Full Episode - Trump Fails On Economic Messaging At PA Rally + Inside the Movement To Save Childhood From Big Tech - The Chuck ToddCast

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
It's sponsorship time. But you know what, it's really great
when you get a sponsor that you already use. And
guess what. Quint's is something that in the Todd household
we already go to. Why do we go to Quint's
Because it's a place you go where you can get
some really nice clothes without the really expensive prices. And
one of the things I've been going through is I've
transitioned from being mister cot and ty guy to wanting

(00:22):
a little more casual but to look nice doing it.
Is I've become mister quarter zip guy. Well guess what.
Guess he's got amazing amounts of quarter zips. It is Quints.
I have gotten quite a few already from there. The
stuff's really nice. They have Mongolian cashmere sweaters for fifty dollars.
I just know, hey, cashmere, that's pretty good. You don't

(00:43):
normally get that for fifty bucks or less. Italian wool
coats that look and feel like designer the stuff. I'll
be honest, right, you look at it online, you think, okay,
is this really as nice as it looks? Well, when
I got it, I was like, oh, this is real quality.
So yeah, I'm going to end up making sure I
take it to my dry cleaner so I don't screw
it up when I clean it. But I've been quite impressed.
In Hey, it's holiday season. It is impossible to shop

(01:06):
for us middle aged men. I know this well. Tell
your kids, tell your spouses, tell your partners. Try Quints,
or if you're trying to figure out what to get
your adult child, what to get your mom or dad,
I'm telling you you're gonna find something that is going
to be comfortable for them on Quints. So get your
wardrobe sorted and your gift list handled with Quints. Don't wait.

(01:27):
Go to quints dot com slash chuck for free shipping
on your order and three hundred and sixty five day
returns now available in Canada as well. That's qui nce
dot com, slash chuck, free shipping and three hundred and
sixty five day returns quints dot com slash chuck. Use
that code. Hello, They're happy Thursday and welcome to another

(01:53):
episode of the Chuck Podcast. Our third episode of the week,
which means this is our big weekend episode of a
terrific guest on a topic that I think is getting
more and more attention. And conversation and it's about screen
time and our kids. Interviewing Julie shell Foe. She is

(02:16):
the founder, former journalist, but the founder of an organization
called Mama Mothers Against Media Addiction. It is modeled after
Mad Mothers Against Drunk Driving and it is simply that
just trying to focus on getting screens out of schools,

(02:37):
not just you know, cell phone bands and schools, which
of course is you know, when you think about how
hard it is to get our two parties to agree
on anything about the one thing this year where there
has been bipartisan agreement on a policy idea, it has
been cell phone bands and schools, and the early metrics

(02:58):
in the places that implemented it first, you're already seeing
at least some evidence of teachers saying students are paying
more attention and test scores being up, and you know,
we'll see again it's it's it's a it's a small
sample size of the of the early adopters of this,
but it goes further than just phones and schools. As
I said, you know, this has to do with iPads

(03:21):
and you know, using devices and you know, what's the line.
And in this case, Julie makes a pretty uh, a
pretty credible case as to why even using screens, you know,
using school iPads, that there's got to be an age

(03:41):
where we don't do it until, you know, maybe it's,
you know, ninth grade, maybe it you know, you don't
get your first device as a teaching tool until eighth
or ninth grade, something like that. But to at least
have some sort of marker here, we've seen Ram Emmanuel
became the first major potential presidential candidate in twenty twenty

(04:02):
eight to call for a you know, a nationwide band,
which is what of course Australia is trying to implement,
I believe in just the last couple of days. So
it is the relationship with tech and our lives in
many ways I think is going to continue to be.
I mean, look, the economy is obviously first and foremost

(04:24):
in any campaign year. Healthcare is always a part of that.
But after those two issues, the impact of tech on
all of our lives, whether it's screen time and our kids,
whether it's AI and the and the fear of AI
job displacement, the the you know, the impact of Silicon

(04:49):
Valley and big tech in our lives is something it's
clear more Americans want more control over this. There's this
feeling that you don't you know when you the reason
I think you're seeing this growing bipartisan sort of revolt
and pushback. I mean, even look at the pushback that's
taking place inside the Republican Party where Donald Trump is

(05:10):
saying he wants to sign an executive order that prevents
any state from trying to put regulation on the AI industry.
And immediately, you know, they tried to put it in
the government. You know, they try to get it in
the bill to reopen the government, and there wasn't the
votes for that, and there was a total revolt on that.

(05:31):
But even on this, I mean, you have Ron Dea Santis,
the governor of Florida, unveiled He's already unveiled his own
what he calls here, I'm reading it here a citizen's
Bill of Rights for artificial intelligence. And the proposals he's
presenting are the types of things that a lot of
lawmakers left and right would like to be talking about,

(05:52):
including protecting consumers from from anxiety inducing things like deep fakes,
data collections, chat box, it's engaging with minors, chatbots posing
as mental health experts. You know how to deal with
fraudulent use of our names and likeness. You have the

(06:13):
revolt of people thinking that these data centers are the
reasons why our electricity bills are spiking all over the country.
There certainly appears to be a direct correlation, for instance,
in the state I live in Virginia. So it is
you know, I think it is worth noting how much
this is more than just you know, in some ways,
sometimes I bring it up as very singular issues, you know,

(06:35):
when it comes to well, what are we going to
do about AI job displacement, what are we going to
do about these data centers? Or what are we going
to do about you know, kids in schools. There is
a larger sort of tech in our lives, right, and
there is a growing feeling that we have less and
less choice of how do we how tech interacts with us.
And I think, you know, that's it's almost a universal

(06:59):
sort of political complaint, right. You will get a revolt
of the masses when there is a feeling that control
that they used to have they no longer have, right,
control that we all used to have. We feel as
if we no longer have I mean, you know, I
go back take the there's a there's a there's a
movement to try to sort of flip the script on

(07:20):
the Internet. Right, instead of us having to agree to
terms and conditions to use apps that big tech asks
us to click yes on that, it's the other way
around that when they want access to our data, they
have to ask us permission. Right. It's a little bit
what the Europeans have been trying to do and their

(07:40):
ability to regulate interactions between social media or AI and
the general public. But this is, you know, none of
this is unpopular, right, And it is interesting to watch
the Trump administration wanting to barrel through. They've gone they
have sort of are they they want government and AI

(08:03):
to be fused together. They bought they accept the premise
that America has to win the AI race. Right. I
think a lot of the AI tech founders have convinced
the Trump administration that if they attempt any restrictions, China

(08:24):
is going to win the I race. And it's it's
like it's the plot of the most recent Mission Impossible. Right,
whoever gets to the finish line first suddenly controls the globe.
Right is sort of the fear I think that has
been presented to the Trump administration and may explain why
they're going along with this idea. And of course I

(08:48):
think there's a reason there's a lot of us that
are very skeptical of just racing down this road. You know,
if you like the way the tech companies introduce social
media into society, then by all means, let them go
unrestricted introducing artificial intelligence into society. But if we look

(09:10):
at what social media has done, and we look at
it as a failure, not a success. And that's the thing,
is social media been a success or a failure? If
in some ways there are successful elements to it, there
are plenty of people that have made money off of it.
It has certainly allowed more access to influence and attention

(09:35):
from around the world, but it is destroyed truth. Right.
Why do we have so much skepticism about truth where
we're having a debate about what is true and what
isn't could arguably blame the algorithms and social media. And
so to me, it's not surprising that you have an

(09:56):
electorate that it won't take much to fire up against
the forces of Silicon Valley, because when you start to
say do you want to have artificial intelligence introduced into
society in a similar way that social media was. Or
do you want more guard rails? I promise you you
probably get seventy to eighty percent supporting that. No, there

(10:20):
better be more guard rails as we introduce artificial intelligence
into society than there was during social media. And so
you put all this together and you can start to
see and I still think this is not going you know,
I think these will be debate talking points in twenty
twenty six. I think you will certainly see various candidates

(10:42):
test driving some of these things. A citizen bill of
rights on when it comes to the implementation of artificial
intelligence will certainly, I think pop up in governor's races
in particular, and this cycle will have is the big
cycle for governor's races. I do think it'll be really
the presidential campaign that'll make this more of a national issue, right,

(11:04):
because that's when you're gonna you know, there'll be when
it comes to the job displacement issue, I think that
is what will feel more front center. And then of
course we want to see what is the state of
this economy. Right, this is an economy that is not
a good economy, but it is being essentially rescued right

(11:26):
now by AI investment. Right, you have a whole bunch
of you know, I talked to one smart observer of
the financial and a trained economist who said to me today,
actually that we're already in a recession. We just haven't
you know, the numbers just aren't out yet, and it won't.

(11:48):
You know, it looks like productivity is doing okay because
of just how much investment the sort of the six
or seven largest companies in the world are making into
artificial intelligence. It's essentially up and up America's GDP. It's
sort of propping all these things up. So it's masking
what is likely a recession for half the country. Right

(12:11):
there are parts of the you know, there's certainly the
one percent and those with some savings and some money
in the stock demartment. They are they are not experiencing
the recession. But for the for the other half of America,
they are experiencing recession. Right there. They have costs or
too much. Right, you have an affordability issue on health care,

(12:31):
and affordability issue and groceries, and affordability issue on housing.
These are things that you just can't skip. You can't
pinch pennies on right, you might be able to you
might be able to skip some things and try to
save money in certain places, it's not like you can
delay paying a health insurance premium and and risk to

(12:55):
go without health care. So this affordability crisis and this
recessionary feel that those that don't have that are paycheck
to paycheck, that don't have a bunch of savings in
the stock market is pretty acute, which transitions me pretty
well to what was, you know, another debacle by Trump

(13:19):
and this economy and his rally in Pennsylvania. Every time
this administration over the last couple of weeks, frankly, it's
been about two or three months that they try to
get you know, it's clear his own staff realizes they
have at least they have a political problem, if not
a real problem. Right, they know they have a political
problem messaging on the economy. And how do I know

(13:40):
that they all know? Because JD. Vance on Wednesday morning
basically was desperately trying to re explain Trump's comments from
Pennsylvania where he started calling it a hoax and then
he started, I mean to me, he went down this
road again where okay, well, you know, you know, your

(14:02):
little girl doesn't need thirty seven dollars, they can handle one.
Your child doesn't need fifty pencils, they can just have
one or two. It is such a tone deaf Let
them eat cake, mindset. Right, It's as if we have
President Marie Antoinette here, and it really rings as super

(14:24):
out of touch. And it's clear you of people like
Jade Vance realizing how bad this is. So he tweets
this morning, which is just the fun. I'm gonna read
his tweet, and then Joe Biden's insane policies left American
families unable to afford a decent living in their own country.
Through tax cuts, better paying jobs, and investment in American industry,
prisoner Trump is making America affordable again for working families,

(14:45):
one step at a time. Right. They're trying so hard
to explain this economy, but they're making the same mistake
that the Biden White House made, which is, hey, you
you feel like this economy and good, You're wrong. This
economy is doing We're doing really well, and it's healing,
and this is happening, and this is happening. You know.

(15:05):
In Biden's case, he kept leaning on, look at all
the new jobs that are being created, look at all
the money that's being invested. Well, in some ways, Trump
is trying to make the Trump and Vance are trying
to make the same case. Hey, you know, we're spending
all this money and we cut your taxes, and oh,
by the way, look at the stock market and look
at all these deals that we're doing, but pay no

(15:26):
attention to how tariffs are increasing your every day your
everyday bills. So the trumpet, the Trump White House is
walking into appears to be the same trap as Biden there,
you know, want to tell the public, don't don't believe
what you're feeling. That's essentially right. It was essentially the

(15:48):
message that Biden was communicating on the economy, that Harris
was communicating on the economy, until they realized now they
had to be they had to sort of do a
little I feel your pain. You know, Vance here trying
to do a little bit of I feel your pain.
But Trump wasn't going to go there under and if anything,
he sounded dismissive and defensive. And that's just you know,

(16:13):
this we've we've already seen in you know, another week,
another election that indicates that Republicans are troubled there's a
reason results matter more than promises, just like there's a
reason Morgan and Morgan is America's largest injury law firm.
For the last thirty five years, they've recovered twenty five

(16:35):
billion dollars for more than half a million clients. It
includes cases where insurance companies offered next to nothing, just
hoping to get away with paying as little as possible.
Morgan and Morgan fought back ended up winning millions. In fact,
in Pennsylvania, one client was awarded twenty six million dollars,
which was a staggering forty times the amount that the
insurance company originally offered. That original offer six hundred and

(16:57):
fifty thousand dollars twenty six million, six hundred and fifty
thousand dollars. So with more than a thousand lawyers across
the country, they know how to deliver for everyday people.
If you're injured, you need a lawyer. You need somebody
to get your back. Check out for the People dot com,
Slash podcast or Dow Pound Law Pound five to two
nine law on your cell phone. And remember all law

(17:19):
firms are not the same, So check out Morgan and Morgan.
Their fee is free unless they win special elections and
runoffs that took place on Tuesday. The most prominent race
was the City of Miami mayor. And for those of
you are wondering, Miami Dade County elects a county mayor.
That is a very powerful position. It's a strong mayor.

(17:43):
It's a huge budget. Miami Dade County's budget is bigger
than many states, you know, probably nearly half the states.
It is that large and complicated a county, the City
of Miami and the City of Miami mayor. City of
Miami is a is one of thirty plus incorporated cities

(18:03):
within Miami Dade County, but it does have the brand
City of Miami, so is the Mayor of Miami, you know,
when which is for those you know, there's the mayor
of Miami Dade County and then there's the mayor of
the City of Miami. So this was a runoff for
the mayor of the City of Miami. Now in the
City of Miami, it's it is there is a strong,

(18:26):
large Cuban American population, and you've had nearly a generation
of Cuban Republicans who have won that mayor's rate won
that office over and over by the way the office itself,
it's considered a weak mayor position. It's a part time job.
If you recall, the previous mayor of Francis Suarez had
all sorts of jobs, private sector jobs that he was

(18:47):
that he held while simultaneously being mayor. He got a
little brazen about it, so it gathered a lot more attention.
But it's considered a part time job, and it is
allowed to have other jobs. But the point is is
that that's how quote unquote small the job is. And it's
and like I said, it's a weak mare system, which

(19:08):
means you're just you've got the title, but you're essentially no.
No had the same amount of power as a city
council person that's elected. So but symbolically it's a big deal.
And it's the first time Democrats have won the mayor's
race in over thirty years. Now, it is worth noting
Kamala Harris actually carried the city of Miami even as

(19:31):
Donald Trump carried the county of Miami Dade, which in
itself was a surprising development. So but the margin that
the Democrat won this race and the fact that it
was the first time in thirty years, and oh, by
the way, there was a special election that no one
was paying attention to in a state house seat in
Georgia that flipped a twenty plus point Trump district that flipped.

(19:56):
We're starting it's the same pattern. We'sa on Tennessee seven
and that special same pattern we saw in twenty twenty five.
There's somewhere between a ten to fifteen to in some
places twenty point overperformance by Democrats. Now, why is this happening? One,
you have fired up Democratic voters. Two Democratic voters in general.
Are Democrats now have the more reliable voters the voters

(20:19):
you know we're divided on education. It's another way of saying,
you know, who's paying attention to the minutia more so?
And who's who the voters that parachute in for presidential elections. Well,
the Democrats now have the line's share of the voters
that are paying attention to all political minutia versus Republicans
are the ones that we'll see it turnout spike now

(20:42):
in presidential years. It's a total reverse of what it was.
What it was for the eighties, nineties and even the
first part of the twenty first century. But we have
now seen this is as as sort of Trump created
a realignment of the party the way he did. The
less reliable voter who used to be more likely voting

(21:04):
Democrat than Republican. Now that less likely voter more likely
votes Republican the Democrat. Which is why Democrats are overperforming
in all these special elections, all these non presidential elections,
whether it was the Supreme Court race in Wisconsin right
after Trump got elected, or it's what we just saw
earlier this week in the city of Miami or in

(21:25):
the state of Georgia, the everyday regular voter is just
showing up and that it is benefiting Democrats. Then you
throw in what is a sort of a growing demoralized
base of the Republican Party. Right, it's best expressed of
watching what's happening in the House, where you have more

(21:46):
and more Republicans getting cranky about not having any plan
on healthcare. Apparently Mike Johnson seemed to hint that, oh,
you know, we're going to have a healthcare plan and
really soon, and you're like, you are, you've had let's see,
when did Obamacare pass. Obamacare passed in March of twenty ten,

(22:08):
so they've had Republicans have had fifteen years to come
up with a healthcare plan alternative, and what they just
in another week they'll finally have one. Let's just say,
there's quite a bit of skepticism on that, and it's
deserved skepticism. And at this point, it doesn't look like

(22:29):
they're going to get a healthcare compromise before the end
of the year. But I'll be honest, I think it's
gonna come. I told you I think in the earlier
episode earlier this week, the outlines of a potential compromise
that will probably be more to the liking of Democrats
and Republicans is coming together in the House, and at

(22:51):
some point it will take Donald Trump just saying go
ahead and pass it. I'll support it, and I'll give
you cover. That's still but we are now to the
point where it looks like these are going to expire
and they're going to have to retroactively end up giving
giving people the subsidies back. I am, you know, maybe

(23:14):
I'll be eating crow on this, but I'm still convinced
that something's going to pass. These subsidies are going to
get extended a year or two. I think the only
thing Republicans have effectively said no to is the full
as a three year extension, which is technically what Democrats
have been asking for. But somewhere in the in the

(23:36):
two year range one to two year range, it is coming.
It's just at what point does Trump cry uncle? And
at this point it's not clear that he's ready to
cry uncle just yet. Before I get to the interview
with Julie Chelfo and Mothers Against Media Addiction and Mama

(24:00):
as the acronym spells, I want to just weigh in
on two things that are sort of business business see
issues that I'm actually particularly with one issue, I want
to hear from you. I want to hear from the
listeners and viewers on two things. One do you pay

(24:22):
attention to the prediction markets i e. Polymarket or Calshi. Two?
If you do, what is it that you pay attention to?
Is cultural predictions? Is it sports predictions? Is it political predictions? Three?
Do you participate? You know so, I will make a
full confession. I participated for the very first time on

(24:45):
the Calshi markets over the weekend, and it had to
do with the I was doing it simply to see
if anybody was leaking the information of the college football
playoff bracket So on Saturday, I sort of for the
first time, you know, I signed up for a Calshi account,
and I bought shares of Miami making the playoff, and

(25:09):
I bought shares of twenty five cents, which really meant that,
you know, essentially what the market was saying, they have
they have a one and four shot of making the
playoff or so. In the prediction markets, it was said
Notre Dame was in the ninety nineties, it was like
ninety two ninety three percent tile and Alabama was in
the mid seventies seventy four or seventy five percentile. So

(25:31):
I did it because I was mostly curious to see
if this was going to leak and we were going
to see people try to manipulate the prediction markets, like
we saw with the Nobel Peace Prize, where it turned
out the information got out. I think it wasn't an
official leak. It was I think somebody hacked into a
website and saw a website preview before folks knew, and
all of a sudden, you saw the prediction markets move

(25:52):
as if they knew something. As it turned out, they
did know something. And I just wanted to see if
somebody was going to do that. So I was as
I was waiting for the college football playoff, I was
watching this happen and you would see a lot of volatility,
but it wasn't a hundred percent, you know. It was
like now people think they know, but they don't know. Right,
you could see how that works. It gave me some reassurance.

(26:17):
I was glad to see it. You know that something
you know, whether it leaking or somebody wasn't trying to
gain the system. And obviously I ended up making a
couple of bucks on how that worked. I actually was
monitoring it was I was I assumed that Miami's that
the share price of the Miami prediction was going to

(26:39):
go up sooner than it did, Like it didn't. Really.
It's clear the prediction markets did not believe Miami was
was going to get in, and that to me is
a reflection of what the conversation was. Right, If if
nobody has information, then they're basing it on sort of
the zeitgeist. Right. But I bring this up because recently

(27:00):
CNN signed to deal with Calshi where they're going to
in some form it start including or noting what the
prediction markets are saying about topics they might be covering.
So for instance, yesterday we saw the Federal Reserve cut

(27:20):
interest rates. Well, that was a market you could bet
on or you could you know, prediction marketing are and
it was it was in the seventies over the last
you know, a few days, and then it got up
today eighty five, ninety, et cetera. But as much as
I do enjoy sports gambling, okay, you've heard me reference

(27:43):
it before, some of you know I do football picks
for Tony Kornheiser on his podcast, I fully confess to
enjoying it, but I've been extraordinarily uncomfortable with the idea
of betting on politics or betting on elections. I haven't
ruled it. I'm not I'm not trying to be, you know,

(28:04):
sort of a school barm about this, but it is
I'm not yet comfortable with it. And I'm curious what
you guys think, and I'm asking you send me, send questions,
put some comments in the comment section, or go ahead

(28:25):
and send us a send us comment via ask Chuck,
and we'll we'll dive into it next week. You know,
there's there's a lot of fear out there that do
you you know, at what point I believe in the
wisdom of crowds and at the same time I don't
want to see crowds manipulate an outcome, right, And you

(28:48):
know what is that line? You know, what should be
something that is okay, it's okay to that, and what
is something that is should we really be betting on this?
You know, I'll give you an example. I'm gonna let
me put up a pull up a few a few
things that they offer up that I some things that

(29:10):
make sense and others that don't. So, for instance, Calsh
will allow you to bet on what the Federal reserves
here J. Powell will say during his December press conference,
and the choices are, will he attribute terror inflation to

(29:31):
the tariffs? Will he says if he says dot plot
at his December twenty twenty five posts, you know, meeting
of the Federal Reserve, that would be somehow a win here.

(29:54):
If if he uses if he refers to the ADP report,
apparently that would somehow be something you could win a
bet on it. There's sort of like it's one thing
to bet on whether there'll be an interest rate cut,
which again you know I'm uncomfor, you know, the State

(30:14):
of Virginia. Let me give you an example. The State
of Virginia does not allow in its sports mobile app
for people to gamble on who might win an award.
Like if I wanted to gamble on the on who
wins the Heisman Trophy, State of Virginia wouldn't do that.
They are very strict. And how what they approved for gambling,

(30:35):
and that was games of chance, right, And and a
sporting event in some ways is something that isn't knowable
beforehand versus in theory there is somebody that will know
the answer to who won the Heisman Trophy before it
is announced, versus an actual sporting event that we're all
watching in real time. Right, And so they have decided

(30:59):
not to legalized bets on outcomes that some committee or
group of people may know in advance. And that's I
think the line here. You got to ask yourself, like, look,
you can bet on who will be the Democratic nominee,
or excuse me, buy shares of who you think will
be the Democratic nominee. You can buy shares of who

(31:21):
you think Trump will nominate to be Fed chair. Okay,
but how do we know somebody within Trump's circle isn't
gaming this and isn't going to you know, try to
make money on this with quote insider information. Right in
the actual financial markets, it is illegal to insider trade, right,
And there's no doubt there'll be some Certainly the rules

(31:43):
about insider trading will apply to this if it's ever
if it's ever shown. But then there are things like
when will Trump announce his new chair the Federal Reserve?
So this is something that you can Will it be
before December twentieth, well, that's sixth sense. Will it be
before or the end of the calendar year? That's twenty
five percent believe that Will it be before January fifteenth

(32:05):
another seventy two percent? And then you know, I guess
everybody would get their money back if none of those hit,
or everybody loses if none of those hit. But if
you're you know, if you already know the answer to this,
or you're long on something and you've got access to Trump,
and you know what, if we have a president who's

(32:26):
extraordinarily transactional and who's open to somebody financially lobbying them,
which is a more polite way of saying, Brian, And
you know, I'm not saying I have no idea whether
we would ever have an American president who would be
transactional like that on things like pardons or whatever. But

(32:48):
that's the part of this that I will admit gives
me some pause. There's some parts of this that feels
like the Democratic nominee in Texas that looking at those markets,
that's interesting of interest to me. In case you're wondering
right now, Tall Rico is fifty six cents and Jasmine

(33:11):
Crockett is at forty two cents. So that's not what
the polling says right now, but this is what betters
or predictors, I guess you would say, believe is going
to be the outcome of that. And so look, they've
been betting on elections in the UK, you could bet
on American elections and overseas markets from before. But I

(33:34):
guess what I'm getting at here is if we're going
to go down this road, there probably needs to be
a bit more regulation around it. There probably needs to
be sort of a line drawn in the sand that is, hey,
this is a that's a manipulation. That's too that's too
much of a thing that can be manipulated. So take

(33:54):
this question that you can bet on the following on
Calshi who will visit mar A Lago BEFO twenty six
and you can just and there's all sorts of choices
that you can buy shares of Benjamin Nett Yahoo. That's
according to Kooshi that that's the leading prediction on that

(34:16):
one at eighty seven cents out of a dollar. Mbs
of Saudi Arabia that's at thirteen, he's second on the list.
Zelenski's at ten cents. He's third on the list. Sam
Altman's at seven, Brittany Mahomes is at five, Jamie Diamond
is at five, Jerome Pals at four, Kim Kardashian is
at two. You know, it's kind of silly, right, But

(34:36):
here's something else. There was a huge spike for net
Yahoo over the last day or two, and I think
there's an assumption that he's going to somehow make his
way out here. He's desperate for Trump to continue to
lobby for a pardon on his behalf with the is
with the President of Israel, so there may be some
motivation there. But it's one of those things that feels

(34:58):
like somebody already knows the answer, but the public didn't
see it. So we have a betting market on it, right. Look,
we're a free country. If you choose to do this
with your money, it's your choice to do this with
the money. The question I have is how comfortable are
you with news organizations incorporating this into their coverage, which

(35:21):
is a decision seeing in may. You know, we already
have a lot of people that I think correctly complain
that our campaign coverage is always focused on the polls, right,
that it's horse race coverage. Will this make all political
and policy coverage horse race coverage? You know? Are we
going to see stories about the debate over extending healthcare

(35:46):
subsidies and oh, by the way, the prediction markets, well,
they think there's going to be a deal, and that
there'll be a deal to extend these subsidies sometime by
the end of January. There may not be any reporting
that says that it may be true, it may not
be true. Is that stuff worth incorporating in reporting if

(36:08):
you're seeing it and look, in fairness to them, let's
see how they use it, let's say how they incorporate it.
But again, I do this more as you can hear
in my voice as somebody who again I am I
am I'm a bit libertarian on the vices, right. You
want to legalize cannabis, you want to, you know, put

(36:29):
a high age element on it, legalize other vices. I'm
gambling things like that. I'm I'm you know, that's your business, right,
I'm I am, I am. I am an empathetic libertarian here.
The question is whether our political debate, our policy debates,

(36:49):
are they going to be enhanced or harmed by the
casinification of news. So obviously you can hear my hesitance
on this, you can hear my concern on this, but
I'm not unpersuadable on this. So that's why I am

(37:13):
this is one of those I'd love to hear what
many of you think on this, whether any of you
have enough of an opinion to express it to me
if you don't want to put your name on and
I get that too, by the way, on this, so
please do shoot me an ope on this. Where are
you on these prediction markets? You know, I am a
gawker of them. I'm fascinated to see a lot of

(37:34):
times it's just representative of what the zeitgeist is already saying,
or what the polling is indicating, or what reporting has
already been out there. So you know, for instance, they've
got a market of which world leaders will be out
by the end of the year. Which world leader do
you think is number one on their list? If you
said Nicholas Maduro, you'd be right, right, Well, that's common sense,

(37:58):
But there's actually it's only trading at eleven cents, which
means it's essentially the prediction markets believe there's only a
one in essentially a one and ten chance that Maduro
is out before the end of this calendar year. Does
that matter to you? Does that at all? And here's

(38:18):
the thing. It may have no impact whatsoever, But the
minute I reported that, have I planted a seat in
your head and somehow created a form of sort of
news consumption bias, if you will, right, So anyway, it's
that's the beauty of this format is is we can

(38:42):
sort of throw out this idea. I'm not going to
sit here and pretend that i have concerns, I'm intrigued,
and I'm wrapped and it's and I have my own
hesitations and all of those things. So I'd love for
you to share that. So with that, I'm gonna sneak
it a break when we come back my conversation with

(39:05):
the founder of Mama Mothers Against Media Addiction, and then
after the interview, we'll do a little last chuck and
I'll do a little bit of my weekend sport preview.
Do you hate hangovers? We'll say goodbye to hangovers. Out
of Office gives you the social buzz without the next
day regret. They're best selling. Out of Office gummies were
designed to provide a mild, relaxing buzz, boost your mood,

(39:26):
and enhance creativity and relaxation. With five different strengths, you
can tailor the dose to fit your vibe, from a
gentle one point five milligram micro dose to their newest
fifteen milligram gummy for a more elevated experience. Their THHC
beverages and gummies are a modern, mindful alternative to a
glass of wine or a cocktail. And I'll tell you this,

(39:47):
I've given up booze. I don't like the hangovers. I
prefer the gummy experience. Soul is a wellness brand that
believes feeling good should be fun and easy. Soul specializes
in delicious HEMP derived THCHC and cbdp all designed to
boost your mood and simply help you unwine. So if
you struggle to switch off at night. So also as
a variety of products specifically designed to just simply help

(40:09):
you get a better night's sleep, including their top selling
Sleepy Gummies. It's a fan favorite for deep restorative sleep.
So bring on the good vibes and treat yourself to
Soul today. Right now, Soul is offering my audience thirty
percent off your entire order. So go to getsold dot
com use the promo code toodcast. Don't forget that code.
That's getsold dot Com promo code toodcast for thirty percent off.

(40:38):
So joining me today under of something called MAMA. That's
the acronym. It is Mother's against Media Addiction. The founder
is Julia excuse me, Julie Sheelfell. She's a former New
York Times reporter has become a bit of I think,
a media ecologist of sorts. And look you as many

(41:02):
of you know, many of my listeners here know that
trying to figure out how we rebuild trust in the
information ecosystem, how can we clean up the information ecosystem?
And one of the more remarkable things in this polarized
environment is that what's been interesting is that the only
time we can find areas of agreement is when it
is about protecting our kids online social media. And so

(41:24):
as we try to figure out how big tech is
going to build AI and will they do it safely
or not? Given the experience with social media, I figured
this would be a really good conversation because I want
to learn more about mama. So, Julie, welcome to the podcast.

Speaker 2 (41:43):
Hi Chuck, thank you so much for having me. It's
a pleasure to be here.

Speaker 1 (41:46):
So let's start with you know this, you know look,
I'm in I just got out of an hour long
meeting in a nonprofit group I'm involved with called Trust
in Media and where it's just something like what can
we do to repair and rebuild trust in all sorts
of institutions right sort of the information ecosystem that was

(42:08):
sort of at the at the heart of the What's
interesting about this organization that I'm working with is that
it includes folks in the national security space and and
folks in the business space, and in health and in
sports as well as news and politics. And you're tackling
this from a from a youth space, and as we

(42:29):
transition from fearing social media to fearing AI. This is
I think a pretty relevant conversation. So I want to
start with what motivated you to do this? I think
it's obvious in some cases, but are you impressed without
quickly we actually have come together on the issue of

(42:50):
at least our phones and schools.

Speaker 2 (42:54):
Well, okay, so there were like three questions in that's
what I did. I'm gonna work backwards. So so I
was moved to start Mama for a couple reasons.

Speaker 1 (43:09):
One is that did you start it?

Speaker 2 (43:11):
By the way, So I incorporated her in twenty twenty three.
We only announced ourselves publicly early last year, so we're
not even two years old yet. But a few years
before that, I gave a ted talk because I was
so deeply concerned about erosion of trust and information and

(43:32):
what was happening in our media environments. And having spent
my career in professional newsrooms. I was at the New
York Times and before that I was at Newsweek. I
sort of watched the rise of digital media and how
these legacy news organizations responded to it. And what was
very clear to me, what was very unfortunate is that

(43:53):
even though journalists are really good at understanding and vetting
information quality. They weren't trained in media literacy, and they
didn't understand how what they publish and how what they
communicated communicated. But they were communicating online and on television
was helping shape the information environment. And so you know,

(44:15):
the question about regaining trust is a big one, and
I hope we can talk about it more later in
the show. But specifically for Mama, I was reporting a
lot on youth mental health and suicide. And it was
about a decade ago that we saw a terrible increase
in suicide rates among American adolescents. And I reported on

(44:36):
that and it was manifestly obvious that social media was
at the heart of that problem. And then, as sad
as that story was, we saw suicide rates go up
not just in teens, but in tweens, which your children
as young as nine to ten. Now I'm a mom,
I have three sons, and reporting that story really shook

(44:57):
me to my core. When you have nine ten year olds,
ten year old children who want to die, something is
profoundly messed up. Because I run Mama, I won't use
the crude language that's really in my head about that
how messed up that is, But I realized something had
to be done. And what has to be done is
that this information environment has to be brought under control

(45:20):
so that it's safe for children.

Speaker 1 (45:22):
And that's you know, I look at this movement right
of what we've seen about trying to at least take
bones out of classrooms, and you know, when I see
how hard it is to get to the left and
the right to agree on anything, and it is the
one thing, whether it's a super liberal state legislature, super
conservative state legislature, this stuff has made it through. This

(45:44):
is the one place it has made it through. I
fear we're too late on social media, but maybe this
gets us there on AI.

Speaker 2 (45:54):
So I don't think we're too late on social media
because every day a child is growing up and being
exposed to things through these platforms, and every day that
we allow a handful of companies to share whatever they
want with whoever they want, under any circumstances, with no

(46:16):
regulation is a day that we are leaving our children
vulnerable to terrible harms. When I was reporting my stories,
we didn't have data about the amount of suicide and
self harm content. Meta released data on it just last year,
and according to Meta's own report, there were forty eight

(46:36):
million separate pieces of suicide and self harm content on
their platforms in the previous year, and that's just the
pieces that they'll acknowledge. There's probably a lot more than that. So,
you know, as long as we've had mass media, beginning
in the nineteen thirties with radio, our government has regulated it.
It is said, there need to be limits, there need
to be standards. It's not censoring free speech. It's just

(47:00):
recognizing that not all content is appropriate in all places
for all audiences. I don't think we want a world.
You know, if we allowed every single course vulgar X
rated activity on our regular television channels and on the radio,
you know what kind of world would we have. So

(47:20):
I'm not exact.

Speaker 1 (47:21):
Way that world does exist. It's the Internet. I mean,
we've let this happen on the Internet and nobody wanted this, right, Like,
we know we don't like this, but we can't agree
on how to stop this.

Speaker 2 (47:35):
Well, I think there is actually pretty wide consensus on
how to stop it. I think we also are just
facing an industry that has unlimited amounts of money and
they are spending on godly amounts of money on lobbying
Our friends in an organization called Issue one have been
tracking this and they have found that the tech big

(47:58):
tech industry has one one lobbyist for every two lawmakers
in Washington, and Meta alone has won one lobbyist for
every seven lawmakers. So you know what's happening is, even
though there's wide agreement among most lawmakers and most parents
and most citizens, you have big tech spending on godly

(48:21):
and holy amounts of money and getting just a few
people who are really messing up legislation. I mean, one
example is the Kids Online Safety Act, which passed last
year in the Senate by a vote of ninety one
to three, which like, when does that happen? And over
in the House, Speaker Johnson refused to bring it for
a vote. Steve Scalise says it wasn't good legislation and

(48:43):
nobody could understand why. And then it was announced that
Meta is building a twenty eight billion dollar AI data
processing plant in the state which you know, I don't know.
Does that have something to do with it?

Speaker 1 (48:54):
Maybe in the state of I assume you mean state
of Louisiana.

Speaker 2 (48:58):
The state of Louisiana.

Speaker 1 (48:59):
Yep, Johnson and and Scalize, Yeah, no, and we're seeing
the same thing with AI. I mean, take the take
the issue of this moratorium from states being able to
regulate AI that I do think is become I think
it's now too toxic to support. I think we'll find.

Speaker 2 (49:20):
Out, right I well, I hope you're right.

Speaker 1 (49:22):
Yeah, I mean we're going to find out and maybe
unfortunately this gets can't tell you how many pieces of
really harmful legislation gets snuck in in the month of December.
It's historically because everybody's in holiday mode. It'll just can
can sometimes get So I think we are in the
month of December when we're taping this and when this

(49:42):
is when people are listening to this, So there's always
a chance this is something that gets snuck in. But
it does seem as if there's enough opposition. But I
know you're working on this.

Speaker 2 (49:53):
I mean, our members have been sending thousands of letters.
And for those of your listeners who aren't familiar with this,
the tech industry is trying to get this sweetheart deal
passed where they would pass a federal law saying there
can be no state regulation of AI. And this is
such a profound violation of states' rights and their fundamental

(50:16):
ability to keep their citizens safe that we had forty four.
I think attorneys general send a letter to the Senate
when this was being considered earlier this year in the
Big Beautiful Bill, saying this is outrageous. You can't do this.
Hundreds of lawmakers of both parties, so you can't do this,
And it came out of the Big Beautiful Bill. Now
they're trying to sneak it back into the Defense Reauthorization Act.

(50:38):
And we're also hearing there's the possibility of an executive order.
So you know, the way the draft was worded, it's
so vague. It would not only prohibit states from regulating AI,
it would prohibit them from regulating social media. So nobody
wants this, and it would just be a real boon
to a handful of billionaires who own these companies.

Speaker 1 (50:57):
Well, I'm glad you brought up the executive order because
it does seem as if that was that was going
to be the tech community's last resort. And that does
look like that's going to happen, doesn't it.

Speaker 2 (51:07):
That's right, you know, I hope it doesn't. I do
think even if it does happen, it's so problematic that
it's unlikely to be enforced right away.

Speaker 1 (51:17):
But I mean, I don't think it's by the way,
I don't think it's enforceable, and I think there'll be
some states that basically like, let's go, we're going to
we're going to do some regulate Let go ahead and
try to stop us. Yeah.

Speaker 2 (51:28):
Yeah, I mean, how like, in what other industry do
we say, Okay, you can just do whatever you want.
You know, we regulate our food to make sure it's safe.
We regulate our vehicles to make sure they're safe. We
don't want to live in a world where companies are
not required to test cars and make sure the breaks
work before you get them.

Speaker 1 (51:45):
Well, this gets into something that I think is one
of those do you know one of the ways the
advocates of low regulation right now in AI, one of
the arguments they make is, hey, we did this with
the internet. We have very little regulation. And my retort
always is, and how did that go? Right? Like, we

(52:06):
decided to have a hands off approach on social media
and that turned out to be a colossal mistake. Now
I happen to believe social media, I mean, here's the problem.
I think this has been a disaster. I think it
something that destroys the information ecosystem, that destroys trust, that
breaks up families. This is not a successful business, and

(52:28):
yet we want to create the same regulatory environment to
allow AI to thrive, and we think that's going to
be good because of the experience with social media. And
I do think this is why there's more public and
there's more bipartisan pushback on this because I think if
you frame the question of do you want the tech

(52:49):
companies to have this to use this same lack of
rules of the game to build AI as they build
social media? Do you trust the same people that build
social media to build AI? I think the answers no.

Speaker 2 (53:02):
Well, Chuck, it's not a successful business for families, for society,
for democracy, for children, but it is for shareholders and
for a handful of people who own these companies. And
what we're seeing is this really unprecedented alliance between a
few people at the highest levels of government and the
folks who own these companies. Now, everybody who has children

(53:25):
says that's not what's most important. You know, I have
no problem with people making money and building a successful company,
but you should not be able to do it on
the backs of children, So you know, that is why
Mama is working. We started, you know, hoping that we
could have six chapters by the end of the first year.
We were sort of inspired by mothers against drunk driving

(53:45):
and the way they had chapters around the country. Instead,
we're up to nearly forty chapters in twenty two states.
Our members are working in their homes, in their communities,
in their schools, and with policymakers to advance changes, just
like we had to make big changes once we learned
about the harms of big tobacco, saying okay, it shouldn't

(54:06):
be normative that we give this to young children. It
shouldn't be okay that we load it full of chemicals
that can cause cancer. And we have to ensure that
we're both using it in a safe way and that
the manufacturers of these products are held to basic safety standards.

Speaker 1 (54:25):
Glad you brought up tobacco. I was actually that was
the next way I was going to ask, which is
what lessons are there to take away from the essentially
what was a thirty year fight, but it was the
public one. Right tobacco. You know, it's not gone, but
it is it is now where it should be available

(54:46):
to those who want it for adults and adults only.

Speaker 2 (54:51):
It's a great example, and I think this fight is
a lot like big tobacco in some ways, and there
are a few differences. And what's similar is that big
tech and social media products and technology in general is
so embedded in our society that in order to shift
how we use it, to shift how we regulate it,

(55:11):
it's going to take change at multiple levels. So, just
like with big tobacco, we need culture change. We need
a lot of education so that people think about it differently.
We had to go back to Hollywood, you know, whereas
tobacco companies had paid them to write scripts where the
sexy leading men and women were smokers. We had to
convince them to make sure that the sexy men and

(55:34):
women leading you know, stars were not smoking. We had
to get rid of Joe Camel. So there had to
be a lot of public education. And then there were
also lawsuits, and we're seeing with organizations like the Social
Media Victims Law Center and other lawmakers where they are
suing these companies because the companies are claiming it's not
their fault that children are harmed. But now the courts

(55:55):
are hearing cases where for example, you know, and apologies
to talk about a difficult subject in listeners, just like
a kind of a trigger warning. But you know, I've
met families whose children were sent, affirmatively sent by Instagram
of videos of someone hanging themselves, and then their child replicated.
We had a little girl in Pennsylvania who tried the

(56:17):
choking challenge after the platform sent it to her, And
so courts are now hearing that. And that's just like
what happened with Big Toma.

Speaker 1 (56:23):
Well, this is this whole thing was sexual section two thirty.
You know, I've had this argument, I'm not a lawyer.
I played one on I've played one on television. Was
how I joke And basically every reporter over time sort
of starts to think like a lawyer at times. Right,
And I don't understand how Section two thirty even applies
that once a tech company creates an algorithm, they're now

(56:47):
a publisher. If they choose not to be a publisher,
then they don't have any liability. But the minute they
created an algorithm, as you point out, they sent the video,
they are It's no different than in our old newspaper
editors deciding what goes what goes on the above the
fold that people can see in the news box where

(57:07):
you you still when were you still? Sorry for those
of that don't remember this, we need to go it.
Actually put a quarter in and get your newspaper out
of a box and went quote unquote below the fall.
It's a choice. A algorithm is a choice that the
tech company makes. I don't see how Section two thirty
applies at all.

Speaker 2 (57:25):
Well, I think instead of calling at social media, we
should be calling at mass media publishing, because that's what
it is. And so when you hear the tech lobby saying, well,
this is you know, First Amendment. The First Amendment guarantees
us the right to free speech. It doesn't guarantee you
the right to publish speech. It doesn't guarantee you the
right to broadcast speech, and it doesn't guarantee you the

(57:46):
right to mass mediated speech. So for the last century
we've had all kinds of laws and restrictions and accountability
for publishers, for broadcasters, and we allow social media to
come in and turn anybody and everybody into a publisher
without any accountability. So, you know, in terms of your
opening question about how do we get the information ecosystem

(58:09):
back on track. I think that it's pretty simple. We
have to pass some regulation that holds people accountable for
what they publish. And again, advertisers supported speech is very
different than First Amendment speech, and social media is supported
by advertising, so that's another legal aspect of it that
I think needs to be looked at.

Speaker 1 (58:32):
Having good life insurance is incredibly important. I know from
personal experience. I was sixteen when my father passed away.
We didn't have any money. He didn't leave us in
the best shape. My mother, single mother, now widow. Myself
sixteen trying to figure out how am I going to
pay for college and lo and behold, my dad had
one life insurance policy that we found wasn't a lot,

(58:54):
but it was important at the time, and it's why
I was able to go to college. Did he know
how important that would be in that moment? Well, guess what.
That's why I am here to tell you about Ethos Life.
They can provide you with peace of mind knowing your
family is protected even if the worst comes to pass.
Ethos is an online platform that makes getting life insurance

(59:17):
fast and easy, all designed to protect your family's future
in minutes, not months. There's no complicated process and it's
one hundred percent online. There's no medical exam require you
just answer a few health questions online. You can get
a quote in as little as ten minutes, and you
can get same day coverage without ever leaving your home.
You can get up to three million dollars in coverage,

(59:39):
and some policies start as low as two dollars a
day that would be billed monthly. As of March twenty
twenty five, Business Insider named Ethos the number one no
medical exam instant life insurance provider. So protect your family
with life insurance from Ethos. Get your free quote at
ethos dot com slash chuck. So again, that's Ethos dot

(59:59):
com slash chuck. Application times may vary and the rates
themselves may vary as well, but trust me, life insurance
is something you should really think about, especially if you've
got a growing family. Oh, it used to drive me
crazy during the during sort of when we were more

(01:00:20):
talking about what when Facebook was trying to deny any
culpability during the during the Russian influence operation, and it
was sort of like or you know, putting up advertisements
that were totally miss misleading. When I was at Meet
the Press, if we aired an ad that we knew
was misleading, We as the broadcaster, shared liability with the advertiser.

(01:00:43):
In fact, in some ways we were we'd be held
more liable than the advertiser themselves. That is not how
it works on these platforms. Meta is you know, somebody
advertises in Instagram with a with a misleading ad. You
don't get to sue Meta for that. You only get
to sue I guess the company itself if you want
to do it. So there's that has to change. And

(01:01:06):
I and it's one of those where I don't understand.
I don't understand. As you said, the laws that are
already on the book should already be applied like this idea.
They have to be you know, they carved out this
separate and I think that's the mistake that was made.

Speaker 2 (01:01:19):
I think that was a mistake that's made. I think
that you know, when some of these technologies were introduced,
there were folks in Congress who didn't quite understand it.
You know, as you know, we haven't passed a single
regulation federal regulation on social media since nineteen ninety eight,
which is before social.

Speaker 1 (01:01:33):
Media was no social media, so.

Speaker 2 (01:01:35):
You know, we are definitely behind and making sure these
products are safe. And we're seeing other countries take the
lead in protecting childhood.

Speaker 1 (01:01:44):
Right yep, So let's talk about the core goal of
your group, right it's media addiction. And you know, I
started out by sort of trying to be hopeful and
noting that, Hey, look, the one place where politicians seem
to find agreement on this issue, like how do we
protect our children? And I've been heartened by all these

(01:02:05):
laws passed in the States on self abandoned schools. But
do you know what a lot of schools proactively do.
I proactively give an iPad to every student that comes
in the classroom. In fact, there is a movement in
my neighborhood. It's a very small movement, but that's how
these movements start, right neighbor to neighbor, going, Hey, tell

(01:02:27):
Arlington schools stop giving you know, teach out of books,
not iPads.

Speaker 2 (01:02:32):
It's not just in your district, Chuck. We're seeing this nationwide.
You know, Mama, Chapter leaders across the country have been
among the most vocal in their community to say to teachers,
say to schools, this is not what we want teachers,
and schools have sort of too quickly. I think bought

(01:02:52):
into this idea that if it's technological, it must be better.
And we are now seeing the lowest reading in math
scores in our lowest performing children than we've seen since
the United States started measuring that back in the seventies.
So there's just been a terrible decline in reading in
math performance that matches up exactly to the introduction of

(01:03:17):
tablets and laptops into classrooms. At MAMA, we're not anti tech.
We think tech can be fun and tech can be helpful.
We just don't think it should replace real life experiences
and interaction. And there's actually centuries of evidence that show
embodied learning experiences are critical for memory consolidation in the mind.
That's how children learn by doing, so we know that

(01:03:39):
physically holding a book is affecting the mind in a
much different way than looking at it on a screen. So,
you know, we have a three part mission at MAMA.
It's parent education, it's getting phones out of school so
children can learn, and it's demanding safeguards that our lawmakers
act to ensure these products if they're going to be
out there, that they're safer kids.

Speaker 1 (01:04:00):
You know, So, do you think there's a you know,
you think there's a an age where you don't even
you know, you say, okay, look because now you have
these like smartboards instead of chalkboards right where you're able
to do and that to me makes sense. You want

(01:04:22):
to have these smart boards. And you know, the upside
about having a textbook online is that it's always up
to date. It's always current, right, it's never out of
it's never now to date. You can quickly without having
to buy new textbooks. So there are reasons school districts
want to save money, right, which is to have some
of this stuff available. What's the Is there a regulatory

(01:04:44):
line we can create in legislation that says, okay, you know,
we're not introducing any tech into classrooms until sixth grade?
Is that is? That is? Is there enough studies to
support a hard and fast line like that.

Speaker 2 (01:05:00):
Well, so there's a lot of studies that support the
delaying of technology and media for children as long as possible.
The American Academy of Pediatric has for many, many years
recommended the most minimal amount of screens for your infant
and toddler as possible. If your child's under two, they

(01:05:21):
should not be exposed to a screen. If every once
in a while, you let your toddler talk to their
grandparents on FaceTime or Skype. I don't think it's such
a big deal, but nobody should be parking their infant
in front of a screen for entertainment because we know
it affects their brain development. And there is a researcher
who's been taking scans of preschoolers and finding that the

(01:05:44):
ones who had screens have actual less white matter in
their brains. In terms of whether we could make a rule,
you know, we live in a country where education is
decided state by state, and so every state does it differently.
My recommendation again would be to delay these things as
long as possible. Now there's a lot of parents out
there saying we have to have our kids ready to

(01:06:06):
compete in a technological world, and I agree with that.
But the question I always ask is, you know, if
you want your child to be a safe driver, for example,
And we all agree that we want our children, once
they learn to drive, to be safe on the roads,
But none of us think they should start learning to
drive at age seven, or age eight or age nine,

(01:06:27):
because their brains and their bodies are not ready for that.
And so for children, what we think is important is
that the foundational skills they need to be competent learners
are there before we introduce technology, and then we introduce
technology in a limited way so that they can learn
the skills they need, but that it doesn't overtake all

(01:06:47):
of their other learning.

Speaker 1 (01:06:49):
You know, it's interesting. I was at a Texas Tribune
festival a couple of weeks ago and saw a conversation
with the new president of SMU, who used to be
the president of UTI, and they were talking about, you know,
over the last ten years, there had been this shift
away from kids majoring in sort of the liberal arts, right,

(01:07:09):
majoring in English. In fact, you have universities dropping that
as a major, right that there's more specificity that students
were leaning towards. And his thesis, his theory and what
he was going to bet on is that in the
next ten years that we were going to see a
turn back to the liberal arts. And in fact, he

(01:07:30):
thinks his job's going to be how to help students
when they come to college that college, that college may
turn into how to learn because we're in some ways,
because our kids are being raised on screens, they know how,
they know, they know where to find information. They don't

(01:07:52):
know how to how to how to create the information right,
they don't know how to confine the information if the
power goes out type of issue, and that that's in
some ways that might be a role that undergraduate universities
are going to be playing again. So that was an
interesting thesis he had. What do you make of that?

Speaker 2 (01:08:12):
I mean, that is a very interesting thesis, and it's
something I think about all the time. You know, I worry,
for example, when you see doctors using their phones to
look up everything. You know, I want my surgeon if
I'm going in for brain surgery, I want my surgeon
to know how to do the surgery even if the
power goes out. You know, you want you want our

(01:08:35):
experts to have the skills and the training that they need.
You know, it's an interesting hypothesis. I think that a
lot of learning, though, happens in early childhood, and there
are certain foundational building blocks. We know, if by a
certain age you're not reading at a certain level, it's
very unlikely that you'll get there in your twenties. Right.
That is why in this country we long ago established

(01:08:58):
had start in zero to three, because there was so
much evidence that what happens during early childhood really affects
your lifelong success in learning and even other things like
your economic you know, status, your your job, you know, availability,
all those kinds of things. So you know, we we're

(01:09:19):
pushing to make sure. You know, look, I'm an American.
I want us to win the AI race, but we
need to make sure that these technologies are developed in
ways that are all so safe and responsible. And I
have every confidence that our technology leaders can do both
of those things right. There's no reason we need to

(01:09:39):
just say, okay, let's have no legislation and let's just
let them do whatever they want. You know, we've already
seen I don't know if you caught this in the news,
but there was a teddy Bear with AI in it
that just had to be recalled because if a child
asked the teddy Bear would tell them where they could
find knives matches. If you ask the teddy Bear a
sex question and suddenly they lead you in, you know,

(01:10:01):
it would lead you into a conversation about like fringe.
You know, sex spetishes like these are not products that
are safe for kids, and we should not make them
available to kids until we know they're safe.

Speaker 1 (01:10:14):
I'm curious what you thought of of mister Altman admitting
that he was surprised at how many people chose to
use these these in this case chat ChiPT as a
sort of therapist, and that he didn't see that coming.

(01:10:36):
And I'm thinking, in your we've put you in charge
of building this.

Speaker 2 (01:10:42):
You know, I have the same feeling about him that
I did about Mark Zuckerberg. I mean, I think that
that these guys didn't read enough poetry in college.

Speaker 1 (01:10:52):
I think I've got a real I have a real
cynical view of these guys. These guys were the people
that never knew how to be friends in real life,
are constantly looking. And you know, I joke that. You
know that Zuckerberg had a hard time meeting girls in college,
so he thought he could hack his way into finding
a computer algorithm to match him up with people that

(01:11:14):
might be more interested in him.

Speaker 2 (01:11:16):
Well that's how Facebook started, right. It was like a
rate a girl if she's hot, hot or not.

Speaker 1 (01:11:21):
That's what he was looking for. He was trying to
meet girls. I mean, not an unusual thing for a
nineteen year old. I'm not going to you know, a
lot of nineteen year olds boys and girls don't know
how to do this. So I empathize in theory, but
I do think the entire the leadership of Silicon Valley
are some people that didn't grow up the way a

(01:11:44):
lot of other people grew up.

Speaker 2 (01:11:46):
I mean, I'll give you one more example. G Nome Shazir,
who founded character Ai, was interviewed in a podcast a
couple of years ago and they asked him about character
AI and he said, well, give you my humorous VC pitch.
He said, you know, we know child's out walking with
their parents. They're holding hands, they're asking questions, and the

(01:12:08):
parents giving the child a lot of information. But they're
not just giving them facts. They're also you know, they're
their friend. They're giving them emotional support. They said, that's
what we want character ai to do. We don't want
to replace Google. We want to replace your mom. And
he said this, Oh my god. And then and then
we've seen all of these lawsuits now because character AI

(01:12:31):
when people have turned to it for emotional support or
because they are depressed or they are struggling, rather than
direct them to get help, rather than stopping, the AI
program is providing detailed instructions and encouragement. In some cases
for someone to end their own life. So I think,

(01:12:53):
to that company's credit, they have now announced that it
should not be used by anyone under eighteen. But again
the question remains, why didn't they consider this consequence when
they created the product? And so again that is why, Mama,
we're so focused right now in ensuring that our lawmakers
take action to require these companies to be accountable for

(01:13:16):
the products that they make, that there's transparency so we
know what's happening at these companies, because unless you require
them to provide this data, you know researchers can't even
study it, and that there's responsibility and that when they
design them in such a way that it's inflicting harm
on our children at scale, that they are held responsible
for that. And we are seeing multiple lawsuits now from

(01:13:39):
school districts throughout the country who are saying, you know what,
you have to reimburse us for the tens of millions
of dollars it's costing us for therapists, for emergency psychiatric beds,
for all of these costs that have been borne by
Americans and our communities that are really the cause that
been caused by these tech company products.

Speaker 1 (01:14:01):
I want to go back to the school issue, you know,
one of the fears. You know, I think about the
following right with the advent of AI over the last
twenty years, the focus among the many parents. My kids
are now eighteen and twenty one, so I remember, and
there was always, you know, every conversation with every parent

(01:14:22):
of you know, in my cohort was always boy, you know, hey,
they got to learn coding, and oh, but they better
learn coding, and that's what's you know, and stem and
all of this stuff. And then all of a sudden
we realize, oh, no, coding is not going to be
a life skill. This isn't this isn't going to be
something you need, and it isn't going to help you

(01:14:42):
get another job. In fact, that is going to be
replaced by a robot. So that's that's a that's a
no longer necessary. That's like teaching somebody how to dig
out an ice block. We don't we don't refrigerate with
ice blocks anymore. That is no longer an industry that
is necessary. The biggest fear I have now moving from

(01:15:05):
parent to grandparent. Right, I'm not there yet, but I
have nieces and nephews who are having kids. Now, and
that is they don't you and I thought think we
have an idea of the world our kids are going
to be living in. I think that's harder and harder
to visualize, and I think it's paralyzing parents and trying

(01:15:28):
to figure out what it is that they should be
asking the schools to be teaching their kids to prepare
them for this next generation of jobs or this next
generation of society, because I don't think any of us
have the first clue of what it's going to look like.
And I don't know how that factors into what you're

(01:15:49):
working on, but it's to me part of the of
the fear factor that has allowed so much technology into
the school systems.

Speaker 2 (01:15:57):
So the way we describe our work at MAMA is
that where a grassroots movement of parents and allies fighting
back against media addiction and creating a world where real
life experiences and interactions remain at the heart of a
healthy childhood. And the reason for that is because tech

(01:16:18):
is here, it's not going anywhere. We are going to
have a lot of technology available to us, and it's
going to help us solve a lot of problems. But
there are many things about being human that we don't
want to change, and it should always be part of
being human. I don't want a robot to hold my
toddler or my grandbaby. I want to hold that child.

(01:16:40):
And we don't think that we should just blindly say, okay,
tech is going to replace everything. We know that, and
there's abundant evidence about the role of parents and adults
in children's lives and about the role of embodied experiences
in children's learning. And we also know that there are many, many,
many jobs that technology is not good for. I don't

(01:17:02):
know if you saw that video that was making its
way across social media last week, but there was a
new AI robot. It was presented at a conference, and
as it got across the stage, you know it was
it looked really cool until it fell down because they
haven't even figured out balance yet. So, you know, over
and over again, for more than a century, we've heard

(01:17:23):
tech companies promise that their product is going to revolutionize everything,
and some products do and they you know, a smartphone
has changed a lot of things. Has it changed the
way we eat food, Has it changed the way we
nurture our babies, has it changed the way you know,
our economy is run, not exactly. There are some changes
in our payments, right, but absolutely everything is not going

(01:17:47):
to change. So when it comes to thinking about the future,
you know, what I want from my children is to
have the same thing that my grandparents wanted for their kids.
It's the same thing I want for my future grandchildren.
I want them to grow up healthy. I want them
to grow up confident and capable. I want them to
have a set of skills so that they are resilient

(01:18:09):
and can adapt because nobody knows exactly what the workplace
is going to need, right, but we're always gonna need trades,
We're always going to need skilled workers, We're always going
to need caretakers, and all of these professions that hold
up what it means to have a society. The tech
workers and the folks that the machines are a small

(01:18:30):
part of that. And I think we also just don't
want to give it all over to the machines. You know,
the Luddites happened because those folks like didn't want to
lose their jobs. And now we're at a point where
many many more types of work can be replaced, and
we have to decide is that what we want? Do
we want actors to not you know, have jobs anymore.
Do we want everything to be robots? And I don't

(01:18:52):
think we do. I don't think anybody wants to take
their kindergartener to class and have them taught by a
robot teacher.

Speaker 1 (01:19:05):
This is where I'm weirdly optimistic. Like you know, the
human species is pretty adaptable and has survived quite a
few challenges over the last few million years. I have
a feeling we're not going to let ourselves be replaced
by robots. I just wonder if we know we need it,
when we're ready to start fighting.

Speaker 2 (01:19:22):
Back, Well, it's time. I mean, the time is here, right.

Speaker 1 (01:19:26):
And that's where I want to get to. So okay,
So you're you are trying to essentially become a political force,
not left or right, just a force. You know, we're
not exactly advocating an advocacy. What are you working on
in the next six months? I know in the federal
level we talked a little bit about it. It's the

(01:19:49):
stopping this AI moratorium, AI regulatory moratorium. What are some
near term activities in the States that you're working on
as well? Well? And are you going to you know,
try to do candidate questionnaires or try to do things
like that, or are you not in that space just yet?

Speaker 2 (01:20:11):
So we're not in that space just yet. We're a five,
A one, C three, we're not a C four. You know.
Working on demanding safeguards is one small part of what
we do. We also work really hard on our communities
to educate parents on why they don't have to rush
to give their kids a phone. Our wonderful chapter leader

(01:20:32):
in Pittsburgh, you know, talked with the members of that
chapter and they really wanted their children to be able
to go to school without phones. But some parents were worried,
what about an emergency? And they went and they talked
to local shop owners and they said, you know, in
an emergency, can my child come in and use the phone?
And the store owners were like, of course, and they

(01:20:52):
put little stickers in the window so the kids would
even know they were welcome there. Right, So Mama Mama
works in communities, and then we also work with schools
because this is a huge issue now, not just the phones,
but what people are calling ed tech. So that is
the giving of tablets to kindergarteners, the giving of laptop
to first graders, and all over the country we're hearing

(01:21:15):
from parents that they're at war with their schools because
they don't want their children to come home and have
these devices. They don't want their children to have access
to YouTube where they're going to be watching videos over
and over, and the platform is designed to keep them
on there as long as possible. And then in terms
of legislation, we are very excited about all of the
lawmakers that introduce bills to try to require products to

(01:21:37):
be safer. In the last legislative session we saw close
to four hundred bills introduced. There were a lot, but
we've seen success in everything from bell to bell phone
bands to social media warning labels pass. And we're most
excited about legislation like something called the Age Appropriate Design
Code or the Kids Code, And this is law that

(01:21:59):
requires companies that make digital products to be used by
children to show what's called a duty of care to
children in making them safe by design, so if the kids,
if a kid's going to go on there, then it
should be designed in a safe way. And that means
doing things like putting privacy settings at the highest by default,
not the lowest, so that every American parent doesn't have

(01:22:20):
to go in there and figure out how to how
to make sure a stranger can't contact their child. But
it's set that way from the beginning. So Nebraska and Vermont,
for example, this year passed the Age Appropriate Design Code.

Speaker 1 (01:22:31):
By the way, that's that just shows you the ideological
breadth if you will, that's there, right. You know, Vermont
is Vermont the hom of Bernie Sanders. Well guess what
Nebraska is. They root for a team they call Big Red.
And it isn't just because Nebraska's colors are red. Yep.

Speaker 2 (01:22:50):
And you know, we're also seeing some interesting legislation now
being introduced about AI. So in October, Senators Mark Warner
from Virginia, Josh Holly from Missouri, Dick Blumenthal from Connecticut,
Chris Murphy from Connecticut, and Katie Britt from Alabama introduced
this bipartisan bill that would ban miners from using AI

(01:23:12):
chatbot companions. And it would have an incredible impact on
the safety of our children. So you know, that's the
kind of thing. I mean, who who wouldn't support that?
I mean you have to ask who wouldn't support keeping
kids safe? Do you?

Speaker 1 (01:23:25):
You know, do you plan on having sort of Mama
seal of approsals? You know, meaning like, if you want
to see what are what are? What are you know?
Could I, you know, maybe this a little early my
next holiday season, Will I go on Mama's website and
be able to see these are products that you should
feel comfortable, that have some tech in him, that are

(01:23:47):
that are safe.

Speaker 2 (01:23:49):
Chuck, I don't want to promise that to your listeners.
It's definitely on our to do list. We're moving as
quickly as we can. As I mentioned, you know, we
had this ambitious goal of having six chapters, and the
demand is just completely overwhelming. Right after we launched, we
got requests from all fifty states and all over the globe,
like every continent except Antarctica. So you know, we are

(01:24:12):
very grateful that we receive some funding this year from
the Rockefeller Foundation, and we are primarily funded by individual
donors and family foundations. There's a lot of folks who've
come together to make this work happen, and we're growing
as quickly as we can. But yes, I do think
eventually that is something we would like to provide.

Speaker 1 (01:24:33):
You know, it's interesting you just talked about the world.
I heard a stat and I wonder if you guys
are now a Clearinghouse for some of these studies that
there has not been a study around the world on
social media usage or early phone usage that it hasn't
mattered whether it's a rich country a poor country. It

(01:24:53):
hasn't mattered what ethnicity or if it's a homogenous society
or a multi ethnic society that this is. It is
so clear that this tech at a young age has
been harmful. Hard stop.

Speaker 2 (01:25:09):
You know, social media doesn't discriminate, and we have definitely
seen that. You know, with the National Emergency and Youth
Mental Health it cuts across race, class, gender, geography, you
name it. There is additional concerns for vulnerable communities. We
have seen. Unfortunately, the increase in suicide rates among Hispanic

(01:25:34):
adolescents is even higher than in its white counterparts. The
rate of increase in Black youth is high. So I
think we're beginning to see a different kind of digital
divide where low income families, and in part it might
be because childcare is so expensive.

Speaker 1 (01:25:52):
And I'm just going to say, is that child is
basically unfortunately we have tech. Nanny's right. You know, I
was a latchkey kid. First thing I did when I
had to get home was I had to call my
mom at work to let her know I got in
the house right, and you.

Speaker 2 (01:26:03):
Probably watched TV and that was fine, though, you know
I did.

Speaker 1 (01:26:06):
Turn on TV. But what would happen now? Right? You
whip on? You probably, you know, put the device on, right.

Speaker 2 (01:26:13):
I mean, I watch more Love Boat than any ten
year old should have. But there was a limit to
what kinds of things.

Speaker 1 (01:26:19):
My parents did. Weren't crazy about me watching love Boat
or Three's Company, I remember exactly.

Speaker 2 (01:26:25):
We didn't even know.

Speaker 1 (01:26:26):
I'll see an old rerunning, Oh my god, like that
is risque. I can't believe they let that on television. Right.

Speaker 2 (01:26:33):
Well, now, the average age of first exposure to pornography
is twelve, okay, Chuck, twelve like you know, and look
like I think as a parent, you know, I don't
have crazy conservative ideas. I know that at some point
my sons will probably be exposed to pornography in high school.
But I don't think it should be mainline to them

(01:26:55):
by a couple of companies that are making gobs of profit.
If they can get people to stay on their platform.

Speaker 1 (01:27:01):
Longer, there's certain things that should be hard to come by,
and they have to frankly in some ways you should
feel a little bit of shame, because that's actually a
good thing to have through life.

Speaker 2 (01:27:14):
Yeah. Well, you know, look, I don't think anybody would
support allowing pornography at the checkout register at the supermarket,
but we didn't. We don't have a law that forces
people to, you know, put it high up behind the
counter or wrap it in paper bags.

Speaker 1 (01:27:31):
You know.

Speaker 2 (01:27:31):
So custom is part of this and part of what's
challenging in the digital eras that were you know, these companies, we're.

Speaker 1 (01:27:39):
Still making the customs. We don't really have a making
the customs right, and I think that that's been that's
what makes this feel so challenging. And because I think
we all agree we've got to figure out how to
slow down the adapt the adaptation of tech in kids' lives.
But my god, is the toothpaste already out of too?

Speaker 2 (01:28:01):
Well. We have Mama's House Rules. If you go to
we Are Mama dot org and you click on learn,
you can scroll down and Mama's House Rules give you
some ideas of how as a family you can manage it,
limit it, put it in a container. Again, we're not
saying there's going to be no tech in your life.
But we're just saying, how do you have a life

(01:28:23):
that's based on real life experiences and interaction, because once
you or your child are spending too much time online,
it just becomes so unhealthy. And you know we're all
media addicted, right, it's not just our children, and what
we model has a huge huge impact on them.

Speaker 1 (01:28:41):
Well, if I just went on your site, we are
mama dot org. So that's the fairly quick and easy place.
You mentioned one other thing about tobacco, about how those
that were advocating against it had a went to Hollywood
and said, hey, we need to redo this. Are you
trying to do the same thing with Hollywood with tech?

(01:29:03):
You know, you say, hey, you know, make it so
that you know, everything that happens online is bad, the
cool stuff is in person or something like that. How
are you trying to influence culture in that front?

Speaker 2 (01:29:16):
So, you know, we've had some conversations with some people
in the space, I think other you know, Joe Gordon
Levitt has been a tremendous voice for healthy human relationships.
I know he's a dad and that he again he's
not anti tech. He just thinks like tech should be
safe and that we shouldn't. He has a wonderful ted

(01:29:38):
talk that you could check out about his own experience
with social media and what he learned is unhealthy about it.
I think that more and more people in Hollywood are
waking up to this, especially after the actors the sag
after strike last year. You know, so many studios had
sort of suggested that they just pay actors and don't

(01:30:00):
hire them again, and then they can just make an
AI likeness. And I don't think anybody likes the idea
of never working again, because you know, pixels can just
replace them. And then I think Pixar in the last
Toy Story movie, I think they actually had a digital
device kind of be one of the negative characters. So
maybe somebody over there is getting the message.

Speaker 1 (01:30:21):
Interesting, Julie, I am, you know, cheering you on. I'm
glad to give you a platform. I want to stay
in touch, want to continue to help spread the word.
I mean, I think I think generally everybody gets it.
I think there's a lot of paralysis out there, and
I think what you've shown is that hey, you're not alone.

Speaker 2 (01:30:44):
You're not alone. And it's just been so moving and
inspiring to see all these parents come forward We're looking
for more chapter leaders and a couple of specific states.
So if you have any listeners in Wisconsin or ten
or Kentucky.

Speaker 1 (01:31:02):
Here you go and challenge accepted. Here we go. Come on,
Kentucky and Tennessee and Wisconsin. I got listeners in all
those states. We know this. Let's go, let's get this done.
And I'd like to see you know who the best
advocates for this could be today's college students. You know,
I'd love to see you get college chapters. That was look,

(01:31:23):
that was a big part of Matt They got some
college chapters.

Speaker 2 (01:31:27):
And that that helped absolutely. We work with some youth
led groups now that are just truly wonderful, and you know,
I am both grateful for their advocacy and it breaks
my heart that we have put kids in this situation
where children have to go to Congress and testify about
what happened to them and how they were groomed online

(01:31:48):
or received eating disorder encouragement. You know, we're the parents.
We have to make it safe for our kids.

Speaker 1 (01:31:55):
Julie, so much, so grateful to talk with you.

Speaker 2 (01:31:58):
Thank you you too, pleasure. Thanks, well, there you go.

Speaker 1 (01:32:09):
It's so funny the way I think many a parent thinks, right,
when my kids were young, I'd have older friends of
mine whose kids were already in college going, but I'm
glad I don't have to raise kids in this environment.
And it's like, well, you know, you know we all
were you know, every you know, every parent you know,
after their kids get through and they see what comes next,

(01:32:31):
you think, oh, I'm glad I didn't have to deal
with that right on that front. But there's no doubt
this this UH, the relationship between when to introduce tech
and we just haven't. You know, there's there's plenty of
smart and there's probably more studies that need to be done,
but so far every study indicates of just you know,

(01:32:53):
how how damaging too much screen time has been to
UH to kids. And clearly there's been some that it
leads to some learning issues and certainly slows things down.
So I hope you take a look at what she's

(01:33:13):
up to UH. And and to my some of my
libertarian friends out there, let I think there's a I
think there is a a a fair compromise here, and
I think it's it's you know, I don't think anybody
is going it's it's either all or nothing. I think
we have to come through data and decide what is

(01:33:35):
what is what is the right time? Right we we
wait until kids are fifteen or sixteen before we'll let
them get behind a wheel, even as a restricted driver.
You know, we've we didn't you know, we didn't have
those laws immediately in place when cars got introduced, but
it was something over time. And I think in this case,

(01:33:56):
you know, we realize, oh cigarettes, there ought to be
a minimum major requirement. Being able to buy alcohol. That
will be a minimum major requirement. Being able to drive
a car, that'll be a minimum major requirement. Social media.
It definitely thinks it definitely feels like it's one of
those that you know, falls in line with certainly what

(01:34:17):
we've done in the past when we've identified something that
we think can be more harmful to kids before getting
exposed to something before their brains are fully formed. All right,
let's get into Let's get into a few of the
questions here as Chuck, this one comes from Austin. From Austin,

(01:34:40):
he is not a first timer. I think we'll call
him a long timer. Hey, sen say your interview with
Sarah Esker blew my mind. All right, I had no
idea that the original article, the first was about congressional
representation and apportionment makes so much sense that our founders
prioritize representation before anything else. Got me thinking, could this
be the basis for a limited series or film? Most
of Americans don't know this history, and dramatizing it could

(01:35:02):
have make structural reform like a return to our roots.
Man Austin, what a terrific idea. You know, you know,
it's interesting, I assume and I hope you're watching the
Ken Burns American Revolution series. It's fantastic and it's certainly

(01:35:22):
also very you know, there's nothing harder than trying to
put together a documentary like he does, essentially without any
archival material, archive video, things like that, pictures, et cetera.
It's not easy, but a dramatic a limited series on

(01:35:43):
the essentially the fight over the Constitution and you know,
the failure of the Articles of Confederation and sort of yes,
and we could create some drama. You get some characters.
Ben Franklin's a great character. Thomas Jefferson's a great character.
John Adams is right. We know a little bit something
about all of them. Some of them have been portrayed

(01:36:05):
I mean the John Adams series and that that HBO
put on some fifteen or so years ago with Paul
Giamatti is just one that if you all consider yourself
a history junkie, then you've already seen it. But I
love this idea, Austin, and I think you're right because
I think there's there was plenty of drama. There was

(01:36:26):
plenty of debate, you know, and you can have different episodes.
You know where the cliffhanger is, you know, you know
there was a cliffhanger and what the official language was
going to be, Right, there's a cliff you know, all
these little cliffhangers about what were we going to be
as a country, you know, all those things. I think
there would be interest in this. And again we've seen this,

(01:36:50):
you know, his historical dramas have done well. And look,
I have a I believe that part of you know,
I think we need to offer more ways for people
to learn how our system works. Not everybody wants to
read a book about it. Not everybody wants to read

(01:37:15):
a textbook about it. Not everybody wants to listen to
ten hour podcast about it. So whatever way you get
that into the ecosystem and your idea is a good
one of sort of dramatizing, you know, the fights over
the founding and the fights that took place, so that

(01:37:36):
people can see the compromises. You know that the final
the decisions that were made were all compromises, right, it was.
It was never designed to be perfect. So anyway, it's
a it's a terrific idea. Hey Netflix, are you listening, Austin?
And I would like to pitch this as a as

(01:37:56):
a TV series. Austin, I promise if for some reason
we get this opportunity, I'll hook you up. Don't worry.
Next question comes from Michael Laurry says, Hey, Chuck, what
were your best and worst movies of the year. I
also love your thoughts on ken Burn's American Revolution series. Aha,
I already gave you that one. What's your favorite of
his work? And which upcoming projects are you most excited about?

(01:38:17):
African American History, LBJA, Baseball, Stand Up the Mormons. Lastly,
if Netflix is buying Warner Brothers, do you think David
Ellison hurt his chances by criticizing the process and highlighting
ties as a selling point. So I'm like a small
confession about movies these days, I watch fewer movies than ever,

(01:38:39):
and I think part of it is I am trapped
in the joy of episodic television that we have right
we are living, we are still living in the golden
age of this, you know, whether it's man I am,
I'm digging plorabis and I'm still curious where we're headed here,

(01:39:00):
although I have a my latest theory on Pluribus is
that it's a are you sure we want one collective
intelligence about who we are? Right? I don't know. I
felt like maybe maybe it's commentary on artificial intelligence. By
the way, I'm an episode behind, so no spoilers on
this front. And my other confession is when I travel,

(01:39:25):
that's when I kind of junk out on movies. So
I just watched it. I've been traveling this week. So
I finally watched the Naked Gun reboots. Eh, you know,
I there was some fun grace notes. I appreciated the effort,
but there's a part of me that feels it's almost

(01:39:49):
too far away, too long ago, like we lost an
entire you know, that was arguably three pop culture generations
ago that the last nake Gun movie came out. So
I think, you know, it. It's a you know, it's
interesting being in the later stages now of middle aged right,

(01:40:12):
which is right, I've got grown kids. But you know,
it's funny about the movie industry. There's two there's two
demographic groups that actually go to movie theaters. Apparently one
is teenagers, so that's that explains all the Marvel movies
and all that other stuff. And the other is empty nesters,

(01:40:35):
which is why you get right now we you know,
you know, over the last fifteen years, it was a
lot of baby boomer nostalgia. Now we're getting we're starting
to get gen x nostalgia on this front. So as
for my favorite ken burns, look, I've seen a lot

(01:40:55):
of them. I enjoyed, you know, my I'm going to
do a deep cut here. I enjoyed the Prohibition one.
Is that was something I knew the least. It was
one of those gaps for me, so it filled in
a lot of gaps. So I really enjoyed that one.
And Baseball, of course, was I think transformational. You know,
it was in the Civil War, and obviously the Civil
War was his essentially the masterpiece that gave him the

(01:41:20):
currency to do all of this. Right, he is America's historian.
And what I had really admire about what ken Burns
has pulled off in the American Revolution. I mean, think
about all, you know, if he had asked me, well,
what do you think I'm going to do the American Revolution,
I'd be like, oh, boy, right after these debates that

(01:41:41):
went through sixteen nineteen versus seventeen seventy six, these competing
commissions and all of this, and like, boy, good luck
trying to make something that everybody can feel comfortable with.
And lo and behold, he seemed to make something that
you know he has not gotten is somehow avoided stepping
on too many political land mindes. You know he's been

(01:42:06):
I think it's been very straightforward, and I have found it,
you know, I've certainly learned some things that I you know,
you think you know, and there are more things that
you learn there. So it's uh. I really admire his
ability to have success with this in this polarized culture

(01:42:27):
that we lived in. We had to give him some
special award like, I don't know how you did it,
but congratulations, you did something that we don't seem to
have any politicians capable of doing. So I owe you
a few more movies. I'll does do you care that
I watched the Mission Impossible Final Reckoning movies? I will

(01:42:51):
confess that, you know, I I it's a it's a
I always I designate. Like I say, most of my
movie watching now is when I'm want to be sort
of if I'm on a long flight and I'm trying
to pass the time. It's in fact, Mission and the
Mission Impossible series in the Jurassic Park series, right, those

(01:43:14):
are some I consider those guilty pleasures, meaning you know,
I know you know what you're going to get. They
are what they are. I find them to be the
perfect airplane movies. So I did venture into both of those.
But I owe you a better, Michael, I owe you
a better a better list of movies I like this year,

(01:43:38):
So cot me some slack on that, all right. Next
question comes from Yavari from Finland. He says, hey, check
listener from Finland here loving the longer episodes, keep them coming.
The sentate primaries in Texas are turning out to be
quite interesting. Oh yes they are. How bloody do you
think they could get? For example, between Alread and Tolerico. Well,

(01:43:58):
in fairness, I think I did not answer this question
in a timely fashion, because as we now know, it's
no longer all Read in toat Rico. It is tall
Rico and Crockett. If you are a listener to every episode,
you may have already heard my take on that. I'll
give you that in a second, but let me finish
your question. You noted between all Read and tall Rico,
you saw neither one seems to be the type to

(01:44:20):
knife each other that much, but she never know. Then
on the Republican side, now that Hunt has jumped in
the Republican side, is there a lane for him in
your opinion? Also, could you give a brief outlook on
how Montana looks for the Dems in twenty twenty six.
I have a couple of friends there and they seem
optimistic about Russell Cleveland seating Ryan Zinky. That's in a
house race. I believe that zinc is running their kind

(01:44:43):
regards Lea Fari let me start with the Texas thing.
Like I said, I answered it before. Obviously, look, Jasmine
Crockett essentially drove colinra al Read out of the race,
and it was pretty clear three way primary was going
to create a runoff that there was enough people that
got to all read convinced him to run for something
that's sure remnant of his old house seat there in

(01:45:04):
North Texas, because you know, if Democrats Republicans are already with
that three way raise, you know that's destined for a runoff,
which means even more money of them throwing mud at
each other, and it's an internal fight. You know, it
did seem to be a self inflicted wound for Democrats

(01:45:24):
to also have a large enough primary with prominent candidates
that would guarantee a runoff on their end. You know why,
you know, why not take advantage of the situation of Republicans.
And so now you do have a situation where I
all want to agree to get out. It's Jasmine Crockett and
James Tollerico And as I implied history, I think this

(01:45:44):
is going to be a race that is less about
ideology and more about style. Right. You're essentially he says,
you know, how much do you want a fighter and
how much do you want to uniter? Right, You're going
to have the pastor versus the fighter, right, and what
is the mind set of the electorate? And if, like
I said, I went pretty long on this and yesterday's

(01:46:06):
episode so I'll keep this one shorter, But essentially, I
think this is going to be a noisy primary on
the Democratic side, But I don't know if it's going
to be a nasty primary, right I think both could

(01:46:26):
pay a penalty, you know, and how they go about it, right,
Tyla Rico has a as a brand that if he
gets too negative or sort of practices sort of conventional
old school negative politics, that could boomerang on him because
he's trying to be a different type of a different
type of candidate, a different type of Democrat. And I

(01:46:48):
think Crockett are already sort of you know, she's she's
a bit polarizing, certainly in a general electorate, and she
needs a United Democratic Party behind her if she wins
this primary. So I definitely agree with your take that
if it had been all read Tolrico and Crockett had
decided not to run, that that would have been a

(01:47:09):
that would have been a patty cake primary a little bit,
you know, I think it would have been sock. The
curiosity I have about the Democratic side of this is
will outside groups sort of be the ones to throw
all the insults? Right? Well, we see a bunch of
outside Democratic money essentially try to damage Crockett, because I mean,

(01:47:32):
that's what I think is most likely you do have
You're not going to get the party leadership to admit
that they prefer publicly Tolerico over Crockett, but their body
language is going to come across that way. There's just
a perception that she can't win the general. I do
find this story. I'm not sure it's interesting that the
NRSC decided to take a victory lap and say, hey,

(01:47:56):
look what we did and try to take credit for
talking Crockett into running. And of course noticed this story
about you know how the NRSC is sort of taking
credit for getting for essentially coaxing Crockett into the race.
Meaning they did some early polling, they were curious to
see if Crockett had any traction. They tested her and
they realized that she was actually the best known, that

(01:48:18):
she would do the best in a Democratic primary, just
sort of implying that she had the highest name recognition
of anybody that could possibly run. And you know, John
Cornan is not hidden his belief that he thinks that
that Crockett would be easier to defeat than anybody else.
He faces problem for John Cornan is. I do not
see a scenario where he's the nominee, and I'm mildly

(01:48:40):
surprised he chose to run. You know, I had a
thesis and I think I shared it, and so I
will look, I was wrong about the following. I thought
he certainly was behaving like somebody who was buying time
from everybody, saying that he let me give me to
the filing deadline to prove that I can win this thing. Well,

(01:49:01):
then Wesley Hunt got in. It got complicated. But you know,
while Cornan certainly has done a good job raising Paxton's
negative was his early TV negative TV ads, it hasn't
accrued to Cornan's benefit. And you know, there's there's certainly
he just right, he feels like he's just a fish

(01:49:23):
out of water. And where this Republican Party is these days,
and it's as if the electorate knows that Cornan is
not one of them. Right, he is getting a strong
thirty thirty two percent, which is about what's left of
the Bush wing of the Republican Party nationally, and it's
about what's left inside the state of Texas. Now, if
Cornyn were the general election of the Republican nominee there's

(01:49:46):
no doubt. I think he's a favorite no matter who
he would face, whether it was Tolerico or Crockett. There So,
obviously the Republican primary is going to be scorched earth,
just scorched earth. But you know, nothing's really moved. What
I'm curious about what is going to move Cornan's numbers up.
I know what everybody believes will move Paxton's numbers down.

(01:50:08):
What moves Cornan's numbers up? And in some ways he
may have made a mistake. And the NRSC is bragging
about getting Jasmine Crockett in. But if Republican voters are
convinced that anybody can beat Crockett, then they don't have
to hold their nose and support Cornyan because he's quote
unquote the only one that can prevent a Democrat from

(01:50:30):
winning the Senate. See So I just find it interesting
that the NRSC is meeting their chest when they actually
that if Crockett is the center of attention in the
Democratic primary, that actually may send the message to Republican
primary voters that hey, Democrats are going to nominate somebody

(01:50:52):
who can win a general election, so you don't have
to worry about supporting the mushy moderate John Cornett. And
there's another reason why Cornyn may regret that there is
a competitive primary at all. In the Democratic primary, it's
a you know, Democratic you know, if there wasn't a

(01:51:14):
competitive Democratic primary vote, you would have seen some that
might vote in a Democratic primary choose to vote in
the Republican primary. There's a little bit of choice in Texas,
and he may cost himself some potential sort of moderate
Democratic voters who might have if there really wasn't a
competitive Democratic primary, they may have done that. So, look,

(01:51:36):
you are right to point out those Texas primaries. It's
certainly why why we're already have identified the Texas primary
night as the next night we go live with election
results in twenty twenty six. That is going to be
as consequential of a primary night as there is in
deciding whether or not Democrats do have a serious chance

(01:51:58):
at picking up the Senate. All right, I'm thinking one
more question before we get into my little college football
preview for the weekend. It comes from Brian from Sterling,
Virginia says, love the Toddcast, especially the World War One discussions.
Here's a favorite historical what if of mine? What if
Arch Duke Ferdinand's driver hadn't taken a wrong turn, Sorryjevo,
placing the air to the Austrio Hungarian throne right in
front of Gabrielle prince Hip, the guy who shot him.

(01:52:21):
Without that fateful moment, we might have avoided World War One,
no rise of communism, no World War Two, no Cold War,
no Holocaust, and a radically different Middle East. That single
wrong term may have shaped the entire modern world. That's
quite the what if I am. I am not a
believer in that. I you know, I think we were
on a hair trigger and I think that there were certainly,

(01:52:43):
you know, we were in a Look think about the
period we were in. We were hypernationalists around the globe.
We were, And this is why I think we're in
a similar period now, which is, you know, every time
we've had a massive transition in our economy, you know,
over the last one hundred and fifty years, right that
was the advent, you know, when we were moving from

(01:53:04):
an agrarian economy to an industrial economy. Globally, look at
all that happened in the first fifteen years twenty years
of the twentieth century. You had the Russian Revolution, we
had all. I mean, there was disruption and voter revolt
and people revolt and worker revolts all over the globe.

(01:53:26):
So it was a very unstable time. So I as
much as I mean I love the is, I love
a good alternative history, a little good a little butterfly effect.
I wish. I hope you're right. I'm don't think, but

(01:53:47):
I look at it. I think there there we were
in a the whole globe wasn't in a in an
unsteady position. In fact, you could argue we're in a
similar position now right where you know we were were.
We were pursuing a very uh closed border. We were
uh anti immigrant at that time, we were had high

(01:54:09):
tariff rates, we were a bit nationalistic. Remember, we didn't
want to get involved at all. What was going on
in Europe. You know, Hey, that ain't happening here. That's
why we're We've got two oceans between us and the
other comments. So that's that would be my only pushback
to your theory is that I think that we were
that that that we were just the transition of the

(01:54:32):
of the global economy from agrarian to industrial and the
race to industrialization, and you had this you just had
there was all sorts of tumult that was happening inside
the Ottoman Empire. That was tumult, that was you know
it sort of it was the big we were in
the we were in the late stages of the British Empire,
right that it was you know, uh, they were it

(01:54:54):
was getting chipped away at and certainly we had you know,
look at how the fact that that did trigger a
global you know, the Great War if it will, I
think tells you what a tinderbox the globe wash was

(01:55:14):
at that time. And that's something that I think about
in this current period. You know, we're going to get
through this, and we're going to get through this, but
this transformation of our economy has you know, rattled the globe.
Right look at Brexit, then look at what we're doing,
and look at sort of the shift and uh into

(01:55:36):
nationalism here and what that is. Look what that is triggered.
You know, when when the biggest economy in the world
starts behaving in an isolationist, nationalistic sort of you know
America first, Well, suddenly other countries are going to be
Japan first, and Germany first, and Italy first, and and
so on and so forth. And so I certainly hope

(01:55:59):
we can do we can escape this without without the
mass casualties that we had with World War One. But
it's not as if we're in a stable time period
in our globe's history at the moment right where you
have a pretty active war taking place between one of

(01:56:19):
the largest countries in the world, Russia versus Ukraine. Look
at sort of the unsteadiness, what we may be instigating
a military conflict in Venezuela. We're a bit on uh.
There's certainly a lot of concern about potentially hot conflict

(01:56:42):
with China over Taiwan. You've seen the rhetorical back and
forth between the new Prime Minister of Japan in China.
So it's a it's an interesting what if. But I
think when you look at the when you look at
sort of what was happening around the world at that time,

(01:57:03):
why were we in this period where something like that
could trigger all of this, I think you're underestimating what
was a very I think a very unstable period that
was taking place around the globe. This is the time

(01:57:28):
where I've normally got this huge college football preview. We
only have one game this weekend, but I always have
good memories of this, because I've been to a couple
of Army Navy games, and I'm sure if you've never
been to an Army Navy game, you've missed out on something.

(01:57:51):
And the first one I got to experience was was
the first time I ever got to participate in a pool,
presidential pool, if you will. The fact that I got
to do it probably violated some probably was a secret
service violation, but it is now thirty years thirty one
years ago, so I think I can now it can

(01:58:13):
be told. My late longtime friend von Vers, who some
of you have heard me talk about before and I
basically grew up in politics together working at the Hotline.
We lost him a couple of years ago. I'm still
still feels like yesterday. I miss him every day. I
miss talking politics with him, and we worked together at

(01:58:37):
the Hotline. We work together at NBC. But when he'd
gone back and forth from the Hotline a couple of times,
and he actually got a network job before I ever did,
he went to CBS and he suddenly he got roped
into he was working in their political bureau and they
were like a whole bunch of people wanted the weekend
off and from their White House Unity talked Vaughan into

(01:59:01):
being the guy who ran the transmission pool uh for
the White House Press Corps for the Army Navy game
because the president was going at this president at the time,
of course, was Bill Clinton. This year they were playing.
That year, they were playing the Army Navy game at
the old Veterans Stadium in Philadelphia. The reason I remember

(01:59:23):
this is because they also said, Hey, if you want
to bring a friend, we'll give you an extra an
extra pass. So he says, hey, you want to come
with me? And I was like yeah, So you know,
we drive from DC to Philadelphia. And the only if
I had brought a Phillips screwdriver with me, I pro
there is a there's not a zero percent chance I

(01:59:46):
would have walked away with a Mike with a framed
Mike Schmidt jersey from the Phillies locker room. The White
House transmission pool was in the actual Phillies clubhouse in
Veterans Stadium, and I just was mesmerized by it, and
we you know it is now. Of course, I've been

(02:00:06):
through what a transmission pool is. I've been through all
of those things and and it's kind of a it
can It can be a lot of a lot of
work and a lot of sitting around, and it can
be a lonely thing, which is why many networks are like,
you know, you should have some company with this. But
it was the first time I got to experience Army

(02:00:27):
Navy game, and I got to experience it sort of
behind the scenes, and we watched the entire game on
the on the sideline, and like almost every Army Navy game,
it came down to the last drive of the game,
and uh, it was it was just fantastic, the pageantry,
the passion. Uh watching halftime when the Commander in Chief

(02:00:51):
moves from one side, you know, sitting on the Army side,
moving over to the Navy side, or if Navy was
the home team, the Navy side moving over to the
Army side, and there's this sort of ordinate sort of
uh you know, you get the Navy, you get all
the troops lining up and sort of lining and sort

(02:01:12):
of saluting the Commander in chief as they go. When
I've been to a couple of them, and some president
doesn't always go. Every year, when the president doesn't go,
it's usually the Secretary of Defense that goes. Sometimes the
president and the Secretary of Defense goes. I imagine, we
know Donald Trump loves himself a football game, and if
he can officially go to a football game, he's going
to go. So I'm sure we're going to uh have

(02:01:33):
a Trump moment or two at this Army Navy game
because he's not gonna he's not going to miss a
moment to miss a moment. But uh, it's it's, uh,
it's just one of those. It really is. Uh, it's
it's probably the only it's probably the purest college football

(02:01:56):
that we have left. Right if you if you're sort
of burned out on nil and you're burned out on
the conference realignment. Although both Army and Navy have participated
in conference realignments, in fact they are now both members
of conferences, there was a period where Army was an
independent and they were sort of between conferences and things,
and one of these days it's very possible. I'm really excited.

(02:02:18):
Over the last couple of years we've actually seen Army
and Navy higher coaches that want to innovate and saying, Okay,
we have a we're going to have size limits of
what we're going to have, but you know, which is
why they run the triple option, but hey, why not
throw out of the triple options some And we've seen
much more dynamic offenses out of both both service academies,

(02:02:39):
which has just been which has allowed them to pull
a few upsets every now and then be a bit
more sort of punch above their weight as programs. And
you know, the only curiosity I have is I have
no idea how how these football programs are going to
how the how the NIL programs are going to work

(02:03:02):
for Army and Navy, and whether there we're going to
start to see collectives for Army and Navy. I imagine
we won't. It feels like that that's a that that's
that's a gray area that autumn that that folks ought
to stay out of. But you know, I don't want
to rule anything out that we'll start to see something
on that front, but I I do. I'm a sucker

(02:03:26):
for it. And if you ever get the chance to
go in person, I would just say take the opportunity.
Even if you don't consider yourself sort of a you know,
a big sort of flag waving type person. I know
that's not everybody's Cupetit doesn't make any less patriotic I'm not.
I don't want to. I don't want to imply that
at all, but I it is. And here's the other day.

(02:03:49):
It's always a good game, and it's just an incredible atmosphere.
And if you want to know, I've some of my
closest friends and a former roommate. It's a Naval Academy grad.
So I always root for Navy. But I just say

(02:04:12):
go Navy. I don't say beat Army, because you know
I don't have I I'm not anti Army on this one,
but I do always come down on the Navy side.
So go Navy. I hope you do well. But what
I most want is just a great game, because when
the Army Navy game is competitive, it's a lot of
fun to watch, especially when it's the only college football

(02:04:33):
game we have this weekend. Although there is the FCS playoffs,
I'm not in denial on that. One of the things
I promise is that I might dabble a little bit
in NFL. I know I do a little bit of
that with Tony Kohneiser, but I'll be honest with you
until Miami. As long as Miami is alive in the

(02:04:56):
college football playoff, I'm going to be pretty pretty focused
on that. But as a Packer fan, I'm starting to
feel as if i'm, you know, the beginning of this season,
after the first couple of weeks, first two games, Miami
beats Notre Dame in South Florida by pretty significant margins,

(02:05:16):
and they looked like a really good football team, and
was you know, going to be championship caliber? First two
games in the NFL season, Packers beat the Lions and
the Commanders back to back. At the time when Commanders
we thought, hey, you know, they just were in the
NFC title game the year before. They looked like a juggernaut.
Then they had kind of a mid season dip. Miami
had kind of a mid season dip. And now both

(02:05:38):
my teams are starting to starting to look like they
at least they can compete for the highest title of
the season. So to say I'm a bit giddy about
my two football teams as an understatement, and I just
thank them in this in what can be when the
day job and the topics of what I have to
cover for the day job can be anxiety and doucing

(02:06:00):
and sometimes demoralizing and sometimes depressing. It's always nice when
you're when your sports teams can can provide a little
bit of a little bit of happiness. But of course,
as we all dedicated sports fans know, when your team,
when you suddenly have expectations for your team, you don't
enjoy any part of the game until you've survived winning

(02:06:22):
that game. I can tell you I barely enjoyed any
part of that Packers Bears game, but I was but
after we won, then I was really enjoying the fact
that we that that the Packers won. So to say that,
I'm I'm I'm feeling pretty uh pretty excited about about
what could be coming over the next few weeks. I

(02:06:44):
don't want to jinx it, and for all I know,
it could come crashing down for both teams in a heartbeat.
But you know, when you have a pretty good defensive line,
it's amazing how far your teams can go. And both
the Packers and the and the Hurricanes have themselves pretty
elite defensive lines. And if you to me, that's the

(02:07:07):
key to winning championships a disruptive defense. And both my
Hurricanes and my Packers have disruptive defenses. All Right, With that,
with my sports biases out of the way, I will
call it a week. I will see you next week.
Enjoy the weekend, be safe out there, and until we

(02:07:28):
upload again, h

All Episodes

Full Episode - Trump Fails On Economic Messaging At PA Rally + Inside the Movement To Save Childhood From Big Tech

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang

Crime Junkie

The Brothers Ortiz

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}Full Episode - Trump Fails On Economic Messaging At PA Rally + Inside the Movement To Save Childhood From Big Tech