The Rod and Greg Show: Delta to Use AI to Set Flight Fees; Massachusetts Proposal to Ban Selling Nicotine to Adults

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
So it's you know, Hughes loves Goose.

Speaker 2 (00:04):
Now.

Speaker 1 (00:04):
I don't know if you like the idea of being goose, Carolyn,
but technically you're sitting in Goose's chair.

Speaker 3 (00:10):
Gosh, you know, here's yeah, whatever it works for me.
I I'll just take it and run with it, okay.

Speaker 1 (00:19):
All right, So if someone calls a Goose today, don't
be offended by it. It's kind of like a badge
of honor. Kind of well with him. That's hard to say,
but who says great to be with you today. We
always enjoy it, Carolyn. Thank you again for filling in
for Greg. He's gone this week. He'll be back on Monday.
Who had a lot of fun yesterday. And we've got
a lot to get to today. A lot going on
in the old world.

Speaker 4 (00:39):
Oh, there is so much going on, Yeah, every.

Speaker 1 (00:42):
Day, every day, every day. Now, we're all talk about
this this new plan by Delta Airlines. It's kind of
a scary thing on pricing. We'll get into that. We're
going to talk about Massachusetts. Ah, how we love Massachusetts,
but apparently they're trying to ban all tobacco products in

(01:02):
that state yet.

Speaker 3 (01:03):
Band tobacco and legalized pot. Yeah, so sounds like a
great place to meet.

Speaker 1 (01:07):
It makes a lot of sense, does Then we'll get
into that there is a group out there, very liberal
group who are now targeting what ten lawmakers, yeah here
in Utah state lawmakers, trying to get rid of them.
The chairman of the Utah Republican Party will join us
a little bit later on than that. And a big
change today on environmental rules introduced by the Trump administration,

(01:28):
knocking down another stupid Obama rule, and we'll tell you
all about that as well. So we've got a lot
to talk to you about today. If you want to
be a part of the program, eight eight eight five
seven eight zero one zero on your cell phone, dial
pound two fifty and say hey Ron, or go to
our talkback line and leave us a message. All right, Carolyn,
How closely were you watching television last night as we

(01:48):
got word that a big tsunami could be headed toward
the West coast?

Speaker 4 (01:51):
Yeah? Pretty closely? Yeah right.

Speaker 3 (01:53):
I was actually busy doing things and my husband had
caught it and said something to me about it. And
it turns out so I have a sister in law
who was in Hawaii yesterday and he was talking to
her about that and everything going on. The alarms were
all going off there and they were trying to get
to higher ground. And we have a son in Japan,

(02:14):
and you know there were concerns about tidal waves even
in Japan and Hawaii on the West coast of the
United States. So yeah, he was he's safe where he is.
He said, he was nowhere near it. And even my
sister in law they were scrambling last night.

Speaker 1 (02:31):
What was it like last night? I mean, did they
just try and get to higher ground? They what did
they do?

Speaker 3 (02:36):
They were told to get out and get to higher ground.
I didn't actually talk to her after they got there,
but I know prior that's what she said. Everything was
just a mess all around and you could hear the
alarms blaring and everyone just trying to get out. The
roads were packed, and you know, there was that little
story about Oprah Blackee can.

Speaker 1 (02:58):
Oprah apparently owns a very large tract of land. I
think it's on a while. Who could be one of
the islands. I'm not sure, but if she had opened that,
people could have gone across their property and gotten to
higher ground much easier. She refused to open it. That's
the story and people, I'd go way around and cause problems,
Thank you, Oprah.

Speaker 3 (03:16):
Yeah, I think she did eventually open it. Think about it,
These social media and cameras have changed some people's behavior
for yeah, yeah, that was both ways, actually for better
in some of these high pressure situations, for better when
it's somebody standing in the way of saving people's lives. Potentially,

(03:38):
for the most part, it's probably for the worst. But
we'll just leave that out of this.

Speaker 1 (03:42):
And they were really concerned about the West coast. I mean, yes,
you know, California, Washington, Oregon. They're all wondering what's it
going to do. Unfortunately, it came in kind of like
a whimper after a while, so we were safe there.
But boy, all night you're wondering, these poor people, what's
going to happen? Or we all see a big wave?
Is it going to be? But it turned out other

(04:02):
than for the people there in Russia, in the Japan area,
things are okay. It was just kind of kind of
freaky to watch it now. Speaking of tsunami, yes, well,
I don't know if I would you call her a tsunami.
I mean, it's fair to call her a tsunami because
she is a disaster.

Speaker 3 (04:20):
She's a disaster, and I think what's happening to the
Democrat Party is a tsunami, a disastrous tsunami.

Speaker 1 (04:27):
Yes, yes, yeah, yeah, we're talking about If you haven't
heard Abby mentioned it in her newscast a moment ago,
but if you haven't caught up on the news of
the day as of yet, Kamala Harris, one time vice
president for Joe Biden, one time presidential candidate against Donald Trump,
has announced that she has decided, for the good of
the state, she's not going to run for the governor
of California. She didn't say that, she said for now

(04:51):
she is she and now she's not going in. She's
decided she's not running for governor, and she says, for now,
my leadership and public service will not be an elected office.
I look forward to getting back out and listening to
the American people, helping elect Democrats across the nation who
will fight fearlessly, and sharing more details than the months
ahead about my own plans.

Speaker 4 (05:13):
She's running for president.

Speaker 1 (05:15):
You think, I hope she's too much fun. You know,
from our point of view, from our talk to your host,
she is too much fun. But if you're a next
year and you're in a tight race, be it for
the House or the Senate, primarily for the House, would
you want her to come campaign for you?

Speaker 5 (05:35):
Oh?

Speaker 4 (05:35):
Absolutely not.

Speaker 3 (05:36):
I don't think she even excites Democrats, that's true, right, Yeah,
I think they will vote for her when she's the
D on the ticket. But do you want her trying
to get your crowd going? And like, what would she
do showing up to advocate for you or endorse you
in a race?

Speaker 4 (05:58):
Who would want that?

Speaker 3 (05:59):
I mean, how absolutely lame of a personality would you
have to have for her to be the fun one?

Speaker 1 (06:04):
Well, if she's the fun one, first of all, you'd
have to make sure she remembers your name and what
state she's in, because she had trouble doing that at
the time.

Speaker 6 (06:11):
Right.

Speaker 1 (06:12):
But you know, normally, and I've seen this, I've been
in this business a long time. I mean you've been
in politics as well, Carolyn. Normally you'll see a person
who's maybe rough on the edges as a candidate, and
over time, either they get better or they don't improve
at all. She hasn't improved at all. No, you know,
her her speeches aren't She hasn't given many of late.
But she hasn't improved at all, And why would you

(06:34):
want her out on the campaign trail?

Speaker 4 (06:36):
No, it makes no sense.

Speaker 1 (06:37):
Yeah, yeah, but is she gonna You know, i'd love
her too because she's great copy for us, But I
don't know.

Speaker 4 (06:45):
She's gonna do it. She's gonna do it. I will
encourage her with everything in me.

Speaker 1 (06:49):
Oh, we all encourage her, you know, come up for
president twenty eight. We'll do it in a minute, run
again if you would. All right, when we come back,
what is Delta Airlines doing when it comes to ticket pricing?
We'll dig into that with the Utah lawmaker. Also coming
up a little bit later on, we'll talk about Massachusetts
a proposed tobacco ban only if you're a certain age.

(07:10):
This makes a lot of.

Speaker 3 (07:11):
Sense, right, Well, and here's the crazy thing. It's not
even like when you reach X age or if you're
younger than it's based on birth year.

Speaker 4 (07:23):
Like this is insane. And actually I.

Speaker 3 (07:26):
Think this goes along great with the conversation that we're
going to have with Representative Clancy because I think the
Constitution has some things to say really about individualized discrimination.

Speaker 1 (07:39):
Yeah, and that's exactly what they're doing. Oh, I want
to bring up one other thing. You know so much
has been made about the gene ad. Yes, okay, I
have a theory on this. You tell me if you
tell off base on House right. First of all, American Eagle,
the gene manufacturer in these ads that's causing so much controversy,

(08:01):
has got to be laughing all the way to the bank.
Do you know how much free publicity they're getting for
this campaign?

Speaker 3 (08:06):
I heard that those genes were after all this?

Speaker 1 (08:09):
Have they sold out on those genes? That's whatever her
name is?

Speaker 4 (08:13):
James said, Yeah, Now here's.

Speaker 1 (08:15):
My weird theory. This is where I've become a skeptic
in the world today. Who all the liberals who are
out there bashing American Eagle, criticizing who says American Eagle
didn't put them up to it. See, I'm just paying
them a few thousand dollars go online, criticize us, will
create controversy, and may we'll smell more, sell more genes.

Speaker 4 (08:36):
Sounds like a good business strategy.

Speaker 1 (08:38):
I wish I would have thought of it.

Speaker 3 (08:39):
I mean, not a great strategy for peace in our country.
But you know, but it's working. Whether it's that or not,
it's working for American Eagles.

Speaker 1 (08:49):
Well, I want to know, Carolyn, how does an ad
about genes divide a country.

Speaker 4 (08:54):
Because it has it shouldn't.

Speaker 3 (08:56):
And this is why I think your theory kind of
makes sense, right. I think that there that is possible.
There are a lot of people who will just jump whatever,
jump on whatever bandwagon is the cool thing of the moment,
especially when it comes to rage.

Speaker 4 (09:14):
So this would make sense to me. But who started it?

Speaker 3 (09:18):
It had to be someone paid off, because no one
is that stupid.

Speaker 1 (09:21):
Have you seen some of the comments on social media
that's stupid? Yeah, they can be, they can be. All Right,
We've got a great show lined up for you today
on This Wingman Wednesday, Hughes is gone, Carolyn is graciously filling,
and then she's accepted the label of Goose, So Goose
will be back. I'll be back with you coming up
right here on the Rotting Greg Show with Carolyn Fippin.

(09:43):
More coming up on Utah's Talk Radio one oh five
nine can arrest. Let's talk about Delta and what exactly
are they talking about doing? Carolyn? This ai pricing? Yeah, plan,
what are they talking about doing?

Speaker 4 (09:57):
Making me nervous?

Speaker 3 (09:57):
And I have to tell you, I was really pleased
when I say that we were going to deal with
it in our state. But it is, like I'm calling
it individualized disparate pricing, right wow, because it is pricing
that is individualized based off of information that is gathered
through ai so online, which everything's online now, yeah, and.

Speaker 4 (10:22):
Is used to charge you different rates depending on your maid,
depending on whatever.

Speaker 1 (10:27):
They want, whatever they want or the information they have,
right wow.

Speaker 7 (10:31):
Wow.

Speaker 1 (10:31):
All right, Well let's talk more about it because a
Utah lawmaker is trying to do something about this to
find out what's going on at a state representative Tyler Clancy,
who's joining us right now on our any our newsmaker line. Tyler,
how are you welcome to the Rotting Greg Show with
Carolyn Fippen today. How are you, Tyler?

Speaker 8 (10:48):
I'm doing well. Thanks for covering this is a super
important issue.

Speaker 1 (10:51):
Well, what exactly is going on here, if you would,
representative and why are you so concerned about it?

Speaker 5 (10:58):
Well?

Speaker 8 (10:58):
Thanks for the question, Rod. I mean, we all understand
that sometimes there's reasons for disparities in pricing. If we're
going to go to the movies on Friday night versus Tuesday,
you're going to pay a different price because it's more
busy on Friday. But what if you're going to the
same movie on the same night and they're charging Carolyn
more than you because oh, they scan her bank account

(11:20):
app and they see that she has more to pay.
I mean, these are the kinds of things that the
door is open to when we're meshing this private data,
a consumer's private data, with pricing for the public. And
so that's why we need to put some common sense
guardrails on this to at the very least help consumers
be educated about these kinds of pricing programs and make

(11:42):
sure that it's not we're just taking this dragnet approach
to our private data.

Speaker 4 (11:47):
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (11:47):
So I saw in this article that you are looking
at requiring and I don't know if you really have
the layout yet of what you expect to have in
this bill because it's just so early. But you're talking
about requiring an opt in for the use of this data.
I have a question though, because one of the things

(12:08):
that was mentioned in this article, and I think with
regard to your kind of your focus, is that only
already publicly available data can be used. Here's my issue
with even that. So I love the opt in idea,
but I think, just like you said, any individualized disparate

(12:29):
treatment needs to be addressed because you can tell from
public data you may know my race, you may know
my zip code, you may even know my political party,
and some of those things are absolutely illegal on the
federal level to use. So what are some solutions for
dealing with this really holistically?

Speaker 8 (12:52):
Well for good news, Carolyn, is that since this has
kind of been brought to the forefront, there's two pieces.
One that you nailed is the number one piece of
feedback I hear is that I had no idea this
was being used to determine my own price, right, I
didn't know my Google search history was being used to
determine my price at XYZ company. And so the flip

(13:15):
side of that as well is that so many people
have come out, Christopher Bramwell, or a privacy officer for
the state, and many others have already been working on
many of these provisions. And so what I think too
is I like how you described it. There's a difference
between this public data and private data. But also we

(13:37):
shouldn't have pricing based on me or you and I agree,
I do think that's not congruent with current federal law.
But I think if we don't address it in a
meaningful way, I think there's some backdoor approaches to it.

Speaker 1 (13:50):
How forthcoming has Delta been with you so far on this?
Have they laid all their cards out on the table.
Are you having to do a little bit more digging?

Speaker 2 (14:00):
Oh?

Speaker 8 (14:00):
Well, the you know, I don't think this is a
Delta problem. This is a This is really a consumer
problem because there's so many places that are using our
data for this. I have heard from from Delta they
are being really forthcoming and sharing their their tools and
compiling some information to show myself and other lawmakers who

(14:23):
are very interested in this issue. But that's really what
I think too is the flip side is also these
it's called surveillance wages. So take, for example, you know
you're working for a ride share app, so you're driving
people around to the airport and around the city. But
that ride share app has your bank data, so they
can see if you haven't got paid for the months yet,

(14:44):
and so they know you're desperate to take those rides,
and they're going to start giving you lower rides because
they know you're desperate for it. These are things that
you know, I think of like terminator too in the nineties,
and we all kind of jokes and say there's no
way that's that's going to happen. But I think if
we don't put some common sense guardrails around this powerful,
powerful technology of AI, then it might be too little,

(15:08):
too late, if we don't act fast.

Speaker 1 (15:10):
And sounds like you are, so we appreciate your efforts.
Representative thanks for joining us on The Rodding Gregg Show
with Carolyn Fippin. Thank you, Thank you both on our
newsmaker line that day, Representative Tyler Clancy, let's carry thing
you hear about. I mean, your information anymore is just
out there all over the place. You don't know what
people know about you, what they don't what right they
have to access that information.

Speaker 3 (15:31):
Kind of frightening, very frightening, and we have no way
of knowing that it's not being used in an unconstitutional
and illegal manner if those algorithms are not publicly available.

Speaker 1 (15:42):
That's true, that's true. All right, more coming up here
on The Rodding Gregg Show with Carolyn Fippen on Utah's
Talk Radio one oh five nine KNRS. Over the years,
you know, the there has been for the most part,
I think a successful effort to convince people not to smoke. Yes,
I mean I think I think it's been very, very successful.

Speaker 3 (16:02):
Well, and you and I say this as people who
grew up on the East Coast right where everyone smoked
everyone we were growing up.

Speaker 1 (16:09):
Yes, yeah, well we just got We're in Europe in
in June, and uh, what is it about Europe? They
haven't gotten the message yet about smoking? Everybody in Europe?
Sp Is it the same thing? I guess I haven't
gotten the message. But apparently it's worked. But here comes
good old Massachusetts. They gave us Obamacare, they gave us

(16:30):
Mitt Romney.

Speaker 9 (16:34):
For the wind.

Speaker 1 (16:35):
Now this is the third one. They want to ban
all tobacco products for a certain age. Yeah, even though
all these programs are working. Now, the the hypocrisy of
this is that recreational use of marijuana is okay.

Speaker 4 (16:49):
Marijuana's cool, dude.

Speaker 3 (16:50):
Yeah, thank you do.

Speaker 1 (16:54):
It's apparently not. Well, let's dig into this a little
bit more. Joining us on our newsmaker line and Sophia Hamilton.
She is a healthcare policy analyst with Americans for Prosperity. Sophia,
thanks for joining us tonight. Tell us about Massachusetts. What
they're trying to do when it comes to tobacco.

Speaker 9 (17:09):
So Massachusetts is always at the forefront of the country's
worst tobacco law, and they're at it again right now.
So they are proposing a bill that would create a
generational ban on tobacco and nicotine products. So what this
means is that any adult, anyone over the age of

(17:31):
twenty one, which is the new federal purchasing age of tobacco,
anyone over the age of twenty one that is born
after two thousand and five would never be able to
purchase tobacco or nicotine products in their lifetime. And the
goal here is to create a nicotine free generation, or
as I would call it, a prohibition, a total prohibition

(17:56):
on nicotine and tobacco products no matter what it is,
even cigarettes, vapes, nicotine couches, all of those would be
banned from any future generation of adults in the state
of Massachusetts.

Speaker 4 (18:10):
So I am really curious.

Speaker 3 (18:12):
Has this type of thing ever been tested in the
courts whether it's constitutional to discriminate based on the year
of birth.

Speaker 9 (18:20):
So yeah, actually, unfortunately it has. That's a great question.
So in the city of Brookline, Massachusetts, which I think
is the city capital of the worst tobacco laws of
the world. They had this generational ban in their city first,
which I think having a locality law on tobacco is
quite silly to me, and that got brought up to

(18:43):
the Massachusetts Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court there ruled
that it's not an equal protection issue and that they
have the right intentions behind the law. It's a public
health issue to ban these individuals from ever purchasing a
nicotine product. I have serious doubts about that, and I'd

(19:04):
love to see this case try it again. It's something
that I'm going to be doing more research on and
being into in the future because I just don't think
that's fair or a good policy that will be proven
to work as as time goes on.

Speaker 1 (19:19):
Sophia, Carolyn and I were laughing when you mentioned the
course saying they have the right to what was it
the line, the right to petition or the right to protect.

Speaker 10 (19:28):
I don't.

Speaker 1 (19:33):
Let me ask you this, Sophia. Is recreational marijuana allowed
in Massachusetts? And now do they compare the two?

Speaker 9 (19:40):
Oh, yeah, it's it's allowed there. This is this is
the craziest thing to me, because they they're the biggest
proponents for recreational, legal cannabis products. They were at the
forefront of that fight in our country, but then they're
going and attacking tobacco products. There's just the cognitive this
is there is laughable to me, and they're not making

(20:05):
that connection that their argument here is undermining the argument
for cannabis and for other drugs and drug treatments that
they are trying to protect. So I think they have
a very clear lack of principles on this issue.

Speaker 3 (20:20):
Really, they'll discriminate based on what year you were born
and allow the courts to say, well, you know, it's
for the right reasons.

Speaker 4 (20:27):
And you think they have a lack of principles, how
dare you?

Speaker 5 (20:31):
Oh?

Speaker 3 (20:31):
I know, But seriously, I have a memory that's longer
than like two minutes, and I seem to remember a
really big incident that took place in New York City
with a man named Eric Garner. And remember he died
at the hands of police officers, and the left was
up in arms because he never should have ever been
in a situation where he was confronted by the police.

(20:53):
And what was he doing. He was selling cigarettes that
were from another state in order to avoid the massive
excise taxes that New York charges for that product, so
he smuggled in cigarettes from somewhere else. I bet smuggling
would not happen in this kind of situation, and in
Massachusetts what they're proposing, it would not put more low

(21:14):
income people at risk. So I'm curious have the people
who are proposing this type of legislation explaining why they
think it will work differently this time than ever has historically.

Speaker 9 (21:28):
I'm so glad you brought up the tragic case of
Eric Garner, because I think that should have set an
example for all lawmakers on this issue that when you
start banning assessments, people are going to work their ways
around it. And one of the things that the Massachusetts
lawmakers were saying in the testimony portion of this bill

(21:49):
hearing a couple of weeks ago was that there's no
criminal penalties associated with this for people who are using
the products. But that was the same case for Eric Garner,
and we saw what happened to him. His life was
taken away over a cigarette, something that's trivial as a
tobacco cigarette, and I think that's maddening. And we've seen
prohibition fail to work in this country on so many

(22:11):
different substances for over a hundred years. We're like a
broken the record trying the same thing over and over again.
And we've seen a similar prohibition pail in recent memory
in Massachusetts. Massachusetts was one of the first states to
ban flavor tobacco products and in that mental products, which
they were trying to protect the health of black Americans

(22:35):
because that was their preferred tobacco flavor. So they're banning
that product, so these individuals can no longer get it
in theory, can no longer smoke and get smoking related illnesses. Well,
one really interesting study found that the rate of purchase
of tobacco products in the county surrounding Massachusetts and the

(22:56):
neighboring states increased once Massachusetts flavor and when to effect
because everyone's driving over the border and stocking up for
themselves and to sell on the illicit market. And the
fact that they didn't use that as an example as
a lesson to learn from that their policies are failing

(23:16):
is abhorrent to me.

Speaker 1 (23:18):
What a surprise, What a surprise. Final question for you, Sophia,
where does this stand? Is it making it way through
the legislature? Is that a law? Where do things stand
with this right now.

Speaker 9 (23:28):
So right now it's with the Committee on Public Health,
which is again lappable because this will not be securing
the public health of Massachusetts residents. So it's being considered.
We'll see if if it gets passed. I'm hopeful that
it will not, but it is worrying for everyone in
other states because Massachusetts is at the forefront of all

(23:48):
of these tobacco policies that then get instituted on a
federal level. So even if this isn't happening in your
own state, it's something to be paying attention to, because
if we get another administration in the White House down
the road, they could become favorable to these regulations and
institute at a national level.

Speaker 1 (24:07):
Sophia, thank you very much for joining us on our
any hour Newsmaker line. That is Sofia Hamilton, healthcare policy
analyst with Americans for Prosperity talking about the proposed tobacco
pan in Massachusetts. I just laugh at it.

Speaker 3 (24:21):
I mean, wow, well, in the absurdity a few years
after you know, making pod recreational marijuana.

Speaker 1 (24:29):
Legal legal in that stage and it's you know, I've
known people who've smoked and have tried as hard as
they can to kick the habit. It is not easy
for them. They've tried the gum, you know, you name it,
They've tried everything, and they just can't do it. But
that was their choice. I mean, they made a choice
to start this realizing it's very addictive and to tell

(24:51):
somebody out there you can't smoke. Sorry, folks, I mean,
it's a free country. Tobacco is a legally legal drug
or whatever you want to call it. Uh, and you
can do it.

Speaker 3 (25:01):
And by the way, it's not mind altering, at least
not that much. I think that Democrats love substances that alter,
that are mind altering. They always argue against prohibition when
when it was alcohol, right, and they've always said, big mistake.
We should allow people to get drunk and abuse their families.
And then there's the whole thing on, you know, the

(25:23):
marijuana craze sweeping our country and we should all be
able to get high.

Speaker 4 (25:27):
So this makes absolutely no sense.

Speaker 1 (25:30):
Well it's Massachusetts, what doesn't. On the Rod and Greg
Show with Carolyn Fippin here on Utah's Talk radio one
oh five nine k n RS, if someone suggested we
should call it it should be wing woman Wednesday. Yes, yeah,
that was yeah, one idea. That's one idea you got. Well,
much is still being made about poor Stephen Colbert. We

(25:52):
all miss him, you know, he lost his network millions
of dollars.

Speaker 4 (25:55):
Should we miss him?

Speaker 5 (25:56):
No?

Speaker 1 (25:57):
But Piers Morgan had a thought. Now peers can be
kind of a interesting cat as well. But he was
on Fox News this morning talking about this decision by
CBS to get rid of him and the whole kerfuffle
being created by him being let go.

Speaker 11 (26:10):
I've never read so much, heard so much guff about
a reason for a guy getting canceled. His ratings were tanking,
he was costing them forty million dollars a year. You
at two hundred staff, how many of you guys have
I mean.

Speaker 1 (26:25):
Are you saying because that'll bring it to two?

Speaker 5 (26:27):
No?

Speaker 11 (26:27):
I know that Fox, you're number one by miles in cable,
and you have these very nimble teams of people, two
hundred people, and all they do all day is prepare
anti Trump jokes. So whenever I watched Colbert, which was
not a lot, whatever I did, endless sneering, mocking, Trump bashing.

(26:48):
You know what, it's just.

Speaker 1 (26:49):
Boring, and it was boring. The show was boring.

Speaker 5 (26:52):
I know.

Speaker 3 (26:52):
Here's the thing. I watched him years ago. He used
to be kind of funny. I found him funny, and
I think he used to not really give away where
he really was. He was funny back then, and then
he decided to become a partisan hack.

Speaker 1 (27:06):
Well, you never knew where Carson stood, you never knew
where Leno stood, and up until the last few years,
you really didn't know where Letterman stood. But with these guys,
and at the beginning, you didn't know where Colbert stood.
But as soon as Trump got on the scene, he'sa
on opening. He took it. And look what it cost
him yep, making twenty million dollars a year.

Speaker 3 (27:25):
While losing forty dollars a year and two hundred staffers.

Speaker 4 (27:30):
Man.

Speaker 1 (27:30):
All right, more, coming up our number two here on
Utah's Talk Radio one oh five nine can Arrest. We'll
talk about the smoking ban and we'll get into the
debate over the jeans at American Eagle has issued a
statement we think they have we'll share with you coming out.
Hughes likes to call himself a goose. I do know,
I don't know what it is.

Speaker 3 (27:49):
And I don't need to do what Hughes. Does this
is we don't.

Speaker 1 (27:55):
Please, don't you're telling me your husband, who's not typically
a TV watchers, watch this the Maverick movie about seven times.

Speaker 4 (28:02):
Yes, seven times.

Speaker 3 (28:04):
He told that to me recently, and I'm like, when
did you even do that? But apparently he did. He's
sneaking out in the middle of the night to watch movies.

Speaker 4 (28:12):
I guess.

Speaker 1 (28:13):
Yes. Okay, well, we're gonna get into this Geene thing
a little bit, but before we do that, we want
to get your calls as well on this whole Massachusetts
idea of banning tobacco products. Apparently, smoking all the weed
you want, you can go ahead and do and merrill
in good old Massachusetts. But if you smoke a cigarette,
oh shame on you. Eight eight eight five seven oh

(28:34):
eight zero one zero on your cell phone dial pound
two fifty and say hey Rod, or you can come
in on our talk back line as well. Let's go
to Pat, who's in Utah County tonight on the Rod
and Greg Show. Pat, how are you? Thanks so much
for joining us.

Speaker 12 (28:47):
Hey, I'm doing good, Rod.

Speaker 5 (28:48):
How are you?

Speaker 1 (28:49):
We're doing well? Thank you your thoughts on this, Pat?

Speaker 12 (28:52):
Yeah, So my question is, you know the State of
Utah just recently started to uphold the vape path for
vape juices here in Utah, which does exactly the same
things that you are all talking about as far as
creating the black market. People go to Idaho by cases
of them, bring it here, by it or sell it

(29:13):
to toomever. You know, isn't that effectively doing the same
thing that Massachusetts is trying to do and tell people
exactly what they can and can't put into their bodies.

Speaker 3 (29:25):
Yeah, could be. I really am interested. When I saw
what you were calling about, I thought, I'm going to
take a look at this.

Speaker 4 (29:32):
I will say.

Speaker 3 (29:33):
One of the big problems with and this is no
commentary on whether that's right or wrong that they do that.
One of the big problems though with vaping is it
really is.

Speaker 4 (29:44):
Being done by young kids.

Speaker 3 (29:45):
And there I know for a fact there were massive
problems in the schools where these vape pens were, you know, hidden,
not easily, not easy to spot because they make them
in different shapes, look like pens look like different things.
So and they were using a lot of flavors that
were attracted Kida.

Speaker 1 (30:02):
Pat is this band for everybody or just for kids
under a certain age? We're totally aware of this bill.

Speaker 12 (30:10):
Well, so in the state of Utah, and mind you,
I'm a forty five year old and I literally started
smoking when I was in high school. So in the
state of Utah, nobody can buy vape juice anymore unless,
you know, unless you have an under the table hookup.

Speaker 1 (30:28):
Yeah.

Speaker 12 (30:28):
So for myself, I go to Idaho up to Preston
once or twice every six months, and I stock up
for my personal use because I stopped smoking cigarettes. Went
to vaping because it is a less harmful alternative to cigarettes.
And you know, for the longest time, we could just

(30:50):
go to the vape shops here in Utah, so or
you buy just like a cigarette. Yeah, but now we
can't even do that, So they're just pushing people back
to cigarettes. And I know for a fact the high
school students are going to cigarettes just the same way
because they can't get their nicotine through vape. Because I
have nephews who were caught with cigarettes for the same reason.

Speaker 1 (31:11):
Yeah. Yeah, So, Pat, why did you go to vaping
instead of just continued smoke here? And why not try
and quit smoke here? Or maybe you did, if you
don't mind me asking.

Speaker 12 (31:20):
Uh to be honest. I went to vaping because yeah,
it's it seems to be or it has been proved
to be less impactful than smoking because you're not getting
all of the extra chemicals that they're putting in cigarettes
to increase the addictions actor or any of those things.
So I tried to quit. I could not quit cigarettes.

(31:44):
I tried several times over my life, and I went
to vaping, and vaping has gotten me off of cigarettes completely,
yet still gives me the nicotine. And I'm actually using
vape as a step down to try and get off me.

Speaker 1 (31:56):
Get off and eventually, Yeah, thank you, Pat, I hear.
That's what a lot of people do. They go to vaping.
Hopefully the next step would be to get off the
cigarettes to begin with. Back to the phones we go.
Let's go to Stephanie and Ogden tonight here on the
Rotten Greg Show with Carolyn Fippens. Stephanie, how are you?
Thanks so much for joining us.

Speaker 13 (32:14):
Yeah, thanks for answering my call. I just want to say,
at what point do we start saying enough is enough
and quit letting the government tell us what we can
and can't do, what we can and can't spend our
money on and giving them all of this ultimate control.

Speaker 1 (32:28):
Oh I'm I think both Carolyn and I are with
you on that one. Stephanie. I mean, this is one
of the most ridiculous laws I've heard. I mean, people
are cutting back on their own, you know, so you know,
why does the government have to step in and tell
you that you can't get the product anymore? It's not
That's not what America's about.

Speaker 13 (32:45):
It's bringing up the tide pods even though too remove
the warning labels and just let the problem resolve itself
at this point.

Speaker 1 (32:52):
All right, all right, Stephanie, thank you, appreciate your phone call.
Let's go to Springville. Here what Brent has to say
here on talk radio? Want all five nine can ars? Brent,
how are you? Thanks so much for joining us.

Speaker 7 (33:03):
Great.

Speaker 2 (33:04):
The point is is it's interesting that people are making
this a big ideal about the government controlling and mandating
tobacco on that and making it illegal. But I CMS
the Commission of Medicare and Medicaid Services when COVID was in,
what did they do. They come out and said, unless
you get a vaccine, we won't pay for your hospital bills.

(33:26):
And they made that mandatory unless you got a vaccine marijuana.
If you talk about prohibition, if marijuana was made legal
in Colorado, now look what they're facing. Lots of schizophrenia
with young kids. Those who use marijuana for the last
ten to fifteen years have got a lot of medical
problems with young kids with AHD, with the same thing

(33:46):
as like feedelacal alcohol syndrome using in marijuana. So we
say that well probation doesn't work. Well, look at what
happened with alcohol.

Speaker 14 (33:55):
Alcohol.

Speaker 2 (33:56):
If they would have pro kept prohibition in there, you
think would have the amount of eu I deak and
the amount of family service problems. I mean, so I
think it's interesting that people are all up in arms
about a tobacco and that. But yeah, the government does
this and we don't say anything about the COVID thing.

Speaker 1 (34:14):
Well you know my point, Brent, Thank you very much.
I want to talk to you about the COVID thing
because I still can't believe Carolyn and you have a
thought on this as well, that we as an American
people let the government get away with what they got
away with. I just you know, it amazes me. I mean,
from closing churches, to wearing masks, to standing in a

(34:36):
circle for social distance distancing for shutting down schools. We
allowed the government to do this, and it should never
never have happened, and we're seeing the we're seeing the
price we paid. There's a terrific article out today on
COVID the impact it's had on our kids, that that
generation of kids, I mean, and we allowed them to

(34:57):
do this. We should have stood up and said no, yes.

Speaker 3 (35:00):
And we have too many elected officials who are there
for some reason other than protecting our very most basic
fundamental rights, right, and they were busy doing whatever, and
so they ended up just following whatever came at them
and as a result, penalizing people who wouldn't obey their commands.

(35:24):
That just does not sound like a free nation. And
I really appreciate this point that Brent made.

Speaker 5 (35:29):
Right.

Speaker 3 (35:29):
We have decided that all of these substances that are
actually really harmful in a number of different ways, mind
altering for some, and then things like the COVID shot
that have been proven to be dangerous in many ways
and ineffective and ineffective at the same time, that all

(35:51):
of those things are okay, and cigarettes are what we're
going to control.

Speaker 4 (35:57):
It's our government is nuts well.

Speaker 1 (36:00):
At the same time they're allowing marijuana be used. Right,
I want to go back to the COVID thing as well.
I'm still amazed that that churches, I know, church leaders
did not stand up and say you can't keep my
parishioners out of out of our Sunday service ream and
I'm not demanding their wear mask. They can come and
worship as they want. They didn't stand up company, this

(36:24):
company that we worked for, we had to wear a mask.
We could, you know, either wear a mask or don't
come to work. Yeah, that's not fair.

Speaker 4 (36:29):
No, that is not right.

Speaker 1 (36:31):
Wow.

Speaker 3 (36:31):
And it even got to the point where some of
us were busy fighting to keep our medical records private,
right against forces that said, in order to buy bread
for your children, we want to require your medical records.
That's what vaccine passports are. That's nuts. Where does that ridiculousness?

Speaker 1 (36:54):
I looked at my wall the other day and I
still have my vaccine passport card. Oh and I ripped
that thing up here. Yes, no more, that's not gonna
happen again.

Speaker 3 (37:03):
It should have never happened in the first place. But
hopefully it was an education for a lot of people.

Speaker 1 (37:08):
Hope. So all right, more coming up but more your
phone calls here on The Rodden Great Show with Carolyn
Fippen filling in Today on Utah's talk radio one oh
five nine KNRS, we talked to a reporter, her name
is Sophia Hamilton. She's a policy analyst as well, about
an effort underway now in Massachusetts to ban tobacco products completely,

(37:29):
banned the products, even though this is a state that
gave us Obamacare and gave us Mitt Romney.

Speaker 4 (37:34):
Uh maybe the third times the term.

Speaker 1 (37:38):
Maybe that's it. Well, giving us recreational marijuana. But apparently
use of recreational marijuana is okay, but smoking a cigarette
is not.

Speaker 4 (37:46):
Yes, well, getting high is always okay to the left.

Speaker 1 (37:49):
Yeah, yeah, yeah, they're high on life. I thought maybe,
oh wait, wait wait, maybe maybe let's go to Joe
and Sandy as we're talking about banning tobacco. Joe, how
are you welcome to the Great Show? Thanks for joining us.

Speaker 14 (38:01):
Joe, Hey, guys, I'm great. Thank you so much for
taking a call of the show.

Speaker 1 (38:05):
Thank you, welcome.

Speaker 14 (38:07):
Carolyn. I'm so sorry, Carolyn, thank you. I just want
to say I think one of the trends you'll see
on both sides, right or left, is people are tired
of the government telling them what to do. And it
doesn't matter if it's the COVID shot or the tobacco
or gambling or whatever. It's people from up on high
telling us what they think we should do, and it's

(38:31):
mostly baseless and they usually don't keep that same advice.
As far as trying to ban tobacco versus marijuana, what
I will say is one thing they both start out
as plants. Big tobacco adds hundreds of chemicals to tobacco,
including nicktine ins and horrible things to make it addictive.
Marijuana does not have these things. Now, I don't support

(38:53):
people just getting high for the sake of it, right,
But at the same time, I don't support the government
allowing tobacco and alcohol, which are measurably worse than marijuana
on all fronts, from health to crime associated with it
to other things. And the last point I will make
is that is what your other caller said, we should

(39:14):
have just kept prohibition. Prohibition was so bad for our country,
emboldened the mafia, people still wanted their alcohol. Because in
every basic economics class you learn demand lead, supply, and demand.
People still wanted their alcohol. They got it, so instead
we regulated it, We taxed it. Anheuser Bush spend millions

(39:35):
of dollars on taxes. Right, the same thing would happen
was marijuana, and we'd take it out of the hands
of the cartel, bring it back to America, hire people,
just like we do with vodka. You know, breweries. We
have a ton of breweries in Utah. It's part of
what makes it a great state to visit. But no
conservative worth their salt would support a state monopoly. And

(39:56):
that's what we have on alcohol. And if the state
said the only place you could tires or bullets or
jeans was from the state, people that put their arms
up and say no. But from alcohol in Utah we
look the other way. And I don't want to take
too much of your time, but the common threat on
both sides is they want to tell you what to do.
We're adults. We can make our own decision. And that's

(40:19):
all said.

Speaker 1 (40:20):
All right, Hi, Joe, Well you had a lot to say.
We appreciate that. You know, interesting debate over the alcohol thing.
You know, people don't like me for saying this. I
do not like the state controlling alcohol. I think alcohol
in this state it should be turned over privately. I
just I don't know why this state feels it needs
to be in it. I understand there's some historical roots

(40:40):
to that, but I grew up in a state in
upstate New York where alcohol. My father owned a liquor store.
You know, we weren't bad people, but people people bought liquor.
It was a private, private industry, and I would call
I would I would not be angry if we privatized
alcohol sales in this state. Now people will disagree with me,
yell at me for that, but let them have it.

Speaker 3 (41:01):
Yeah, I do agree with you on that. I think
there were a lot of points that he made. Those
some I agree with, some I don't. The fact is
that argument that when we take marijuana sales and cultivation
out of the hands of the criminals, there will be
no more criminals involved. It's been proven to be false.

(41:21):
All over this country. The cartels have actually been more
greatly empowered since the legalization.

Speaker 1 (41:27):
You talk to people in Colorado about this exactly that
it didn't the black market did not go away. No,
it's the legalization of recreational marigina. It didn't go away.

Speaker 3 (41:36):
I think it actually has strengthened it because you now
have a much larger base of people who are demanding it,
more people are exposed to it. It is acceptable to
if children see it as being a legal product, you
do have a greater chance that they use it. And
I got to tell you, I have had this argument

(41:57):
with libertarians for years, and that is, you know what
you want a free for all society when it comes
to substances that lead to abuse, that lead to poverty,
that lead to all kinds of degradation of our communities.
Go for it once we get rid of the social
safety net, because you cannot have legalized all kinds of

(42:18):
really destructive products at the same time you have a
social safety net that keeps people from the consequences of
their use of those products.

Speaker 1 (42:27):
It's not okay, yeah, good point, interesting point to make. Well,
you know the freedom in this guy. I mean, we'll
talk a little bit later on in the show. We're
we'll talk about freedom again where Donald Trump is telling
is acting an Obama regulation when it comes to the environment, right,
they got what they call it. They called it the

(42:47):
the Endangerment Finding right yes, and it said carbon is
a danger yes. So and they had rule after rule
that was created by the government, not by Congress. I
mean Congress handed the Obama signed this and said, EPA,
you come up with the rules, and look what they look.
You were mentioning a dishwasher. I mean, you haven't get

(43:08):
a certain style of dishwasher anymore. Can't get the good
old GID that run forever, you know, and that's changed.
And I agree with what Joe was saying. People are
so sick and tired of the government telling us everything
to do. I think it was intriggered. But I think
the last raw was probably COVID.

Speaker 4 (43:25):
I do agree with that.

Speaker 14 (43:26):
You know.

Speaker 1 (43:27):
I think when when COVID came on and they're telling
us everything, almost even what to eat and what to wear.
For Krannell Lot, I waited for that one. The American people,
it was a last draw for them. They said enough
is enough here.

Speaker 4 (43:41):
I do think that's true.

Speaker 3 (43:42):
I think a lot of people who were fine with
the overregulation because it didn't impact them that much, yeah,
had it with COVID. I think that's true. It coused
a lot of people to say no, no, no, government can't
actually do this. And along with that kind of rebellion
against government came the oh no, you're not dictating my
shower head.

Speaker 1 (44:02):
Yeah, and they were looking for someone who would carry
on the fight, and I think that guy is Donald Take.

Speaker 4 (44:08):
You are exactly right.

Speaker 1 (44:09):
What's happened with him? All right? More coming up? It
is the Rod and Greg Show with Carolyn Fippin right
here on Utah's Talk Radio one oh five nine KNRS.

Speaker 4 (44:17):
The Rod and Carolyn Show.

Speaker 3 (44:19):
You know, somebody tweeted at us that Greg needs to
fight for his seat and I'm going to start challenging him.

Speaker 1 (44:25):
Right, we may have to have a host off.

Speaker 4 (44:27):
Yeah, this could be fun.

Speaker 1 (44:30):
Yeah, it could be fun. All right if you're just
joining us now, we're talking about the state of Massachusetts.
Some lawmakers there apparently have been smoking the recreational weed
and have decided to ban all tobacco products except weed.
Makes a lot of sense to us. Now, the question
should be what about this idea? We're getting your thoughts
eighty eight eight five seven eight zero one zero. Cell

(44:52):
phone dial pound two to fifty say hey Rod, or
on our talk back line. You can leave a message
as well. Let's continue our phone calls. Shah, Well, Carol,
then let's go to John in Salt Lake City wants
to weigh in on this tonight. Hi, Josh, how are you.

Speaker 15 (45:05):
All right?

Speaker 5 (45:05):
Well?

Speaker 6 (45:06):
Thanks, Rod, I just texted Carolyn yesterday. I think that
that might not be a bad idea to have her
be the permanent does a great job.

Speaker 1 (45:17):
She's doing a great job. Josh. What are your thoughts
on this? Josh?

Speaker 6 (45:23):
Well, I am Carolyn might have known this a little
bit from the Senate trail, but I'm very much into
being a faith based type approach to government, and I
think Carolyn was that way too. I thought that made
her a great candidate for Senate when she was running.
But I really believe that if we can convince the
people of our state to get rid of these recreational

(45:45):
drugs in general. I mean that's tobacco, marijuana, alcohol, even
I mean, I know that sounds crazy to a lot
of people, but you know, we have twenty percent of
our ICU capacity being taken up by recreational drug use
related problems. It's a major issue. And we've got homeless problems.
I mean, if you want to start fixing the homelessness

(46:06):
problem in staw Lake City, get the drugs out of
the question, and you are well on your way to
fixing so many societal problems. I mean, so, I'm absolutely
in favor of that. I don't know everything about Massachusetts law,
and I wouldn't take get rid of tobacco and keep marijuana.
I'd get rid of both of them.

Speaker 1 (46:24):
Thoughts, Josh, when you say drugs, do you mean both
like marijuana drugs in general? And do you include alcohol
in that classification?

Speaker 6 (46:35):
I do? I include marijuana, tobacco, alcohol, you name it.
I'm not a navocate of recreates on drug use.

Speaker 1 (46:42):
All right, all right, Josh, thank you very much, appreciate
your input on that. Let's go to Bill, who's up
in Hebrew tonight listening to uh Rod and Carolyn. Bill,
how are you? Thanks for joining.

Speaker 7 (46:51):
Us, Good Rob, thanks for taking my call. I just
thought i'd throw a little humor on this soul situation.
Billy Ingball did a great skit about trying to stop smoking,
which to me summarizes the government exactly. So he smoked cigarettes,
and then he switched from cigarettes to cigars to get

(47:12):
off the cigarettes. Then he switched to marijuana to get
off the cigars, and then he switched to cocaine to
get off the marijuana. So he's pretty much smoked free now.

Speaker 1 (47:26):
So he just took it a step further each time,
Is that right, Bill?

Speaker 7 (47:30):
Yeah, So anytime the government sticks their nose and fingers
in what the people should, can and cannot do, it
never turns out well, and people just rebel and a
lot of times ago the opposite direction of what the
government was maybe hoping to do. So I don't know,

(47:51):
you just can't continually tell people what they can and
can't do.

Speaker 5 (47:56):
I kind of agree.

Speaker 7 (47:57):
With your last caller. You know, she got rid of
a lot of things, and.

Speaker 15 (48:04):
Maybe people would go to another state and do that
instead of doing it in Utah. We need to look
at the UI desk and accidents. So there's too many
facets for the government to even be involved.

Speaker 1 (48:17):
Yeah, I agree with you, Bill, there's way too much
out there. And you know, the American people, I mean,
it's freedom, folks. That's what we live for. Freedom to choose,
freedom to do what we want, and having the government
come in and tell us everything throws me nuts. When
Michelle Obama said our kids can't drink chocolate milk at lunch,
that's where it really got me. Carol. I'll be honest.

(48:38):
When old Mochelle stepped up and said, you can't have
chocolate milk at lunch. Matter of fact, we had someone
from the Utah Dairy Commission come in and talk about that.
That was years ago. Yeah, you know, that's where the government,
you know, they just think they're doing just for our benefits.

Speaker 16 (48:52):
I know.

Speaker 3 (48:54):
The problem is though, it's exactly what you said about COVID.
The problem is it is just one regulation pilon of
another on top of another on top of another, to
the point where like any sort of liberty is almost
impossible in the United States of America anymore, and people
really have had it.

Speaker 4 (49:12):
Something has to change. We have to have some massive
stripping back and get back to the basics.

Speaker 5 (49:18):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (49:18):
Yeah, and and if if we if we allow it
to continue, they're going to take more. This's why, you know,
Donald Trump is doing everything he can do to reduce
you know, get government out of our lines. He promised,
he said, will we'll, We'll work as hard as we can.
He's only got three years left, three and a half
years left. It's got a lot of work to do,
but he's headed in the right direction. I think people

(49:39):
support him in that regard.

Speaker 4 (49:41):
I think they do.

Speaker 3 (49:42):
I think that one hundred and fifty of his nominations
not being voted on by the Senate before the recess.

Speaker 4 (49:49):
It is one more.

Speaker 3 (49:52):
Difficulty right in him accomplishing what he wants to accomplish.
But it is absolutely unbelievable what he's gotten done in
this short period.

Speaker 1 (49:58):
There is I'm in fact, there was a list PU today.
If we have time, I'll go through that list of
his executive orders. They make your head spin. And has
really done a lot in a very short period of time.
And look at the economy, the numbers coming out today
on the TDP. We'll get some reaction to that coming
up as well. All right, more coming up right here
on Utah's Talk Radio one oh five nine kN rs.
We're talking about banning marijuana. Are banning tobacco products here

(50:22):
in instead of Utah, Massachusetts is now thinking about it.
We want to know what you think. Let's go to
the phones. We go to Scott in Riverton tonight. Scott,
how are you welcome to the show.

Speaker 5 (50:31):
Hey, hey, Rod's been a while since I called you.

Speaker 1 (50:34):
How you ban I've been fine? How about you? Scott?

Speaker 7 (50:38):
Oh?

Speaker 1 (50:38):
You know every day?

Speaker 5 (50:40):
But I think I think that we have not learned
a single thing in this country for banning stuff. The
more you ban something, you've created a huge black market
for it, just like alcohol, tobacco, weed, whatever. Have we
not learned our lessons from all that? I mean, come on,
if these guys want to if these guys don't want

(51:02):
to smoke cigarettes and don't want to use tobacco, then
don't don't sit there on your high mighty chair and
try to tell all the rest of us what to do.
I have permanent nerve damage from being exposed to refrigerant
in the HVAC industry for forty two years, and now
my handshakes so bad sometimes I can't even pick up
a glass of water. The only thing that relieves that

(51:24):
is smoking a little weed.

Speaker 1 (51:25):
Uh huh.

Speaker 5 (51:26):
So you can. You can band stuff until you turn green.
And as you do, nothing but backfire around you.

Speaker 1 (51:32):
Yeah, you're you're right, Scott, and great to hear from you,
by the way, Scott, And he's right. I mean, you're
just going to create a black market, as you were saying.
We've seen that already in Colorado, Denver. They talked about, well,
it'll get marijuana off the out of the black market,
will be okay, you'll be legalized, and it's changed really
nothing and it's created probably more problems, absolutely from what

(51:54):
I hear and I've been able to read. Even though
isn't it funny nobody ever talks about that now. You
don't see any stories out there, different studies out there.
Doesn't fit the narrative, and therefore they don't they don't
do it right.

Speaker 3 (52:05):
No, I do think that we have a problem. Scott
makes a good point, and I always said during the
whole discussion about legalization of medical marijuana in this state,
if you're going to do that, it is a product
that needs to be sent through the same process as
every other drug that we use to treat things. It's
not treated that way, So you will have an illicit

(52:28):
market just by virtue of the way I believe we
are doing it in this state in many other states.
But fine, if there is a product that works for
a medical condition, let's treat it like a medical product.
And instead, even though we really have attempted to do
that in this state, it isn't and it has massively increased,

(52:50):
I would say, the use of that product and the
acceptance of it among those who don't need it from
medical cost.

Speaker 1 (52:56):
To ask you, you know, we haven't been able to
update for several years now, how the whole medical marijuana
system in this state is working. What what are you
hearing about it?

Speaker 4 (53:05):
Okay?

Speaker 3 (53:05):
I would say that would be an interesting question to
ask some of the people involved with it.

Speaker 4 (53:10):
But I think that.

Speaker 3 (53:12):
With younger people my experiences, it is being seen as
something that is more legitimate than it was when it
was fully illegal. And remember it still is illegal at
the federal level.

Speaker 1 (53:25):
That's true. It's still an A one drug. From what
I understand is that the classification they give.

Speaker 3 (53:29):
It, Yes, yeah, like that level one something right, yeah,
level drug. But yes it is and it has been shown,
especially in young people when it's used frequently, to cause
massive psychotic episodes and complete breaks. I know somebody personally
who had this happened to a member of his family,

(53:51):
and there were two murders that came as a.

Speaker 4 (53:54):
Result of it.

Speaker 3 (53:55):
So and it was uh this the person who committed
the orders was diagnosed as having these problems, these emotional
mental problems and this breakdown as a result of marijuana
youth specifically. Well, so it does need to be regulated.
We need to be careful. It should not be all
out there as anything other than a medical product like

(54:17):
other medical products, but it's not being really tightly controlled
and regulated in this state.

Speaker 1 (54:23):
You know what's interesting too, when you hear this argument
all the time. The marijuana that maybe your mom and
dad used in the sixties or seventies is not the
marijuana on today. Marijuana of today, it is much stronger,
much more teach seeing it. They put it in there
like the tobacco industry did with nicotine. Over time, they've
done the same thing to marijuana.

Speaker 5 (54:44):
So it is.

Speaker 1 (54:46):
Much more powerful than it used to be. And you're right.
The biggest concern I had about the legalization of recreational marijuana,
you know, the stage was just like alcohol, if young
kids want to get some, they'll figure out a way
to do it, either with an older brother, an older sister,
an older friend who is of legal age. That's what
they do, and that's what will happen. I wonder if

(55:07):
that's happened as well.

Speaker 3 (55:09):
Don't know, I would have a feeling that it has,
just because when anything becomes more accepted in society, then
it becomes it's viewed differently by children.

Speaker 1 (55:19):
Yeah it is, yeah, yeah, and they see it and
they say, well, it's acceptable, we can try it too, right, yeah,
so you know it, this idea. I don't think this
idea in mass choos is going to go very far.
I think there's some common sense back there.

Speaker 4 (55:34):
I think I actually question that statement.

Speaker 1 (55:38):
But okay, what they're coming Yeah, well they did it
like Romney, governor, that's true. But I mean, hopefully, I
don't know how far this will go. But I think
it comes down to the freedom issue that all of
our callers are brought up today, and the American people
are just sick and tired of being told what to do.

Speaker 3 (55:59):
It's true, and I really do think you have to
separate tobacco from other really harmful, mind altering substances.

Speaker 4 (56:07):
I really think you do. I don't think.

Speaker 3 (56:10):
Look, I don't like tobacco or smoking, but the fact
of the matter is, I don't think it's anywhere near.

Speaker 4 (56:18):
As destructive as some of these other substances. And I
think it's okay to acknowledge that and say, yet, why
would we ban it? It just doesn't make sense.

Speaker 1 (56:26):
Yeah, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. All right,
another hour coming your way. As we mentioned earlier, a
outside political action committee is advocating to take down some
Utah lawmakers we'll talk to the chairman of the Utah
Republican Party about that plan. Coming up also a little
bit later on the President today put a big old
act to a plan on the environment from Barack Obama

(56:48):
several years ago, and we'll get into that and what
exactly the President and Leeds Elden, the head of the
EPA announced today. Still a proposal right now, but what
an idea. We love it. That's all coming up in
our number three of the Rod and Gregg Show, Carolyn
Fippen filling in for Greg today. More coming up. A
news update is next. It is so much fun to

(57:10):
pick on it when he's here. He's listening. Probably right
now he'll get back. Yeah, there's no doubt he'll.

Speaker 4 (57:16):
Start sending us a barrage of texts.

Speaker 1 (57:19):
Last we're getting all these texts are good. We are
doing a radio show like serious. Apparently didn't realize that
so so, but it's great to have you here today.
We've got a busy hour coming your way. Utah is
a well I saw this note. It was written in
this story about Utah being one of ten states where
more than three quarters of the lawmakers are Republicans. Well,

(57:39):
apparently this media group out there doesn't like that idea
and has decide to put in a whopping twenty thousand
dollars to unseat some GOP state lawmakers. Do you think
they got a chance, Carrol?

Speaker 4 (57:52):
They really think we're a cheap state?

Speaker 1 (57:55):
Twenty thousand dollars. Well, I'll go a long way, but
we thought we'd get some reaction to this tonight. On
our any hour news maker line right now is the
chairman of the Utah Republican Party, Rob Acton. Rob, How
are you welcome to the Rod and Greg Show with
Carolyn Fippin. How are you Rob?

Speaker 17 (58:09):
You're doing well? Always good to be with you, Rod,
and good to be.

Speaker 1 (58:12):
With you Carolyn. All Right, Pod Save America is coming
after some lawmame makers. Rob, what do you make of this?

Speaker 6 (58:20):
Well, you know it is what it is.

Speaker 17 (58:21):
When you're doing things right, people start to pay attention.
And people who just miserably discount and dislike successful communities
and successful camp are families. They have something to say
about it, and they're going to try to spend some
money here. But I refuse to let you know, Utah
go the way of California money and what they want

(58:42):
to dictate to us.

Speaker 3 (58:44):
Yeah, I bet that you can challenge that twenty thousand
dollars too. You can probably outraise them, don't you think, Rob.

Speaker 17 (58:53):
I think they would absolutely, absolutely what I would encourage
folks to do, because it's interesting. They come in, they
put this press release, and unfortunately many in our local
news media, Oh yeah, played themselves a fool here.

Speaker 12 (59:06):
So they took a new or a press release from
a very partisan.

Speaker 17 (59:10):
Organization and then gave free advertising to it for an
entire news cycle. I get that it's newsworthy if somebody
is wanting to engage in the political process, but how
they went about it, I think they kind of played
themselves with the fools. And I hope that our local
news media realizes that just effectively reprinting press releases without

(59:31):
really doing the due diligence is not probably the best
way to earn the trust of your leader or your
listeners and your readers.

Speaker 1 (59:36):
Yeah, Rob, I really picked up on this statement that's
included in that news release, obviously from someone with this group,
saying Utah is uniquely positioned for change? Are we uniquely
positioned for change? Rapum? I love that line, by the way.

Speaker 17 (59:53):
Yeah, I think the reason that we're uniquely positioned for
change is because we really are such an outlier. We
believe in family, we believe in generosity, we believe in service.
We really are the hallmark of all that made so
many communities across this country good that you see going
away in other states that we're still holding true. So, yeah,

(01:00:13):
we are in a unique position. If you hate those things,
if you don't believe in those things, if you'd rather
see government dependents and listening to the coastal elites to
tell you how to live your life, then yes, you
don't like to see Utah providing a counter argument to
your play. And for these folks, they want to see
us change.

Speaker 3 (01:00:31):
Yeah, So Rob, I feel like this brings up another
issue that earlier in the year, there were articles that
talked about the fact, and we know this has been
happening for a while that Democrats are targeting nonpartisan municipal races, right,
and this is a year of municipal races local government.

(01:00:52):
They aren't partisan. It's easy. People know they can't get
elected oftentimes with the D next to their name, but
they can run for city council and earn your trust
over time. They're dealing with issues that really aren't most
of the time partisan making sure your garbage gets picked
up and zoning is appropriately upheld or whatever. And so

(01:01:12):
they can get in an earned trust that way, and
it's a less expensive way for them to get in
front of people, and then they attempt to move up
through the ranks. Is the party doing anything to kind
of deal with what we've seen, which I believe is
a pretty big deluge over the past couple of years
of stacking these races with Democrats who people don't realize
they're Democrat.

Speaker 5 (01:01:33):
Yeah.

Speaker 12 (01:01:33):
Absolutely.

Speaker 17 (01:01:34):
Ultimately, if Utah wants to go a direction that's different
than my personal opinion, we have the process to do that.
But we shouldn't be going that direction merely because money
is being spent or games are being played, and the
honest conversations are being neglected. So the Utah Publican Party
is committed to being involved those honest conversations. And those

(01:01:56):
happen in partisan races, those happen in nonpartisan municipal race.
Is they really happen in everyday dialogue of what are
the principles that lead to the opportunities and the success
that you want to see your community thrive in and
you want to see your children grow in. That's what
I believe that the Utah Republican Party, our principles, our
platform articulate, and ultimately we need to have Utah's having

(01:02:20):
this conversation. Don't fall victim to what you're being told
to believe or think just by talking heads or celebrities
or former Obama staffers that want to send some money.

Speaker 1 (01:02:31):
This way, Rob, they listed ten districts and lawmakers are
going after Do you know how they came up with
this list or did they draw these names out of
the hat? I mean, how do you think they came
up with this list? Any idea?

Speaker 8 (01:02:45):
Yeah, I mean, this one's a pretty simple.

Speaker 17 (01:02:47):
It's a numbers game. Most of the state, they look
at it and they recognize there's really not a chance
for them to compete in that race. There's just not
the numbers, and so they have wisely, at least in
this case, can do the math of two plus two
equaling four and recognize that these are the ten most
competitive seats in regard to really where the registered voter

(01:03:09):
numbers are. But even still, we have to focus on
what makes Utah Utah, and you focus on the good work,
the service, the commitment that these ten individuals have given
and I am confident that their constituents are quite pleased
by and large with the service that they have provided.
And I'm committed to make sure or making sure that

(01:03:29):
the Utah Republican Party is helping stand with them and
make that message. Utah is better off because of these
ten individuals, and the alternative of what Obama staffers want
to see representing Utah would be disastrous.

Speaker 3 (01:03:45):
Yeah, you know, if Greg were here, he would make
this point. So I'm going to make it and then
ask you a question about it, because the point that
he always made when he was Speaker of the House
was the fact that the more Republicans you have, you know,
you identified that a lot of these all of these
people being challenged come from areas that have a pretty

(01:04:06):
even divide or closer to it than other areas of
Democrats Republicans. But so the more Republicans you get in
the state legislature, the more moderate the body becomes because
you have more legislators who aren't necessarily in hardcore Republican districts.
So this strategy is kind of funny to me in

(01:04:27):
that way where I think, oh, you're going to take
out all the guys who are dragging the Republican the
Republican legislature more to the middle and away from conservative principles. Okay,
go for that, let's see how that works. But knowing that,
what is it that the Republican Party, and maybe you
don't want to give everything away, I'm sure the Republican

(01:04:49):
Party will be there for these people, they have been
in the past. What is it that you plan to
do in order to shore up their support in their
communities over these next couple of years before their next elections,
to ensure that their constituents know the good work that
they have been doing for them.

Speaker 5 (01:05:07):
Yeah.

Speaker 17 (01:05:07):
I don't want to get too much in the weeds
on the playbook, but what I will say is ultimately,
politics and the engagement in politics is about earning the
trust of the people from whom you're.

Speaker 1 (01:05:17):
Asking for their vote.

Speaker 17 (01:05:18):
And so these ten elected officials, as well as the party,
myself and every Republican included, need to do the work
to make sure that we are earning the trust and
the votes of our neighbors. So in these ten political districts,
we will continue to do the work to make sure
that we are earning that trust that We're taking the
criticisms where they are warranted. We're learning, we're taking ideas,

(01:05:39):
and we're continuing to fight for our fellow Utahns. I
will say they've targeted these ten races. That's fine. We
knew that they would, and there's other races beyond those
ten that we are focused on that will put them
on the defensive.

Speaker 5 (01:05:51):
Ultimately.

Speaker 17 (01:05:52):
You know this twenty thousand dollars from these Obama staffers.
It's an investment that they've made into our state to
try to turn it into California. But I believe that
you tons will step up to keep Utah Utah. I'd
encourage folks that want to match or exceed that twenty
thousand dollars investment. Go to UTGP dot org, make a donation,
any donation that comes into the Utah Republican Party. These

(01:06:13):
next couple of days, we are going to Earmark to
respond directly to this.

Speaker 4 (01:06:18):
Nice.

Speaker 1 (01:06:18):
I love it. Rob is always great having you on
the show. Thanks man, enjoy the rest of your evening.

Speaker 14 (01:06:24):
Hey all the best you two.

Speaker 1 (01:06:25):
All right, that's Rob ACKs and chairman of the Utah
Republican Party. I love that. I down will will match
for match. Oh before we break. I do want to
play this down by you know who. Scott Jennings is, right,
he's a contributor on CNN, does a great, great job. Well,
apparently Scott was on a podcast I think yesterday and
talked about the Democratic Party and the state of the

(01:06:46):
Democratic Party and why they're having so much trouble.

Speaker 18 (01:06:49):
Democrats because of the Biden presidency, because they lied about
Joe Biden's condition, because they lied to the country about
the inflationary impacts of his policies, have dug themselves the
deepest hole they've ever been in in the history of
their party.

Speaker 1 (01:07:05):
That's number one.

Speaker 4 (01:07:06):
Number two cultural radicalism.

Speaker 18 (01:07:08):
I mean, when the hills you're willing to die on
are boys and girls sports paying for transgender surgeries of inmates,
which Kambala Harris had in the last election. When you're
willing to die on these hills, when you're willing to
go and say Maryland man unfairly deported back to his
home country, I mean, when you're willing to die on

(01:07:30):
all these eighty twenty hills, eventually your approval rating will
wind up.

Speaker 1 (01:07:33):
I'm no mathematician, but.

Speaker 18 (01:07:34):
Around twenty they're getting there, and so this hole they've
dug themselves in, Like, if I can't trust you not
to put a boy in my daughter's locker room, why
would I talk to you about taxation policy or inflation
or tarifs.

Speaker 4 (01:07:47):
Or anything else.

Speaker 1 (01:07:47):
You're trying to put a boy in my girl's locker room, right,
Scott Jennings, he always frames it very very well. And
the antics that we've seen the last couple of days.
Did you see the swallowell video of him pumpyder gosh,
and then Corey Booker goes on the center of the
floor and just starts screaming, like being criticized by his

(01:08:08):
own Democrats And what are you doing here?

Speaker 4 (01:08:10):
Yeah, that's not helpful. People are done.

Speaker 3 (01:08:12):
And by the way, I think maybe the swallow wall
thing was a response to the American eagle.

Speaker 1 (01:08:17):
Eye could be working not working? All right? More coming
up right here on Utah's Talk Radio one oh five nine.
Can arrest happier to be here. You are so much
more fun than Greg is. And you know what, you
shut up sometimes? Oh and let me talk. You know
he's writing all this down.

Speaker 4 (01:08:37):
Greg knows what I think.

Speaker 1 (01:08:39):
He is writing this down. He'll he'll he's back Monday.
I have to deal with him. Just please keep keep this,
keep that in mind.

Speaker 4 (01:08:48):
I can just be gone.

Speaker 1 (01:08:49):
All right, Let's get into the gene controversy for just
a minute, can we, because it's it's so ridiculous. I mean,
I think American Eagle is just making bank on this.
I mean, you were saying that they've sold out or
something with their gene jeens or whatever they called the things. Well,
this is this can't be true. But someone spoofed out
a response from American Eagle to all of this. Shall

(01:09:12):
I read it?

Speaker 5 (01:09:13):
Yes?

Speaker 4 (01:09:13):
Please do here.

Speaker 1 (01:09:14):
It is to whom it may concern, we sincerely apologize
for featuring Sidney Sweeney in our recent advertisement. In hindsight,
they say we underestimated the combined impact of her blue eyes,
blonde hair, and general hotness. And they go on to

(01:09:39):
say this, our marketing department has been sent to denim
sensitivity training. We, like I said, we didn't realize the
combined impact of her big blue eyes, blonde hair, and
general beauty, and we didn't realize that she had big boobs.

(01:10:02):
That's what they said. I mean, you know, that's tongue
in cheek. Somebody's having a little bit of fun with this.
But I want it. We haven't played some of the
freakings that have been taking place from the lips here,
just a couple of them. We thought you didn't want
to hear what these people are saying.

Speaker 19 (01:10:16):
Oh, not everything's political. Oh it's not that deep. Oh,
art doesn't have to be political. Not everything's political. Sidney
Sweeney just did a series of ads with American Eagle,
the clothing company promoting her good jeans. Oh no, but
they're talking about the blue jeans.

Speaker 5 (01:10:32):
Yeah. Yeah, sure.

Speaker 16 (01:10:36):
The attractive white woman with blondhaired, blue eyes is talking
about her, just the gens she gets from American Eagle.
The blondhaired white woman who had a parody of making
America Great Again for her mom's sixtieth birthday where everyone
was wearing Blue Lives Matter flags on my clothing.

Speaker 1 (01:10:54):
That's just one example. Here's another example. This woman is
calling for a boycott.

Speaker 3 (01:11:00):
To boycott American Eagle for they're racist, racist online talking
about blue jeans and white people.

Speaker 4 (01:11:10):
Boycott American Eagle, boycot out of them.

Speaker 5 (01:11:13):
Boy.

Speaker 1 (01:11:14):
I mean, it's just like you're kidding me, right, And
even some very woke liberal Democrats are saying to others,
get over this. Can we just move on. This is
not a hill worth fighting.

Speaker 3 (01:11:26):
Oh seriously, and it makes them look makes them look
so stupid, so mentally ill. Yeah, speaking of mental illness,
like we had this discussion yesterday.

Speaker 4 (01:11:36):
They need to talk to somebody about their brain health.

Speaker 2 (01:11:41):
So much.

Speaker 1 (01:11:42):
Yeah, their brain health that years ago. This isn't the
first model who's done jeans, right, Brookshields and that line.
I wonder what they think of that line today. That
line was nothing comes between me and my jeor dash
Remember that line, and they'd freak out today with something

(01:12:03):
like that. But now they're talking she has great genes.
She's a white blonde woman with great jeans.

Speaker 3 (01:12:09):
How offensive is that we've had fat, ugly people for
so long modeling clothes that they think that that should
be the norm.

Speaker 1 (01:12:18):
Yeah, and well that doesn't offend anybody.

Speaker 4 (01:12:20):
See, yes, it apparently doesn't offend them.

Speaker 1 (01:12:24):
Uh, Lizzo, if you haven't seen that ad, you're ready
for it, folks. All right, more coming up, Rod and
Carolyn with you right here on Utah's Talk Radio one
oh five nine k n rs.

Speaker 4 (01:12:37):
And we could cover so much more. We had three
more hours. Right, I'm not staying No, neither am I.

Speaker 1 (01:12:43):
He raised staying any that ain't gonna happen. Well, the
president is doing what he can to basically get everything
this country back into control of common sense, which is
hard to do nowadays with the Democrats being injury and
Republicans really do this. We can't always blame the Democrats.
There have been some Republican lawmakers who've gone along with

(01:13:04):
this craziness. And what do you do in that case?

Speaker 4 (01:13:08):
Yeah, I don't know.

Speaker 1 (01:13:09):
I liked better people. There we go. What a novel idea.
But it was announced today that the president is going
to just do away with Obama's Endangerment finding. Now that
finding basically controlled our lives. Cars, we drove, like you
were saying, the dishwasher that you bought, or the washer
and dryer that you may have bought. It had to

(01:13:30):
deal with carbon, and everything was a threat because of carbon.

Speaker 3 (01:13:34):
Right, right, that's the case, that very thing that makes
our forests green and cleans the air.

Speaker 14 (01:13:42):
Right.

Speaker 3 (01:13:43):
And by the way, Leezelden said when he made this announcement,
said that this has impinged on one half of the
US economy and all of the regulations that have come
out of that finding.

Speaker 1 (01:13:55):
That it's pretty amazing. We'll joining us on our newsmaker line.
To dig into more of what the President and Zelden
or trying to do is Chris Togo. He's the editorial
director at the Heartland Institute. Chris, thanks for joining us tonight.
Exactly what does this all mean? Chris?

Speaker 10 (01:14:09):
Okay, So, the endangerment finding was a two thousand and
nine EPA ruling under Obama that basically said that carbon
dioxide emissions greenhouse gases are harmful to human health and
human welfare. So under that false premise, that allowed the
EPA to basically regulate carbon dioxide, regulate fossil fuels, regulate

(01:14:36):
auto automobile emissions. And you know what they were able
to do was they were able to just you know,
stifle the use of fossil fuels, nuclear gas, natural gas, coal,
And what they were able to do was you know,
push their you know, windmill and solar panel agenda.

Speaker 5 (01:14:59):
But really, you know what the what the.

Speaker 10 (01:15:03):
Selton is going to do is he's going to say,
we are going to re examine the data, and the
data shows that there is no overall harmful benefit from
a slight increase in carbon dioxide emissions over the past
twenty or so years, and actually I can. I can

(01:15:23):
make a pretty decent argument that that slight, that very
slight warming has actually been a net benefit because we've
uh the planet is more green, our crop eields are up,
and if you really dig into it, and this is
going to get into the details just just a little bit,
the warming is occurring at night in mostly urban areas

(01:15:46):
due to the urban heat in the island effect because
those buildings all concrete, all the machinery, it's going to
absorb heat during the day and then release it at night.
So daytime temperatures are actually not increasing. It's the nighttime
temperatures that.

Speaker 4 (01:16:01):
Interesting. So tell us.

Speaker 3 (01:16:04):
I do find it fascinating that Republicans actually want to
look at the science on this, and we'd like to
follow what the science actually tells us. I think, you know,
most of us agree with that, but the left would
argue over that what has been the cost to the
US economy since this finding what sixteen years ago?

Speaker 10 (01:16:26):
So accordner to Liezelden, it's been more than one trillion
dollars one trillion dollars in needless regulations. He estimates that
just by the thirty one actions that he is proposing
to do, which is basically going to undo the environment
finding in dingram In finding excuse me, is going to
save US taxpayers fifty four billion dollars per year.

Speaker 1 (01:16:48):
Wow, Wow, Chris, could could this be happening at all
with out the Chevron ruling? I mean, did the Chevron
ruling help in this case?

Speaker 10 (01:16:57):
Chevron ruling was a big help in this case is
because they created that Major Questions doctrine, which is you know,
now being used. In two thousand and seven, the US
Supreme Court made a very you know, bad ruling which
did pave the way for the EPA to claim that
under the Clean Air Act that they can regulate fossil fuels. So, yeah,

(01:17:20):
you know, the Supreme Court made a really bad ruling
in two thousand and seven, and that did allow Obama
to insert this rule. But you know, the Chevron you
know doctrine now and the fact that the Court is
you know, much more in line with you know, the Constitution,
it means that they should not have a problem.

Speaker 4 (01:17:42):
So tell us what this means in the lives of
everyday Americans. What are some of the tentacles that have
come out of this finding by the EPA. How has
it impacted the types of things that Americans can purchase
and use in their lives.

Speaker 10 (01:17:58):
Yeah, so this, this applies to appliances, this applies to cars.
You know, the ev mandate is totally predicated on this.
All the you know, so called efficiency standards of you know, dryers,
washing machines, you know, all that kind of stuff. This
does change the ballgame on that in terms of utility bills,

(01:18:19):
since you know, fossil fuels are no longer going to
be you know, demonized by the federal government. That means
that colon natural gas can be used to make sure
that our injury energy grid is more reliable, it's much
more dependable, and that our utility bills are going to
be more affordable because underbiding when a lot of this

(01:18:39):
stuff really went in the place, you know, Americans utility
bills mine included this skyrocketed and we saw that, you know,
to get at the pump as well. Yeah, Chris Zeldon,
this does have a direct impact on people's lives.

Speaker 1 (01:18:51):
Chris Zelden said today, this decision basically is going to
drive a dagger into the heart of the climate change religion.
I imagine, and I think I've alway already heard that
they uh this is going to be challenging court. I
imagine they're expecting this to take place, don't you.

Speaker 10 (01:19:06):
Oh, absolutely, you know, the latists are already you know,
uh you know, his hysterical about this and saying that
they are going to you know, uh, you know, fight
it out in court. But that's that's fine because what
we see now is that the US Supreme Court in
particular seems like they are gonna you know, hold up
what the constitution says. And this is all, you know,
based on just making sure that uh, you know, these

(01:19:29):
these bureaucracies do not overstep their authority, which they have
been you know, so prone to do in uh, you know,
in recent years.

Speaker 14 (01:19:40):
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (01:19:41):
So I do think that this will change a lot
of things. I'm thinking I probably should have waited to
buy my new washing machine so that I have a
more effective one. My old one was much better.

Speaker 4 (01:19:52):
But anyway, you.

Speaker 3 (01:19:54):
Too, right, like, there are a lot of things I
can't do. Well, we won't talk too much about that.
But so, how quickly do you see any of this
being implemented? Sounds like we have some time with some
court challenges. What are you thinking the pathway to actual
implementation and impacts in the lives of Americans will look like, well.

Speaker 10 (01:20:15):
It's going to be a ninety day period for the
comment and all that kind of stuff. So this was
officially just a proposal to rescind. Obviously, I think that
proposal is going to go through. You know, they're going
to have to make sure that they just you know,
jump through all the regulatory hoops in order to do that.
But the the impact should be shortly felt, and I

(01:20:37):
think that we've already seen some of the impact of
not only you know, some of the trumpet regulatory actions
by increasing permits and all that kind of stuff. But
this is just you know, going to just keep on
making sure that these energy companies are going to do
the right thing. That they're going to stop, you know,
closing down, shuttering you know, perfectly operational coal and natural

(01:21:01):
gas power plants, and it's just going to make sure
that the American people have the ability to you know,
have affordable, reliable power, and especially especially with becoming huge
rise in demand that we are going to see and
we are seeing with artificial intelligence and data centers and
all this stuff, if we do not do this and

(01:21:23):
we you know, just get rid of all this, you know,
climate alarm our alarm is just you know, mass hysteria.
There's no way we're going to be able to compete.

Speaker 1 (01:21:31):
Yeah, and we need to compete in the world as
it gets busier and busier and the demands for energy
go up, up and up. Chris tallgul thank you very much.
And you know, just another example of Donald Trump moving
forward and doing what he said he would do throughout
the campaign. Yeah, sank the size of government.

Speaker 4 (01:21:49):
Shrink the size of government and get back to common sense.

Speaker 5 (01:21:52):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (01:21:52):
Yeah, that's what it takes. That's what it takes.

Speaker 5 (01:21:54):
All right.

Speaker 1 (01:21:54):
When we come back, Carolyn, I have another classic example
of utter government incompetence. The list gets bigger every day.

Speaker 4 (01:22:03):
It's not hard.

Speaker 1 (01:22:04):
That's not hard. That's coming up right here on Utah's
Talk Radio one oh five nine k NRS.

Speaker 4 (01:22:10):
Phoenix, this is much better.

Speaker 1 (01:22:12):
Although Carolyn Phoenix over goods.

Speaker 4 (01:22:14):
Yes, but Carolyn Phoenix fipping may be a bit of
an issue.

Speaker 1 (01:22:18):
Carolyn Phoenix, fippin not bad, not bad, Carolyn Goose Pippin.
I kind of like, Carolyn Goose, do you really just flows.

Speaker 4 (01:22:28):
It's just not doing it for me?

Speaker 1 (01:22:30):
Man, I don't blame you.

Speaker 3 (01:22:32):
It sounds like I have some kind of power with Phoenix.
Phoenix rises from the ash.

Speaker 1 (01:22:38):
I had to bring that up.

Speaker 5 (01:22:39):
Huh.

Speaker 1 (01:22:40):
Well, as I mentioned going into the break, we have
yet another example and the ongoing saga of utter government incompetence.
You ready for this one. According to the Interior Department's
own statistics, the federal government has only recovered three percent
of listed endangered species in fifty years. Three in fifty years.

Speaker 3 (01:23:06):
And what has the implementation of all of those regulations
cost the American public?

Speaker 1 (01:23:14):
Billions of dollars have been spent on programs. The government's
complete inability to stop forest fires, for example, is doing
incalculable damage to species protection. Meanwhile, you know, property, private
property and environmentally friendly associations are saving the habitat. That's

(01:23:34):
what you depend on.

Speaker 4 (01:23:35):
Yet, you know, we see that in the state of Utah.

Speaker 3 (01:23:37):
Yeah, there are private lands next to government lands, federal
government lands, or even state managed lands in some cases
next to federal lands. And there's a massive difference between
productivity on those lands and health of this lands.

Speaker 1 (01:23:52):
Yeah, it's amazing, an untold story today, according to this article,
is the greatest success on the environmental movement that private
landowners ranchers, farmers, forest owners across the nation are largely
better land managers than federal government agencies which have calcified
had a more administrative plaque than any other elderly heart patient.

(01:24:15):
Spot on, Yeah, yeah, spot on, Yeah, go ahead.

Speaker 3 (01:24:19):
I just don't know why we expect anything different decades,
maybe centuries of government incompetence, and a lot of times
it's just really awful policies because someone wants to try
to do something for good reasons, but it's not their place,
and you're never going to have the same analysis in

(01:24:41):
any government action that you have in private.

Speaker 1 (01:24:43):
Yeah yeah, yeah. Well, and you know, Caroline, I heard
this line, and this line has just stuck with me
when you come to issues like this. They were doing
a story on farming in America today and it may
have been a sixty minutes piece or a CBS This
Morning piece, but there was a lot in this and
I think it was a farmer who said this when
they were doing this story. It was kind of an

(01:25:05):
attack piece on farming and ranching. But the farmer said this,
and it's just perfect. He said, farmers don't live on
the land. Farmers and you could add ranchers here as well.
Live with the land is completely different because they know
the land is there bread and butter, that's right, and

(01:25:25):
abusing that land is not going to get them anywhere,
so they don't. Yes, they may live on the land,
but more importantly, they live with the land. There's a
partnership I think, between ranchers and farmers, anyone involved in
those type of activities, there's a partnership and they understand,
we've got to take care of the land because that
land may be growing our crops, that land may be

(01:25:46):
raising our cattle or our sheep. So we learned to
live with the land. They're almost partners in providing food
for America today. And I love that statement.

Speaker 3 (01:25:56):
Oh, I totally agree, and I think it goes so
much further than and just things like farming and ranching,
because the fact of the matter is, when you are
working the land like that, or when you are even
close to the land, you understand action and consequence in
a way that much of America and woke America certainly
do not understand it anymore. The further you get away

(01:26:20):
from the production of the necessities of life. So I'm
just taking this one step further, right, the production of
the necessities of life. The further you get from that,
the more unhinged your theories about how things work can become.
Because when it is a matter of life and death,
like you pointed out, farmers live with that land. They

(01:26:41):
understand it intimately what different actions will create, and so
they tailor their actions and behavior to ways to increase
productivity on that land, which always involves taking care of it.
Anybody who's ever had a garden understand, big gardener, I'm
a big guy. You love the land.

Speaker 4 (01:27:02):
I love it.

Speaker 3 (01:27:04):
And by the way, this ties into yesterday's discussion because
they are literally our studies that say that contact with dirt.

Speaker 4 (01:27:12):
Improves mental health. You're telling you, how crazy is this?

Speaker 1 (01:27:17):
So you know that improve mental health? What do they say?

Speaker 3 (01:27:20):
I can't remember I read this some of these things
years ago. Maybe I'll look it up and bring it tomorrow.

Speaker 4 (01:27:25):
But it does.

Speaker 3 (01:27:26):
It has an impact on the way your body responds
to things and consequently the way your brain does.

Speaker 4 (01:27:32):
Go go get your hands dirty, Go get your hands dirty.
We would be much better.

Speaker 1 (01:27:35):
People playing the dirt.

Speaker 3 (01:27:37):
Yesesn't encourage your children to do the same thing.

Speaker 1 (01:27:39):
Well, and I've always you know, that's probably a wise
thing to do. But I've encouraged young kids, you want
to be healthy, go eat a spoonful of dirt.

Speaker 3 (01:27:47):
Well, I have assistant did that when we were young.
But I think she's reasonably healthy. But you know, you've
seen those studies with kids who are exposed to animals
when they're really young have fewer other issues, health issues
and allergies and stuff.

Speaker 1 (01:28:05):
All right, that does it for us today, And as
we say each and every night, head up, shoulders back.
May God bless you and your family and this great
country of ours. Caroly and I will be back tomorrow
at four with a brand new edition of The Rotten
Great Show with Carolyn Fippin filling in, And we'll talk
to you tomorrow at four. Have a good note.

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

The Rod & Greg Show News

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know

The Joe Rogan Experience

Dateline NBC

.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;}The Rod and Greg Show: Delta to Use AI to Set Flight Fees; Massachusetts Proposal to Ban Selling Nicotine to Adults

Episode Transcript

The Rod & Greg Show News .css-1q01m3q{margin:0 0 -2px 0;}

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}Stuff You Should Know

The Joe Rogan Experience

Dateline NBC

All Episodes