January 10, 2025 • 39 mins
We kicked off the program with four news stories and different guests on the stories we think you need to know about!
Mark Miller – Senior Attorney at the Pacific Legal Foundation discussed the SCOTUS Showdown: TikTok’s Future Hangs in the Balance.
Is the bird flu on the rise? One person dead. What is the bird flu? How do you contract it? What are the symptoms & how can you stay safe? With guest Dr. Daniel Kuritzkes - Chief, Division of Infectious Diseases at Brigham & Women’s Hospital.
Richard Sima – neuroscientist & Brain Matters Columnist for WaPO discussed distracted eating. It can make us gain weight. Mindful eating can help.
Randy Sutton – Retired Police Lieutenant & Founder of The Wounded Blue with a warning: Beware of scams when donating to LA wildfire victims. Here's what to know…
Ask Alexa to play WBZ NewsRadio on #iHeartRadio and listen to NightSide with Dan Rea Weeknights From 8PM-12AM!
Mark Miller – Senior Attorney at the Pacific Legal Foundation discussed the SCOTUS Showdown: TikTok’s Future Hangs in the Balance.
Is the bird flu on the rise? One person dead. What is the bird flu? How do you contract it? What are the symptoms & how can you stay safe? With guest Dr. Daniel Kuritzkes - Chief, Division of Infectious Diseases at Brigham & Women’s Hospital.
Richard Sima – neuroscientist & Brain Matters Columnist for WaPO discussed distracted eating. It can make us gain weight. Mindful eating can help.
Randy Sutton – Retired Police Lieutenant & Founder of The Wounded Blue with a warning: Beware of scams when donating to LA wildfire victims. Here's what to know…
Ask Alexa to play WBZ NewsRadio on #iHeartRadio and listen to NightSide with Dan Rea Weeknights From 8PM-12AM!
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
It's night Side with Dan Ray on w b Z
Boston's new video.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
Nicole, you're one of the kindest people I know. Calling
today's stock market troublesome. I get another T word for it, terrible.
Have a good weekend, Nicole.
Speaker 3 (00:20):
I am.
Speaker 2 (00:20):
Don't look at your for one k whatever you do.
My name is Dan Ray, and Nicole is one of
the nicest people in the world, never mind nicest people
at WBZ, but she really is. I'm not necessarily nice.
I'm the talk show host and I'm not bad, but
I'm not as nice as Nicole. We're headed for four hours.
As Nicole said, all the way up until eleven fifty eight.
(00:43):
My name is Dan Ray. As I said, I am
the host of Nightside, heard every Monday through Friday night
from eight until midnight. Rob Brooks, the producer of this program,
is in the control room. I'll set to take your calls,
but not until nine o'clock. During this hour, we will
have four guests. We're gonna learn about TikTok, gonna talk about,
you know, all the other stories that are around today,
(01:06):
including bird flu, something else to worry about, distracted eating,
and the LA wildfire scams. It's not bad enough to
have the wildfires, but now I have to deal with
the scam artists, so we'll deal with it, don't worry.
First up this hour, I'm delighted to welcome Mark Milton.
He's an attorney with one of my favorite organizations, the
(01:28):
Liberty Council, and Mark Miller, welcome to night. Said, how
are you, sir? You damn the Liberty Foundation, the Pacific
Liberty Foundation. My mistake. You're going to talk about TikTok
argued in front of the State Supreme Court today. I
didn't listen to the arguments, but from all that I've heard,
the justices seemed disinclined to save TikTok, which I'm sure is.
(01:55):
It's a confusing case for many people who do not
live and die like TikTok. Why did you set it
up for us? Give us a quick law school brief,
if you will, of the parties and the interest at hand.
Speaker 4 (02:08):
Yeah, well, I think that's a great way, you know,
to set it up, Dan, you know a law school brief.
This is a perfect law school hypothetical where you've got
national security national defense. On one hand. The federal government
says that China to a company called Byte dance bite.
The Chinese company that answers to the Chinese government controls
an American company, TikTok, running this app that are children
(02:31):
or grand children like to use, and they adjust what
are you know what Americans are watching and viewing on
that TikTok app based on their own secret algorithm, and
they so that's their content. And then separately they're pumping
in the information that the users have all their data
back to China. At least they could. China can demand
(02:54):
that Byte Dance give China government the data that TikTok
is collecting. And so you've got content mediation, content description
on the internet on that app that can be adjusted,
and the government is saying we think that content is
bad because they can be adjusting. And so you get
pro Chinese government information on the app as opposed to
(03:17):
your cat videos. And then separately the data being collected
from the users. You know, you're a young American and
maybe that data could be used to blackmail them in
the future. That's just as capital set. On the other hand,
you've got free speech and not only did you have
TikTok there. Arguing to President Trump's former Solicitor General, No Francisco,
but also another attorneytum Fisher, represent a couple of users saying, we,
(03:40):
like you know, we engage in free speech here. This
is not a national security risk. Maybe you need to
tell the users that they might have some sort of
risk that needs to be disclosures, that China will get
your information or could get your information, but that it
is overstepping the First Amendment to shut down the website
or the app altogether.
Speaker 2 (03:57):
You get an A plus from for briefing here, councilor
so just in terms of background, Congress in a bipartisan fashion,
something that really happens bill signed by the President said
that basically the owners of TikTok have to sell to
American owners by I guess it's a week from Sunday,
(04:18):
the nineteenth, or TikTok will be taken down in the US. Now.
I don't know how physically they can take down TikTok
or block TikTok, but I'm assuming if they say they
can do it, they can do it. The reports I
heard today and I didn't listen to the to the arguments,
(04:41):
were that the majority of the justices seemed very skeptical
of the First Amendment argument. And seemed somewhat inclined, perhaps
to support the legislative action the build that was passed
by Congress and signed by the President.
Speaker 4 (04:58):
Yeah, I was a little surprised, Dan, because I that's
how I interpreted the or argument as well. And I
say surprised because the lower court had said the lawless
constitutional that in fact TikTok could be shut down or
before you know by Dans could be forced to sell it.
And so if the lower court said that, why would
the Supreme Court rush the case up? Now you could
argue they rushed it up because of that January nineteenth deadline,
(05:19):
but they could have taken action, They could have stayed
the case. In fact, the dupotent Justice lawyer was parlical.
I admitted that court could have just stayed the case.
He didn't have to rush for that January nineteenth deadline.
But they rushed the case up, had briefing over Christmas
for just a couple of weeks over the holidays. And
so you sort of usually suggest the Supreme Coourt doesn't
(05:39):
like the lower court decision because why would it get
involved if they think the lowered court decision was correct.
But nevertheless, I was a little surprised because they did
seem very skeptical. Maybe the best example would be Justice Corsa,
where he just said, look, you know, you might have
young Americans using this data, using this app, and now
their data is being collected future trying it could blackmail
(06:01):
them if they are leaders in government, maybe they work
in the FBI or CIA, or they are elected a
business and you know, you can imagine that that our
young people would you know, be doing things that they
wouldn't want the world to know twenty thirty years later,
some things they did as kids, as young adults, And
so that was Gorsas perspective, and for the most part
it did seem to be where the court was landing
(06:23):
that there's nothing that vilely tree speech to force a
Chinese company to divest itself of an American company. The
Chinese company, by dance, has no First Amendment rights. Maybe
TikTok has some degree of rights, and maybe those users do,
but do they have a right to demand a particular app.
In fact, Justice Thomas even said, look, if you could
just say a user can object to a divesting order
(06:46):
of a big business to a smaller business, then why
couldn't we have stopped the AT and T breakup. And
then I know you and I are old enough to
remember the AT and T breakup, and you know, would
we have been able to sue and say, well, gee,
I like to use AT and T as my long
distance and local phone provider. Of course not that was
a big deal of the eighties. No one thought that
was a free speech violation. These people who want to
use TikTok and certainly make their little TikTok videos, their
(07:08):
cat videos or whatever they do on other apps besides TikTok.
Speaker 2 (07:13):
How many people in America use TikTok? I have no clue.
I mean, obviously it's got to be millions. I get that.
I'm not a tick. I'm on Instagram, I'm on Facebook,
I'm on Accident, all of that. TikTok's not my thing.
How many TikTok users are we talking about here? Soon?
Speaker 4 (07:31):
The number the number I heard bandid about at the
oil argument today, Justice so that my own At one
point she did half of all Americans. The lawyer pushed
back on that, but the number was one hundred and
twenty million. The lawyer said, well, just because there's one
hundred and twenty million downloads of the app doesn't mean
it's one hundred and twenty million different users. It's kind
of what he said. But bottom line, a lot of
people are using it. And I can tell you as
a father of four children, three daughters, they all use it.
(07:55):
All four kids, three girls and one boy. They're on
that TikTok all the time, just like you might be
on Twitter. I know I'm a dick the Twitter myself
or x.
Speaker 2 (08:02):
Uh yeah, I gotta tell you, I'm really not. I
I do it only because of my business, which is
to promote my broadcast. And when I finished my career
in the in broadcast, I'm getting off everything. I gotta
tell you. I mean, it's a It destroys your time,
and I think all of us spend much too much
time looking at these stupid screens. And uh maybe they
(08:24):
maybe they would do young people real quick question the
the three liberal justices on the Court, Kagan, Sodomara and
Quintanji Brown Jackson, are they disinclined? Is this decision going
to essentially be decided by how the six so called conservatives,
including Judge John roberts Sheep, Justice roberts Coe.
Speaker 4 (08:47):
I think you could see a unanimous decision. I think
all the justices maybe you know, maybe in that Justice
Corsicch was maybe the most sympathetic to the arguments of.
Speaker 2 (08:58):
If he's asking questions like that and he's the most sympathetic,
I think they're in trouble.
Speaker 3 (09:02):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (09:03):
Well, the most liberal, the liberal justice is Justice Kagan
was very skeptical. She and Thomas Bolt very skeptical of
the TikTok argument. Justice Jackson was trying to stay to
the lawyer for TikTok and Old Francisco. She was saying
to him, I think you're making a long argument, which
usually isn't a good sign.
Speaker 2 (09:18):
She's not a good not a good time. Heay, Mark,
I appreciate it. I appreciate the analysis really good. I
wish when I was in law school I had your
abilities when when Professor Dennis Aronowitz would call on me
and when you weren't prepared, it'd show you the door.
It's a great law professor, though, Mark, appreciate your time tonight,
(09:40):
and we'll we'll be following this closely. I'm assume we're
going to get an expedited decision here. This is not
going to be decided on June thirtieth.
Speaker 4 (09:48):
I ume absolutely because of that January nineteenth deadline, they're
either going to make a quick decision and write a
longer opinion later, or maybe they will just stay the
case and we'll get an opinion later. But either way,
we'll know in the next week or so what they're
going to do.
Speaker 2 (10:00):
It's great, Mark Miller, have a great weekend. Mark Miller
from the Pacific Legal Foundation, a great organization, legal organization,
ladies and gentlemen. They do incredibly good work. Pacific Legal Foundation.
Check them out. We'll get back on to talk about
something that is equally problematic, and that is the rise
of bird flu. We have a doctor, Chief of Division
of Infectious Diseases at Brigham and Women's Hospital, doctor Daniel Kritzkis.
(10:24):
He's gonna join us at on bird flu. Right after
this break. This is Nightside. My name's Dan Ray. You
listen to WBZ Boston's news radio. You can always download
the iHeart app now the new and improved iHeart app,
and listen to us twenty four to seven from all
corners of the globe. Back on Nightside after this.
Speaker 1 (10:40):
Now back to Dan Ray live from the Window World
Nightside Studios on WBZ News Radio.
Speaker 2 (10:48):
Well, as if we don't have enough things to worry about,
now we have something else, bird flu. Doctor Daniel kritzkis
he's the chief division of Infectious Diseases at Brigham and
Women's Hospital. Doctor Kritzkas, thanks so much for joining us
here on nightside. Bird flu. It sounds horrible. It's been
around longer than most people realize. What's the deal.
Speaker 5 (11:11):
Yeah, so this is an infection that has come and
gone over the years. We've had epidemics in the past.
It's often associated with, you know, large poultry farms, and
then occasionally spills out into other kinds of animals, as
recently we've seen in cattle. Fortunately, we've seen a relatively
(11:33):
small number of cases in people, less than seventy cases
in humans. But it does have the potential to be severe,
as we've seen recently from this one death in Louisiana.
Speaker 2 (11:44):
Now here's my first dumb question, and as I say,
I get paid to ask questions dumb or otherwise? Is
this the same as avian flu?
Speaker 3 (11:51):
Or?
Speaker 2 (11:52):
Is it? Yes?
Speaker 5 (11:53):
And bird flu and avian flu are essentially the same thing.
Speaker 2 (11:55):
All right, Okay, good enough, So we get that out
of the way. Okay, So this like another problem that
we had a few years ago called COVID. Apparently emanates
from China. Came from China. I guess what more than
twenty years or was first diagnosed or spotted isolated whatever
(12:16):
the verb is in China twenty or so years ago,
Am I right?
Speaker 5 (12:21):
I believe that's correct. The original outbreak of a v
and or bird H five and one influenza was picked
up in the poultry markets in China, as you say,
about two decades ago.
Speaker 2 (12:37):
Yeah, sort of a similar pattern.
Speaker 4 (12:39):
Now.
Speaker 2 (12:39):
I do know that we've had one case that ended
in a fatale and ended in a death guy down
in Arkansas. If I'm not mistaken.
Speaker 5 (12:47):
Correct, I thought it was Louisiana, but Arkansas.
Speaker 2 (12:51):
We'll flip a point on that. When you are right
on that, I get those Southern states mixed up. So
he was hanging out with poultry. I guess it was
some some some sort of a farmer. So do we
need to I think, I guess what I meant.
Speaker 5 (13:09):
Well, So, I think what it highlights is that this
is a potential occupational risk when we have large numbers
of animals, will be they birds or or cattle or hogs,
or whatever being raised in very close quarters that there's
the opportunity for viruses to spread among the animals if
(13:33):
it gets introduced in some way, and then the workers
who are in contact with those animals are at risk
of acquiring infection. Fortunately that's uncommon, but it is a
potential risk.
Speaker 2 (13:46):
How long do you think we would we will know
if this is something that's going to blossom? Is there
sort of a period of once you have your initial
outbreaks from an infectious dease disease point of view that
if it doesn't really bloom within their days or sixty days,
it's likely to die in the vine? Or what? Are
we looking at it the short run? Also maybe the
longer run.
Speaker 5 (14:07):
Yeah, it's hard to say, because I think that the
issue here is not so much the kind of seasonal
activity as we see with typical influenza, where we know
that we're going to see an increase in November December
and will peak sometime in January February, and expect the
cases to tail off into March and April. Here, the
issue is really going to be what is the activity
(14:28):
in these large animal farms. We need to be doing
surveillance among poultry farms and cattle ranches and the like
to see what's how frequently is this being picked up
in these animals, because that's what's the potential risk for
spread into the human population.
Speaker 2 (14:48):
Yeah, the other question is how does it get spread
amongst the bird population. I'm assuming that people who have
chickens or turkey farms, they I assume they're not mingling
their their flocks with other flocks, particularly with something like
this going on. How does it get spread?
Speaker 5 (15:09):
Right, That's a great question I would again, I'd have
to assume that part of the problem is birds fly,
not chickens, of course, but other birds do. And avian
influenza is not limited to poultry and other commercial birds,
but it is found in migrating birds. And so as
(15:30):
those birds fly, you know, north and south, as they migrate,
there's the opportunity for them to spread the infection and
in their i guano, they can spread it potentially to
birds that or poultry that are being farmed for food consumption,
and it ultimately gets introduced into those large commercial operations.
Speaker 2 (15:58):
Are there any species that are more susceptible to this
disease that we should be particularly cautious of?
Speaker 5 (16:04):
Well, I do think we have to really worry about
chickens and ducks and geese because those are the populations
that we have the largest concentrations of. And there's a
big distinction. In some bird species, the virus may not
cause symptomatic infection, so these birds can serve as carriers,
(16:27):
and in other birds or species, the virus may cause
illness and you see die offs in the population.
Speaker 2 (16:34):
Is there any sort of a cyclical aspect to this,
meaning when at first, every once in a while you
hear about something that comes around every four or five years,
or every seven or eight years, there's nothing that's cyclical
about this. It's just always there, but it pops up
more often for some reason that obviously it's difficult to trace.
(16:55):
Is that accurate.
Speaker 5 (16:57):
Yeah, that's a great question. We know that when we
see cyclical things happening in the human population, it's because
when there's a large outbreak, a lot of people become exposed.
They then get immune, and then over time the immunity wanes,
and then as they become less immune, there's the opportunity
for another cycle. It's not so clear how that's working
(17:17):
in the animal population. There must be something similar to
that going on, and a bunch of birds get infected,
they eventually die off, the infection becomes less prevalent, and
then some new birds get infected and it starts all
over again. But I'm really speculating there.
Speaker 2 (17:34):
Well, let me just say this, your great interview. You've
answered all my questions and none of them, as you know,
are prescripted, because I'm just thinking outside the box, like
trying what people would And you're a great interview and
I really thank you for your time tonight, particularly on
Friday night, and I thank you for what you do.
You know, infectious diseases traditionally over the centuries have devastated populations,
(18:00):
and obviously COVID was a devastating problem in the world.
And I just want to say thanks very much for
what the medicine that you practice, because it's so very critical.
Doctor Daniel Coriscus, I really mean that. Thank you so much.
Speaker 5 (18:16):
Well, you're You're very welcome. I'm much appreciated.
Speaker 2 (18:19):
Right, we'll talk again, and you're at the great hospital,
one of the great hospitals in the world. Brigaman Women's right,
good night, good night. When we get back, going to
talk about something we can control. I'm going to talk
with Richard Sema neuroscience Semma. He's a neuroscientist and brain
Matters columnist for the Washington Post. We're going to talk
about distracted eating. All of us know about distracted driving.
(18:43):
Now we're going to learn about distractive eating, which also
can be harmful. We will explain right after the news
at the bottom of the hour on Nightside on our
Friday night. As we head into the weekend, maybe a weekend,
it'll be nicer than we perhaps could have anticipated a
few days go.
Speaker 1 (19:01):
It's Night Side with Dan Ray on Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (19:08):
Next up, we're going to talk about distracted eating with
Washington Post columnists. He is the neural scientists and brain
Matters columnists for The warp Hole. Richard, is it Sima
or Sema?
Speaker 6 (19:21):
It's Sema? And how are you?
Speaker 2 (19:22):
I'm doing great. I'm doing great. So distracted eating, obviously,
I think most of us can identify with that. Why
Why are people, I guess all of us eating in
a distracted fashion?
Speaker 3 (19:38):
Yeah.
Speaker 6 (19:38):
So, distracted eating, as it sounds like, is whenever you're
eating and doing anything else, You're maybe on your smartphone,
you're watching TV or even socializing and or at work,
and I think part of the reason that researchers think
this is on the rise as well. Food is more accessible,
a lot of processed foods. It's take on the go,
you can have a you know, at your dusk. But
(20:01):
at the same time, we also have more distractions and
more ways of doing work or other things than the goes,
such as the smartphone. But unfortunately, the research shows that
when we are distracted, we not only eat more food
and it's associated with more weight gain, but we also
don't taste the food as much either. Yeah, yeah, now
(20:23):
I hear you.
Speaker 2 (20:25):
So is this a phenomenon of the twenty first century
and we've all learned how to multitask. You're talking on
the phone, you're working on your computer, and your stuff
in your mouth with stuff that probably isn't good. Is
that just that we're all trying to do more things
within the same limited period of time. I assume that
(20:48):
is so, But tell me I'm wrong.
Speaker 6 (20:50):
Yeah, well, I think like certain things have become easier, right,
Like we have screens, we have TV, we have smartphones.
But you know, like back in the past we also
did eat with other people, which technically is a distraction too.
You know, you're talking you're like, you're trying to listen
to conversation, you're abe ata party. But the interesting thing
(21:12):
about that is socializing as a distraction doesn't seem to
be associated with like, you know, this increased in increase
in BMI or increase in eating. And a researcher I
talked to about this was, you know, who did this
kind of study. So that might be because you know,
when we're talking, we're usually not eating at least polite
(21:35):
to do so, and you know, it means we're probably
slowing down. And I think that's the through line of
why distracting could be so unhealthy is.
Speaker 3 (21:44):
That you know, we know that.
Speaker 6 (21:47):
If we eat faster, we chew less, we tend to
eat more. And the reason for that is because we're
not able to sense how ful we're getting because it
takes about twenty minutes or so for our guts to
produce these signals, these hormones that tell us we're getting full,
and if we're doing something else, we are less likely
(22:09):
to build to like really listen to those signals. And similarly, yeah,
I'll go.
Speaker 2 (22:14):
On, how long has this stuff been studied? I mean,
I grew up in a time when families actually had dinners,
and we tried with our kids to have as many
family dinners as possible, but it became more and more
difficult with both parents working on is this Is this
(22:34):
a fairly new field of study, by the way, I.
Speaker 6 (22:39):
Think it's become more you know, there's a lot more
interest in it because yeah, it's it's harder now to
have sit down dinners with the whole family. But also
I think it's you know, started around the time like
TVs became more like prominent, because that's another way of
getting distracted. And the research like that suggests is like yeah,
(23:03):
like you know, sitting down to eat with others as
a family, that seems to be healthier. But if you're
watching TV while doing it, it does also plan too
this oh we're eating more because like we're doing other
things too, you know issue. Yeah, so's it's like it's
still a you know, growing field, but it seems really
(23:24):
consistent what they've been finding, which is, yeah, you're not
you know, like paying attention to your food. You're not
enjoying it as much, and as a result, you're eating more,
probably more than you wanted to if you were not
as distracted.
Speaker 2 (23:39):
You know, I'm probably a good person to be studied,
because when I get up in the morning, my wife
has gone to work, the kids are they've grown up,
so I'm My best meal of the day is breakfast.
I make myself breakfast. I focus on what I'm doing,
I enjoy it, got the coffee going, and I have
a real newspaper, a print version of a newspaper at
(24:03):
the dinner at the breakfast table, and I sit there
and I eat cereal with fruit and orange juice and
vitamins and coffee, and I read the morning newspaper. No
one bothers me. No one bothers me. I kind of
put the phone away, and then when I finish, I
get ready for the day, which is involved prepping for
(24:23):
the show. I do four hours a night, to be
honest with you, which is five nights a week. And
at six o'clock at night, I got a sandwich and
I'm kind of listening to the nightly news because God
forbid that I would miss a story. I mean a
big story that I got on and missed it. And
I'm also trying to do the crossword puzzle and a
(24:44):
couple of other things just that, and it's like it's
a different world from eight nine o'clock in the morning
until six o'clock at night, and I hadn't really thought
about it until I spoke with you Richard. Now I'm
going want to I'm going to try to change. I'm
going to try to make night more. My wife still
(25:05):
isn't home for dinner, so five nights a week I
eat breakfast and dinner alone. Okay, And obviously I'm really
distracted because I'm thinking about the show at six o'clock
in the morning. You know, it's I know, I'm going
to be on the air eleven hours, but it's way
off in the disner. Do you can you identify with
that as as a as a journalistic You must have
(25:27):
define right.
Speaker 6 (25:30):
Oh, definitely. I am definitely guilty of like eating out
my dust, you know, like you know, I have coffee
for like just getting awake instead of actually enjoying how
it tastes or the food. Right, Like, you know, there
is a sense that, yeah, we feel like we should
be always doing something else and that maybe our relationship
with food is that it just gives us fuel versus like, yeah,
(25:52):
some of these meals like deserve to be savored, you know,
like these your breakfast you probably like maybe like notice
it more and it's a joy right to start the
day that way, whereas your dinner is more like, oh, yeah,
you have to get this done. I don't want to
be hungry later. But you know, like we could take
(26:12):
a few minutes or at least like having time to
be more mindful and you know, try what researchers are
called mindful eating, which is different practices of drawing your
attention back to the food, back to the senses, back
to how you're feeling about it, and not only you know,
like it's like a sort of like you get two
(26:34):
bus pluses at least, right, you're not only eating more mindfully,
like probably less than what like you would overeating when
you're distracted, but you're also like, you know, actually taking
the time to enjoy you know, what someone created for
you and what like I don't know, like one of
the best parts of being human, I think is even
something nice and actually being there for it.
Speaker 2 (26:59):
Two other things like this morning, I took my time
and I made myself blueberry pancakes, and I love real cakes,
but it was just it was a great breakfast meal.
The other thing, and I don't want to get religious
on you here. But here's a thought. And I'm you know,
a little religious, you might be a little maybe not,
(27:20):
you know, very really do people pause before they eat
and just say a proved things. But we used to
do that as families, and that made you focus on
the food a little bit too.
Speaker 3 (27:32):
Yeah.
Speaker 6 (27:33):
Yeah, I think maybe this goes this is something broader.
Like what you're sort of alluding to is like, you know,
our attention is so scattered, there's so many things competing
for it. But it's also like are you really there
if you're not you know, actually trying to like, you know,
take that moment to acknowledge yeah, like this is great
(27:55):
food like something like that, but also you know, actually
find finding that attention to experience it fully. Yeah, it's
it's it's difficult, but I think this type of research
shows that, like, yeah, there's benefits not only to our
health but also like our ability to enjoy life.
Speaker 2 (28:14):
I guess, no, I know, And I'm now going to
say I'm going to take a couple more minutes in
the morning and enjoy my breakfast even more, even if
I simply say good food, good meat, good God, Lit's
eat Okay.
Speaker 6 (28:28):
Yeah, yeah, And I think, yeah, I think that's a
good practice, especially if you like I think one thing
I've noticed is like people do have these rituals, but sometimes,
like you, it becomes routine again, right, you just say it,
but you don't really and you know, that's that's the
paradox is being human.
Speaker 3 (28:44):
Right.
Speaker 6 (28:44):
It's like you, once you've got a routine, you sort
of wanted to, you know, be as efficient as possible,
versus maybe part of the point is taking the time.
And that's that's the that's.
Speaker 2 (28:58):
The one of being human real, Richard. Time is the
most valuable thing we have when you really talk about it,
because no matter how much money you have or whatever,
you can't extend the time too much. Richard, I enjoyed
any mean to get philosophical with you here, but your
article and your comments really caused me to think, and
I hope it caused some them the listeners to think
(29:19):
as well. I really enjoyed it. You've been a guest before.
Love to have you back again. Thank you so much.
Have a great weekend.
Speaker 6 (29:25):
Yeah you too, This is lovely, Thank you, thank.
Speaker 2 (29:28):
You, Richard. Talk So when we get back, we're going
to talk about scams where people are trying to take
advantage of the Los Angeles fire victims throw them in
jail for fifty years. As far as I'm concerned, We'll
be back on Nightside with Lieutenant Formal Lieutenant Randy Sutton,
and he's going to talk about the scams that are
(29:50):
in play tonight even as we speak. As we as
we speak, will be back on.
Speaker 1 (29:55):
Night Side now, back to Dan Ray live from the
Window World lat Sight Studios on WBZ News Radio.
Speaker 2 (30:04):
Brandy Sutton has a retired police lieutenant, founder of the
Wounded Blue. Randy, you may not remember me, but you've
been on the show a couple of times. Welcome back
to NIGHTSID.
Speaker 3 (30:12):
How are you, sir, fantastic man, Thanks for having me.
Speaker 2 (30:17):
You're very welcome you night You're here too. You're here
to warn people about a lot of scams that are
now circulating because a lot of us here in the
New England area are looking to try to help out
people in Los Angeles. The devastation of this, this this
this fire, this inferno that has eaten up neighborhoods is
(30:40):
just unimaginable. So how do we avoid scams and yet
maybe do something to help these poor these poor souls.
Speaker 3 (30:50):
Well, this is a great question with with this incredible devastation.
And I'm you know, I'm in Las Vegas, so I'm
very close to uh to this situation. Especially in my
capacity as the founder of the Wound the Blue. I've
been literally in conversations with police officers who have been
involved in this. In this this horrendous situation, many officers
(31:14):
are losing their homes as well while they're out serving
the community. So this is this is unprecedented in our history,
the scope of this tragedy. And and Americans are very
very you know, compassionate people. They want to help when
when there's a situation like this, they want to get involved.
(31:36):
And and of course the easiest way to get involved
is to make donations to help to help the people
who have been affected by tragedy. The problem is, how
do you know who to trust. I give you an example.
I I was reaching out to various police agencies in
(31:59):
the air to determine who what charities are actually going
to be functioning in this in this regard, and I've
had some difficult times locating the proper charities to utilize.
But what will happen is the scammers will be out
and about they will be doing social media posts. They
(32:20):
will be setting up fake websites. And the problem is
if you if you want to give, you have to
be your background. You have to do your own work
to make sure that these are legitimate antithies because they
will pop up you. You will be getting texts that
(32:40):
that say that you know they represent an organization. Don't
ever answer a text because there are so many scams
involved with just opening the text message, which leaves you
open and susceptible to h to malware to get your
(33:02):
personal information. Big So you've got to be very very
careful and you have to be your homework. If you
if you see you get solicited, the chances of you
being solicited by a legitimate charity or minimal, so unless
you know who they are. For instance, American Red Cross
Disaster Relief. The charities that have been around for a
(33:25):
long time, they do great work. You've got to do
your homework.
Speaker 2 (33:29):
Yeah, you know one of the things that I do,
and I have family members who are police officers or
former retired police officers, I should say, and I get
really angry because you get the telephone calls and from
you can tell it's a boiler room because you can
hear voices in the background. Yeah, these guys, come on.
You know, there's Bob. You know, Bob Jones. I'm with
(33:50):
the United Federation of the Police Association of American and
we're hoping you might be able to make one hundred
dollars contribution to help us out. And I'm the ideal
with one question. I say, oh, I'm looking forward to
making this donation. Bob, can you tell me what are
the administrative costs of your charity? Because they have they
(34:13):
will all these these these these groups give five cents
out of every dollar raised to some police actual police agency.
I mean if that by giving five cents, they keep
out of jail. Okay, because there's no regulation that says
the administrative cost you know, have to be no more
than ten percent or no more than twelve percent. So
(34:34):
you literally you'll give you you'll donate one hundred dollars.
Five dollars will go to some uh, you know, some
legitimate police charity. Uh. And so that's that's the first
thing that I do. And invariably they'll say, well, we
don't really keep our track of that record, And I say, well,
why should that one hundred dollars, Why shouldn't I take
my one hundred dollars and walk down to my local
(34:55):
police station and write the check and give it to
the to the sergeant on the front desk. And at
that point they hang up on you. So yeah, And
I think what has happened is that they they assumed
that most people want to support police. Uh And that's
and of course great charities that this is a perfect
example that you're talking about now, whose heart doesn't go
(35:17):
out to what we see on television these I've never
seen scenes like this in my life. I know that
you had that fire in Hawaii about a couple of
years ago, which was devastating as well, but that was
in a much smaller area. Uh And and did put
fewer people. This is unbelievable. I assume Randy, that you're
(35:38):
I've been to LA, but I'm not nearly as familiar
with that as I am with East Coast cities. But
does La ever recover from this?
Speaker 4 (35:47):
Oh?
Speaker 3 (35:47):
I don't know, I mean, no one. It will never
be the same. You know, there are historic structures, hundreds
of them, homes that you can never recreate. I mean,
history has been lost here. Not to mention the lots
of animals. It's it's it's it's like an apocalypse. And
(36:09):
I literally not not an allogous spoke to California Higerate
Patrol officer who we have helped in the past, and
his home is in jeopardy, and he was telling me
that they uh that they caught a guy pouring gas
lean onto the fire just hours ago.
Speaker 2 (36:29):
Yeah, so they made this arrest of this one guy.
Now my question is, could have he been someone who
started the fires or was he just you know, pyromaniac
who got excited, saw some flames and decide he was
going to add his ad to it. But wouldn't it
be interesting if we find out that these fires were
started by humans?
Speaker 3 (36:48):
Well, I think we are. We are definitely going to
find that several of the fires have been started by humans,
Several people have been taking into custody, and then then
you have the leaders besides yeah, I mean, this is
where you see the best of humanity and the worst
of humanity. And one of the things that we're doing
with the Wounded Blue is we are going to put
(37:10):
a fund together to help officers who have been displaced
by the fire. So we're actually and and we are
a real legitimate charity. And by the way, one of
the things that your listeners, if they are confronted or
were exposed to a pitch by a supposed charity, ask
(37:30):
for their nine nineties. This is something that very few
people know about. Nine nineties are the tax forms that
every charity is required to show the public. And then
and if you ask for their nine nineties, they have
to show it to you. If they won't, they're not
real ready.
Speaker 2 (37:51):
Let me real quickly. We got about thirty seconds left.
I'm sure some of my listeners would love to make
a contribution through the Wounded Blue Give us your website.
How can people get in touch with the Wounded Blue
to make a contribution?
Speaker 3 (38:03):
No Wounded Blue dot org. That's no Wounded Blue dot org.
And if you want to contact me personally, I'm Randy
at the Wounded Blue dot Org. I'll to handle any
conversations and I'll give you as much information as I can.
Speaker 2 (38:16):
That is great, Randy Sutton is always thanks very much. Again,
as they say, we love having you on. And I
know you do a lot of these around the country,
so you can't remember every station you're on, but I've
remembered you every time because as I say, I have
police in my family right.
Speaker 3 (38:29):
Appreciate it. Anytime you need me, you just call me.
Speaker 2 (38:32):
You bet you're Randy at the Wounded Blue dot org.
Or you can just google the Wounded Blue dot org
and make a contribution that will get to where you
want it to get to. Randy Sutton, thank you so much.
Have a great weekend. I know it's going to be
busy for you, but you're doing God's work. Thanks, Randy,
appreciate it.
Speaker 3 (38:49):
My pleasure. Thank you so much. You're welcome.
Speaker 2 (38:52):
All Right, we get back right after the nine o'clock news.
We are going to talk about this devastation in Los
Angeles and uh there there have been some arrests, but
we're gonna I want your reaction to this. This is
unimaginable what I have seen, and I'm sure what you
have seen. Uh, let's let's talk about it on the
other side of the nine
It's night Side with Dan Ray on w b Z
Boston's new video.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
Nicole, you're one of the kindest people I know. Calling
today's stock market troublesome. I get another T word for it, terrible.
Have a good weekend, Nicole.
Speaker 3 (00:20):
I am.
Speaker 2 (00:20):
Don't look at your for one k whatever you do.
My name is Dan Ray, and Nicole is one of
the nicest people in the world, never mind nicest people
at WBZ, but she really is. I'm not necessarily nice.
I'm the talk show host and I'm not bad, but
I'm not as nice as Nicole. We're headed for four hours.
As Nicole said, all the way up until eleven fifty eight.
(00:43):
My name is Dan Ray. As I said, I am
the host of Nightside, heard every Monday through Friday night
from eight until midnight. Rob Brooks, the producer of this program,
is in the control room. I'll set to take your calls,
but not until nine o'clock. During this hour, we will
have four guests. We're gonna learn about TikTok, gonna talk about,
you know, all the other stories that are around today,
(01:06):
including bird flu, something else to worry about, distracted eating,
and the LA wildfire scams. It's not bad enough to
have the wildfires, but now I have to deal with
the scam artists, so we'll deal with it, don't worry.
First up this hour, I'm delighted to welcome Mark Milton.
He's an attorney with one of my favorite organizations, the
(01:28):
Liberty Council, and Mark Miller, welcome to night. Said, how
are you, sir? You damn the Liberty Foundation, the Pacific
Liberty Foundation. My mistake. You're going to talk about TikTok
argued in front of the State Supreme Court today. I
didn't listen to the arguments, but from all that I've heard,
the justices seemed disinclined to save TikTok, which I'm sure is.
(01:55):
It's a confusing case for many people who do not
live and die like TikTok. Why did you set it
up for us? Give us a quick law school brief,
if you will, of the parties and the interest at hand.
Speaker 4 (02:08):
Yeah, well, I think that's a great way, you know,
to set it up, Dan, you know a law school brief.
This is a perfect law school hypothetical where you've got
national security national defense. On one hand. The federal government
says that China to a company called Byte dance bite.
The Chinese company that answers to the Chinese government controls
an American company, TikTok, running this app that are children
(02:31):
or grand children like to use, and they adjust what
are you know what Americans are watching and viewing on
that TikTok app based on their own secret algorithm, and
they so that's their content. And then separately they're pumping
in the information that the users have all their data
back to China. At least they could. China can demand
(02:54):
that Byte Dance give China government the data that TikTok
is collecting. And so you've got content mediation, content description
on the internet on that app that can be adjusted,
and the government is saying we think that content is
bad because they can be adjusting. And so you get
pro Chinese government information on the app as opposed to
(03:17):
your cat videos. And then separately the data being collected
from the users. You know, you're a young American and
maybe that data could be used to blackmail them in
the future. That's just as capital set. On the other hand,
you've got free speech and not only did you have
TikTok there. Arguing to President Trump's former Solicitor General, No Francisco,
but also another attorneytum Fisher, represent a couple of users saying, we,
(03:40):
like you know, we engage in free speech here. This
is not a national security risk. Maybe you need to
tell the users that they might have some sort of
risk that needs to be disclosures, that China will get
your information or could get your information, but that it
is overstepping the First Amendment to shut down the website
or the app altogether.
Speaker 2 (03:57):
You get an A plus from for briefing here, councilor
so just in terms of background, Congress in a bipartisan fashion,
something that really happens bill signed by the President said
that basically the owners of TikTok have to sell to
American owners by I guess it's a week from Sunday,
(04:18):
the nineteenth, or TikTok will be taken down in the US. Now.
I don't know how physically they can take down TikTok
or block TikTok, but I'm assuming if they say they
can do it, they can do it. The reports I
heard today and I didn't listen to the to the arguments,
(04:41):
were that the majority of the justices seemed very skeptical
of the First Amendment argument. And seemed somewhat inclined, perhaps
to support the legislative action the build that was passed
by Congress and signed by the President.
Speaker 4 (04:58):
Yeah, I was a little surprised, Dan, because I that's
how I interpreted the or argument as well. And I
say surprised because the lower court had said the lawless
constitutional that in fact TikTok could be shut down or
before you know by Dans could be forced to sell it.
And so if the lower court said that, why would
the Supreme Court rush the case up? Now you could
argue they rushed it up because of that January nineteenth deadline,
(05:19):
but they could have taken action, They could have stayed
the case. In fact, the dupotent Justice lawyer was parlical.
I admitted that court could have just stayed the case.
He didn't have to rush for that January nineteenth deadline.
But they rushed the case up, had briefing over Christmas
for just a couple of weeks over the holidays. And
so you sort of usually suggest the Supreme Coourt doesn't
(05:39):
like the lower court decision because why would it get
involved if they think the lowered court decision was correct.
But nevertheless, I was a little surprised because they did
seem very skeptical. Maybe the best example would be Justice Corsa,
where he just said, look, you know, you might have
young Americans using this data, using this app, and now
their data is being collected future trying it could blackmail
(06:01):
them if they are leaders in government, maybe they work
in the FBI or CIA, or they are elected a
business and you know, you can imagine that that our
young people would you know, be doing things that they
wouldn't want the world to know twenty thirty years later,
some things they did as kids, as young adults, And
so that was Gorsas perspective, and for the most part
it did seem to be where the court was landing
(06:23):
that there's nothing that vilely tree speech to force a
Chinese company to divest itself of an American company. The
Chinese company, by dance, has no First Amendment rights. Maybe
TikTok has some degree of rights, and maybe those users do,
but do they have a right to demand a particular app.
In fact, Justice Thomas even said, look, if you could
just say a user can object to a divesting order
(06:46):
of a big business to a smaller business, then why
couldn't we have stopped the AT and T breakup. And
then I know you and I are old enough to
remember the AT and T breakup, and you know, would
we have been able to sue and say, well, gee,
I like to use AT and T as my long
distance and local phone provider. Of course not that was
a big deal of the eighties. No one thought that
was a free speech violation. These people who want to
use TikTok and certainly make their little TikTok videos, their
(07:08):
cat videos or whatever they do on other apps besides TikTok.
Speaker 2 (07:13):
How many people in America use TikTok? I have no clue.
I mean, obviously it's got to be millions. I get that.
I'm not a tick. I'm on Instagram, I'm on Facebook,
I'm on Accident, all of that. TikTok's not my thing.
How many TikTok users are we talking about here? Soon?
Speaker 4 (07:31):
The number the number I heard bandid about at the
oil argument today, Justice so that my own At one
point she did half of all Americans. The lawyer pushed
back on that, but the number was one hundred and
twenty million. The lawyer said, well, just because there's one
hundred and twenty million downloads of the app doesn't mean
it's one hundred and twenty million different users. It's kind
of what he said. But bottom line, a lot of
people are using it. And I can tell you as
a father of four children, three daughters, they all use it.
(07:55):
All four kids, three girls and one boy. They're on
that TikTok all the time, just like you might be
on Twitter. I know I'm a dick the Twitter myself
or x.
Speaker 2 (08:02):
Uh yeah, I gotta tell you, I'm really not. I
I do it only because of my business, which is
to promote my broadcast. And when I finished my career
in the in broadcast, I'm getting off everything. I gotta
tell you. I mean, it's a It destroys your time,
and I think all of us spend much too much
time looking at these stupid screens. And uh maybe they
(08:24):
maybe they would do young people real quick question the
the three liberal justices on the Court, Kagan, Sodomara and
Quintanji Brown Jackson, are they disinclined? Is this decision going
to essentially be decided by how the six so called conservatives,
including Judge John roberts Sheep, Justice roberts Coe.
Speaker 4 (08:47):
I think you could see a unanimous decision. I think
all the justices maybe you know, maybe in that Justice
Corsicch was maybe the most sympathetic to the arguments of.
Speaker 2 (08:58):
If he's asking questions like that and he's the most sympathetic,
I think they're in trouble.
Speaker 3 (09:02):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (09:03):
Well, the most liberal, the liberal justice is Justice Kagan
was very skeptical. She and Thomas Bolt very skeptical of
the TikTok argument. Justice Jackson was trying to stay to
the lawyer for TikTok and Old Francisco. She was saying
to him, I think you're making a long argument, which
usually isn't a good sign.
Speaker 2 (09:18):
She's not a good not a good time. Heay, Mark,
I appreciate it. I appreciate the analysis really good. I
wish when I was in law school I had your
abilities when when Professor Dennis Aronowitz would call on me
and when you weren't prepared, it'd show you the door.
It's a great law professor, though, Mark, appreciate your time tonight,
(09:40):
and we'll we'll be following this closely. I'm assume we're
going to get an expedited decision here. This is not
going to be decided on June thirtieth.
Speaker 4 (09:48):
I ume absolutely because of that January nineteenth deadline, they're
either going to make a quick decision and write a
longer opinion later, or maybe they will just stay the
case and we'll get an opinion later. But either way,
we'll know in the next week or so what they're
going to do.
Speaker 2 (10:00):
It's great, Mark Miller, have a great weekend. Mark Miller
from the Pacific Legal Foundation, a great organization, legal organization,
ladies and gentlemen. They do incredibly good work. Pacific Legal Foundation.
Check them out. We'll get back on to talk about
something that is equally problematic, and that is the rise
of bird flu. We have a doctor, Chief of Division
of Infectious Diseases at Brigham and Women's Hospital, doctor Daniel Kritzkis.
(10:24):
He's gonna join us at on bird flu. Right after
this break. This is Nightside. My name's Dan Ray. You
listen to WBZ Boston's news radio. You can always download
the iHeart app now the new and improved iHeart app,
and listen to us twenty four to seven from all
corners of the globe. Back on Nightside after this.
Speaker 1 (10:40):
Now back to Dan Ray live from the Window World
Nightside Studios on WBZ News Radio.
Speaker 2 (10:48):
Well, as if we don't have enough things to worry about,
now we have something else, bird flu. Doctor Daniel kritzkis
he's the chief division of Infectious Diseases at Brigham and
Women's Hospital. Doctor Kritzkas, thanks so much for joining us
here on nightside. Bird flu. It sounds horrible. It's been
around longer than most people realize. What's the deal.
Speaker 5 (11:11):
Yeah, so this is an infection that has come and
gone over the years. We've had epidemics in the past.
It's often associated with, you know, large poultry farms, and
then occasionally spills out into other kinds of animals, as
recently we've seen in cattle. Fortunately, we've seen a relatively
(11:33):
small number of cases in people, less than seventy cases
in humans. But it does have the potential to be severe,
as we've seen recently from this one death in Louisiana.
Speaker 2 (11:44):
Now here's my first dumb question, and as I say,
I get paid to ask questions dumb or otherwise? Is
this the same as avian flu?
Speaker 3 (11:51):
Or?
Speaker 2 (11:52):
Is it? Yes?
Speaker 5 (11:53):
And bird flu and avian flu are essentially the same thing.
Speaker 2 (11:55):
All right, Okay, good enough, So we get that out
of the way. Okay, So this like another problem that
we had a few years ago called COVID. Apparently emanates
from China. Came from China. I guess what more than
twenty years or was first diagnosed or spotted isolated whatever
(12:16):
the verb is in China twenty or so years ago,
Am I right?
Speaker 5 (12:21):
I believe that's correct. The original outbreak of a v
and or bird H five and one influenza was picked
up in the poultry markets in China, as you say,
about two decades ago.
Speaker 2 (12:37):
Yeah, sort of a similar pattern.
Speaker 4 (12:39):
Now.
Speaker 2 (12:39):
I do know that we've had one case that ended
in a fatale and ended in a death guy down
in Arkansas. If I'm not mistaken.
Speaker 5 (12:47):
Correct, I thought it was Louisiana, but Arkansas.
Speaker 2 (12:51):
We'll flip a point on that. When you are right
on that, I get those Southern states mixed up. So
he was hanging out with poultry. I guess it was
some some some sort of a farmer. So do we
need to I think, I guess what I meant.
Speaker 5 (13:09):
Well, So, I think what it highlights is that this
is a potential occupational risk when we have large numbers
of animals, will be they birds or or cattle or hogs,
or whatever being raised in very close quarters that there's
the opportunity for viruses to spread among the animals if
(13:33):
it gets introduced in some way, and then the workers
who are in contact with those animals are at risk
of acquiring infection. Fortunately that's uncommon, but it is a
potential risk.
Speaker 2 (13:46):
How long do you think we would we will know
if this is something that's going to blossom? Is there
sort of a period of once you have your initial
outbreaks from an infectious dease disease point of view that
if it doesn't really bloom within their days or sixty days,
it's likely to die in the vine? Or what? Are
we looking at it the short run? Also maybe the
longer run.
Speaker 5 (14:07):
Yeah, it's hard to say, because I think that the
issue here is not so much the kind of seasonal
activity as we see with typical influenza, where we know
that we're going to see an increase in November December
and will peak sometime in January February, and expect the
cases to tail off into March and April. Here, the
issue is really going to be what is the activity
(14:28):
in these large animal farms. We need to be doing
surveillance among poultry farms and cattle ranches and the like
to see what's how frequently is this being picked up
in these animals, because that's what's the potential risk for
spread into the human population.
Speaker 2 (14:48):
Yeah, the other question is how does it get spread
amongst the bird population. I'm assuming that people who have
chickens or turkey farms, they I assume they're not mingling
their their flocks with other flocks, particularly with something like
this going on. How does it get spread?
Speaker 5 (15:09):
Right, That's a great question I would again, I'd have
to assume that part of the problem is birds fly,
not chickens, of course, but other birds do. And avian
influenza is not limited to poultry and other commercial birds,
but it is found in migrating birds. And so as
(15:30):
those birds fly, you know, north and south, as they migrate,
there's the opportunity for them to spread the infection and
in their i guano, they can spread it potentially to
birds that or poultry that are being farmed for food consumption,
and it ultimately gets introduced into those large commercial operations.
Speaker 2 (15:58):
Are there any species that are more susceptible to this
disease that we should be particularly cautious of?
Speaker 5 (16:04):
Well, I do think we have to really worry about
chickens and ducks and geese because those are the populations
that we have the largest concentrations of. And there's a
big distinction. In some bird species, the virus may not
cause symptomatic infection, so these birds can serve as carriers,
(16:27):
and in other birds or species, the virus may cause
illness and you see die offs in the population.
Speaker 2 (16:34):
Is there any sort of a cyclical aspect to this,
meaning when at first, every once in a while you
hear about something that comes around every four or five years,
or every seven or eight years, there's nothing that's cyclical
about this. It's just always there, but it pops up
more often for some reason that obviously it's difficult to trace.
(16:55):
Is that accurate.
Speaker 5 (16:57):
Yeah, that's a great question. We know that when we
see cyclical things happening in the human population, it's because
when there's a large outbreak, a lot of people become exposed.
They then get immune, and then over time the immunity wanes,
and then as they become less immune, there's the opportunity
for another cycle. It's not so clear how that's working
(17:17):
in the animal population. There must be something similar to
that going on, and a bunch of birds get infected,
they eventually die off, the infection becomes less prevalent, and
then some new birds get infected and it starts all
over again. But I'm really speculating there.
Speaker 2 (17:34):
Well, let me just say this, your great interview. You've
answered all my questions and none of them, as you know,
are prescripted, because I'm just thinking outside the box, like
trying what people would And you're a great interview and
I really thank you for your time tonight, particularly on
Friday night, and I thank you for what you do.
You know, infectious diseases traditionally over the centuries have devastated populations,
(18:00):
and obviously COVID was a devastating problem in the world.
And I just want to say thanks very much for
what the medicine that you practice, because it's so very critical.
Doctor Daniel Coriscus, I really mean that. Thank you so much.
Speaker 5 (18:16):
Well, you're You're very welcome. I'm much appreciated.
Speaker 2 (18:19):
Right, we'll talk again, and you're at the great hospital,
one of the great hospitals in the world. Brigaman Women's right,
good night, good night. When we get back, going to
talk about something we can control. I'm going to talk
with Richard Sema neuroscience Semma. He's a neuroscientist and brain
Matters columnist for the Washington Post. We're going to talk
about distracted eating. All of us know about distracted driving.
(18:43):
Now we're going to learn about distractive eating, which also
can be harmful. We will explain right after the news
at the bottom of the hour on Nightside on our
Friday night. As we head into the weekend, maybe a weekend,
it'll be nicer than we perhaps could have anticipated a
few days go.
Speaker 1 (19:01):
It's Night Side with Dan Ray on Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (19:08):
Next up, we're going to talk about distracted eating with
Washington Post columnists. He is the neural scientists and brain
Matters columnists for The warp Hole. Richard, is it Sima
or Sema?
Speaker 6 (19:21):
It's Sema? And how are you?
Speaker 2 (19:22):
I'm doing great. I'm doing great. So distracted eating, obviously,
I think most of us can identify with that. Why
Why are people, I guess all of us eating in
a distracted fashion?
Speaker 3 (19:38):
Yeah.
Speaker 6 (19:38):
So, distracted eating, as it sounds like, is whenever you're
eating and doing anything else, You're maybe on your smartphone,
you're watching TV or even socializing and or at work,
and I think part of the reason that researchers think
this is on the rise as well. Food is more accessible,
a lot of processed foods. It's take on the go,
you can have a you know, at your dusk. But
(20:01):
at the same time, we also have more distractions and
more ways of doing work or other things than the goes,
such as the smartphone. But unfortunately, the research shows that
when we are distracted, we not only eat more food
and it's associated with more weight gain, but we also
don't taste the food as much either. Yeah, yeah, now
(20:23):
I hear you.
Speaker 2 (20:25):
So is this a phenomenon of the twenty first century
and we've all learned how to multitask. You're talking on
the phone, you're working on your computer, and your stuff
in your mouth with stuff that probably isn't good. Is
that just that we're all trying to do more things
within the same limited period of time. I assume that
(20:48):
is so, But tell me I'm wrong.
Speaker 6 (20:50):
Yeah, well, I think like certain things have become easier, right,
Like we have screens, we have TV, we have smartphones.
But you know, like back in the past we also
did eat with other people, which technically is a distraction too.
You know, you're talking you're like, you're trying to listen
to conversation, you're abe ata party. But the interesting thing
(21:12):
about that is socializing as a distraction doesn't seem to
be associated with like, you know, this increased in increase
in BMI or increase in eating. And a researcher I
talked to about this was, you know, who did this
kind of study. So that might be because you know,
when we're talking, we're usually not eating at least polite
(21:35):
to do so, and you know, it means we're probably
slowing down. And I think that's the through line of
why distracting could be so unhealthy is.
Speaker 3 (21:44):
That you know, we know that.
Speaker 6 (21:47):
If we eat faster, we chew less, we tend to
eat more. And the reason for that is because we're
not able to sense how ful we're getting because it
takes about twenty minutes or so for our guts to
produce these signals, these hormones that tell us we're getting full,
and if we're doing something else, we are less likely
(22:09):
to build to like really listen to those signals. And similarly, yeah,
I'll go.
Speaker 2 (22:14):
On, how long has this stuff been studied? I mean,
I grew up in a time when families actually had dinners,
and we tried with our kids to have as many
family dinners as possible, but it became more and more
difficult with both parents working on is this Is this
(22:34):
a fairly new field of study, by the way, I.
Speaker 6 (22:39):
Think it's become more you know, there's a lot more
interest in it because yeah, it's it's harder now to
have sit down dinners with the whole family. But also
I think it's you know, started around the time like
TVs became more like prominent, because that's another way of
getting distracted. And the research like that suggests is like yeah,
(23:03):
like you know, sitting down to eat with others as
a family, that seems to be healthier. But if you're
watching TV while doing it, it does also plan too
this oh we're eating more because like we're doing other
things too, you know issue. Yeah, so's it's like it's
still a you know, growing field, but it seems really
(23:24):
consistent what they've been finding, which is, yeah, you're not
you know, like paying attention to your food. You're not
enjoying it as much, and as a result, you're eating more,
probably more than you wanted to if you were not
as distracted.
Speaker 2 (23:39):
You know, I'm probably a good person to be studied,
because when I get up in the morning, my wife
has gone to work, the kids are they've grown up,
so I'm My best meal of the day is breakfast.
I make myself breakfast. I focus on what I'm doing,
I enjoy it, got the coffee going, and I have
a real newspaper, a print version of a newspaper at
(24:03):
the dinner at the breakfast table, and I sit there
and I eat cereal with fruit and orange juice and
vitamins and coffee, and I read the morning newspaper. No
one bothers me. No one bothers me. I kind of
put the phone away, and then when I finish, I
get ready for the day, which is involved prepping for
(24:23):
the show. I do four hours a night, to be
honest with you, which is five nights a week. And
at six o'clock at night, I got a sandwich and
I'm kind of listening to the nightly news because God
forbid that I would miss a story. I mean a
big story that I got on and missed it. And
I'm also trying to do the crossword puzzle and a
(24:44):
couple of other things just that, and it's like it's
a different world from eight nine o'clock in the morning
until six o'clock at night, and I hadn't really thought
about it until I spoke with you Richard. Now I'm
going want to I'm going to try to change. I'm
going to try to make night more. My wife still
(25:05):
isn't home for dinner, so five nights a week I
eat breakfast and dinner alone. Okay, And obviously I'm really
distracted because I'm thinking about the show at six o'clock
in the morning. You know, it's I know, I'm going
to be on the air eleven hours, but it's way
off in the disner. Do you can you identify with
that as as a as a journalistic You must have
(25:27):
define right.
Speaker 6 (25:30):
Oh, definitely. I am definitely guilty of like eating out
my dust, you know, like you know, I have coffee
for like just getting awake instead of actually enjoying how
it tastes or the food. Right, Like, you know, there
is a sense that, yeah, we feel like we should
be always doing something else and that maybe our relationship
with food is that it just gives us fuel versus like, yeah,
(25:52):
some of these meals like deserve to be savored, you know,
like these your breakfast you probably like maybe like notice
it more and it's a joy right to start the
day that way, whereas your dinner is more like, oh, yeah,
you have to get this done. I don't want to
be hungry later. But you know, like we could take
(26:12):
a few minutes or at least like having time to
be more mindful and you know, try what researchers are
called mindful eating, which is different practices of drawing your
attention back to the food, back to the senses, back
to how you're feeling about it, and not only you know,
like it's like a sort of like you get two
(26:34):
bus pluses at least, right, you're not only eating more mindfully,
like probably less than what like you would overeating when
you're distracted, but you're also like, you know, actually taking
the time to enjoy you know, what someone created for
you and what like I don't know, like one of
the best parts of being human, I think is even
something nice and actually being there for it.
Speaker 2 (26:59):
Two other things like this morning, I took my time
and I made myself blueberry pancakes, and I love real cakes,
but it was just it was a great breakfast meal.
The other thing, and I don't want to get religious
on you here. But here's a thought. And I'm you know,
a little religious, you might be a little maybe not,
(27:20):
you know, very really do people pause before they eat
and just say a proved things. But we used to
do that as families, and that made you focus on
the food a little bit too.
Speaker 3 (27:32):
Yeah.
Speaker 6 (27:33):
Yeah, I think maybe this goes this is something broader.
Like what you're sort of alluding to is like, you know,
our attention is so scattered, there's so many things competing
for it. But it's also like are you really there
if you're not you know, actually trying to like, you know,
take that moment to acknowledge yeah, like this is great
(27:55):
food like something like that, but also you know, actually
find finding that attention to experience it fully. Yeah, it's
it's it's difficult, but I think this type of research
shows that, like, yeah, there's benefits not only to our
health but also like our ability to enjoy life.
Speaker 2 (28:14):
I guess, no, I know, And I'm now going to
say I'm going to take a couple more minutes in
the morning and enjoy my breakfast even more, even if
I simply say good food, good meat, good God, Lit's
eat Okay.
Speaker 6 (28:28):
Yeah, yeah, And I think, yeah, I think that's a
good practice, especially if you like I think one thing
I've noticed is like people do have these rituals, but sometimes,
like you, it becomes routine again, right, you just say it,
but you don't really and you know, that's that's the
paradox is being human.
Speaker 3 (28:44):
Right.
Speaker 6 (28:44):
It's like you, once you've got a routine, you sort
of wanted to, you know, be as efficient as possible,
versus maybe part of the point is taking the time.
And that's that's the that's.
Speaker 2 (28:58):
The one of being human real, Richard. Time is the
most valuable thing we have when you really talk about it,
because no matter how much money you have or whatever,
you can't extend the time too much. Richard, I enjoyed
any mean to get philosophical with you here, but your
article and your comments really caused me to think, and
I hope it caused some them the listeners to think
(29:19):
as well. I really enjoyed it. You've been a guest before.
Love to have you back again. Thank you so much.
Have a great weekend.
Speaker 6 (29:25):
Yeah you too, This is lovely, Thank you, thank.
Speaker 2 (29:28):
You, Richard. Talk So when we get back, we're going
to talk about scams where people are trying to take
advantage of the Los Angeles fire victims throw them in
jail for fifty years. As far as I'm concerned, We'll
be back on Nightside with Lieutenant Formal Lieutenant Randy Sutton,
and he's going to talk about the scams that are
(29:50):
in play tonight even as we speak. As we as
we speak, will be back on.
Speaker 1 (29:55):
Night Side now, back to Dan Ray live from the
Window World lat Sight Studios on WBZ News Radio.
Speaker 2 (30:04):
Brandy Sutton has a retired police lieutenant, founder of the
Wounded Blue. Randy, you may not remember me, but you've
been on the show a couple of times. Welcome back
to NIGHTSID.
Speaker 3 (30:12):
How are you, sir, fantastic man, Thanks for having me.
Speaker 2 (30:17):
You're very welcome you night You're here too. You're here
to warn people about a lot of scams that are
now circulating because a lot of us here in the
New England area are looking to try to help out
people in Los Angeles. The devastation of this, this this
this fire, this inferno that has eaten up neighborhoods is
(30:40):
just unimaginable. So how do we avoid scams and yet
maybe do something to help these poor these poor souls.
Speaker 3 (30:50):
Well, this is a great question with with this incredible devastation.
And I'm you know, I'm in Las Vegas, so I'm
very close to uh to this situation. Especially in my
capacity as the founder of the Wound the Blue. I've
been literally in conversations with police officers who have been
involved in this. In this this horrendous situation, many officers
(31:14):
are losing their homes as well while they're out serving
the community. So this is this is unprecedented in our history,
the scope of this tragedy. And and Americans are very
very you know, compassionate people. They want to help when
when there's a situation like this, they want to get involved.
(31:36):
And and of course the easiest way to get involved
is to make donations to help to help the people
who have been affected by tragedy. The problem is, how
do you know who to trust. I give you an example.
I I was reaching out to various police agencies in
(31:59):
the air to determine who what charities are actually going
to be functioning in this in this regard, and I've
had some difficult times locating the proper charities to utilize.
But what will happen is the scammers will be out
and about they will be doing social media posts. They
(32:20):
will be setting up fake websites. And the problem is
if you if you want to give, you have to
be your background. You have to do your own work
to make sure that these are legitimate antithies because they
will pop up you. You will be getting texts that
(32:40):
that say that you know they represent an organization. Don't
ever answer a text because there are so many scams
involved with just opening the text message, which leaves you
open and susceptible to h to malware to get your
(33:02):
personal information. Big So you've got to be very very
careful and you have to be your homework. If you
if you see you get solicited, the chances of you
being solicited by a legitimate charity or minimal, so unless
you know who they are. For instance, American Red Cross
Disaster Relief. The charities that have been around for a
(33:25):
long time, they do great work. You've got to do
your homework.
Speaker 2 (33:29):
Yeah, you know one of the things that I do,
and I have family members who are police officers or
former retired police officers, I should say, and I get
really angry because you get the telephone calls and from
you can tell it's a boiler room because you can
hear voices in the background. Yeah, these guys, come on.
You know, there's Bob. You know, Bob Jones. I'm with
(33:50):
the United Federation of the Police Association of American and
we're hoping you might be able to make one hundred
dollars contribution to help us out. And I'm the ideal
with one question. I say, oh, I'm looking forward to
making this donation. Bob, can you tell me what are
the administrative costs of your charity? Because they have they
(34:13):
will all these these these these groups give five cents
out of every dollar raised to some police actual police agency.
I mean if that by giving five cents, they keep
out of jail. Okay, because there's no regulation that says
the administrative cost you know, have to be no more
than ten percent or no more than twelve percent. So
(34:34):
you literally you'll give you you'll donate one hundred dollars.
Five dollars will go to some uh, you know, some
legitimate police charity. Uh. And so that's that's the first
thing that I do. And invariably they'll say, well, we
don't really keep our track of that record, And I say, well,
why should that one hundred dollars, Why shouldn't I take
my one hundred dollars and walk down to my local
(34:55):
police station and write the check and give it to
the to the sergeant on the front desk. And at
that point they hang up on you. So yeah, And
I think what has happened is that they they assumed
that most people want to support police. Uh And that's
and of course great charities that this is a perfect
example that you're talking about now, whose heart doesn't go
(35:17):
out to what we see on television these I've never
seen scenes like this in my life. I know that
you had that fire in Hawaii about a couple of
years ago, which was devastating as well, but that was
in a much smaller area. Uh And and did put
fewer people. This is unbelievable. I assume Randy, that you're
(35:38):
I've been to LA, but I'm not nearly as familiar
with that as I am with East Coast cities. But
does La ever recover from this?
Speaker 4 (35:47):
Oh?
Speaker 3 (35:47):
I don't know, I mean, no one. It will never
be the same. You know, there are historic structures, hundreds
of them, homes that you can never recreate. I mean,
history has been lost here. Not to mention the lots
of animals. It's it's it's it's like an apocalypse. And
(36:09):
I literally not not an allogous spoke to California Higerate
Patrol officer who we have helped in the past, and
his home is in jeopardy, and he was telling me
that they uh that they caught a guy pouring gas
lean onto the fire just hours ago.
Speaker 2 (36:29):
Yeah, so they made this arrest of this one guy.
Now my question is, could have he been someone who
started the fires or was he just you know, pyromaniac
who got excited, saw some flames and decide he was
going to add his ad to it. But wouldn't it
be interesting if we find out that these fires were
started by humans?
Speaker 3 (36:48):
Well, I think we are. We are definitely going to
find that several of the fires have been started by humans,
Several people have been taking into custody, and then then
you have the leaders besides yeah, I mean, this is
where you see the best of humanity and the worst
of humanity. And one of the things that we're doing
with the Wounded Blue is we are going to put
(37:10):
a fund together to help officers who have been displaced
by the fire. So we're actually and and we are
a real legitimate charity. And by the way, one of
the things that your listeners, if they are confronted or
were exposed to a pitch by a supposed charity, ask
(37:30):
for their nine nineties. This is something that very few
people know about. Nine nineties are the tax forms that
every charity is required to show the public. And then
and if you ask for their nine nineties, they have
to show it to you. If they won't, they're not
real ready.
Speaker 2 (37:51):
Let me real quickly. We got about thirty seconds left.
I'm sure some of my listeners would love to make
a contribution through the Wounded Blue Give us your website.
How can people get in touch with the Wounded Blue
to make a contribution?
Speaker 3 (38:03):
No Wounded Blue dot org. That's no Wounded Blue dot org.
And if you want to contact me personally, I'm Randy
at the Wounded Blue dot Org. I'll to handle any
conversations and I'll give you as much information as I can.
Speaker 2 (38:16):
That is great, Randy Sutton is always thanks very much. Again,
as they say, we love having you on. And I
know you do a lot of these around the country,
so you can't remember every station you're on, but I've
remembered you every time because as I say, I have
police in my family right.
Speaker 3 (38:29):
Appreciate it. Anytime you need me, you just call me.
Speaker 2 (38:32):
You bet you're Randy at the Wounded Blue dot org.
Or you can just google the Wounded Blue dot org
and make a contribution that will get to where you
want it to get to. Randy Sutton, thank you so much.
Have a great weekend. I know it's going to be
busy for you, but you're doing God's work. Thanks, Randy,
appreciate it.
Speaker 3 (38:49):
My pleasure. Thank you so much. You're welcome.
Speaker 2 (38:52):
All Right, we get back right after the nine o'clock news.
We are going to talk about this devastation in Los
Angeles and uh there there have been some arrests, but
we're gonna I want your reaction to this. This is
unimaginable what I have seen, and I'm sure what you
have seen. Uh, let's let's talk about it on the
other side of the nine
Popular Podcasts
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.