May 27, 2025 • 60 mins
Roundup pesticides get a pass from Georgia. CrowdStrike joins the AI craze. A mysterious birdpocalypse in California. Regeneron buys the bankrupt 23andMe, prompting concerns over consumer's DNA. Free El Gato. 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 (00:26):
Hello, welcome back to the show. My name is Matt,
my name is Noah.
Speaker 3 (00:30):
They call me Ben. We're joined as always with our
super producer Andrew let try Force Howard. Most importantly, you
argue you are here. That makes this the stuff they
don't want you to know. And of course it's the
top of the week. So if you are hearing this
strange news the evening it publishes, let us be the
(00:50):
first to welcome you to May twenty six. Also free
El Gato, makat Yeah, free, free El Gato. Let our
man go.
Speaker 4 (01:00):
This is only thing I know about. Who's the cat over?
We gotta let him go.
Speaker 3 (01:03):
Get this over. In Costa Rica, we always like to
start with something that's not immediately terrible. Over in Costa Rica,
prison officials have caught a cat smuggling drugs into the facility.
An officer at the boy at the Pukoki or coch
prison in northeastern Costa Rica spoted the cat and it's like, hey,
(01:28):
what's this cat doing in lock up? And why does
he have a cute little saddle bag pouch?
Speaker 5 (01:33):
Yeah, yeah, we heard about that with pigeons. I think
once before there was something too about like illegal cell
phones being smuggled into prisons attached to little pigeon feet.
Speaker 4 (01:41):
That's wild industrious, I respect.
Speaker 3 (01:44):
We want to give a shout out to our friends
at ap news who on we're recording this on Wednesday,
May twenty first. On May nineteenth, AP News showed just
what is an adorable cat? Clearly like clearly rocking significant
weight for a cat. They gave this poor guy a
(02:04):
backpack of drugs. He got caught free El Gato. He's
just caught up in the system. That's our first strange
news story. We're also going to get to other stuff.
This entire show is not going to be about El
Gatto though, Free the cat. We're gonna learn about a apocalypse.
We're going to catch up on some unpleasant news related
(02:29):
to the accuser of Prince Andrew. We're going to talk
about some deep stuff. Be warned to this program will
contain descriptions of self harm. This may also touch on
the idea of assisted suicide. Before we do any of that.
What say we take a break and come back and
(02:51):
discuss reality shows or maybe just reality. Yeah, we've returned.
At this point, I think everybody in the US has
heard the news, the scuttle but the rumors about the
idea of the federal government starting a reality show pitting
(03:16):
contestants against one another in hopes of getting their applications
for legal status fast tracked.
Speaker 4 (03:25):
Yuck.
Speaker 3 (03:26):
Yeah, gross, Hunger Games.
Speaker 4 (03:29):
Hunger game.
Speaker 5 (03:29):
I mean, every time I look at the comments about this,
as you can't not see people referencing the Hunger Games.
And I did see actually that this was done before,
I want to say, in Mexico, and it was mega
unpopular and frowned upon then.
Speaker 3 (03:45):
And Matt, is this familiar to you as well?
Speaker 2 (03:47):
This is not familiar to me at all.
Speaker 3 (03:50):
Well, well, we'll give you the roller coaster version very quickly,
since we have a lot of stories to get to
the most recent announcement regarding this. Well, and there's a
history to it. Okay. A while back, there was a
peace run in the Daily Mail, and in that piece
(04:10):
there were it also went to Wall Street Journal. There
were these signals from the US government that they would
make a they were considering creating a reality show in
which immigrants in the US compete for citizenship, compete to
get their paperwork, what we will call fast tracked. Most recently,
(04:32):
the current Homeland Security Secretary, Christy nom spoke to the
Senate just yesterday, as we record, and she said, look,
we have no knowledge of this reality show idea. We
have no idea why this is been reported. Her specific
comment to the Senate's Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee
(04:56):
was the following quote. There may have been something submitted
somewhere along the line, because there are proposals pitched to
the Department, but me and my executive team had no
knowledge of the reality show. She added, there are no
plans whatsoever to do a reality show. However, you guys,
if you go back to May sixteenth, Homeland Security spokeswoman
(05:19):
Tricia McLaughlin said on multiple occasions some weird stuff. She
told The Wall Street Journal earlier that the department was
considering collaborating on a TV show of exactly this nature
and get this guy's deep cut. The pitch came from
the same producers who made Duck Dynasty classic television.
Speaker 4 (05:41):
Yeah, yeah, yeah, High Dynasty Dynasty. We got a podcast too.
Speaker 2 (05:45):
What is the between Duck dynasty and people wanting to
have status as an American citizen.
Speaker 5 (05:52):
Hmm yeah, I mean it is a pretty right leaning
crew there. I don't feel like they put Polo takes
front and center. It's just more about like outdoors and stuff.
But maybe they do, especially on the podcast. I couldn't say.
I haven't listened, but it does seem like that's part
of that brand.
Speaker 3 (06:08):
We can agree though this is a rubicon too far
with bread and circuses. This is dystopian. It does sound like,
based on the recent conversations with the Senate, that this
is not going forward. The more speculative or perhaps cynical
of us in the crowd tonight will consider the possibility
(06:30):
that this was floated as a test balloon to see
how America would react, and then when they got a
when they didn't get a positive reaction, they said no, yeah,
no one talked about that ever.
Speaker 5 (06:44):
Right, It seems like sort of part of the playbook
is the floating, you know, move or the testing of boundaries.
Speaker 2 (06:50):
Right.
Speaker 4 (06:51):
It just it does seem to be very much part
of what they're up to.
Speaker 3 (06:54):
The old dish gallop right there are running another good example, Yes,
shut up Stephen King via his pseudonym. Also, this makes
me think of again, as we accelerate toward an increasingly
surreal civilization and society, it makes me think of how
many other things might become something like reality shows. If
(07:19):
you had told us when we began this strange endeavor
lo those years ago, that we would be in the
current situation. I don't know if we still would have
done the show, but here we are. United Health investors,
by the way, just sued the company United Health over
its response to the murder of their former CEO, Brian Thompson.
Speaker 4 (07:41):
Because of its effects on the stock price. I was saying,
they're not being good stewards of their you know, their bored.
I'm curious.
Speaker 3 (07:49):
Yeah, let's go to CBS News, Kiera Frazier says, reporting here.
This proposed class action lawsuit that was filed recently in
the Southern District of New York is led by one
of the investors in United Healthcare, Roberto Faller, and the
suit alleges that United Health artificially inflated prices when the
(08:10):
company initially forecasts their earnings per share in December. And
this is strange because look, the reason they're suing or
taking legal action. Is that United Health originally said the
earnings per share are going to be twenty nine dollars
and fifty cents, maybe as high as thirty dollars. That's
(08:30):
what they said in December. They said it again in January,
despite the backlash of stuff we were talking about in
our ev Core episode or evil Core episode. And then
the investors decided to sue because United Health cut its
twenty twenty five forecasts to a lower range. Not that
(08:53):
much lower, but I guess it matters when you have
hundreds and hundreds of shares. They said, now the earning
per share is going to be between twenty six dollars
to twenty six dollars and fifty cents. So this company's
own investors are suing it at this point.
Speaker 4 (09:07):
That's nuts.
Speaker 3 (09:07):
Not a good look.
Speaker 4 (09:09):
I don't know.
Speaker 3 (09:10):
I mean, how often does that happen? Are the investors
trying to get on the right side of history. They
also talk about aggressive anti consumer tactics in their suit.
Speaker 5 (09:19):
Interesting, Yeah, I guess I thought of it more as
a bottom line kind of move, Like I know that
you can certainly remove like stockholders of a certain level,
like have the ability to vote. They have some level
of control they can exercise, and they could potentially, you know, petition,
I guess, to have an executive.
Speaker 4 (09:38):
Removed for like failure to be good steward of the stock. Right,
Sure this is different than that.
Speaker 3 (09:43):
Yeah, yeah, it feels like this is okay, it feels
like obviously there is an issue with projected profits which
always comes up with shareholders and with investors, but it
is inextricable from the context of that earlier murder, right,
the murder for which Luigi Mangioni remains incarcerated today, although
(10:09):
he has not been convicted in court.
Speaker 4 (10:11):
Yeah, it's interesting sign of the times, I guess, right, Yeah,
and you got.
Speaker 3 (10:14):
To wonder where that's going. Speaking of class action lawsuits,
twenty three and Me has entered the chat. We talked
about this at length in the past in some strange
news and some listener mail in some episodes. We also
learned recently that twenty three and Me went bankrupt, so
they are out searching for a suitor. Yet they have
(10:37):
found true love. In corporate terms, a company named Regenerod
is going to buy twenty three and Me for two
hundred and fifty six million dollars.
Speaker 4 (10:48):
They should get together with Evil Core Regeneron.
Speaker 3 (10:53):
These guys sound more and more like Captain Planet villains,
you know what I mean. Here's the quick scoop. Let's
go to Reuters and c in who are noting that
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, which itself is a drug maker, it's not
just a venture capital outfit. They are buying the they're
(11:15):
buying twenty three and ME through a bankruptcy auction, and
they've already come forward in various public statements and said, look,
twenty three in me customers, we are going to abide
by the existing privacy policies that twenty three and ME created,
and we're going to comply with applicable laws regarding consumer data,
(11:37):
which gets tricky because those laws change country to country
and indeed state to state. I don't know. They're getting
pretty much everything from twenty three and me except where
a telehealth service they have called Lemonade Health, and they're
going to I think the plan is the sunset that one.
But I'd never heard of Lemonade Health.
Speaker 4 (12:00):
No.
Speaker 3 (12:00):
Also it's spelled ai D get it, lemon aid.
Speaker 4 (12:04):
Okay, yeah, let's let's let's make lemons and the lemona.
Speaker 2 (12:07):
Are you a lemon, maybe we can aid you.
Speaker 4 (12:11):
We can aid you because you're you got a bad ticker?
Speaker 3 (12:13):
Is this the lemon equivalent of help of support and help?
Speaker 1 (12:19):
Yeah?
Speaker 3 (12:19):
Exactly. The reason we're mentioning this is because for many
of us in the audience who may have played with
twenty three and Me or other consumer DNA genetic info companies.
Your next immediate question, maybe, how do I get control
(12:39):
of my data? How do I how do I remove
it from the system? How do I ensure that I
feel safe and protected to do that? You're going to
want to get some advice straight from the New York
Times wirecutter. They've got a bonus episode on how to
delete your data from twenty three and Me and Reports
on the ground. We'll walk you through this in a second,
(13:02):
but Reports on the ground, just so you know, folks
are showing us that getting that data removed is a
little more tricky than the company may imply. It's kind
of like anybody who's ever had a gym membership that
was really tricky to get out of. Has that ever
happened to you, guys?
Speaker 5 (13:21):
I haven't had dealt with it yet, but I am
a little gym membership rich, right, now and I need
to dump one and so I'm looking forward to that bureaucracy.
Speaker 3 (13:28):
Right right, Yeah, just stay out your p's and q's
across the t's dot. Theis to delete your twenty three
and meter data, says Wirecutter. All you have to do
is log into your account, go to settings, select twenty
three and me data, which is way down at the
bottom of the page. Then hit view download a copy
of it, then select delete data, then permanently delete data.
(13:52):
You can also opt to have the genetic material you
submitted destroyed, and then you have to go to the
Research and Product can sense section to remove permission to
allow your material to be used for other stuff. Notes
that doing this only revokes their ability to use your
(14:13):
material in future research. So everything that has already been
done with whatever you gave twenty three and meters that's
still there, that's going to be a real thing going forward.
Speaker 2 (14:25):
I don't know.
Speaker 3 (14:25):
Whether I'm making a mountain out of a mole hill here,
but it does feel like this is important information for
a lot of our listeners.
Speaker 5 (14:33):
What do you guys think, Well, it's certainly something we've
been talking about, and this seems like a natural escalation
of a lot of the privacy issues that we've discussed
kind of ad nauseum.
Speaker 4 (14:42):
On the show.
Speaker 3 (14:43):
Mm, yeah, agreed. We don't know. It's not that we're
accusing these companies of participating an insidious or nefarious or
conspiratorial things, but we simply do not know what will
happen with that information. So if you have the concern
about that, and again, in full transparency, we worked with
(15:04):
twenty three and meter in the past. If you have
a personal concern, then now is the time to go
in and you sort of get your head around what
may be happening and the implications. Last story here before
we move on to the next part of our weekly
Strange News segment. There was speaking of conspiracies, a secret
(15:25):
deal between members of Mexican cartels and the United States government.
This deal allowed cartel family members to enter the United States.
This is not coming to us from internet gossip and rumor.
This is coming from the security chief of Mexico, thanks
(15:46):
to our friends at the AP. Just last week, Mexican
authorities confirmed that seventeen family members of various cartel leaders
crossed into the United States. It was part of a
deal between a son of the former head of the
Snola cartel and the Trump administration. Gonna be honest, Mexico
(16:07):
is pissed.
Speaker 5 (16:08):
Well, it also doesn't It kind of flies in the
face of the Trump administration's whole like shutting down the cartels,
you know, their whole narrative about the closed borders. It's
all kind of using the cartels as like the main
impetus for stuff like that, you know, all the pentanyl
being trafficked across the border and things like that.
Speaker 4 (16:26):
So it does feel a little bit maybe a lot
of hypocrite.
Speaker 3 (16:31):
It's a little uh, it's counterintuitive, is it not that too? Yeah? Like,
what what is the end goal?
Speaker 2 (16:39):
Yeah, well, he's the guy's functioning as an informant, Right.
Speaker 3 (16:42):
That's the idea, But they haven't if that that is
the idea. However, Mexican prosecutors say that the current administration
has shared no information about this.
Speaker 4 (16:54):
Oh why is it so public too? It doesn't seem
like a very good tactic for an.
Speaker 3 (16:59):
Informant, Right it came from an independent journalist that we
need to shout out, Luise Chappato.
Speaker 2 (17:05):
Well, I'll tell you why, guys. It's because they're worried
about the little corruption thing going on. Between government officials
and cartels in Mexico. Right, so if they shared all
that information, there would be an early warning likely to
cartel members and the people they need. That's going.
Speaker 3 (17:23):
Yeah, so I think it's not necessarily I don't know.
We can't jump to conclusions as we don't have enough
information just yet.
Speaker 5 (17:33):
I just really quickly been just wanted to add, like
I know, I jumped immediately to like, oh, it's a
payoff thing.
Speaker 4 (17:37):
It it's hypocritical, et cetera.
Speaker 5 (17:39):
I guess it just makes me think of this whole
notion of the gold card, of this idea of like
paying a bunch of money to get citizenship, et cetera,
that the administration floated, and how you know, if you
have enough money you can get into the country. And
there was a lot of talk about how, well, who
are the people that are going to maybe use that?
It would be like carteli leaders with lots of money
(18:00):
to potentially try to take advantage of a program.
Speaker 3 (18:03):
Yeah, but god, I hear you, But you would you
who would not want a couple of investor passports. I
regularly go through the countries that offer.
Speaker 2 (18:15):
That, and.
Speaker 3 (18:18):
I'll tell you some of them are more affordable than
you might assume.
Speaker 4 (18:21):
It's like it's like a temporary visa, you get a citizenship.
Speaker 5 (18:25):
You give them that because of your ability to invest,
because of your ability to do business.
Speaker 3 (18:29):
You jump in front of the line, just like you
have a Disney fast pass or something. But the ride
is you know, legal residents, commerce, residency in a country. Uh. Yes,
we have much more to get to. We would love
to hear your thoughts regarding all of these stories. We're
going to pause for a word from our sponsors. But folks,
spoiler listen to the very end of tonight's program, because
(18:52):
we're also going to give you a guide to locating spies.
That's the spoiler, that's the foreshadowing.
Speaker 5 (19:00):
Will be right back, and we're back, and I'm gonna
jump right in with I'm gonna do the bummer story
up front. Well, it's not inherently a bummer. We've certainly
done episodes in the past. But the idea of assisted suicide,
I'm not gonna say unalive, that's what it was historically
(19:20):
referred to as going to use those terms for the
sake of this discussion, you know, and on a lot
of the issues behind it in terms of people that
are against things like that typically come from a place
of religiousness, typically come from a place of the sanctity
of life, maybe similar arguments to people who might be
anti abortion. And there are a handful of states in
(19:42):
the United States that I believe have this available, you know,
as a legal option, which certainly no one needs as
a legal option, But there is something to be said
of a humane, overseen, you know, option for ending one's life,
not because you're depressed because you have a terminal illness,
because you have something that is determined to be irreversible
(20:03):
and you are suffering, and you are living in a
state of pain and anxiety. And this is a way
of kind of helping put agency into the hands of
people going through things like that and not having to
take matters, say, into their own hands, which we also
hear very sad stories about often you know, people doing
that themselves behind closed doors, whereas in this situation, it's
(20:24):
almost like you could be surrounded by family, Like it
could be a conversation that you're having with your loved
ones and they can all be there potentially. So New
York State has made some strides towards this as well,
and it is the New York legislature that has passed
a bill called the Medical Aid in Dying Measure, or rather,
(20:44):
I guess it's yeah, it's a bill which passed eighty
one to sixty seven after four hours of debate in
the New York State legislature. This is coming from Gothamist
article that is attributed to Yeah Jimmy volkand saying that
the Medical Aid and Dying Measure passed eighty one sixty
seven after more than four hours debate, with more than
ten Democrats joined the minority Republicans in voting no. So
(21:06):
it would appear that it is not entirely down the aisle,
you know, kind of split issue.
Speaker 4 (21:11):
It's still unclear.
Speaker 5 (21:12):
The article says whether it will be considered by the
state Senate or whether Governor Kathy Hochel HOCl supports it.
Ten other states allow similar practices, including Oregon, which legalized
medically assisted suicide in nineteen ninety seven. Folks that are
in support of this, like I mentioned, which you know
is my perspective, say this is a compassionate choice for
folks who are in pain at the end of their lives,
(21:35):
advocating making this a safe sort of a I guess
loaded term here maybe doesn't really apply, but a humane
process involving oversight from physicians with terminally ill individuals such
as cancer patients, as well as folks whose spouses and
siblings have also suffered.
Speaker 4 (21:54):
You know, in them some of these final moments.
Speaker 5 (21:56):
So one of the sponsors of the bill, Amy who's
a Democrat from Westchester County, said, the last thing memory
I have of my sister is shouting in pain. She
might have chosen this or not, but she would have
had a choice. And then on the other side of that,
we have some folks commenting from I guess the state's
(22:17):
Roman Catholic Bishops organization. So Robert Bellafiore, who's spokesperson for
the New York State Catholic Conference, said this was referring
to this in I believe a pretty hyperbolic way as
state sanctioned suicide. Guys, what do you think about that
term sanctioned? I feel like it's weaponized so much, and
especially in this situation.
Speaker 4 (22:35):
They're not saying you should do this.
Speaker 3 (22:37):
Yeah, we're forcing you to do this, right, But it's
like what here in the West, in the US, especially,
you never hear state sanctioned as a modifier to something good.
No one's ever like, oh, I've got to go to
the state sanctioned library.
Speaker 4 (22:52):
It implies government overreach, free.
Speaker 3 (22:54):
Books, it's always right state sanctioned death squads or suicide
death panels exactly. You know, this reminds me of I mean,
obviously the shadow of Cavorkian, but it also reminds me
of the sarcopod Street named the suicide pod, the euthanasia
device that came out a while back. It was invented
(23:15):
by a guy named Philip Nietzski, and it it also
like Cravorkians work. It ruffled a lot of feathers on
a very sensitive topic. But there are some things to unpack.
You know. First, logically, if you believe in bodily autonomy,
then your idea must be that if other if you're not,
(23:35):
if someone is not harming someone else with their actions,
they should be able to do what they want with
their person habeas corpus and all that. However, it feels
like there does need to be some nuanced legislation because
it reminds me of those studies that show people who
attempt suicide by say, jumping off a bridge, the vast
(23:57):
majority of folks who survived that attempt regret doing it right.
So a terminal illness feels like a very, very much
a mission critical qualifier. But we also have to remember
there are a lot of people who are going through
very difficult times in their lives and may impulsively wish
for self harm only to regret it regret it later.
(24:21):
So how would we square a person's right to autonomy
with like, I guess you have to make the barrier
of entry pretty high at this point.
Speaker 4 (24:31):
Tell you, yeah, one hundred percent. Man, those are all
really great points.
Speaker 5 (24:34):
And you know, the opposition coming from the New York
State Catholic Conference sort of addresses to some of these things,
saying it tells young people who everyone knows are in
the midst of an unprecedented mental health crisis, that life
is disposable and that it's okay to end your life
if you see no hope. It turns medicine on its
head from a healing profession into a killing one. Again,
I find this to be incredibly hyperbolic and sort of
(24:56):
weaponized language.
Speaker 3 (24:57):
Load Yeah, for sure.
Speaker 5 (24:58):
Loadedly miss the point which is addressed in the bill itself,
which requires two physicians to certify that a patient has
an irreversible incurable illness or condition with a prognosis of
six months or less to live. Two witnesses who aren't
related to the patient, aren't in line for any inheritance
and don't work for a nursing home where a patient
(25:19):
receives care also have to sign as witnesses to the
patient's written request. So it feels to me like that's
a pretty high barrier to entry, you know, to your point, man, yeah,
I hear you be Yeah, And advocates going to say
that it's all about the patient's control and that there
is that level, you know, pretty strict level of oversight.
There is this concept of coercion that comes up a lot,
(25:41):
like this idea of potentially nursing home.
Speaker 4 (25:46):
The staff, yeah, you.
Speaker 3 (25:47):
Know, taking compromised in their faculties, that's right.
Speaker 5 (25:51):
Yeah, And so it does feel like there are reasonable
measures in place to prevent that. But I do feel
like that term coercion that comes up a lot is
also often a little bit loaded, the idea of and
it just seems to me like nobody, Okay, let's talk
about the conspiratorial ang a little bit.
Speaker 4 (26:09):
I think it's an.
Speaker 5 (26:09):
Elephant, sure, Like it doesn't it doesn't particularly benefit big
pharma and the healthcare industry if people have the choice
to in.
Speaker 4 (26:18):
Their own lives. Because I didn't know there's a lot
of money to be made an end of life care.
I'm just saying, so, yeah, discuss. Yeah, that's right.
Speaker 2 (26:29):
I just had sorry being quite on this this part, guys.
I literally just had a conversation this morning with my
son's mother about a family member of hers that just
went into hospice and is, you know, on her way out.
And it's one of those things when there's a lot
of pain there, there is a discussion with that person,
(26:51):
you know, like that potentially they might want to just
have it be over. That would be really great if
it could just be over, but nobody wants that. And
then also being in someone's shoes who is not cognitively there,
how do you have that discussion with them? And it
is such a I'm just putting this out here to say,
it is such a complicated situation right at any time,
(27:15):
somebody is trying to choose, or a family is trying
to choose if it's time to let someone go.
Speaker 3 (27:20):
Agreed. I don't say much personal stuff on the show,
but I completely understand what you're saying, Matt, one of
my grandmothers many years ago, that was the last conversation
we had with her, and she wasn't all there. So
it's not really a clean answer to a lot of
these things.
Speaker 4 (27:37):
Certainly not.
Speaker 5 (27:38):
But it's also interesting how, you know, my mother passing,
I had to make the choice to end her life,
and it was paperwork that was laid out and gave
me that right, and she I was advised by the
doctors that there was no coming back from the state
that she was in and issues intubated and there are
all these factors and boxes that had to be checked,
(27:59):
and that you know, art lungs were full of fluid.
It just wasn't it was it wasn't any coming back,
and that's what I was advised, and that is what
I did. But I don't see how, like, why do
you have to get to such a place? Yeah, before
that conversation happens, is what I'm saying.
Speaker 2 (28:15):
I had this one thought in my head the other day.
And but and I think that is almost a point
against the conspiratorial fact right, because those are metal medical
professionals talking to you, nol and saying that is true.
We could we could sustain her life for you know,
however long you want, and then the medical bills would
just pile and pile and pile and pile, or we
can do this, which is the theoretically the mission of
(28:37):
all medical professionals, right when you go into that field exactly. So, I.
Speaker 5 (28:43):
It is interesting, though I do no harm, and the
way this language is weaponized kind of conflicts with the
idea of ending someone's life. But sometimes that is the
humane thing to do, and that is a form of
doing no harm, because you're doing more harm by letting
an individual live in a substandard dare we even say
hellish state?
Speaker 4 (29:03):
It's a lot, guys, I'm sorry. I didn't mean to
get personal doubt of it.
Speaker 5 (29:07):
It is something that that you know, I do feel
connected with, and it's interesting and it's it's a very
complex thing, but I do think people should have the
right to do something like this, and you know, because also,
I mean I had I had another family friend who
had terminal cancer and took his own life with a weapon.
Speaker 4 (29:25):
H that's a very violent death. That's a violent way
to go. You're alone and tear. I mean, can you
imagine the someone's state of mind in that situation.
Speaker 2 (29:33):
But that's the way it goes. Now, if you live
in a in a place that does not allow for
some way to to end your life, you know, peacefully,
then you take it if you're if you're in that
position and you make that decision right, and that's a reality.
I guess that we're we're all kind of facing Uh.
(29:55):
I don't know.
Speaker 4 (29:57):
Yeah, for sure, it's definitely complex. I'll leave that one there.
Speaker 5 (30:01):
Maybe maybe should have led with the weird mystery bird
apocalypse story instead of that one, But I guess maybe
it's also just ripping the band aid off. In California,
in a town not too far from San Francisco in
the Bay Area called Richmond, residents are reporting sightings of
exploding birds and just a rash of dead birds falling
(30:24):
from the sky, some of which are appearing to explode
in mid air. There are security camera footage, there's ring
camera footage. Residents have said they've found as many as
fifty dead birds in the area over the last few months,
and this was initially reported by ABC seven there in
the Bay Area. I'm pulling a lot of this from
a Guardian article California town investigates mystery of exploding dead birds.
Speaker 4 (30:50):
There are theories, y'all.
Speaker 5 (30:51):
A lot of people are pointing fingers at the power
company because a lot of these birds apparently have been
like birds want or want to do sit on these
power line. Officials for the California Department Officient Wildlife told
The Guardian that the Department of Wildlife's health lab received
two dead birds for evaluation that had been collected by
the utility company Pacific Gas and Electric. One of the
(31:13):
birds was a mourning dove, and another eight European starlings,
like migratory birds. The lab found no signs of electrocution, however,
in these collective birds, but the creatures did show injuries
that could have been caused by a pellet gun, a
BB gun, or a slingshot.
Speaker 4 (31:30):
They said in a statement.
Speaker 5 (31:32):
The exact cause of the trauma to all of these
birds could not be determined. The investigation came as some
neighbors blame Pacific Gas and Electric for faulty cable lines
and urged the utility to take a look into the incident.
A spokesperson from PG and E, who also again led
the the what do you call it? Autopsy kind of
(31:53):
a charge there seemingly maybe in a way of exonerating themselves.
But you know whatever, we appreciate the concern of our
customers Richmond about the recent series of bird deaths. PG
and E does not believe that there was an issue
with our electrical equipment and agrees that these birds were
not electrocuted.
Speaker 4 (32:07):
So there you go.
Speaker 5 (32:10):
It is being described as a very traumatic and violent
thing to witness. A local resident named Maximilian Bowling told
ABC seven, So, when they land, then it happens. They
just quickly explode, and it's really violent. It's very traumatic,
super traumatic to see this. You know, I've got my
bird issues, guys, but I don't wish them this kind
(32:31):
of ill. There's a horrible thing to happen to birds.
We must get to the bottom of what's happening to
these birds. There is another piece in the La Times
the mystery of Northern California's exploding birds is being solved,
and that was from May the fourteenth, and I believe
it mainly refers to the autopsy that PG and E
(32:51):
has performed.
Speaker 4 (32:53):
Let's see.
Speaker 5 (32:55):
Yeah, it does show that they weren't electrocuted, so I
wonder what's next. Further, Yeah, it shows that weren't electrocuted
is what the But again I'm a little suspicious because
it's two birds, a mourning dove in a European starling,
and it's the power company themselves that conducted these tests,
and they're the ones say.
Speaker 4 (33:12):
No, no, it's cool. See we checked it out to
the cat with a gun. Yes, yeah, cat. Can you imagine?
So it really is a mini bird apocalypse yall?
Speaker 3 (33:23):
Yeah?
Speaker 4 (33:23):
Oh wow, that's a that's a terrifying image. Cats are
the scourge of the bird world, you know.
Speaker 5 (33:31):
That's why they say if you let your cats outside,
put a bell on them, not for you finding the cat,
but to give the birds a fighting chance. Wow.
Speaker 4 (33:40):
Mm hmm.
Speaker 2 (33:40):
It's really puzzling. I don't know how would it so? Okay,
just theoretically, how would it be an electrical Problemly, the
shielding isn't correct on some of the ulins.
Speaker 4 (33:51):
It would have to be.
Speaker 5 (33:52):
They have to be like ungrounded, right, it would like
be to cause that level of violent explosion. There have
to be significant grounding problem that would also be very
for humans, potentially some sort of serious flaw.
Speaker 4 (34:04):
Yeah, and apparently all.
Speaker 5 (34:07):
There is something called or a safeguard or a company
that creates standards in place called the Avian power Line
Interaction Committee, and there is apparently a standard that is
to be complied with for Avian safety around power lines.
And another spokesperson Matt Neuman from PG and he said
(34:27):
the poll at issue is compliant with Avian safeguidees.
Speaker 4 (34:32):
So it's a good question, Ben, You got any theories.
Speaker 5 (34:35):
I think there's a a a Dennis the Menace type figure,
exploding birds, an anti bird vigilante.
Speaker 4 (34:42):
I like your cat with a gun theory. That's good image.
Speaker 3 (34:45):
Yeah, a cat with a gun is probably the most
plausible thing. Group of cats, maybe cartel related.
Speaker 4 (34:54):
Well, let's stop here for now. I think I've run
over on time a little bit.
Speaker 5 (34:58):
But let's take a quick break here a word from
our spot, and then we'll come back with a little
bit more strange news from mister Matti Fred's.
Speaker 2 (35:09):
And we've returned. Do we all remember the cybersecurity company
crowd Strike. Do you guys remember talking about them last year?
The company was responsible for a massive global server outage.
They pushed out an update had some issues with it
to its software that's used by a lot of people.
When they put out that software, which is designed to
(35:31):
detect cybersecurity threats. It brought down eight and a half
million Windows systems across the globe. Who well that outage,
as is stated here by the Guardian that we will
talk about in just a moment. It caused chaos at airports,
took down computers in hospitals, which is not great, TV networks,
(35:52):
payment systems, and personal computers even well, guys, they just
announced earlier in May that they are gonna cut five
percent of their workforce because guess what they're putting in
instead of humans?
Speaker 3 (36:07):
Oh gosh, is it cats with guns?
Speaker 2 (36:08):
Yes?
Speaker 5 (36:09):
I think I that would probably be preferable. Uh, yeah,
it's they have some insuation. It's a I, isn't it.
Speaker 2 (36:15):
Nope, it's Chuck Testa. Uh he's a taxidermy badass. Should
look him up at Chuck Testa. Anyway, I didn't know
there were.
Speaker 3 (36:24):
Bases in the Field's kind of the lebron of taxider.
Speaker 4 (36:28):
I learned something today.
Speaker 2 (36:29):
No, it's it's it's a I, guys, which.
Speaker 3 (36:32):
Is also just a fraudulent term. And often this year,
I'm going to be a broken record every time that comes.
Speaker 5 (36:38):
Now, you're right, then, But much like you know, unliving
versus like assistant suicide or something. It is the term
that is being thrown around, but you're right. I think
it is worth that qualifier nearly every time because it is.
Speaker 3 (36:48):
I appreciate that. Also, crowd Strike then joins multiple other
tech companies and also companies in other spaces, like Duo
Lingo being another recent example.
Speaker 5 (37:00):
It's funny my kids said, Duolingo is canceled because they're
using all AI. So that generation is even to keyt
in on this and they.
Speaker 3 (37:07):
Don't like it. No, no, why would they?
Speaker 5 (37:08):
You know?
Speaker 3 (37:09):
Also, what are the more interesting conversations that's going to
come up in the near to mid future is going
to be what happens when you replace c suite level
decisions with a large language model or some kind of AI.
Speaker 2 (37:25):
We got computer computer CEOs. The CEO of CrowdStrike.
Speaker 4 (37:31):
Yeah, who was a human being, George.
Speaker 3 (37:34):
That's far's technically physiologically, yes, exactly.
Speaker 2 (37:38):
Yeah, we talked about, well, no offense CEOs. If you're
out there.
Speaker 4 (37:43):
Listening, but human is a relative.
Speaker 2 (37:45):
There is a higher chance that you may exhibit some
sociopathic psychopathic things. But it's fine. Just due to the
nature of the success you've had in the businesses you
front anyway, but that's fine. Yeah. George Kurtz, human Being,
chief executive of CrowdStrike, said that it's about five hundred positions,
or again five percent of its workforce. It's going to
be cut globally and it is due to not just AI,
(38:07):
but AI efficiencies that are being created right now, which,
as you said, Ben, all the companies are attempting to
find ways to do this, make it a little more efficient,
save a little bit more money, and then everybody's feeling
good in the investor side, which is really what it's
all about.
Speaker 3 (38:23):
Until the next year when there's a new profit target. Yes,
goalposts between goal posts.
Speaker 2 (38:29):
Yes, exactly the old quarters. You can read this in
the Guardian. It was posted May ninth, twenty twenty five.
Title is tone deaf us company responsible for global IT
outage to cut jobs and use AI and just a
heads up. Everything I'm going to be talking about comes
from like late April, early May. It's stuff that kind
of fell through the cracks on my end at least
(38:50):
where I'd written down that we should talk about this
and then I totally forgot. But that's one. There are
several people in that article just citing, hey, why not
take that five percent and put them into to like
an emergency team. Turn that five percent of workforce into
an emergency team to handle stuff like when eight and
a half million machines go down because your software screwed up.
Or maybe a QA team that looks at updates before
(39:13):
your updates come out.
Speaker 3 (39:14):
Some sort of thing that could strike a crowd of problems.
Speaker 2 (39:18):
Hmmmm, like five hundred strong.
Speaker 4 (39:22):
CrowdStrike. Doesn't that sound like a like a full party
move and a JARPG like it really good?
Speaker 2 (39:27):
Strike?
Speaker 3 (39:28):
Really was those names? A lot of the big companies
have these. I don't know, maybe maybe I'm just being pretentious,
but they sound they don't sound like what they do
is the issue.
Speaker 2 (39:41):
Yeah, well, hey, but in a victory for the people
who are losing their jobs, the company expects to incur
up to fifty three million dollars in costs as a
result of the cuts, and we're assuming that's severance packages.
That's why I say it's sure at least, hey, at
least they're gonna get a nice hopefully.
Speaker 3 (40:01):
Well yeah, and then you also, I mean, instead of
paying out into the privatized insurance system for human employees,
that cost gets replaced by maintenance for servers. That's their insurance.
Speaker 2 (40:14):
What CrowdStrike needs to do is come up with some
kind of healthcare system for the AI supercomputer systems.
Speaker 3 (40:21):
It's funny you say that, Matt, because I was having
a conversation with a friend offline. Do you guys ever
accidentally reinvent something like I was? I was saying, you know,
would be really smart. There's a three year time window
right now, because we were talking about increasingly monopolistic telecom
and cable services and how you know, if you have
(40:42):
enough streaming services that all want to be their own
precious little boys, you all together, you're basically paying a
cable bill. So my pitch was, so, yeah, my pitch was,
let's get a third party middle band character and it
will it will negotiate with the streaming services to get
ice breaks at scale, so a lower cost for the
(41:03):
end user. And then I realized I had accidentally reinvented
what cable was in the beginning.
Speaker 5 (41:10):
Yeah, totally so, because remember when you had to get packages, yeah, ye,
for like the different you know, ESPN or whatever, that
was the premium.
Speaker 3 (41:17):
And you always had to accept you had to take
an l on a couple of channels that you didn't want,
like ESPN fourteen or or whatever. Were so many.
Speaker 5 (41:30):
Is it just a matter of now under the new model,
that the individual networks are just getting the revenue directly,
and that's better for the networks.
Speaker 4 (41:37):
Yeah, that's what.
Speaker 2 (41:39):
In related news, Charter Communications is acquiring Cox Communications.
Speaker 3 (41:43):
That's exactly the conversation.
Speaker 2 (41:45):
Four and a half billion, I'm talking millions.
Speaker 5 (41:50):
Oh my god, why ones? I remember from my youth
Cox and they all tons of radio stations.
Speaker 3 (41:56):
You guys to quote idiocracy, I like money.
Speaker 2 (41:59):
Well, the cable companies have just become Internet service providers.
Speaker 5 (42:05):
Yeah, it's the reshuffling of the dead.
Speaker 3 (42:10):
I know this is not in scope of the story
we're discussing, but I think it does speak to the
larger trends at play because of course CrowdStrike, yes, fumble
the bag hard on that I outage, but they are
not unique in seeking to seeking to leverage various forms
(42:31):
of automation. And the problem then, as we as we
often explored in years past, we're weirdly prescient with this.
The problem then becomes that before you reach that halcyon
post work economy that informs star Trek, you have a
post worker economy. So the question then, and they have
(42:51):
to ask this, please be rational actors, CEOs and decision makers.
At what use is having streamlined, majority automated company making
products if the people can't buy the products because everybody
got fired, you know what I mean. We found the
(43:13):
fastest way to make the coolest car, but no one
can afford gas because we fired all the people who
worked at the factory.
Speaker 2 (43:21):
The crap, oh crap, sort of.
Speaker 5 (43:25):
It's indicative of that general shortsightedness around like move fast
and break stuff mentality. Right, It's like you basically move
fast and break stuff to the point where you don't
have any consumers anymore or I don't know, it's.
Speaker 3 (43:40):
At some point you're just breaking.
Speaker 4 (43:42):
That's exactly, thank you man.
Speaker 2 (43:43):
That's live fast, die young guys, just die, you know,
all right. So I don't know, I don't know. We
got to move on. I'm so sorry, guys. But we
we talked pretty recently, I think earlier this year, maybe
even late last year about a little company called Bayer
b A Y E R. You might remember them from
your aspirin. Well, uh, they we talked about them because
(44:06):
they're doing an intense public relations, lobbying and legal campaign,
and it has to do with this little thing that
they acquired fairly recently in the span of the company's
history at least. Uh, this thing called round Up that
they acquired when they bought Monsanto.
Speaker 4 (44:22):
Yeah, heard of it.
Speaker 5 (44:23):
That was the last thing we talked about beer, Yes,
regarding Yeah, I think I didn't even realize how diversified
they were.
Speaker 3 (44:36):
A good example too, yep.
Speaker 5 (44:37):
Uh.
Speaker 2 (44:38):
And the whole the campaign is all about round up
or you know, round up ready products, round up, the
actual chemical that is an herbicide, and it's all about
whether or not. Actually no, it's all about the fact
they say that roundup is safer use and it definitely
doesn't cause cancer, and if it did cause cancer, it's
not their.
Speaker 3 (44:57):
Fault, like the narcissist prayer.
Speaker 2 (45:01):
Oh a little bit, a little bit. Well, guys, they
just had a massive victory here in our state of
Georgia because we have become the second state to pass
legislation that shields Bear and you know, round Up in
Monsanto and all that stuff from any lawsuits that claim
that Bear itself failed to warn customers about the potential
(45:22):
dangers of using the herbicide round up, right, And this goes.
Speaker 3 (45:27):
Back to the wildly differing opinions from European authorities and
US authorities.
Speaker 5 (45:35):
The ep European authorities tend to be a little more
conservative about these types of things, like literally in the
favor of the humans.
Speaker 3 (45:41):
Well more protective. That's the concept of healthy humans. And
I guess we should also note that Bear, being a
global corporation, is not headquartered in the US, right.
Speaker 2 (45:53):
No, they are in Germany, which changes things a little
bit legally. And it is interesting that, you know, a
company based in another country can spend so much money
on public relations and lobbying here and all kinds of stuff.
But again, it just makes you think about the system
that the way that thing's supposed to go. But at
the state level, I don't know, it hits a little
(46:16):
different to me, just thinking about, you know, governors of
different states being influenced so much, and then the actual
legislators state of each individual state being lobbied as hard
as the folks are in Washington, d C. It's a
bit weird. What insights do you find there been with
it being based in Germany.
Speaker 3 (46:35):
Well, I think it's stuff that you KNOWL and I
have talked about in the past, Right, You already nailed it, Matt.
The tricky patchwork legislation in the United States, especially for
corporate entities of this size, action taken in the US
might just hit I don't know, their US subsidiary, Like,
(46:59):
I don't think any body is going to fly over
to Germany and slap handcuffs on the c suite of Bear.
Speaker 2 (47:05):
Yeah, agreed.
Speaker 3 (47:07):
Also, also, Bear didn't invent Roundup, right, they bought the company.
So it's kind of like, you know, if you buy
a used car that was involved in car accidents. That's
not a perfect analogy because in this analogy the car
you buy is still hurting people.
Speaker 2 (47:23):
Yeah, yeah, well, yeah, it should be noted that they
acquired I think it was twenty eighteen when they when
Bear acquired Monsanto, which is, you know, when they took
on all the legal responsibilities right, all of the I
don't know, they bought the car, the car that had
some serious legal issues. There was a you remember when
(47:46):
we talked about this last there was a two point
one billion dollar award to a single human being who
alleged round Up caused his cancer, and a lot of.
Speaker 3 (47:56):
It went to his legal team.
Speaker 4 (47:58):
Just to be clear. Oh yeah, that is how it goes.
Speaker 3 (48:01):
But yeah, yeah, yeah, because he he made a pretty
solid case that live fass eight or live fascate.
Speaker 4 (48:09):
How do you say it?
Speaker 2 (48:10):
I think that's it. G L y P h O
s A t e ah.
Speaker 3 (48:14):
Yes, Live fasse eight.
Speaker 2 (48:16):
You know it.
Speaker 5 (48:17):
You know it.
Speaker 3 (48:19):
Various courts have agreed it is carcinogenic, despite the EPA
here in the US disagree.
Speaker 4 (48:26):
That's interesting.
Speaker 5 (48:27):
I do want to say too, because I kind of
jumped in to be like, oh, you're up in there,
human I need to focus on human rights and the
you know, the safety of their citizens. That does not
preclude them from having evil corporations. I just do that, clear,
come and I can't not. I just finished it, guys,
and I'm pretty sure Ben you've seen it.
Speaker 3 (48:46):
Matt.
Speaker 5 (48:46):
I don't remember if we talked about this, but the
show Common Side Effects on Adult Swim is about this
very thing, the idea of like how evil corporations would
keep people from having, you know, cures, They keep wanting
to keep people sick, et cetera. But it has taken
to the most extreme and psychedelic degree. It's a really
(49:08):
great show.
Speaker 3 (49:10):
Not a cure, thank you, solve a symptoms.
Speaker 5 (49:14):
That's exactly in a way where they they could even
take something that might be a cure.
Speaker 4 (49:19):
Let's just let's let's nerf it alone, you know what
I mean. We don't want to give them the whole thing. Right.
Speaker 2 (49:25):
Let's get a quote from Brian Naghbor, president of Bear's
Crop Sciences in both North America, Australia and New Zealand.
Speaker 3 (49:32):
It's not spelled neighbor the way it should be, though, folks.
That would be too cool of a name. It's in
a e er. Sorry, Brian got so close man.
Speaker 2 (49:42):
Well. He says that this new law quote demonstrates that
Georgia stands with its farmers who work tirelessly to produce
safe and affordable food. We agree. We're on the side
of humble farmer all day long. We get it here.
Speaker 4 (49:56):
Rebel Moon got canned. Not no more Rebel Moon, No
more humble farmer. They're not.
Speaker 5 (50:00):
They gave up on it. Sorry, it'll come back with
the power of belief. We'll keep the humble farmer mythos
alive on this show alone.
Speaker 2 (50:08):
Yes, once Netflix gets acquired by Charter again, it'll come
back for another.
Speaker 5 (50:14):
And then they all get bought by Unilever, and then
all programs become about soap.
Speaker 3 (50:20):
Yes, and of course ultimately this is great for the consumer. Matt,
I'd love to hear a little bit more and then
we're going to play not quite Devil's Advocate. But I
suggest we we walk through some knock on context that
a lot of people aren't thinking about when they hear
these uh, you know, infuriating reports.
Speaker 2 (50:42):
Well, let's jump to it.
Speaker 3 (50:43):
I tell me, okay, So Brian says that you know,
this is a move to show that Georgia, which is
an agricultural state, supports the people growing food right and produce.
That is that is the public statement. Critics will say,
(51:05):
you know, you are not protecting farmers you are or
humble farmers. You are protecting large corporate interests. However, the
peace of the puzzle that doesn't get reported as often
is the accelerating deterioration of arable land. There is a
world very much on the horizon, and some of us
(51:28):
in the crowd listening tonight are going to be alive
to see it. There is a world wherein humanity will
need incredibly a rollout of much more sophisticated farming methods
and a lot of the traditional methods simply aren't going
to work where they work today. So you can make
(51:48):
an argument that if not now here in the near future,
companies will say they need these pesticides just to create
basic food, not evel fancy stuff.
Speaker 2 (52:01):
Well, yeah, they're protecting round up ready crops, which is
a whole other episode that we did way back in
the day.
Speaker 3 (52:08):
Terminal seed lines.
Speaker 2 (52:09):
Well, yeah, because back in the day, in the nineties
ninety six, to be exact, round up at Monsanto using
their round Up herbicide, created genetically modified crops like soybeans, corn,
sugar beets, cotton, alfalfa that were genetically modified to be
resistant to round up. So you could just douse those
(52:30):
babies in round up and they're not going to die,
but all the other things that grow in the soil
will die, all the bad stuff that you don't want.
Speaker 3 (52:39):
Right, And Monsanto would crack down hard on anybody who
happened to have an adjacent farm where in seeds or
you know, some part of that substance transmitted to their land,
and Monsanto would accuse them of IP theft and things
like that. Also terminal seed lines. Ooh in Citi is
talking about you know, Tenol's really you're point about selling
(53:01):
a service rather than a cure.
Speaker 2 (53:02):
Yeah, you got to buy the seeds for that crop,
and then you got to buy more seeds for the
next crop. You can't take seeds out of what you're
pulling out of the ground because they don't do that
no more. Now you got to just continually buy in
this weird subscription model all your crops from on Santo
slash now bear. So that's really what we're talking about here.
Speaker 3 (53:22):
I also will argue or posit. I don't want it
to be an argument, folks. I will also posit that
there is a great deal of efficiency and wisdom to
be learned from older indigenous farming techniques, and they could
be the answers.
Speaker 4 (53:38):
Rotation right, things like the three sisters and so on.
Speaker 3 (53:41):
There could be answers in that old technology that are
being ignored, perhaps because of path dependency on the part
of big agriculture. But it is a problem humanity is
going to have to wrestle. But things aren't going to
get serious as not even the race for clean water escalates,
(54:02):
but as the race for arable land escalates. Everybody by MRIs.
Make sure to change your MRI's out when the expiration
date hits.
Speaker 4 (54:12):
The good thing about sponsored by MRIs even after the here's.
Speaker 3 (54:16):
The brilliant thing about MRIs though, guys, even after the
expiration date, you can usually eat them because the secret
is they never start off good.
Speaker 4 (54:24):
It does get worse over time.
Speaker 2 (54:25):
Well, yeah, I mean we I just had that conversation here.
I had a bunch of giant cans of things as
like an emergency if there's just a tornado or something,
you know, whatever just happened.
Speaker 3 (54:36):
Smart.
Speaker 2 (54:36):
Well, I got those back in twenty twenty one, twenty
twenty two, and the canned foods just went bad. So
it was a discussion of well, how do we actually
because the food isn't bad in these yet, they're still
good to go. They're sealed in that can, baby, right,
do we just keep it around? Do we just get
some new ones? I don't know what's the deal.
Speaker 3 (54:54):
What do we do?
Speaker 2 (54:54):
Can we donate them? And I found out a lot
of food shelters and food banks will receive you've, especially
a larger can of food that is expired, as long
as it's within a certain time period after expiration, because
the food is still violent it's still good to you know.
Speaker 4 (55:08):
Those are sell by dates.
Speaker 5 (55:09):
I mean even like on like non can stuff you
can usually I'm not, you know, giving medical advice here,
like you know, air on the side of a couple
of weeks past it.
Speaker 4 (55:18):
At the very least, it's just about selling.
Speaker 3 (55:20):
This is official medical advice from doctor Noel Brown.
Speaker 5 (55:24):
Please, if you have eat that month old yogurt.
Speaker 3 (55:28):
If you have any issues, please, of course don't hesitate
to reach out to our complaint department. Jonathan Strickland at
iHeartMedia dot com twenty four hours a night, seven nights
a week. I'd love to hear from you and really
walk them through it.
Speaker 2 (55:42):
Oh yeah, step by step? Uh, step by step? What
is it? How does that song got a Day back?
Speaker 3 (55:51):
Yeah, it's not quite as good as the Perfect Stranger's
theme song, but.
Speaker 4 (55:56):
Don't even get me started. We love that one. We
still love that one.
Speaker 3 (56:03):
Wow, it's so much better than the actual show. But
that's how sitcoms went back then, and we have, I
think mutually a lot we did not get to yet,
some of which may have to occur at a later date.
Speaker 2 (56:16):
Yeah, we don't have time for a few of these stories.
We'll bring them back next time. One in particular, the
second one guys, I think we have to do a
full update episode, like a proper episode on Virginia Jeoffrey,
who recently, at least according to reports and her family,
took her own life, although there are other members of
her family who say she did not. So I'm afraid
(56:36):
we're having a bit of a situation within the Jeffrey
Epstein saga of another person who has taken their own life,
and there are a lot of questions around it.
Speaker 3 (56:46):
So agreat yeah, sort of. We've got other episodes coming
up that we have to cover that one. I think
we should also do an update on the JFK recent declassifications,
and then I hate you guys up off air. Do
you think pheromones work on people?
Speaker 4 (57:04):
You work on me, baby.
Speaker 2 (57:06):
My pheromones are powerful.
Speaker 5 (57:08):
Your musk is strong, Matt, I've always said that you
got a strong man.
Speaker 3 (57:12):
Nusson, and we want to hear from you folks on
all these and other stories. Also, what do you think
of Matt's man? We also might have Abercrombie and Fitch
episode on the way. In the meantime, we can't thank
you enough for tuning in. We also want to thank
our super producers try Force in the Tennessee pal, and
(57:32):
we would love to hear from you. You can call
us on the phone, you can meet us on the
social needs should thou sip, and you can give us
a good old fashioned email. But hey, you're already on
the internet until that CME hits, so why not find
us there?
Speaker 4 (57:48):
That's right.
Speaker 5 (57:49):
You can find us at the handle conspiracy stuff, where
we exist on Facebook with our Facebook group here's where
it gets crazy, on YouTube where we have video content
glory for your perusing enjoyment, and on xfka Twitter, on Instagram,
man TikTok.
Speaker 4 (58:01):
Where can spiratcy stuff show guys?
Speaker 2 (58:04):
Quick interlude here Ben on the CME tip. Did you
see the news about the X class solar flares that
actually took out communications in parts of the world. It
just happened like solar flares though not even CMEs flares
that didn't Yikes, Okay, holy schnikes. Okay. Our phone number
(58:26):
is one eight three three std WYTK. When you call in,
it's a three minute voicemail. Leave your name a cool
nickname if you wish, and let us know within the
message if we can use your name and message on
the air. If you want to reach out with us
via textings of some sort. We're not instead send us
an email.
Speaker 3 (58:43):
We are the entities that read every piece of correspondence
we received. Be well aware, yet unafraid. Sometimes the void
writes back, if you listened to the end, here is
the thing we teased. It's an excellent read, and we
hope that it does help you in your day to
day life. But if it does, good luck. Have you
(59:04):
ever thought is that a hiker or a vagrant or
a spy? Well, Latvia is very worried about that, and
in their recent threat assessment, their Defense Intelligence and Security
Service gave the public pointers on how to identify or
how to differentiate between a scraggly little scamp and a
(59:25):
spy in disguise. So shout out to Eve Sampson, writing
for The New York Times. We'd love to hear other
stories that capture your fancy, or your curiosity or your
interest conspiracy at iHeartRadio dot com.
Speaker 2 (59:56):
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 (00:26):
Hello, welcome back to the show. My name is Matt,
my name is Noah.
Speaker 3 (00:30):
They call me Ben. We're joined as always with our
super producer Andrew let try Force Howard. Most importantly, you
argue you are here. That makes this the stuff they
don't want you to know. And of course it's the
top of the week. So if you are hearing this
strange news the evening it publishes, let us be the
(00:50):
first to welcome you to May twenty six. Also free
El Gato, makat Yeah, free, free El Gato. Let our
man go.
Speaker 4 (01:00):
This is only thing I know about. Who's the cat over?
We gotta let him go.
Speaker 3 (01:03):
Get this over. In Costa Rica, we always like to
start with something that's not immediately terrible. Over in Costa Rica,
prison officials have caught a cat smuggling drugs into the facility.
An officer at the boy at the Pukoki or coch
prison in northeastern Costa Rica spoted the cat and it's like, hey,
(01:28):
what's this cat doing in lock up? And why does
he have a cute little saddle bag pouch?
Speaker 5 (01:33):
Yeah, yeah, we heard about that with pigeons. I think
once before there was something too about like illegal cell
phones being smuggled into prisons attached to little pigeon feet.
Speaker 4 (01:41):
That's wild industrious, I respect.
Speaker 3 (01:44):
We want to give a shout out to our friends
at ap news who on we're recording this on Wednesday,
May twenty first. On May nineteenth, AP News showed just
what is an adorable cat? Clearly like clearly rocking significant
weight for a cat. They gave this poor guy a
(02:04):
backpack of drugs. He got caught free El Gato. He's
just caught up in the system. That's our first strange
news story. We're also going to get to other stuff.
This entire show is not going to be about El
Gatto though, Free the cat. We're gonna learn about a apocalypse.
We're going to catch up on some unpleasant news related
(02:29):
to the accuser of Prince Andrew. We're going to talk
about some deep stuff. Be warned to this program will
contain descriptions of self harm. This may also touch on
the idea of assisted suicide. Before we do any of that.
What say we take a break and come back and
(02:51):
discuss reality shows or maybe just reality. Yeah, we've returned.
At this point, I think everybody in the US has
heard the news, the scuttle but the rumors about the
idea of the federal government starting a reality show pitting
(03:16):
contestants against one another in hopes of getting their applications
for legal status fast tracked.
Speaker 4 (03:25):
Yuck.
Speaker 3 (03:26):
Yeah, gross, Hunger Games.
Speaker 4 (03:29):
Hunger game.
Speaker 5 (03:29):
I mean, every time I look at the comments about this,
as you can't not see people referencing the Hunger Games.
And I did see actually that this was done before,
I want to say, in Mexico, and it was mega
unpopular and frowned upon then.
Speaker 3 (03:45):
And Matt, is this familiar to you as well?
Speaker 2 (03:47):
This is not familiar to me at all.
Speaker 3 (03:50):
Well, well, we'll give you the roller coaster version very quickly,
since we have a lot of stories to get to
the most recent announcement regarding this. Well, and there's a
history to it. Okay. A while back, there was a
peace run in the Daily Mail, and in that piece
(04:10):
there were it also went to Wall Street Journal. There
were these signals from the US government that they would
make a they were considering creating a reality show in
which immigrants in the US compete for citizenship, compete to
get their paperwork, what we will call fast tracked. Most recently,
(04:32):
the current Homeland Security Secretary, Christy nom spoke to the
Senate just yesterday, as we record, and she said, look,
we have no knowledge of this reality show idea. We
have no idea why this is been reported. Her specific
comment to the Senate's Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee
(04:56):
was the following quote. There may have been something submitted
somewhere along the line, because there are proposals pitched to
the Department, but me and my executive team had no
knowledge of the reality show. She added, there are no
plans whatsoever to do a reality show. However, you guys,
if you go back to May sixteenth, Homeland Security spokeswoman
(05:19):
Tricia McLaughlin said on multiple occasions some weird stuff. She
told The Wall Street Journal earlier that the department was
considering collaborating on a TV show of exactly this nature
and get this guy's deep cut. The pitch came from
the same producers who made Duck Dynasty classic television.
Speaker 4 (05:41):
Yeah, yeah, yeah, High Dynasty Dynasty. We got a podcast too.
Speaker 2 (05:45):
What is the between Duck dynasty and people wanting to
have status as an American citizen.
Speaker 5 (05:52):
Hmm yeah, I mean it is a pretty right leaning
crew there. I don't feel like they put Polo takes
front and center. It's just more about like outdoors and stuff.
But maybe they do, especially on the podcast. I couldn't say.
I haven't listened, but it does seem like that's part
of that brand.
Speaker 3 (06:08):
We can agree though this is a rubicon too far
with bread and circuses. This is dystopian. It does sound like,
based on the recent conversations with the Senate, that this
is not going forward. The more speculative or perhaps cynical
of us in the crowd tonight will consider the possibility
(06:30):
that this was floated as a test balloon to see
how America would react, and then when they got a
when they didn't get a positive reaction, they said no, yeah,
no one talked about that ever.
Speaker 5 (06:44):
Right, It seems like sort of part of the playbook
is the floating, you know, move or the testing of boundaries.
Speaker 2 (06:50):
Right.
Speaker 4 (06:51):
It just it does seem to be very much part
of what they're up to.
Speaker 3 (06:54):
The old dish gallop right there are running another good example, Yes,
shut up Stephen King via his pseudonym. Also, this makes
me think of again, as we accelerate toward an increasingly
surreal civilization and society, it makes me think of how
many other things might become something like reality shows. If
(07:19):
you had told us when we began this strange endeavor
lo those years ago, that we would be in the
current situation. I don't know if we still would have
done the show, but here we are. United Health investors,
by the way, just sued the company United Health over
its response to the murder of their former CEO, Brian Thompson.
Speaker 4 (07:41):
Because of its effects on the stock price. I was saying,
they're not being good stewards of their you know, their bored.
I'm curious.
Speaker 3 (07:49):
Yeah, let's go to CBS News, Kiera Frazier says, reporting here.
This proposed class action lawsuit that was filed recently in
the Southern District of New York is led by one
of the investors in United Healthcare, Roberto Faller, and the
suit alleges that United Health artificially inflated prices when the
(08:10):
company initially forecasts their earnings per share in December. And
this is strange because look, the reason they're suing or
taking legal action. Is that United Health originally said the
earnings per share are going to be twenty nine dollars
and fifty cents, maybe as high as thirty dollars. That's
(08:30):
what they said in December. They said it again in January,
despite the backlash of stuff we were talking about in
our ev Core episode or evil Core episode. And then
the investors decided to sue because United Health cut its
twenty twenty five forecasts to a lower range. Not that
(08:53):
much lower, but I guess it matters when you have
hundreds and hundreds of shares. They said, now the earning
per share is going to be between twenty six dollars
to twenty six dollars and fifty cents. So this company's
own investors are suing it at this point.
Speaker 4 (09:07):
That's nuts.
Speaker 3 (09:07):
Not a good look.
Speaker 4 (09:09):
I don't know.
Speaker 3 (09:10):
I mean, how often does that happen? Are the investors
trying to get on the right side of history. They
also talk about aggressive anti consumer tactics in their suit.
Speaker 5 (09:19):
Interesting, Yeah, I guess I thought of it more as
a bottom line kind of move, Like I know that
you can certainly remove like stockholders of a certain level,
like have the ability to vote. They have some level
of control they can exercise, and they could potentially, you know, petition,
I guess, to have an executive.
Speaker 4 (09:38):
Removed for like failure to be good steward of the stock. Right,
Sure this is different than that.
Speaker 3 (09:43):
Yeah, yeah, it feels like this is okay, it feels
like obviously there is an issue with projected profits which
always comes up with shareholders and with investors, but it
is inextricable from the context of that earlier murder, right,
the murder for which Luigi Mangioni remains incarcerated today, although
(10:09):
he has not been convicted in court.
Speaker 4 (10:11):
Yeah, it's interesting sign of the times, I guess, right, Yeah,
and you got.
Speaker 3 (10:14):
To wonder where that's going. Speaking of class action lawsuits,
twenty three and Me has entered the chat. We talked
about this at length in the past in some strange
news and some listener mail in some episodes. We also
learned recently that twenty three and Me went bankrupt, so
they are out searching for a suitor. Yet they have
(10:37):
found true love. In corporate terms, a company named Regenerod
is going to buy twenty three and Me for two
hundred and fifty six million dollars.
Speaker 4 (10:48):
They should get together with Evil Core Regeneron.
Speaker 3 (10:53):
These guys sound more and more like Captain Planet villains,
you know what I mean. Here's the quick scoop. Let's
go to Reuters and c in who are noting that
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, which itself is a drug maker, it's not
just a venture capital outfit. They are buying the they're
(11:15):
buying twenty three and ME through a bankruptcy auction, and
they've already come forward in various public statements and said, look,
twenty three in me customers, we are going to abide
by the existing privacy policies that twenty three and ME created,
and we're going to comply with applicable laws regarding consumer data,
(11:37):
which gets tricky because those laws change country to country
and indeed state to state. I don't know. They're getting
pretty much everything from twenty three and me except where
a telehealth service they have called Lemonade Health, and they're
going to I think the plan is the sunset that one.
But I'd never heard of Lemonade Health.
Speaker 4 (12:00):
No.
Speaker 3 (12:00):
Also it's spelled ai D get it, lemon aid.
Speaker 4 (12:04):
Okay, yeah, let's let's let's make lemons and the lemona.
Speaker 2 (12:07):
Are you a lemon, maybe we can aid you.
Speaker 4 (12:11):
We can aid you because you're you got a bad ticker?
Speaker 3 (12:13):
Is this the lemon equivalent of help of support and help?
Speaker 1 (12:19):
Yeah?
Speaker 3 (12:19):
Exactly. The reason we're mentioning this is because for many
of us in the audience who may have played with
twenty three and Me or other consumer DNA genetic info companies.
Your next immediate question, maybe, how do I get control
(12:39):
of my data? How do I how do I remove
it from the system? How do I ensure that I
feel safe and protected to do that? You're going to
want to get some advice straight from the New York
Times wirecutter. They've got a bonus episode on how to
delete your data from twenty three and Me and Reports
on the ground. We'll walk you through this in a second,
(13:02):
but Reports on the ground, just so you know, folks
are showing us that getting that data removed is a
little more tricky than the company may imply. It's kind
of like anybody who's ever had a gym membership that
was really tricky to get out of. Has that ever
happened to you, guys?
Speaker 5 (13:21):
I haven't had dealt with it yet, but I am
a little gym membership rich, right, now and I need
to dump one and so I'm looking forward to that bureaucracy.
Speaker 3 (13:28):
Right right, Yeah, just stay out your p's and q's
across the t's dot. Theis to delete your twenty three
and meter data, says Wirecutter. All you have to do
is log into your account, go to settings, select twenty
three and me data, which is way down at the
bottom of the page. Then hit view download a copy
of it, then select delete data, then permanently delete data.
(13:52):
You can also opt to have the genetic material you
submitted destroyed, and then you have to go to the
Research and Product can sense section to remove permission to
allow your material to be used for other stuff. Notes
that doing this only revokes their ability to use your
(14:13):
material in future research. So everything that has already been
done with whatever you gave twenty three and meters that's
still there, that's going to be a real thing going forward.
Speaker 2 (14:25):
I don't know.
Speaker 3 (14:25):
Whether I'm making a mountain out of a mole hill here,
but it does feel like this is important information for
a lot of our listeners.
Speaker 5 (14:33):
What do you guys think, Well, it's certainly something we've
been talking about, and this seems like a natural escalation
of a lot of the privacy issues that we've discussed
kind of ad nauseum.
Speaker 4 (14:42):
On the show.
Speaker 3 (14:43):
Mm, yeah, agreed. We don't know. It's not that we're
accusing these companies of participating an insidious or nefarious or
conspiratorial things, but we simply do not know what will
happen with that information. So if you have the concern
about that, and again, in full transparency, we worked with
(15:04):
twenty three and meter in the past. If you have
a personal concern, then now is the time to go
in and you sort of get your head around what
may be happening and the implications. Last story here before
we move on to the next part of our weekly
Strange News segment. There was speaking of conspiracies, a secret
(15:25):
deal between members of Mexican cartels and the United States government.
This deal allowed cartel family members to enter the United States.
This is not coming to us from internet gossip and rumor.
This is coming from the security chief of Mexico, thanks
(15:46):
to our friends at the AP. Just last week, Mexican
authorities confirmed that seventeen family members of various cartel leaders
crossed into the United States. It was part of a
deal between a son of the former head of the
Snola cartel and the Trump administration. Gonna be honest, Mexico
(16:07):
is pissed.
Speaker 5 (16:08):
Well, it also doesn't It kind of flies in the
face of the Trump administration's whole like shutting down the cartels,
you know, their whole narrative about the closed borders. It's
all kind of using the cartels as like the main
impetus for stuff like that, you know, all the pentanyl
being trafficked across the border and things like that.
Speaker 4 (16:26):
So it does feel a little bit maybe a lot
of hypocrite.
Speaker 3 (16:31):
It's a little uh, it's counterintuitive, is it not that too? Yeah? Like,
what what is the end goal?
Speaker 2 (16:39):
Yeah, well, he's the guy's functioning as an informant, Right.
Speaker 3 (16:42):
That's the idea, But they haven't if that that is
the idea. However, Mexican prosecutors say that the current administration
has shared no information about this.
Speaker 4 (16:54):
Oh why is it so public too? It doesn't seem
like a very good tactic for an.
Speaker 3 (16:59):
Informant, Right it came from an independent journalist that we
need to shout out, Luise Chappato.
Speaker 2 (17:05):
Well, I'll tell you why, guys. It's because they're worried
about the little corruption thing going on. Between government officials
and cartels in Mexico. Right, so if they shared all
that information, there would be an early warning likely to
cartel members and the people they need. That's going.
Speaker 3 (17:23):
Yeah, so I think it's not necessarily I don't know.
We can't jump to conclusions as we don't have enough
information just yet.
Speaker 5 (17:33):
I just really quickly been just wanted to add, like
I know, I jumped immediately to like, oh, it's a
payoff thing.
Speaker 4 (17:37):
It it's hypocritical, et cetera.
Speaker 5 (17:39):
I guess it just makes me think of this whole
notion of the gold card, of this idea of like
paying a bunch of money to get citizenship, et cetera,
that the administration floated, and how you know, if you
have enough money you can get into the country. And
there was a lot of talk about how, well, who
are the people that are going to maybe use that?
It would be like carteli leaders with lots of money
(18:00):
to potentially try to take advantage of a program.
Speaker 3 (18:03):
Yeah, but god, I hear you, But you would you
who would not want a couple of investor passports. I
regularly go through the countries that offer.
Speaker 2 (18:15):
That, and.
Speaker 3 (18:18):
I'll tell you some of them are more affordable than
you might assume.
Speaker 4 (18:21):
It's like it's like a temporary visa, you get a citizenship.
Speaker 5 (18:25):
You give them that because of your ability to invest,
because of your ability to do business.
Speaker 3 (18:29):
You jump in front of the line, just like you
have a Disney fast pass or something. But the ride
is you know, legal residents, commerce, residency in a country. Uh. Yes,
we have much more to get to. We would love
to hear your thoughts regarding all of these stories. We're
going to pause for a word from our sponsors. But folks,
spoiler listen to the very end of tonight's program, because
(18:52):
we're also going to give you a guide to locating spies.
That's the spoiler, that's the foreshadowing.
Speaker 5 (19:00):
Will be right back, and we're back, and I'm gonna
jump right in with I'm gonna do the bummer story
up front. Well, it's not inherently a bummer. We've certainly
done episodes in the past. But the idea of assisted suicide,
I'm not gonna say unalive, that's what it was historically
(19:20):
referred to as going to use those terms for the
sake of this discussion, you know, and on a lot
of the issues behind it in terms of people that
are against things like that typically come from a place
of religiousness, typically come from a place of the sanctity
of life, maybe similar arguments to people who might be
anti abortion. And there are a handful of states in
(19:42):
the United States that I believe have this available, you know,
as a legal option, which certainly no one needs as
a legal option, But there is something to be said
of a humane, overseen, you know, option for ending one's life,
not because you're depressed because you have a terminal illness,
because you have something that is determined to be irreversible
(20:03):
and you are suffering, and you are living in a
state of pain and anxiety. And this is a way
of kind of helping put agency into the hands of
people going through things like that and not having to
take matters, say, into their own hands, which we also
hear very sad stories about often you know, people doing
that themselves behind closed doors, whereas in this situation, it's
(20:24):
almost like you could be surrounded by family, Like it
could be a conversation that you're having with your loved
ones and they can all be there potentially. So New
York State has made some strides towards this as well,
and it is the New York legislature that has passed
a bill called the Medical Aid in Dying Measure, or rather,
(20:44):
I guess it's yeah, it's a bill which passed eighty
one to sixty seven after four hours of debate in
the New York State legislature. This is coming from Gothamist
article that is attributed to Yeah Jimmy volkand saying that
the Medical Aid and Dying Measure passed eighty one sixty
seven after more than four hours debate, with more than
ten Democrats joined the minority Republicans in voting no. So
(21:06):
it would appear that it is not entirely down the aisle,
you know, kind of split issue.
Speaker 4 (21:11):
It's still unclear.
Speaker 5 (21:12):
The article says whether it will be considered by the
state Senate or whether Governor Kathy Hochel HOCl supports it.
Ten other states allow similar practices, including Oregon, which legalized
medically assisted suicide in nineteen ninety seven. Folks that are
in support of this, like I mentioned, which you know
is my perspective, say this is a compassionate choice for
folks who are in pain at the end of their lives,
(21:35):
advocating making this a safe sort of a I guess
loaded term here maybe doesn't really apply, but a humane
process involving oversight from physicians with terminally ill individuals such
as cancer patients, as well as folks whose spouses and
siblings have also suffered.
Speaker 4 (21:54):
You know, in them some of these final moments.
Speaker 5 (21:56):
So one of the sponsors of the bill, Amy who's
a Democrat from Westchester County, said, the last thing memory
I have of my sister is shouting in pain. She
might have chosen this or not, but she would have
had a choice. And then on the other side of that,
we have some folks commenting from I guess the state's
(22:17):
Roman Catholic Bishops organization. So Robert Bellafiore, who's spokesperson for
the New York State Catholic Conference, said this was referring
to this in I believe a pretty hyperbolic way as
state sanctioned suicide. Guys, what do you think about that
term sanctioned? I feel like it's weaponized so much, and
especially in this situation.
Speaker 4 (22:35):
They're not saying you should do this.
Speaker 3 (22:37):
Yeah, we're forcing you to do this, right, But it's
like what here in the West, in the US, especially,
you never hear state sanctioned as a modifier to something good.
No one's ever like, oh, I've got to go to
the state sanctioned library.
Speaker 4 (22:52):
It implies government overreach, free.
Speaker 3 (22:54):
Books, it's always right state sanctioned death squads or suicide
death panels exactly. You know, this reminds me of I mean,
obviously the shadow of Cavorkian, but it also reminds me
of the sarcopod Street named the suicide pod, the euthanasia
device that came out a while back. It was invented
(23:15):
by a guy named Philip Nietzski, and it it also
like Cravorkians work. It ruffled a lot of feathers on
a very sensitive topic. But there are some things to unpack.
You know. First, logically, if you believe in bodily autonomy,
then your idea must be that if other if you're not,
(23:35):
if someone is not harming someone else with their actions,
they should be able to do what they want with
their person habeas corpus and all that. However, it feels
like there does need to be some nuanced legislation because
it reminds me of those studies that show people who
attempt suicide by say, jumping off a bridge, the vast
(23:57):
majority of folks who survived that attempt regret doing it right.
So a terminal illness feels like a very, very much
a mission critical qualifier. But we also have to remember
there are a lot of people who are going through
very difficult times in their lives and may impulsively wish
for self harm only to regret it regret it later.
(24:21):
So how would we square a person's right to autonomy
with like, I guess you have to make the barrier
of entry pretty high at this point.
Speaker 4 (24:31):
Tell you, yeah, one hundred percent. Man, those are all
really great points.
Speaker 5 (24:34):
And you know, the opposition coming from the New York
State Catholic Conference sort of addresses to some of these things,
saying it tells young people who everyone knows are in
the midst of an unprecedented mental health crisis, that life
is disposable and that it's okay to end your life
if you see no hope. It turns medicine on its
head from a healing profession into a killing one. Again,
I find this to be incredibly hyperbolic and sort of
(24:56):
weaponized language.
Speaker 3 (24:57):
Load Yeah, for sure.
Speaker 5 (24:58):
Loadedly miss the point which is addressed in the bill itself,
which requires two physicians to certify that a patient has
an irreversible incurable illness or condition with a prognosis of
six months or less to live. Two witnesses who aren't
related to the patient, aren't in line for any inheritance
and don't work for a nursing home where a patient
(25:19):
receives care also have to sign as witnesses to the
patient's written request. So it feels to me like that's
a pretty high barrier to entry, you know, to your point, man, yeah,
I hear you be Yeah, And advocates going to say
that it's all about the patient's control and that there
is that level, you know, pretty strict level of oversight.
There is this concept of coercion that comes up a lot,
(25:41):
like this idea of potentially nursing home.
Speaker 4 (25:46):
The staff, yeah, you.
Speaker 3 (25:47):
Know, taking compromised in their faculties, that's right.
Speaker 5 (25:51):
Yeah, And so it does feel like there are reasonable
measures in place to prevent that. But I do feel
like that term coercion that comes up a lot is
also often a little bit loaded, the idea of and
it just seems to me like nobody, Okay, let's talk
about the conspiratorial ang a little bit.
Speaker 4 (26:09):
I think it's an.
Speaker 5 (26:09):
Elephant, sure, Like it doesn't it doesn't particularly benefit big
pharma and the healthcare industry if people have the choice
to in.
Speaker 4 (26:18):
Their own lives. Because I didn't know there's a lot
of money to be made an end of life care.
I'm just saying, so, yeah, discuss. Yeah, that's right.
Speaker 2 (26:29):
I just had sorry being quite on this this part, guys.
I literally just had a conversation this morning with my
son's mother about a family member of hers that just
went into hospice and is, you know, on her way out.
And it's one of those things when there's a lot
of pain there, there is a discussion with that person,
(26:51):
you know, like that potentially they might want to just
have it be over. That would be really great if
it could just be over, but nobody wants that. And
then also being in someone's shoes who is not cognitively there,
how do you have that discussion with them? And it
is such a I'm just putting this out here to say,
it is such a complicated situation right at any time,
(27:15):
somebody is trying to choose, or a family is trying
to choose if it's time to let someone go.
Speaker 3 (27:20):
Agreed. I don't say much personal stuff on the show,
but I completely understand what you're saying, Matt, one of
my grandmothers many years ago, that was the last conversation
we had with her, and she wasn't all there. So
it's not really a clean answer to a lot of
these things.
Speaker 4 (27:37):
Certainly not.
Speaker 5 (27:38):
But it's also interesting how, you know, my mother passing,
I had to make the choice to end her life,
and it was paperwork that was laid out and gave
me that right, and she I was advised by the
doctors that there was no coming back from the state
that she was in and issues intubated and there are
all these factors and boxes that had to be checked,
(27:59):
and that you know, art lungs were full of fluid.
It just wasn't it was it wasn't any coming back,
and that's what I was advised, and that is what
I did. But I don't see how, like, why do
you have to get to such a place? Yeah, before
that conversation happens, is what I'm saying.
Speaker 2 (28:15):
I had this one thought in my head the other day.
And but and I think that is almost a point
against the conspiratorial fact right, because those are metal medical
professionals talking to you, nol and saying that is true.
We could we could sustain her life for you know,
however long you want, and then the medical bills would
just pile and pile and pile and pile, or we
can do this, which is the theoretically the mission of
(28:37):
all medical professionals, right when you go into that field exactly. So, I.
Speaker 5 (28:43):
It is interesting, though I do no harm, and the
way this language is weaponized kind of conflicts with the
idea of ending someone's life. But sometimes that is the
humane thing to do, and that is a form of
doing no harm, because you're doing more harm by letting
an individual live in a substandard dare we even say
hellish state?
Speaker 4 (29:03):
It's a lot, guys, I'm sorry. I didn't mean to
get personal doubt of it.
Speaker 5 (29:07):
It is something that that you know, I do feel
connected with, and it's interesting and it's it's a very
complex thing, but I do think people should have the
right to do something like this, and you know, because also,
I mean I had I had another family friend who
had terminal cancer and took his own life with a weapon.
Speaker 4 (29:25):
H that's a very violent death. That's a violent way
to go. You're alone and tear. I mean, can you
imagine the someone's state of mind in that situation.
Speaker 2 (29:33):
But that's the way it goes. Now, if you live
in a in a place that does not allow for
some way to to end your life, you know, peacefully,
then you take it if you're if you're in that
position and you make that decision right, and that's a reality.
I guess that we're we're all kind of facing Uh.
(29:55):
I don't know.
Speaker 4 (29:57):
Yeah, for sure, it's definitely complex. I'll leave that one there.
Speaker 5 (30:01):
Maybe maybe should have led with the weird mystery bird
apocalypse story instead of that one, But I guess maybe
it's also just ripping the band aid off. In California,
in a town not too far from San Francisco in
the Bay Area called Richmond, residents are reporting sightings of
exploding birds and just a rash of dead birds falling
(30:24):
from the sky, some of which are appearing to explode
in mid air. There are security camera footage, there's ring
camera footage. Residents have said they've found as many as
fifty dead birds in the area over the last few months,
and this was initially reported by ABC seven there in
the Bay Area. I'm pulling a lot of this from
a Guardian article California town investigates mystery of exploding dead birds.
Speaker 4 (30:50):
There are theories, y'all.
Speaker 5 (30:51):
A lot of people are pointing fingers at the power
company because a lot of these birds apparently have been
like birds want or want to do sit on these
power line. Officials for the California Department Officient Wildlife told
The Guardian that the Department of Wildlife's health lab received
two dead birds for evaluation that had been collected by
the utility company Pacific Gas and Electric. One of the
(31:13):
birds was a mourning dove, and another eight European starlings,
like migratory birds. The lab found no signs of electrocution, however,
in these collective birds, but the creatures did show injuries
that could have been caused by a pellet gun, a
BB gun, or a slingshot.
Speaker 4 (31:30):
They said in a statement.
Speaker 5 (31:32):
The exact cause of the trauma to all of these
birds could not be determined. The investigation came as some
neighbors blame Pacific Gas and Electric for faulty cable lines
and urged the utility to take a look into the incident.
A spokesperson from PG and E, who also again led
the the what do you call it? Autopsy kind of
(31:53):
a charge there seemingly maybe in a way of exonerating themselves.
But you know whatever, we appreciate the concern of our
customers Richmond about the recent series of bird deaths. PG
and E does not believe that there was an issue
with our electrical equipment and agrees that these birds were
not electrocuted.
Speaker 4 (32:07):
So there you go.
Speaker 5 (32:10):
It is being described as a very traumatic and violent
thing to witness. A local resident named Maximilian Bowling told
ABC seven, So, when they land, then it happens. They
just quickly explode, and it's really violent. It's very traumatic,
super traumatic to see this. You know, I've got my
bird issues, guys, but I don't wish them this kind
(32:31):
of ill. There's a horrible thing to happen to birds.
We must get to the bottom of what's happening to
these birds. There is another piece in the La Times
the mystery of Northern California's exploding birds is being solved,
and that was from May the fourteenth, and I believe
it mainly refers to the autopsy that PG and E
(32:51):
has performed.
Speaker 4 (32:53):
Let's see.
Speaker 5 (32:55):
Yeah, it does show that they weren't electrocuted, so I
wonder what's next. Further, Yeah, it shows that weren't electrocuted
is what the But again I'm a little suspicious because
it's two birds, a mourning dove in a European starling,
and it's the power company themselves that conducted these tests,
and they're the ones say.
Speaker 4 (33:12):
No, no, it's cool. See we checked it out to
the cat with a gun. Yes, yeah, cat. Can you imagine?
So it really is a mini bird apocalypse yall?
Speaker 3 (33:23):
Yeah?
Speaker 4 (33:23):
Oh wow, that's a that's a terrifying image. Cats are
the scourge of the bird world, you know.
Speaker 5 (33:31):
That's why they say if you let your cats outside,
put a bell on them, not for you finding the cat,
but to give the birds a fighting chance. Wow.
Speaker 4 (33:40):
Mm hmm.
Speaker 2 (33:40):
It's really puzzling. I don't know how would it so? Okay,
just theoretically, how would it be an electrical Problemly, the
shielding isn't correct on some of the ulins.
Speaker 4 (33:51):
It would have to be.
Speaker 5 (33:52):
They have to be like ungrounded, right, it would like
be to cause that level of violent explosion. There have
to be significant grounding problem that would also be very
for humans, potentially some sort of serious flaw.
Speaker 4 (34:04):
Yeah, and apparently all.
Speaker 5 (34:07):
There is something called or a safeguard or a company
that creates standards in place called the Avian power Line
Interaction Committee, and there is apparently a standard that is
to be complied with for Avian safety around power lines.
And another spokesperson Matt Neuman from PG and he said
(34:27):
the poll at issue is compliant with Avian safeguidees.
Speaker 4 (34:32):
So it's a good question, Ben, You got any theories.
Speaker 5 (34:35):
I think there's a a a Dennis the Menace type figure,
exploding birds, an anti bird vigilante.
Speaker 4 (34:42):
I like your cat with a gun theory. That's good image.
Speaker 3 (34:45):
Yeah, a cat with a gun is probably the most
plausible thing. Group of cats, maybe cartel related.
Speaker 4 (34:54):
Well, let's stop here for now. I think I've run
over on time a little bit.
Speaker 5 (34:58):
But let's take a quick break here a word from
our spot, and then we'll come back with a little
bit more strange news from mister Matti Fred's.
Speaker 2 (35:09):
And we've returned. Do we all remember the cybersecurity company
crowd Strike. Do you guys remember talking about them last year?
The company was responsible for a massive global server outage.
They pushed out an update had some issues with it
to its software that's used by a lot of people.
When they put out that software, which is designed to
(35:31):
detect cybersecurity threats. It brought down eight and a half
million Windows systems across the globe. Who well that outage,
as is stated here by the Guardian that we will
talk about in just a moment. It caused chaos at airports,
took down computers in hospitals, which is not great, TV networks,
(35:52):
payment systems, and personal computers even well, guys, they just
announced earlier in May that they are gonna cut five
percent of their workforce because guess what they're putting in
instead of humans?
Speaker 3 (36:07):
Oh gosh, is it cats with guns?
Speaker 2 (36:08):
Yes?
Speaker 5 (36:09):
I think I that would probably be preferable. Uh, yeah,
it's they have some insuation. It's a I, isn't it.
Speaker 2 (36:15):
Nope, it's Chuck Testa. Uh he's a taxidermy badass. Should
look him up at Chuck Testa. Anyway, I didn't know
there were.
Speaker 3 (36:24):
Bases in the Field's kind of the lebron of taxider.
Speaker 4 (36:28):
I learned something today.
Speaker 2 (36:29):
No, it's it's it's a I, guys, which.
Speaker 3 (36:32):
Is also just a fraudulent term. And often this year,
I'm going to be a broken record every time that comes.
Speaker 5 (36:38):
Now, you're right, then, But much like you know, unliving
versus like assistant suicide or something. It is the term
that is being thrown around, but you're right. I think
it is worth that qualifier nearly every time because it is.
Speaker 3 (36:48):
I appreciate that. Also, crowd Strike then joins multiple other
tech companies and also companies in other spaces, like Duo
Lingo being another recent example.
Speaker 5 (37:00):
It's funny my kids said, Duolingo is canceled because they're
using all AI. So that generation is even to keyt
in on this and they.
Speaker 3 (37:07):
Don't like it. No, no, why would they?
Speaker 5 (37:08):
You know?
Speaker 3 (37:09):
Also, what are the more interesting conversations that's going to
come up in the near to mid future is going
to be what happens when you replace c suite level
decisions with a large language model or some kind of AI.
Speaker 2 (37:25):
We got computer computer CEOs. The CEO of CrowdStrike.
Speaker 4 (37:31):
Yeah, who was a human being, George.
Speaker 3 (37:34):
That's far's technically physiologically, yes, exactly.
Speaker 2 (37:38):
Yeah, we talked about, well, no offense CEOs. If you're
out there.
Speaker 4 (37:43):
Listening, but human is a relative.
Speaker 2 (37:45):
There is a higher chance that you may exhibit some
sociopathic psychopathic things. But it's fine. Just due to the
nature of the success you've had in the businesses you
front anyway, but that's fine. Yeah. George Kurtz, human Being,
chief executive of CrowdStrike, said that it's about five hundred positions,
or again five percent of its workforce. It's going to
be cut globally and it is due to not just AI,
(38:07):
but AI efficiencies that are being created right now, which,
as you said, Ben, all the companies are attempting to
find ways to do this, make it a little more efficient,
save a little bit more money, and then everybody's feeling
good in the investor side, which is really what it's
all about.
Speaker 3 (38:23):
Until the next year when there's a new profit target. Yes,
goalposts between goal posts.
Speaker 2 (38:29):
Yes, exactly the old quarters. You can read this in
the Guardian. It was posted May ninth, twenty twenty five.
Title is tone deaf us company responsible for global IT
outage to cut jobs and use AI and just a
heads up. Everything I'm going to be talking about comes
from like late April, early May. It's stuff that kind
of fell through the cracks on my end at least
(38:50):
where I'd written down that we should talk about this
and then I totally forgot. But that's one. There are
several people in that article just citing, hey, why not
take that five percent and put them into to like
an emergency team. Turn that five percent of workforce into
an emergency team to handle stuff like when eight and
a half million machines go down because your software screwed up.
Or maybe a QA team that looks at updates before
(39:13):
your updates come out.
Speaker 3 (39:14):
Some sort of thing that could strike a crowd of problems.
Speaker 2 (39:18):
Hmmmm, like five hundred strong.
Speaker 4 (39:22):
CrowdStrike. Doesn't that sound like a like a full party
move and a JARPG like it really good?
Speaker 2 (39:27):
Strike?
Speaker 3 (39:28):
Really was those names? A lot of the big companies
have these. I don't know, maybe maybe I'm just being pretentious,
but they sound they don't sound like what they do
is the issue.
Speaker 2 (39:41):
Yeah, well, hey, but in a victory for the people
who are losing their jobs, the company expects to incur
up to fifty three million dollars in costs as a
result of the cuts, and we're assuming that's severance packages.
That's why I say it's sure at least, hey, at
least they're gonna get a nice hopefully.
Speaker 3 (40:01):
Well yeah, and then you also, I mean, instead of
paying out into the privatized insurance system for human employees,
that cost gets replaced by maintenance for servers. That's their insurance.
Speaker 2 (40:14):
What CrowdStrike needs to do is come up with some
kind of healthcare system for the AI supercomputer systems.
Speaker 3 (40:21):
It's funny you say that, Matt, because I was having
a conversation with a friend offline. Do you guys ever
accidentally reinvent something like I was? I was saying, you know,
would be really smart. There's a three year time window
right now, because we were talking about increasingly monopolistic telecom
and cable services and how you know, if you have
(40:42):
enough streaming services that all want to be their own
precious little boys, you all together, you're basically paying a
cable bill. So my pitch was, so, yeah, my pitch was,
let's get a third party middle band character and it
will it will negotiate with the streaming services to get
ice breaks at scale, so a lower cost for the
(41:03):
end user. And then I realized I had accidentally reinvented
what cable was in the beginning.
Speaker 5 (41:10):
Yeah, totally so, because remember when you had to get packages, yeah, ye,
for like the different you know, ESPN or whatever, that
was the premium.
Speaker 3 (41:17):
And you always had to accept you had to take
an l on a couple of channels that you didn't want,
like ESPN fourteen or or whatever. Were so many.
Speaker 5 (41:30):
Is it just a matter of now under the new model,
that the individual networks are just getting the revenue directly,
and that's better for the networks.
Speaker 4 (41:37):
Yeah, that's what.
Speaker 2 (41:39):
In related news, Charter Communications is acquiring Cox Communications.
Speaker 3 (41:43):
That's exactly the conversation.
Speaker 2 (41:45):
Four and a half billion, I'm talking millions.
Speaker 5 (41:50):
Oh my god, why ones? I remember from my youth
Cox and they all tons of radio stations.
Speaker 3 (41:56):
You guys to quote idiocracy, I like money.
Speaker 2 (41:59):
Well, the cable companies have just become Internet service providers.
Speaker 5 (42:05):
Yeah, it's the reshuffling of the dead.
Speaker 3 (42:10):
I know this is not in scope of the story
we're discussing, but I think it does speak to the
larger trends at play because of course CrowdStrike, yes, fumble
the bag hard on that I outage, but they are
not unique in seeking to seeking to leverage various forms
(42:31):
of automation. And the problem then, as we as we
often explored in years past, we're weirdly prescient with this.
The problem then becomes that before you reach that halcyon
post work economy that informs star Trek, you have a
post worker economy. So the question then, and they have
(42:51):
to ask this, please be rational actors, CEOs and decision makers.
At what use is having streamlined, majority automated company making
products if the people can't buy the products because everybody
got fired, you know what I mean. We found the
(43:13):
fastest way to make the coolest car, but no one
can afford gas because we fired all the people who
worked at the factory.
Speaker 2 (43:21):
The crap, oh crap, sort of.
Speaker 5 (43:25):
It's indicative of that general shortsightedness around like move fast
and break stuff mentality. Right, It's like you basically move
fast and break stuff to the point where you don't
have any consumers anymore or I don't know, it's.
Speaker 3 (43:40):
At some point you're just breaking.
Speaker 4 (43:42):
That's exactly, thank you man.
Speaker 2 (43:43):
That's live fast, die young guys, just die, you know,
all right. So I don't know, I don't know. We
got to move on. I'm so sorry, guys. But we
we talked pretty recently, I think earlier this year, maybe
even late last year about a little company called Bayer
b A Y E R. You might remember them from
your aspirin. Well, uh, they we talked about them because
(44:06):
they're doing an intense public relations, lobbying and legal campaign,
and it has to do with this little thing that
they acquired fairly recently in the span of the company's
history at least. Uh, this thing called round Up that
they acquired when they bought Monsanto.
Speaker 4 (44:22):
Yeah, heard of it.
Speaker 5 (44:23):
That was the last thing we talked about beer, Yes,
regarding Yeah, I think I didn't even realize how diversified
they were.
Speaker 3 (44:36):
A good example too, yep.
Speaker 5 (44:37):
Uh.
Speaker 2 (44:38):
And the whole the campaign is all about round up
or you know, round up ready products, round up, the
actual chemical that is an herbicide, and it's all about
whether or not. Actually no, it's all about the fact
they say that roundup is safer use and it definitely
doesn't cause cancer, and if it did cause cancer, it's
not their.
Speaker 3 (44:57):
Fault, like the narcissist prayer.
Speaker 2 (45:01):
Oh a little bit, a little bit. Well, guys, they
just had a massive victory here in our state of
Georgia because we have become the second state to pass
legislation that shields Bear and you know, round Up in
Monsanto and all that stuff from any lawsuits that claim
that Bear itself failed to warn customers about the potential
(45:22):
dangers of using the herbicide round up, right, And this goes.
Speaker 3 (45:27):
Back to the wildly differing opinions from European authorities and
US authorities.
Speaker 5 (45:35):
The ep European authorities tend to be a little more
conservative about these types of things, like literally in the
favor of the humans.
Speaker 3 (45:41):
Well more protective. That's the concept of healthy humans. And
I guess we should also note that Bear, being a
global corporation, is not headquartered in the US, right.
Speaker 2 (45:53):
No, they are in Germany, which changes things a little
bit legally. And it is interesting that, you know, a
company based in another country can spend so much money
on public relations and lobbying here and all kinds of stuff.
But again, it just makes you think about the system
that the way that thing's supposed to go. But at
the state level, I don't know, it hits a little
(46:16):
different to me, just thinking about, you know, governors of
different states being influenced so much, and then the actual
legislators state of each individual state being lobbied as hard
as the folks are in Washington, d C. It's a
bit weird. What insights do you find there been with
it being based in Germany.
Speaker 3 (46:35):
Well, I think it's stuff that you KNOWL and I
have talked about in the past, Right, You already nailed it, Matt.
The tricky patchwork legislation in the United States, especially for
corporate entities of this size, action taken in the US
might just hit I don't know, their US subsidiary, Like,
(46:59):
I don't think any body is going to fly over
to Germany and slap handcuffs on the c suite of Bear.
Speaker 2 (47:05):
Yeah, agreed.
Speaker 3 (47:07):
Also, also, Bear didn't invent Roundup, right, they bought the company.
So it's kind of like, you know, if you buy
a used car that was involved in car accidents. That's
not a perfect analogy because in this analogy the car
you buy is still hurting people.
Speaker 2 (47:23):
Yeah, yeah, well, yeah, it should be noted that they
acquired I think it was twenty eighteen when they when
Bear acquired Monsanto, which is, you know, when they took
on all the legal responsibilities right, all of the I
don't know, they bought the car, the car that had
some serious legal issues. There was a you remember when
(47:46):
we talked about this last there was a two point
one billion dollar award to a single human being who
alleged round Up caused his cancer, and a lot of.
Speaker 3 (47:56):
It went to his legal team.
Speaker 4 (47:58):
Just to be clear. Oh yeah, that is how it goes.
Speaker 3 (48:01):
But yeah, yeah, yeah, because he he made a pretty
solid case that live fass eight or live fascate.
Speaker 4 (48:09):
How do you say it?
Speaker 2 (48:10):
I think that's it. G L y P h O
s A t e ah.
Speaker 3 (48:14):
Yes, Live fasse eight.
Speaker 2 (48:16):
You know it.
Speaker 5 (48:17):
You know it.
Speaker 3 (48:19):
Various courts have agreed it is carcinogenic, despite the EPA
here in the US disagree.
Speaker 4 (48:26):
That's interesting.
Speaker 5 (48:27):
I do want to say too, because I kind of
jumped in to be like, oh, you're up in there,
human I need to focus on human rights and the
you know, the safety of their citizens. That does not
preclude them from having evil corporations. I just do that, clear,
come and I can't not. I just finished it, guys,
and I'm pretty sure Ben you've seen it.
Speaker 3 (48:46):
Matt.
Speaker 5 (48:46):
I don't remember if we talked about this, but the
show Common Side Effects on Adult Swim is about this
very thing, the idea of like how evil corporations would
keep people from having, you know, cures, They keep wanting
to keep people sick, et cetera. But it has taken
to the most extreme and psychedelic degree. It's a really
(49:08):
great show.
Speaker 3 (49:10):
Not a cure, thank you, solve a symptoms.
Speaker 5 (49:14):
That's exactly in a way where they they could even
take something that might be a cure.
Speaker 4 (49:19):
Let's just let's let's nerf it alone, you know what
I mean. We don't want to give them the whole thing. Right.
Speaker 2 (49:25):
Let's get a quote from Brian Naghbor, president of Bear's
Crop Sciences in both North America, Australia and New Zealand.
Speaker 3 (49:32):
It's not spelled neighbor the way it should be, though, folks.
That would be too cool of a name. It's in
a e er. Sorry, Brian got so close man.
Speaker 2 (49:42):
Well. He says that this new law quote demonstrates that
Georgia stands with its farmers who work tirelessly to produce
safe and affordable food. We agree. We're on the side
of humble farmer all day long. We get it here.
Speaker 4 (49:56):
Rebel Moon got canned. Not no more Rebel Moon, No
more humble farmer. They're not.
Speaker 5 (50:00):
They gave up on it. Sorry, it'll come back with
the power of belief. We'll keep the humble farmer mythos
alive on this show alone.
Speaker 2 (50:08):
Yes, once Netflix gets acquired by Charter again, it'll come
back for another.
Speaker 5 (50:14):
And then they all get bought by Unilever, and then
all programs become about soap.
Speaker 3 (50:20):
Yes, and of course ultimately this is great for the consumer. Matt,
I'd love to hear a little bit more and then
we're going to play not quite Devil's Advocate. But I
suggest we we walk through some knock on context that
a lot of people aren't thinking about when they hear
these uh, you know, infuriating reports.
Speaker 2 (50:42):
Well, let's jump to it.
Speaker 3 (50:43):
I tell me, okay, So Brian says that you know,
this is a move to show that Georgia, which is
an agricultural state, supports the people growing food right and produce.
That is that is the public statement. Critics will say,
(51:05):
you know, you are not protecting farmers you are or
humble farmers. You are protecting large corporate interests. However, the
peace of the puzzle that doesn't get reported as often
is the accelerating deterioration of arable land. There is a
world very much on the horizon, and some of us
(51:28):
in the crowd listening tonight are going to be alive
to see it. There is a world wherein humanity will
need incredibly a rollout of much more sophisticated farming methods
and a lot of the traditional methods simply aren't going
to work where they work today. So you can make
(51:48):
an argument that if not now here in the near future,
companies will say they need these pesticides just to create
basic food, not evel fancy stuff.
Speaker 2 (52:01):
Well, yeah, they're protecting round up ready crops, which is
a whole other episode that we did way back in
the day.
Speaker 3 (52:08):
Terminal seed lines.
Speaker 2 (52:09):
Well, yeah, because back in the day, in the nineties
ninety six, to be exact, round up at Monsanto using
their round Up herbicide, created genetically modified crops like soybeans, corn,
sugar beets, cotton, alfalfa that were genetically modified to be
resistant to round up. So you could just douse those
(52:30):
babies in round up and they're not going to die,
but all the other things that grow in the soil
will die, all the bad stuff that you don't want.
Speaker 3 (52:39):
Right, And Monsanto would crack down hard on anybody who
happened to have an adjacent farm where in seeds or
you know, some part of that substance transmitted to their land,
and Monsanto would accuse them of IP theft and things
like that. Also terminal seed lines. Ooh in Citi is
talking about you know, Tenol's really you're point about selling
(53:01):
a service rather than a cure.
Speaker 2 (53:02):
Yeah, you got to buy the seeds for that crop,
and then you got to buy more seeds for the
next crop. You can't take seeds out of what you're
pulling out of the ground because they don't do that
no more. Now you got to just continually buy in
this weird subscription model all your crops from on Santo
slash now bear. So that's really what we're talking about here.
Speaker 3 (53:22):
I also will argue or posit. I don't want it
to be an argument, folks. I will also posit that
there is a great deal of efficiency and wisdom to
be learned from older indigenous farming techniques, and they could
be the answers.
Speaker 4 (53:38):
Rotation right, things like the three sisters and so on.
Speaker 3 (53:41):
There could be answers in that old technology that are
being ignored, perhaps because of path dependency on the part
of big agriculture. But it is a problem humanity is
going to have to wrestle. But things aren't going to
get serious as not even the race for clean water escalates,
(54:02):
but as the race for arable land escalates. Everybody by MRIs.
Make sure to change your MRI's out when the expiration
date hits.
Speaker 4 (54:12):
The good thing about sponsored by MRIs even after the here's.
Speaker 3 (54:16):
The brilliant thing about MRIs though, guys, even after the
expiration date, you can usually eat them because the secret
is they never start off good.
Speaker 4 (54:24):
It does get worse over time.
Speaker 2 (54:25):
Well, yeah, I mean we I just had that conversation here.
I had a bunch of giant cans of things as
like an emergency if there's just a tornado or something,
you know, whatever just happened.
Speaker 3 (54:36):
Smart.
Speaker 2 (54:36):
Well, I got those back in twenty twenty one, twenty
twenty two, and the canned foods just went bad. So
it was a discussion of well, how do we actually
because the food isn't bad in these yet, they're still
good to go. They're sealed in that can, baby, right,
do we just keep it around? Do we just get
some new ones? I don't know what's the deal.
Speaker 3 (54:54):
What do we do?
Speaker 2 (54:54):
Can we donate them? And I found out a lot
of food shelters and food banks will receive you've, especially
a larger can of food that is expired, as long
as it's within a certain time period after expiration, because
the food is still violent it's still good to you know.
Speaker 4 (55:08):
Those are sell by dates.
Speaker 5 (55:09):
I mean even like on like non can stuff you
can usually I'm not, you know, giving medical advice here,
like you know, air on the side of a couple
of weeks past it.
Speaker 4 (55:18):
At the very least, it's just about selling.
Speaker 3 (55:20):
This is official medical advice from doctor Noel Brown.
Speaker 5 (55:24):
Please, if you have eat that month old yogurt.
Speaker 3 (55:28):
If you have any issues, please, of course don't hesitate
to reach out to our complaint department. Jonathan Strickland at
iHeartMedia dot com twenty four hours a night, seven nights
a week. I'd love to hear from you and really
walk them through it.
Speaker 2 (55:42):
Oh yeah, step by step? Uh, step by step? What
is it? How does that song got a Day back?
Speaker 3 (55:51):
Yeah, it's not quite as good as the Perfect Stranger's
theme song, but.
Speaker 4 (55:56):
Don't even get me started. We love that one. We
still love that one.
Speaker 3 (56:03):
Wow, it's so much better than the actual show. But
that's how sitcoms went back then, and we have, I
think mutually a lot we did not get to yet,
some of which may have to occur at a later date.
Speaker 2 (56:16):
Yeah, we don't have time for a few of these stories.
We'll bring them back next time. One in particular, the
second one guys, I think we have to do a
full update episode, like a proper episode on Virginia Jeoffrey,
who recently, at least according to reports and her family,
took her own life, although there are other members of
her family who say she did not. So I'm afraid
(56:36):
we're having a bit of a situation within the Jeffrey
Epstein saga of another person who has taken their own life,
and there are a lot of questions around it.
Speaker 3 (56:46):
So agreat yeah, sort of. We've got other episodes coming
up that we have to cover that one. I think
we should also do an update on the JFK recent declassifications,
and then I hate you guys up off air. Do
you think pheromones work on people?
Speaker 4 (57:04):
You work on me, baby.
Speaker 2 (57:06):
My pheromones are powerful.
Speaker 5 (57:08):
Your musk is strong, Matt, I've always said that you
got a strong man.
Speaker 3 (57:12):
Nusson, and we want to hear from you folks on
all these and other stories. Also, what do you think
of Matt's man? We also might have Abercrombie and Fitch
episode on the way. In the meantime, we can't thank
you enough for tuning in. We also want to thank
our super producers try Force in the Tennessee pal, and
(57:32):
we would love to hear from you. You can call
us on the phone, you can meet us on the
social needs should thou sip, and you can give us
a good old fashioned email. But hey, you're already on
the internet until that CME hits, so why not find
us there?
Speaker 4 (57:48):
That's right.
Speaker 5 (57:49):
You can find us at the handle conspiracy stuff, where
we exist on Facebook with our Facebook group here's where
it gets crazy, on YouTube where we have video content
glory for your perusing enjoyment, and on xfka Twitter, on Instagram,
man TikTok.
Speaker 4 (58:01):
Where can spiratcy stuff show guys?
Speaker 2 (58:04):
Quick interlude here Ben on the CME tip. Did you
see the news about the X class solar flares that
actually took out communications in parts of the world. It
just happened like solar flares though not even CMEs flares
that didn't Yikes, Okay, holy schnikes. Okay. Our phone number
(58:26):
is one eight three three std WYTK. When you call in,
it's a three minute voicemail. Leave your name a cool
nickname if you wish, and let us know within the
message if we can use your name and message on
the air. If you want to reach out with us
via textings of some sort. We're not instead send us
an email.
Speaker 3 (58:43):
We are the entities that read every piece of correspondence
we received. Be well aware, yet unafraid. Sometimes the void
writes back, if you listened to the end, here is
the thing we teased. It's an excellent read, and we
hope that it does help you in your day to
day life. But if it does, good luck. Have you
(59:04):
ever thought is that a hiker or a vagrant or
a spy? Well, Latvia is very worried about that, and
in their recent threat assessment, their Defense Intelligence and Security
Service gave the public pointers on how to identify or
how to differentiate between a scraggly little scamp and a
(59:25):
spy in disguise. So shout out to Eve Sampson, writing
for The New York Times. We'd love to hear other
stories that capture your fancy, or your curiosity or your
interest conspiracy at iHeartRadio dot com.
Speaker 2 (59:56):
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
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.
Boysober
Have you ever wondered what life might be like if you stopped worrying about being wanted, and focused on understanding what you actually want? That was the question Hope Woodard asked herself after a string of situationships inspired her to take a break from sex and dating. She went "boysober," a personal concept that sparked a global movement among women looking to prioritize themselves over men. Now, Hope is looking to expand the ways we explore our relationship to relationships. Taking a bold, unfiltered look into modern love, romance, and self-discovery, Boysober will dive into messy stories about dating, sex, love, friendship, and breaking generational patterns—all with humor, vulnerability, and a fresh perspective.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com