a free market with this much more than the

government. But I also think that when I go when I'm on social media,

I don't see a lot of kids on there to begin with. So

part of this to me seems like it might be a solution in search of

a problem, and I don't like solutions in search of problems. And again,

this is my libertarian side coming out, because I always say, if

you're going to propose any kind of a new law, you've got to convince

me that this law is actually doing something positive and that it's not just a

feel good kind of thing. Like when I'm on Facebook. I use Facebook.

I don't really use Facebook that much for personal stuff, more for business

and stuff. But I don't see I don't see a lot of kids,

Like I don't see anybody really under thirteen, even showing up on my feed

for friends suggestions anyway. So I don't think. I don't think there are

a lot of young kids on social media to begin with. So I don't

think that we need to be using the force of government getting involved, because

I just I don't. I'm very skeptical that it's even happening. And I'm

someone who uses social media every day because I use it for business and marketing

purposes and to promote the show and various other things. I think you're being

I think you're being a little bit naive as to young people using the Internet.

I don't know. Well, I'm saying, I see, I get

school kids and stuff. They got a phone in their hands. No,

no, no, Mike Instagram texting somebody. No you misunderstand. No no,

no. Of course, every high school kid in the country is probably

on Facebook. No, no, no, I'm talking about I'm talking about

under thirteen because this bill, the point of this bill is to ban kids

under thirteen from being on social media. But when I'm on social media,

I don't see anybody who looks like they're under thirteen to begin with. So

I don't know where these kids are that they're so worried about. You know

what, I mean, that's what I said. I don't know how it

works. But are you anywhere near a chat or whatever you guys do that

at thirteens would be jumping into um or do they have their own do they

have their own thing going? You know what I mean? Which would all

would all twelve thirty fifteen year olds or something and have their own I don't

know how it works, but yeah, the question you're you're asking the question,

or you're you're bringing up the topic, but we've the key is what

is the solution? There has to be a solution. We can't keep going

down this road where kids can freely get pretty much everything they want, from

drugs to guns to do you know what I mean, We just can't.

We just we gotta do something. Whatechnology is here, it's never gonna go

away, and so we've got to figure out how to tame technology. Um,

I don't know how you do it, and I don't know. I

don't know how you do it. But so I guess they're saying, let's

start with this, and I don't know what your what is your negative?

Just at the government. Yeah, I don't want the government. I do

not like the I get very very concerned. Anytime I see anything like this,

the government's going to start sticking their nose. And how social media works,

it's that is a slippery slope that scares the hell out of me.

I am very very nervous about that. Yeah, well, one can make

a little bit of a case. For the last election, there might have

been some there might have been some media or some government factions or media that

you know, push push their narrative one way or the other. And but

and I agree with that. I don't I don't want the government or anything

that has to do with that. But I guess they're saying, what is

the alternative? Well, parents, I mean, ultimately, ultimately parents have

to be parents and and keeping on what their kids are doing easier said than

done, obviously, But right, that's the biggest But I don't know how

to the armor right there. But I don't know how to fix that either.

So right, parents, parents aren't being parents that they should be in

watching out and you know, saying, you know, you can go on

these sites giving them alternatives so they can go on see their friends, talk

about school, talk about art, talk about out. You know, Jenny

likes Tommy and you know, in the fifth grade. I would think there's

ways to do that. I don't think. Yes, I just still just

don't know what the answer is. Yeah, I don't. I don't think

there's a lot of fifth graders on social media. I really don't. I

don't. I don't think. I mean, do fifth graders even maybe some

of the map cell phones. I don't know. I'm pretty skeptical about that,

though. I think a lot of this is I think a lot of

this, Mike, I really do think it's to some degree at least a

solution in search of a problem. And part of why we end up with

things like that is because it looks so good in somebody's campaign ad. This

is bipartisan legislation. There's both Democrats and Republicans who are pushing this, and

you know what, if they do pass it, regardless of whatever negative consequences

there are, Oh, it's gonna look so good in all of their campaign

ads when they run for reelection, won't it. Oh, look, look

what we did for American families. We're protecting kids, and they'll and this

will splash on the screen. That's that's the game, I think, right.

But I mean, you just this bill last week that they voted on

the transgender bill. And you get every single Democrat voting against the bill that

would say boys playing boys sports, girls playing girls sports. Every single Republican

voted for it, every single Democrat voted against it. That tells you your

system's broken, because don't tell me there's not one Republican that has a transgender

nephew or niece and things that should be right and should vote that way.

And don't don't tell me there's not one Democrat out of two hundred and two

or whatever it was that all voted no, doesn't have a daughter playing competitive

sports. That that doesn't feel like, you know, guys should be playing

transgender children should be playing amongst amongst women as girls. So which is you

know, a hot button right now in the market and in the media these

days. But I know that just tells you the system's broken, you know

what I mean. If it was if it was two hundred and twelve,

it was one ninety and twenty four dissenting for Republicans and one eighty and twenty

seven four or whatever the number. You know, then you say, all

right, well, everybody has their opinion, and you come up with a

vote. But to be split just tells you that our government's not thinking for

themselves. They're doing whatever they think is best for their their party, and

no matter which way the vote goes, you know what I mean, Well,

the system anyway, Based on that, the system has always been broken.

There's always been party line votes on them, and most most votes are

party line. I agree, But I just don't find my question to add

to your pretty good subject here is um is, what's the answer? How

do we how do we stem this tide of craziness going on on the internet

where and there's also the people luring children into you know what I mean,

going after those young kids they're a little bit vulnerable and saying hey, meet

me here, and that type of thing. And so there's more. There's

more things I think do you think are going wrong on the internet. I'm

not an expert either, so I don't know. Sure some of your listeners

can help us out, all right, Mike, Well anyways, that's it.

Yeah, just I know how what's the answer. I guess it's a

question, But good subject though. All right, Mike, thank you,

I appreciate the call. Talk all right, take care, bye bye.

All right, that was our friend Mike Doyle, that does open up line

for you six zo three two five six zero seven six three two five six

seven and uh, our friend Shannon is on the line. High Shannon,

Yes, I am. How are you good? How are you kidding?

Off? Off the subject? Can I go out of let's go for a

second, for a brief second. I really don't want to get I don't

want to get sidetracked. So don't you won't retrospectrum? Yep, poly see.

I wanted to be Christine Cagney when I grew up, and there was

no I don't know. This is aging myself, but there is a show.

Do you Are you familiar with his name? Nope? No idea who

that is? And lay okay, yep, it was a instrumental I remember

it. I never watched it, but I remember the show. Yeah it

was. It was a big, big show. I can't call into retrospect

him because I don't know why. Well, Paul, Paul doesn't usually take

calls. Only once in a while does he take calls. It's a pretty

he's taken mind rightly. Well, I don't know. I don't call anymore.

Maybe I call it to let you know I'm listening too. It's my

way of saying, I'm not in the Facebook, but I'm listening. Oh

well, we appreciate that, Shannon. Okay, all right, all right,

thank you you too. I remember Cagney and Lacy. I never never

really watched it, but I do remember it. Um No, But getting

back to what Mike was saying, I would just say, I think,

um, yeah, I mean, there's there's a lot of bad things that

go on the Internet, and but law enforcement does a lot too. You

can never do enough, it's impossible, but law enforcement does a lot to

protect kids. UM. For example, and this has been going on for

as long as I can remember. Uh, law enforcement will send um,

send uh police uh into uh you know, into chat rooms online and pose

as children, um and make contact with someone that they think might be harming

kids. I don't really want to say anything. I don't even like thinking

about that stuff. It's so awful. But anyway, but to try to,

you know, as a staying operation, to try to get somebody who's

doing that, try to try to you know, like, um, remember

what was that show to Catch a Predator? You know that kind of thing.

Um, you know, law enforcement does that online. Sometimes there's there's

a lot that law enforcement does. Uh. Like I said, they can

never do enough. But we only have so much law enforcement resources to go

around and um, you know, and and parents of course can always do

more. Um. Not that I don't want to sound like um um slamming

parents either though. Listen, Honestly, I mean, we live in a

world where you know, a lot of um, a lot of households only

have one parent. There's a lot of single mothers and some single dads too,

and you know sometimes uh uh you know, you're you got to work

multiple jobs, and you know, you can't just to get by really just

to provide for your family, and you can't be there for your kids as

much as you'd like to. There's always, um, there's always economic pressures

with that. Um. That's one of the reasons I never wanted to There's

a number of reasons I never wanted to have children myself, and that that

is one of them. That's a big one. You just see economic pressure.

Um. But uh, you know, But but I I don't.

But I don't think the government making laws about this is uh is the answer

at all. But like I said to Mike too, also, I don't

see a lot of kids on Like when I go on Facebook or Instagram,

I don't see a lot of children on there. So again I think this

bill, if you're just joining us, we're talking about this bipartisan bill in

the Senate that would ban kids under thirteen from joining social media. Up.

Crystal, our friend from Illinois, joins us in the chairman and says hello

everyone. Scott Robinson says, Mike, you just made an excellent point.

I couldn't agree with you more. I'll be thinking about oh, all they're

thinking, oh, I'm sorry. All they're thinking about is their donors.

Scott might be using voice to text. But yeah, I mean that's what

Well, that's what I was saying too, you know, with a bill

like this, which again I think is probably a solution in search of a

problem, because I just don't think there are are a lot of kids are

on social media, and even if there are, again it should be up

to the parents, not the government, whether they can be on social media.

But like I said, this looks great. This is a kind of

thing. This is exactly the kind of thing that looks great in a campaign

ad when you're running for reelection. So there you go, because that's what

obviously that's what our elected lawgivers and overlords are actually concerned with. Melanie Law

Liberty from the Great State of Vermont joins us in the chat and says,

hey, guys, so yeah, the two things. I so, I

have three big problems with this bill. Well, let me give the studio

line again. Six three two five six seven six three two five six seven.

I have two big problems. I have three big problems with this bill.

I'm sorry, I already enumerated the first two. Number one, I

don't like the government getting involved in regulating social media makes me very concerned or

the Internet in a broader sense beyond the bare minimum that is necessary. And

uh. And the second problem is this is something that parents should be deciding,

not the government. And the third is enforcement. I don't see how

this is enforceable. Now, there is something in here about age verification,

and we'll look at it when we get to the to the heart of the

matter here with the bill itself and this article. But you know, as

it stands right now, anybody can go on social media and put in whatever

birthdate they want to. There's not an age verification system. Do you want

an age verification system? Do you want to have to If you say you're

creating in a profile on Instagram, do you want to have to sit there

and take photographs of official documents with your date of birth on it, like

your driver's license, and then have to submit that upload that to the social

media site before you can get your account. Come on, I don't think

that's gonna fly. Americans aren't going to go for that. Where it's now

a process that they have to go through to prove their age to be able

to get on social media. That's just not going to fly. And because

that's not going to fly, that means you'll never be able to actually have

an enforcement mechanism to do this, so it's not enforceable. And even if

you do have enforcement mechanisms, and even if the law says that this is

going to be enforced, well, so then what happens. Let's say you

have a twelve year old and you allow them to get on social media,

whether they do it honestly or whether they have to fudge something, which,

like I said, right now, you can put in whatever day to birth

you want. So you let your kid, You let your twelve year old

who you think is mature and responsible enough to be on social media. You

let them on and somebody somewhere in law enforcement finds out, well, this

is a lot, this has been made law. Oh you just broke the

law. You allowed your twelve year old. Are they going to come and

arrest you? Are you going to prison because you let your twelve year old

have a Facebook account or an Instagram account? Is that where we're going with

this? That's nuts If that's where we're going with this, or what if

you didn't know about it? What if they did it? Beyond what if

your kid does it behind your back? Right, and then you got to

knock at the door one day an officer friendly is here to take you away

because you're twelve year old without your knowledge, created at a Snapchat account,

right, this is this is crazy town we're going to with this. So

again, I absolutely object to this. That's my third big problem with it.

Crystal and the Chat says, part of the problem is today's kids are

more technology advanced than their parents, and certainly more than the government is agreed

one hundred percent. They've had hearings in Congress and they had to explain basics

to congressmen who had no clue that's what I was talking about earlier. The

government has historically been behind the times in creation of laws when it comes to

the Internet, instead of keeping pace with recognizing issues or legalities. Also true,

do you really want aging congressmen who have no idea on social media or

computers in general to Oh, sorry, I'm sorry, Crystal, the chat

room got busy and I lost your comment. Okay, here we go.

They've had hearings in Congress and they had to explain basics to congressmen who had

no clue. The government has been historically behind the times in terms of creation

of laws and when it comes to the Internet, instead of keeping pace with

recognizing issues or legalities, you really want Asian congressmen who have no idea on

social media or computers in general to determine what everyone does? Great points,

Crystal. Absolutely. Mel mcmel joins us in the Facebook live chat and says

what people make fake accounts? Believe it or not, Mel mcmel, if

that is your real name, I have several of them. By the way,

I have several secret identities. I think most people do, and you

should. You should always have at least one burner account so if you get

suspended, not that our friend mel mcmell would know anything about that. But

if something happens, if you break a rule on social media, you can

still get access to social media. Always have a burner account. Crystal also

says in the chat room, there are literally senators who have no idea how

to make a tuna sandwich. Remember during the pandemic, Kamala Harris, as

a senator at that time, had to teach one of her colleagues how to

make a tuna sandwich. He always put his in the micro Oh. Gross,

that's disgusting. Yeah, it's that's why I say I don't want again,

not sound agues, but I don't want ninety year old Congressman Chuck Grassley

from Iowa or ninety year old Diane Feinstein from California making decisions about how we

use the internet. It's not okay. Melanie says, I know, right,

that is crazy. Crystal says, my cat buddy had a Twitter account.

Yeah, that's the thing. I mean. Look, yes, pets

sometimes have social media accounts. We're gonna let pets have social media accounts,

but your kid, who happens to be under thirteen can't have one. That

is an outrage. Although I think former Senator Rick Santorum once said that if

you allow what did he say something about, if you allow kids have social

media accoun sexting, you know, dogs will want to have them too.

No, I'm sorry, that's not what he said. It was something very

different but equally absurd and pretty nuts. Anyway, if you know, you

know, If you don't, don't worry about it. Six zo three two

five six seven. As a studio line six two five six seven. Let's

get into the details, my friends again. This is from wired dot com.

The title of the article is a US bill would band kids under thirteen

from joining social media. The legislation would insert the government government into online platforms

age verification efforts, a move that makes some US lawmakers squeezy and again makes

yours truly very very queasy, says here. A new bipartisan federal proposal introduced

in the US Senate today would set a national age limit for using social media,

effectively banning anyone under twelve and under from using the apps many children currently

spend hours a day on. There are countless efforts floating around Capitol Hill aimed

at safeguarding the nation's children from the dangers of social media, but This new

measure, known as the Protecting Kids on Social Media Act, takes aim at

the algorithms Silicon Valley employees to keep kids on their sites. Specifically, it

bars children under thirteen from creating accounts on social media apps, which also greatly

while also greatly retailing the algorithms tech companies could deploy on people between thirteen and

seventeen years old. Users under thirteen would still be able to view online content

provided they aren't logged into an account. Okay, so while with some things

that wouldn't work obviously you have to log in, but YouTube you can use

without logging in. The bill would also require a parental consent before anyone under

eighteen could create a profile. Aha, that's just more nanny state non really

so serious. I didn't even know that was in here. So a seventeen

year old wants to make a Facebook account, they have to get permission from

mommy or daddy. That's nuts. I'm sorry, this is not going to

fly. By the way, if you don't know what algorithms are, and

I think most people probably do at this point, but an algorithm, so

when you're on say you're on YouTube, the algorithm learns what content you want

to see. Algorithms are very dangerous in a sense but also necessary. They're

dangerous, well the dangerous isn't the right word, but they are harmful in

the sense that I believe algorithms have contributed to the polarization politically in this country

because so say you're on YouTube and you look at a lot of liberal content

on YouTube, the algorithm is going to learn that's what you want, and

in the suggestions that YouTube makes, they're going to keep suggesting. They're going

to serve up, to use the correct terminology, more liberal content, because

the algorithm is learning that's what you like. If you're a conservative and you

sample a lot of conservative content, the algorithm is going to learn that's what

you like to look at and is going to begin to serve up consistently conservative

content. On the one hand, I think this is harmful because it has

contributed to the politicisa, yeah, politicization and of social media and the polarization

politically in the country. However, on the other hand, I don't know

how to solve that because while the algorithms do contribute to that, you do

want, as a consumer, anything that you use, any service that you

use social media or anything if the service is going to be actively suggesting to

you more things that you might like. Forget social media. What about Amazon.

If you're shopping on Amazon, you know, the algorithm notices your purchase

history, notices products that you've looked at previously, and then suggests more products

for you that you might like based on that. So algorithms are good in

that sense. You want anything anything that is giving you content or suggesting products

for you to buy, or services for you to buy, or investments for

you to make, or whatever it is, right, you want that service

to show you things, present you with options that you would probably like.

So it makes perfect sense to have these algorithms. You wouldn't want to not

have them. The downside is, though, it does help reinforce those echo

chambers that people like to exist in, where you know, you don't have

to be exposed to anything that for example, politically on YouTube, if you're

watching political YouTube videos, you don't have to worry about being exposed anything that

might conflict with your ideology or challenge. You're already deep seated beliefs because you're

only being served content that reinforces all of that. Um So, so that's

a problem I don't know what the solution of that is. You've got to

have algorithms. The services don't work without algorithms. It doesn't make sense to

not have them. But having them does come with a price. It it

uh, it chips away at our critical thinking skills and and it reinforces.

Um are the echo chambers in which we live and these uh you know,

the this uh hyperpartisan ideological way that Americans like to think about everything political and

even things that are not necessarily political. So I don't know what to do

about that, um, Crystal says in the chat room, it was Mark

Warner who kamalaiti kamalaita to make the make a tuna sandwich. Oh God,

well, God bless her for helping him. I guess that's that's good.

You don't want to put that in the microwave. That s that's disgusting.

Like I don't know how to cook anything the Geni'll tell you, I don't

know how to cook anything, but uh, but I know better than to

do that. That's gross. Let's see. It says here to ensure preteens

and children don't create social media profiles, the bill would also create This isn't

gonna see nobody's gonna go for this. You think this. Listen, we

talked on the show. I don't know what ended up happening. By the

way, with this, I guess nothing's going to happen. But remember we

were talking on the show. We did for multiple days. It was a

pretty hot issue briefly, TikTok, possibly banning TikTok, the government banning TikTok.

We don't hear anything about it anymore. So I guess that's been forgotten

about. I don't know, but but I at the time I said,

I don't think Americans are going to go for the government banning a very popular

social media app unless you make the case and convince Americans that there is a

legitimate national security threat. You've got to convince us. I'm not even on

TikTok, but I just say us, as in America, you've got to

convince us that there is a very good reason for why, for the first

time in American history, you would actually ban a social media app that is

enormously popular, that is used by something like one hundred twenty million Americans,

some huge number, more than a hundred million Americans on TikTok and because if

you don't make the case, it's not gonna fly. You're gonna have an

uprising over this. For real, it's a social media site, but you

know, but there are larger implications. You can just say, well,

it's a social media site. Who cares as others, but there are broader

implications. If you're going to allow the government to tell you how you can

and cannot communicate what social media sites you can and cannot use, that opens

a can of worms, a pretty big one. But this isn't going to

fly either. What's here? I want to start this paragraph again. I

want to make sure that I'm understanding correctly what this bill would do to ensure

preteens and children don't create social media profiles. The bill would also create a

government run age verification program overseen by the Department of Commerce. A I'll tell

you what if section two thirty. If' appealing section to thirty doesn't kill social

social media, this will, this will. No one is going to tolerate

this. A government run age verification system that you have to go through to

set up your Instagram account not gonna fly. The system would require children and

their parents to upload identification to prove their age. While legislation does not mandate

that companies use the government system, it would nevertheless represent a significant expansion of

the government's role in the online ecosystem. Let me tell you what will happen

if this becomes law and is actually enforced. You're going to see more platforms

like TikTok. What do I mean by that? You're going to see more

platforms that are not based in the United States that are able to connect with

Americans without necessarily adhering to American law. Now, I suppose the government can

just ban those as they pop up. But if they're popping up to serve

a need, because Americans are pretty angry at having to upload a picture of

their driver's license to get a social media account, this is going to create

much larger problems and it solves. I'm telling you, let's see it.

Says here, Oh Crystal says uh. Now, Matt as Hollin Oates playing

in his head. I can't go for that. I always have Hollin Oates

playing in my head. We have a call. Hi, welcome to Matt

Connerton unleashed. Who's this uh? Mark Connor, Yes, yes it is.

Who's this? Is this? Connor? Macconnor. What what what is

this? This is a very familiar voice. He's kind of mumbling corn don

Armor is calling from Burger Don. The ghost of don Imus is on the

line. Oh my god, this is amazing. Gone arms calling from from

Purga. You're still in purgatory? How long you have to see? That's

that's crazy. Uh, this is I will say though, this is an

honor, sir. I mean, I don't think you were a good person

when you were here on earth, and you were kind of a pos to

a lot of people and said some terrible things. But you are a radio

legend. And uh, I am talking to your ghost. So this is

quite a moment. Well last year, I are talking to me. I

could really are just got arrested and they have sad me or virger So you

so you uh you so you've been arrested. Tell me they tell me.

I'm glad they called me. I'm glad they put me in the ground.

Are here in the very But I don't feel dead man, Darren. I'm

I'm alive. I keep telling them, I keep telling them I'm alive.

They will want to come back. I will say this, don Imus,

you sound you do sound more alive to me now than you did at any

point in the last five or six years that you were actually on the radio.

But I thank you, Mat, thank you. And you sound more

lies than our red fan. You know, we get you our show over

Aaron Purgadore. You say you are, say purgatory right, Just let me

make sure you're in the Margayry. Yes, I'm sorry. I'm eating right

now. I'm having lunch right now. But you say you say you're not

actually dead, So are you in? Are you just buried somewhere in purgatory,

Texas? And they won't let you out? Is that what's going on?

No, I'm actually here in the purgatory, first class, here by

the FU first class here to purgatory, and it's a nice day here.

I think I am dead. Actually, they don't tell me I'm dead,

but I don't feel dead right right right. You brought me in a room,

they questioned me for three hours. They told me I'm dead. They

hadn't re signed some favorite work, Matt. And I'm here now in purgatory.

It's an undisclosed amount of time that I'm going to be here, but

it should be soon that I'll be going to heaven. Matt, that's very

exciting. Well, are you sure he does everyone in your donkey cock mat?

That sounds familiar. I think I think you might have asked me that

once before when I called into your show many years ago. Wow, how's

my donkey con It's great? So a very important question. Do you get

to uh do you get to continue to wear your cowboy hat in purgatory?

Told man, I shouldn't call in until we have some racial I mean,

this is our first time talk. I've never spoken to the ghost of don

Imus before. I'm only work. We're gonna do the man, you and

I when I come down and here the flying from progreg Card. We're gonna

sit down, I'm gonna write some mercurial and we're gonna think of some funny

thanks for me to say. That's great. It'll be just like your back

on the rate. It'll be just like your back at u w ABC or

I'm sorry w NBC. Oh you're very sick. Yeah, yeah, yeah,

it'll be like your back home. Well that's right, because you know,

how was your donkey Kong to get really old? Really? Yes,

I think at some point you would stopped saying that later in your career,

probably around the time that you started copying Howard Stern trying to be more like

him. Oh wow, true. Yeah, so even in death, you're

still upset with Howard Stern. I don't like Howard. He took a l

well he uh, he had glowing things to say about you when you passed

away. You know about a lot of people mistake of me from Larry's Flynn.

Yes, yes, I know. I know someone who thinks you sound

like him. I think you sound like don iMOS. That's how I figured

out that it was the ghost of don iMOS. Than well, thank him,

right, yeah, this is the ghost of h don Imus, say

Larry Flynn, this is the ghost of Don Imris checking out right, you

have a great joy. I love yourself, all right, thank you?

Well, very nice? All right, wow, the ghost of don i'man

that was wonderful. Now how does that work? Now? He says he's

in purgatory. But does that mean he definitely goes to heaven? Because if

you go to hell, you go. I see, I'm not. I

haven't been to church in a while, much to the chagrin of my dad.

But I think the deal is. I do remember learning about purgatory in

school Catholic school. I think the deal is, if you go to purgatory,

you go there to burn off your sins and then you get to go

to heaven. But if you go to hell, you go straight to hell,

I think, right, because that would be that wouldn't be very fair,

right, if you go to purgatory and then you're thinking, no,

cool, I'm in purgatory. Maybe next I get to go climb that ladder

over there and get to heaven, and then it turns out no, you

just fall into the pit of hell. That would be That would be terrible.

That would be insult to injury, am I right? So so I

hope don Imus. But he's been dead for years now, at least a

couple of years, right, So he's been in purgatory a long time,

A long time. Wow, don Imus, Well that was that was a

radio legend. My friends, we've made radio history here. Today. We're

going to uh very shortly, we're gonna get Derek Pilcher's classic film review.

But I do want to finish up on this article. But also if you'd

like to call in if you have any thoughts on this or on the ghost

of don Imus. Oh, actually we have a call. Well, we'll

see who this is. Hi, welcome to Matt Connerton. Unleash. Who's

this? Nay, Matt, it's poly Oh policy from Retro Spectrum Radio with

police. How are you? I'm doing well. I just wanted to,

uh, let you know that DJ Steve will not be joining us tonight.

He's a little under the weather. So we will be joined by Dan Randall's

stand in, Ron Laplume. Ah, tonight, the part of Dan Randall

of Dan Randall and the Ramletts will be played by Ron la Plume. That

is correct. He will be joining us tonight. Well, kid, so

it'll be you and I and Ron Laplume and DJ Steve will be calling in

at nine to play then him at nine at nine. Oh wonderful. I

haven't seen Ron in a while. What about Mike from Queen City Cabinetry?

Is he still Mike injured? Mike sent me a message about an hour ago

promising, promising that he will be back next week. Okay, well,

very good. Well we look forward to seeing him then. But yeah,

it'll be great to see Ron tonight. Excellent. Yeah, yeah, all

right, I'll see you at eight o'clock. All right, sounds good.

Paul. We'll see you then, all right, ye bye bye, all

right. That was our friend Paul See from Retrospectrum Radio with Police tonight from

eight to eleven pm. And we will be joined by the great ron Leplume.

That'll be fun. Uh oh, yes, Mike says, yes.

He will definitely be here next week. He says, uh oh. It's

like going straight to jail in monopoly, when you go straight to hell.

DJ Seve is in the chat room. He enjoyed the call from the Ghosts

of don iMOS. All right, well, let's finish up this article so

it says you're so again. This is about the bill to ban anyone under

A thirteen from social media. As such, the bill could upend the Internet

as we know it by adding substantial government oversight over social media platforms. The

bipartisan legislations being met with bipartisan skepticism. Yes, it has both bipartisan support

and bipartisan skepticism. Senator Tina Smith, a Minnesota Democrat, said, quote,

we kind of went through this when Tipper Gore was trying to ban music

for some people. Unquote. That's a good way of that's a good observation.

Yes, the legislation's sponsors are offended by the comparison. In fact,

they say their proposal purposely avoids content altogether. Chris Murphy, Connecticut Democrat,

says, quote, Let's be clear, this bill is completely content neutral.

All it says is that you cannot build a purposely, a purposefully addictive program

that leads especially vulnerable children down deep, dark rabbit holes. Unquote. M

That's not a convincing argument to me. The broadly bipartisan effort also showcases the

pressure ratcheting up on party leaders by rank and file lawmakers on both sides of

the aisle, who are demanding Congress to act to protect children after years of

watching similar efforts dither. Yeah. Well, the reason similar efforts dithered is

because you know, you got to come up with an actual good idea.

Who am I kidding? You don't have to come up with a good idea

for politicians to pass it into law. That's not what I mean. But

but but there is. You know, when it comes to the Internet and

social media, there does seem to be dithering. Freshman Senator I just like

that word. Freshman Senator Katie Britt and Alabama were publican ran as a mama

on a mission quote unquote, and says this is a personal issue to her

and others. Britt says, quote, bringing the issues that we talk about

as parents in the home with our friends, we watch unfold before us in

our schools and our communities. That's what we're here to do, is to

bring that voice, the voice of parents. Unquote. I'm not even sure

what that meant. That was a kind of a little bit of a word

salad there. I mean, if you're trying to bring the voice of parents,

how about letting the parents have their own voice instead of the government deciding

what their kids can have access to and what they can't. They're Katie Britt,

you Alabama Republican sounds like a rhino to me. Again, I'm half

kidding. As to whether their me measure could stifle the next generation of tech

entrepreneurs, Britt says, the opposite is the case. Quote, that's what

we're fighting for. You want our kids to be healthy and prepared to achieve

their American dream unquote. There's a real disconnect here. Nothing Okay, great,

Yeah, I agree, and this helps them how Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton

is the other Republican author on the Democratic side, Senator Murphy of Connecticut is

joined by Brian Schatz of Hawaii as a lead sponsor. All four are young

in Senate terms at least, and all have young children. Well, well,

yeah, keep your keep your kids off of there, and then if

you're worried about it, but don't punish the rest of the country. While

all the major Silicon Valley social media firms from Instagram to TikTok say they block

children from using their apps, these senators say those efforts have failed. Schatz

says, quote, it's not working. There's no free speech right to be

jammed with an algorithm that makes you upset, and these algorithms are making us

increasingly polarized and disparaging and depressed and angry at each other. And it's bad

enough that it's happening to all of us adults. The least we can do

is protect our kids. This hits on something with me. Okay, so

let's look at this again. Let's look at what he said. There's no

free speech right to be jammed with an algorithm that makes you upset, and

these algorithms are making us increasingly polarized and disparaging and depressed and angry at each

other. How convenient blame social media. Blame social media. Right, If

these kids are running into this, it's the fault of social media, so

we have to do something about it. Right. We can't just blame Oh,

I don't know ourselves, do We not, as adults create the world

that our children have to grow up in. The reason see a lot of

people get this wrong. I feel people blame social media, talk about how

awful social media is, how it's a sesspool of negativity and hate, and

by the way, a lot of it is, and a lot of it's

not. A lot of it is wonderful and good and positive. It's all

about what you make it, what you choose to engage in, who you

choose to engage in it with We create the world that our kids have to

live in. That includes on social media. You can go on social media

at any moment of the day and see lots of grown adults being mean and

angry and hateful and disparaging and putting a whole lot of negativity on social media,

and thereby doing so also out into the world. Social media is not

the way it is because of how social media works, because of the algorithms

in terms of the negativity and the cesspool that it so often seems to be.

It's that way because of us. We're the ones using social media.

We're the ones responsible. So when somebody like this guy says, wow,

look at what look at what our kids are being exposed to, Well,

we need something to blame. So we're gonna blame this and we're gonna do

something about this. It's never. It's never we're gonna look inward and we're

gonna do something about us. It's never we're gonna look inward and we're gonna

try to be better adults. I mean, look at cable news. You

can see grown adults arguing having very unproductive arguments where they talk past each other,

Like we were looking at the other day on the show. That's the

world we've created for our kids. And then we need someone to blame,

because God forbid, under any circumstances we ever take any responsibility for it ourselves.

Oh, that would be the worst thing for anyone ever say, you

know, we all need to do better in terms of how we treat each

other and the example that we set for our kids. No, we can't

do that. We can't do that. So instead we need to make a

law about social media because this is currently a very convenient scapegoat. That's what's

really going on here. While the measures sponsored by progressive Democrats and one of

the most art and conservatives, and the Senate lawmakers from across the idiological spectrum

are equally skeptical of the proposal, showing the difficult road ahead for passing any

new media measure, including those aimed at children. Many lawmakers are torn between

protecting kids online and preserving the robust Internet as we know it, which we

must do. Naturally, most senators are looking at their own families guidance.

Senator Mitt Romney, Republican of Utah, Mittens of Utah, as I like

to call him, said, quote, my grandkids have flip phones. They

don't have smartphones until they get older. Une. Oh, well look at

that. They're not allowed to have smartphones until they get older. So in

other words, you are, well, they're not your kids, they're your

grandkids. But so your your kids are being actual parents to your grandkids only

letting them have flip phones and not smartphones until they get older. Wow,

imagine that. So what you're saying, Senator Romney, is you don't need

the government doing that for you, Your family is doing it. Romney also

says, I have five sons, so there are five different families, and

they do have different approaches, and the youngest son is the one that's the

most strict, and the oldest son didn't really think of it as being such

a big deal. Unquote. Wow, imagine that. So in Mitt Romney's

family, his sons, He's got five sons, big family, they're actually

making parental choices for their children instead of waiting for the government to do it

for them. Imagine what a novel idea, What a novel idea. It

says here for Smith, the Minnesota senator worried about her party coming across as

big sister. There wasn't even uniformity in her own household when her boys were

fighting over the family's first desktop computer ages ago, and her kids also proved

to be mini hackers. Smith says, quote, we were trying to figure

out how to monitor their interactions with the computer, and we quickly figured out

that, at least for them, it was hard to put hard fast rules

because kids find a way, and different parents have different rules for what they

think is the right thing for their kids. Unquote. While Smith was open

to the new measure, she's wary. Quote I tend to be, I

guess, a little bit suspicious of hard and fast rules because I'm not sure

that they work, and because I sort of think that parents and kids should

have the freedom to decide it's right for their family. Unquote. Yes,

agreed. While Smith is a progressive Democrat on this measure, she's currently aligned

with Senator rand Paul, who I tend to find to be an incredible disappointment

in recent years. But I agree with him here. Rand Paul, the

Kentucky Republican, who said, quote, parents exercise some oversight of what their

kids view on the internet, what they view on television. All these things

are important. I'm not sure I want the federal government involved. Un I

agree. Now, it says here the new measure also has competition. We're

going to finish with this and then we're gonna get to Eric's review. The

new measure also has competition. Just last week, Senators Richard Blumenthal, a

Connecticut Democrat, and South Carolina's Lindsay Graham, the top Republican on the Senate

Judiciary Committee, reintroduced their earn It Act, the eliminating abusive and rampant neglect

of Interactive Technology Act. Oh god, just from the name, I'm The

measure would strip away the currency. This is bad. The measure would strip

away the current Section two thirty protections for any sites that publish Oh well,

okay, see I don't I don't even like talking about that, but certain

certain kinds of content which these sites already police. This though, Section two

thirty remains a highly controversial law because it protects online businesses from liability for much

of what its users post on their platforms. Shouts. The Hawaii Democrat,

who helped negotiate the new effort is an original co sponsor of the earn It

Act. He says, all these efforts coming from different angles show that Congress

is finally serious about the impact the Internet has on children. Shout says.

Quote the more of the merryer earth. There's plenty of momentum. All these

efforts ought to be complimentary. Unquote, Oh what so you should pass all

these laws? Oh god, okay, there's a little bit more to the

article. But again it's a little redundant. Melanie says, I blame rock

and roll with all that hip swaying. Yeah, Elvis I blame Elvis actually,

when he went on Ed Sullivan, Crystal says Mitt Romney used an alias

on social media. Oh I forgot about this Pierre de Lecto or something to

argue against people who criticized him Romney's views, so people didn't know it was

him. He needs to sit down and shut up. I don't hold that

against him, though, I actually I think that's kind of funny. I

do. I don't know why I just do. But you know again,

I don't want to be a hypocrite. I also have, but I've never

used an alias to rebut criticism against myself. Okay, here's what we're gonna

do. We are running late, but we got we got tied up on

this issue, and we had that wonderful call from don iMOS from Purgatory.

We're gonna take a quick break, show some love to our amazing sponsors,

and then we're gonna come right back. With Eric Pilcher's classic film review this

week, the subject is double Indemnity, and as I often say, hearing

Eric's review makes me want to see the movie. But so there's plenty more

to come today on Matt Connerton Unleashed, So don't go anywhere. Come on

down to the Hop Knot at one thousand Elms Street, Manchester's premiere craft beer

and gourmet pretzel bar. Tell us more at Trudy. We make our dough

fresh every day. We make a variety of styles of pretzels and serve craft

beer, cocktails and a few bottles of wine. We do the traditional pretzel

and we have multiple flavors for that. We also do stuff pretzels, pretz

are sandwiches, three dessert pretzels and pretzel knots the Hop Knot in the Brady

Sullivan Plaza at one thousand Elms Street. Bring your kitchen to life with Queen

City Cabinetree located at eighty seven Elm Street in a historic sunbeam law in Manchester.

Open Monday through Friday nine am to five thirty pm in Saturday's ten am

to two pm. They can be reached at six O three two two two

two zero zero seven. We're on the web at Queen City Cabinetry nah dot

com. Come see the possibilities. Queen City Cabinetry another crowd sponsor of w

m n H Clemente hemingtoe Beet Cia Family Friendly Awesome Forward Day Night Clemente hellingtols

deet Ceria por delivery cost six O three seven eight two eight four five Lementos

beet Curbria The Best peta d eighteen seventy five South Willow Street in Manchester,

New Hampshire. Best Cotel's around, Coming as friends and leave us family.

This hour on WMNH is sponsored by CGI Business Solutions, located at five Dartmouth

Drive in Auburn. They serve all your business needs including employee benefits, planning,

corporate design in business administration, investments and wealth management and customize business insurance

solutions. Their phone number is eight six six eight four one forty six hundred

or on the web at CGI business Solutions dot com. WMNH rip. The

Normals Office Memorandum Walden F to Barton Keys, Claims Manager, Los Angeles,

July sixteenth, nineteen thirty eight. Their keys suppose you'll call us a confession

when you hear it. I don't like the word confession. I just want

to set you right about something you couldn't see because it was a smack up

against your nose. You think you're such a hot potato as a claims manager.

It's such a wolf on a phoney claim. Maybe let's take a look

at that Didson claim accident in double indemnity. You were pretty good in there

for a while. Keys. He said it wasn't an accident. Check,

he said it wasn't suicide. Check he said it was murdering. Check.

You thought you had a cold, didn't You? All wrapped up in tissue

paper with pink ribbons around it. It was perfect, except it wasn't because

you made one mistake, just one little mistake, when it came to picking

the killer. You picked the wrong guy. Do you want to know who

killed Didrickson? Little tight to that cheap cigar here his kids? I killed

Diedrickson? Maybe Wader f insurance salesman, thirty five years old, unmarried,

no visible skies until a while ago. That is as I killed him.

I killed him for money and for a woman, and I didn't get the

money in I didn't get the woman. But isn't it? Double indemnity is

an insurance clause that pays out double the policy limit if the insured individual dies

due to an accident. It is a common provision, but for our intents

and purposes, it defines the start of the film noir genre. Released in

nineteen forty four, directed by Billy Wilder. He also co wrote this film

with famed hard Boiled detective writer Raymond Chandler. Double Indemnity leaves the captivating tale

of insurance salesman Walter Naff played by Fred McMurray, who, on what appears

to be a standard sales call, meets the sultry in alluring Phyllis Dietrichson Barbara

Stanwick and becomes instantly smitten. This leads Naff down a road of lust,

murder, and deception. The film also features the fast talking film legend Edward

G. Robinson as Barton Keys, an adjuster that sniffs out phony claims with

ease. Fast talking is a primary staple of film noir and really drives this

film with its biting dialogue and crisp words. First, we will hear the

end of the initial conversation between missus Dietrichson and Naf. The dialogue is so

powerful, profound in verbose. Here also try and pick up on the innuendo

between the two. And then at the conclusion of this scene we hear another

fantastic example of a film noir staple, haunting voiceover narration by Naff. Here

is not insurance man or miss Ni years doing pretty well. It's a living

you handle just automobile insurance or kind all kinds fire, earthquake, fath,

public liability group, insurance, industrial stuff, and so I write down the

line accident insurance, accident insurance show, mister Diddison, we should tell me

was some greater in that England just my name as for instance, tell less

a lessa. I think I like that. Could you're not sure? I

have to drive it around the black a couple of times, mister Neff,

Why don't you drapp by tomorrow evening around eight thirty. He'll be in then

my husband, who were anxious to talk to him, weren't you? Yeah?

It was, but I'm sort of getting over the ideas. You know

what I mean. There's a speed limit in this state, mister Neff,

forty five miles an hour. How best as a going off, I'd say

around ninety. Suppose you get down off your motorcycle and give me a ticket.

I suppose I let you off for the warning this time. Suppose it

doesn't take. Suppose I have to work you over the knuckoft. Suppose I

must trying and put my head in your shoulder, But as you try putting

it on my husband's shoulder, that tears it a thirty to eating there.

That's what I suggested. You'd be here too, I guess though I usually

am same chair, same perfume, same ankler. I wonder if I know

what you mean. I wonder if you wonder It was a hot afternoon and

I can still remember the smell of honeysuckle all along that street. How could

I have known that murder can sometimes smell like honeysuckle. Maybe you would have

known Keys the minute you mentioned accident insurance, but I didn't. I felt

like a million when dissecting this film, it would be near criminal to not

talk about the performance of Edward G. Robinson. This film is, in

my opinion, his most underrated performance. As Barton Keys, he steals the

scene every time he appears. His mannerism's voice and natural short stature make him

the perfect claims adjuster. Our next two clips are examples of this. When

we first encounter Keys, he's arguing with the claimant seeking to get paid on

a claim. Here how Keys turns the tables with smooth direct delivery. Then

after erstwhile lovers Phyllis and Nef conspire and successfully kill her husband to attempt to

cash in on the double indemnity on the accidental death policy. Hear how Keys

has his suspicions, and he brings them to Nef, in which he is

confidently and we find out later hauntingly painfully accurate, all on a simple hunch.

Come on, come on, you're not kidding anybody without nine of bolt.

You're on the cabin, you know, it, says you. All

I want is my money? There's you all? Are you gonna gets the

cops? Hello, water, there's a sam Garnopus f mingle Oi sure I

omast a Globus wrote a policy on his truck. Ahry, mister Globus.

I ain't so good, my truck burned down. Yeah, not a gonopus.

Every month hundreds of claims come to the depts. Some of them are

phonies, and I know which ones. How do I know? Because my

little man tells me what little man? A little man in here. Every

time one of these phonies comes along, it ties knots in my stomach.

I can't eat Yours was one of them, Go loopus. That's how I

knew your claim was crooked? So what did I do I send the tokar

over to your garage this afternoon? And they checked up that burned out truck

of yours and what did they find? They found what was left of an

eat pile of shavings. What shavings? The ones you shuk with kerosene and

dropped the match on. Look, mister, I'm just a poor guy.

Maybe I made a mistake, that's one way of putting it. I ain't

feeling so blueful. Mister you had a detriment to sign. Listen to your

field fire signs? What so wa were on your claim? Right here?

Yeah here, Now you're an honest man again. Goodbye, going openers.

I ain't got no more truck, honestly, it's gone through the box.

There's a lot of dog when I live. Smat, I got over it.

Don't you not open the door? Just put your hand on the knob,

turn it to the left, now pull it towards you. That's the

boys, thank you, it's the kids. And now keys suspicions, it's

on your mind. And broken leg. The guy had a broken leg.

What are you talking about talking about? Dietrichson? He had accident insurance,

didn't he Yeah? And he broke his leg didn't hee, so what And

he didn't put an a claim? Why didn't he put an a claim?

Why what are you driving here? Well? I had dinner two hours ago

and it's stuck halfway any years? Is acting up again? There's something wrong

with the dietris in case or because it didn't file a claim. Maybe he

just didn't have time. Maybe he just didn't know that he was insured.

No, No, that couldn't be it. You would deliver the policy to

impersonally, didn't you? He got his check? Sure I had? Anybody

carb in Etnesota? No? Hell wad I've been living with us a little

man for twenty six years. He's never failed me. Yet There's got to

be something wrong. Or maybe Norton was right. Maybe it was suicide.

No, not suicide, but not an accident either. What else? I

look, Walter, A guy takes out an accident policy, but within one

hundred thousand dollars if he's killed on the train, and two weeks later he's

killed on the train, and not in the train accident, mind you,

but falling off some silly observation car. You know what the mathematical probability of

that is one out of oh I don't know how many billions, and add

to that the broken leg. Now, it just it just can't be the

way it looks. Something has been worked on us. So just why writer,

don't you have any peppermint or something? Oh? Sorry, bottle sold

of water? No? No, no, who do you suspect? Well?

Maybe I like to make things easy for myself, but I always tend

to suspect the beneficiary. You know, yeah, that white eyed dame.

They just didn't know anything about anything, or you're crazy because she wasn't even

on the trail. I know she wasn't water. I don't claim to know

how it was worked, who worked it, but all I know is that

it was worked. I'm gonna get to a drugstore. This thing feels like

a hunk of concrete inside me in night water, all right, keys,

see the arts in the water. Yeah, I'd like to move in on

all right now tonight. Whether Northmans tripe Pant's ideas about a company policy,

I'd have the police after her so fast to make a headspin. They put

her through the wringer and bare the things they would squeeze out. I mean,

I haven't got a single thing to go on. Keis oh not too

much, just twenty six years experienced all the percentage there is, and let's

hunk a concrete in my stomach. One of other things good. What makes

film noir such an amazing genre, and one of the factors that makes it

a personal favorite of mine, is that there is always a conclusion where a

caper or plan falls apart with this being the modern blueprint for film noir,

this film has this, and it is heartbreaking, mesmerizing, and quite memorable.

In our final scene for this week's review, Neph confronts Phyllis after realizing

he was used simply for his knowledge of insurance as an insider trader in a

sick twisted so the way or or or was he? I will leave that

up to you, the listeners, to decide. Well, Baby, anybody

else in the house, nobody? Why? What's that music radio up the

street? Just like the first time I came here, isn't it? We

were talking about automill be my shots. You were thinking about murder. I

was thinking about that ankles, And what are you thinking about now? I'm

all through thinking, Baby. I just came to say goodbye, good bye.

Where are you going? You're the one that's going, baby, not

me. I'm getting off the trolley car right at this point. Don't you

stop being fancy. Let's have it whatever it is, all right. Tell

you the fund of Mine's got a funny theory, he says, when two

people commit a murder, it's sort of like they're writing on a trolley car

together. One can't get off without the other. They're stuck with each other.

They have to go on writing together clear to the end of the line,

the last op as the cemetery. Maybe that's something there, your betty

has. Two people are going to ride at the end of the line,

all right. I mean, I'm not going to be one of them.

I've got another guy to finish my ride for me. He's who are you

talking about? Acquaintince? He yours? I, mister, it's a ketty

Come on, baby, I just got into this thing because I haven't to

know a little something about insurance, didn't I That was a sucker. I

might have been brushed off just as soon as you get your hands on the

money. Nobody wanted to brush you off. Say it. I'm telling this.

It's been you. And that's a ketty guy all along, isn't it.

That's not true. That's making the difference if it's true, and that

the point is Keys believes a Katty is the one he's been looking for.

I haven't like gas chamber before he knows what's happened to doing? What's happening

to me? Or this time? Probably silly? Baby? What do you

think is going to happen to you? You helped him do the murder,

didn't you? That's what Keys thinking? And what's good enough for Keys?

It's good enough for me. Maybe it's not good enough for me, Walter.

Maybe I don't go for the idea. Maybe I'd rather talk. Sometimes

people are where they can't talk under six feet to do it. Maybe.

And if it was you, they charged that up to Sagetty too, wouldn't

they? Sure they wouldn't. And that's just what's gonna happen, baby,

because he's coming here to night in about fifteen minutes, or the cops right

behind him. It's all taken care of. That would make everything lovely for

you, wouldn't it right. It's got to be done before the suit of

yours comes to trial and only gets a chance to sound off, or they

trip you up in the stand and you start to going and drag me down

with you. Maybe I had sagett here so they won't get a chance to

trip me up, so we can get the money and be together. That's

cute. A film being ambiguous at the end, or even towards the end,

is what makes film noir in a class of its own. It is

left us, the viewers, to make the final decision on who is right,

who is wrong, and what happens after the words the end flashed across

the screen. It comes down to our morals and our convictions. That is

ultimately what decides who is the heroes in the villains in these films. Those

feelings are what makes this genre so well regarded even today in the films that

are a part of it, some of the most heralded and highly thought of.

This film was very controversial upon release, with adultery, murdering of a

spouse, and the dialogue being loaded with innuendo. The production code had fits

over this film. It did not deter it from getting widespread praise from critics

and being a box office dynamo. It made five million dollars against a budget

of nine hundred and eighty thousand. It was nominated for seven Academy awards including

Best Picture, Best Director for Wilder, Best Actress Stanwick, and Best Screenplay

both Wilder and Chandler. More than likely due to the controversy surrounding the film,

It's sadly and quite unjustly won none of them. Regardless, this film

is the perfect noir film in an example of everything that makes one of my

favorite genres truly amazing. I hope you'll join me next week when we will

look at high school seniors looking to have fun, lose their virginity, and

have some warm apple pie in a very unconventional way. Our film is the

nineteen ninety nineteen classic American Pie for WMNH and Matt Connerton Unleash. This has

been a classic film review with Eric Culture. Welcome back everybody as we cruise

into our final segment. It is Matt Connerton Unleashed and we are live from

the studios of wm n H ninety five point three FM in glorious downtown Manchester,

New Hampshire, also on Comcast ninety seven. If you're in Manchester and

hello to Olive our online listeners across the nation and around the globe. You

can go to my website Matt Connerton dot com for all your live streaming options,

social media links, contact info, show archives, etc. Etc.

Today is Friday, April twenty eight, twenty twenty three. Friday, of

course, my long day here at WMNH. We've got right after this show,

We've got a repeat of Granted State of Mind hosted by the Great Rob

as a Veto and PAULI Stone. But then I'm back tonight at eight pm

for Retro Spectrum Radio with Paul C from eight to eleven. I'm one of

Paul's co hosts on that show. And tonight we're joined by Ron Leplume who

will be in studio with us. Haven't seen Ron in a number of weeks,

so that'll be fun. So that will be tonight. So Friday definitely

my favorite day of the week here at WMNH ninety five point three FM.

Let's see a great review, of course from our friend Eric Pilcher this week

the subject at Double Indemnity. Mike from Queen City Cabinetry says on my list

to watch, Thank you. Eric. Also, Miriam Bannis joins us in

the Facebook live chat. Hello Miriam. By the way, Miriam, my

dad said he was very complimentary about the segment that we did on Wednesday when

you were here, when we had that discussion about autism. I got a

lot of positive feedback about that, and my dad texted me about it and

he thought that was really good. So I appreciated you joining us for that.

If you'd like to join us, we've have a little bit of time

left in today's show. Six zo three two five six Z seven is the

studio line six zo three two five six zero seven. You can also text

me at six one seven nine one seven four four seven six. I'm on

social media at Matt connorton. You can email me Matt at Matt Connerton dot

com, and of course you can interact endo Pine in the Facebook live chat.

But the best thing to do so that we can hear and enjoy your

dulcet tones is to give us a call at six three two five zero six

zero seven. By the way, our amazing sponsor at the hop Knot right

across the street in the Brady Sullivan. Oh, by the way, they've

got this is not in the announcement that they posted today, well actually two

announcements. But Ramez Guring, if I'm saying his last name correctly, gu

r Un Ramez Guring he's gonna be performing there tomorrow night. They do live

music now on Saturday nights, and he's gonna be there tomorrow night, I

think from seven to nine pm. I've not seen him live, but apparently

he is amazing. But they also posted this today on social media, the

hop Knots social media. This is two big announcements. First announcement, try

the new special, the LGBT Pretzel Sandwich, lettuce, guac, bacon,

and tomato on a homemade pretzel bun. If you're thirsty, you can even

wash it down with a cold bottle of bud Light with a winky face.

That does sound good actually, the LGBT Pretzel sandwich. And then the second

announcement next weekend is the Gender Blender Drag Show House of a Thousand Gagas come

join us as we pay tribute to Lady Gaga. This is a twenty one

plus show with no cover fee. Show starts at ten pm and we will

fill up quickly for this, so get here early if you want a good

seat. So the House of a Thousand Gaga's Lady Gaga Tribute show, the

Gender Blender Drag Show, So that will be what wait just says next weekend.

Oh oh, I see here. Okay it is Saturday May six,

So Saturday May six at ten pm twenty one plus no cover. And yeah,

those gender blender events that they do at the Hopknot those are very very

popular. So if you are going to be attending that, you do want

to get there early for that. Everything they do there, it fills up

quickly, whether it's the gender blenders, whether it's Trivia and Night on Thursdays

which is back Trivia Night back to seven pm on Thursdays now hosted by Broderick

Lang who runs that. So everything the Hopknot does is it seems to be

pretty successful. So there you go. So our amazing sponsor at one thousand

Elm Street and we love having them again. Six three two five six seven

is the number. Six O three two five six seven. Oh. Miriam

says, thanks for letting me know. That's so amazing, and um,

Crystal in the chat room says, good job Eric. Yes, Eric does

a great job with those film reviews. Absolutely. Uh let's see. Um,

let's look at So we've got a couple of different directions we could go

in with the limited time that we have left, but I think we should

probably look at this a little bit of Tucker Carlson news. So unless you

unless you haven't been paying attention. Of course, it's been a big week,

a big week in media, both in cable news and online media.

Of course, in cable news, we had we started the week with the

firings in the same day of both Tucker Carlson from Fox and Don Lemon from

CNN, and also in the online media realm a lot of Stephen Crowder news.

I don't know if we'll get to Stephen Crowder today because we don't have

much time left and we do want to need to spend a little bit of

time on this. Uh, Tucker Carlson, this is quite remarkable. Apparently

we still don't know for sure the reason for his firing. Eric and I.

Eric Pilter and I on Wednesday when he called in, we went over

a lot of different scenarios and we did a lot of speculating regarding both Tucker

Carlson and Don Lemon. I disagree. I still disagree, by the way,

with what seems to be the prevailing theory about Don Lemon and his interaction

with Viveka Ramaswami. If I'm saying that correctly, I still don't know if

I'm saying that correctly, but I really don't think that was it. I

mean, it might have been the cherry on top of some other things,

but I really don't think that was it. But I but I'm sure we'll

learn more eventually about what went on there. Although pretty easy to get rid

of Don Lemon too, as I pointed out to Eric, don Lemon compared

with Tucker Carlson because Tucker Carlson not only the top ratings getter on Fox News,

but also the top rated host on all of cable news, whereas Don

Lemon wasn't pulling any kind of numbers really on the Morning Show. Oh,

Crystal points out, Yes, the NBC Universal CEO was also fired. Yeah.

Yeah, big, big week, lots of upheaval, lots of upheaval

and uh and we love to talk about it. I'm fascinated by all things

media, of course, but some news on Tucker car I think I think

we know at this point, I think we know what really happened with Tucker

Carlson. It wasn't It wasn't directly because of the dominion lawsuit. Tucker Carlson

was had done something that in no company would be tolerated. Anybody would be

fired for this. Apparently he was making a lot of comments about management,

some of them rather profane. And you know, listen, anything that you

do in this world, in the modern world, leaves some sort of a

digital footprint, right, so you know, if you're if if say you're

texting to a co worker about your boss, something really unpleasant and inappropriate about

your boss, you know, you might think you're just texting it to your

coworker, but you know other people might ultimately find out about it. So,

in fact, there was an incident on the Opie and Anthony Show that

a certain text message. If you're a fan of Opie and Anthony and you

know all the lore, you know the reference. If not, don't worry

about it. It's not worth taking the time to explain right now. But

when I think of when I think of errand text messages that end up causing

a lot of trouble, I think of Opie and Anthony. But no,

let's look at this though. So this is from the Hill dot com.

This is being reported everywhere, of course, but Tucker Carlson's disparaging comments about

Fox leaders led to his ouster. According to a new report, It says

here Tucker Carlson, the leading primetime host who was ousted from his job this

week, was shown the door at the cable news giant in part because of

comments he made in private about his Fox News colleagues and bosses. According to

a new report from The Wall Street Journal, Carlson's private text messages, which

were included in public court documents in part I'm sorry as part of Dominion Voting

Systems blockbuster defamation lawsuit against a network, show him disparaging Fox leadership and worrying

how reporters affect checking former President Trump's false claims about voter fraud would anger the

network's massive audience. The Journal, which like Fox, is owned by billionaire

conservative media mogul Rupert Murdoch, reported this week that the explicit content of Carlson's

text messages, some of which had been redacted in the dominion court documents,

became known internally to senior Fox management and played a role in his ouster awkward.

Multiple reports have surfaced this week suggesting in one of the redacted messages that

Carlson referred to a senior female Fox News executive as the C word and I'm

guessing that that word was not cantankerous. I think it was something else.

The journal reported on by the way, don't does a word to the wise.

Some people, as George Carlin used to say, some people need practical

advice. Don't call your boss that in a text message, even if it's

to another employee. It's just not a good idea. The journal reported on

Tuesday that when Fox's lawyers were fighting the dominion suit, they told Carlson they

had successfully convinced a judge to keep those messages redacted, but he was not

impressed and told colleagues he wanted the world to know what he thought of Fox

management. Wow, oh okay, Carlson in other text messages that were not

redacted, was seen badmouthing former all we know about this, Yes, was

seen badmouthing former President Trump and his allies. Yeah. Remember. He talked

about how he couldn't wait to not have to talk about Trump anymore, called

him a demonic force, said he hated him passionately. The Journal reported that

in one of those messages, Carlson told colleagues his remarks about Trump work quote

said during a momentary spasm of anger, while his dislike of the executive of

this executive was deep and enduring unquote. So he was just mad at Trumps.

He's upset with his bestie, but he was yet a deep, end

enduring anger towards this executive. Apparently, last month, during a radio interview,

Carlson said he was enraged that his private communications were made public as part

of the dominion lawsuit. Wait, was he enraged or he wanted the world

to know? I'm confused. Sounds like he was a bit conflicted. Does

he love Trump or does he think he's a demonic force? Again, it

sounds like he was conflicted, almost said convicted, little Freudian slip. Carlson

said, quote, and I think this is in the text and those were

all grabbed completely illegitimately in my opinion in this court case, which I guess

I'm not allowed to talk about, but I'm enraged that my private texts were

pulled unquote. Fox agreed last week to pay a dominion seven hundred eighty seven

and a half million dollars to settle the case. Moments before opening arguments were

set to begin before a jury, The network announced Monday it had parted ways

with Carlson, a decision which it reported on its air that morning had been

made mutually. Carlson has not commented publicly on his departure from Fox as of

Wednesday morning. So here you go, by the way, that video.

He did post a video. He doesn't directly address anything, but he did

post a video just talking about it on his you know, in his time

off, which he's barely he just got fired this week. But he did

post a short video, and apparently it netted fifty seven million views in less

than twenty four hours. It says here. A short video message posted by

former Fox News host Tucker Carlson following his houster from the network had racked up

more than fifty seven million views on Twitter as of yesterday afternoon. Carlson's cryptic

two minute message was posted around eight pm Wednesday. He did not directly address

his sudden departure from the network or plans on the future. For comparison,

President Biden's relaunch video, posted on the platform more than twenty four hours earlier,

had garnered forty one point eight million views as of two pm on Thursday.

Carlson, who commanded a nightly audience averaging north of three million people while

at Fox, criticized the cable news business, calling most of the debates on

television unbelievably stupid. Might have a point there. He also said, quote,

both political parties and their donors have reached consensus on what benefits them,

and they actively colluded to shut down any conversation about it, when, by

the way, there is truth to that. Not everything Tucker Carlson says is

a lie. Some very important things that he says are unfortunately, but anyway,

He also said, quote, when honest people say what's true, calmly

and without embarrassment, they become powerful. At the same time, the liars

who have been trying to silence them shrink, they become weaker. That's the

iron law of the universe. Unquote. Fox is not commented on what led

to Carlson's leaving the network beyond a statement thanking him for his service at the

company and saying his last show was last week. Multiple reports have surfaced this

week suggesting the explicit content of Carlson's text messages, which were pulled as part

of the defamation suit dominion voting systems brought against Fox, became known to top

executives at Fox and led to his ouster so there you go. I'm sure

we'll learn more. Crystal says in the chat room, wasn't Tucker one of

the reasons shepherd Smith left Fox? I don't that sounds familiar. I certainly

remember shepherd Smith. I was a as a fan of his. You know,

for a long time I thought shepherd Smith he might be one of the

few people there. He and Chris Wallace, who is also no longer there

two of the few people there who actually I think legitimately cared about journalism.

But I think there was something about Tucker Carlson with shepherd Smith leaving. By

the way, we just have just a few minutes left. I'm gonna finish

out today with a song from when we do Clothes. I'm gonna play a

song of Ramez Gerung actually Bob Dylan cover, but it's him on Granted State

of Mind performing it ain't me, babe, because Rames is going to be

tomorrow night at the Hopknot. But before we get to that, we do

have a couple of minutes left. We also have been talking on the show

a lot about Stephen Crowder all week in terms of now. He actually was

on Fox years ago. He used to appear there's actually a pretty epic sort

of debate that he had with Amy Schumer on that show What is it?

Red Eye? Is that still on Red Eye? Do they still run that

on Fox? Anyway? But Crowder, Crowder has been in the news a

lot recently. He's got this ongoing feud with Candas Owens. The latest thing

and I did share this out on social media, But the latest thing with

Crowder, Stephen Crowder is uh And we've been talking about him because you know,

his whole you know, the whole thing with the Daily Wire, the

Daily Wire offering him a fifty million dollar deal and then Crowder groused at that

and ended up signing with Rumble instead. But Crowder shared the he shared the

contents of the term sheet that he was offered. He kept saying it was

a contract, apparently it was actually just a term sheet, and how this

was unacceptable and how the Daily Wire was actually just cozying up to big tech.

And everyone at the Daily Wire took that very personally, including people like

Candas Owens and Ben Shapiro, and it was a very interesting time and interesting

to see, you know. And then this week, earlier in the week,

Stephen Crowder claiming that candas Owens tried to extort him, and candas Owens

apparently sent Stephen Crowder had her lawyer send him a cease and desist letter and

threatening to sue for defamation and something. It's a whole big thing. I

love it. I love all the drama. It's fascinating. But the latest

thing, and this is this gets dark. But now a video has appeared

online from a couple of years ago, because you know, Crowder and his

wife, Hilary Crowder are divorcing, and Crowder made a statement about it recently

on his show and kind of took some shots at his wife in the statement,

like saying that he picked wrong, he picked the wrong woman or something,

takes no responsibility himself of course, blames it all on her. But

then there's a video that was released apparently it had come out in court in

divorce court of you know, you have ring cameras, and people often have

ring cameras on, you know, at their front door where their doorbell is.

There's a ring camera on there that records everything. So if someone tries

to break into your house or seal a package off your doorstep or whatnot,

they're recorded while Crowder apparently had also a ring camera for security reasons in his

backyard effectively where the pool is outdoors, and this ring camera caught an interaction

that Stephen Crowder was having with his wife, who at that time was eight

months pregnant. And it's it's about what is it a three minute video?

It's fascinating to watch, but in a very dark way because it's essentially three

minutes of Stephen Crowder verbally abusing in a truly just malevolent and maniacal way,

verbally no physical abuse, but verbally abusing his wife. And it's like a

it's weird, sort of almost like a caricature of the patriarchy in terms of

he's he's saying things to her like, you know, you refuse to do

your wifely duties and things like that, and you know, uh, the

only way to you know, you need to respect me and obey me.

It's it's it's wild, it's nuts. And um Crowder's public image seems to

be deteriorating rapidly because now Candas Owens, Candas Owens put up a video calling

Stephen Crowder a monster, and uh, I don't often agree with candas Owens,

but I agree with Candas Owens on this. He is h he's a

really apparently too. There's an accusation that you know, he had major surgery.

Stephen Crowder had major surgery. Candas Owens is claiming the Crowder lied about

that and it was actually an elective surgery. Um, it was cosmetic.

It's very very weird stuff. But check it out online if you're curious.

Uh Stephen Crowder. Wow that guy. That guy's a piece of work.

But he's got that cushy deal at Rumble, so shed no tears for him.

All Right, we gotta go. We are out of time. I'm

going to close out with this Ramez Grung performance from Rob's show from a number

of years ago on Granted State of Mind, him performing the Bob Dylan cover.

It Ain't Me Babe. It's really good. It's really good. But

Rames is gonna be tomorrow night at the Hopknot beginning at seven pm, performing

live our amazing sponsor. They got a lot going on, We got a

lot going on here. Of course, Friday's our big day. I will

be back, big day of the week. I mean, I don't mean,

I don't mean this Friday is especially a big day, but I just

mean it's a big day. Fridays are big here, busy. I'll be

back tonight for Retrospection Radio with Paul c from eight to eleven PM. Always

a good time. Look forward to that and I hope to see see some

of you find folks in the Facebook live chat for that show, as you

often are and we appreciate that. And if you miss any part of today's

show it we'll be up in just a little bit at WMH radio dot org

and on my website matt Erton dot com. That's it, I gotta go.

I leave you with this Fromezgerung and his cover of it Ain't Me Babe,

as performed on Rob Azavito's Granite State of Mind.

Game Plan