October 1, 2025 • 52 mins
Tonight on The Brian Crombie Hour, Brian interviews Neil Seeman. Neil reflects on his front-page opinion piece about Charlie Kirk, calling him an intellectual rooted in a more civilized era, much like William F. Buckley. He notes that Kirk was unafraid to question his own beliefs, debate opponents, and resist the false comfort of consensus. Neil highlights Kirk’s skill in challenging others with sharp yet cheerful inquiry, particularly engaging young people in dialogue. Like Buckley, Kirk combined ideological rigor with humor, able to poke fun at overly serious thinkers, including himself. Neil argues this tradition is fading in today’s social media-driven discourse.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
The views expressed in the following program are those of
the participants and do not necessarily reflect the views of
SAGA nine sixty am or its management.
Speaker 2 (00:18):
And everyone.
Speaker 3 (00:18):
And Welcome to the Brian Crombie Radio War. I've got
Neil Seaman with media tonight. He is a publisher or
writer at an disciplinary academic and a senior fellow at
Massey College in the University of Toronto. But he's here
tonight because he wants to talk about an issue that
he thinks is really important. He wrote a front page
column in the National Post on it. Charlie Kirk was
(00:41):
an intellectual throwback to a more civilized age, in tradition
of William F.
Speaker 2 (00:45):
Buckley.
Speaker 3 (00:46):
Kirk was willing to examine his beliefs and debate his
opponents things that have been lost in the social media era,
and Neil Seaman wanted to talk to me about it. Neil,
welcome to the show.
Speaker 2 (00:58):
Thank you, Brian. It's great to be back and to
speak about free speech as something dear to both of
our hearts. I know, thank you. Why did you write
this column? Impulse? More fundamentally, I felt compelled to write it.
I was concerned that there was an indifference and lack
(01:19):
of discussion in Canada in particular around this epocal event
in America, and I felt an obligation. I felt a
reminiscence to my conversations and time at National Review in
(01:40):
the early two thousands, and I wanted to remind people
of that time and Charlie Kirk. I don't know Charlie Kirk,
I don't know his family, nor did I have any
relationship with his. Turning point, USA reminded me of that
time when we had civil discourse, when we yanked people
out of their digital echo chambers and dialogue openly.
Speaker 3 (02:04):
You called it a pop cull event.
Speaker 4 (02:07):
Why Charlie.
Speaker 2 (02:13):
Were it not for Charlie Kirk, President Trump would not
be in office today. And that's widely understood in America.
And so what we had happened in America was the
murder of someone instrumental to President Trump's electoral success. And
(02:35):
whatever you may think of him or his views, that
event was head changing for people across the political spectrum
in America. We saw a resolution in the House in America,
we saw we saw people across the aisles sort of
(02:57):
condemning a political violence. There were a wide range of reactions,
mostly in the form of a recognition that we had
to return to civil discourse. And I think it's real
and I am palpable in my discussions with Americans, and
(03:20):
I don't think we in Canada fully recognize what a
change it heralds.
Speaker 3 (03:29):
So you think that Charlie Kirk represented civil discourse. Some
people think that he was a motivator of young men
to sort of join right wing Christian ideological points of view.
So was he one or the other or both?
Speaker 2 (03:48):
Yeah, undoubtedly he seemed to have served up a return
to religion and Christianity in particular. I listened to about
sixteen hours I mean of discussion between him and various
prominent podcasters, and I didn't hear that so much as
(04:12):
I heard a provocateur. But undoubtedly there were parts of
his speech that gave rise to you young men sort
of and certainly encouraging young men to question the Democratic
(04:32):
left in particular and to join the MAGA movement. But
this was something that we saw in twenty sixteen as well.
I think I think Charlie Kirk just sort of emboldened
what was already there in the Republican Party. But beyond that,
I think He was someone who, as I say, yanked
young people in particular, going into hundreds of universities, out
(04:55):
of their digital echo chamber and forced them to confront
their assumptions, would ask questions, and he would often do
so with alacrity and as I say, good cheer, and
he would challenge them in the great spirit of William F.
Buckley and others.
Speaker 3 (05:12):
Tell everyone, if you could, who William F. Buckley was,
and what the National Review was.
Speaker 2 (05:19):
The National Review, it's still round. It's a magazine in
the center right. The National Review opposed President Trump, it
should be said, and was actually its probably strongest intellectual
counter on the right in America. William F. Buckley was
the author of umpteen books. A debater, A public debater,
(05:42):
really defined what a public intellectual was in the twentieth century. Interestingly,
he ran for mayor of New York, I think, in
nineteen sixty five, and was certainly the first conservative I
know who championed the legalization of marijuana. And I'm of
the view that the liberal progression towards the legalization of
(06:03):
marijuana would not have happened were it not for William F. Buckley.
But beyond that, the magazine was more than a magazine
and is still more than a magazine. It's a sort
of a bell weather of intellectual questioning, certainly on the
right and the center and the center right. It was
(06:24):
always a counterweight to sort of it's let's just say
it's it's provocateurs on the on the other side, like
the Nation magazine.
Speaker 3 (06:34):
And you had a personal story that you shared in
the in the column that was about William F. Buckley,
and that that gave you this connection with Charlie Kirk.
Can you tell us can you share that story with us?
Speaker 2 (06:47):
Thanks, Brian, Yeah, I was reminded of it. So what
had happened? It was two thousand and one, and certainly
I was not the center of the evening. Mister Buckley
had over essentially at dinner party where someone in conservative
circles was being recruited to be a conservative candidate for
the mayor of New York. But you know, he and I,
(07:12):
I guess, were less interested in that than we were
in conversing. And I was most interested in his forthcoming book,
which was about Elvis Presley. He was very interested in
Elvis Presley. I think it was his eighteenth or seventeenth
book published by Harcourt, and I was intrigued by the
process of him getting book blurb reviews. As you know,
(07:35):
I'm a book publisher, so I find this very interesting
still today. And at the time he was trying to
get there was a very famous musician who had given him,
a rock musician who had given him a review of
his book, and there was a bit of a kind
of a reflection on why what was going on behind
that review. He chose not to use the review, and
(07:57):
so that was my memory.
Speaker 3 (07:59):
Do you think William f uly invited other people's points
of view?
Speaker 2 (08:03):
Well, he certainly did with me. I mean we we
disagreed over capital punishment. I mean I we both we
both agreed on on the end position, but we disagreed
on how we arrived there. I recall, uh and certainly
on abortion points of disagreement. I think he with both
(08:25):
those issues. I recall he was open to the moral
complexity of them and the evolution of his thinking on
those matters and what issues were relevant. We talked about
Hillary Clinton as well. I should say, you didn't ask
me what what musician it was who gave him the review,
(08:47):
the review he didn't use. It was Mick McJagger. So
we talked, you know, we talked about any number of
things and and it was just it was it was
wide ranging, and he was kind of, yes, definitely entertaining
of different points of view. This was his life, and
I think there was some connection between sort of the approach,
(09:10):
let's say that Buckley had and the approach that Kirk had.
Speaker 3 (09:15):
Was he open to other points of view or did
he just want to persuade the other point of view
why and how they were wrong?
Speaker 2 (09:22):
Well, definitely with me, he was open to different points
of view. I mean, he was intrigued by me being
a Canadian. I mean at the time, I think I
was either the first or one of maybe only two
Canadians who had been in the orbit of National Review.
So he's intrigued by liberalism and it's March in Canada.
(09:43):
So I think he would definitely strike me as someone
who's sort of open minded to different points of view. Now,
I should say that the aftermath of Charlie Kirk reminded
me that, you know, thirty years ago, being open to
different points of view and sort of facing down the
(10:03):
strongest of your opponent's arguments was very much to regur
within intellectual combat, you know it was, so that's certainly
not unique to Buckley at all. I was a regular
guest on Abby Lewis's CBC Cross Current show, I remember,
(10:24):
and we always had good repartee. The same was true
on Michael Korn's show. I recall. It was a different time.
I mean, we all laughed. We weren't in the same
hardened positions tribalism that we are today.
Speaker 4 (10:39):
I feel was Charlie kirk an ideal logue.
Speaker 2 (10:43):
Yes, he was an ideal logue in the sense that
he was moored by conviction. He was moored by conviction,
and ideal logues are fine, you know, they're perfectly fine.
It's okay to be moored by conviction. And there's certainly
a range of issues with which I disagree vehemently with
Charlie kirkh on certainly on the gun rights and a
(11:04):
range of other matters. But he was an id logue
who at the center of that understood I think well
one and he was very clear in this in his
interchanges exchanges on podcasts, is that, you know, his personal
views needed to be separated from a turning point USA's views.
First and secondly, he was an id logue who understood
(11:29):
how important it was to face down the weakest of
your claims.
Speaker 3 (11:34):
Was he open to other points of view or did
he just want to persuade people of the brightness of
his point of view?
Speaker 2 (11:42):
Yeah, I think he was more of the latter. I
you know, I think, you know. I don't. Obviously I
didn't know him in a personal capacity, but he was.
He was definitely trying to press the point of view,
prosecute an argument. I think he felt clearly, based on
his actions, that that was done and with greater rigor.
(12:03):
If you engaged your opponents and you entered into a
kind of cage fight on a liberal campus and invited
your opponents to sort of challenge you on stage.
Speaker 3 (12:14):
A cage fight, that's an interesting analogy to use. We're
going to take a break for some messages and come back,
and I'm going to ask our guests a little bit
more about civil discourse versus where he fears we are today,
because I think he's right to be concerned about that,
and I think it's something that we've all got.
Speaker 5 (12:31):
To pay attention to.
Speaker 3 (12:32):
I'm also going to ask him a little bit about
why Charlie Kirk and his ideas were so resonated with
young men so much, and is that an issue a
trend that we have to be aware of. And I'm
also going to ask him to tell us a little
bit of himself. Stay with everyone back in two minutes
with our guests, Neil Seaman, Stay with us back in.
Speaker 1 (12:53):
Too, stream us live at SAGA nine six am dot C.
Speaker 4 (13:01):
A welcome back everyone to the Brian Cromby Radio.
Speaker 3 (13:14):
I've got Neil Seaman with us today. He's written a
really interesting front page National Post that call him about
about Charlie Kirk and his assassination and civil discourse and
some recollections he had to William F. Buckley and the
National Review. And I think, Neil, your argument is that
civil discourse is something that is healthy for our society.
(13:36):
Before you go back and ask you a couple of questions,
I want to ask you about you. The individual that
introduced us said that you were the smartest person she
had met. Why are you the smartest person? What's what's
your background? Sir?
Speaker 4 (13:50):
Tell us all a little bit about yourself.
Speaker 2 (13:53):
Well, I that obviously means that that person who introduced
us may not know enough people. But I'll certainly be
happy to tell you a bit a bit about my background.
So you know, I'm the son of two scientists. My
(14:14):
mother was women's health mental researcher, specializing in estrogens in
the brain and how they affected women's mental health. My
father was the famous dopamine scientists to understood how dopamine
receptors in the brain affect drug chemicals that lead one
down the path of severe mental illness. I'm the son
(14:38):
of Holocaust survivor. I am a lifelong student. I love
learning from people across generations, from people across disciplines. I
think I'm connected to at least six faculties in terms of,
you know, disciplines and discourse at the university. And I
(15:00):
like stretching my mind. So maybe that doesn't answer your
friends question, but it certainly answers the question why I'm
too interested in too many things.
Speaker 3 (15:11):
There's a fascinating book that I'm not sure if you've
ever heard of, called I think it was the Geography
of Genius, and it went through history where some of
the most interesting intellectual developments ever took place. And they
were in geographies where diverse cultures interacted. And they talked
about Edinburgh, Scotland, where there were famously this gentleman's clubs
(15:32):
where people would get together and argue, but then they'd
have a beer together. And the point was that you
debated like crazy, but then you didn't hate the person
you felt like after the argument was done, you could
have a drink with them. They talked about Vienna, where
Jews and Gentiles would get together and develop incredible symphonies
and great works on mental health and psychiatry and things
(16:00):
like that. They talked about some of the you know,
the Fertile Crescent, where cultures from different parts of the
world Muslim, Christian, Jewish would mix and trade and UH
and and and cultures would mix and and menus would mix,
and recipes would mix, and ingredients would mix, and ideas
would mix. And there's this whole sort of theory that
(16:24):
they put forward that that the mixing of people and
the mixing of ideas was the secret success. So much
so that they even used the UH, the terminology idea sex.
That ideas needed to meet and to mutate and to
reproduce and to have fun together, and that's how ideas
(16:44):
became better ideas. So I gotta ask you, is civil
discourse healthy for a society? Or frankly critical for a society.
Speaker 2 (16:54):
Oh, it's essential, it's the backbone. And uh we we
all we all agree, I mean, at least on paper.
I mean, it's foundational to Canadian society. It's in our
Charter of Rights and Freedoms that we encourage free speech.
(17:15):
It's really bred in the bone of several of our
recent Prime ministers, one of whom I knew quite well,
Stephen Harper. Free speech, civil discourse. And yes, I mean,
we can't possibly transplant ideas across disciplines, across faiths, across
(17:37):
nations unless we speak with one another, and certainly we
need to speak with one another in live settings or
certainly outside of social media. Once you speak with people
of opposable minds, you learn that we're always a lot
more alike than different. Up for you know, certain individuals
(18:02):
and the pantheon of evil. We can list them here
tonight if you wish. You know, most of us have
good and wish to sort of engage in friendly debate
on really complex and complex, dynamic issues. I think that
there are a lot of culpable parties, and we're all
culpable in the process of sort of melting away the
(18:28):
middle and forcing people to extremes. And there's been a
number of developments over the last twenty years that have
I think accelerated that polarization. It's not just President Trump. Yes,
he does use his megaphone in a way that can polarize,
but there are other factors in society that have led
us to, let's just say, become a thomistic and separate
(18:51):
ourselves from one another.
Speaker 3 (18:53):
I'd be interested in hearing what you think some of
those other factors are. In I think it was two
thousand and eight or two thousand and nine, I remember
a big debate between I think it was Michael Ignatiff
and Steven Harper. Stephen Harper was the Prime Minister at
the time, Michael Ignatif was I believe leader the official
opposition at the time, and they had a big debate
(19:13):
and then at the end they said something the effect of,
but in Canada, when we debate, we're competitors, were not enemies,
And I thought that was.
Speaker 2 (19:22):
A good quote.
Speaker 3 (19:25):
Too often today I think we're enemies when there's discussions
and debates, and frankly, enemies that don't even hear the
other party. So what are these factors that you've suggested
that that have changed things such that were so polarized
that we're living in our echo chavers that we're not
even listening to opposing points of view.
Speaker 2 (19:48):
That's interesting that you raised both Michael and Steven, two
wonderful people, I know, I mean interestingly. You know, Michael
a great champion of the human rights and free speech.
He once shared with me because I asked him this
very question and he said, you know, there was a
(20:08):
time when he'd be out on the on the campaign physically,
and you know, he'd only have one or two people
sort of criticize them or heckle them. But you wouldn't
know that if you were on social media, right, and
certainly social media and the smartphone and the ease with
(20:29):
which we can with no consequence sort of just say
the most awful things about one another. This sort of
spirited up, right, I mean in two thousand and seven,
that's when Twitter really took you know, started took off,
and then things magnified. The one thing that has happened
(20:56):
that we don't talk about enough is discourse in COVID
and how the COVID sort of positioning. And I'm a
public health person very much, you know, supportive of a
(21:16):
sort of non pharmacical pharmaceutical interventions and things that members
of the Trucker Convoy sort of argued against. But that
lack of the messy middle and the sort of that
period of time, that sort of four years where it
became normal to take sort of you know, feet in
(21:37):
the ground and just sort of close your ears to
other people, I think that really hardened us. And so
that's why I feel this, this Charlie Kirk moment is
something new because I think people are starting to remember
there was a time, you know, there was a time
before COVID, There was a time before social media and
all these aggravating factors when you could you could engage
(21:58):
in a kind of friendly democracy and and as you say,
have a beer afterwards and actually sort of bend your
mind in a little way. So I think those are
two factors now, you know, there's others. But we also
have I think within a younger generation, and I saw
(22:27):
this sort of after the Charlie kirkmer sort of a
lack of understanding around how you engage with tragic events.
We have the same situation after the tragic shooting of
the insurance executive in New York, right, Like, there's sort
(22:47):
of this this disconnect and I don't like blaming everything
on social media, but there there is a comfort, a
strange comfort that some members of the younger generation like
to participate in, where you just retreat into this digital
echo chamber and say, oh, yes, you know, you know,
assassination of all types is wrong, but you know, Charlie
(23:11):
kirk is is and everyone around him is an x
y Z, you know, and just sort of the most
awful things just to completely denegrate, you know, in America's case,
you know why wide swaths of the population.
Speaker 3 (23:28):
So I wonder about our electoral system and whether that's
part of the problem, because you know, you think about
the time periods where there's been a big change in government,
it has been rare, and it's been when there was
something that caused a substantial change in turnout. And I'm
(23:48):
thinking about too in particular. So you know, the statistics
I think show that if there weren't a whole bunch
of new people that came out in the first election.
Speaker 4 (23:58):
Of Barack Obama, Barack Obama would not of one.
Speaker 3 (24:00):
According to all the statistics, it was primarily people of
color that came out in dramatically greater amounts than had
happened before. That was the reason why Barack Obama got elected.
And then that turnout dissipated during the midterms and dissipated
(24:20):
even more over the next two election cycles, such that
that turnout didn't exist when Hillary Clinton was the candidate
and one of the reasons why she wasn't elected. Similarly,
when Justin Trudeau was first elected, I think in twenty fifteen,
there was a significant increase in turnout, primarily with young
people and people of color. And some people think that
(24:43):
young people showed up because of his policy on marijuana.
They wanted legalization, going back to your William F.
Speaker 2 (24:49):
Bugley argument.
Speaker 3 (24:51):
But the turnout then went down, and the statistics show
that if the turnout was the same as it had
been in the prior election, Stephen Harper would have won
another government. And so it was turnout changes. But in
almost every other election, turnout went down. And with lower turnout,
you're not trying to persuade. All you're trying to do
(25:12):
is identify and get out your vote. And you know,
I've been involved in political parties and one of my
frustrations is that those campaign organizers spend all your time
telling you go out, identify your vote, and then get
it out. And if you've identified based on history or
based on your conversation someone that is voting the other way,
don't even knock on their door, don't rouse them to action,
(25:35):
don't encourage them to come out. So that we don't
have persuasion. All we have is identify and get out
the vote.
Speaker 2 (25:45):
We've lost time, Brian. That is fascinating. So your suggestion,
your insight, and it makes sense, is that big data analytics,
especially the more granularly you get at the political campaign
line level, actually incentivizes you to just ignore the art
of persuasion political persuasion and can have a downstream effect
(26:09):
in terms of lack of engagement and voter turnout. If
I understand what you're saying correctly, and it kind of
resonates with my life too, I did. I only canvassed
a couple times once once in ninety five, and I
really enjoyed going out on the hustings and knocking on
(26:32):
doors in territory that was not friendly to my candidate.
I enjoyed it. And you know what, there were no
doors slammed on me whatsoever. I mean and more recently
we had a by election near me similar. I mean,
so when you actually do engage, you don't have hostile engagement.
(26:53):
But that's a really interesting point big data analytics. And yeah,
when I think back to the campaign that at least
big campaign that champion big data analytics, I believe it
was the Obama campaign and then sex you know, subsequent
campaigns both you know, Trump and twenty sixteen. Of course
(27:15):
at Trump twenty twenty and then more recently in Canada,
they all like to boast about the sophistication of their
big data analytics. So that that's a really interesting entrench
in insight makes sense.
Speaker 3 (27:27):
Well, in Australia, as you may know, has compulsory voting,
and they don't get one hundred percent, but they get
like over ninety seven percent to turn out. And the
interesting thing there is persuasion has to come back, and
I think they have more civil discourse at least that's
what I understand. And it's because if identifying get out
the vote is useless because you know people are gonna
(27:49):
go vote, then the key is actually persuading people to
vote your policies, So you got to spend time and
so I think that.
Speaker 5 (27:57):
Frankly, we should be thinking about that.
Speaker 3 (28:00):
Break for some messages and come back in two minutes.
I'm going to ask you about about motivating young people,
young men particularly, and is that something that Charlie Kirk
has has taught us. Stay with us, everyone, back in
two minutes with our guests Neil Semen talking about freedom
of speech and Charlie Kirk.
Speaker 6 (28:18):
Stay with us, No Radio, No Problem stream is live
on SAGA ninety sixty am dot c.
Speaker 3 (28:28):
A Welcome back everyone to the Brian crimeby Radio Radio R.
I've got Neil Semen with us tonight.
Speaker 2 (28:43):
He is You know, Pauli.
Speaker 3 (28:45):
Gott, You're involved in everything, and you're one of these
renaissance men that I'm really very impressed with you.
Speaker 2 (28:51):
What's your main gig?
Speaker 5 (28:52):
Is it?
Speaker 3 (28:53):
Is it teaching at monk or is it publishing books?
Or do you have a main gig because you're so
involved in.
Speaker 2 (28:58):
Actually, with my colleague, I to identify everything I'm doing,
So forty percent of my time is spent on publishing
my books, about fifteen to twenty percent of the university
where I'm a professor in public health, health policy, health systems,
but I'm also co teaching a computer science course this year.
And then, of course I write and speak with interesting
people like.
Speaker 3 (29:18):
You, and you've published this really interesting column in the
National Post about Charlie Kirk and his assassination and your
issues about civil discourse and comparisons with the National Review
and William F.
Speaker 2 (29:30):
Buckley.
Speaker 3 (29:31):
I'm going to change topics sort of for a while.
I've had a couple of shows recently on the alienation
of young men and the attraction young men have had.
It would appear both in Cana, United States, to the
right and to Christianity and to Charlie Kirk. And you know,
(29:54):
even Gavin Newsom, the governor of California, Democrat, has been
talking about how uh, how you know, young men are
are in crisis and they have found this sort of
challenge of identity and meaning in life.
Speaker 2 (30:09):
Uh.
Speaker 3 (30:09):
And the sort of the probably incorrect, but the sort
of generalization typical typification of them is, you know, these
single young men living in their mother's basements, playing video games,
unable to get a date, unable to get married, uh,
difficulty finding a job, you know, et cetera, et cetera.
And they're and they're and they're frustrated, they're frustrated with
with wocism, They're frustrated with women's liberation, They're frustrated with
(30:32):
uh with women having more UH positions in post second
education than men today. And the statistics are kind of
glaring that, uh that in law school and in medical
school female representation uh uh and graduation has gone up dramatically.
Whether that's good or bad, you know, people can decide
(30:52):
but it. But but it would appear that that that uh,
the fact that a majority of those positions were held
by males historically is no longer true. And yet at
the same time, not l but a significant portion have
found themselves very attracted to right wing policies, to Christianity
(31:14):
and to Charlie Kirk and to podcasts.
Speaker 2 (31:17):
What do you make of all that? Yeah, I mean
it's a lots of it's a lots to take in.
I mean, I I think youth period are are disconnected
and looking for meaning. And Charlie Kirk stands out as
someone who is a person of God and belief and faith.
(31:38):
And when you when when you have a disconnect in
your life, you're often intrigued, at least by by somebody
with an anchor and persuading you to join that anchor.
I think I think it's important to recognize that the
(31:58):
mag of movement is just that it's not conservatism as
I certainly used to understand it. Nor is it neo
conservatism as I used to understand it. You know, classical liberalism,
so called mugged by reality and resistance to the state.
Certainly not libertarianism. It's a kind of populism and what
(32:22):
some people refer to as kind of defensive nationalism. Right,
So it's that defensive nationalism. I think that's feeding into
these young men's minds, and undoubtedly from the data, increasingly
they're drifting into the MAGA movement, and they have since
twenty fifteen twenty sixteen, I mean, largely because they felt
(32:43):
left out and they weren't being covered by the national
media in America. They were ignored, suffering at great higher
rates of addiction and alienation. And so I think there
is a recognition that that young men, you know, feel
rootless or But at the same time, I think feeling
(33:08):
ignored is probably a better way of saying it. So
I and I certainly know that it's not just Charlie
Kirk as you say you were for a podcast. I
think it's it's finding finding voice, finding discourse in areas
where they wouldn't either, you know, otherwise find it. You know,
(33:30):
I think it's great that you know, we all, we all,
we're all you know, everyone you know should be very
pleased with the rights revolution in Canada and what it's
yielded in terms of women being, as you say, increasingly
perhaps overrepresented in in academic fields. But then it sort
of tails off, right because they don't often sort of
jump up the academic ladder at the same pace as
(33:53):
men as as they go through it. But those those
important detailed statistics are often removed from the debate. But
there is something to that. I don't know the full
diagnostic as to why, but I think there's something to
do with a secular society and being trapped and gaming
gaming addiction which is very troubling among young men, and
(34:16):
gambling addiction which is very troubling among young men. These
are serious addictions, and all of it bubbles together and
can often motivate Let's just say someone and I don't
want to speculate as to his condition precisely, but someone
of the nature of the assassin of Charlie Kirk into
a rabbit hole of sort of online addiction and discourse
(34:44):
with sort of the near do wells in the darkest
corners of the web.
Speaker 3 (34:47):
The Republican Party in the last election seems to have
benefited from this trend, and the Conservative Party in Canada
seems to as well. That one of the demographics that
were the biggest change from a historical voting pattern were
young men voting right wing.
Speaker 5 (35:06):
What does that say.
Speaker 2 (35:08):
Yeah, I do think it's different in Canada, though, Brian.
I mean when we look at the splits on the
right in Canada, to my understanding from the data is
that what's inspiring younger men to lean right in Canada
is the economic and sort of a hunger for economic
revival in this country, whereas I think you're right in America,
(35:32):
it's sort of more of a tug on the sort
of the populist appeal and a kind of sense of
anger right picking up on that sort of angry white
man phenomenon. Now there may well be that here in Canada.
I don't want to suggest that it's not here, but
I don't see it in the data.
Speaker 3 (35:54):
Dominantly, one of the other trends of this is maybe
a self serving question but was that people described this
last election in the United States is the podcast election.
I think that the Obama election that you talked about
being you know, driven by data, was also called the
Facebook election. That Facebook was a big motivator of vote
(36:18):
and voting attention and persuasion. I guess during that election,
this last election, lots of people described as the podcast
election because people could tune in with a long form
interview on Joe Rogan and they got the sense they
really understood the person and got to know who they
were and what their policies were. And that the politicians
(36:39):
that you know, will only going to traditional media and
get a five or you know, lucky if they were
five minute interview, really lost that opportunity. And yet that's
where most of our media is is small little snippets.
What do you think that says about media and persuasion
and civil discourse. That that and given the opportunity to
(37:02):
watch a long form interview with someone who they really
want to get to know, some people take advantage of that.
Speaker 2 (37:09):
Yeah, it's interesting. I'm reminded of the great mind Marshall McLuhan, right,
who would in tone that you need to lean into
the medium. The medium being the message. Right, So those
who fight against it don't don't just can't harness it.
And so who knows, Maybe the next election is going
to be the AI election. So yeah, it's yeah, in hindsight,
(37:32):
you're right, it was the podcast election. I think I
think what what it, what it says is in part
what I believe, and this is I think what makes
podcasting thrive is the unfiltered nature and the authentic nature
of these conversations. Right. I think people are hungry for
(37:55):
authentic discourse, both on the left and the right. They
don't want these sort of formative, filtered uh, you know,
social media dialogues. So I think that has something to
do with it. But I can't, I can't. I can't.
I can't explain it further than that, Brian, But I
invite you to compliment my insights.
Speaker 3 (38:17):
We talking priori a little bit freedom of speech. In
the last uh you know, last administration, maybe the last
couple of administrations other than Donald Trump. Uh, there was
this attitude about about society becoming too woke and that
there was cancel culture, and if you didn't have the
exact right point of view, you were canceled and you
(38:38):
lost your job, you lost your position in academia, you
were canceled, and you had to be woke.
Speaker 4 (38:44):
And now now we have this.
Speaker 3 (38:47):
What some people are describing as authoritarianism, where if you
don't have a point of view, you're sued or or
your you lose your job. Is this the same on
the right as it was on the left.
Speaker 2 (39:02):
Yes, So cancel culture is sort of clearly appealing to
to some within the fringes of magaculture, pockets of magaculture,
just as it is in h on the sort of
the Ocasio Cortes left. I mean, we we and this
(39:25):
is why, right, this is why people stand up against
stand up in favor of a free speech, some people
in favor of absolutist free speech, such that people can
can be given a platform and should not be sanctioned
except in extreme cases for saying things, for saying things
(39:48):
that that may offend. So yes, it has become And
we saw this with the the Jimmy Kimmel matter. This
has brought the best sort of exam sample of this
just in response, I guess, to the reaction to the
Charlie Kirk assassination. So yes, it's a temptation on both
sides right, So we're both wrong. The details really matter,
(40:14):
but both are are wrong. Right, but both are wrong.
Speaker 5 (40:18):
Yes.
Speaker 3 (40:20):
In Canada right now we're debating a hate speech bill
and some people are saying that's right, we should make
sure that there isn't hate speech on other people saying
that's an infrigement of free speech.
Speaker 5 (40:32):
What do you think?
Speaker 2 (40:33):
Yeah, I've always been against free sort of against the
hate speech historical section three nineteen in the Criminal Code
and hate speech laws. I saw it, you know, firsthand.
I was sort of almost almost a victim of an
innocent victim of hate speech law in Canada. In early
(40:58):
two thousands. I'd written an article about a sort of interesting,
interesting and usual trend they called masculinism, which were men
in some academics sort of advocating for certain rights of
men with respect to their children after divorce. And it
(41:21):
was given this unusual name masculinism. And this was written
up by a Status of Women a branch. It was
posted online, and all the people written up in the article,
including me, the author of the article, were documented on
a government website. And there was a suggestion that hate
(41:44):
speech laws be applied to us. So this takes us
Now this was taken down by the government of Canada
after I made a big stink of it. It was
kind of embarrassing to them. But the point of it
is is that it just shows the ease with which
these laws can be abused. And that's what worries me
and about these hate speech laws. And I also feel
(42:07):
that the intent behind them, while good, can be addressed
through existing legal structures, right, and so I think that
to the extent that it's needed, it can be embedded
in other elements of the law. Sorry, to the extent
that it's the intent behind them is needed to be addressed,
(42:28):
I think we can address them through other elements of
the law.
Speaker 3 (42:31):
And so I got to ask you, sir, if we
don't have enough of in our society today, if we
are living in these echo chambers, if we're not listening
to one another, if we're not trying to persuade, what
do we do?
Speaker 5 (42:43):
How do we solve this problem?
Speaker 2 (42:46):
We start young in the high schools, or younger we
encourage it really should be part of the curriculum that
you need to engage in debates such that you are
as familiar with your opponent's argument as they are, and
you need to articulate that, and you need to be
graded on that. That has to be embedded into the
(43:08):
school system such that we recognize that understanding one's opponent's
point of view is just as important as understanding your
own and can only make your own stronger. That's one
piece of the puzzle, and I think the other piece
of the puzzle is getting people to talk about solutions,
as we're doing right now.
Speaker 3 (43:22):
Brian. I think that you know, in those Oxford Cambridge
universities of yesteryear, they had a course called rhetoric and
you actually had to learn how to make a good speech,
and you had to make a good debate, And so
I think that that's one of the solutions as well.
Speaker 2 (43:36):
You're right.
Speaker 3 (43:37):
I also think, I really honestly think that we've got
to change our electoral system to have compulsory voting. Everyone
should go out to vote, and I think if we
had everyone or almost everyone voting, we would change our
whole system dramatically, because it's that thirty percent or forty
percent of the people that really deserve their voice.
Speaker 5 (43:59):
And would change things ramatically if we.
Speaker 4 (44:02):
Force them to.
Speaker 3 (44:04):
Use their voice and make decisions with it, and that
would change every political party on every single issue, to
think a lot more about persuasion. I think too often
in politics, in culture and life, you want to find
your supporters and you only want to get fifty point
one percent of them because that's victory, when really what
(44:25):
we should be trying to do is to try to
create consensus, unanimity and new converts and grow our supporter
base and make it a movement, hopefully, And I wish
that we did that, and I wish that we therefore
had more Charlie Kirks that of all different types of
attitudes that would go out to different universities and college
(44:48):
campuses and high schools and debate. I also think frankly,
that if we lowered the voting age to sixteen, every
politician would show.
Speaker 5 (44:57):
Up at high schools bait.
Speaker 3 (45:00):
And if you've voted once before you left high school
on average, and that would be half of the people
that would vote on average once, And given all the
different elections, maybe for sure all the people would vote
at least once. I think you'd have a tendency to
vote more often.
Speaker 2 (45:16):
So that's great, Brian, I'm with you on the sixteen Yeah, absolutely,
we got to start younger. Yeah, great, pot.
Speaker 3 (45:22):
Stay with us.
Speaker 1 (45:27):
Stream us live at SAGA nine to sixty am dot C.
Speaker 3 (45:30):
A welcome back everyone to the Brian Fromby Radio. Are
been passionate movie for a long period of time and
also been passionate but really getting to know people with
in depth conversations. Some people who.
Speaker 5 (45:50):
Criticized me in the past.
Speaker 7 (45:51):
Today, I'd like to really sit down with people and
get to know what they're all about and not I
just stayed in those really quick ten or fifteen thirty
second quick shaite handshakes.
Speaker 5 (46:02):
I'd like to sit down with people and get to
know what they're all about it.
Speaker 3 (46:05):
And you've given me that opportunity, and so thank you
very much for that, and for those of you that
have tuned in on several occasions over the course of
the last the last six years, three thousand shows, over
two thousand interviewees. It's just been an incredible opportunity and
thank you for that. I'm on every night Monday through
Friday at six o'clock on nine to sixty am. But
(46:25):
in addition to on average getting about thirty thousand listeners,
I have the opportunity to post on podcast servers, on YouTube,
on social media. I get a lot of following on LinkedIn,
and I therefore get a breadth of exposure and people
listening to me, frankly, from around the world and from
(46:46):
a lot of my different business contacts and political contacts
and other contacts, really across the Greater Toronto of Werry,
across Canada, across North America, across the world, and it
is really an incredible experience. I've been lucky enough to
interview some of my heroes in business politics, from you know,
Jim Pattison, David Peterson, John Torrey, Hayes, mccallian, the list
(47:09):
goes on, and it's been a unique opportunity for me
to spend fifty minutes with interesting people.
Speaker 5 (47:14):
Asking them about their life, their career.
Speaker 3 (47:16):
I've interviewed business people, developers, people head of different associations high.
Speaker 5 (47:22):
Tech biotech from France, from.
Speaker 3 (47:26):
Israel, from Canada, from the United States about their passion,
their business, their scientific develops and interests.
Speaker 5 (47:34):
And that's been a huge opportunity for me to.
Speaker 3 (47:36):
Really delve into what makes these people excited about their business,
their prospects, their scientific inventions, et cetera.
Speaker 5 (47:44):
And that's been a great opportunity. I also got an
opportunity to.
Speaker 3 (47:47):
Rant and have been encouraged by my broadcaster to close
my shows and or open my shows with my own
little rant or my own five or seven or ten
point plan on how I would solve problems, so that
you get to know me and I get an opportunity
to chat about the things that I'm so passionate about.
I ended up talking about politics often earlier in the
(48:09):
week and our international affairs. I've been very interested obviously
what's going on in the Middle East, in Ukraine, and
I've been able to reach out to people that are
very knowledgeable in Ukraine, in Eastern Europe, in the Middle East,
and or people that are aware of it, former ambassadors
of the like, and really delve into what caused the problem,
what is causing the problem, what the potential solutions are,
(48:31):
and some of the more negative side of things in
regards to abductions, kidnappings, hostages right. And it's been fascinating
for me the individuals that I get some key from
different parts of Israel that are willing to and.
Speaker 5 (48:48):
Interested in talking to me.
Speaker 3 (48:50):
I've interviewed people from South Africa, I've interviewed people from China,
I've interviewed people from Japan, I've interviewed people from across
Canada and in the United States.
Speaker 5 (48:57):
And in France, in the UK.
Speaker 3 (49:00):
From Ireland, I ended up connecting up with some of
my long distance cousins that are in either Scotland or
Ireland and had the opportunity to view with in them,
as well as some of my cousins from the United
States as well as across Canada later in the week.
I haven't talked about arts or lifestyle issues. I am
passionate about that. I have been presidents of the Mississiga
(49:22):
Arts Council. I've been chair of the Mississii City Summit.
I worked for the Walt Disney Company, not necessarily in entertainment.
I was doing a musement parks. I've did movies at
the TVs, I did hotels, at the restaurants. But I
really got exposed to the entertainment business and loved it,
and so I get the opportunity to delve into that
at a far greater degree. And I've also been very
interested in social capital and building communities. I've started and
(49:44):
got halfway through a doctoral thesis on social capital, and
so therefore it's a real pleasure of mine to delve
into some of these people that you know, some people
would call coaches or lifestyle people, and what they think
makes people take interview, you know, a professor of empathy
on several occasions that I just think is fascinating people
on happiness. That is obviously very interesting. And I get
(50:08):
to therefore interview people from all walks of life from
across the world and come to you every night and
try to get my message and my interviewees to you
through radio, through podcasts, through video, on social media and
on YouTube. And it's an incredible experience. And I get
to listen to them all, synthesize what they have to say,
(50:32):
think about them in regards to my own points of view,
and turn around and give you often my rent, my
ten point plan.
Speaker 5 (50:40):
And it's an incredible opportunity.
Speaker 3 (50:42):
And for those of you that reach out, and I
get comments every day, people recommending great topics, great interviews,
people criticizing some of the comments, people suggesting what new
topic I should be focused on, People trying to get.
Speaker 5 (50:56):
On my show, and it's an incredible opportunity.
Speaker 3 (50:59):
I really enjoy that opportunity to interact with you and
have the opportunity, if you're interested, get to know you
over fifty minutes of a very long, in depth conversation,
which I think is what we don't have enough of
in our world today.
Speaker 5 (51:13):
So thank you for the opportunity to spend six years,
five nights a week, over any days that is fifty
two times five, so over two hundred days a year
in chatting with you. I appreciate it.
Speaker 3 (51:29):
Thank you for listening, thank you for watching, thank you
for your participation, and thank you to Staving nine sixty
for the opportunity. It's a unique one and great one
one that I'm very very happy that I've had the
privilege to host, to interview, to spout my own point
of view and interact with.
Speaker 5 (51:48):
All of people. Thanks, good night, and to repeat.
Speaker 3 (51:52):
Which I often close my show by saying, I'm on
every night, five nights a week.
Speaker 5 (51:56):
I did a Friday I'm nine to.
Speaker 3 (51:58):
Sixty a m and stream online a tripled be saga
at sixty dot All my podcasts and videos go up
from my website Briancomy dot com as soon as the
radio show goes to air as well, I put them
on several different podcast servers on YouTube, on LinkedIn, et cetera.
Speaker 5 (52:12):
So if you missed my show on the radio, you
can get me a whole bunch of otherways. Thanks for
six years. Good Night.
Speaker 1 (52:24):
Stream us live at SAGA nine sixty am dot CA.
The views expressed in the following program are those of
the participants and do not necessarily reflect the views of
SAGA nine sixty am or its management.
Speaker 2 (00:18):
And everyone.
Speaker 3 (00:18):
And Welcome to the Brian Crombie Radio War. I've got
Neil Seaman with media tonight. He is a publisher or
writer at an disciplinary academic and a senior fellow at
Massey College in the University of Toronto. But he's here
tonight because he wants to talk about an issue that
he thinks is really important. He wrote a front page
column in the National Post on it. Charlie Kirk was
(00:41):
an intellectual throwback to a more civilized age, in tradition
of William F.
Speaker 2 (00:45):
Buckley.
Speaker 3 (00:46):
Kirk was willing to examine his beliefs and debate his
opponents things that have been lost in the social media era,
and Neil Seaman wanted to talk to me about it. Neil,
welcome to the show.
Speaker 2 (00:58):
Thank you, Brian. It's great to be back and to
speak about free speech as something dear to both of
our hearts. I know, thank you. Why did you write
this column? Impulse? More fundamentally, I felt compelled to write it.
I was concerned that there was an indifference and lack
(01:19):
of discussion in Canada in particular around this epocal event
in America, and I felt an obligation. I felt a
reminiscence to my conversations and time at National Review in
(01:40):
the early two thousands, and I wanted to remind people
of that time and Charlie Kirk. I don't know Charlie Kirk,
I don't know his family, nor did I have any
relationship with his. Turning point, USA reminded me of that
time when we had civil discourse, when we yanked people
out of their digital echo chambers and dialogue openly.
Speaker 3 (02:04):
You called it a pop cull event.
Speaker 4 (02:07):
Why Charlie.
Speaker 2 (02:13):
Were it not for Charlie Kirk, President Trump would not
be in office today. And that's widely understood in America.
And so what we had happened in America was the
murder of someone instrumental to President Trump's electoral success. And
(02:35):
whatever you may think of him or his views, that
event was head changing for people across the political spectrum
in America. We saw a resolution in the House in America,
we saw we saw people across the aisles sort of
(02:57):
condemning a political violence. There were a wide range of reactions,
mostly in the form of a recognition that we had
to return to civil discourse. And I think it's real
and I am palpable in my discussions with Americans, and
(03:20):
I don't think we in Canada fully recognize what a
change it heralds.
Speaker 3 (03:29):
So you think that Charlie Kirk represented civil discourse. Some
people think that he was a motivator of young men
to sort of join right wing Christian ideological points of view.
So was he one or the other or both?
Speaker 2 (03:48):
Yeah, undoubtedly he seemed to have served up a return
to religion and Christianity in particular. I listened to about
sixteen hours I mean of discussion between him and various
prominent podcasters, and I didn't hear that so much as
(04:12):
I heard a provocateur. But undoubtedly there were parts of
his speech that gave rise to you young men sort
of and certainly encouraging young men to question the Democratic
(04:32):
left in particular and to join the MAGA movement. But
this was something that we saw in twenty sixteen as well.
I think I think Charlie Kirk just sort of emboldened
what was already there in the Republican Party. But beyond that,
I think He was someone who, as I say, yanked
young people in particular, going into hundreds of universities, out
(04:55):
of their digital echo chamber and forced them to confront
their assumptions, would ask questions, and he would often do
so with alacrity and as I say, good cheer, and
he would challenge them in the great spirit of William F.
Buckley and others.
Speaker 3 (05:12):
Tell everyone, if you could, who William F. Buckley was,
and what the National Review was.
Speaker 2 (05:19):
The National Review, it's still round. It's a magazine in
the center right. The National Review opposed President Trump, it
should be said, and was actually its probably strongest intellectual
counter on the right in America. William F. Buckley was
the author of umpteen books. A debater, A public debater,
(05:42):
really defined what a public intellectual was in the twentieth century. Interestingly,
he ran for mayor of New York, I think, in
nineteen sixty five, and was certainly the first conservative I
know who championed the legalization of marijuana. And I'm of
the view that the liberal progression towards the legalization of
(06:03):
marijuana would not have happened were it not for William F. Buckley.
But beyond that, the magazine was more than a magazine
and is still more than a magazine. It's a sort
of a bell weather of intellectual questioning, certainly on the
right and the center and the center right. It was
(06:24):
always a counterweight to sort of it's let's just say
it's it's provocateurs on the on the other side, like
the Nation magazine.
Speaker 3 (06:34):
And you had a personal story that you shared in
the in the column that was about William F. Buckley,
and that that gave you this connection with Charlie Kirk.
Can you tell us can you share that story with us?
Speaker 2 (06:47):
Thanks, Brian, Yeah, I was reminded of it. So what
had happened? It was two thousand and one, and certainly
I was not the center of the evening. Mister Buckley
had over essentially at dinner party where someone in conservative
circles was being recruited to be a conservative candidate for
the mayor of New York. But you know, he and I,
(07:12):
I guess, were less interested in that than we were
in conversing. And I was most interested in his forthcoming book,
which was about Elvis Presley. He was very interested in
Elvis Presley. I think it was his eighteenth or seventeenth
book published by Harcourt, and I was intrigued by the
process of him getting book blurb reviews. As you know,
(07:35):
I'm a book publisher, so I find this very interesting
still today. And at the time he was trying to
get there was a very famous musician who had given him,
a rock musician who had given him a review of
his book, and there was a bit of a kind
of a reflection on why what was going on behind
that review. He chose not to use the review, and
(07:57):
so that was my memory.
Speaker 3 (07:59):
Do you think William f uly invited other people's points
of view?
Speaker 2 (08:03):
Well, he certainly did with me. I mean we we
disagreed over capital punishment. I mean I we both we
both agreed on on the end position, but we disagreed
on how we arrived there. I recall, uh and certainly
on abortion points of disagreement. I think he with both
(08:25):
those issues. I recall he was open to the moral
complexity of them and the evolution of his thinking on
those matters and what issues were relevant. We talked about
Hillary Clinton as well. I should say, you didn't ask
me what what musician it was who gave him the review,
(08:47):
the review he didn't use. It was Mick McJagger. So
we talked, you know, we talked about any number of
things and and it was just it was it was
wide ranging, and he was kind of, yes, definitely entertaining
of different points of view. This was his life, and
I think there was some connection between sort of the approach,
(09:10):
let's say that Buckley had and the approach that Kirk had.
Speaker 3 (09:15):
Was he open to other points of view or did
he just want to persuade the other point of view
why and how they were wrong?
Speaker 2 (09:22):
Well, definitely with me, he was open to different points
of view. I mean, he was intrigued by me being
a Canadian. I mean at the time, I think I
was either the first or one of maybe only two
Canadians who had been in the orbit of National Review.
So he's intrigued by liberalism and it's March in Canada.
(09:43):
So I think he would definitely strike me as someone
who's sort of open minded to different points of view. Now,
I should say that the aftermath of Charlie Kirk reminded
me that, you know, thirty years ago, being open to
different points of view and sort of facing down the
(10:03):
strongest of your opponent's arguments was very much to regur
within intellectual combat, you know it was, so that's certainly
not unique to Buckley at all. I was a regular
guest on Abby Lewis's CBC Cross Current show, I remember,
(10:24):
and we always had good repartee. The same was true
on Michael Korn's show. I recall. It was a different time.
I mean, we all laughed. We weren't in the same
hardened positions tribalism that we are today.
Speaker 4 (10:39):
I feel was Charlie kirk an ideal logue.
Speaker 2 (10:43):
Yes, he was an ideal logue in the sense that
he was moored by conviction. He was moored by conviction,
and ideal logues are fine, you know, they're perfectly fine.
It's okay to be moored by conviction. And there's certainly
a range of issues with which I disagree vehemently with
Charlie kirkh on certainly on the gun rights and a
(11:04):
range of other matters. But he was an id logue
who at the center of that understood I think well
one and he was very clear in this in his
interchanges exchanges on podcasts, is that, you know, his personal
views needed to be separated from a turning point USA's views.
First and secondly, he was an id logue who understood
(11:29):
how important it was to face down the weakest of
your claims.
Speaker 3 (11:34):
Was he open to other points of view or did
he just want to persuade people of the brightness of
his point of view?
Speaker 2 (11:42):
Yeah, I think he was more of the latter. I
you know, I think, you know. I don't. Obviously I
didn't know him in a personal capacity, but he was.
He was definitely trying to press the point of view,
prosecute an argument. I think he felt clearly, based on
his actions, that that was done and with greater rigor.
(12:03):
If you engaged your opponents and you entered into a
kind of cage fight on a liberal campus and invited
your opponents to sort of challenge you on stage.
Speaker 3 (12:14):
A cage fight, that's an interesting analogy to use. We're
going to take a break for some messages and come back,
and I'm going to ask our guests a little bit
more about civil discourse versus where he fears we are today,
because I think he's right to be concerned about that,
and I think it's something that we've all got.
Speaker 5 (12:31):
To pay attention to.
Speaker 3 (12:32):
I'm also going to ask him a little bit about
why Charlie Kirk and his ideas were so resonated with
young men so much, and is that an issue a
trend that we have to be aware of. And I'm
also going to ask him to tell us a little
bit of himself. Stay with everyone back in two minutes
with our guests, Neil Seaman, Stay with us back in.
Speaker 1 (12:53):
Too, stream us live at SAGA nine six am dot C.
Speaker 4 (13:01):
A welcome back everyone to the Brian Cromby Radio.
Speaker 3 (13:14):
I've got Neil Seaman with us today. He's written a
really interesting front page National Post that call him about
about Charlie Kirk and his assassination and civil discourse and
some recollections he had to William F. Buckley and the
National Review. And I think, Neil, your argument is that
civil discourse is something that is healthy for our society.
(13:36):
Before you go back and ask you a couple of questions,
I want to ask you about you. The individual that
introduced us said that you were the smartest person she
had met. Why are you the smartest person? What's what's
your background? Sir?
Speaker 4 (13:50):
Tell us all a little bit about yourself.
Speaker 2 (13:53):
Well, I that obviously means that that person who introduced
us may not know enough people. But I'll certainly be
happy to tell you a bit a bit about my background.
So you know, I'm the son of two scientists. My
(14:14):
mother was women's health mental researcher, specializing in estrogens in
the brain and how they affected women's mental health. My
father was the famous dopamine scientists to understood how dopamine
receptors in the brain affect drug chemicals that lead one
down the path of severe mental illness. I'm the son
(14:38):
of Holocaust survivor. I am a lifelong student. I love
learning from people across generations, from people across disciplines. I
think I'm connected to at least six faculties in terms of,
you know, disciplines and discourse at the university. And I
(15:00):
like stretching my mind. So maybe that doesn't answer your
friends question, but it certainly answers the question why I'm
too interested in too many things.
Speaker 3 (15:11):
There's a fascinating book that I'm not sure if you've
ever heard of, called I think it was the Geography
of Genius, and it went through history where some of
the most interesting intellectual developments ever took place. And they
were in geographies where diverse cultures interacted. And they talked
about Edinburgh, Scotland, where there were famously this gentleman's clubs
(15:32):
where people would get together and argue, but then they'd
have a beer together. And the point was that you
debated like crazy, but then you didn't hate the person
you felt like after the argument was done, you could
have a drink with them. They talked about Vienna, where
Jews and Gentiles would get together and develop incredible symphonies
and great works on mental health and psychiatry and things
(16:00):
like that. They talked about some of the you know,
the Fertile Crescent, where cultures from different parts of the
world Muslim, Christian, Jewish would mix and trade and UH
and and and cultures would mix and and menus would mix,
and recipes would mix, and ingredients would mix, and ideas
would mix. And there's this whole sort of theory that
(16:24):
they put forward that that the mixing of people and
the mixing of ideas was the secret success. So much
so that they even used the UH, the terminology idea sex.
That ideas needed to meet and to mutate and to
reproduce and to have fun together, and that's how ideas
(16:44):
became better ideas. So I gotta ask you, is civil
discourse healthy for a society? Or frankly critical for a society.
Speaker 2 (16:54):
Oh, it's essential, it's the backbone. And uh we we
all we all agree, I mean, at least on paper.
I mean, it's foundational to Canadian society. It's in our
Charter of Rights and Freedoms that we encourage free speech.
(17:15):
It's really bred in the bone of several of our
recent Prime ministers, one of whom I knew quite well,
Stephen Harper. Free speech, civil discourse. And yes, I mean,
we can't possibly transplant ideas across disciplines, across faiths, across
(17:37):
nations unless we speak with one another, and certainly we
need to speak with one another in live settings or
certainly outside of social media. Once you speak with people
of opposable minds, you learn that we're always a lot
more alike than different. Up for you know, certain individuals
(18:02):
and the pantheon of evil. We can list them here
tonight if you wish. You know, most of us have
good and wish to sort of engage in friendly debate
on really complex and complex, dynamic issues. I think that
there are a lot of culpable parties, and we're all
culpable in the process of sort of melting away the
(18:28):
middle and forcing people to extremes. And there's been a
number of developments over the last twenty years that have
I think accelerated that polarization. It's not just President Trump. Yes,
he does use his megaphone in a way that can polarize,
but there are other factors in society that have led
us to, let's just say, become a thomistic and separate
(18:51):
ourselves from one another.
Speaker 3 (18:53):
I'd be interested in hearing what you think some of
those other factors are. In I think it was two
thousand and eight or two thousand and nine, I remember
a big debate between I think it was Michael Ignatiff
and Steven Harper. Stephen Harper was the Prime Minister at
the time, Michael Ignatif was I believe leader the official
opposition at the time, and they had a big debate
(19:13):
and then at the end they said something the effect of,
but in Canada, when we debate, we're competitors, were not enemies,
And I thought that was.
Speaker 2 (19:22):
A good quote.
Speaker 3 (19:25):
Too often today I think we're enemies when there's discussions
and debates, and frankly, enemies that don't even hear the
other party. So what are these factors that you've suggested
that that have changed things such that were so polarized
that we're living in our echo chavers that we're not
even listening to opposing points of view.
Speaker 2 (19:48):
That's interesting that you raised both Michael and Steven, two
wonderful people, I know, I mean interestingly. You know, Michael
a great champion of the human rights and free speech.
He once shared with me because I asked him this
very question and he said, you know, there was a
(20:08):
time when he'd be out on the on the campaign physically,
and you know, he'd only have one or two people
sort of criticize them or heckle them. But you wouldn't
know that if you were on social media, right, and
certainly social media and the smartphone and the ease with
(20:29):
which we can with no consequence sort of just say
the most awful things about one another. This sort of
spirited up, right, I mean in two thousand and seven,
that's when Twitter really took you know, started took off,
and then things magnified. The one thing that has happened
(20:56):
that we don't talk about enough is discourse in COVID
and how the COVID sort of positioning. And I'm a
public health person very much, you know, supportive of a
(21:16):
sort of non pharmacical pharmaceutical interventions and things that members
of the Trucker Convoy sort of argued against. But that
lack of the messy middle and the sort of that
period of time, that sort of four years where it
became normal to take sort of you know, feet in
(21:37):
the ground and just sort of close your ears to
other people, I think that really hardened us. And so
that's why I feel this, this Charlie Kirk moment is
something new because I think people are starting to remember
there was a time, you know, there was a time
before COVID, There was a time before social media and
all these aggravating factors when you could you could engage
(21:58):
in a kind of friendly democracy and and as you say,
have a beer afterwards and actually sort of bend your
mind in a little way. So I think those are
two factors now, you know, there's others. But we also
have I think within a younger generation, and I saw
(22:27):
this sort of after the Charlie kirkmer sort of a
lack of understanding around how you engage with tragic events.
We have the same situation after the tragic shooting of
the insurance executive in New York, right, Like, there's sort
(22:47):
of this this disconnect and I don't like blaming everything
on social media, but there there is a comfort, a
strange comfort that some members of the younger generation like
to participate in, where you just retreat into this digital
echo chamber and say, oh, yes, you know, you know,
assassination of all types is wrong, but you know, Charlie
(23:11):
kirk is is and everyone around him is an x
y Z, you know, and just sort of the most
awful things just to completely denegrate, you know, in America's case,
you know why wide swaths of the population.
Speaker 3 (23:28):
So I wonder about our electoral system and whether that's
part of the problem, because you know, you think about
the time periods where there's been a big change in government,
it has been rare, and it's been when there was
something that caused a substantial change in turnout. And I'm
(23:48):
thinking about too in particular. So you know, the statistics
I think show that if there weren't a whole bunch
of new people that came out in the first election.
Speaker 4 (23:58):
Of Barack Obama, Barack Obama would not of one.
Speaker 3 (24:00):
According to all the statistics, it was primarily people of
color that came out in dramatically greater amounts than had
happened before. That was the reason why Barack Obama got elected.
And then that turnout dissipated during the midterms and dissipated
(24:20):
even more over the next two election cycles, such that
that turnout didn't exist when Hillary Clinton was the candidate
and one of the reasons why she wasn't elected. Similarly,
when Justin Trudeau was first elected, I think in twenty fifteen,
there was a significant increase in turnout, primarily with young
people and people of color. And some people think that
(24:43):
young people showed up because of his policy on marijuana.
They wanted legalization, going back to your William F.
Speaker 2 (24:49):
Bugley argument.
Speaker 3 (24:51):
But the turnout then went down, and the statistics show
that if the turnout was the same as it had
been in the prior election, Stephen Harper would have won
another government. And so it was turnout changes. But in
almost every other election, turnout went down. And with lower turnout,
you're not trying to persuade. All you're trying to do
(25:12):
is identify and get out your vote. And you know,
I've been involved in political parties and one of my
frustrations is that those campaign organizers spend all your time
telling you go out, identify your vote, and then get
it out. And if you've identified based on history or
based on your conversation someone that is voting the other way,
don't even knock on their door, don't rouse them to action,
(25:35):
don't encourage them to come out. So that we don't
have persuasion. All we have is identify and get out
the vote.
Speaker 2 (25:45):
We've lost time, Brian. That is fascinating. So your suggestion,
your insight, and it makes sense, is that big data analytics,
especially the more granularly you get at the political campaign
line level, actually incentivizes you to just ignore the art
of persuasion political persuasion and can have a downstream effect
(26:09):
in terms of lack of engagement and voter turnout. If
I understand what you're saying correctly, and it kind of
resonates with my life too, I did. I only canvassed
a couple times once once in ninety five, and I
really enjoyed going out on the hustings and knocking on
(26:32):
doors in territory that was not friendly to my candidate.
I enjoyed it. And you know what, there were no
doors slammed on me whatsoever. I mean and more recently
we had a by election near me similar. I mean,
so when you actually do engage, you don't have hostile engagement.
(26:53):
But that's a really interesting point big data analytics. And yeah,
when I think back to the campaign that at least
big campaign that champion big data analytics, I believe it
was the Obama campaign and then sex you know, subsequent
campaigns both you know, Trump and twenty sixteen. Of course
(27:15):
at Trump twenty twenty and then more recently in Canada,
they all like to boast about the sophistication of their
big data analytics. So that that's a really interesting entrench
in insight makes sense.
Speaker 3 (27:27):
Well, in Australia, as you may know, has compulsory voting,
and they don't get one hundred percent, but they get
like over ninety seven percent to turn out. And the
interesting thing there is persuasion has to come back, and
I think they have more civil discourse at least that's
what I understand. And it's because if identifying get out
the vote is useless because you know people are gonna
(27:49):
go vote, then the key is actually persuading people to
vote your policies, So you got to spend time and
so I think that.
Speaker 5 (27:57):
Frankly, we should be thinking about that.
Speaker 3 (28:00):
Break for some messages and come back in two minutes.
I'm going to ask you about about motivating young people,
young men particularly, and is that something that Charlie Kirk
has has taught us. Stay with us, everyone, back in
two minutes with our guests Neil Semen talking about freedom
of speech and Charlie Kirk.
Speaker 6 (28:18):
Stay with us, No Radio, No Problem stream is live
on SAGA ninety sixty am dot c.
Speaker 3 (28:28):
A Welcome back everyone to the Brian crimeby Radio Radio R.
I've got Neil Semen with us tonight.
Speaker 2 (28:43):
He is You know, Pauli.
Speaker 3 (28:45):
Gott, You're involved in everything, and you're one of these
renaissance men that I'm really very impressed with you.
Speaker 2 (28:51):
What's your main gig?
Speaker 5 (28:52):
Is it?
Speaker 3 (28:53):
Is it teaching at monk or is it publishing books?
Or do you have a main gig because you're so
involved in.
Speaker 2 (28:58):
Actually, with my colleague, I to identify everything I'm doing,
So forty percent of my time is spent on publishing
my books, about fifteen to twenty percent of the university
where I'm a professor in public health, health policy, health systems,
but I'm also co teaching a computer science course this year.
And then, of course I write and speak with interesting
people like.
Speaker 3 (29:18):
You, and you've published this really interesting column in the
National Post about Charlie Kirk and his assassination and your
issues about civil discourse and comparisons with the National Review
and William F.
Speaker 2 (29:30):
Buckley.
Speaker 3 (29:31):
I'm going to change topics sort of for a while.
I've had a couple of shows recently on the alienation
of young men and the attraction young men have had.
It would appear both in Cana, United States, to the
right and to Christianity and to Charlie Kirk. And you know,
(29:54):
even Gavin Newsom, the governor of California, Democrat, has been
talking about how uh, how you know, young men are
are in crisis and they have found this sort of
challenge of identity and meaning in life.
Speaker 2 (30:09):
Uh.
Speaker 3 (30:09):
And the sort of the probably incorrect, but the sort
of generalization typical typification of them is, you know, these
single young men living in their mother's basements, playing video games,
unable to get a date, unable to get married, uh,
difficulty finding a job, you know, et cetera, et cetera.
And they're and they're and they're frustrated, they're frustrated with
with wocism, They're frustrated with women's liberation, They're frustrated with
(30:32):
uh with women having more UH positions in post second
education than men today. And the statistics are kind of
glaring that, uh that in law school and in medical
school female representation uh uh and graduation has gone up dramatically.
Whether that's good or bad, you know, people can decide
(30:52):
but it. But but it would appear that that that uh,
the fact that a majority of those positions were held
by males historically is no longer true. And yet at
the same time, not l but a significant portion have
found themselves very attracted to right wing policies, to Christianity
(31:14):
and to Charlie Kirk and to podcasts.
Speaker 2 (31:17):
What do you make of all that? Yeah, I mean
it's a lots of it's a lots to take in.
I mean, I I think youth period are are disconnected
and looking for meaning. And Charlie Kirk stands out as
someone who is a person of God and belief and faith.
(31:38):
And when you when when you have a disconnect in
your life, you're often intrigued, at least by by somebody
with an anchor and persuading you to join that anchor.
I think I think it's important to recognize that the
(31:58):
mag of movement is just that it's not conservatism as
I certainly used to understand it. Nor is it neo
conservatism as I used to understand it. You know, classical liberalism,
so called mugged by reality and resistance to the state.
Certainly not libertarianism. It's a kind of populism and what
(32:22):
some people refer to as kind of defensive nationalism. Right,
So it's that defensive nationalism. I think that's feeding into
these young men's minds, and undoubtedly from the data, increasingly
they're drifting into the MAGA movement, and they have since
twenty fifteen twenty sixteen, I mean, largely because they felt
(32:43):
left out and they weren't being covered by the national
media in America. They were ignored, suffering at great higher
rates of addiction and alienation. And so I think there
is a recognition that that young men, you know, feel
rootless or But at the same time, I think feeling
(33:08):
ignored is probably a better way of saying it. So
I and I certainly know that it's not just Charlie
Kirk as you say you were for a podcast. I
think it's it's finding finding voice, finding discourse in areas
where they wouldn't either, you know, otherwise find it. You know,
(33:30):
I think it's great that you know, we all, we all,
we're all you know, everyone you know should be very
pleased with the rights revolution in Canada and what it's
yielded in terms of women being, as you say, increasingly
perhaps overrepresented in in academic fields. But then it sort
of tails off, right because they don't often sort of
jump up the academic ladder at the same pace as
(33:53):
men as as they go through it. But those those
important detailed statistics are often removed from the debate. But
there is something to that. I don't know the full
diagnostic as to why, but I think there's something to
do with a secular society and being trapped and gaming
gaming addiction which is very troubling among young men, and
(34:16):
gambling addiction which is very troubling among young men. These
are serious addictions, and all of it bubbles together and
can often motivate Let's just say someone and I don't
want to speculate as to his condition precisely, but someone
of the nature of the assassin of Charlie Kirk into
a rabbit hole of sort of online addiction and discourse
(34:44):
with sort of the near do wells in the darkest
corners of the web.
Speaker 3 (34:47):
The Republican Party in the last election seems to have
benefited from this trend, and the Conservative Party in Canada
seems to as well. That one of the demographics that
were the biggest change from a historical voting pattern were
young men voting right wing.
Speaker 5 (35:06):
What does that say.
Speaker 2 (35:08):
Yeah, I do think it's different in Canada, though, Brian.
I mean when we look at the splits on the
right in Canada, to my understanding from the data is
that what's inspiring younger men to lean right in Canada
is the economic and sort of a hunger for economic
revival in this country, whereas I think you're right in America,
(35:32):
it's sort of more of a tug on the sort
of the populist appeal and a kind of sense of
anger right picking up on that sort of angry white
man phenomenon. Now there may well be that here in Canada.
I don't want to suggest that it's not here, but
I don't see it in the data.
Speaker 3 (35:54):
Dominantly, one of the other trends of this is maybe
a self serving question but was that people described this
last election in the United States is the podcast election.
I think that the Obama election that you talked about
being you know, driven by data, was also called the
Facebook election. That Facebook was a big motivator of vote
(36:18):
and voting attention and persuasion. I guess during that election,
this last election, lots of people described as the podcast
election because people could tune in with a long form
interview on Joe Rogan and they got the sense they
really understood the person and got to know who they
were and what their policies were. And that the politicians
(36:39):
that you know, will only going to traditional media and
get a five or you know, lucky if they were
five minute interview, really lost that opportunity. And yet that's
where most of our media is is small little snippets.
What do you think that says about media and persuasion
and civil discourse. That that and given the opportunity to
(37:02):
watch a long form interview with someone who they really
want to get to know, some people take advantage of that.
Speaker 2 (37:09):
Yeah, it's interesting. I'm reminded of the great mind Marshall McLuhan, right,
who would in tone that you need to lean into
the medium. The medium being the message. Right, So those
who fight against it don't don't just can't harness it.
And so who knows, Maybe the next election is going
to be the AI election. So yeah, it's yeah, in hindsight,
(37:32):
you're right, it was the podcast election. I think I
think what what it, what it says is in part
what I believe, and this is I think what makes
podcasting thrive is the unfiltered nature and the authentic nature
of these conversations. Right. I think people are hungry for
(37:55):
authentic discourse, both on the left and the right. They
don't want these sort of formative, filtered uh, you know,
social media dialogues. So I think that has something to
do with it. But I can't, I can't. I can't.
I can't explain it further than that, Brian, But I
invite you to compliment my insights.
Speaker 3 (38:17):
We talking priori a little bit freedom of speech. In
the last uh you know, last administration, maybe the last
couple of administrations other than Donald Trump. Uh, there was
this attitude about about society becoming too woke and that
there was cancel culture, and if you didn't have the
exact right point of view, you were canceled and you
(38:38):
lost your job, you lost your position in academia, you
were canceled, and you had to be woke.
Speaker 4 (38:44):
And now now we have this.
Speaker 3 (38:47):
What some people are describing as authoritarianism, where if you
don't have a point of view, you're sued or or
your you lose your job. Is this the same on
the right as it was on the left.
Speaker 2 (39:02):
Yes, So cancel culture is sort of clearly appealing to
to some within the fringes of magaculture, pockets of magaculture,
just as it is in h on the sort of
the Ocasio Cortes left. I mean, we we and this
(39:25):
is why, right, this is why people stand up against
stand up in favor of a free speech, some people
in favor of absolutist free speech, such that people can
can be given a platform and should not be sanctioned
except in extreme cases for saying things, for saying things
(39:48):
that that may offend. So yes, it has become And
we saw this with the the Jimmy Kimmel matter. This
has brought the best sort of exam sample of this
just in response, I guess, to the reaction to the
Charlie Kirk assassination. So yes, it's a temptation on both
sides right, So we're both wrong. The details really matter,
(40:14):
but both are are wrong. Right, but both are wrong.
Speaker 5 (40:18):
Yes.
Speaker 3 (40:20):
In Canada right now we're debating a hate speech bill
and some people are saying that's right, we should make
sure that there isn't hate speech on other people saying
that's an infrigement of free speech.
Speaker 5 (40:32):
What do you think?
Speaker 2 (40:33):
Yeah, I've always been against free sort of against the
hate speech historical section three nineteen in the Criminal Code
and hate speech laws. I saw it, you know, firsthand.
I was sort of almost almost a victim of an
innocent victim of hate speech law in Canada. In early
(40:58):
two thousands. I'd written an article about a sort of interesting,
interesting and usual trend they called masculinism, which were men
in some academics sort of advocating for certain rights of
men with respect to their children after divorce. And it
(41:21):
was given this unusual name masculinism. And this was written
up by a Status of Women a branch. It was
posted online, and all the people written up in the article,
including me, the author of the article, were documented on
a government website. And there was a suggestion that hate
(41:44):
speech laws be applied to us. So this takes us
Now this was taken down by the government of Canada
after I made a big stink of it. It was
kind of embarrassing to them. But the point of it
is is that it just shows the ease with which
these laws can be abused. And that's what worries me
and about these hate speech laws. And I also feel
(42:07):
that the intent behind them, while good, can be addressed
through existing legal structures, right, and so I think that
to the extent that it's needed, it can be embedded
in other elements of the law. Sorry, to the extent
that it's the intent behind them is needed to be addressed,
(42:28):
I think we can address them through other elements of
the law.
Speaker 3 (42:31):
And so I got to ask you, sir, if we
don't have enough of in our society today, if we
are living in these echo chambers, if we're not listening
to one another, if we're not trying to persuade, what
do we do?
Speaker 5 (42:43):
How do we solve this problem?
Speaker 2 (42:46):
We start young in the high schools, or younger we
encourage it really should be part of the curriculum that
you need to engage in debates such that you are
as familiar with your opponent's argument as they are, and
you need to articulate that, and you need to be
graded on that. That has to be embedded into the
(43:08):
school system such that we recognize that understanding one's opponent's
point of view is just as important as understanding your
own and can only make your own stronger. That's one
piece of the puzzle, and I think the other piece
of the puzzle is getting people to talk about solutions,
as we're doing right now.
Speaker 3 (43:22):
Brian. I think that you know, in those Oxford Cambridge
universities of yesteryear, they had a course called rhetoric and
you actually had to learn how to make a good speech,
and you had to make a good debate, And so
I think that that's one of the solutions as well.
Speaker 2 (43:36):
You're right.
Speaker 3 (43:37):
I also think, I really honestly think that we've got
to change our electoral system to have compulsory voting. Everyone
should go out to vote, and I think if we
had everyone or almost everyone voting, we would change our
whole system dramatically, because it's that thirty percent or forty
percent of the people that really deserve their voice.
Speaker 5 (43:59):
And would change things ramatically if we.
Speaker 4 (44:02):
Force them to.
Speaker 3 (44:04):
Use their voice and make decisions with it, and that
would change every political party on every single issue, to
think a lot more about persuasion. I think too often
in politics, in culture and life, you want to find
your supporters and you only want to get fifty point
one percent of them because that's victory, when really what
(44:25):
we should be trying to do is to try to
create consensus, unanimity and new converts and grow our supporter
base and make it a movement, hopefully, And I wish
that we did that, and I wish that we therefore
had more Charlie Kirks that of all different types of
attitudes that would go out to different universities and college
(44:48):
campuses and high schools and debate. I also think frankly,
that if we lowered the voting age to sixteen, every
politician would show.
Speaker 5 (44:57):
Up at high schools bait.
Speaker 3 (45:00):
And if you've voted once before you left high school
on average, and that would be half of the people
that would vote on average once, And given all the
different elections, maybe for sure all the people would vote
at least once. I think you'd have a tendency to
vote more often.
Speaker 2 (45:16):
So that's great, Brian, I'm with you on the sixteen Yeah, absolutely,
we got to start younger. Yeah, great, pot.
Speaker 3 (45:22):
Stay with us.
Speaker 1 (45:27):
Stream us live at SAGA nine to sixty am dot C.
Speaker 3 (45:30):
A welcome back everyone to the Brian Fromby Radio. Are
been passionate movie for a long period of time and
also been passionate but really getting to know people with
in depth conversations. Some people who.
Speaker 5 (45:50):
Criticized me in the past.
Speaker 7 (45:51):
Today, I'd like to really sit down with people and
get to know what they're all about and not I
just stayed in those really quick ten or fifteen thirty
second quick shaite handshakes.
Speaker 5 (46:02):
I'd like to sit down with people and get to
know what they're all about it.
Speaker 3 (46:05):
And you've given me that opportunity, and so thank you
very much for that, and for those of you that
have tuned in on several occasions over the course of
the last the last six years, three thousand shows, over
two thousand interviewees. It's just been an incredible opportunity and
thank you for that. I'm on every night Monday through
Friday at six o'clock on nine to sixty am. But
(46:25):
in addition to on average getting about thirty thousand listeners,
I have the opportunity to post on podcast servers, on YouTube,
on social media. I get a lot of following on LinkedIn,
and I therefore get a breadth of exposure and people
listening to me, frankly, from around the world and from
(46:46):
a lot of my different business contacts and political contacts
and other contacts, really across the Greater Toronto of Werry,
across Canada, across North America, across the world, and it
is really an incredible experience. I've been lucky enough to
interview some of my heroes in business politics, from you know,
Jim Pattison, David Peterson, John Torrey, Hayes, mccallian, the list
(47:09):
goes on, and it's been a unique opportunity for me
to spend fifty minutes with interesting people.
Speaker 5 (47:14):
Asking them about their life, their career.
Speaker 3 (47:16):
I've interviewed business people, developers, people head of different associations high.
Speaker 5 (47:22):
Tech biotech from France, from.
Speaker 3 (47:26):
Israel, from Canada, from the United States about their passion,
their business, their scientific develops and interests.
Speaker 5 (47:34):
And that's been a huge opportunity for me to.
Speaker 3 (47:36):
Really delve into what makes these people excited about their business,
their prospects, their scientific inventions, et cetera.
Speaker 5 (47:44):
And that's been a great opportunity. I also got an
opportunity to.
Speaker 3 (47:47):
Rant and have been encouraged by my broadcaster to close
my shows and or open my shows with my own
little rant or my own five or seven or ten
point plan on how I would solve problems, so that
you get to know me and I get an opportunity
to chat about the things that I'm so passionate about.
I ended up talking about politics often earlier in the
(48:09):
week and our international affairs. I've been very interested obviously
what's going on in the Middle East, in Ukraine, and
I've been able to reach out to people that are
very knowledgeable in Ukraine, in Eastern Europe, in the Middle East,
and or people that are aware of it, former ambassadors
of the like, and really delve into what caused the problem,
what is causing the problem, what the potential solutions are,
(48:31):
and some of the more negative side of things in
regards to abductions, kidnappings, hostages right. And it's been fascinating
for me the individuals that I get some key from
different parts of Israel that are willing to and.
Speaker 5 (48:48):
Interested in talking to me.
Speaker 3 (48:50):
I've interviewed people from South Africa, I've interviewed people from China,
I've interviewed people from Japan, I've interviewed people from across
Canada and in the United States.
Speaker 5 (48:57):
And in France, in the UK.
Speaker 3 (49:00):
From Ireland, I ended up connecting up with some of
my long distance cousins that are in either Scotland or
Ireland and had the opportunity to view with in them,
as well as some of my cousins from the United
States as well as across Canada later in the week.
I haven't talked about arts or lifestyle issues. I am
passionate about that. I have been presidents of the Mississiga
(49:22):
Arts Council. I've been chair of the Mississii City Summit.
I worked for the Walt Disney Company, not necessarily in entertainment.
I was doing a musement parks. I've did movies at
the TVs, I did hotels, at the restaurants. But I
really got exposed to the entertainment business and loved it,
and so I get the opportunity to delve into that
at a far greater degree. And I've also been very
interested in social capital and building communities. I've started and
(49:44):
got halfway through a doctoral thesis on social capital, and
so therefore it's a real pleasure of mine to delve
into some of these people that you know, some people
would call coaches or lifestyle people, and what they think
makes people take interview, you know, a professor of empathy
on several occasions that I just think is fascinating people
on happiness. That is obviously very interesting. And I get
(50:08):
to therefore interview people from all walks of life from
across the world and come to you every night and
try to get my message and my interviewees to you
through radio, through podcasts, through video, on social media and
on YouTube. And it's an incredible experience. And I get
to listen to them all, synthesize what they have to say,
(50:32):
think about them in regards to my own points of view,
and turn around and give you often my rent, my
ten point plan.
Speaker 5 (50:40):
And it's an incredible opportunity.
Speaker 3 (50:42):
And for those of you that reach out, and I
get comments every day, people recommending great topics, great interviews,
people criticizing some of the comments, people suggesting what new
topic I should be focused on, People trying to get.
Speaker 5 (50:56):
On my show, and it's an incredible opportunity.
Speaker 3 (50:59):
I really enjoy that opportunity to interact with you and
have the opportunity, if you're interested, get to know you
over fifty minutes of a very long, in depth conversation,
which I think is what we don't have enough of
in our world today.
Speaker 5 (51:13):
So thank you for the opportunity to spend six years,
five nights a week, over any days that is fifty
two times five, so over two hundred days a year
in chatting with you. I appreciate it.
Speaker 3 (51:29):
Thank you for listening, thank you for watching, thank you
for your participation, and thank you to Staving nine sixty
for the opportunity. It's a unique one and great one
one that I'm very very happy that I've had the
privilege to host, to interview, to spout my own point
of view and interact with.
Speaker 5 (51:48):
All of people. Thanks, good night, and to repeat.
Speaker 3 (51:52):
Which I often close my show by saying, I'm on
every night, five nights a week.
Speaker 5 (51:56):
I did a Friday I'm nine to.
Speaker 3 (51:58):
Sixty a m and stream online a tripled be saga
at sixty dot All my podcasts and videos go up
from my website Briancomy dot com as soon as the
radio show goes to air as well, I put them
on several different podcast servers on YouTube, on LinkedIn, et cetera.
Speaker 5 (52:12):
So if you missed my show on the radio, you
can get me a whole bunch of otherways. Thanks for
six years. Good Night.
Speaker 1 (52:24):
Stream us live at SAGA nine sixty am dot CA.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy, Jess Hilarious, And Charlamagne Tha God!