Singapore approves insects as a food source -- and the reasoning behind this may surprise you. The EPA (finally) bans an incredibly dangerous herbicide known as DCPA. Presidential candidate Robert Kennedy, Jr. comes clean about dropping a bear carcass in New York's Central Park. Plus: the Scottish corpse shortage, a questionable suicide, and weekly spy updates. All this and more in this week's strange news segment.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
From UFOs to psychic powers and government conspiracies. History is
riddled with unexplained events. You can turn back now or
learn this stuff they don't want you to know. A
production of iHeartRadio.
Speaker 2 (00:24):
Hello, welcome back to the show. My name is Matt,
my name is Noa.
Speaker 3 (00:28):
They called me Ben. We're joined with our guest superproducer
Max the Free Train Williams. Most importantly, you are here.
That makes this the stuff they don't want you to know.
We're at the beginning of birthday month, as we call
it here on this show, and for anybody with an
August birthday, we wish you well and grand adventure. We
(00:51):
have so much stuff to get to the epas it's
getting on message with some things that we talked about
a few years ago. We've got some notable politicians in
the news, but maybe not in the way you think.
We promise we did want to start. We're talking off air,
but with one quick update. A while back we reported
(01:13):
on a Kansas City, small town newspaper raid. Do you
guys remember that one?
Speaker 2 (01:19):
Oh yeah, so that was a big deal. Someone died
in someone died in connection with the raid on the
newspaper or the house, right.
Speaker 3 (01:30):
Yes, Yeah, the big news, the big update is that
the former police chief who led the raid on this
Kansas City newspaper for doing their journalistic duty. His name
is Gideon Cody. He is going to be charged in
the Marion County District Court. And the report says that
(01:51):
this guy, a actual police chief at the time, committed
the crime of obstruction of justice by knowingly or intentionally
inducing a witness to withhold or unreasonably delay the production
of testimony, info, or documents. You can read more about
this on multiple outlets, but I think we're all very
(02:13):
happy to see that there were consequences for this, because, like,
cast your memory back just last year, it felt like
this could be a harbinger of other crackdowns on the press, right, oh.
Speaker 4 (02:23):
One hundred percent.
Speaker 5 (02:24):
I mean, it really does feel like a kind of
bullying tactic to make the free press scared to exercise
the rights of the free press.
Speaker 3 (02:34):
And speaking of free press, will take a brief pause here,
and then we're going to technically give some free press
to several crazy stories, starting with your favorite guy, Elon Musk.
We're back. Probably the most conservative opinion of this strange
(02:58):
enterprise of hours is that we refuse to call a
certain social media platform X. We still call it Twitter
and a funny thing. I know, we all clock so
many of the same stories. A funny thing that I
saw a headline and wanted to share with everybody is
the following from AP News quote Elon Musk X sues
(03:21):
advertisers over alleged massive advertiser boycott after Twitter takeover. So
even AP news isn't on board with calling it X,
they're still calling it Twitter.
Speaker 4 (03:34):
Yeah.
Speaker 5 (03:34):
I think I maybe mentioned I don't remember if I
saw this in an official news source, but it's definitely
accurate that just about every news source out there still
refers to it as X formerly known as Twitter, making
it probably one of the least successful rebrands in the
history of rebrands. It's just not taking. People don't like it,
and people don't want to say it.
Speaker 3 (03:54):
I mean, AP News, the Daily Zeitgeist, the top journalism
of America, the top two, for sure. I'll call it Twitter, you, oh,
the top two. We're not picking favorites, but those are
the top two. This is the story, guys. The social
media platform under Musk's management and ownership, has sued a
(04:15):
bevy of advertisers and they're saying there's a massive advertiser
boycott that has somehow illegally deprived the company of billions
of dollars and also violated anti trust laws. We're going
to see some more anti trust kind of stuff coming
up later in tonight's program regarding Google. But it's funny
(04:36):
to me this story, because hopefully funny to all of us,
because not too long ago, didn't Musk tell advertisers to go,
you know, take a long walk off a short.
Speaker 4 (04:48):
Pier in no uncertain terms. I believe he maybe even
swore at them, if I'm not mistaken.
Speaker 5 (04:56):
But isn't it funny to see the language of a
lawsuit like this more or less to the layman reads, well,
if you're not going to advertise with me, then I'm
going to assue you for not advertising with me.
Speaker 4 (05:09):
No one has to advertise with anybody, right, Like, I
don't know. I mean, it's so easy to be gas
lit by these very powerful people where you're like, maybe
I missed the memo, or there's some legal footnote I'm
not aware of, or maybe they do have to advertise
with them for reasons unknown.
Speaker 5 (05:25):
But no, let's just shake ourselves out of that stupor.
I don't believe that's the case, guys. I believe the
free market means you can advertise with whoever the hell
you want to and or not advertise with whoever the
hell you want to.
Speaker 2 (05:36):
Yeah, but they isn't the idea or some attorneys, some
powerful attorneys somewhere working for Musk, decided it was illegal
for at least a blanket organization to say don't buy Twitter.
Speaker 3 (05:51):
Yeah, that's what. Yes, that's why. Like ideally, in strange news,
we always want to include stories that are a little
below the fold and involved in some way with the
concept of conspiracy. And you nailed it there. Because the
suit is against something called the World Federation of Advertisers.
It's an anti trust suit, meaning they're saying a single
(06:16):
organization has too much power. Member companies of the World
Federation of Advertisers include things like Unilever, CVS Health, and Mars.
Yeah this is not the planet, but the candy company
Bars okay, yeah, the other one and so and maybe Mars.
Maybe he got soured on the Mars explorations. But in
(06:37):
that case, it does seem to have some theoretical sand
if you're saying that the if you're alleging that this
massive organization pretty much the specter level or the freemason
level of advertisers, has banded against you, then you might
have a case you can take to court.
Speaker 4 (06:58):
That's interesting, and apologies if I misspoke.
Speaker 5 (07:01):
I still think I'm somewhat correct in thinking that this
is still, at the end of the day, up to
the individual members whether or not they choose to advertise
with a particular brand or a particular you know, platform.
I guess it's just a recommendation or it's sort of
like laying out sort of like, hey, we as an
(07:21):
organization think that it's bad business to advertise with this
platform because of X, Y and Z.
Speaker 3 (07:31):
Yeah, you nailed it. Because the specifically they're targeting something
called the Global Alliance for Responsible Media, which is a
safety initiative that is under the auspice or the control
of the World Federation of Advertisers, and they're saying this
brand safety initiative sort of orchestrated a pause in advertising.
(07:57):
And to your point, Noel, there's not a there's not
a provable case of like this kind of organization is
not the United Nations, you know what I mean, it's
not the International criminal court. They can't lock up the
top six people at Unilever if they want to advertise
with whomever.
Speaker 5 (08:15):
But even the United Nations more or less issues recommendations
on a lot of which are pretty toothless and up
to the member nations to decide whether or not they
want to play ball or not.
Speaker 4 (08:25):
And I mean, I guess if the argument.
Speaker 5 (08:27):
Is there is some threat of retribution if our member
organizations are member brands, et cetera, don't follow these guidelines
set out.
Speaker 4 (08:38):
But that was seemingly would be pretty easy to prove.
And if that's the case, then yeah, I think that
is too much power. But isn't it the job of
organizations like this to kind of have ethical guidelines that
they sort of lay out.
Speaker 3 (08:52):
You know, yes, that that is a solid argument. You know,
all less aspects of that are completely vaid. What we
can say here is, despite the fact that this is
easily a turn of the heel for Musk based on
his previous statements, we can say one of the big
(09:12):
questions ultimately becomes one about the legality of boycotts. Now,
it wasn't too long ago that there were some kind
of polemical forces in the United States and abroad arguing
that boycotts against certain countries should be illegal, even though
that's very much a grassroots movement, and to this, you know,
before we move to the next story here, I think
(09:34):
it's a question for us and all of our conspiracy
realists listening along at home, should people be able to
make boycotts illegal? Like if a bunch of people decide
they don't want to mess with you, should they be
forced to mess with you if you're not the actual government.
Speaker 5 (09:51):
I think the term that pops up to me, and
I just want to pop it up for you guys,
is the idea of brand safety, and that's something that
we see a lot here in pot casting and as
a podcasting network. We have methods and mechanisms in place
that ensure brand safety, you know, because brands have guidelines
they don't want to be advertised on certain types of shows.
(10:12):
Certain types of shows don't want certain types of brands
advertised on them.
Speaker 4 (10:17):
You know. It's it's it's a.
Speaker 5 (10:18):
Very reasonable thing. And one could argue that for certain
brands advertising on a platform that is so willy nilly
and Lucy Gussey with hate speech and very you know,
inflammatory content, it could well be something they might want
(10:39):
to be aware of.
Speaker 3 (10:40):
Sure, and totally understandable. But to that earlier question, should
it be illegal for people to boycott something as private
private individuals or private entities?
Speaker 4 (10:51):
Oh? Yeah, I think so.
Speaker 2 (10:54):
I don't think it should be illegal.
Speaker 4 (10:56):
That should know, it should be legal. I'm sorry, I'm sorry,
excuse me. It should be legal.
Speaker 5 (11:00):
Yes, that is exercising. I mean, hell, if corporations are people,
you know, like, come on, shouldn't we be able to
do what people do. I don't have to give my
money or my business to anybody I don't want to.
So it shouldn't be a double standard if we treat
corporations like people in one respect, shouldn't we? I mean
maybe that's a silly thing to mention, but I do
(11:21):
think yes, of course, you should be able to boycott
something that you see as being negative and toxic.
Speaker 2 (11:26):
Yeah. It gets sticky, though. It really does get sticky,
because there are actions you could take to completely tank
a corporation, to take a you know, an individual, even
a sole proprietorship or an LLC or something. You could
tank those things if you had enough players boycotting right
(11:50):
that were big enough. In this case, major advertisers Mars
and Utiliver. Come on, you've seen em and yeah, you've
seen eminem ads recently probably, and you know all kinds
of other ads that you know, all the products that
Unilever has to have an organization come through with those
massive conglomerates and say no, you cannot do this, you
(12:13):
cannot take this one action.
Speaker 4 (12:15):
Sure, what what's the what's the recourse though, Guys?
Speaker 5 (12:18):
If this is overturned and it's determined, like, isn't it
ultimately up to the brands? I mean there's I can't
see any possible outcome where it would be like, no,
you Unilever have to advertise with Twitter, Like, what's the outcome?
Speaker 4 (12:32):
I just don't see kind of what the outcome It.
Speaker 3 (12:33):
Will ultimately, I mean, obviously it will ultimately be litigated
in courts. The primary, most immediate outcome is that this
is awesome for the lawyers involved. They're going to make
so much, like egregious, stupid amounts of money. One of
them might buy Twitter. I don't know, but this this
is going to wend on for a while and make
it dismissed. If it gets dismissed, I mean, the rulings
(12:57):
will be appealed, regardless of the courts the side. We're
keeping an eye on it again because this is an
allegation of conspiracy technically, and for the etymology nerds before
we move on, right, because the law is always litigated constantly.
That's our next that's our next story in this bit.
The etymology of Boycott comes from a guy named Captain
(13:21):
Charles C. Boycott back in the mid to late eighteen hundreds.
Everybody in Ireland hated him, everybody in County Mayo specifically
because he refused to lower rents for his tenant farmers,
just like just like a lot of private corporations refuse
to lower post pandemic prices today. We call that foreshadowing.
(13:44):
So imagine being so hated that your last name became
a word for when a group of people refuses to
mess with you.
Speaker 5 (13:52):
Like Benedict Arnold or something. You know, it's like a
stand in for being a trader.
Speaker 3 (13:57):
Yeah, we should call that arnoldy.
Speaker 4 (14:00):
Yeah, it's true.
Speaker 5 (14:01):
He got his whole name, you know, made into a
concept of being a bad guy.
Speaker 4 (14:07):
Yeah, this is very interesting.
Speaker 5 (14:08):
I mean there is politics involved too, obviously, because I
believe some of these findings that are making this seemingly
actionable word determined by a House Republican led committee that
heard evidence and believe they determined that there were current
laws in place sufficient to deter anti competitive collusion in
online advertisement. So I mean there's a there's a political
(14:31):
edge to this as well. Of course, not to say
that there isn't always when it comes to lawsuits and such,
but it does feel maybe a little loaded, and especially
since Musk has been such an out such a you know,
vocal supporter of the right.
Speaker 3 (14:44):
Yeah, especially in recent years. How the turn tables, as
they say on the office. But this, this leads us
to a setup for another story that we believe is
very important for all of us to be aware of.
The law is imperfect, law is fallible, and the law
can be manipulated. So aside from our billionaire beefs and
(15:07):
celebrity beefs that are so often mentioned in media, it's
important to look at things like the recent case in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has agreed to hear an appeal
from the family members of a woman who died in
two thousand and eleven. Her death is currently ruled as
(15:29):
a homicide. Ellen Greenberg, a first grade teacher at the
age of twenty seven, was found in her apartment with
twenty stab wounds. Ruled a suicide. What Yeah, originally ruled
a homicide until the medical examiner encountered pressure from local
law enforcement and switched the ruling at their order.
Speaker 2 (15:53):
Yeah, this is a really sticky, deep Well we could
go into if we want to, just all of the things,
all of the aspects he went into this case where
the boyfriend, you know, is the person that found her.
Speaker 3 (16:08):
Yes, the boyfriend breaks down the door. We could also
learn a little bit more about Philly medical examiner Marlon Osborne. Right,
I don't know, it's.
Speaker 4 (16:18):
It's dirty pool the back of the neck. How does
one stab oneself in the back of the neck.
Speaker 3 (16:24):
And this is coming from AP news, Well, this was
this is a while ago.
Speaker 2 (16:28):
This is a case that was I think it all
hit all of our true crime radar. I can't remember
we talked about it on Strange News or not, but.
Speaker 4 (16:34):
I don't recall it until this point.
Speaker 2 (16:36):
It's really weird because the boyfriend apparently went down to
the gym and then came back up and the door
was locked, and found his girlfriend that way and there's
all kinds of other fishy stuff I remember from like
the initial uh, you know, before it even went to court.
Speaker 3 (16:53):
I believe, yes, exactly. And this also does a factor
in a guy who was going to be a presumptive
or he was in the running to be a vice
presidential candidate pick. That would be Governor Josh Shapiro. He
is now under scrutiny as well because he was in
office during the time of this just tragic, tragic case.
(17:17):
We're bringing this up to let you know that the
law doesn't always get things right. Again, the law can
be pushed, it is fallible, and perhaps this may be
an actual episode in the future, because I agree that
there is a lot to cover here. The case got
(17:38):
it's thirteen years old, you know what I mean, It
was more than a decade ago, and Greenberg's parents for
more than a decade have been fighting to get the
truth about their daughter's murder out there. And it's not
just you know, people on Reddit or something who are
saying it's fishy. We're talking about a bevy of for
(17:59):
Ren experts who have said something similar to what you
just said, Noel, you can't stab yourself ten times in
the back in suicide.
Speaker 5 (18:08):
Am I missing where the pressure the initial pressure was
coming from? I mean, I feel like that would be
the red flag, like powerful parents, you know, with access
to high powered lawyers, there's.
Speaker 4 (18:19):
Some inside person in the coroner's office.
Speaker 5 (18:21):
Because a big thing that's mentioned in this ap article
is the idea that a coroner should not have quote
absolute discretion that can't be challenged, which I think we
would all probably agree with on its face, but like,
what an odd ruling to happen, you know, right off
the rip like that, And I just don't understand where
the pressure would have been coming from.
Speaker 2 (18:41):
I'll tell you law Tube all of these there are
so many YouTube channels that stream like cases every day,
and Ellen Greenberg's case has been something that's been going
on and on and on and on, and her family
has been pushing really hard recently to see change.
Speaker 4 (19:00):
No, I'm saying the pressure initially to get yeah.
Speaker 3 (19:05):
To initial suicide, to the homicide. How who the flow
did Osborne get pushed?
Speaker 5 (19:11):
Who's applying said pressure, or at least who is suspected
of being the insider and that's maybe pulling the strings
or something, Because that, to me is the first thing
that my mind goes to, is if we know that
oddball ruling like this, where's the political pressure being applied.
Speaker 3 (19:26):
Philly PD my guy.
Speaker 5 (19:28):
To be quite honest, you think so because it's easier
for them because they don't have to do anything about it,
because it's just like a case that's checked off.
Speaker 3 (19:34):
Well, you're asking who, and that question is why, so
who is Philly PD? Why? Maybe it's clearing case. We
have to do an episode to know for sure. We
can say that the initial calculus on the side of
law enforcement and the homicide detectives was that the door
(19:56):
was broken down by the boyfriend, the paramore. We mentioned
Goldberg right, the door was locked from the inside. The
PD said there were no signs of an intruder and
that Greenberg, the teacher, had no defensive wounds. And then
later they said there were mental issues that Greenberg may
(20:16):
have had and that was their primary impetus for coming
back and pressuring the Medical Examiner's office to change the
ruling to a suicide. But you know, again, without being lawyers,
without being doctors, I think it's a pretty safe assumption
that that would be a virtually impossible way to kill yourself,
(20:36):
like stabbing yourself. That many times repeatedly without dying part
way through. Yeah.
Speaker 5 (20:42):
I mean, you know, even in cases like the death
of Elliott Smith, for example, the singer.
Speaker 3 (20:48):
Who stabbed himself stabbed himself in the.
Speaker 5 (20:50):
Chests, and there were immediate questions about whether his girlfriend
was involved for that very reason, because it's just he
like shot himself in the gut, want to say, which
is also the worst possible way to go, and then
stabbed himself in the heart. So I believe, again I'm
not getting the details exactly right, but I think it was.
There were initial questions that his girlfriend, who was either
(21:11):
nearby or present, had something to do with it, but
that was eventually quashed.
Speaker 4 (21:16):
But there were questions.
Speaker 3 (21:17):
M Yeah, and there are questions that hopefully and most importantly, uh,
the family will the family of Greenberg again, Goldberg is
the boyfriend, Greenberg is the victim. Hopefully the family of
Greenberg will be able to get those answers. And if
you guys think it's worth making an episode on it,
I say, I say let's do it, because this is
(21:40):
still this is still ongoing and hopefully hopefully investigations continue.
How does that.
Speaker 2 (21:46):
Sound sounds good?
Speaker 3 (21:48):
Well, we can't leave you on that note. So we're
gonna we're gonna move to something that is less disturbing
to some of us but intensely disturbing to a few
of our our fellow conspiracy realist. If you gets squiked
out by food, fast forward about three to four minutes.
The country of Singapore has some new stuff on the menu.
(22:15):
You guys have eaten crickets right, like Sunday school crickets,
sometimes tacos.
Speaker 4 (22:20):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (22:21):
Yeah. Singapore has approved edible insects at not because there
was you know, some nepotism and some like kid of
a billionaire is a edgy chef or something. It's because
they have growing food security concerns, the same way that
the European Union has a bunch of farm subsidies to
(22:44):
keep their agricultural industry going despite rising costs. Singapore just
approved edible insects. And if we want to call out
a school early and head to Singapore's house at seafood restaurant,
we can get the fishhead curry, Matt, you'lvecurry. We can
get the fish head curry with a side of crunchy crickets.
(23:06):
We can also get tofu that comes with the bugs,
no extra charge.
Speaker 2 (23:10):
Delicious that crunch. Instead of those little crispy wantons, you
just get some bugs.
Speaker 4 (23:15):
It's a feature, not a bug, but it's a bug.
Speaker 3 (23:18):
Worth it, worth it. It's sixteen species of different things
that can be served in Singaporean restaurants now crickets, grasshoppers, grubs,
meal worms. It took about two years for the notoriously
strict Singaporean government to decide on this and say it
(23:38):
it could actually happen. TikTok is going to go crazy
for it. We also know the real reason it's happening
is not because Singapore loves TikTok. It's not nepotism. It's
because insects are primarily protein one. You can fry about
anything and make it taste good too. And in twenty nineteen,
(23:59):
Singapore looked around and realized ninety percent of its food
is imported, and they're aiming to create thirty percent of
their nutritional needs internally by twenty thirty. So there are
a lot more bikes in the future. We talked about
this a little while back. When did we gosh, it
was years ago we talked about this idea. Was it
(24:21):
lab grown meat something like that? Protein alternatives absolutely and
you know, there's been a lot or much a do
I think maybe in certain circles about like.
Speaker 5 (24:30):
This is the future that liberals want, you know, or
we're eating bugs. Everything's bugs, you know, bug protein, and
it is kind of the stuff of sci fi where
like a dystopian future where everything is just sort of
made of like an amalgamation of like insect kiten or something.
Speaker 4 (24:46):
Like that, you know.
Speaker 5 (24:48):
But it is certainly better for the environment than like
with all the gases that come from slaughterhouses and cow
cattle production and things like that, and of course the
if you go that route, the inhumanity of meatduction in general.
Speaker 4 (25:02):
But it is a talking point that you hear about,
like the idea they just want.
Speaker 3 (25:04):
To serve us bugs and before we go to an
at break and we'll have to say that is a
perfect setup. There's other news. We didn't get to corpse
shortage due to rise in Scottish medical students. Clearly a
necromancer wrote that headline. Heightened tensions in Lebanon. Hope everybody
can get a flight out. Chinese American man has been
(25:27):
convicted of spine on dissidence for China. There's way more
to that story, but for now speaking of weird foods,
would you ever eat a bear? Or if you had
a dead bear, what would you do with it?
Speaker 5 (25:40):
Well, you know, Ben, they say, sometimes you eat the bear,
and sometimes the bear, well he eats you.
Speaker 3 (25:46):
We'll be right back after a word from our sponsors.
Speaker 5 (25:56):
And we returned with I think one other stranger political
stories in a political season that has been rife or
as you point out, our friend Frank says, wide rife with.
Speaker 4 (26:08):
Strangeness, This comes from fledgling.
Speaker 5 (26:12):
I guess one could argue third party candidate and political
dynasty member Robert F.
Speaker 4 (26:18):
Kennedy Junior. Guys, he would be the son of Bobby Kennedy,
isn't that right? Son of Robert Kennedy senior.
Speaker 3 (26:26):
Yaes career, son of the assassinated assassinated Bobby Kennedy exactly.
Speaker 4 (26:32):
And I don't know.
Speaker 5 (26:32):
Political dynasties are fascinating, And I know that's one of
your pet subjects, Ben, and one that you have mega
problems with. The scruples shall we say, because I was
talking to my kid the other day trying to explain
to them what a political dynasty is and I couldn't help.
Probably from your influence, Ben, just say it's basically like
a monarchy, but it just sort of like plays by
a different set of rules, but ultimately is kind of
(26:55):
the same thing. It's like a lineage that yeah, sure
they get elected, but it also calls into question all
the things behind the scenes about what does it mean
to get.
Speaker 3 (27:03):
Pold it's jag just as gross.
Speaker 5 (27:07):
Yeah, I think so too, and it really again not
this isn't really what the story is about, but it
does call into question all of the machinations behind the
scenes of what it takes to get elevated to that
level and what it means to actually get you know,
that level of prominence, and is it Is it fair?
Speaker 4 (27:23):
Because I would argue it.
Speaker 5 (27:24):
Can't possibly be with a number of repetitive entries into
the political United States political history that do come from
these dynasties.
Speaker 4 (27:32):
But we're talking about.
Speaker 5 (27:33):
RFK Junior, who you could also argue is a bit
of a black sheep of the Kennedy political dynasty because
the Kennedys have traditionally been pretty I guess liberal, I get,
I don't know. I mean, that's means different things, you know,
throughout history, but in general a little bit more on
the progressive side, A little bit more from that kind
(27:54):
of Boston lawyering kind of background, well spoken and well
educated and typically you know, proponents of pretty progressive policies.
RFK Junior, on the other hand, has had some real
problematic bouts with the public. I I suppose in terms
(28:15):
of his anti vax standpoint, his anti VAX's few viewpoints.
I believe he even had like an organization that he
founded that was intended to proliferate anti VAX sentiment, like
shut down or at least like taken off of social
media platforms for disseminating incorrect information let's just say determined
(28:38):
to be incorrect.
Speaker 4 (28:40):
Also been in the news recently because he's.
Speaker 5 (28:41):
Running as this third party candidate, a lot of people
are calling him kind of a spoiler candidate, which would
be spoiler for the Democrat side, the Democrat ticket, and
up until the point, you know, recently, when Joe Biden
dropped out of the race, that certainly seemed like the case.
Speaker 4 (28:57):
But now his continued presence.
Speaker 5 (28:59):
Almost seems like it might actually be a spoiler for
the Republicans because of the way things are sort of
shaping up. So that's interesting in and of itself. No
one certainly thinks he's a viable candidate. He is married
to Cheryl Hines of Curb Your Enthusiasm fame, which I
was a little bummed to here.
Speaker 4 (29:15):
I at least kind of like Cheryl.
Speaker 5 (29:17):
He does have a background of conservationism in a way.
Was recently announced to have been diagnosed with having brainworms
that he believes he may have gotten on his travels abroad,
you know, for some of these humanity, you know, humanitarian efforts.
But now it turns out he may actually have gotten
(29:38):
these brain worms from a dead bear cub carcass that
he decided in his wisdom to pick up off the
road on his way on a falconing expedition with an
unnamed buddy of his.
Speaker 4 (29:53):
He lives in.
Speaker 5 (29:53):
Westchester, which is a very affluent part And is it Connecticut, geyser?
Speaker 4 (29:59):
Is that upstate New New York?
Speaker 5 (30:00):
Connecticut and upstate New York almost blend together in my
mind geographically in terms of like where the rich people
who go into the city during the day for work
actually live.
Speaker 4 (30:09):
But it does true, Okay, so it is it is upstate, isn't.
Speaker 3 (30:12):
Well, it's a Westchester county, Westchester County exactly.
Speaker 5 (30:18):
And I've never purported to be a master geographer, but
I'm trying to do my best here. He was on
his way to a falconing expedition, which is, I guess
another thing rich people do in the Hudson Valley when
apparently a car or a van as he describes it,
in front of him, hit and killed a bear cub.
How do we know about this, you guys might be asking, Well,
(30:41):
he posted a video of himself essentially admitting to this
whole affair we're going to get into the details of
with Roseanne Barr, the I don't know troubled comedian. I
guess it was once a household name for the Roseanne show,
the sitcom with John Goodman that was, like, you know,
a staple of nineties kind of televisual viewing.
Speaker 3 (31:01):
And she later became a poster child for ambient correct.
Speaker 5 (31:05):
Well because she said some things, some very offensive, racially insensitive.
Dare I say hateful things that I'm not going to
repeat here, but then claim that she only did it
because she was on ambient And if anyone knows anyone
who takes ambient or has any experience with themselves, you
do know that there is a thing is.
Speaker 4 (31:23):
Like this ambient lore.
Speaker 5 (31:24):
It's true that it can cause you to say some
weird stuff, or make weird food in the middle of
the night, or just generally kind of have these like
you know, fugue state moments, these incidents. And this is
what she claimed was the case. But she's been problematic
for other reasons. She's just been a real political firebrand
and has some pretty insensitive views, let's just say.
Speaker 4 (31:45):
But that's not the point.
Speaker 5 (31:46):
The point is this is the venue which Rfka Junior
chose to cop to this occurrence essentially. So what happened
was he claims he saw the bear being hit, he
got out of.
Speaker 4 (31:58):
His car, he picked up the bear, put it in his.
Speaker 5 (32:01):
Car, with the intention, he said, of taking it home,
skinning it, butchering it, and saving the bear meat to
consume at a later date. Berting it, yeah, dehydrating it,
making bear jerky whatever.
Speaker 4 (32:16):
Really yeah really.
Speaker 5 (32:18):
And then he also went so far as to say,
and this is totally legal in the state of New York.
Speaker 4 (32:22):
Because this is considered roadkill.
Speaker 3 (32:24):
Is true, it is legal. It's illegal to have people
pay you to serve it to them, but it is
legal to consume it yourself. And also I would argue.
You know, it's an accident. He wasn't purposely hunting the bear.
It is not an unethical thing to do. But he
was on the way to the airport in a bit
(32:45):
of a rush.
Speaker 4 (32:45):
Well, it gets weirder. He wasn't well, he wasn't on
the way in the airport. Even yet, there's more. He
was on the way to falconing.
Speaker 5 (32:50):
But Matt, I see you have some more questions before
we get to the next bet.
Speaker 2 (32:53):
But he was going to eat the bear meat.
Speaker 5 (32:56):
Which is not a good It's it's apparently right though, guys,
ye general.
Speaker 3 (33:01):
Yeah, you're thinking of the viral video that posted recently
with all the tapeworms coming out of it's but for years. Yeah,
like it's it's true though, they are riddled because they
eat a lot of raw salmon, eat a lot of
raw raw food that already has parasites. It's part of
the grand circle of life of creepy things. But yeah,
people eat bear meat.
Speaker 2 (33:21):
There are parts of the bear.
Speaker 5 (33:23):
There are parts of the bear that are apparently safer
than others to consume. It is not my wheelhouse at all,
so I couldn't tell you what it is. But you know,
you've eaten exotic jerky's been that's sort of a thing
that you've done in the past, and in our travels together,
we went on a weird road rally in like West Virginia,
down that part of the country where you might have
(33:45):
a little more roadkill based culinary let's excursions, and there
are lots of crazy road roadside shops that would sell
rattlesnake jerky and all of this kind of stuff that's
probably prepared regionally, So there's a certain acceptance for that
kind of thing in certain parts of the country.
Speaker 4 (34:03):
But we yeah, so he and he's a guy.
Speaker 5 (34:06):
That's an outdoorsy guy. He likes to get out the
great outdoors. He's going falconing. This sort of tracks, I
would argue, But what gets a little suss is what
happens next. He puts the bear in his car, he
goes falconing, has such a lovely time falconing.
Speaker 4 (34:21):
Is that do you hunt when you're falconing?
Speaker 5 (34:23):
Is it literally just you send the falcon out and
it catches small game and then it brings it back
to you.
Speaker 3 (34:28):
Sometimes you can you can have it bring back game,
or you can just set it for itself. The big
trick is getting it to trust you enough to come back.
Speaker 4 (34:38):
You got the glove and everything.
Speaker 3 (34:40):
And he's also the falcon hat. You know about that, right.
Speaker 5 (34:43):
That's the one that it humps basically right like it.
It's attracted to it sexually.
Speaker 3 (34:48):
And the reason the reason my friends and I are
not falconers.
Speaker 5 (34:54):
Actually, if anyone listening to this show for any amount
of time, they know there's many reasons that I'm not
a fant falconer, and this whole hobby is mystifying to me.
These are birds of prey, they got sharp beaks and
claws and talons or whatever.
Speaker 4 (35:07):
I just I would be terrified.
Speaker 5 (35:09):
But so they had such a lovely time falconing, and
then afterwards he's the idea was he was going to
go back to his place in Westchester. Almost want to
do some fact checking here with lebe a little Google map.
So if we do Google maps, like from Hudson Valley
to west Chester, you know it takes a long time
to get anywhere in this part of the country because
(35:30):
of traffic, and then especially if you're factoring in like
going into the city. So let's see Hudson Valley, New York,
get directions from there to west Chester, Westchester.
Speaker 4 (35:46):
New York. That is a good hour and forty minutes.
You know.
Speaker 3 (35:52):
Also two questions. One did he have a bear tag?
In Two? What time of year was it?
Speaker 5 (35:56):
Well, that's the thing, though, Ben. What he claims is
that he didn't need one because it was roadkill. That's
what he says to Roseanne. That's all I'm saying.
Speaker 3 (36:05):
But it's I think he said, at least if I'm
remembering the video posted.
Speaker 4 (36:09):
To x he posted himself.
Speaker 3 (36:14):
Yeah, yeah, he got in front of the story. They
would call it right. So if I'm remembering this correctly,
didn't he say? It's legal in New York to take
home route kill bear if you have a bear tag,
it's a bear tag.
Speaker 5 (36:27):
There's no bear hunting in this part of the I guess,
would you, I get maybe there is, I guess in
the Hudson Valley air I mean they are wooded area.
Speaker 4 (36:34):
Maybe you could go bear. So it's a bear tag
like a hunting license for bear.
Speaker 3 (36:38):
Like According to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation,
if you hit I think if you hit most wild
animals with a vehicle, local law enforcement can and will
allow you to take the animal by They just say,
writing a tag for it. You can learn more by
(37:01):
contacting the New York Bureau of Wildlife at five poet
eight four oh two eight eight eight three. I'm reading
straight off their twitter.
Speaker 5 (37:09):
I just I'm sorry not to get log jams here
with this, but right like it's it's this form of
a license.
Speaker 4 (37:15):
Then is it a one time thing? Who writes the tag?
Speaker 5 (37:18):
I'm also seeing that, you know, bears in the wilderness
for research purposes, for various other conservation purposes are tagged.
Speaker 4 (37:26):
You know, that's a different kind. It is a different
I know.
Speaker 5 (37:28):
I'm just making sure that I'm on the same page,
right right, So I don't want to get caught up
in the weeds here. So let's just for for auntents
and purposes, let's just say that he thought what he
was doing was legal, and he made that clear to
Rosehirt and said that what I you know, what.
Speaker 4 (37:40):
I was doing. He actually goes out of his way
to say that this is legal.
Speaker 5 (37:44):
All the while Roseanne is just kind of listening, seeming
somewhat mystified by the whole thing. It's sort of like,
why are you telling me this kind of and to
your point, Ben, it does feel as though he was
trying to get ahead of a story that he knew
was going to drop about a news event that happened
about ten years ago where a bear's carcass was found
(38:05):
in New York City's Central Park next to like a
broken down bicycle in a bike lane. And it was
a big old mystery as to where this bear came from,
because there's no bears in the Central Park.
Speaker 4 (38:19):
There are no bears in New York City.
Speaker 5 (38:22):
They would be much more relegated to the surrounding wilds
of New York State and in Connecticut, et cetera. So
this is our FK Junior coming out and saying, yeah,
that was me. I dropped the bear there because he
was having such a grand old time falconing that they
didn't have time to go back to his home in Westchester,
where he was going to deposit the bear into a
(38:44):
freezer of some sort, I guess, until he had time
to butcher it. Instead, he had to make it over
to Peter Luger Peter Luga Steakhouse, where he had a
business dinner. It's the kind of place the valet's okay,
so presumably he valeid his car with a dead bear.
KRK is in the back because another article written about
(39:06):
him claimed that he has a really disgusting car, like
really like covered in animal fur. Like instead of the
back seat, there's just like a bench and like the
side mirrors smashed.
Speaker 4 (39:17):
But I don't know, maybe he's self parked.
Speaker 5 (39:18):
But typically places like that you got a valet, so
presumably the dead bear Carkers is still in there, rotting
all the.
Speaker 2 (39:24):
While before we move on. It's sitting there. Let's pause
there in time, dead bear sitting there in the car.
It reminds me so much of the SNL sketch The Falconer,
Like the basis of that sketch, do you guys remember it?
Speaker 4 (39:36):
And I don't know that one tell us it's.
Speaker 2 (39:38):
Will Forte playing a guy who just leaves his whole family,
goes out in the woods, meets a falcon. I think
its name is Donald, Yeah, it's Donald. He's always yelling,
he gets trapped all the time. He yells for Donald
to help him, who's his falcon? And then Donald goes
and eats at a like crazy fancy luxurious restaurant instead
(39:59):
of helping him. And it's just like it's an excuse
to show a falcon doing bougie stuff. I think, yeah,
but it reminds me so much of this.
Speaker 5 (40:08):
It's a Peter Luger steak house likely might have been
a place that the Donald would have frequented, but presumably
he had a change of clothes. You know, you don't
go to Peter Luger wearing your falconing scrubs. I don't
know what when falcon's in, to be honest. And then
apparently it was running late for the airport. You didn't
seem like he planned ahead very well in all of this,
(40:29):
and so then thought that it would be a real
hoot in a holler if he just dumped the bear
in Central Park, which we'll get into this in a minute.
Speaker 4 (40:38):
Why a lot of this doesn't quite make sense.
Speaker 5 (40:40):
And he recently there had been a spate of cyclists,
like the new bike lanes had been put in and
around Central Park and people were getting pancaked by bicyclists.
So he thought it'd be funny if he staged a
crime scene to make it look like the bear was
hit by a cyclist. So he left his disheveled bike
Lely also had in his vehicle on top of the bear,
(41:02):
and then skid addled.
Speaker 3 (41:04):
And that would be the conspiratorial part of the story.
Speaker 5 (41:07):
Well, there's a bunch because the report, you know, from
the original discovery of this bear carcass was.
Speaker 4 (41:15):
That it had stab wounds.
Speaker 5 (41:18):
It was determined to have been you know, that life
was determined to have been ended by a vehicle, But
it also was reported to have had stab wounds.
Speaker 4 (41:29):
Maybe that's certainly possible.
Speaker 5 (41:33):
There are also images out there. I don't know exactly
where they came from. It must he must have posted
them himself, but of RFK like posing with the bear carcass,
like putting his hand down its throat and kind of
weird stuff like yeah, yeah, because graphic picture here shows
(41:54):
RFK Junior posing with dead bear code before dumping it
in Central Park, and it does show him like with
the bear cub like propped up and got his hand
in his mouth looking like pretending like he's being bitten,
and he's making this face like oh my hand with
this kind of messed up looking bear carcass. And he
(42:14):
claims that he just had to get to the airport
and didn't have time and so he dumped it in
Central Park as a goof.
Speaker 4 (42:19):
But guys, Central Park isn't near the airport. There's a
million places, like you know, in the woods.
Speaker 5 (42:28):
If he's out there, he's I think I think Peter
Lugers is in Jersey, and then the depending on which
airport he's going to with JFK or LaGuardia or even Newark,
there's a lot of like kind of wooded areas around there.
They're not like smack in the middle of the city,
and it takes an hour to get to Central Park
(42:48):
or more from the airport.
Speaker 4 (42:50):
You know, I know this isn't a mere mortal.
Speaker 5 (42:52):
He probably has special transportation or maybe even a choppa,
who knows, but it just doesn't track.
Speaker 4 (42:57):
It's super weird, and it's.
Speaker 5 (43:00):
Also super weird that he was like, see, this is funny,
and I told Roseanne, so it's funny, she's a comedian.
Speaker 4 (43:07):
It's just mega weird the whole thing.
Speaker 5 (43:10):
And then he even joked when asked about it, like
that maybe he got his brain worms from the bear carcass.
Speaker 4 (43:16):
So I don't know that.
Speaker 5 (43:17):
That's the best I can do to sum up this
bizarre hotale. Maybe you guys have some stuff to add,
or we could chat back and forth about it for
a little bit, because I'm a little mystic.
Speaker 4 (43:25):
Fine the conspiratorial angle are plenty, Like what was he thinking?
Why did he do this? He said he was playing.
Speaker 5 (43:32):
A prank more or less. But it's like ten years
had passed. He had to know that it was reported
on you know, I don't know guys.
Speaker 2 (43:39):
Well, you know, it always makes you wonder about supremely wealthy,
powerful families like the Kennedys, like you know a lot
of others. What do they get up to, just, you know,
for a little laugh.
Speaker 4 (43:53):
That's what I was.
Speaker 2 (43:54):
That's literally the vision. But that's not fun that's not funny.
It's funny that you said it in that way, but
chap equittic is not funny at all. But but it
does make me wonder about just the little things that
they do for a laugh. When I'm just imagining my
family didn't have much money, we would we would just
go outside, or we would play lawn darts, or we would.
Speaker 4 (44:16):
Make illegal matt.
Speaker 5 (44:18):
That is a privileged position, you playing your illegal hunger games.
Speaker 2 (44:24):
When we were young, back when when I was growing
up as a kid, like, I just wonder what a
supremely powerful, wealthy family considers. Oh that's silly, let's do
that's a prank.
Speaker 5 (44:35):
Yeah, tap equittic was Ted Kennedy, right, Yeah, who who
you know ended up drunk driving and taking the life
of one of his passengers, married Joe Kopecney. Out there
in Martha's vineyard, another place where the rich and powerful
l like to frolic.
Speaker 3 (44:55):
There were consequences of a sort. It's the reason he
didn't become president.
Speaker 5 (45:00):
Well, but the one could argue that it is barely
at It is a consequence if that's.
Speaker 4 (45:05):
Your whole bag and that's your whole life's goal.
Speaker 3 (45:07):
But I can say it again more sarcastically.
Speaker 5 (45:09):
No, no, I get what you say. I'm man, We're
on the same page there. I'm just saying, like, it's
not the same consequence as if someone.
Speaker 4 (45:14):
Like you or I did something like this.
Speaker 5 (45:16):
And speaking of consequences, I do believe what he did
was illegal. Dumping a bear carcass in a public park
in that way, I believe that's like a biohazard at
the very least.
Speaker 4 (45:27):
If not something has.
Speaker 3 (45:29):
Leased against the city ordinance, it has to be otherwise
it's New York City. They'd be riddled with bear carcasses
because that's how people work. I'm kidding there, but I
don't know it does seem, it does seem like, without
being a Bureau of Wildlife Management experts ourselves, ourselves, that
there would be some other less controversial way to dispose
(45:55):
of that, Like you could get I'm making things up,
but surely you could call some kind of wildlife removal
and ask them to pick it up. Right. Even here
in Georgia we have some we have various sorts of
roadkill management.
Speaker 2 (46:11):
You know, Yeah, you let somebody know and then you
drive on.
Speaker 5 (46:14):
I just sounded like he was just tickled by the
whole thing, you know, like he just thought this was
a real silly goof, only to then realize that it
was reported quite widely, even outside of New York City
like this certainly made some headlines. I guess it was
a slow news day, but it does appear that he
could well have faced some fines for dumping a dead
(46:36):
bear in Central Park. The state agency, the New York
State Department of Environmental Conservation, that led an actual forensic
investigation into the bear dumping, set in a statement this week,
but the statute of limitations had long expired on that,
so really just kind of another embarrassing gaff for for
(46:57):
old RFK Junior By.
Speaker 2 (46:59):
The way, listen to episode what was the chapiquetic Incident?
It was put out in twenty eighteen and then again
as a classic last year.
Speaker 3 (47:07):
Thanks for that, Matt.
Speaker 4 (47:08):
Yeah.
Speaker 5 (47:08):
So with that, let's take a quick break and hear
a word from our sponsors, and then we'll come back
with one more piece of strange news.
Speaker 2 (47:24):
We've returned and we are jumping to a story from
the EPA, really an announcement maybe from the EPA that's
been covered to a lot of places. But before we
get there, let's talk about a specific herbicide product that's
produced by this outfit, am VAC Chemical Corporation, a subsidiary
(47:44):
of the American Vanguard Corporation. The herbicide brand in question
is dakthal dac t h a L fluwable herbicide herbicide
excuse me, aka dimethyl tetrachlor tariff tholate aka DCPA. For
(48:05):
the rest of this evening, we're going to call it DCPA.
Speaker 4 (48:09):
Now.
Speaker 2 (48:09):
According to the US Environmental Protection Agency, this substance DCPA
is quote and herbicide applied to control grasses and certain
broad leaf weeds in both agricultural and non agricultural settings.
Agricultural uses include coal, crops such as broccoli, kale, and cabbage,
cucurbits such as squash, pumpkin, and zucchini, tomatoes, onions, and
(48:33):
many herbs. And they also note that this is primarily
used on crops such as broccoli, brussels, and cabbage, also onions.
The EPA also notes that this herbicide is commonly used
for non agricultural purposes on sites that have quote non
residential turf. What do you think that means, guys, non
residential turf?
Speaker 4 (48:55):
You mean, like, no, I don't think I do know.
Speaker 3 (48:58):
The neighborhoods is yeah.
Speaker 2 (49:02):
Well there's a neighborhood around a thing.
Speaker 3 (49:04):
That it's not on the actual Just to clarify, I'm
saying it's not used technically in the neighborhood. Yes, it's
used Is that correct?
Speaker 2 (49:13):
Pretty much the golf course. That's what that reads or
should read.
Speaker 4 (49:17):
Yes, that's why I was getting exactly Yeah.
Speaker 2 (49:21):
Yeah. They also say it's used on ornamentals, but I
don't think we need to worry about that for this.
The reason why we are concerned is because it is
used on a ton of crops that a ton of
us consume, and it is used It was used on
golf courses where a ton of I'm gonna say it,
mostly wealthy people go and hang out. Maybe that's is that,
(49:43):
Maybe that's not right. I'm sure there are a lot
of public golf courses that are available to everyone that
many people use. Perhaps in my personal experience, the golf
courses are reserved for people who have quite a bit
of money to spend in.
Speaker 3 (49:58):
Say, country can country clubs.
Speaker 4 (50:01):
You gotta be like invited, you know, you gotta it's like.
Speaker 3 (50:04):
Well the gut ones. Yeah, there are a lot where
you can just pay it and they'll let you in. Yeah.
Speaker 2 (50:08):
Probably in my experience, it's people who have that that
that money to spend to get in and play golf
frequently enough for the purposes of this episode, to play
golf frequently enough to be exposed enough to this chemical.
Speaker 3 (50:23):
An important distinction. This is an herbicide, not a pesticide, but.
Speaker 2 (50:27):
It has been called a pesticide in a lot of
the reporting, which I do too. They call it a
pesticide that targets weeds. Right, what you don't do you
mean an herbicide? Sorry? The EPA even called it a
pesticide after previously calling it an herbicide. In September twenty
twenty three release, which is just whatever. So why are
(50:51):
we talking about this thing? It's because, for the first
time in forty years, the seriously, the first time in
forty years, the Environmental Protection Agency has taken an emergency
action to stop the use of a chemical herbicideer pesticide
linked to serious health risks for fetuses for unborn babies. Sure,
(51:16):
so why is it dangerous? Well, according to the EPA,
unborn babies whose pregnant mothers are exposed to this substance,
sometimes even without knowing exposure has occurred, can experience changes
in fetal thyroid hormone levels, and these changes are generally
linked to low birth weight, impaired brain development, decreased IQ,
(51:38):
and impaired motor skills later on in life, and a
lot of that can be completely irreversible. These are birth
defects that this chemical, at least according to the EPA,
may cause.
Speaker 3 (51:50):
So there are mitigation strategies, but there is no way
to fix it.
Speaker 4 (51:54):
Oh.
Speaker 3 (51:54):
Speaking of fixing things, Matt, I'm so sorry to intertect
before we get to before we get too far. If
you're writing the email, yes, we understand. Pesticides are the
umbrella category, and plants count as pest in some cases,
so herbicides are more under that umbrella specifically focused on
unwanted plants.
Speaker 2 (52:14):
But that's what this thing is. That's why I'm so
upset about it. This thing doesn't target creatures. It targets
the weeds that you don't want growing next to your
cabbage and your broccoli and your backchoi or whatever.
Speaker 3 (52:28):
And unborn humans. Clear. Oh but that's thet I mean.
I'm just putting the pesticide herbicide thing there to get
again in front of the email.
Speaker 2 (52:36):
Oh sure, short, short, st sure and write the email please.
We will still read it. So this is very very strange,
you guys, because this substance DCPA has been looked at
by the EPA for a long time. It goes way
back to twenty thirteen. Well, actually goes back to two
thousand and two when this company started producing the substance.
(52:58):
But in twenty thirteen there was basically what's known as
a data call in or a DCI, issued by the EPA.
They send it out to let's say the manufacturer of
a chemical in this case AMVAC, and they say, hey,
we need you to conduct these internal studies on your product,
(53:20):
and we need you to send us all of the data.
And it was requiring them to submit more than twenty
studies to support the existing registrations of this specific chemical.
So it's a lot of that what we were talking
about with the Supreme Court decision right pretty recently, where
the EPA is going to going to war or you know,
(53:43):
let's say battle with a company that's producing a chemical
like this. And now the Supreme Court doesn't have to
rely on the previous rulings or the previous decisions by
a federal body like the EPA. Now they can look
at whatever in this case, AMVAC says, and so we'll
go with that. They don't have to go with the
(54:03):
EPA's ruling in this case. So it goes back to
twenty thirteen. EPA is trying to get information on the
product from the company that produces it. They are failing
to send in this information. They fail to do so
for almost ten years. They don't get all the information
needed on this chemical substance that is being applied to
(54:24):
broccoli and cabbage and kale and all kinds of pumpkins
and stuff across the United States. But the company making
the product doesn't care enough, I guess, or is concerned
enough with their own product that they don't want to
get it taken off shelves because they're making a lot
of money's and that's my own words there as my accusation.
(54:46):
But eventually, in I think it's in twenty twenty two,
finally all of the information gets from this company to
the EPA. The APA can finally evaluate it, and when
they do, they realize, oh crap, there is there is
serious risk. And back in twenty twenty three, this is
why I bring up the turf so much. Guys, back
(55:08):
in twenty twenty three, there was basically a voluntary cessation
of the use of this substance on turfs, so like
on golf courses for things like that, because the risk
was unacceptable.
Speaker 4 (55:23):
Guys.
Speaker 2 (55:23):
On the label for this substance, when you are buying
it as an herbicide and you're gonna put it on
your golf course, let's say it says after you apply
this stuff, you get like twelve hours, don't go out
there on the golf course, and you should be fine
after that. But according to the EPA and the internal
studies that were submitted, it takes around twenty five days
(55:44):
for it to be safe to go back out on
the turf, which in my mind I imagine CEOs, wealthy
business owners and entrepreneurs that are out there on the
links and realizing, oh crap, we were being exposed to
like a really dangerous chemical. We should probably stop doing that.
And you know, well over a year later it's like, oh, yeah,
(56:07):
the fetuses are at risk too. I guess we should
probably stop that.
Speaker 3 (56:11):
But unlike public school playgrounds, the victims here have the
legal and financial wherewithal to prosecute their case.
Speaker 4 (56:19):
Do something about it. Yeah, dude, Yes, it does kind
of call into start or place in stark contrast that
kind of you know, upstairs downstairs model of these kinds
of things, like the folks who really you know, are
just in communities where these kinds of things have been
used or even tested. Uh, And just the lack of transparency.
Speaker 5 (56:41):
But of course when it's on the golf course and
people are gonna stand up and say something about it
and use their you know, clout to have it rectified.
Speaker 2 (56:49):
Mm hmmmm, it should be noted here, guys, are just
a couple more things The EPA attempted to stop the
production of like the maybe you can think about it
as a concentrated version of this pesticide. The EPA tried
to do that last year, but they it's one of
those weird things where but any of that stuff that
was already in the marketplace or had already been purchased
(57:12):
by a consumer or you know, by a big company
that's got to use it on a huge farm. All
of that's fine, you can still use all of that.
That's all gravy. Just company don't make anymore. And it
was all because they were working on they're waiting on
paperwork still.
Speaker 3 (57:28):
So not a recall. Knowing a lot of these larger
private entities or even municipalities might be buying a ton
of this at once, like in bulk literal tons.
Speaker 2 (57:41):
Exactly, but then for less than a year later to
come out and issue an emergency order to stop use.
So that isn't to stop selling, to stop producing, that is,
to stop using this product no more can you use it?
The EPA says. They say, this order is a effective immediately,
(58:01):
and this is interesting to me. This is why they're
taking this action right now. They say that The EPA
says that the continued sale and use of DCPA products
during the time it would take to follow the normal
cancelation process poses an imminent hazard to unborn babies. And
they said the company Amvac, attempted to address these concerns
(58:25):
and they note that here, but they've determined that there's
no practical mitigation measures that could be put into place
to allow its continued use. So like Amvac proposed a
couple of changes to the product itself, a couple of
changes to you know, what the product would say, and
all this other stuff, but the EVA came back and said, no, no,
we got to stop this thing right now. This is
(58:50):
really scary for me guys personally, considering literally how many
Brussels sprouts and like broccolis and broccolini and all this
other stuff that I feed my son and vegetable yali, yes,
all the onions and just all these things that you
use in normal everyday cooking, especially for meals that you
(59:10):
wouldn't even think about onions being in your dish, but
you're using it, you know, for the flavor or as
you know, part of a trinity.
Speaker 4 (59:17):
It's just.
Speaker 2 (59:19):
I don't know, it really freaks me out, and I'm
glad this is happening. But I kind of feel like
this thing, this power that the EPA is flexing right here,
should be happening like once a month.
Speaker 4 (59:35):
Isn't that kind of the issue it? Maybe correct me
if I'm if I'm misunderstanding it isn't.
Speaker 5 (59:39):
What led to them actually doing something about it was
the you know, complaints from the halves.
Speaker 2 (59:48):
I'm not a I'm not sure about that. Maybe what
I'm seeing is more this back and forth between the
EPA and the company and EPA trying to get internal
document and in studies that they're conducting themselves, which is
a major problem.
Speaker 3 (01:00:05):
Also, Yeah, it's a long time in coming, but I
think I would agree with Noel there that it is
at least partially due to the demographic of people affected
in some circumstances. Still, cruciferous vegetables in particular are such
a common part of the diet. If you could clarify
for this, just to be sure everybody knows, this is
(01:00:28):
not the kind of thing you can just wash off
the vegetable.
Speaker 2 (01:00:31):
Right No, no, no, like it's.
Speaker 3 (01:00:34):
Inside it, it will it can get to people. Yeah,
the consumption check.
Speaker 2 (01:00:39):
One of the big selling points on the website for
this product, the one that's got a brand name.
Speaker 4 (01:00:46):
What is it?
Speaker 2 (01:00:47):
A dackthel is just how long it sticks around after
you apply it. You know, basically, you plant your seeds,
you've already weeded or treated your soil to some extent.
You've planted your seeds. Then you put this stuff on
and it's supposed to stick around for a long time
and it's it has staying power, and that's why it's
so good.
Speaker 3 (01:01:07):
Just once. I want one of these environmental contaminants to
have a positive effect on the population, like microplastics that
are good for your balls, you know, lead that makes
you smarter. Just one, just give us one win.
Speaker 2 (01:01:23):
Yeah, that would be cool. But I don't think it's
gonna have been the tie a runoff and everything. We're
going down as a species. Silver lining silver lining, sorry,
silver lining.
Speaker 3 (01:01:37):
We're for Genie news species.
Speaker 2 (01:01:40):
Yes, that's right. The silver lining is is they got it.
Speaker 4 (01:01:44):
They did They did good. They you know it's not the.
Speaker 2 (01:01:48):
EPA did its job. That is an awesome thing. And
you know, thankfully, if Project twenty twenty five goes its way,
the EPA will no longer exist and they won't have
to do this anymore.
Speaker 3 (01:01:59):
It'll well it's colloidal silver.
Speaker 4 (01:02:04):
You're doing a bad job at silver lining this sorry escort.
Speaker 3 (01:02:09):
It's a EPA the sole proprietorship right of a guy
who's retired from DuPont a while back. And you know, everybody,
it's like Lord Michael's where you pitch Saturday Night Live
guest appearances. You if you have a complaint about contaminants
in the environment, you get three minutes in front of
this guy, shark tank style, and he gives you a
(01:02:31):
yes or no, whether or not he believes you.
Speaker 2 (01:02:33):
Hmm, I believe you, guys. This is a I'm gonna
end with this. This is a statement from Assistant Administrator
for the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, Michael Friedolf.
He says DCPA is so dangerous that it needs to
be removed from the market immediately. It's EPA's job to
(01:02:54):
protect people from exposure to dangerous chemicals. In this case,
pregnant women who may never even though they were exposed,
could give birth to babies that experience irreversible lifelong health problems.
That's why, for the first time in almost forty years,
EPA is using its emergency Suspension authority to stop the
use of a pesticide boom again every month, Michael, every month,
(01:03:21):
we need another chemical out of there.
Speaker 3 (01:03:24):
And I hope please freight train keep that clap it.
Because these emergency powers exist for a reason, and in
just because something doesn't seem as I'm using the word
in the old school sense here as spectacular as a
natural disaster, it doesn't mean it's not disastrous.
Speaker 2 (01:03:44):
And I guess we'll have to tackle several other stories
that we didn't talk about today, maybe next week, or
maybe we won't talk about them at all because there's
so much happening. Oh, do look up the attorneys general
that when on a France trip with this really ah man,
I wrote all this stuff out and it's just it's
(01:04:06):
just gross. It's another example of kind of ben It
was a lot like your story, where it's a conglomerate
kind of blanket umbrella thing that's really hard to even
see through where all the campaign finance donations come from
and where all the lobbyist money comes from. But all
of these attorneys general get to go hang out somewhere
(01:04:28):
every year or even every you know, a couple of
quarters and half of them, right, Yeah, in this case,
I think it's twenty six of them got to go
out to France on a trip sponsored by these donors
or lobbyists of some sort a company called sh Yeah,
you can look it up. It's gross.
Speaker 4 (01:04:47):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (01:04:48):
Check out also the story of Shu Zhun Wang. That
is one we didn't get to. There are so many
stories we haven't gotten to. We want to thank everybody
for tuning in. Will be back next week, still birthday month,
still strange news. You know the score. Fellow conspiracy realists,
Please please, please please make our evening and become part
(01:05:10):
of the show. We can't wait to hear from you.
And it is so distressingly easy to find us online.
Speaker 5 (01:05:17):
Yes, indeed distressingly easy. That's a good thing, right. You
can find us in the handle conspiracy Stuff, where we
exist on x FKA Twitter. Isn't it funny that some
parts of that platform still call it tweets and have
leftover remnant language from the previous regime.
Speaker 4 (01:05:31):
I just think that's funny.
Speaker 5 (01:05:32):
You can also find that handle on Facebook, where we
have our Facebook group Here's where it gets crazy. And
on YouTube we have a video content galore. On Instagram
and TikTok, we are Conspiracy Stuff showely.
Speaker 2 (01:05:45):
Lead tweet lead. Isn't that a song?
Speaker 4 (01:05:48):
I don't know?
Speaker 2 (01:05:49):
And that's it? Okay. I think I heard that in
my parents' cars a long time ago when I was string.
Speaker 3 (01:05:56):
On ninety seven point one the oldies channels.
Speaker 5 (01:05:59):
It's also Andy Bernard's ringtone on the office and Jim
hides it in the ceiling at one point and causes
Andy deg bunkers.
Speaker 2 (01:06:07):
Speaking of ring tones, give us a call one eight
three three STDWYTK. When you call in, give yourself a
cool nickname, and then you've got three minutes say whatever
you'd like do. At some point in that message, let
us know if we can use your name and message
on one of our listener mail episodes. If you've got
more to say than can fit in that three minutes,
one out. Instead, send us a good old fashioned email.
Speaker 3 (01:06:29):
We are the entities that read every piece of correspondence
we receive. Be well aware, but not afraid. Sometimes the
void writes back. In fact, some of us are on
the road for a little bit due to some situations.
If you would like to receive an out of context photograph,
write to us conspiracy at iHeartRadio dot com.
Speaker 2 (01:07:09):
Stuff they don't want you to know is a production
of iHeartRadio. For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the iHeartRadio app,
Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.
From UFOs to psychic powers and government conspiracies. History is
riddled with unexplained events. You can turn back now or
learn this stuff they don't want you to know. A
production of iHeartRadio.
Speaker 2 (00:24):
Hello, welcome back to the show. My name is Matt,
my name is Noa.
Speaker 3 (00:28):
They called me Ben. We're joined with our guest superproducer
Max the Free Train Williams. Most importantly, you are here.
That makes this the stuff they don't want you to know.
We're at the beginning of birthday month, as we call
it here on this show, and for anybody with an
August birthday, we wish you well and grand adventure. We
(00:51):
have so much stuff to get to the epas it's
getting on message with some things that we talked about
a few years ago. We've got some notable politicians in
the news, but maybe not in the way you think.
We promise we did want to start. We're talking off air,
but with one quick update. A while back we reported
(01:13):
on a Kansas City, small town newspaper raid. Do you
guys remember that one?
Speaker 2 (01:19):
Oh yeah, so that was a big deal. Someone died
in someone died in connection with the raid on the
newspaper or the house, right.
Speaker 3 (01:30):
Yes, Yeah, the big news, the big update is that
the former police chief who led the raid on this
Kansas City newspaper for doing their journalistic duty. His name
is Gideon Cody. He is going to be charged in
the Marion County District Court. And the report says that
(01:51):
this guy, a actual police chief at the time, committed
the crime of obstruction of justice by knowingly or intentionally
inducing a witness to withhold or unreasonably delay the production
of testimony, info, or documents. You can read more about
this on multiple outlets, but I think we're all very
(02:13):
happy to see that there were consequences for this, because, like,
cast your memory back just last year, it felt like
this could be a harbinger of other crackdowns on the press, right, oh.
Speaker 4 (02:23):
One hundred percent.
Speaker 5 (02:24):
I mean, it really does feel like a kind of
bullying tactic to make the free press scared to exercise
the rights of the free press.
Speaker 3 (02:34):
And speaking of free press, will take a brief pause here,
and then we're going to technically give some free press
to several crazy stories, starting with your favorite guy, Elon Musk.
We're back. Probably the most conservative opinion of this strange
(02:58):
enterprise of hours is that we refuse to call a
certain social media platform X. We still call it Twitter
and a funny thing. I know, we all clock so
many of the same stories. A funny thing that I
saw a headline and wanted to share with everybody is
the following from AP News quote Elon Musk X sues
(03:21):
advertisers over alleged massive advertiser boycott after Twitter takeover. So
even AP news isn't on board with calling it X,
they're still calling it Twitter.
Speaker 4 (03:34):
Yeah.
Speaker 5 (03:34):
I think I maybe mentioned I don't remember if I
saw this in an official news source, but it's definitely
accurate that just about every news source out there still
refers to it as X formerly known as Twitter, making
it probably one of the least successful rebrands in the
history of rebrands. It's just not taking. People don't like it,
and people don't want to say it.
Speaker 3 (03:54):
I mean, AP News, the Daily Zeitgeist, the top journalism
of America, the top two, for sure. I'll call it Twitter, you, oh,
the top two. We're not picking favorites, but those are
the top two. This is the story, guys. The social
media platform under Musk's management and ownership, has sued a
(04:15):
bevy of advertisers and they're saying there's a massive advertiser
boycott that has somehow illegally deprived the company of billions
of dollars and also violated anti trust laws. We're going
to see some more anti trust kind of stuff coming
up later in tonight's program regarding Google. But it's funny
(04:36):
to me this story, because hopefully funny to all of us,
because not too long ago, didn't Musk tell advertisers to go,
you know, take a long walk off a short.
Speaker 4 (04:48):
Pier in no uncertain terms. I believe he maybe even
swore at them, if I'm not mistaken.
Speaker 5 (04:56):
But isn't it funny to see the language of a
lawsuit like this more or less to the layman reads, well,
if you're not going to advertise with me, then I'm
going to assue you for not advertising with me.
Speaker 4 (05:09):
No one has to advertise with anybody, right, Like, I
don't know. I mean, it's so easy to be gas
lit by these very powerful people where you're like, maybe
I missed the memo, or there's some legal footnote I'm
not aware of, or maybe they do have to advertise
with them for reasons unknown.
Speaker 5 (05:25):
But no, let's just shake ourselves out of that stupor.
I don't believe that's the case, guys. I believe the
free market means you can advertise with whoever the hell
you want to and or not advertise with whoever the
hell you want to.
Speaker 2 (05:36):
Yeah, but they isn't the idea or some attorneys, some
powerful attorneys somewhere working for Musk, decided it was illegal
for at least a blanket organization to say don't buy Twitter.
Speaker 3 (05:51):
Yeah, that's what. Yes, that's why. Like ideally, in strange news,
we always want to include stories that are a little
below the fold and involved in some way with the
concept of conspiracy. And you nailed it there. Because the
suit is against something called the World Federation of Advertisers.
It's an anti trust suit, meaning they're saying a single
(06:16):
organization has too much power. Member companies of the World
Federation of Advertisers include things like Unilever, CVS Health, and Mars.
Yeah this is not the planet, but the candy company
Bars okay, yeah, the other one and so and maybe Mars.
Maybe he got soured on the Mars explorations. But in
(06:37):
that case, it does seem to have some theoretical sand
if you're saying that the if you're alleging that this
massive organization pretty much the specter level or the freemason
level of advertisers, has banded against you, then you might
have a case you can take to court.
Speaker 4 (06:58):
That's interesting, and apologies if I misspoke.
Speaker 5 (07:01):
I still think I'm somewhat correct in thinking that this
is still, at the end of the day, up to
the individual members whether or not they choose to advertise
with a particular brand or a particular you know, platform.
I guess it's just a recommendation or it's sort of
like laying out sort of like, hey, we as an
(07:21):
organization think that it's bad business to advertise with this
platform because of X, Y and Z.
Speaker 3 (07:31):
Yeah, you nailed it. Because the specifically they're targeting something
called the Global Alliance for Responsible Media, which is a
safety initiative that is under the auspice or the control
of the World Federation of Advertisers, and they're saying this
brand safety initiative sort of orchestrated a pause in advertising.
(07:57):
And to your point, Noel, there's not a there's not
a provable case of like this kind of organization is
not the United Nations, you know what I mean, it's
not the International criminal court. They can't lock up the
top six people at Unilever if they want to advertise
with whomever.
Speaker 5 (08:15):
But even the United Nations more or less issues recommendations
on a lot of which are pretty toothless and up
to the member nations to decide whether or not they
want to play ball or not.
Speaker 4 (08:25):
And I mean, I guess if the argument.
Speaker 5 (08:27):
Is there is some threat of retribution if our member
organizations are member brands, et cetera, don't follow these guidelines
set out.
Speaker 4 (08:38):
But that was seemingly would be pretty easy to prove.
And if that's the case, then yeah, I think that
is too much power. But isn't it the job of
organizations like this to kind of have ethical guidelines that
they sort of lay out.
Speaker 3 (08:52):
You know, yes, that that is a solid argument. You know,
all less aspects of that are completely vaid. What we
can say here is, despite the fact that this is
easily a turn of the heel for Musk based on
his previous statements, we can say one of the big
(09:12):
questions ultimately becomes one about the legality of boycotts. Now,
it wasn't too long ago that there were some kind
of polemical forces in the United States and abroad arguing
that boycotts against certain countries should be illegal, even though
that's very much a grassroots movement, and to this, you know,
before we move to the next story here, I think
(09:34):
it's a question for us and all of our conspiracy
realists listening along at home, should people be able to
make boycotts illegal? Like if a bunch of people decide
they don't want to mess with you, should they be
forced to mess with you if you're not the actual government.
Speaker 5 (09:51):
I think the term that pops up to me, and
I just want to pop it up for you guys,
is the idea of brand safety, and that's something that
we see a lot here in pot casting and as
a podcasting network. We have methods and mechanisms in place
that ensure brand safety, you know, because brands have guidelines
they don't want to be advertised on certain types of shows.
(10:12):
Certain types of shows don't want certain types of brands
advertised on them.
Speaker 4 (10:17):
You know. It's it's it's a.
Speaker 5 (10:18):
Very reasonable thing. And one could argue that for certain
brands advertising on a platform that is so willy nilly
and Lucy Gussey with hate speech and very you know,
inflammatory content, it could well be something they might want
(10:39):
to be aware of.
Speaker 3 (10:40):
Sure, and totally understandable. But to that earlier question, should
it be illegal for people to boycott something as private
private individuals or private entities?
Speaker 4 (10:51):
Oh? Yeah, I think so.
Speaker 2 (10:54):
I don't think it should be illegal.
Speaker 4 (10:56):
That should know, it should be legal. I'm sorry, I'm sorry,
excuse me. It should be legal.
Speaker 5 (11:00):
Yes, that is exercising. I mean, hell, if corporations are people,
you know, like, come on, shouldn't we be able to
do what people do. I don't have to give my
money or my business to anybody I don't want to.
So it shouldn't be a double standard if we treat
corporations like people in one respect, shouldn't we? I mean
maybe that's a silly thing to mention, but I do
(11:21):
think yes, of course, you should be able to boycott
something that you see as being negative and toxic.
Speaker 2 (11:26):
Yeah. It gets sticky, though. It really does get sticky,
because there are actions you could take to completely tank
a corporation, to take a you know, an individual, even
a sole proprietorship or an LLC or something. You could
tank those things if you had enough players boycotting right
(11:50):
that were big enough. In this case, major advertisers Mars
and Utiliver. Come on, you've seen em and yeah, you've
seen eminem ads recently probably, and you know all kinds
of other ads that you know, all the products that
Unilever has to have an organization come through with those
massive conglomerates and say no, you cannot do this, you
(12:13):
cannot take this one action.
Speaker 4 (12:15):
Sure, what what's the what's the recourse though, Guys?
Speaker 5 (12:18):
If this is overturned and it's determined, like, isn't it
ultimately up to the brands? I mean there's I can't
see any possible outcome where it would be like, no,
you Unilever have to advertise with Twitter, Like, what's the outcome?
Speaker 4 (12:32):
I just don't see kind of what the outcome It.
Speaker 3 (12:33):
Will ultimately, I mean, obviously it will ultimately be litigated
in courts. The primary, most immediate outcome is that this
is awesome for the lawyers involved. They're going to make
so much, like egregious, stupid amounts of money. One of
them might buy Twitter. I don't know, but this this
is going to wend on for a while and make
it dismissed. If it gets dismissed, I mean, the rulings
(12:57):
will be appealed, regardless of the courts the side. We're
keeping an eye on it again because this is an
allegation of conspiracy technically, and for the etymology nerds before
we move on, right, because the law is always litigated constantly.
That's our next that's our next story in this bit.
The etymology of Boycott comes from a guy named Captain
(13:21):
Charles C. Boycott back in the mid to late eighteen hundreds.
Everybody in Ireland hated him, everybody in County Mayo specifically
because he refused to lower rents for his tenant farmers,
just like just like a lot of private corporations refuse
to lower post pandemic prices today. We call that foreshadowing.
(13:44):
So imagine being so hated that your last name became
a word for when a group of people refuses to
mess with you.
Speaker 5 (13:52):
Like Benedict Arnold or something. You know, it's like a
stand in for being a trader.
Speaker 3 (13:57):
Yeah, we should call that arnoldy.
Speaker 4 (14:00):
Yeah, it's true.
Speaker 5 (14:01):
He got his whole name, you know, made into a
concept of being a bad guy.
Speaker 4 (14:07):
Yeah, this is very interesting.
Speaker 5 (14:08):
I mean there is politics involved too, obviously, because I
believe some of these findings that are making this seemingly
actionable word determined by a House Republican led committee that
heard evidence and believe they determined that there were current
laws in place sufficient to deter anti competitive collusion in
online advertisement. So I mean there's a there's a political
(14:31):
edge to this as well. Of course, not to say
that there isn't always when it comes to lawsuits and such,
but it does feel maybe a little loaded, and especially
since Musk has been such an out such a you know,
vocal supporter of the right.
Speaker 3 (14:44):
Yeah, especially in recent years. How the turn tables, as
they say on the office. But this, this leads us
to a setup for another story that we believe is
very important for all of us to be aware of.
The law is imperfect, law is fallible, and the law
can be manipulated. So aside from our billionaire beefs and
(15:07):
celebrity beefs that are so often mentioned in media, it's
important to look at things like the recent case in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has agreed to hear an appeal
from the family members of a woman who died in
two thousand and eleven. Her death is currently ruled as
(15:29):
a homicide. Ellen Greenberg, a first grade teacher at the
age of twenty seven, was found in her apartment with
twenty stab wounds. Ruled a suicide. What Yeah, originally ruled
a homicide until the medical examiner encountered pressure from local
law enforcement and switched the ruling at their order.
Speaker 2 (15:53):
Yeah, this is a really sticky, deep Well we could
go into if we want to, just all of the things,
all of the aspects he went into this case where
the boyfriend, you know, is the person that found her.
Speaker 3 (16:08):
Yes, the boyfriend breaks down the door. We could also
learn a little bit more about Philly medical examiner Marlon Osborne. Right,
I don't know, it's.
Speaker 4 (16:18):
It's dirty pool the back of the neck. How does
one stab oneself in the back of the neck.
Speaker 3 (16:24):
And this is coming from AP news, Well, this was
this is a while ago.
Speaker 2 (16:28):
This is a case that was I think it all
hit all of our true crime radar. I can't remember
we talked about it on Strange News or not, but.
Speaker 4 (16:34):
I don't recall it until this point.
Speaker 2 (16:36):
It's really weird because the boyfriend apparently went down to
the gym and then came back up and the door
was locked, and found his girlfriend that way and there's
all kinds of other fishy stuff I remember from like
the initial uh, you know, before it even went to court.
Speaker 3 (16:53):
I believe, yes, exactly. And this also does a factor
in a guy who was going to be a presumptive
or he was in the running to be a vice
presidential candidate pick. That would be Governor Josh Shapiro. He
is now under scrutiny as well because he was in
office during the time of this just tragic, tragic case.
(17:17):
We're bringing this up to let you know that the
law doesn't always get things right. Again, the law can
be pushed, it is fallible, and perhaps this may be
an actual episode in the future, because I agree that
there is a lot to cover here. The case got
(17:38):
it's thirteen years old, you know what I mean, It
was more than a decade ago, and Greenberg's parents for
more than a decade have been fighting to get the
truth about their daughter's murder out there. And it's not
just you know, people on Reddit or something who are
saying it's fishy. We're talking about a bevy of for
(17:59):
Ren experts who have said something similar to what you
just said, Noel, you can't stab yourself ten times in
the back in suicide.
Speaker 5 (18:08):
Am I missing where the pressure the initial pressure was
coming from? I mean, I feel like that would be
the red flag, like powerful parents, you know, with access
to high powered lawyers, there's.
Speaker 4 (18:19):
Some inside person in the coroner's office.
Speaker 5 (18:21):
Because a big thing that's mentioned in this ap article
is the idea that a coroner should not have quote
absolute discretion that can't be challenged, which I think we
would all probably agree with on its face, but like,
what an odd ruling to happen, you know, right off
the rip like that, And I just don't understand where
the pressure would have been coming from.
Speaker 2 (18:41):
I'll tell you law Tube all of these there are
so many YouTube channels that stream like cases every day,
and Ellen Greenberg's case has been something that's been going
on and on and on and on, and her family
has been pushing really hard recently to see change.
Speaker 4 (19:00):
No, I'm saying the pressure initially to get yeah.
Speaker 3 (19:05):
To initial suicide, to the homicide. How who the flow
did Osborne get pushed?
Speaker 5 (19:11):
Who's applying said pressure, or at least who is suspected
of being the insider and that's maybe pulling the strings
or something, Because that, to me is the first thing
that my mind goes to, is if we know that
oddball ruling like this, where's the political pressure being applied.
Speaker 3 (19:26):
Philly PD my guy.
Speaker 5 (19:28):
To be quite honest, you think so because it's easier
for them because they don't have to do anything about it,
because it's just like a case that's checked off.
Speaker 3 (19:34):
Well, you're asking who, and that question is why, so
who is Philly PD? Why? Maybe it's clearing case. We
have to do an episode to know for sure. We
can say that the initial calculus on the side of
law enforcement and the homicide detectives was that the door
(19:56):
was broken down by the boyfriend, the paramore. We mentioned
Goldberg right, the door was locked from the inside. The
PD said there were no signs of an intruder and
that Greenberg, the teacher, had no defensive wounds. And then
later they said there were mental issues that Greenberg may
(20:16):
have had and that was their primary impetus for coming
back and pressuring the Medical Examiner's office to change the
ruling to a suicide. But you know, again, without being lawyers,
without being doctors, I think it's a pretty safe assumption
that that would be a virtually impossible way to kill yourself,
(20:36):
like stabbing yourself. That many times repeatedly without dying part
way through. Yeah.
Speaker 5 (20:42):
I mean, you know, even in cases like the death
of Elliott Smith, for example, the singer.
Speaker 3 (20:48):
Who stabbed himself stabbed himself in the.
Speaker 5 (20:50):
Chests, and there were immediate questions about whether his girlfriend
was involved for that very reason, because it's just he
like shot himself in the gut, want to say, which
is also the worst possible way to go, and then
stabbed himself in the heart. So I believe, again I'm
not getting the details exactly right, but I think it was.
There were initial questions that his girlfriend, who was either
(21:11):
nearby or present, had something to do with it, but
that was eventually quashed.
Speaker 4 (21:16):
But there were questions.
Speaker 3 (21:17):
M Yeah, and there are questions that hopefully and most importantly, uh,
the family will the family of Greenberg again, Goldberg is
the boyfriend, Greenberg is the victim. Hopefully the family of
Greenberg will be able to get those answers. And if
you guys think it's worth making an episode on it,
I say, I say let's do it, because this is
(21:40):
still this is still ongoing and hopefully hopefully investigations continue.
How does that.
Speaker 2 (21:46):
Sound sounds good?
Speaker 3 (21:48):
Well, we can't leave you on that note. So we're
gonna we're gonna move to something that is less disturbing
to some of us but intensely disturbing to a few
of our our fellow conspiracy realist. If you gets squiked
out by food, fast forward about three to four minutes.
The country of Singapore has some new stuff on the menu.
(22:15):
You guys have eaten crickets right, like Sunday school crickets,
sometimes tacos.
Speaker 4 (22:20):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (22:21):
Yeah. Singapore has approved edible insects at not because there
was you know, some nepotism and some like kid of
a billionaire is a edgy chef or something. It's because
they have growing food security concerns, the same way that
the European Union has a bunch of farm subsidies to
(22:44):
keep their agricultural industry going despite rising costs. Singapore just
approved edible insects. And if we want to call out
a school early and head to Singapore's house at seafood restaurant,
we can get the fishhead curry, Matt, you'lvecurry. We can
get the fish head curry with a side of crunchy crickets.
(23:06):
We can also get tofu that comes with the bugs,
no extra charge.
Speaker 2 (23:10):
Delicious that crunch. Instead of those little crispy wantons, you
just get some bugs.
Speaker 4 (23:15):
It's a feature, not a bug, but it's a bug.
Speaker 3 (23:18):
Worth it, worth it. It's sixteen species of different things
that can be served in Singaporean restaurants now crickets, grasshoppers, grubs,
meal worms. It took about two years for the notoriously
strict Singaporean government to decide on this and say it
(23:38):
it could actually happen. TikTok is going to go crazy
for it. We also know the real reason it's happening
is not because Singapore loves TikTok. It's not nepotism. It's
because insects are primarily protein one. You can fry about
anything and make it taste good too. And in twenty nineteen,
(23:59):
Singapore looked around and realized ninety percent of its food
is imported, and they're aiming to create thirty percent of
their nutritional needs internally by twenty thirty. So there are
a lot more bikes in the future. We talked about
this a little while back. When did we gosh, it
was years ago we talked about this idea. Was it
(24:21):
lab grown meat something like that? Protein alternatives absolutely and
you know, there's been a lot or much a do
I think maybe in certain circles about like.
Speaker 5 (24:30):
This is the future that liberals want, you know, or
we're eating bugs. Everything's bugs, you know, bug protein, and
it is kind of the stuff of sci fi where
like a dystopian future where everything is just sort of
made of like an amalgamation of like insect kiten or something.
Speaker 4 (24:46):
Like that, you know.
Speaker 5 (24:48):
But it is certainly better for the environment than like
with all the gases that come from slaughterhouses and cow
cattle production and things like that, and of course the
if you go that route, the inhumanity of meatduction in general.
Speaker 4 (25:02):
But it is a talking point that you hear about,
like the idea they just want.
Speaker 3 (25:04):
To serve us bugs and before we go to an
at break and we'll have to say that is a
perfect setup. There's other news. We didn't get to corpse
shortage due to rise in Scottish medical students. Clearly a
necromancer wrote that headline. Heightened tensions in Lebanon. Hope everybody
can get a flight out. Chinese American man has been
(25:27):
convicted of spine on dissidence for China. There's way more
to that story, but for now speaking of weird foods,
would you ever eat a bear? Or if you had
a dead bear, what would you do with it?
Speaker 5 (25:40):
Well, you know, Ben, they say, sometimes you eat the bear,
and sometimes the bear, well he eats you.
Speaker 3 (25:46):
We'll be right back after a word from our sponsors.
Speaker 5 (25:56):
And we returned with I think one other stranger political
stories in a political season that has been rife or
as you point out, our friend Frank says, wide rife with.
Speaker 4 (26:08):
Strangeness, This comes from fledgling.
Speaker 5 (26:12):
I guess one could argue third party candidate and political
dynasty member Robert F.
Speaker 4 (26:18):
Kennedy Junior. Guys, he would be the son of Bobby Kennedy,
isn't that right? Son of Robert Kennedy senior.
Speaker 3 (26:26):
Yaes career, son of the assassinated assassinated Bobby Kennedy exactly.
Speaker 4 (26:32):
And I don't know.
Speaker 5 (26:32):
Political dynasties are fascinating, And I know that's one of
your pet subjects, Ben, and one that you have mega
problems with. The scruples shall we say, because I was
talking to my kid the other day trying to explain
to them what a political dynasty is and I couldn't help.
Probably from your influence, Ben, just say it's basically like
a monarchy, but it just sort of like plays by
a different set of rules, but ultimately is kind of
(26:55):
the same thing. It's like a lineage that yeah, sure
they get elected, but it also calls into question all
the things behind the scenes about what does it mean
to get.
Speaker 3 (27:03):
Pold it's jag just as gross.
Speaker 5 (27:07):
Yeah, I think so too, and it really again not
this isn't really what the story is about, but it
does call into question all of the machinations behind the
scenes of what it takes to get elevated to that
level and what it means to actually get you know,
that level of prominence, and is it Is it fair?
Speaker 4 (27:23):
Because I would argue it.
Speaker 5 (27:24):
Can't possibly be with a number of repetitive entries into
the political United States political history that do come from
these dynasties.
Speaker 4 (27:32):
But we're talking about.
Speaker 5 (27:33):
RFK Junior, who you could also argue is a bit
of a black sheep of the Kennedy political dynasty because
the Kennedys have traditionally been pretty I guess liberal, I get,
I don't know. I mean, that's means different things, you know,
throughout history, but in general a little bit more on
the progressive side, A little bit more from that kind
(27:54):
of Boston lawyering kind of background, well spoken and well
educated and typically you know, proponents of pretty progressive policies.
RFK Junior, on the other hand, has had some real
problematic bouts with the public. I I suppose in terms
(28:15):
of his anti vax standpoint, his anti VAX's few viewpoints.
I believe he even had like an organization that he
founded that was intended to proliferate anti VAX sentiment, like
shut down or at least like taken off of social
media platforms for disseminating incorrect information let's just say determined
(28:38):
to be incorrect.
Speaker 4 (28:40):
Also been in the news recently because he's.
Speaker 5 (28:41):
Running as this third party candidate, a lot of people
are calling him kind of a spoiler candidate, which would
be spoiler for the Democrat side, the Democrat ticket, and
up until the point, you know, recently, when Joe Biden
dropped out of the race, that certainly seemed like the case.
Speaker 4 (28:57):
But now his continued presence.
Speaker 5 (28:59):
Almost seems like it might actually be a spoiler for
the Republicans because of the way things are sort of
shaping up. So that's interesting in and of itself. No
one certainly thinks he's a viable candidate. He is married
to Cheryl Hines of Curb Your Enthusiasm fame, which I
was a little bummed to here.
Speaker 4 (29:15):
I at least kind of like Cheryl.
Speaker 5 (29:17):
He does have a background of conservationism in a way.
Was recently announced to have been diagnosed with having brainworms
that he believes he may have gotten on his travels abroad,
you know, for some of these humanity, you know, humanitarian efforts.
But now it turns out he may actually have gotten
(29:38):
these brain worms from a dead bear cub carcass that
he decided in his wisdom to pick up off the
road on his way on a falconing expedition with an
unnamed buddy of his.
Speaker 4 (29:53):
He lives in.
Speaker 5 (29:53):
Westchester, which is a very affluent part And is it Connecticut, geyser?
Speaker 4 (29:59):
Is that upstate New New York?
Speaker 5 (30:00):
Connecticut and upstate New York almost blend together in my
mind geographically in terms of like where the rich people
who go into the city during the day for work
actually live.
Speaker 4 (30:09):
But it does true, Okay, so it is it is upstate, isn't.
Speaker 3 (30:12):
Well, it's a Westchester county, Westchester County exactly.
Speaker 5 (30:18):
And I've never purported to be a master geographer, but
I'm trying to do my best here. He was on
his way to a falconing expedition, which is, I guess
another thing rich people do in the Hudson Valley when
apparently a car or a van as he describes it,
in front of him, hit and killed a bear cub.
How do we know about this, you guys might be asking, Well,
(30:41):
he posted a video of himself essentially admitting to this
whole affair we're going to get into the details of
with Roseanne Barr, the I don't know troubled comedian. I
guess it was once a household name for the Roseanne show,
the sitcom with John Goodman that was, like, you know,
a staple of nineties kind of televisual viewing.
Speaker 3 (31:01):
And she later became a poster child for ambient correct.
Speaker 5 (31:05):
Well because she said some things, some very offensive, racially insensitive.
Dare I say hateful things that I'm not going to
repeat here, but then claim that she only did it
because she was on ambient And if anyone knows anyone
who takes ambient or has any experience with themselves, you
do know that there is a thing is.
Speaker 4 (31:23):
Like this ambient lore.
Speaker 5 (31:24):
It's true that it can cause you to say some
weird stuff, or make weird food in the middle of
the night, or just generally kind of have these like
you know, fugue state moments, these incidents. And this is
what she claimed was the case. But she's been problematic
for other reasons. She's just been a real political firebrand
and has some pretty insensitive views, let's just say.
Speaker 4 (31:45):
But that's not the point.
Speaker 5 (31:46):
The point is this is the venue which Rfka Junior
chose to cop to this occurrence essentially. So what happened
was he claims he saw the bear being hit, he
got out of.
Speaker 4 (31:58):
His car, he picked up the bear, put it in his.
Speaker 5 (32:01):
Car, with the intention, he said, of taking it home,
skinning it, butchering it, and saving the bear meat to
consume at a later date. Berting it, yeah, dehydrating it,
making bear jerky whatever.
Speaker 4 (32:16):
Really yeah really.
Speaker 5 (32:18):
And then he also went so far as to say,
and this is totally legal in the state of New York.
Speaker 4 (32:22):
Because this is considered roadkill.
Speaker 3 (32:24):
Is true, it is legal. It's illegal to have people
pay you to serve it to them, but it is
legal to consume it yourself. And also I would argue.
You know, it's an accident. He wasn't purposely hunting the bear.
It is not an unethical thing to do. But he
was on the way to the airport in a bit
(32:45):
of a rush.
Speaker 4 (32:45):
Well, it gets weirder. He wasn't well, he wasn't on
the way in the airport. Even yet, there's more. He
was on the way to falconing.
Speaker 5 (32:50):
But Matt, I see you have some more questions before
we get to the next bet.
Speaker 2 (32:53):
But he was going to eat the bear meat.
Speaker 5 (32:56):
Which is not a good It's it's apparently right though, guys,
ye general.
Speaker 3 (33:01):
Yeah, you're thinking of the viral video that posted recently
with all the tapeworms coming out of it's but for years. Yeah,
like it's it's true though, they are riddled because they
eat a lot of raw salmon, eat a lot of
raw raw food that already has parasites. It's part of
the grand circle of life of creepy things. But yeah,
people eat bear meat.
Speaker 2 (33:21):
There are parts of the bear.
Speaker 5 (33:23):
There are parts of the bear that are apparently safer
than others to consume. It is not my wheelhouse at all,
so I couldn't tell you what it is. But you know,
you've eaten exotic jerky's been that's sort of a thing
that you've done in the past, and in our travels together,
we went on a weird road rally in like West Virginia,
down that part of the country where you might have
(33:45):
a little more roadkill based culinary let's excursions, and there
are lots of crazy road roadside shops that would sell
rattlesnake jerky and all of this kind of stuff that's
probably prepared regionally, So there's a certain acceptance for that
kind of thing in certain parts of the country.
Speaker 4 (34:03):
But we yeah, so he and he's a guy.
Speaker 5 (34:06):
That's an outdoorsy guy. He likes to get out the
great outdoors. He's going falconing. This sort of tracks, I
would argue, But what gets a little suss is what
happens next. He puts the bear in his car, he
goes falconing, has such a lovely time falconing.
Speaker 4 (34:21):
Is that do you hunt when you're falconing?
Speaker 5 (34:23):
Is it literally just you send the falcon out and
it catches small game and then it brings it back
to you.
Speaker 3 (34:28):
Sometimes you can you can have it bring back game,
or you can just set it for itself. The big
trick is getting it to trust you enough to come back.
Speaker 4 (34:38):
You got the glove and everything.
Speaker 3 (34:40):
And he's also the falcon hat. You know about that, right.
Speaker 5 (34:43):
That's the one that it humps basically right like it.
It's attracted to it sexually.
Speaker 3 (34:48):
And the reason the reason my friends and I are
not falconers.
Speaker 5 (34:54):
Actually, if anyone listening to this show for any amount
of time, they know there's many reasons that I'm not
a fant falconer, and this whole hobby is mystifying to me.
These are birds of prey, they got sharp beaks and
claws and talons or whatever.
Speaker 4 (35:07):
I just I would be terrified.
Speaker 5 (35:09):
But so they had such a lovely time falconing, and
then afterwards he's the idea was he was going to
go back to his place in Westchester. Almost want to
do some fact checking here with lebe a little Google map.
So if we do Google maps, like from Hudson Valley
to west Chester, you know it takes a long time
to get anywhere in this part of the country because
(35:30):
of traffic, and then especially if you're factoring in like
going into the city. So let's see Hudson Valley, New York,
get directions from there to west Chester, Westchester.
Speaker 4 (35:46):
New York. That is a good hour and forty minutes.
You know.
Speaker 3 (35:52):
Also two questions. One did he have a bear tag?
In Two? What time of year was it?
Speaker 5 (35:56):
Well, that's the thing, though, Ben. What he claims is
that he didn't need one because it was roadkill. That's
what he says to Roseanne. That's all I'm saying.
Speaker 3 (36:05):
But it's I think he said, at least if I'm
remembering the video posted.
Speaker 4 (36:09):
To x he posted himself.
Speaker 3 (36:14):
Yeah, yeah, he got in front of the story. They
would call it right. So if I'm remembering this correctly,
didn't he say? It's legal in New York to take
home route kill bear if you have a bear tag,
it's a bear tag.
Speaker 5 (36:27):
There's no bear hunting in this part of the I guess,
would you, I get maybe there is, I guess in
the Hudson Valley air I mean they are wooded area.
Speaker 4 (36:34):
Maybe you could go bear. So it's a bear tag
like a hunting license for bear.
Speaker 3 (36:38):
Like According to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation,
if you hit I think if you hit most wild
animals with a vehicle, local law enforcement can and will
allow you to take the animal by They just say,
writing a tag for it. You can learn more by
(37:01):
contacting the New York Bureau of Wildlife at five poet
eight four oh two eight eight eight three. I'm reading
straight off their twitter.
Speaker 5 (37:09):
I just I'm sorry not to get log jams here
with this, but right like it's it's this form of
a license.
Speaker 4 (37:15):
Then is it a one time thing? Who writes the tag?
Speaker 5 (37:18):
I'm also seeing that, you know, bears in the wilderness
for research purposes, for various other conservation purposes are tagged.
Speaker 4 (37:26):
You know, that's a different kind. It is a different
I know.
Speaker 5 (37:28):
I'm just making sure that I'm on the same page,
right right, So I don't want to get caught up
in the weeds here. So let's just for for auntents
and purposes, let's just say that he thought what he
was doing was legal, and he made that clear to
Rosehirt and said that what I you know, what.
Speaker 4 (37:40):
I was doing. He actually goes out of his way
to say that this is legal.
Speaker 5 (37:44):
All the while Roseanne is just kind of listening, seeming
somewhat mystified by the whole thing. It's sort of like,
why are you telling me this kind of and to
your point, Ben, it does feel as though he was
trying to get ahead of a story that he knew
was going to drop about a news event that happened
about ten years ago where a bear's carcass was found
(38:05):
in New York City's Central Park next to like a
broken down bicycle in a bike lane. And it was
a big old mystery as to where this bear came from,
because there's no bears in the Central Park.
Speaker 4 (38:19):
There are no bears in New York City.
Speaker 5 (38:22):
They would be much more relegated to the surrounding wilds
of New York State and in Connecticut, et cetera. So
this is our FK Junior coming out and saying, yeah,
that was me. I dropped the bear there because he
was having such a grand old time falconing that they
didn't have time to go back to his home in Westchester,
where he was going to deposit the bear into a
(38:44):
freezer of some sort, I guess, until he had time
to butcher it. Instead, he had to make it over
to Peter Luger Peter Luga Steakhouse, where he had a
business dinner. It's the kind of place the valet's okay,
so presumably he valeid his car with a dead bear.
KRK is in the back because another article written about
(39:06):
him claimed that he has a really disgusting car, like
really like covered in animal fur. Like instead of the
back seat, there's just like a bench and like the
side mirrors smashed.
Speaker 4 (39:17):
But I don't know, maybe he's self parked.
Speaker 5 (39:18):
But typically places like that you got a valet, so
presumably the dead bear Carkers is still in there, rotting
all the.
Speaker 2 (39:24):
While before we move on. It's sitting there. Let's pause
there in time, dead bear sitting there in the car.
It reminds me so much of the SNL sketch The Falconer,
Like the basis of that sketch, do you guys remember it?
Speaker 4 (39:36):
And I don't know that one tell us it's.
Speaker 2 (39:38):
Will Forte playing a guy who just leaves his whole family,
goes out in the woods, meets a falcon. I think
its name is Donald, Yeah, it's Donald. He's always yelling,
he gets trapped all the time. He yells for Donald
to help him, who's his falcon? And then Donald goes
and eats at a like crazy fancy luxurious restaurant instead
(39:59):
of helping him. And it's just like it's an excuse
to show a falcon doing bougie stuff. I think, yeah,
but it reminds me so much of this.
Speaker 5 (40:08):
It's a Peter Luger steak house likely might have been
a place that the Donald would have frequented, but presumably
he had a change of clothes. You know, you don't
go to Peter Luger wearing your falconing scrubs. I don't
know what when falcon's in, to be honest. And then
apparently it was running late for the airport. You didn't
seem like he planned ahead very well in all of this,
(40:29):
and so then thought that it would be a real
hoot in a holler if he just dumped the bear
in Central Park, which we'll get into this in a minute.
Speaker 4 (40:38):
Why a lot of this doesn't quite make sense.
Speaker 5 (40:40):
And he recently there had been a spate of cyclists,
like the new bike lanes had been put in and
around Central Park and people were getting pancaked by bicyclists.
So he thought it'd be funny if he staged a
crime scene to make it look like the bear was
hit by a cyclist. So he left his disheveled bike
Lely also had in his vehicle on top of the bear,
(41:02):
and then skid addled.
Speaker 3 (41:04):
And that would be the conspiratorial part of the story.
Speaker 5 (41:07):
Well, there's a bunch because the report, you know, from
the original discovery of this bear carcass was.
Speaker 4 (41:15):
That it had stab wounds.
Speaker 5 (41:18):
It was determined to have been you know, that life
was determined to have been ended by a vehicle, But
it also was reported to have had stab wounds.
Speaker 4 (41:29):
Maybe that's certainly possible.
Speaker 5 (41:33):
There are also images out there. I don't know exactly
where they came from. It must he must have posted
them himself, but of RFK like posing with the bear carcass,
like putting his hand down its throat and kind of
weird stuff like yeah, yeah, because graphic picture here shows
(41:54):
RFK Junior posing with dead bear code before dumping it
in Central Park, and it does show him like with
the bear cub like propped up and got his hand
in his mouth looking like pretending like he's being bitten,
and he's making this face like oh my hand with
this kind of messed up looking bear carcass. And he
(42:14):
claims that he just had to get to the airport
and didn't have time and so he dumped it in
Central Park as a goof.
Speaker 4 (42:19):
But guys, Central Park isn't near the airport. There's a
million places, like you know, in the woods.
Speaker 5 (42:28):
If he's out there, he's I think I think Peter
Lugers is in Jersey, and then the depending on which
airport he's going to with JFK or LaGuardia or even Newark,
there's a lot of like kind of wooded areas around there.
They're not like smack in the middle of the city,
and it takes an hour to get to Central Park
(42:48):
or more from the airport.
Speaker 4 (42:50):
You know, I know this isn't a mere mortal.
Speaker 5 (42:52):
He probably has special transportation or maybe even a choppa,
who knows, but it just doesn't track.
Speaker 4 (42:57):
It's super weird, and it's.
Speaker 5 (43:00):
Also super weird that he was like, see, this is funny,
and I told Roseanne, so it's funny, she's a comedian.
Speaker 4 (43:07):
It's just mega weird the whole thing.
Speaker 5 (43:10):
And then he even joked when asked about it, like
that maybe he got his brain worms from the bear carcass.
Speaker 4 (43:16):
So I don't know that.
Speaker 5 (43:17):
That's the best I can do to sum up this
bizarre hotale. Maybe you guys have some stuff to add,
or we could chat back and forth about it for
a little bit, because I'm a little mystic.
Speaker 4 (43:25):
Fine the conspiratorial angle are plenty, Like what was he thinking?
Why did he do this? He said he was playing.
Speaker 5 (43:32):
A prank more or less. But it's like ten years
had passed. He had to know that it was reported
on you know, I don't know guys.
Speaker 2 (43:39):
Well, you know, it always makes you wonder about supremely wealthy,
powerful families like the Kennedys, like you know a lot
of others. What do they get up to, just, you know,
for a little laugh.
Speaker 4 (43:53):
That's what I was.
Speaker 2 (43:54):
That's literally the vision. But that's not fun that's not funny.
It's funny that you said it in that way, but
chap equittic is not funny at all. But but it
does make me wonder about just the little things that
they do for a laugh. When I'm just imagining my
family didn't have much money, we would we would just
go outside, or we would play lawn darts, or we would.
Speaker 4 (44:16):
Make illegal matt.
Speaker 5 (44:18):
That is a privileged position, you playing your illegal hunger games.
Speaker 2 (44:24):
When we were young, back when when I was growing
up as a kid, like, I just wonder what a
supremely powerful, wealthy family considers. Oh that's silly, let's do
that's a prank.
Speaker 5 (44:35):
Yeah, tap equittic was Ted Kennedy, right, Yeah, who who
you know ended up drunk driving and taking the life
of one of his passengers, married Joe Kopecney. Out there
in Martha's vineyard, another place where the rich and powerful
l like to frolic.
Speaker 3 (44:55):
There were consequences of a sort. It's the reason he
didn't become president.
Speaker 5 (45:00):
Well, but the one could argue that it is barely
at It is a consequence if that's.
Speaker 4 (45:05):
Your whole bag and that's your whole life's goal.
Speaker 3 (45:07):
But I can say it again more sarcastically.
Speaker 5 (45:09):
No, no, I get what you say. I'm man, We're
on the same page there. I'm just saying, like, it's
not the same consequence as if someone.
Speaker 4 (45:14):
Like you or I did something like this.
Speaker 5 (45:16):
And speaking of consequences, I do believe what he did
was illegal. Dumping a bear carcass in a public park
in that way, I believe that's like a biohazard at
the very least.
Speaker 4 (45:27):
If not something has.
Speaker 3 (45:29):
Leased against the city ordinance, it has to be otherwise
it's New York City. They'd be riddled with bear carcasses
because that's how people work. I'm kidding there, but I
don't know it does seem, it does seem like, without
being a Bureau of Wildlife Management experts ourselves, ourselves, that
there would be some other less controversial way to dispose
(45:55):
of that, Like you could get I'm making things up,
but surely you could call some kind of wildlife removal
and ask them to pick it up. Right. Even here
in Georgia we have some we have various sorts of
roadkill management.
Speaker 2 (46:11):
You know, Yeah, you let somebody know and then you
drive on.
Speaker 5 (46:14):
I just sounded like he was just tickled by the
whole thing, you know, like he just thought this was
a real silly goof, only to then realize that it
was reported quite widely, even outside of New York City
like this certainly made some headlines. I guess it was
a slow news day, but it does appear that he
could well have faced some fines for dumping a dead
(46:36):
bear in Central Park. The state agency, the New York
State Department of Environmental Conservation, that led an actual forensic
investigation into the bear dumping, set in a statement this week,
but the statute of limitations had long expired on that,
so really just kind of another embarrassing gaff for for
(46:57):
old RFK Junior By.
Speaker 2 (46:59):
The way, listen to episode what was the chapiquetic Incident?
It was put out in twenty eighteen and then again
as a classic last year.
Speaker 3 (47:07):
Thanks for that, Matt.
Speaker 4 (47:08):
Yeah.
Speaker 5 (47:08):
So with that, let's take a quick break and hear
a word from our sponsors, and then we'll come back
with one more piece of strange news.
Speaker 2 (47:24):
We've returned and we are jumping to a story from
the EPA, really an announcement maybe from the EPA that's
been covered to a lot of places. But before we
get there, let's talk about a specific herbicide product that's
produced by this outfit, am VAC Chemical Corporation, a subsidiary
(47:44):
of the American Vanguard Corporation. The herbicide brand in question
is dakthal dac t h a L fluwable herbicide herbicide
excuse me, aka dimethyl tetrachlor tariff tholate aka DCPA. For
(48:05):
the rest of this evening, we're going to call it DCPA.
Speaker 4 (48:09):
Now.
Speaker 2 (48:09):
According to the US Environmental Protection Agency, this substance DCPA
is quote and herbicide applied to control grasses and certain
broad leaf weeds in both agricultural and non agricultural settings.
Agricultural uses include coal, crops such as broccoli, kale, and cabbage,
cucurbits such as squash, pumpkin, and zucchini, tomatoes, onions, and
(48:33):
many herbs. And they also note that this is primarily
used on crops such as broccoli, brussels, and cabbage, also onions.
The EPA also notes that this herbicide is commonly used
for non agricultural purposes on sites that have quote non
residential turf. What do you think that means, guys, non
residential turf?
Speaker 4 (48:55):
You mean, like, no, I don't think I do know.
Speaker 3 (48:58):
The neighborhoods is yeah.
Speaker 2 (49:02):
Well there's a neighborhood around a thing.
Speaker 3 (49:04):
That it's not on the actual Just to clarify, I'm
saying it's not used technically in the neighborhood. Yes, it's
used Is that correct?
Speaker 2 (49:13):
Pretty much the golf course. That's what that reads or
should read.
Speaker 4 (49:17):
Yes, that's why I was getting exactly Yeah.
Speaker 2 (49:21):
Yeah. They also say it's used on ornamentals, but I
don't think we need to worry about that for this.
The reason why we are concerned is because it is
used on a ton of crops that a ton of
us consume, and it is used It was used on
golf courses where a ton of I'm gonna say it,
mostly wealthy people go and hang out. Maybe that's is that,
(49:43):
Maybe that's not right. I'm sure there are a lot
of public golf courses that are available to everyone that
many people use. Perhaps in my personal experience, the golf
courses are reserved for people who have quite a bit
of money to spend in.
Speaker 3 (49:58):
Say, country can country clubs.
Speaker 4 (50:01):
You gotta be like invited, you know, you gotta it's like.
Speaker 3 (50:04):
Well the gut ones. Yeah, there are a lot where
you can just pay it and they'll let you in. Yeah.
Speaker 2 (50:08):
Probably in my experience, it's people who have that that
that money to spend to get in and play golf
frequently enough for the purposes of this episode, to play
golf frequently enough to be exposed enough to this chemical.
Speaker 3 (50:23):
An important distinction. This is an herbicide, not a pesticide, but.
Speaker 2 (50:27):
It has been called a pesticide in a lot of
the reporting, which I do too. They call it a
pesticide that targets weeds. Right, what you don't do you
mean an herbicide? Sorry? The EPA even called it a
pesticide after previously calling it an herbicide. In September twenty
twenty three release, which is just whatever. So why are
(50:51):
we talking about this thing? It's because, for the first
time in forty years, the seriously, the first time in
forty years, the Environmental Protection Agency has taken an emergency
action to stop the use of a chemical herbicideer pesticide
linked to serious health risks for fetuses for unborn babies. Sure,
(51:16):
so why is it dangerous? Well, according to the EPA,
unborn babies whose pregnant mothers are exposed to this substance,
sometimes even without knowing exposure has occurred, can experience changes
in fetal thyroid hormone levels, and these changes are generally
linked to low birth weight, impaired brain development, decreased IQ,
(51:38):
and impaired motor skills later on in life, and a
lot of that can be completely irreversible. These are birth
defects that this chemical, at least according to the EPA,
may cause.
Speaker 3 (51:50):
So there are mitigation strategies, but there is no way
to fix it.
Speaker 4 (51:54):
Oh.
Speaker 3 (51:54):
Speaking of fixing things, Matt, I'm so sorry to intertect
before we get to before we get too far. If
you're writing the email, yes, we understand. Pesticides are the
umbrella category, and plants count as pest in some cases,
so herbicides are more under that umbrella specifically focused on
unwanted plants.
Speaker 2 (52:14):
But that's what this thing is. That's why I'm so
upset about it. This thing doesn't target creatures. It targets
the weeds that you don't want growing next to your
cabbage and your broccoli and your backchoi or whatever.
Speaker 3 (52:28):
And unborn humans. Clear. Oh but that's thet I mean.
I'm just putting the pesticide herbicide thing there to get
again in front of the email.
Speaker 2 (52:36):
Oh sure, short, short, st sure and write the email please.
We will still read it. So this is very very strange,
you guys, because this substance DCPA has been looked at
by the EPA for a long time. It goes way
back to twenty thirteen. Well, actually goes back to two
thousand and two when this company started producing the substance.
(52:58):
But in twenty thirteen there was basically what's known as
a data call in or a DCI, issued by the EPA.
They send it out to let's say the manufacturer of
a chemical in this case AMVAC, and they say, hey,
we need you to conduct these internal studies on your product,
(53:20):
and we need you to send us all of the data.
And it was requiring them to submit more than twenty
studies to support the existing registrations of this specific chemical.
So it's a lot of that what we were talking
about with the Supreme Court decision right pretty recently, where
the EPA is going to going to war or you know,
(53:43):
let's say battle with a company that's producing a chemical
like this. And now the Supreme Court doesn't have to
rely on the previous rulings or the previous decisions by
a federal body like the EPA. Now they can look
at whatever in this case, AMVAC says, and so we'll
go with that. They don't have to go with the
(54:03):
EPA's ruling in this case. So it goes back to
twenty thirteen. EPA is trying to get information on the
product from the company that produces it. They are failing
to send in this information. They fail to do so
for almost ten years. They don't get all the information
needed on this chemical substance that is being applied to
(54:24):
broccoli and cabbage and kale and all kinds of pumpkins
and stuff across the United States. But the company making
the product doesn't care enough, I guess, or is concerned
enough with their own product that they don't want to
get it taken off shelves because they're making a lot
of money's and that's my own words there as my accusation.
(54:46):
But eventually, in I think it's in twenty twenty two,
finally all of the information gets from this company to
the EPA. The APA can finally evaluate it, and when
they do, they realize, oh crap, there is there is
serious risk. And back in twenty twenty three, this is
why I bring up the turf so much. Guys, back
(55:08):
in twenty twenty three, there was basically a voluntary cessation
of the use of this substance on turfs, so like
on golf courses for things like that, because the risk
was unacceptable.
Speaker 4 (55:23):
Guys.
Speaker 2 (55:23):
On the label for this substance, when you are buying
it as an herbicide and you're gonna put it on
your golf course, let's say it says after you apply
this stuff, you get like twelve hours, don't go out
there on the golf course, and you should be fine
after that. But according to the EPA and the internal
studies that were submitted, it takes around twenty five days
(55:44):
for it to be safe to go back out on
the turf, which in my mind I imagine CEOs, wealthy
business owners and entrepreneurs that are out there on the
links and realizing, oh crap, we were being exposed to
like a really dangerous chemical. We should probably stop doing that.
And you know, well over a year later it's like, oh, yeah,
(56:07):
the fetuses are at risk too. I guess we should
probably stop that.
Speaker 3 (56:11):
But unlike public school playgrounds, the victims here have the
legal and financial wherewithal to prosecute their case.
Speaker 4 (56:19):
Do something about it. Yeah, dude, Yes, it does kind
of call into start or place in stark contrast that
kind of you know, upstairs downstairs model of these kinds
of things, like the folks who really you know, are
just in communities where these kinds of things have been
used or even tested. Uh, And just the lack of transparency.
Speaker 5 (56:41):
But of course when it's on the golf course and
people are gonna stand up and say something about it
and use their you know, clout to have it rectified.
Speaker 2 (56:49):
Mm hmmmm, it should be noted here, guys, are just
a couple more things The EPA attempted to stop the
production of like the maybe you can think about it
as a concentrated version of this pesticide. The EPA tried
to do that last year, but they it's one of
those weird things where but any of that stuff that
was already in the marketplace or had already been purchased
(57:12):
by a consumer or you know, by a big company
that's got to use it on a huge farm. All
of that's fine, you can still use all of that.
That's all gravy. Just company don't make anymore. And it
was all because they were working on they're waiting on
paperwork still.
Speaker 3 (57:28):
So not a recall. Knowing a lot of these larger
private entities or even municipalities might be buying a ton
of this at once, like in bulk literal tons.
Speaker 2 (57:41):
Exactly, but then for less than a year later to
come out and issue an emergency order to stop use.
So that isn't to stop selling, to stop producing, that is,
to stop using this product no more can you use it?
The EPA says. They say, this order is a effective immediately,
(58:01):
and this is interesting to me. This is why they're
taking this action right now. They say that The EPA
says that the continued sale and use of DCPA products
during the time it would take to follow the normal
cancelation process poses an imminent hazard to unborn babies. And
they said the company Amvac, attempted to address these concerns
(58:25):
and they note that here, but they've determined that there's
no practical mitigation measures that could be put into place
to allow its continued use. So like Amvac proposed a
couple of changes to the product itself, a couple of
changes to you know, what the product would say, and
all this other stuff, but the EVA came back and said, no, no,
we got to stop this thing right now. This is
(58:50):
really scary for me guys personally, considering literally how many
Brussels sprouts and like broccolis and broccolini and all this
other stuff that I feed my son and vegetable yali, yes,
all the onions and just all these things that you
use in normal everyday cooking, especially for meals that you
(59:10):
wouldn't even think about onions being in your dish, but
you're using it, you know, for the flavor or as
you know, part of a trinity.
Speaker 4 (59:17):
It's just.
Speaker 2 (59:19):
I don't know, it really freaks me out, and I'm
glad this is happening. But I kind of feel like
this thing, this power that the EPA is flexing right here,
should be happening like once a month.
Speaker 4 (59:35):
Isn't that kind of the issue it? Maybe correct me
if I'm if I'm misunderstanding it isn't.
Speaker 5 (59:39):
What led to them actually doing something about it was
the you know, complaints from the halves.
Speaker 2 (59:48):
I'm not a I'm not sure about that. Maybe what
I'm seeing is more this back and forth between the
EPA and the company and EPA trying to get internal
document and in studies that they're conducting themselves, which is
a major problem.
Speaker 3 (01:00:05):
Also, Yeah, it's a long time in coming, but I
think I would agree with Noel there that it is
at least partially due to the demographic of people affected
in some circumstances. Still, cruciferous vegetables in particular are such
a common part of the diet. If you could clarify
for this, just to be sure everybody knows, this is
(01:00:28):
not the kind of thing you can just wash off
the vegetable.
Speaker 2 (01:00:31):
Right No, no, no, like it's.
Speaker 3 (01:00:34):
Inside it, it will it can get to people. Yeah,
the consumption check.
Speaker 2 (01:00:39):
One of the big selling points on the website for
this product, the one that's got a brand name.
Speaker 4 (01:00:46):
What is it?
Speaker 2 (01:00:47):
A dackthel is just how long it sticks around after
you apply it. You know, basically, you plant your seeds,
you've already weeded or treated your soil to some extent.
You've planted your seeds. Then you put this stuff on
and it's supposed to stick around for a long time
and it's it has staying power, and that's why it's
so good.
Speaker 3 (01:01:07):
Just once. I want one of these environmental contaminants to
have a positive effect on the population, like microplastics that
are good for your balls, you know, lead that makes
you smarter. Just one, just give us one win.
Speaker 2 (01:01:23):
Yeah, that would be cool. But I don't think it's
gonna have been the tie a runoff and everything. We're
going down as a species. Silver lining silver lining, sorry,
silver lining.
Speaker 3 (01:01:37):
We're for Genie news species.
Speaker 2 (01:01:40):
Yes, that's right. The silver lining is is they got it.
Speaker 4 (01:01:44):
They did They did good. They you know it's not the.
Speaker 2 (01:01:48):
EPA did its job. That is an awesome thing. And
you know, thankfully, if Project twenty twenty five goes its way,
the EPA will no longer exist and they won't have
to do this anymore.
Speaker 3 (01:01:59):
It'll well it's colloidal silver.
Speaker 4 (01:02:04):
You're doing a bad job at silver lining this sorry escort.
Speaker 3 (01:02:09):
It's a EPA the sole proprietorship right of a guy
who's retired from DuPont a while back. And you know, everybody,
it's like Lord Michael's where you pitch Saturday Night Live
guest appearances. You if you have a complaint about contaminants
in the environment, you get three minutes in front of
this guy, shark tank style, and he gives you a
(01:02:31):
yes or no, whether or not he believes you.
Speaker 2 (01:02:33):
Hmm, I believe you, guys. This is a I'm gonna
end with this. This is a statement from Assistant Administrator
for the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, Michael Friedolf.
He says DCPA is so dangerous that it needs to
be removed from the market immediately. It's EPA's job to
(01:02:54):
protect people from exposure to dangerous chemicals. In this case,
pregnant women who may never even though they were exposed,
could give birth to babies that experience irreversible lifelong health problems.
That's why, for the first time in almost forty years,
EPA is using its emergency Suspension authority to stop the
use of a pesticide boom again every month, Michael, every month,
(01:03:21):
we need another chemical out of there.
Speaker 3 (01:03:24):
And I hope please freight train keep that clap it.
Because these emergency powers exist for a reason, and in
just because something doesn't seem as I'm using the word
in the old school sense here as spectacular as a
natural disaster, it doesn't mean it's not disastrous.
Speaker 2 (01:03:44):
And I guess we'll have to tackle several other stories
that we didn't talk about today, maybe next week, or
maybe we won't talk about them at all because there's
so much happening. Oh, do look up the attorneys general
that when on a France trip with this really ah man,
I wrote all this stuff out and it's just it's
(01:04:06):
just gross. It's another example of kind of ben It
was a lot like your story, where it's a conglomerate
kind of blanket umbrella thing that's really hard to even
see through where all the campaign finance donations come from
and where all the lobbyist money comes from. But all
of these attorneys general get to go hang out somewhere
(01:04:28):
every year or even every you know, a couple of
quarters and half of them, right, Yeah, in this case,
I think it's twenty six of them got to go
out to France on a trip sponsored by these donors
or lobbyists of some sort a company called sh Yeah,
you can look it up. It's gross.
Speaker 4 (01:04:47):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (01:04:48):
Check out also the story of Shu Zhun Wang. That
is one we didn't get to. There are so many
stories we haven't gotten to. We want to thank everybody
for tuning in. Will be back next week, still birthday month,
still strange news. You know the score. Fellow conspiracy realists,
Please please, please please make our evening and become part
(01:05:10):
of the show. We can't wait to hear from you.
And it is so distressingly easy to find us online.
Speaker 5 (01:05:17):
Yes, indeed distressingly easy. That's a good thing, right. You
can find us in the handle conspiracy Stuff, where we
exist on x FKA Twitter. Isn't it funny that some
parts of that platform still call it tweets and have
leftover remnant language from the previous regime.
Speaker 4 (01:05:31):
I just think that's funny.
Speaker 5 (01:05:32):
You can also find that handle on Facebook, where we
have our Facebook group Here's where it gets crazy. And
on YouTube we have a video content galore. On Instagram
and TikTok, we are Conspiracy Stuff showely.
Speaker 2 (01:05:45):
Lead tweet lead. Isn't that a song?
Speaker 4 (01:05:48):
I don't know?
Speaker 2 (01:05:49):
And that's it? Okay. I think I heard that in
my parents' cars a long time ago when I was string.
Speaker 3 (01:05:56):
On ninety seven point one the oldies channels.
Speaker 5 (01:05:59):
It's also Andy Bernard's ringtone on the office and Jim
hides it in the ceiling at one point and causes
Andy deg bunkers.
Speaker 2 (01:06:07):
Speaking of ring tones, give us a call one eight
three three STDWYTK. When you call in, give yourself a
cool nickname, and then you've got three minutes say whatever
you'd like do. At some point in that message, let
us know if we can use your name and message
on one of our listener mail episodes. If you've got
more to say than can fit in that three minutes,
one out. Instead, send us a good old fashioned email.
Speaker 3 (01:06:29):
We are the entities that read every piece of correspondence
we receive. Be well aware, but not afraid. Sometimes the
void writes back. In fact, some of us are on
the road for a little bit due to some situations.
If you would like to receive an out of context photograph,
write to us conspiracy at iHeartRadio dot com.
Speaker 2 (01:07:09):
Stuff they don't want you to know is a production
of iHeartRadio. For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the iHeartRadio app,
Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.
Stuff They Don't Want You To Know News
Hosts And Creators
Matt Frederick
Ben Bowlin
Noel Brown
Show Links
RSSStoreAboutLive ShowsPopular Podcasts
1. Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
2. Stuff You Missed in History Class
Join Holly and Tracy as they bring you the greatest and strangest Stuff You Missed In History Class in this podcast by iHeartRadio.
3. Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations.