Sterling 3/6/26

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
That interferes from the government getting into your business, the
right to drink, the right to take care of yourself,
the like to you want to smoke out, Sure you
can do that too if you're of age in the
great state of Ohio and sooner than later, not just
medically speaking, but recreationally in Kentucky and across the country.
The communities in the states are falling like dominoes. But

(00:20):
in DC, just the last couple of days in the
Supreme Court, the argument made that if you're using marijuana
legally and you decide that you want to take advantage
of your right to bear arms, there might be an
effort to take that opportunity away from you to exercise
your right, not your privilege. But you're right in the

(00:41):
line of course and where it stops, whether it's with
having beers or otherwise. And I don't mean drinking or
smoking and then messing with your firearm, just in general.

Speaker 2 (00:50):
If you and vibe.

Speaker 1 (00:52):
The idea for some is that you should not have
access to your rights to carry a weapon or to
have a weapon to protect your family or your stuff
or other wise.

Speaker 2 (01:00):
Morgan Fox is with us.

Speaker 1 (01:01):
He's the political director from Normal Once again Welcome back
to seven hundred WLW with Sterling.

Speaker 2 (01:07):
How are you, sir?

Speaker 3 (01:08):
I'm doing very well, are you?

Speaker 2 (01:10):
I'm doing all.

Speaker 4 (01:11):
Right, I think.

Speaker 1 (01:12):
I mean, there's a lot of stuff in the news
in relation to cannabis stuff here, but I think at
the top of the list, the Supreme Court argument is
a pretty interesting one in a good place to sort
of stop first and discuss this, What was the effort
and who was behind this, because this isn't about hey,
if you're high in then grabbing a weapon and using
it irresponsibly. This is just the idea of taking advantage

(01:35):
of your right to consume an intoxicating subtance to be
a cannabis or even CBD for that matter, as I
understand it, What were they thinking and why is this
even at the Supreme Court?

Speaker 5 (01:46):
Well, for decades now, it's been the case that if
you consume cannabis, and there's any proof of that whatsoever,
you can be denied the ability to purchase a firearm,
and if you are caught with a firearm and cannabis,
you are potentially facing serious felonies and up to ten.

Speaker 3 (02:03):
Years in prison.

Speaker 6 (02:05):
For a number of cases now, over many many years,
we've seen district courts rule against this total blanket ban
on law abiding or otherwise law abiding depending on what
state you're in, cannabis consumers being just categorically banned from

(02:25):
having their Second Amendment rights, and.

Speaker 3 (02:28):
A number of these district courts have ruled against that.

Speaker 6 (02:32):
Now it's finally in the Supreme Court and Normal has
submitted amicus briefs for that case, as well as a
number of other of our allied organizations.

Speaker 3 (02:42):
Everybody from the NRA to the.

Speaker 6 (02:44):
ACLU, And hopefully we are going to see a reversal
of this policy, which I think will be a tremendous
boon for Second Amendment rights across the country, I would hope.

Speaker 3 (02:56):
So.

Speaker 1 (02:56):
Morgan Fox is the political director for Normal, with Sterling
on the one So it was interesting and I may
be a bit of a dork in that I pay
attention to arguments whether it's in Columbus or you know,
other state capitals, let alone in DC, because I find
the whole idea of men and women in roads deciding
our rights and our freedoms and ability to just mind
our own business and making such decisions pretty interesting, and

(03:20):
I like it. It didn't seem as if the woman
who was arguing against people being able to consume intoxicating
cannabis or hemp products really had much of an argument
in it. Whether it was Amy Cooney, Barrett or others.
It seemed like a lot of the justices were, you know,
asking use of alcohol, use of other prescription drugs, and

(03:41):
what was the idea behind somehow thinking that this was
so much worse than anything else someone would be consuming.

Speaker 3 (03:47):
Yeah, well, that's definitely part of it. Another part of
it is the historical precedent.

Speaker 6 (03:53):
And there's an absolute zero historical precedent for denying people
the ability to purchase or firearms simply based on the
substances they consume. It's based on the behavior involved with
either of those substances, or just generally, you know, there
is historical precedent for denying people's Second Amendment rights over

(04:13):
mental illness or habitual drunkenness. But the very fact that
somebody is saying like a medical cannabis patient or is
it occasional user of cannabis certainly should not be grounds
for denying them the rights that are guaranteed to them
in the Constitution.

Speaker 3 (04:30):
As I said, a number of district courts have affirmed.

Speaker 6 (04:34):
This and judging from the questions that a lot of
the Supreme Court justices were asking, I'm very hopeful that
we're going to see a similar ruling nationwide which will
restore second amic rights to the millions of lawful cannabis
consumers in this country.

Speaker 1 (04:52):
I think it's more than reasonable irrational thought behind that
any idea of when they will have a decision out
on that before we switch to something else, because I mean,
it's always one of those think where they hear arguments
and then months later you're like, oh, I forgot they
even had that case.

Speaker 6 (05:05):
Well, typically the Supreme Court will release the rulings two
to three months after the end of oral arguments, it
could be that they could do that sooner. Obviously, I
would like to see that happen as soon as possible
so that we can stop law abiding cannabis consumers from
being denied their rights or potentially facing federal prosecution and.

Speaker 3 (05:27):
Ten years plus in jail.

Speaker 6 (05:30):
But I think we might have to wait a couple
of months until we actually get a final ruling on that.

Speaker 3 (05:34):
But as I said, I'm optimistic based on the questions
that were posed by the.

Speaker 1 (05:41):
Justices, that's good, hopefully more reasonable and rational behavior by
the courts and allowing humans in the United States to
just be reasonable and responsible adults. One would hope Morgan
Fox is a political director for normal. It was Stirling
seven hundred WLW something else that came out, and it
was an interesting study. And more more seniors, it seems,

(06:01):
whether they were children of the sixties, in the Summer
of Love or something in between or after for that matter.
With the opening of recreational marijuana sales and also medical
it seems that more and more people of senior age
are using cannabis products and research has come out to
say that it actually may benefit them or is that right?

(06:23):
Or or certainly not a hindrance for decline a dementia
risk or other stuff with people aging. Is that correct?

Speaker 3 (06:31):
Well?

Speaker 6 (06:32):
I think the study that you're referencing specifically said that
there seems to be a lot less mental decline in
other cannabis consumers than there are in non consumers, or
at the very least there appears to be a neuroprotective
potential for that plant. And I think that that's incredibly

(06:52):
useful information to know when senior citizens are considering whether
or not they want to use medical care of us
and also in order to director research, and this is
something that the administration has been really affraupt about and
that they want to pursue more research in this, and

(07:14):
that they're also pursuing Medicare and Medicaid coverage for at
least some sort of kannabinoid products to be reimbursed by
medical care.

Speaker 3 (07:25):
In the United States. And you know, I think that
that's a really great sign.

Speaker 6 (07:29):
I thinks they're moving in the right direction where people
are being actually a little bit.

Speaker 3 (07:32):
More open to the research that's been available for decades.

Speaker 2 (07:36):
Why has it taken so long? And is it me?

Speaker 1 (07:38):
Does it seem like all of this now is seemingly
moving in more of a reasonable rational direction than at
any time probably in my lifetime or yours.

Speaker 6 (07:48):
Well, we've been moving in this direction, I think for
the last couple of decades, as more and more information
has become available showing the relative harms and safety and
medical applications of canvas, as well as I think, even
more importantly, the harms associated with prohibiting cannabis and punishing

(08:09):
people on a criminal basis for its use, whether that
be for medical purposes or whether that be for you know,
something like having a.

Speaker 1 (08:17):
Beer yeah, and I don't really see that there's drastically
any difference. And it's one of these things that's been
argued for so long. Something else that's been in the
news since weed in the state of Ohio has been
decriminalized and made okay for recreational use. And we've talked
about this a number of times over the last couple
of years. Morgan, they're talking to Morgan Fox, by the way,

(08:37):
a political director for the National Organization for the Reform
of Marijuana LASS on seven hundred WLW was sterling.

Speaker 2 (08:45):
Where we are now.

Speaker 1 (08:47):
There was the effort put forth in a bill signed
by the governor who was taking out of the loop
that sort of odd farm bill. I don't want to
say it was a loophole or something type of carve
out for intoxicating hemp or other hemp products that have
been being sold but out of the controlled substance arena,

(09:09):
which we've talked about. You've said that you're not a
fan of it not having any controls on it. Where
do we have the ballot initiative now, because they're looking
to have that back out there.

Speaker 7 (09:19):
Well, hopefully we will see that nonain issue to qualify
and that specifically would repeal several sections of a bill
that was passed by the Ohio legislature urnal that SBE fifty.

Speaker 6 (09:29):
Six, which, in addition to heavily restricting the unregulated hemp
industry and hemp drived intoxicants, recriminalized behavior that voters approved
when they passed issue too.

Speaker 3 (09:45):
And it's completely repugnant.

Speaker 6 (09:48):
That the legislature decided that they were going to recriminalize
behavior that voters were supportive of. And I think we
can just hope that we will get the.

Speaker 3 (10:01):
Opportunity to be able to undo their mistake.

Speaker 1 (10:05):
What do you I guess the idea behind the change
in this was to keep intoxicating products from being sold
to underage kids and packaging to keep it from being
tantalizing and looking like candy products or otherwise. Though a
lot of tobaccos and other stuff look like they're shiny,
colorful packages too, and have been for a long time.

(10:27):
But the idea that a retailer might not be following
basic rules of ideas of under twenty one sales and
so on seems pretty basic. Is there a common ground
that you think could be found to where these products
could be sold and controlled in that way, or do
you think that they should be or maybe likely will
be wiped off of the available market in Ohio because

(10:49):
other states have these same type of situations that have
presented themselves since that farm bill pass.

Speaker 6 (10:55):
Yeah, I think that this is actually a really problematic
situation that we're in where were creating silos for different
types of products based on their point of derivation. But
a much better system would be to regulate all cannabinoids
and cannabinoid derived products in a single system. The problem

(11:16):
that I had with SB fifty six was that regulating
the theretofore more or less unregulated have derived and synthetic
cannabinoid system that was resulting in people being able to
buy relatively unregulated products. You know, there are a lot

(11:37):
of good actors in that space, but a lot of
bad actors too being able to buy those products and
gas nations no age gating and things like that, And
that legislation was tied to completely unnecessary measures that recriminalized
totally innocuous behavior for Ohio cannabis consumers, and there was

(11:59):
absolutely no reason to do that, And so this is
why we need to repeal those measures in SB fifty
six as soon as possible. So that we can start
moving towards a rational regulatory system for all canne goiling
products and stop undermining the will of the voters who
clearly said that they wanted these behaviors to be legal.

Speaker 1 (12:19):
Yeah, it'll be interesting to see how it plays out.
I mean, it's just an odd thing. It's like, okay,
well here's the line, and people are okay with it,
and they're like, no, well here's the new line. And
some of the people might be okay with it, and
some art I don't recall in my lifetime paying attention
to any legislative stuff that anything has sort of come
up that's been quite like this. Why do you think

(12:39):
is it just the history of the stigma associated with
this a product being cannabis, or what do you think
it is, aside from just the idea that you know,
some retailers are going to take advantage just in general,
the stigma, I mean, the.

Speaker 3 (12:54):
Stigma is definitely a part of it.

Speaker 6 (12:56):
Bad actors within the unregulated arrived ins intic and habiting
space are definitely a factor. Protectionism within the licensed cannabis industry,
and lawmakers that are supportive of the sort of like
semi monopolies are definitely a part of it. But I

(13:16):
think it really comes down to the fact that the
Ohio legislature does not respect the will of the people.

Speaker 2 (13:23):
That's disturbing. There's nothing else to say to that except that's.

Speaker 1 (13:27):
Very disturbing and seems about dead on accurate, which is
very wild. What have I not asked in relation to
anything dealing with Normal Business, which, by the way, for
those who do not know, it's the National Organization for
Reform of Marijuana Laws and Morgan Fox as the political director,
was sterling on the bank. When anything else I left
out or that you think is of note, Well, there are.

Speaker 6 (13:47):
A number of things happening at the federal level, admittedly
happening somewhat slowly when it comes to standalone legislation, but
when it comes to appropriations bills, how the federal government
decides to fund things, there are a lot of opportunities
to gain additional rights and protections for cannabis consumers, and

(14:08):
so if anybody is interested in supporting those efforts, please
make sure to.

Speaker 3 (14:13):
Go to normal dot org and check out the stuff
that we're doing there.

Speaker 1 (14:16):
You go, and I just have to ask for an
update because I know growing season is here and no,
I'm not even talking about cannabis. By the way, when
we talked last couple of times, and you've mentioned the
fact that you are a pepper grower in a salsa
hot sauce making fool, where are you now in your
process in less than a minute, maybe two minutes at most,

(14:38):
in your process and development, because I'm just fixated on
this idea. I love the garden in the house, I
like the garden outside. I love peppers and hot sauce.
And you were talking about bringing it to market, which
sounded like a complete headache.

Speaker 6 (14:51):
Oh yeah, I mean, and I think that you know,
even though the government shut down the last time we talked,
that was a big reason for not being able to
get anything through f DA.

Speaker 3 (15:00):
And I think that related to this conversation.

Speaker 6 (15:04):
It is questionable whether we're going to be able to
get a lot of progress through f DA on some
of the the progress that needs to be made in
order to facilitate the President Trump's executive order on allowing
Medicaid medicare to be able to cover CBD products right

(15:25):
because of a lot of extraneous I suppose, distractions, both
political and otherwise.

Speaker 3 (15:35):
But hopefully we're going to see that, you know, continue
to move forward.

Speaker 6 (15:40):
And you know, I guess that directly relates to the
hot sass issue, because you know, anytime you need FDA
approval for anything, it's already kind of a slow moving
organization and if there are any sort of stressors put
on an agency, it can be a real pain in
the book to get any sort of business done for
you know, small farmers, for small producers of any sort

(16:01):
of a food product, let alone something as much of
a sea change as providing Medicare coverage for CBD products
that heretofore have not been covered.

Speaker 3 (16:14):
But just on a personal tip, I'm just waiting to find.

Speaker 6 (16:18):
Out when the last process is going to be to
be able to move my plants outside so that I
can start to bumping those peppers.

Speaker 1 (16:23):
Outsours looking forward to it, hopefully on some social media
we'll see the peppers and sooner and later some hot
sauce too. It's pretty interesting. I'm looking forward to it.
It's good. Morgan Fox, political director from NORMAL, the National
Organization for the Reform Marijuanais Thanks for making time out.
I hope you enjoyed the rest of your weekend. We'll
see what the Supreme Court has to say sooner than later.

Speaker 3 (16:43):
Thanks you too, Sarah, take.

Speaker 2 (16:44):
Care of yourself.

Speaker 1 (16:45):
Coming up after your nine to thirty report, we got
Kevin Carr, Fat guys of the movies talking about that
new animated Pixar thing called Hopper and who knows what else,
also space stuff with Mike d Wall. Long Way to
Go is re roll till midnight tonight on a Friday.
Ken Sterling here straight away the news seven hundred WLW.

Speaker 2 (17:04):
I hate to go back to the movie. Sure, there's
been Frankenstein.

Speaker 1 (17:06):
Movies built and rebuilt creatures of one kind or another,
A couple of those recently, one new this weekend, and
tick Star's back with something new too. That created something
and it looks beautiful at least the trailers. I've seen
a guy who sees these things. He picks one every week,
he joins us. He can end up in your mailbox
if you find him a silver gecko on the substack.

(17:27):
He was also my partner of the Chubby and Stick podcast.
Kevin Carr, Welcome back to seven hundred w WELW with Sterling.

Speaker 2 (17:33):
What is going on?

Speaker 4 (17:34):
Oh? Not much, just just getting ready to talk to
you about the new Pixar movie.

Speaker 2 (17:38):
I guess right, Well, I think so.

Speaker 1 (17:39):
Yeah, hopper Hopper, Hopper Hopper has nothing to do with
the sheriff from Stranger Things.

Speaker 4 (17:45):
Don't worry.

Speaker 2 (17:47):
Different things.

Speaker 4 (17:49):
Maybe that's what you want, and kid the movie you.

Speaker 2 (17:51):
Could it might be a little different, little strange for sure.
What is this about?

Speaker 1 (17:55):
Is this about like all creatures in Woodland, creatures small
furry things or what exactly is this?

Speaker 8 (18:00):
Yeah?

Speaker 4 (18:00):
Okay, so the basic gist of it is, there's this
girl who loves this Nate. She lives in a town
that's called Beaverton, and she there's her favorite Glenn that
she was at with her like her grandmother, and grandmother's
passed away cause she can't have a Disney movie without
a dead parent or relative in there somewhere. But she

(18:22):
wants to save it from being bulldozed for a freeway,
and so she's been going toe to toe with the
mayor and trying to stop it and everything, and she
stumbles upon this technology I'm not gonna explain or why,
this technology that allows her to basically project her brain,
her mind into a robotic beaver that is very realistic,
and then she can go talk to the animals and everything,

(18:44):
and as the beaver as this as this woodling creature.
She starts to try and get them to fight back
and everything, and that's the basic gist of it. It
goes in that line of Pixar high concept movies. This
has been a struggle for me for years on the
R video. You know, some things are easy to explain
from Pixar. A you know, a rat that wants to

(19:06):
be a chef, Okay, that's gratitude. You know, toys that
come to life. But then try to try to blurb
in and out, inside out as quickly as you can,
and it gets a little bit tough. But that's what's
so great about Pixar movies is they have these high concept,
crazy stuff going on. And Pixar has had some stumbles recently.
You know, Lightyear didn't do well and l e O

(19:28):
kind of flopped last year. But this is kind of
going back to the original idea well, even though it
does kind of have that steal that sort of plot
point from Avatar. But I mean it's a cute movie,
it really is, and it does seem at times derivative
from some other Pixar movies, but that's because they've there
have been one of like thirty or forty of them

(19:50):
by now there's there's a lot.

Speaker 2 (19:51):
They have made a lot.

Speaker 1 (19:52):
Now, what do you know about the And I know
this is geek stuff, that it's not about content of
the film, which looks visually stunning. But over that window
of time Kevin Carr, by the way, sober Gecko on
Substack with Sterling on the Big One, talking about this
new Pixar movie called Hoppers, the visual is amazing. And
when they first started doing stuff, we were all blown
away then, but they've come a long way. How much

(20:15):
different drastically and visually do you think it isn't? And
what makes it so much more special? I mean, it's
just the technology.

Speaker 4 (20:21):
I guess, well, yeah, it's it's technology, and you build
upon other technology and you get better processing and better
computers and different techniques and better emulation processes. I mean,
I've had interesting I had had real interesting conversations and
interviews with some of the people who work in Pixar.
I had the woman I think she I don't think
she directs this one, but she's heavily involved in this one.

(20:43):
And I talked to her way back when she was
working on something early. It may have it may have
been Mowana, which is a Disney one rather than Pixar.
But her entire job was to figure out how to
represent water, and we had a whole conversation about that.
But they have people, They have dozens of people just
figuring out how to make fur look like fur, and

(21:05):
how to make the sunlight come through it, and how
to make wind move in a natural, chaotic sense. And
it's the science and math and artistry is beyond me.
But they've got scores of people doing that, and that's
that's where the nuance comes in. They've gotten to the
point where they can fully animate everything. It's just it's

(21:26):
getting more and more realistic without crossing into that on
Kinney Valley, because again, you still have humans. You don't
want them to look too human because they look weird,
and so they still got to look cartoonish. So there's
a lot of stuff that goes on behind the screens
in these kind of movies.

Speaker 1 (21:42):
And how much faster with technology do you think, because
I mean you think back to Disney and all the
stuff from the early days, some of which now is
no longer going to be like it's you know, bit
by bit, the trademark or service marks are going away.
That's why we've seen some bastardization of some stuff that's
been made.

Speaker 4 (21:58):
But like the public the main stuff like Screamboat Willie
and stuff like that, and for Windy dis movie which
blending Honey and the Man.

Speaker 2 (22:09):
Yeah, I love that. But they used to draw this.

Speaker 1 (22:12):
There were animators like rooms and rooms of them with
like pencils and ink and stuff. And now it's obviously
uh technology and people behind it with computers.

Speaker 4 (22:23):
Is it.

Speaker 1 (22:24):
How much do we know AI in the future of that?
I hate to say, And I know everything must like
AI AI, everything is AI, but that has to play
into this somehow down the line, if not currently.

Speaker 4 (22:34):
Yeah, well yes and no. I mean it's real dicey
for these these companies because you know, Pixar does not
want to dip into the AI pool because it would
be seen as a slap in the face to all
the people that work there. I think a lot of
and you've got to really kind of parse AI versus
what it is, what it's used for, what people use

(22:56):
it for, and how they use it, and whether some
people want to use it or never use it. I mean,
there's a there's a lot of discussion. I know, you've
had AI people on before, but I don't think there's
gonna be anything AI and a Pixar movie anytime soon,
because Pixar has built itself on the human element of animation.
And even then AI is used as a g Whiz

(23:19):
Kitchie type thing of you going on Facebook and saying,
do an AI portrait of me? Or you want to
do something. I want to see a dog riding an eagle,
you know, something like that. But that's that's disposable. That's
that's there's no market for something like that. You know,
Like there's an Ohio lottery ad running around it's clearly AI,
and okay it's a lottery. But like movies like The

(23:44):
Bad Guys Too. Do you remember that movie that came
out a couple months ago. Yeah, that one, and and
other ones that they're starting to do. They're starting to
put notices on those that say this is not to
be absorbed by AI and put into their database. We
prohibit that because there is a huge fight coming, especially

(24:05):
in U animation and in Hollywood where AI. Because the
way AI works is it digests all this other stuff
and then kicks it back out and makes it and
uses the style. But there's no royalty payment or no
or no credit given to what it was trained.

Speaker 1 (24:23):
One, and I've talked to experts on that, and I
don't mean interrupt, but this is the thing that I
can't process. If you and I went into a room
and took other people's work and regurgitated it and put
our thumbprint on it.

Speaker 2 (24:36):
We could be sued. But the AI does that, and
people go, well, you know it's all out there.

Speaker 4 (24:43):
Yeah, well there's a difference, and that's why I think
why they're putting those stamps on it. And we talked
about this a little bit with that that that roof
type rooftop fight with Brad Pitton, Tom Cruise. Yeah, and
there's like one with Fanos fighting Darth Vader. Part of those.
You're getting those and they look cool, but there's no
story behind them, so you cannot make a movie based

(25:05):
on that. And they're they're alreadys trying to put safeguards
in and there are people trying to use AI to
you know, regurgitate scripts, and I imagine you can probably
get an AI to regurgitate a you know, like something
really cheesy, like a like a Hallmark holity. There's something
that follows that exact formula, but you're not going to
get a Pixar movie out of it because there's a

(25:25):
lot of creativity and that sort of flash of genius
that AI isn't even trained to do. They're just as
I understand it, Ai, it's a garbage in garbage that
type thing. They can only do what they've been taught.

Speaker 1 (25:38):
Yeah, and that really is the case in Pixar certainly
is not garbage, that's for sure. Even though you know
a couple of those, like you said, weren't exactly as
popular as they had been.

Speaker 2 (25:46):
So do you like this?

Speaker 1 (25:47):
I mean, if you've got kids, this is one they're
probably it's hard to find a movie that kids don't like.

Speaker 4 (25:51):
Like this to big a routine right now. So yeah,
they're no longer a little one.

Speaker 2 (25:56):
They're not yours.

Speaker 1 (25:57):
But I mean when you see this, do you know,
just like when they were little, did you ever take
them to an animated feature that they were like, well
this sucks, dad, let's go.

Speaker 4 (26:05):
Well, they've been ones they liked more than others. Pixar's
the key with Pixars. Pixar always does stuff that's cute
and vibrant and entertaining that kids are gonna like even
the high even something like Up, which has a lot
of adult themes and ideas in it. And why I
said adult themes, I don't mean like X Ray. I'm
just talking about like grown up.

Speaker 2 (26:25):
Yeah.

Speaker 4 (26:26):
Yeah. But then it still has the dog that talks,
you know what I mean, and which was named Kevin.
The bird was named Kevin.

Speaker 2 (26:34):
That's Up.

Speaker 4 (26:36):
So that's what Pixar is really good at. That's kind
of where they're masks all at, where they can do
the cute stuff that gets the little kids engaged, but
it also has the story elements that the adults like.
And so in terms of Hoppers, it's cute forest creatures
doing funny things. So yeah, kids are gonna like it, right,
but adults can appreciate it because it goes deeper into

(26:56):
that and it's a deeper cut and that's what made
it's a really good movie, even though at times it
does at certain times kind of feels like it's replaying
some of Pixar's greatest hits. But like I said, they've
done a couple of dozen movies, so you're gonna you're
gonna again.

Speaker 2 (27:14):
Ye, yeah, I would think that's the case.

Speaker 1 (27:16):
Talking to Kevin Carr by the way, Silver Gecko and
substances where you can find he'll pop in your mailbox.
He's had this long series. I think it's The Rabbit,
right or something like that. That's been the.

Speaker 4 (27:24):
Running the Rabbit for Yeah, that's a that's a novella
that I had been eking out over the weeks.

Speaker 2 (27:29):
Which is great.

Speaker 1 (27:30):
You just sort of here's a little bit, here's a
little bit, here's a little bit more. That's good marketing.
I like the way that works. Yeah, all right, so
Hopper sounds like it might be something now. And I
know I don't some of this you've seen, maybe some
you have it. Uh there have been a multitude of
hockey movies lately, and I know there's another new one
that just came out this weekend or at least maybe
streaming called Young Blood. And there's also another Frankenstein or

(27:53):
Bride the Bride, which is another the Bride of Franken
stuff the.

Speaker 4 (27:56):
Bride because it's got an exclamation.

Speaker 2 (27:58):
Mark, it does it's very exciting.

Speaker 4 (28:00):
Uh.

Speaker 1 (28:00):
So it's just odd that we have this window of
time where I can't recall when there were oh, there's
a couple of hockey movies here here's a and I
know there have been a variety of Frankenstein type films,
but you know the Diermo del Toro thing, which I
thought was cool.

Speaker 2 (28:13):
Now this is The Bride.

Speaker 1 (28:14):
I mean, it just seems like a here's some hockey movies,
here's some monster movies.

Speaker 2 (28:18):
Very odd.

Speaker 4 (28:19):
Yeah, I don't know. I don't know if Young bloods
in theaters, but of course I'm assuming that's a remake
of Young Blood from the eighties.

Speaker 6 (28:27):
Jack.

Speaker 2 (28:29):
Yeah, he's like, he's a daging kid. He's an Ohio
guy Rob Blaw movie. Yeah, that's true. I think so.
So there you go, Rush Jagson and you were having
a mind melt, Kevin.

Speaker 4 (28:37):
There we are. Yeah, you know, I got that Balkan
strategy going on. But you know, The Bride. What's interesting.
I've not seen The Bride. I'm very curious about it.
I understand it's very chaotic and it's not for everyone.
I think it's I think it's great that like Maggie Jillenhall,
who the actors, Maggie jillenhal directs that. Ye, and I
like the fact that she's swinging for the fences and

(28:59):
it's so completely wholly different than her last movie, which
was this sort of this relationship drama with Olivia Coleman.
I can't remember the name of it. Yeah, oh, I
love Lyvia Coleman. But this one's just kind of off
the charts in terms of craziness. But also I've heard
it's kind of like so crazy it doesn't quite give

(29:21):
you necessarily what you want. But you know, it's not
a straight up redew of the Bride of Frankenstein, and
it's certainly not a redew of the Bride which would
start staying Jennifer Beals back in what nineteen eighty six. Yeah,
but I mean, I love the if. Frankenstein is such
a it's it's such a it can be done in

(29:45):
so many different ways it is. It's that kind of
movie that you can keep redoing it and you can
do the original kind of you know, one to one
comparison of what was written in eighteen eighteen, or you
can do a modern remake of it, and you can
do and you can really you can delve deep into
some of the concepts in there. I mean, Mary Shelley
was it's a genius piece of work. If you've not
read it, yeah, it's very flowery.

Speaker 2 (30:08):
A little bit a little bit.

Speaker 4 (30:09):
Yeah, I mean so, I mean it's almost poetic in
a lot of ways. But it's a fantastic book two,
which rarely is given the actual treatment of the book.
Think everyone kind of diverts to the Boris Carlos, the
James Wayal film from nineteen thirty one.

Speaker 1 (30:25):
Yeah, well, you know what's interesting. And I just just
search on this and you would know better than I would.
So I don't know if this is legit or not.
I just want I asked how many Frankenstein movies have
been made? Sixty five it says, and they say about
forty of them. Depending on how you look at it
would qualify, you know, if you're like being real, I
guess serious about limiting access.

Speaker 4 (30:45):
Yeah, I mean like the actual Frankenstein's story. But I mean,
you know there's a been a I mean, does that
include young Frankenstein and then does that include like ghost
of Frankenstein and Son of Frankenstein.

Speaker 2 (30:56):
I've got questions now answers, and you're giving me more questions.
That's not helpful. That's not how we're supposed to work.

Speaker 4 (31:03):
But Frankenstein shows up just in just in the universal running,
he shows up like six times I mean what Frankenstein,
bride of Frankenstein, son of Frankenstein, goes to Frankenstein. Then
he shows up and Frankenstein meets the wolfman Frankenstein, House
of Dracula, House of Frankensteinstein. And do you count the

(31:23):
monsters as a as a TV because that's a.

Speaker 2 (31:26):
Franken Frankenstein too.

Speaker 9 (31:28):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (31:28):
See, I don't even know. So what qualifies just general?

Speaker 1 (31:31):
Is it like creatures that have been pieced back together
counts as a Frankenstein even if you don't give it
a Frankenstein name.

Speaker 2 (31:37):
I don't know what the rules are.

Speaker 4 (31:38):
I would say if you just say a straight up
Frankenstein movie, it involves the creator and a monster of
some sort. Okay, But I mean, you you there's a
lot of stuff that that is that that is its
own Frankens. It's like there's so many versions of Pigmalion.
You got, you know, my fair lady, you got pretty Woman,
and and so you know, I'm trying to think of
a good example of a you know, there's a lot

(32:01):
of stories that are Frankenstein's stories where somebody makes that
the product of their own creation comes back and bites
him into tail.

Speaker 1 (32:09):
Is it wrong for me to say that I think
that the bride, uh, she's somehow kind of Gothy hot
to me.

Speaker 4 (32:17):
Yeah, you know, I get that. I mean Jesse Jesse
Buckley hot because she's probably gonna win the Oscar for Hamnet,
which is a.

Speaker 1 (32:23):
Very And for those who don't know, because we're about
out of time, that that's basically a story of Shakespeare
and how he put together one of his stories.

Speaker 4 (32:31):
Well, yeah, because it's it's based on the death of
his son, right, yeah, and that's that's the tragedy, is
what spawned Hamlet, you know what some people would consider
his greatest play.

Speaker 1 (32:42):
All Right, We've gone so deep into the woods and
out in a multitude of ways, and it makes me
want to watch the movies. But I have audio to create,
and you have helped bring us to the next level.
Without you, I don't know where I would be. Kevin
Carr I remember, yes, yes, you can find him on
the Silber Gecko on substack. I'm sorry, I'm fine. I've

(33:02):
had all day to prepare for this. I was telling
Russ Jackson off the air all day. I've been talking
and fairly clearly here I finally get to hear to
the show can't talk, can't think and put it all together,
and all I have is three hours to do out
of the whole day to this. It's either or maybe
a cocktail. We'll see how it goes. Oh no, let's

(33:23):
not do that. No, that's true. Ice T be great,
all right, Kevin Carr, thank you, we'll talk to you. Yeah,
Man Silver, geto substack Kevin Carr straight away, ten o'clock
report latest on what's going on in Iran across the country.
President Trump coming to town sooner than later to tote
his agenda. We'll see how that. It comes up in
the news the other side. A number of things to
get to, but now we got to stop for news.

(33:45):
Home of the Reds they play here, seven hundred WLW, Cincinnati.
It's in every newscast just about you get a.

Speaker 2 (33:54):
News feed, it's there.

Speaker 1 (33:55):
At least I bet I saw three four stories just
since I been here that have popped up.

Speaker 2 (34:01):
In my feed on my phone.

Speaker 1 (34:03):
How you doing at Sterling hanging out find Friday into
the weekend, seven hundred WLW. The talk is that we'll
have robots doing all kinds of work and chores we
don't want to do. Technology helping surgeons and doctors and
caregivers for children and everything else, and we'll have all

(34:23):
kinds of free time, they say. But I came across
something that I I had a weird conversation with a
friend of mine and said that they had been to
Japan on some business and they had talked about going
to a massus and getting like a fool on rubbed down.
We joked a little about you know, you know, Geisha

(34:44):
and all the other stuff with that, and he's like, nah, dude, no, no, no,
And then they he said that they had a robot massuse,
like they would have a machine effectively that would do
a massage, and it was he said, early stages and
sooner than later. Next level, he said, the way they talked,
that it would be something that all of us could

(35:06):
be doing sooner than later. And I just started thinking
about what could possibly go wrong with the machine. A
robot is your masseuse, and aside from an ups factor
with its human ish humanoid not so technologically, I mean,
you know, dexterius appendages and so forth, squeezing and rubbing

(35:30):
and manipulating muscle groups and everything else that goes along
with that, a different type of happy ending. I would
imagine for sure. But I ask you, would you trust
a machine, a robot to give you a massage? I mean,
I could just see even if it wasn't, you know,
aside from an issue of somebody taking over controls of
it and then like deliberately manipulating it to cause harm,

(35:54):
if there was an ups or something in youre in
there and there's not a human you know, handling it,
controlling it, watching it it with a shut off in
a way to unplug it if in fact things get
weird I or dangerous. I can't I can't imagine that
being a smart play this early in the game. Now
maybe down the line, I would not want to be

(36:14):
a test candidate. He said it was fine, but it
wasn't able to do all the stuff that the regular
masseuse did.

Speaker 2 (36:20):
And I guess he had like a half human.

Speaker 1 (36:21):
It was like a half and half, which also lends
itself to another conversation that we probably can't have or
shouldn't have on the radio in that situation.

Speaker 2 (36:29):
So I just want to know.

Speaker 1 (36:31):
I'd say, no way in hell would I trust a
robot to give me a massage. And you go to
the next level of that, and you know, and all
to talk is and in Columbus lawmakers in the great
state of Ohio, it's been floated. I don't think it's
gotten out of committee at this point, but one of
our lawmakers was saying that he wanted to have a

(36:54):
build that would confirm that AI was not a sentient being.
Therefore humans could not go to the justice of the
peace and say I do forever and always. This machine
will obey me as my wife or my husband. And
that's a whole nother next level thing. And I thought
that was a little premature to be working on that.

(37:16):
But maybe, as we've talked, technology has been behind and
continues to be technology. I should say, is a head
of a law. Law is behind technology. It's always been
that way, it continues to be that way. It's in
the news right now dealing with AI and war plans
and control of weaponry. But this is where I'm you know,
they're talking about having weapons as soldiers. You can also

(37:38):
have a weapon to take care of your kids, or
I should say, a robot not a weapon.

Speaker 2 (37:43):
It was Freudian, I think maybe.

Speaker 1 (37:45):
And then the other idea is the robot massage five
one threes, seven, four, nine, seven, eight, hundredth the Big
One Talk Back, the iHeartRadio app. You know, spa days,
spa weekend get away kind of thing. It's nice, it's relaxing.
You can do it as a you do it on
your own. Uh you know, obviously it's therapeutic. Sometimes you
do it because you have to to get a massage,

(38:05):
because you got you know, a health issue or whatever else.
Would you want to be manipulated by and would you
trust a robot massuse? And because you are about as
vulnerable as I can imagine. I mean, have you ever
fallen asleep getting a massage? If you've gotten one, I have, right,
and like, hey, you know I need to move here there, Okay,

(38:26):
we're you know, we're all done. It just puts me
to sleep and then you just hope nothing weird happens
or you know, something funny doesn't go on. But what
I don't think I'd be able to do that with
a robot. I don't know. It just seems very difficult
in trusting it and where it could possibly go wrong.
You know, you can tell me, uh, if that certainly,

(38:47):
I mean, if it's cheaper, I guess if you could
have one at the house anytime, that you wanted it maybe,
and then you've got, of course the love doll, which
or love robot, which people are wanting to date and
have relationship with U and so on. And I don't
mean like the AI on the phone or any other device.
I mean literally like a programmed look alike human that

(39:10):
individuals might spend quality time with as someone to keep
a company at, someone to show you some love, maybe literally,
maybe figuratively. It gets kind of weird and creepy pretty fast.
But you know that's a whole other thing. And the
idea of people, you know, becoming so involved with the technology,

(39:32):
with the device, with the robot. I mean, I don't
know the next five years, next ten years. You know,
you go down to a ballpark and there'll be people
looking to buy tickets for their their robot to come
to the ballpark with them. You know, it would be
like no robot section or something along those lines. You're
going to go to dinner and instead of being alone,

(39:52):
maybe you'll have your companion with you sitting at the table.

Speaker 2 (39:55):
That would be a robot.

Speaker 1 (39:57):
I mean, don't I don't know where the line, but
they're say very quickly, whether it's childcare at home, childcare
at like a kid's place. We know the expense, we
know the access issues in the limitations that a lot
of people have getting childcare. This could be it down
the line. You know, you just wonder how has it

(40:17):
been programmed? Who programmed it? May be safer than humans,
you know, but the vast majority of caregivers, the vast
majority of people that are you know, caring for kids
or doing massage, one would figure they're probably.

Speaker 2 (40:32):
Above board, right, I.

Speaker 1 (40:34):
Mean over time, maybe the cost value of that you
spend extra number of dollars for the childcare provider, and
maybe then you change the software and after the kids
are older, they can be you know, some other type
of help over time. But I could see where it
might get a little bit dangerous. What happens if you
aggravate the AI messuse or the AI caregiver robot and

(41:00):
then it decides to go terminate. I mean, maybe I'm
just paranoid, but I'm always going to think worst case scenario.

Speaker 2 (41:06):
What could be because of the movies?

Speaker 1 (41:08):
If I went three, seven, four, nine, eight hundred, the
big one, are you ready for a robot? Massusse to
Williamsburg with h William Which is ironic Sterling on the
big one A William.

Speaker 9 (41:17):
What's up, hey, Charling, how are you doing to saving?

Speaker 2 (41:20):
I'm doing okay? Tell me? Would you want a robot massous?

Speaker 9 (41:24):
Yes, sir, I've had chronic back pain in my entire life.
I heard my back sometime ago falling on the ice.

Speaker 10 (41:31):
Not good, and I wouldn't.

Speaker 9 (41:34):
I've been to these witch doctor carra practors and things
of that nature. They just want forty five dollars every
time to come to their establishment, and a staff crackle
poppy and you feel good for about forty five minutes,
and then by god, you've got to take another a
muscle lexer. But I wouldn't. I don't know what's your take,

(41:54):
but I wouldn't mind being violated by one of them.

Speaker 2 (41:57):
There See, there's a first between being massaged and being violated. Now,
the violation some people pay good money for that. I
suppose yeah, but I don't know. If I go ahead.

Speaker 9 (42:09):
When you get up in your seventies, you'll take everything
you can take.

Speaker 1 (42:14):
I suppose that's true. I hope to make it into
my seventies. We'll see how it goes. William, thank you.
I appreciate the call. So William would be for it,
but it sounds like he would like a different type
of companion perhaps in that situation, not just for the
snap crackle and pop rice chrispy like back treatment, but
maybe some other type of treatment too. Five one, three, seven, nine, seven,
eight hundred the Big One. I would just be afraid that.

(42:36):
I mean, you would want limits. What happens if it
squeezes you too hard, it grabs you to what you know?
The next thing you know you've been manipulated in a
weird way, or you have offended it.

Speaker 2 (42:45):
I mean, I don't mean to offend anyone.

Speaker 1 (42:48):
I try very hard to be as congenial and thoughtful
as I possibly can to my fellow human beings, but
I often say things that can cross the line.

Speaker 2 (42:58):
I don't mean to. I maybe provoke thought.

Speaker 1 (43:01):
I would hope that in that situation the machine wouldn't
take offense and then cross the line. I just safeguards
would be in place. I don't think I'd want to
be the first one in the neighborhood with the robot
massus or the robot childcare provider. It could be me
to Jim now in Ambersville was Sterling on the Big One? Hey, Jim,
what do you know, Jim. Yeah, hey, Matt, at your time.

Speaker 10 (43:26):
I don't want that part. No, I would want a
real woman with general soft hands. Yes, that would be
perfectly fine.

Speaker 2 (43:38):
That would be for the robot massus.

Speaker 1 (43:40):
You say you no robot massuse, but a female would
you go to a male masseuse to give you in
a you know, like a rubdown?

Speaker 9 (43:48):
I don't believe so.

Speaker 1 (43:52):
Is the weird thing is that you get into that
And Jim, I appreciate the call me and thank you.
And I've had this conversation before in that I've had
a friend of mine very close to me, and she's like, well,
I'm gonna go to the messuse.

Speaker 2 (44:04):
I want to let you know it was a dude.

Speaker 1 (44:06):
And I'm like, I really hadn't thought about it, okay,
And she's like, well, you're not going to have a problem.
And she tells me that she had gone out with
another guy at the time and he had a problem
with her going to get a massage from a guy.
He wanted her to go to a female messus. And
I'm like, well, it's a massage. It's not like you're

(44:26):
going to go get You're not going to a brothel.
You're going to go get a rub down. So I
didn't necessarily see the problem in the uncomfortable factor in
that relationship situation. I suppose could be there on either
side of the coin, but I'd be less fearful of
a male masseuse than I would be of a robot

(44:48):
massuse at this point, you know, when it comes to
manipulation or controller otherwise five went three, seven, four, nine, seven,
eight hundred, the big one. Your chance to get interactive
something else here when we come back after your ten
third or report. And I'll mention this a little here
now too. Conversation I had to start the show was
with Morgan Fox.

Speaker 2 (45:05):
He works for.

Speaker 1 (45:07):
Normal which is an organization that's tried to get back
to a normalized law and rational control of marijuana across
these United States effectively. And we're talking about the issue
of cannabis use and what was argued in front of
the Supreme Court the other day, which is the idea,
and the court seemed thankfully, although you don't know until

(45:29):
they come up with the decision, which could be months
from now, but they seemed less inclined by the way
of their questioning to be hip to the idea to
keep people from having access to firearms and embracing the
Second Amendment bare arms for anyone using marijuana, because there

(45:50):
are some people who are of the opinion that if
you use marijuana, and I don't mean getting high and
then picking up your gun, just in general, if you
and vibe, whether it's for medical purposes or recreational purposes,
the idea and I don't see any difference between that
and alcohol, which is really the rub. And where do
they stop. Because it's been illegal for anyone who uses

(46:11):
marijuana or cannabis products to have a firearm or use one.
They want to keep that even though it's legal and
decriminalized in Ohio, whether it's for medicine or for recreation.
In more and more states like Kentucky with the medicinal
and so on, it's growing the communities across the country.
State by state, they're falling like Domino's more reasonable rational

(46:32):
idea of people being responsible adults handling their business and
until you act otherwise. Where you are causing a problem
driving intoxicated, whether it's from bourbon or beer or you know,
a weed for that matter, it's no difference if you
pick up a gun and you're drunk. There's a problem,

(46:54):
and a lot of the stuff that you hear about
in the news with people grabbing a gun and involving
them selves and some type of gun play and engaging
in violent behavior with the firearm. They're often drunk or
high or something like that. It doesn't mean that being
drunk or high causes the behavior. It just means that
some people don't the same way they get behind the

(47:16):
wheel of a car, the same way they do other
things irresponsibly. But you know, we are at place that
until you do something dumb and irresponsible, generally you're free
to roam about the sandbox of life and go about
your business. Are and I'll open up the phone and
give you a chance to sound off as we get

(47:37):
closer to news here. I'm curious, are you of the
opinion that individuals who go to the dispensary and get weed,
whether it's for recreation or for medicinal purposes, because they've
got some type of pain or whatever other reason, the
doctor has given them the okay to go get the
weed product of some sort, whether it's a you know,
a gummy or an edible of some sort, or something

(47:59):
to smoke with whatever. Is there any difference between the
weed and alcohol when it comes to handling your business responsibly.
And what I mean by that is if somebody drinks,
do you immediately say you shouldn't have a gun? I
don't mean I'm not talking about a habitual alcoholic drunk
driving you, you know, making bad choices all the time

(48:21):
and not handling their business.

Speaker 2 (48:23):
But just everyday people.

Speaker 1 (48:25):
I think most reasonable, rational people can simply look at
things and go, Okay, it's legal to drink, and as
long as you don't do dumb things while drinking and drunk,
then you're fine, in other words, to be responsible. What's
the difference between that in the weed and the argument
that the Supreme Court and the questions that the Supreme

(48:46):
Court asked of those arguing that case the other day
would lead me to believe that they're looking at weed
no differently than alcohol. But there are many people, and
I got some people close to me who are of
a different view.

Speaker 2 (48:57):
We'll give you a.

Speaker 1 (48:57):
Chance to sound up on that and a whole lot
more commonversation coming up on a Friday night. Your ten
third report sooner than later as well, with a second
half now underway. By the way, it's a six point
leave for Miami leading OU right now in Athens over
the Bobcats red Hawks sixty one and I think it's
a fifty five for OU News straight away.

Speaker 2 (49:20):
More Sterling right here, seven hundred WLW.

Speaker 1 (49:23):
You got a United States in Brazil getting on a
World Baseball Classic right now.

Speaker 2 (49:28):
I think they're in Houston, aren't they? If I'm not mistaken.

Speaker 1 (49:31):
What used to be Enron Field, which I think they
still call Minute May Park. Nobody, Oh, oh, somebody else
bought the rights. I don't know. Since they didn't pay me,
I'm not really all that concerned about it. It is
a great ballpark. If you ever get a chance to
go to Houston to see the Reds on a road trip,
I highly recommended. Incredible ballpark, great city. Aaron Judge up

(49:51):
to bat now one for four, the two run home
run earlier, seven to four, USA leading Brazil, And there
was a home run off of Walka just a in
the other half of the inning, and I was talking
to Russ off the air. I said, normally I don't
really like get excited about a competitive team, like hitting
a home run off a team I'm rooting for. But
they hand the crowd in the stadium and there were

(50:13):
these people supporting Brazil and Brazilian women just dancing around,
and I'm alright with that. I just you know what
I mean, it's wrong to say that. I don't mean
to sound lecherous. I don't mean to sound dirty. I
don't mean to sound wrong. But if that's wrong, I
don't necessarily want to be right. Reds can win, USA
can win. Brazilian's happy about a home run. I'm fine

(50:37):
to watch the celebration. I hope that's okay. I updated
sooner than later about the two injured after a shooting
in Mainville Kroger there apparently closing for the rest of
the night. They are Hamlet and Township police given updates
on that. That's there on forty eight in Mainfield, right
near where my buddies mom used to live in that area.

(50:59):
I think I've actually been to that Kroger now that
I think about it, so hopefully it's not too serious.
They say both people have minor injuries from the police
report that they've shared so far, in stable condition and
at the hospital or at least for the time being
last report that I have seen, so hopefully they're okay
and we'll figure out exactly what.

Speaker 2 (51:18):
The deal is with that.

Speaker 1 (51:20):
I want to mention something else, and I teased it
going in to the news, and I am somewhat taken
a back by it.

Speaker 2 (51:32):
Here's my question to you. If you drink, you like beer.

Speaker 1 (51:37):
A lot of people go to the ballpark, they like beer, right,
A lot of people in the backyard patio. I mean
it sort of felt like summer ish, certainly baseball season
ish here in the Tri State.

Speaker 2 (51:47):
Out of the patio.

Speaker 1 (51:47):
Maybe have a couple of cold drinks, some cocktails or
whatever else tonight. Should you be allowed, as it stands
right now, to have alcohol and still be able to
have the right to have, you know, guns, Should you
be able to bear arms, have the right to own firearms?
If you drink, I don't mean if you're drunk and

(52:08):
shooting the weapon irresponsibly. That's a question because if in fact,
the argument in front of the Supreme Court this week
goes the direction of some who say that they believe
if you use cannabis, if you use marijuana products, you
should not be allowed to have or use a firearm.
And no one's talking about doing it while you're high

(52:28):
or while you're drinking. A lot of people have mood
altering drugs, you know, from depression, for bipolar stuff, you
name it. A lot of people, a lot of different
types of medications and so on. And the argument that
they had in front of the Supreme Court is trying
to maintain, even where weed is legal, like in Ohio
for recreation and also for medicinal purposes, to say that

(52:53):
if in fact you go to the dispensary use weed
responsibly or some product associated with cannabis, or whether you
do it because you have a prescription, because you've got
clock homa or something else along those ideas lignes that
you should now somehow not be allowed to have the
right to bear arms like everyone else. And I simply

(53:13):
ask you this, until you do something wrong that shows
your ear responsible, until you have a history of past
practices of being not capable of handling your business like
a responsible adult, then they need to stay the hell
out of your rights and my rights.

Speaker 2 (53:29):
Do you not agree?

Speaker 1 (53:30):
Five one, three, seven, four, nine, seven, eight hundred The
big one sounded like the justices and Cony Barrett as
others asking questions as that was being argued. It didn't
seem like the attorney had much of a comeback for
a lot of a question, so we'll see how it
plays out a couple months down the line. I'm just
curious where your head is on this because I know
a lot of people are somewhat conflicted. They go, well,
I don't like them smoking the weed and getting, you know,

(53:51):
getting their guns out. Well, you shouldn't be drinking and
getting your guns out either. It's a matter of being
responsible and it's a legal product, and if you handle
your self responsibly, it should be no different until you
act inappropriately five point three seven four nine seven thousand,
eight hundred the Big One. Your chance to get interactive
on that as well at Sterling Radio. If you're on

(54:12):
x what used to be called Twitter, you can certainly
sound off that way as well. It just seems like
a very basic thing where individuals should be able to
be responsible handle their business and until you do something wrong,
I don't know why people want to get into your business.
I want the less government in your life. I want
less government in my life. It's just bewildering how when

(54:35):
it's convenient and it's something that someone personally doesn't like,
they think you, if you do, should not be able
to do what it is that you want.

Speaker 2 (54:43):
It's an odd.

Speaker 1 (54:44):
I don't even know what to call it, if it's a
nanny state kind of thing or what, but it's it's
very weird, and it's a multitude of different things that
come up in that way. But it's very hypocritical. I
think they're like, oh, no, you can drink, but you
can't smoke, or or whatever else it is, and it
just makes no sense. So hopefully some reasonable, rational, thoughtful

(55:08):
decision making, and when that response is handled down for
the Supreme Court, hopefully they won't do something stupid. For
one of a better way to describe it, your chance
to get interactive now five point three seven nine, eight
hundred the Big One to Hamilton and Mark then Larry
in room for you on a Friday night, Sterling, Mark,
what's going on?

Speaker 2 (55:28):
Appreciate you being on the Big One.

Speaker 8 (55:30):
Oh, not too much.

Speaker 4 (55:31):
How you doing?

Speaker 1 (55:32):
I think I'm all right, man, just hanging out and
joining watching this on Miami game seventy six sixty seven
over the Bobcats right now with about ten and a
half minutes left in the second half and waiting for
Red's baseball. It feels like baseball weather now. I feel good.
How are you?

Speaker 9 (55:47):
Excellent?

Speaker 10 (55:48):
Excellent?

Speaker 8 (55:48):
Same way here.

Speaker 2 (55:49):
Good.

Speaker 8 (55:49):
So what's the bottom line is we have the Second
Amendment and that's for that's its sense to have the
right to bear arms against born or mastic enemies. Yeah,
whether it be our own government or anybody, that's correct.
And that's the way I feel about. I'm a vetter
in the United States Navy.

Speaker 3 (56:07):
I appreciate your.

Speaker 8 (56:11):
The problem is, it's like anything now, it's you how
to be a responsible citizen. There's too many idiots out there.
Over half America's idiots, and we got to take care
of business.

Speaker 1 (56:23):
Yeah, well, wait a minute, Mark, don't go anywhere yet.
I'm kind of curious, do you who decides who's an
idiot and who should lose their rights because of their
idiotic behavior.

Speaker 2 (56:31):
That seems like a hygh percentage of.

Speaker 8 (56:33):
Idiots going, idiots felling through, Idiots because they got busted
for doing something stupid.

Speaker 1 (56:38):
Well, if they if they were rightfully convicted. But sometimes,
you know, the law could be wrong sometimes situations.

Speaker 8 (56:44):
Actually that's right too, that's also correct.

Speaker 1 (56:47):
Yeah, it's difficult, but yeah, I don't necessarily just hear.
The problem is, Mark that as we speak, somebody's driving
down seventy four going you know, that's Stirling and Mark.
They sound like idiots and we are on the other half,
and then what do you do?

Speaker 8 (57:00):
Right, that's right, Well, that's the whole problem. They're the
ones that hit said on the other side.

Speaker 4 (57:04):
Because if you can't.

Speaker 8 (57:05):
Be responsible human beings is in the United States of America,
then I don't know what the problem is.

Speaker 1 (57:11):
Well I don't either, and I think that's just a
human thing across the board, just in general, to be responsible,
hand of your business and kind to your neighbor.

Speaker 2 (57:18):
Mark, I appreciate the calling in.

Speaker 1 (57:20):
You're listening to Larry now with Sterling on the big one, Larry,
what's going on?

Speaker 9 (57:24):
No real fast? Well, on the guns in marijuana, I mean, it.

Speaker 11 (57:29):
Doesn't state in the constitution that you can't.

Speaker 10 (57:33):
On the arm if you smoke pot.

Speaker 11 (57:35):
I mean that's so you can't just splinter a law
from that's that's if you got somebody who.

Speaker 3 (57:40):
Want to charge your takeaway, you're gone.

Speaker 11 (57:42):
You could certainly argued on that basis that the person
then it says I had the right to bear arms.
It doesn't specify anything in that and that's period. But
also a shout out to any of the students out
there that's taking any film classes to do yourself or
acting or directing.

Speaker 9 (58:00):
Do yourself a favor and listen to watch Harvey.

Speaker 2 (58:04):
Listen to what. I'm sorry, I.

Speaker 11 (58:07):
Watched the movie Harvey, Oh, Harvey the Rabbit and Jimmy Stewart.

Speaker 2 (58:11):
Yeah, with Jimmy Stewart.

Speaker 10 (58:13):
Brilliant, brilliant, brilliant movie.

Speaker 3 (58:15):
Great movie.

Speaker 11 (58:15):
I'm sure we ben are very on that it's a
great movie.

Speaker 2 (58:18):
So do you know another movie in modern times?

Speaker 1 (58:20):
Not to say that that wasn't a modern times picture,
but it is a great movie about the rabbit. Nobody
else saw Donnie Darko. This is another movie with a
rabbit in there.

Speaker 2 (58:30):
Have you seen that?

Speaker 11 (58:31):
I've never seen it. Originally, I just wanted to make
a comment Cincinnati, Cincinnati went out of his way and
to make a statement. How anti is say?

Speaker 3 (58:41):
Are wouldn't it.

Speaker 11 (58:42):
Be nice Trump's coming here? As matter of fact, Monday
I heard would may be surprised if the federal government
just told them they'll go jone Bridge?

Speaker 2 (58:51):
Then well, I think those moneys have already been set
aside in budgeting in a.

Speaker 11 (58:57):
Way, just like the builder of the hotel, Why don't
they just come along, you know, the conventional way.

Speaker 1 (59:02):
Why are you wanting to put a wait a minute,
why are you trying to crap on the economy in
a bridge that should have been built thirty years ago.

Speaker 11 (59:09):
Because they made a statement of that such of substance
about how they're anti ICE and anti ICE and this
and that, or at least criminals without notifying ICE. They
went through their trouble of doing that, So let's go
through the trouble or taking their bridge away.

Speaker 2 (59:24):
I don't go well, day, did you see you wouldn't appear.

Speaker 1 (59:28):
I understand, and it's clear that you don't, and Larry,
I appreciate the call, but I don't think that you
can punish the rest of the tri State and one
of the busiest interstate highways in the nation North South
seventy five seventy one going across the Ohio River. It's
just a dumb ass of an idea as somehow trying
to threaten the bridge built by Canada, that somehow you're

(59:49):
not going to open the bridge or whatever else. I mean,
come on, seriously, and the reality is that if you've
got violent criminals, people who have been busted doing criminal behavior,
there is no reason any reasonable rational person should say
if you're here illegally and you've done criminal stuff beyond that,
and you're locked up and you've been charged, and once

(01:00:09):
that process moves through and they're convicted, then they can
be booted and move along through that plant. It seems
to me that one of the problems we've seen, aside
from what was a disaster in the Twin Cities area
and the way ICE has handled their business there. And
they've said as much that it was effectively an abortion

(01:00:29):
but it's exactly what they wanted as a show, but
really poor planning in the way that it was operated
as far as working for the people of the United States.

Speaker 2 (01:00:40):
I mean, it just is.

Speaker 1 (01:00:41):
But you know, in the big scheme of things, you know,
if you're in a situation where you're trying to look
out for the betterment of the community, then yeah, you
have to to say, Okay, these people are in trouble,
they've done criminal behaviors, Okay, they're locked up, they've been charged.
Then yeah, you notify ICE they're here illegally and they've

(01:01:02):
broken the law, and then you can go through that process.
But just running, you know, willie Nilly, turning through neighborhoods
and grabbing people who happen to look or sound like
they might not be here illegally, which for a nation
that is made up of people from everywhere else, it's
pretty stupid. And generally, you know, what, what does it
take a generation to two, depending for people who fall

(01:01:24):
off the boat or come across the border one way
or another and to decide to call America home. That
first generation, depending on their age and where they come from,
they may not really have a firm grasp of English
and how we live here societally, but that next generation
tends to, and then that third generation certainly does. And

(01:01:45):
that's the way it has always worked, and it will
probably continue to be that way.

Speaker 2 (01:01:49):
What's amazing.

Speaker 1 (01:01:50):
And I've been fortunate enough to where I've been able
to go to a number of different places out of
the country, and probably to you know, the disgust of
some others, I may have been the ugly American from
time to time, even though I've tried not to be.
And the truth is, everywhere I've gone. Initially traveling out
of the country, I made a point to try to
go to places where English was pretty common there and

(01:02:13):
maybe like to the UK first and so on. And
then as I got a little braver and they're like, Okay,
well I'm gonna go to France, or I'm gonna go
to like, you know, in the Netherlands in Amsterdam, and
I'm gonna go to Mexico and everybody else around the
world pretty much not everybody, but a whole lot of
people know English. It's sort of like the universal language.
So in time they come here and they learn it.

(01:02:34):
But you can't just point fingers at somebody because they
sound different or look different and say, oh, you're you know,
you got to go. And that's the problem that I
think a lot of people have is that that's the
way that was being handled. Hopefully the new guy in
charge and Holman obviously, who come out a history of
dealing with border issues and so forth, and maybe even
they turned the page back and look at exactly how

(01:02:56):
they got out and I misspoke about this, and I'm
glad this came up. Larious, thank you for bringing it up.
About two weeks ago, I was talking about the disaster
that was the Twin Cities enforcement issue and all the
ugliness there and the way it was going on, and
they were talking about everybody, well, let's get the illegals
out let's get the illegals out, and the numbers are

(01:03:16):
bewildering and lacking in some credibility when they say how
many are here criminally doing criminal stuff aside from just
being here illegally, which there is some difference. But if
you're here illegally, that's well, it's in the name, you're
illegally here, right. But that being said, it's just troubling

(01:03:37):
that you're in a situation where you're just randomly going
after people. Otherwise in an administration or two ago, going
back to arguably Biden, but certainly before that. Trump's first
term less so, but the two before that with Obama
and then even Clinton before that, they got out close
to four million people. I think it was three point

(01:03:58):
two or three point four million people, and there was
not the type of weird, over the top activities that
we have witnessed in this early part of the second
term for Trump. So hopefully they'll move ahead and go
after the criminals and go after the problems and then
maybe be in a better situation that way. We'll see

(01:04:19):
how it goes. I mean it, it's just difficult.

Speaker 2 (01:04:23):
It really is.

Speaker 1 (01:04:25):
Five point three seven four nine, seven, eight hundred. The
big one your chance to get interactive. Coming up after
eleven o'clock Mike d Wall from space dot com he
will join us. We'll talk about that Artemis rocket that
they were repairing and a new schedule for changes of
them trying to get up and around the moon. Plus
also private space stations and all that talk about like

(01:04:45):
going to near space and taking a trip that way.
Sooner than later we'll be able to go to private
space stations like on vacation or you know, like there
might be a Hiltons or something in space which would
be tremendous. Let's get one more here before the break
to Mason and Randy was sterling on the big one.

Speaker 2 (01:05:03):
Hey Randy, I.

Speaker 10 (01:05:05):
Mean thanks for taking to call.

Speaker 3 (01:05:06):
Yeah, man, well, i'd like to I'd like to.

Speaker 10 (01:05:08):
Know you know that every time the administration says that
you know that they're rounding up these illegal aliens, that
that they're always the worst of the worst. Everybody's a
rapist or murderer or you know, uh, battery. But but
I I find it hard to believe that there's that
many of them and most of them are not just

(01:05:30):
here whose only crime is here illegally, as opposed to
trying to break, you know, support their family, work hard,
and so on.

Speaker 1 (01:05:39):
If you heard well, you know, I can tell you
this that the numbers that have come out that have
been published by the government don't go along with what
the government has been saying publicly.

Speaker 2 (01:05:49):
If that makes sense, Okay, they've said.

Speaker 10 (01:05:51):
What that's that's that's kind of that That's exactly what
I was trying to ask and get.

Speaker 1 (01:05:56):
At there their numbers, what they have said, as you
just described, the worst of the worst, has been a
lot of talk. But the numbers that they show of
actual people that have been taken and you're either being
held currently or have been deported, it's a much smaller number.
It's a lot more of what you described as just
being here illegally. But it is key term there is
they're not legally here, So you're kind of you're kind

(01:06:19):
of in that wear.

Speaker 10 (01:06:20):
If I understand that, well, except that I don't, I
can justify being here, you know, break, you know, you know,
being here illegally to support your family. In other words,
if that's your if that's your crime, then more power
to you. I'm never going to convict. If I was
on the jury, I would never convict that person of

(01:06:41):
being here illegally.

Speaker 1 (01:06:43):
Well, I don't think that there's such a thing as illegal.
Let me just say this because I don't think we
necessarily disagree fully on this. I don't think there's anything
described as like an illegal human. But the bottom line is,
you know, being aggressive and treating people that way for
just being here across the border and doing exactly what
you said would is trying to have a better life
and are working, contributing to the community and contributing to

(01:07:03):
the society. That's another thing. And maybe there's a pathway
to citizenship or something else, which they've done numerous times
in our history. So we can agree on some stuff,
other stuff we can't. And obviously a lot of the
other at show and it's you know, it's chumming the
water for people that like to, you know, to have
that type of thing because we're motivated by pleasure and
pain and hate, and that's very effective.

Speaker 10 (01:07:26):
Well, maybe maybe this new guy will be a little
different than.

Speaker 2 (01:07:31):
We'll see how that goes. I hope so too.

Speaker 1 (01:07:32):
I think Holman knows what he's doing. And Randy, I
appreciate the comment. Thank you against the wall in time.
I'm actually late. Russ Jackson don't be mad. I think
I owe you a minute. Uh, Mike Wall straight away,
Kevin Carr talking movies. There's more to do. It's a
Friday Starling where the Reds play home with the Reds
and those basketball bear catch tomorrow in action here seven
hundred wwle Cincinnati Comfy confines to the studio with the

(01:07:54):
window into a hallway along Montgomery Road down from the
Kenwood Town Center.

Speaker 2 (01:07:58):
All the way to the Bay Area for Ohio.

Speaker 1 (01:08:01):
Guy who knows from space flight stuff that directs such
things for space dot Com might be well, welcome back
to the big One with Sterling.

Speaker 2 (01:08:08):
How are you.

Speaker 3 (01:08:09):
Man doing good?

Speaker 2 (01:08:12):
I'm doing okay. I have to ask.

Speaker 1 (01:08:14):
So we talked a couple of weeks ago, and I
realized that getting to space on the best of days
is dangerous. On the worst of days, you end up
a cautionary tale and a horrible story of tragedy and
loss and being a pioneer to get somewhere out there.

(01:08:36):
Which leads me to the Artemis to Moon rocket that's
supposed to be going up and around the Moon. As
they start to plan to get to the Moon and
then maybe elsewhere like Mars and so forth, down the line.
NASA was repairing it. It was supposed to be fixed
in the last week or two. The wheels will come off,
which I don't think it really has wheels except when
it rolls to the bad Can you blreak down what happened,

(01:08:56):
what they're.

Speaker 2 (01:08:56):
Doing, please?

Speaker 9 (01:08:59):
Yes.

Speaker 12 (01:08:59):
So they they found like a little problem with the
upper stage of the rocket. There was a problem with
with like the they're like the flow of like helium
through the upper stage and that's that's an issue because
because they use helium to actually pressurize the propellant tanks.
So if the helium is not flowing through properly, then
the tanks can't pressurize and you can't fill them properly.

Speaker 3 (01:09:22):
And it's just it's it's a no go.

Speaker 12 (01:09:23):
So they had to roll it off the launch pad, uh,
probably like a week and a half ago to get
it fixed back in the hangar at Kennedy State Center
in Florida.

Speaker 3 (01:09:33):
And they apparently have done that.

Speaker 12 (01:09:35):
I mean they they've given us a few updates over
the past week or so saying that that the fixes
are going pretty well. But the but the rollback, they
like had been actually pushing for a launch like as
early as as like today I think it was, but
with the rollback from the pad that took the sort
of window out of play, that the March window out
of place, and now the earliest it could launch is

(01:09:56):
actually April first.

Speaker 1 (01:09:58):
Well at least they're fixing it before sending it up
there and then going, oh, well that didn't work out
for us, because we've seen a couple of times when
you know, something catastrophic has occurred. How much time do
you know that they have spent from coming up with
this artemous rocket change to where they are now with

(01:10:19):
the idea that it would get to you know, to
the moon and back around and so forth, and then
maybe utilize it over time, because this is one of
those reusable deals.

Speaker 2 (01:10:27):
Yeah, no, it's actually this.

Speaker 3 (01:10:30):
This is this. Yeah, this is like not a reusable rocket.

Speaker 12 (01:10:33):
You know, we're like we're so used to uh just
SpaceX kind of making reusability kind of commonplace, or you
just you just sort of assume most rockets are re usable,
because most rockets are because most rockets are launched by SpaceX.
But yeah, this is this is like an old fashioned
like expendable rocket. Fly it once and it falls into
the ocean, and you don't use it again, which is

(01:10:55):
sort of that's one of the reasons why there's been
like this long lag time. If people are remember that this, yeah,
this is the Artemis two mission. I mean Artemis one
launched November of twenty twenty two, and that was a success.
It was also long delayed. They had to roll back
to the to the hangar at Kenny Space Center multiple
times to fix propellant leaks and stuff like that. But

(01:11:17):
that mission, which sent like an uncrewed Orion capsule to
orbit around the Moon, it was ultimately successful back in
late twenty twenty two. But here we are in early
twenty twenty six and we haven't had another Artemist mission yet.

Speaker 3 (01:11:32):
We're still waiting for Artemis two to fly.

Speaker 12 (01:11:34):
So it's coming up on three and a half years
between the first Artemist mission and the second. And that's
not something that that NASSA Ahead planned when they set
they started mapping out like the Artemis missions and how
it was, Yeah, because a vision they would fly about
once per year, and yeah, we just haven't seen that.
Part of that's because it's difficult to build a moon

(01:11:54):
rocket and this is a new one and they're being
ultra careful because this is going to have astronauts on
it and so forth. But it's still well, yeah, this
is still like a much bigger gap between launches than
nasahead anticipated.

Speaker 1 (01:12:04):
Talking to Micah Wall from space dot com Stirling on
the big one. So yeah, okay, so not reusable, but
it is massive. I mean, we've talked about a couple
of these, and you think about like skyscrapers, you know,
thirty five forty stories tall. Some of these rockets are
comparable size to a mid sized or even you know,
forty story skyscraper. That's hard for someone to process how

(01:12:29):
that thing is propelled out of our atmosphere anywhere, let
alone off the ground at all.

Speaker 12 (01:12:36):
Yeah, and that's the case with the Artemis Moon rocket.
It's called the Space Launch System. It's about three hundred
and twenty feet tall, so it is basically like I mean,
it's like a thirty story building that launches launches into space.
It's it is remarkable, and you can't really like appreciate
the scale of these things unless you're actually standing next
to them or kind of close to them on the
launch pad.

Speaker 3 (01:12:56):
You can't get like right next to them.

Speaker 12 (01:12:57):
Obviously it's dangerous, but if you could see them with
your own eyes and just see.

Speaker 3 (01:13:01):
How big they are.

Speaker 12 (01:13:01):
It is, I mean it is really it's it's kind
of shocking that they can actually fly and get up
into space, and that just gives you a better appreciation
for how much energy is going into these things. And
that's exactly why spaceflight is dangerous and why they have
to be so careful because any yeah, any little kind
of problem with that much energy involved is going to
be a big, big deal.

Speaker 1 (01:13:22):
Yeah, it could be catastrophic, to say the least, if
it were using gas, which it's not because you know,
gas prices have gone up.

Speaker 2 (01:13:29):
What fuel does it use it?

Speaker 1 (01:13:30):
Because, I mean it is massive and most of that
they would use a small one, right, if it didn't
take so much fuel, you know, in that process to
ignite it to get it going. Correct. So, I mean
it's not because there's that much stuff that it's carrying.
That's just propellant I guess or whatever you whatever that
term is for the fuel.

Speaker 2 (01:13:47):
Correct.

Speaker 3 (01:13:49):
Yeah, they they do use a lot of propellant.

Speaker 12 (01:13:51):
It actually runs like liquid hydrogen is the main propellant
and then there's an aquidizer liquid oxygen, and both of
them are cryogenic to get which means really cold, like
I mean, to be liquid. Those those those molecules have
to be super super cold. So that's another complication. You
liquid hydrogen is a very small molecule, you know, it's

(01:14:12):
just too it's it's it's two hydrogen atomsponded together. And
that's been an issue, especially on the first Artimist mission.
If that's a really small molecule, so it leaks very easily.
And that's why they had all these leak problems on
Artemious one.

Speaker 3 (01:14:24):
There if there's a.

Speaker 12 (01:14:25):
Tiny little leak in any of the seals or anything,
I mean, liquid hydrogen can just zip out through it
such a small molecule, and so they just really had
to work hard to fix those leaks in the first one.
They seem to have that under control now, but they
there's there's always something, there's always a new complication. It
seems like when there's a giant rocket like this, it
is made up of like literally millions of different parts

(01:14:46):
and all of them have to be installed perfectly correctly
and work in concert with each other. It's it's just
a really difficult undertake. I mean, it is rocket science
after all.

Speaker 1 (01:14:55):
The name it's like it's rocket science, you know, it
really is. Talking to a Spaceflight Tech Channel editor from
space dot com, Ohio guy out west, Michael O.

Speaker 2 (01:15:05):
Wall was stirling on the big one.

Speaker 1 (01:15:07):
Now, let's shift gears if we can, because we've talked
about you know, being trash men in space or you know,
you know, like waist recovery, like a runky or whatever
else up in space. You know, that's there's the future
in that because the space debris a problem. But the
other thing that we talked about, you know, these trips
to space for tourists, you know, for obviously people of

(01:15:28):
some means or fame where you know, they can see
the marketplace by saying, you know, so and so into
space and then some other rich person will cough up
some cash because they want to be like them. But
we had joked about space stations and you know, if
regular people could be living up there, whatever the hell
regular people mean, Mike. But there are apparently at least

(01:15:49):
one or two private space station projects that are going
on or not up there yet, but they're building tourment.
Can you break down what is going on? One of
which is like a half billion dollar d called Haven.

Speaker 12 (01:16:00):
I think, yeah, it's it's actually more than one or two.
It's like more like four or five. It's in that neighborhood,
you know. And that's put a that's probably because actually
NASA has been encouraging their development. NASA has, yeah, has
been funding some of these private space stations because the
like the goal is you know, like like the International
Space Station, which has been around for a quarter century

(01:16:22):
now with astronauts on board all the time, it's coming
toward the end of its life. The current plan is
to kind of retire at the end of twenty thirty,
although actually Congress is pushing to extend that by two years.
And so what NASA wants to do is have a
you have at least one or two kind of private
space stations ready to go like when the ISS is done,

(01:16:43):
so that there will be no gap in sort of
like a destination to send their astronauts to in the
North orbit and so, yeahs as astronauts are going up
and down in the National Space Station, NASA has also
got this other program that is encouraging the development of
these private space stations. It's like sort of like you know,
how how the agency they encourage the development of of
like private ashnout taxis like the most famous one has

(01:17:06):
been very successful by SpaceX, you know, to take ashnuts
up and down, do that like via the private sector.
So if you have the same kind of vision in
line with private space stations, you know, help them get
up and running, be like an anchor.

Speaker 3 (01:17:19):
Tenant for them, to help them stay afloat.

Speaker 12 (01:17:21):
And then like eventually other kind of customers would come along,
and they may be super rich people who want to
go up there and spend one hundred million dollars to
spend like like a month in orth orbit and so on,
and just.

Speaker 1 (01:17:31):
Kind of yes, yeah, yeah, I could live the interest
of the one hundred but like, oh just a month,
you know, and think about going to Mexico and doing
scuba diving, and I'm like, can I pull off a month?

Speaker 2 (01:17:41):
Could I do that? Just go to space? The hell
would it? Do it? It's only a four million, two
hundred million you can spare that, right, that's crazy?

Speaker 12 (01:17:48):
Yeah, yeah, well, there there are a lot of There
are a lot of very very wealthy people out there
who are looking for new and impressive ways to spend
their money and to impress their friends.

Speaker 2 (01:17:58):
Absolutely.

Speaker 1 (01:17:59):
You know what I love about this though, in the
midst of all of the talk Mike about robots taking
over an AI and what's coming. They name one of
these space stations haven because this is where the rich
are gonna look to escape, Like the really rich, you're
looking to escape, a haven away from the hell when
they go when everything goes down the toilet, they're gonna
leave us here. Yeah, you know, you just seem as

(01:18:21):
a matter but yeah, yeah, I mean, I guess I
can't change it. I shouldn't be bothered. But you're just like, well,
of course they are. That doesn't make me feel better
at all.

Speaker 12 (01:18:28):
Well, it's sort of there is like a dystopian line
of thinking by some of the people who are space
flight enthusiasts who are just like, well, we can, like
we need to expand Commandy's footprint out into the Solar System,
we need to colonize Mars. We need to do something
because you know, Earth is a way station. We're eventually
gonna screw it up enough where it's eventually going to

(01:18:49):
be animable. And it's like that that may be true,
but it doesn't mean we should give up on Earth,
or we should just say everything's screwed up and we
should just move on. But there are some people who
kind of it's kind of implied in some of the
push out into space kind of arguments.

Speaker 1 (01:19:04):
Well, it's pretty wild, and so they'll go out on
a missile a rocket to space and stay and if
we're lucky, I mean, your situation may be mine different,
will end up like in an old abandoned silo, living underground. Maybe,
I mean, that's that's what's left for the rest of us.
I don't know, you know, maybe Russ Jackson, maybe our

(01:19:25):
Willie will live different.

Speaker 2 (01:19:26):
I don't know, but.

Speaker 1 (01:19:29):
That just I'm not I mean, like, did you ever
see that movie Chud Cannibalistic humanoid underground dwellers. Yeah, I'm
very unnerved by that. Now this ties into that one
more thing and then we'll let you hop and I
really do appreciate you making time, you know, on your
weekend Mighty Wall from space dot Com with Sterling on
the Big One. Something that ties into whether it's a
scientist and astronauts of one type or another on the

(01:19:51):
space station or elsewhere, or the rest of us on a
vacation or escaping, you know, the end of the world
as we know it. They've been attempting to grow all
kinds of things. But apparently now that they've simulated lunar
dirt and so forth, I don't know how that happens.

Speaker 2 (01:20:05):
They've grown chickpeas.

Speaker 1 (01:20:06):
That's a positive thing, right for the future and being
able to sustain life and then using that as a
place to go to the next yeah.

Speaker 12 (01:20:13):
Yeah, yeah, And it's sort of like the expansion off
of Earth, like we're talking about it. It's like a
step by step project and these are baby steps, but
there's still steps, you know, trying to figure out can
we grow crops in lunar in lunar dirt? And if
we can, how efficient would it be? And if we can't,
why is that? What might we have to change? And yeah,

(01:20:34):
so there's a group of scientists who did like successfully
grow chickpeas and in simulated moon dirt.

Speaker 3 (01:20:39):
You know, we've we've brought dirt back.

Speaker 12 (01:20:41):
From the Moon on the Apollo missions, so we know
like the basic consistency, how big the the grains are,
what the they're composed of, so you can you can
make a pretty faithful simulant of that stuff.

Speaker 3 (01:20:52):
And there's been a lot of kind.

Speaker 12 (01:20:53):
Of experiments using those sorts of simulants of both Mars
dirt and Moon dirt, And yeah, scientists are starting to
figure out that you can grow plants in them. You
just have to add some of the nutrients, and you
have to be very patient, and you just have to
do a lot of trial and error.

Speaker 3 (01:21:07):
But I mean some of those.

Speaker 12 (01:21:08):
Experiments are actually returning like relatively positive results.

Speaker 2 (01:21:11):
That's a step in the right direction.

Speaker 1 (01:21:12):
And then that course leads me to, then does that
mean that we'll eat like real protein, Like they'll bring
chickens that'll float around, they'll have to like, I don't know,
velcrow them down, or cattle there'll be velcrowed to the
wall like Letterman in the old days or whatever else.
Or will it just be simulated meat protein products that
you know or whatever else? Do they have a plan
or an idea, any thoughts that they've shared, or what

(01:21:33):
do you think?

Speaker 12 (01:21:35):
I think that the food science will progress in concert
with the space science such that we won't have to
take cows with us, hopefully, but that that could there, They're.

Speaker 1 (01:21:46):
Like, and then we'll just leave and the cows will
be like, well, there weren't really a lot of us before.
The people anyway, Yeah, they're probably gonna they're probably gonna
be enough people who make breakthroughs with like with like
simulated meat, or people set it slabs of tofu or
i know, squeeze the tea of tofu into your mouth.

Speaker 3 (01:22:04):
There's something on the way. It's probably a lot more like.

Speaker 1 (01:22:07):
Yeah, because I'm thinking like on a on a Sunday
afternoon watching space baseball or whatever the hell else is
going on. Other be like, hey, can I get one
of those vacuum packs of squeezable ribs please?

Speaker 2 (01:22:18):
Yeah, I can.

Speaker 1 (01:22:19):
I can see that being my Sunday afternoon. You could
at least grow green. You know, we'll see about the
other stuff.

Speaker 2 (01:22:25):
Thank you for making time.

Speaker 1 (01:22:26):
Anything else in short order that we should look forward
to in this next week or so ahead in space
or otherwise, Mike.

Speaker 12 (01:22:33):
I don't think so, just sort of the lead up
to Artemis too. You know, it's not that far away.
If if if April first is still the target dat
and it seems like it is, then that's only a
few weeks off. So there'll be a drumbeat of anticipation
for that and and little news news pieces coming out
about that. But that's that's gonna be a really big
deal when it happens, you know, sending astronauts to the

(01:22:54):
neighborhood of the Moon for the first time.

Speaker 3 (01:22:55):
It's Apollo.

Speaker 2 (01:22:56):
Oh hell yeah, that's massive.

Speaker 3 (01:22:58):
Yeah, it'll be cool.

Speaker 1 (01:22:58):
They should move it to April second, just on principles.
People won't believe it or something like that.

Speaker 9 (01:23:03):
I don't know.

Speaker 3 (01:23:03):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (01:23:04):
Always a good talking to you from space dot Com.
It's Mike d.

Speaker 1 (01:23:07):
Wall he knows from space Stuffs, tech Channel editor in Spaceflight.
Thank you, man, take care of yourself. Enjoyed the rest
of your weekend.

Speaker 3 (01:23:15):
Yep, yeah, man said to you.

Speaker 1 (01:23:16):
Take care of yourself all right, straight away. You got
your eleven thirty report. It's not ed up, but one
hundred right now with five minutes to go in overtime
Miami RedHawks and oh you getting at it the news
straight away, Kevin Carr of the Other Side talking movies
here the Home of the Red seven hundred. Wow, just

(01:23:37):
when he thought it was safe to go back to
the movie. Sure, there's been Frankenstein movies built and rebuilt
creatures of one kind or another, a couple of those recently,
one new this weekend, and Pixar's back with something new too.
They've created something and it looks beautiful, at least the trailers.
I've seen a guy who sees these things. He picks
one every week, he joins us. He can end up

(01:23:57):
in your mailbox if you find him a silver gecko
on the sub stack. He was also my partner of
the Chubby and Stick podcast. Kevin Carr. Welcome back to
seven hundred w welw wi Sterling.

Speaker 2 (01:24:06):
What is going on?

Speaker 4 (01:24:08):
Oh, not much, just just getting ready to talk to
you about the new Pixar movie.

Speaker 2 (01:24:12):
I guess right, well, I think so. Yeah, Hopper, Hopper.

Speaker 4 (01:24:15):
Hopper has nothing to do with the sheriff from Stranger Things.
Don't worry different thing or you know, maybe that's what
you want and the kid's movie, you could.

Speaker 2 (01:24:25):
It might be a little different, a little strange for sure.
What is this about?

Speaker 1 (01:24:29):
Is this about like all creatures in Woodland, creatures, small
furry things or what exactly is this?

Speaker 8 (01:24:34):
Yeah?

Speaker 4 (01:24:34):
Okay, so the basic gist of it is, there's this
girl who loves this Nate. She lives in a town
that's called Beaverton, and she there's her favorite Glenn that
she was at with her like her grandmother, and grandmother's
passed away. Could she can't have a Disney movie without
a dead parent or relative in there somewhere.

Speaker 2 (01:24:54):
So she.

Speaker 4 (01:24:56):
Wants to save it from being bulldozed for a free
and so she's been going toe to toe with the
mayor and trying to stop it and everything, and she
stumbles upon this technology. I'm not gonna explain how or why,
this technology that allows her to basically project her brain
her mind into a robotic beaver that is very realistic,
and then she can go talk to the animals and everything,

(01:25:18):
and as the beaver as this as this woodling creature,
she starts to try and get them to fight back
and everything. And that's the basic gist of it. It's
it goes in that line of Pixar high concept movies.
This has been a struggle for me for years on
the radio. You know, some things are easy to explain
from Pixar. A you know, a rack that wants to

(01:25:40):
be a chef. Okay, that's gratitude. You know, toys that
come to life. But then try to try to blurb
in and out, inside out as quickly as you can,
and it gets a little bit tough. But that's what's
so great about Pixar movies is they have these high
concept crazy stuff going on, and Pixar has had some
stumbles recently. You know, light Year didn't do well and

(01:26:02):
l e O kind of flopped last year. But this
is kind of going back to the original idea well,
even though it does kind of have that steal that
sort of plot point from Avatar. But I mean it's
a cute movie, it really is. And it does seem
at times derivative from some other Pixar movies, but that's
because they've they've been one like thirty or forty of

(01:26:23):
them by now there's.

Speaker 2 (01:26:25):
A lot they have made a lot.

Speaker 1 (01:26:26):
Now, what do you know about the and I know
this is geek stuff that it's not about content of
the film, which looks visually stunning, but over that window
of time. Kevin Carr, by the way, sover Gecko on
Substack with Sterling on the Big One talking about this
new Pixar movie called Hoppers, the visual is amazing and
when they first started doing stuff, we were all blown
away then, But they've come a long way. How much

(01:26:49):
different drastically and visually do you think it isn't? And
what makes it so much more special? I mean it's
just the technology, I guess.

Speaker 4 (01:26:56):
Well, yeah, it's it's technology, and you build upon other
technology and you get better processing and better computers and
different techniques and better emulation processes. I mean, I've had
interesting I have had real interesting conversations and interviews with
some of the people who work in Pictar. I had
the woman I think she I don't think she directs
this one, but she's heavily involved in this one. And

(01:27:17):
I talked to her way back when she was working
on something early. It may have it may have been Mowana,
which is a Disney one rather than Pixar, but her
entire job was to figure out how to represent water. Yes,
and we had a whole conversation about that. But they
have people, they have dozens of people just figuring out

(01:27:37):
how to make fur look like fur, and how to
make the sunlight come through it, and how to make
wind move in a natural, chaotic sense. And it's the
science and math and artistry is beyond me. But they've
got scores of people doing that, and that's that's where
the nuance comes in. They've gotten to the point where

(01:27:57):
they can fully animate everything. It's just it's getting more
and more realistic. Without crossing into that on Kinney Valley
because again you still have humans. You don't want them
to look too human because they look weird, and so
they still got to look cartoonish. So there's a lot
of stuff that goes on behind the screens in these
kind of movies.

Speaker 1 (01:28:16):
How much faster with technology do you think, because I
mean you think back to Disney and all the stuff
from the early days, some of which now is no
longer going to be like it's you know, bit by
bit the trademark or service marks are going away. That's
why we've seen some bastardization of some stuff that's been made.

Speaker 4 (01:28:32):
But like the public domain stuff like Screamboat Willie and
stuff like that for.

Speaker 2 (01:28:37):
Windy to food Movie.

Speaker 4 (01:28:40):
And Honey and which was man, Yeah.

Speaker 2 (01:28:44):
I love that. But they used to draw this.

Speaker 1 (01:28:46):
There were animators like rooms and rooms of them with
like pencils and ink and stuff. And now it's obviously
uh technology and people behind it with computers.

Speaker 2 (01:28:57):
Is it?

Speaker 1 (01:28:57):
How much do we know AI in the few turevent
I hate to say, and I know everything must like
AI AI. Everything is AI. But that has to play
into this somehow down the line. If not currently yeah.

Speaker 4 (01:29:08):
Well yes, and no, I mean it's real dicey for
these these companies because you know, Pixar does not want
to dip into the AI pool because it would be
seen as a slap in the face to all the
people that work there. I think a lot of and
you've got to really kind of parse AI versus what
it is, what it's used for, what people use it for,

(01:29:30):
and how they use it, and whether some people want
to use it or never use it. I mean, there's
a there's a lot of discussion. I know you've had
AI people on before, but I don't think there's going
to be anything AI and a Pixar movie anytime soon,
because Pixar has built itself on the human element of animation.
And even then AI is used as a g Whiz

(01:29:52):
Kitchie type thing of you going on Facebook and saying,
do an AI portrait of me? Or you want to
do something that I want to see a dog riding
in the you know, something like that. But that's that's disposable,
that's that's there's no market for something like that. You know,
Like there's an Ohio lottery ad running around it's clearly
AI and okay it's a lottery. But like movies like

(01:30:18):
The Bad Guys, too. Do you remember that movie that
came out a couple of months ago. Uh, yeah, that one,
and and other ones that they're starting to do. They're
starting to put notices on those that say this is
not to be absorbed by AI and put into their database.
We prohibit that because there's a huge fight coming, especially

(01:30:39):
in UH Animation and in Hollywood where AI. Because the
way AI works is it digests all this other stuff
and then kicks it back out and makes it and
uses the style, but there's no royalty payment or no
or no credit given to what it was trained on.

Speaker 1 (01:30:57):
I talked exts on that, and I mean, but this
is the thing that I can't process. If you and
I went into a room and took other people's work
and regurgitated it and put our thumbprint on it, we.

Speaker 2 (01:31:10):
Could be sued.

Speaker 1 (01:31:11):
But the AI does that and people go, well, you
know it's all out there.

Speaker 4 (01:31:17):
Yeah, Well there's the difference, and that's why I think
why they're putting those stamps on it. And we talked
about this a little bit with that that that roof
type rooftop fight with Brad Pitton Tom Cruiser, and there's
like one with Fanos fighting Darth Vader part of those.
You're getting those and they look cool, but there's no
story behind them, so you cannot make a movie based

(01:31:38):
on that. And they're they're alreadys trying to put safeguards
in and there are people trying to use AI to
regurgitate scripts. And I imagine you could probably get an
AI to regurgitate a you know, like something really cheesy,
like a like a Hallmark Holity, there's something that follows
that exact formula, but you're not going to get a
Pixar movie out of it, because there's a lot of

(01:31:59):
creativity and that sort of flash of genius that AI
isn't even trained to do. They're just as I understand it, AI,
it's it's a garbage in garbage a type thing. They
can only do what they've been taught.

Speaker 1 (01:32:12):
Yeah, and that really is the case in Pixar certainly
is not garbage, that's for sure. Even though you know
a couple of those, like you said, weren't exactly as
popular as they have been.

Speaker 2 (01:32:20):
So do you like this?

Speaker 1 (01:32:21):
I mean, if you got kids, this is one they're
probably It's hard to find a movie that kids don't like,
like this, trying.

Speaker 4 (01:32:26):
To figure routine right now. So, yeah, they're no longer
a little one.

Speaker 2 (01:32:29):
They're not yours.

Speaker 1 (01:32:30):
But I mean when you see this, do you know,
just like when they were little, did you ever take
them to an animated feature that they were like, well
this sucks, dad, let's go.

Speaker 4 (01:32:39):
Well, they've been the ones they liked more than others.
Pixars The key with Pixars. Pixar always does stuff that's
cute and vibrant and entertaining that kids are going to like,
even the high even something like Up, which has a
lot of adult themes and ideas in it. And why
I said adult themes, I don't mean like X ray
and I'm just talking about like.

Speaker 2 (01:32:58):
Grown up thoughts. Yeah.

Speaker 4 (01:32:59):
Yeah, but then it still has the dog that talks,
you know what I mean, and which was named Kevin.
The bird was named Kevin.

Speaker 2 (01:33:08):
That's right up.

Speaker 4 (01:33:10):
So that's what Pixar is really good at. That's kind
of where they're maskall at, where they can do the
cute stuff that gets the little kids engaged, but it
also has the story elements that the adults like. And
so in terms of Hoppers, it's cute forest creatures doing
funny things. So yeah, kids are gonna like it. Right,
But adults can appreciate it because it goes deeper into

(01:33:30):
that and it's a deeper cut and that's what makes
a really good movie. Uh, even though at times this
does at certain times it kind of feels like it's
replaying some of Pixar's greatest hits. But like I said,
they've done a couple dozen movies. So you're you're gonna
you're gonna try to flame ground again.

Speaker 2 (01:33:48):
Yeah, I would think that's the case.

Speaker 1 (01:33:50):
Talking to Kevin Carr by the way, Silver Gecko and
substats where you can find he'll pop in your mailbox.

Speaker 2 (01:33:53):
He's had this long series. I think it's The Rabbit,
right or something like that that's been running The Rabbit.

Speaker 4 (01:33:58):
For Yeah, that's a that's an vella that I had
been eking out over the week.

Speaker 2 (01:34:03):
Which is great.

Speaker 1 (01:34:04):
You just sort of here's a little bit, here's a
little bit, here's a little bit more. That's good marketing.
I like the way that works. Yeah, all right, so
Hopper sounds like it might be something now, And I
know I don't some of this you've seen maybe some
you have it. There have been a multitude of hockey
movies lately, and I know there's another new one that
just came out this weekend or at least maybe streaming,
called young Blood. And there's also another Frankenstein or Bride,

(01:34:27):
the Bride, which is another the Bride of Frankenstein.

Speaker 4 (01:34:30):
A bride because it's got an exclamation mark.

Speaker 2 (01:34:32):
It does it's very exciting.

Speaker 1 (01:34:34):
So it's just odd that we have this window of
time where I can't recall when there were, oh, there's
a couple of hockey movies. Here, here's a and I
know there've been a variety of Frankenstein type films, but
you know, the Guermo del Toro thing, which I thought
was cool.

Speaker 2 (01:34:46):
Now this is the Bride.

Speaker 1 (01:34:48):
I mean, it just seems like a, here's some hockey movies,
here's some monster movies.

Speaker 2 (01:34:52):
Very odd.

Speaker 4 (01:34:53):
Yeah, I don't know. I don't know if Young bloods
in theaters, but of course I'm assuming that's a remake
of from the eighties.

Speaker 2 (01:34:59):
Yeah, Jack, Yeah, he's like he's a dagging kid. He's
an Ohio guy Rob Blaw movie. Yeah, that's true. I think.
So So there you go, Rush Dragson and you were
having a mind melt, Kevin.

Speaker 4 (01:35:11):
There we are. Yeah, you know, I got that Bulkan
strategy going on. But you know, The Bride. What's interesting.
I've not seen The Bride. I'm very curious about it.
I understand it's very chaotic and it's not for everyone.
I think it's I think it's great that like Maggie Jillenhall,
who the actress Maggie Jillhall, directs that. Yeah, and I
like the fact that she's swinging for the fences and

(01:35:32):
it's so completely wholly different than her last movie, which
was this sort of this relationship drama with Olivia Coleman.
I can't remember the name of it. Yeah, Oh, I
love Lyvia Coleman. But this one's just kind of off
the charts in terms of craziness. But also I've heard
it's kind of like so crazy it doesn't quite give

(01:35:54):
you necessarily what you want, but you know, it's it's
it's not a straight up of the Bride of Frankenstein,
and it's certainly not a redo of The Bride, which
would start staying in Jennifer Beel's back in what nineteen
eighty six? Yeah, but I mean, I love the if.
Frankenstein is such a it's it's such a it can

(01:36:18):
be done in so many different ways. It is it's
that kind of movie that you can keep redoing it,
and you can do the original kind of you know,
one to one comparison of what was written in eighteen eighteen,
or you can do a modern remake of it, and
you can do and you can really you can delve
deep into some of the concepts in there. I mean,
Mary Shelley was it's a genius piece of work. If
you've not read it, it's very flowery little but yeah,

(01:36:43):
I mean so, I mean it's almost poetic in a
lot of ways. But it's a fantastic book too, which
rarely is given the actual treatment of the book. They
think everyone kind of diverts to the Boris Carloff, the
James Whale film from nineteen thirty one.

Speaker 1 (01:37:00):
Well, you know what's interesting And I just just search
on this and you would know better than I would.
So I don't know if this is legit or not.
I just want I asked how many Frankenstein movies have
been made? Sixty five, it says, and they say about
forty of them. Depending on how you look at it
would qualify, you know, if you're like being real, I
guess serious about limiting access.

Speaker 4 (01:37:19):
Yeah, I mean, like the actual Frankenstein's story. But I mean,
you know there's a mint I mean, does that include
young Frankenstein and then does that include like Ghost of
Frankenstein and Son of Frankenstein.

Speaker 2 (01:37:29):
See, I've got questions. Now you're answers and you're giving
me more questions. That's not helpful. That's not how we're
supposed to work.

Speaker 4 (01:37:37):
But Frankenstein shows up just in just in the universal
running he shows up like six times. I mean, what Frankenstein,
Bride of Frankenstein, Son of Frankenstein, Ghost of Frankenstein. Then
he shows up and Frankenstein meets the wolfman Frankenstein, House
of Dracula, House of Frankenstein.

Speaker 2 (01:37:55):
Oh I like that one. Yeah.

Speaker 4 (01:37:56):
And do you count the monsters as a as a
TV because that's.

Speaker 2 (01:37:59):
A Frankenstein too.

Speaker 3 (01:38:01):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (01:38:02):
See, I don't even know. So what qualifies just general?

Speaker 1 (01:38:05):
Is it like creatures that have been pieced back together
counts as of Frankenstein even if you don't give it
a Frankenstein name.

Speaker 2 (01:38:10):
I don't know what the rules are.

Speaker 4 (01:38:12):
I would say if you just say a straight up
Frankenstein movie, it involves the creator and a monster of
some sort. Okay, but I mean you you there's a
lot of stuff that that is that that is its
own Franks. It's like, there's so many versions of Pygmalion,
you got you know, my fair Lady, you got pretty Woman,
and and so, you know, I'm trying to think of
a good example of a you know, there's a lot

(01:38:35):
of stories that are Frankenstein's stories where somebody makes that
a product of their own creation comes back and bites
him in the tail.

Speaker 1 (01:38:43):
Is it wrong for me to say that I think
that the bride is she somehow kind of Gothy hot
to me?

Speaker 4 (01:38:51):
Yeah, you know, I get that. I mean Jesse Jesse
Buckley hot because she's probably gonna win the Oscar for Hamnet,
which is a very.

Speaker 1 (01:38:58):
And for those who don't know, because we're about out
of time, that's that's basically a story of Shakespeare and
how he put together one of his stories.

Speaker 4 (01:39:05):
Well, yeah, because it's it's based on the death of
his son, right, yeah, and that's that's sort of the
tragedy is what spawned Hamlet, you know what some people
would consider his greatest play.

Speaker 1 (01:39:16):
All Right, we've gone so deep into the woods and
out in a multitude of ways, and it makes me
want to watch the movies but I have audio to
create and you have helped bring us to the next level.
And without you, I don't know where I would be.
Kevin Carr, Yes, yes, you can find him on the
sober Gecko on substack. I'm sorry, I'm fine. I've had

(01:39:36):
all day to prepare for this. I was telling Russ
Jackson off the air all day. I've been talking and
fairly clearly. Here I finally get to hear to the show.
Can't talk, can't think and put it all together, and
all I have is three hours to do out of
the whole day to this. It's or maybe a cocktail.
We'll see how it goes. Well, now, let's not do that. No,

(01:39:57):
that's true. Ice T be great, all right, Kevin Carr,
thank you, We'll talk to you. Yeah, man, Silver Gecko
substat Kevin Carr. Home of the Reds. They play here,
seven hundred WULW, Cincinnati,

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Hey Jonas!

Stuff You Should Know

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;}Sterling 3/6/26

Episode Transcript

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;}Hey Jonas!

Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

All Episodes

Sterling 3/6/26

Hey Jonas!