Should AI Slow Down, or Would America Fall Behind?

0:00Welcome to Crossroads and welcome back also. Look, first of all, have we gone too far to quick with artificial intelligence and maybe we should slow down some people are saying so. In fact, that question is actually being posed in Washington right now, but many of these same calls are also accompanied by warnings saying that an AI slow down could cause the United States to fall behind on development against China and we don't want them basically owning the future of AI. It's frankly the new Cold War arms race with China. So which poses the greater risk? Unfiltered unstoppable AI or the CCP controlling unstoppable unfiltered AI. We'll talk about this. Also meanwhile, Twitch streamer Hassan Piker and a vowed communist, he used to have a picture of the twin towers being blown up in the background of his video, his set, very pro communist

1:00in fact, very openly. So he's become a key figure with a socialist movement in the United States and he's now been hit with a $150 million lawsuit alleging his online comments about Israel could incite violence against Jews and Christians. Interesting debate around freedom of speech and the limits on it frankly when it comes to actual discussions on violence. Also on other news, our right to drinking water, clean drinking water in particular is now being debated in court and a federal appeals court has now said that clean drinking water is not a constitutional right. Is that a good thing, a bad thing? Well, we'll talk about that today also. We talk about these topics a lot more today. So thank you for being here and also briefly thank you again for being here. I've been gone for a bit. I was actually on vacation. I was actually in Maui frankly, great stuff. I'll talk about that later. I also want to hear it. Both jump into some stories today.

2:00Now, like first of all, members of Congress and even the heads of the companies leading AI, not all of them, but some of them are now warning that an AI slow down may be necessary. More on the frontier type technologies, although many of these same calls, they're also saying right alongside that the G, we need to slow this down because it's getting scary, but we also cannot slow it down because if we slow it down, China will not slow it down and they'll effectively dominate the future of AI, which is better, which is more dangerous. Let me show you some of this first. Epic time says this. It says, President Donald Trump and top lawmakers in Washington have responded to calls urging big tech to slow down artificial intelligence development amid fears that it may grow too powerful to be controlled. Now Donald Trump, it says, rejected the suggestion. He does not want to slow down AI development.

3:01It does that he spoke with reporters at his golf course at the golf course in Ireland, his golf course, September 13th. He said, we're leading China in AI and he said, we're the most sophisticated country in the world. And frankly, I want to keep it that way because whoever wins AI wins. Now, briefly, he's right. Just on the China side, the Chinese Communist Party actually has a slogan. The CCP's slogan is surpass you at the turning point. And this has to do with when it comes to like competition on frontier technologies. So briefly, let me just explain a bit of how the CCP regards this. The Chinese Communist Party had a program for a very long time called Project 863. The Communist they like to have like number based things like this is what they do. Project 863 was their program for what they called catching up fast and surpassing the West and it identified several key technological fields which they believed would be the future

4:07of technology. Now, AI used to not be part of that. AI is in reality more of like a recent thing, right? Only recently, like did we see AI just, you know, just vertical skyrocket rise. It's been around for a long time actually, but more behind the scenes. Even during the Obama administration, you know, documents are coming out now that we had AI, but it was kept behind the scenes and was used more like a government or like military type level. It was not a publicly available for the most part of technology, a little bit, but not really nothing like it is right now. The CCP's program on catching up fast and surpassing the West and the Project 863 basically said that it was based on the idea that it's very hard to compete in an existing market. So the Chinese Communist Party trying to get ahead on internet technology, on for example, AI tech chips is not easy when you have, when you're competing with established businesses,

5:12same thing with smartphones, same thing with laptops, you know, people would say, well, they built their laptops. Yeah, they built that by buying the laptop division of Lenovo, sorry, of IBM, which became, you know, they use that for Lenovo later on, right? They bought it basically. Also their high tech chips, documents are now coming out saying the Chinese chip development is roughly more than a decade behind the West, actually. They're very far behind. So it's very hard to compete in an existing market. It's very hard to do that. So the theory was surpass you at the turning point and what they were looking at was frontier technologies where they could develop things and then build maybe the new technologies which would become the dominant ones. Whoever gets their first controls the future. At the time, it was things like new materials, medical systems, you know, things like that, right? It was more like frontier technologies at that time.

6:13AI has become the new one. Whoever can basically build or win the race on AI if there's ever an end to this race will control the future of the technology. Whoever builds the companies that dominate the market will basically be unshakable from that position until new technologies emerge that are better. And that's just the way the markets work and the way they've always worked. The CCP's AI development, although people would say, well, gee, they've done deep-seek and stuff. There's actually been stuff coming out now where Chinese AI technologies are found to actually, when you ask it something, it redirects on a secret level and asks Western AI companies. So it more works as a proxy and they're still using the Western technologies in reality. I don't know about deep-seek, but if deep-seek identifies itself as chat GPT-4, so they're just ripping off Western technology as far as it seems, actually.

7:16And you know, they're not really developing as quickly as they would like to say, but if we do stop development, yes, they will dominate the market, which is the concern here. Back to what Trump is saying. And that's the president noted that guardrails are an option. And I should note, this is kind of the middle road of where the discussion is. The middle road of this discussion is that maybe on the back end, on the military level, on the government level, yeah, they're going to keep doing like frontier AI development, but on the public and maybe even business level, there needs to be guardrails. There are certain ways AI is being used that are really dangerous. One of the big ones being biological weapons, by the way. Back to this. Trump says, we can do this in that, but I think you would have a lot of very negative forces that are bringing it up, that shouldn't be bringing it up, and they're bringing up things that won't happen. Basically, Trump is saying, look, we're not going to stop developing AI, but there's going

8:21to be maybe a middle road option where maybe we can put guardrails on it. That's what he's suggesting, right? Meanwhile, the same time in Congress, many members of Congress, right and left, Republican and Democrat, are also discussing this. Sanders Ted Cruz, Republican, said he's working with Senator Amy Klobacher, Democrat, and also Senate Majority Leader John Thune, Republican, on legislation to, quote, address catastrophic risks involving biological or nuclear threats. Meaning AI can basically build cyber weapons. It can also build biological weapons. It can maybe even expand like nuclear development, which is pretty dang dangerous, especially when you consider the nuclear scientists are treated like radioactive, not intended materials. They're treated as basically weapons, right? Ted Cruz said AI is advancing at an extraordinary pace, and some of the risks are dangerous

9:21and frightening. And Ted Cruz said, quote, we need guardrails, but America needs to lead. If China leads the world in AI, the world is in trouble. Basically what Trump is saying. And if you go down the list of members of Congress, a lot of them are saying the same thing. I won't go over the whole list and all the comments, but it's basically along those lines. The general consensus, right, left, Republican, Democrat, Trump, even the Democrats, right? All seem to agree on this. And even some CEOs of these companies are basically saying, we can't really stop developing it because China will then dominate the future of the technology. But publicly, there needs to be guardrails, and we need to set limits on it because unlimited AI is basically getting out of hand already. And what's happening now, there's even in a case where AI was shown to be able to develop an actual virus, like a human, like physical virus.

10:24And the concern is that AI could actually be used to develop biological weapons, something that could kill us all, frankly, something very dangerous. Now the CEOs, as these tech companies are also commenting on this, it's a bit divided. The CEO of in Thropping, that's Dario Modi, he also wrote a long essay recently saying that companies, AI companies need to slow down their frontier models. And this is where a lot of the debate is being lost. Actually, I think people are going to talk it over each other because when people say restricting AI development, many people believe that means like the stuff you have out there already, they're going to take it away from you. That's not what they're talking about. They're talking about the frontier stuff. They're really crazy advanced stuff that most of us can't even access. They're talking about slowing down those models, the real kind of breakneck speed stuff that you were not even seeing right now. And what he's saying is that if left unchecked, AI is developing faster than our own ability

11:29to understand and control the systems. Basically, we're losing control of the robots. You know, if you want to put it in simple terms, we're losing control of the robots, basically. And also just recently, the CEO of Open AI at Sam Altman, he announced that he's going to pause the public offering for his company, saying that with some of the safety concerns around AI, he thinks it's ill-advised for the company to go public. Now let me give a bit of context to this. You know, Elon Musk has kind of come out and been pretty critical of him. Elon Musk has a very different perspective. He's more on the seemingly side of saying, you know, unrestricted AI may be the solution. And that, you know, frankly, maybe we can find a solution within the technology, kind of a Deus Ex type idea, right? Deus Ex Machina. He seems to be more on that side than Elon Musk's stance on Sam Altman saying they want

12:32to slow down the public offering of Open AI, which remember that Musk was one of the backers of Open AI, but we were supposed to be open source, which they kind of pulled back on, meaning it would have been somewhat public. Musk has been very critical of them on that, but he's suggesting that the reason Sam Altman's pulling it back is because there might be problems with their own development. I don't know if that's true or not. I think on Sam Altman's point, my interpretation of what he's saying is basically that because there's so many political issues and possible dangers to AI now being raised in Congress, if they went public with it and then AI randomly develops like a bio weapon, it's going to cause backlash and it's going to cause instability within the market and the public offering might be a bad thing right now because of that. The basically because the political environment around AI, it's too volatile, right? It's too volatile to be stable and you could have it become very successful and just massively

13:38crash if there's some kind of restriction placed on it prior to the public offering. I think that's what he's saying and I think that's actually a reasonable statement, frankly. Now we'll see what happens with AI. Again, it is a very difficult issue. I can tell you myself, I don't like AI, frankly. I don't like it personally. I do use it to a limited extent as a replacement to Google because I think Google doesn't do its job properly anymore. I think it's almost impossible to find where looking for online using Google these days, AI is very good at that. But I do think that unrestricted AI is a very dangerous thing. At the same time, frankly, I talk a lot about China and the China thread. It is true. If we pull back on AI, they're going to dominate it. For most of us, when we talk about AI, we're talking about maybe my extent of it using it as a Google replacement. Some people use it for design work. Some people use it for basic tasks.

14:41The scary end of AI is weapons development. The scary end of AI is mass surveillance. The scary end of AI is smart cities that use AI is the foundation. Things like these cameras everywhere that can analyze data. The IRS using AI just to basically violate the Fourth Amendment, in my opinion, going through every single document and every single thing with a fine-tooth comb to find every single minor violation, things like that. It's a government tyranny on steroids. That is my concern with AI, not to mention things like biological weapons. On the positive side, you'll have medical development. On the negative side, you're going to have bio-weapons. Things like this are already being used when it comes to AI. AI is already doing these things. My concern is that level. That being said, it's a difficult issue to address.

15:44I don't know how they're going to do it. This is one of the big discussions right now. In a while, something big is also happening. Twitch streamer, Hassan Piker, an avowed communist. He's very open about it. He went to China, did a big tour of China, dressed up like Mao Zedong afterward. Someone gave him Mao Zedong's little red book and they were freaking out because they think it's so valuable. He went to Cuba and he's under some heat right now because he might have worked with a Cuban regime-backed organization to maybe violate sanctions and doing that. He's actually under criminal investigation for it. Hassan Piker has become one of the leading figures among the democratic socialists. That being said, he's now been hit with a $150 million lawsuit. This is going to be interesting because this lawsuit ties into a real interesting debate when it comes to free speech and the possible limits on it. It's something that even myself I have mixed opinions on.

16:48To what extent can speech be legal? And to what extent, where do you draw the line when it comes to speech being an incitement towards violence or something that's kind of a dog whistle? You're kind of making a call for violence and other people may be acting on it. He's actually being sued now for online comments about Israel that are said- and I don't know if it's true or not, it's going to be brought up in court- he's accused of inciting violence against Jews and Christians. The gateway pendant says this. Says Far Left Streamer Hassan Piker is facing a massive civil lawsuit in Florida, which is a place you do not want to be sued on this act, right? This is after Larry Clayman, the founder of Judicial Watch and Freedom Watch USA, accused him of inciting violence against Jews and Christians to support Israel. And briefly on this, this is not some random, dude suing Hassan.

17:49Getting sued by the leader of Judicial Watch is being sued by someone who really knows the law. Judicial Watch is, of course, an organization that basically specializes in doing freedom of information act requests and using lawsuits as a way to get documents that are not normally publicly available. A very interesting way of doing it, which for any journalist or anybody involved in freedom of information is very keen on. In the United States, of course, all government documents should be to an extent publicly available, and you can file FOIA requests to get those. The problem is most government agencies and most government officials will try to not give them to you if you make that request. So you have to sue them to get it. Judicial Watch basically specializes in that, and they get a lot of documents that are very hard to get otherwise. Getting sued by Judicial Watch means getting sued by an organization that really knows the

18:52law. They're very good on it. And it says this basically according to the complaint I review by the Gateway Pundit, claimant is seeking more than $150 million in compensatory and actual damages along with punitive damages, legal fees, injunctive relief, and a referral of the matter to the FBI. Meaning $150 million is going to be the very low end if they win the lawsuit. This guy is about to get sued into oblivion basically. And alongside that, also referring this to the FBI, which means that Hassan may be getting and may be getting an investigation by the FBI on possible incitement towards violence. Now basically, this is what it says about the lawsuit. It says the lawsuit centers on comments that Hassan Piker allegedly made during an August 20th Twitch broadcast.

19:52Twitch is kind of like YouTube live, but it kind of specializes in live broadcast. It used to be more like video game stuff. Now it's a lot of political commentary. It's mixed still. But Hassan and Asman Gold are probably the two biggest Twitch streamers, Asman on the right, relatively Hassan on the left. And this is what Hassan said according to the complaint. It says, quote, if Jews in America, not my words. This is him right. Saying quote, if Jews in America keep putting this idea out there, eventually someone is going to come around and take action, continues against American Jews. Piker allegedly said according to the complaint. And it's a claim and argues that the statement was not merely a prediction, but an incitement aimed at American Jews who support Israel. And combined with a lot of his other statements, Hassan is very pro-Gaza. He's been very publicly critical of Israel, to say the least.

20:58He's been very supportive of various terrorist organizations. He claims he's a Muslim. I don't know how much he follows it. But that's basically his stance. And it has been for a long time based on his public statements. Now, there's also a lot of issues around his statements against the United States. He has been accused of saying that he hates America. He has denied saying this. And then people pulled up videos of him saying it, frankly. And this has made it very difficult for a lot of the government officials, especially on the left who tried to combine their campaigns with him and then had to back off after many of his statements were brought up. Now back to the complaint. It says that the complaint alleges that claim and the guy filing the lawsuit is especially vulnerable because he is a prominent Jewish and pro-Israel activist living in Boca Raton, Florida, with the lawsuit being filed. It says claim claims that Pikers rhetoric has caused him to fear walking down the street

22:00or sitting at an outdoor cafe. Briefly on this, many online commentators in particular Asman Gold, kind of the anti-Hassan, I guess you could call him, the other side of the argument, has also brought up many of Hassan's statements and also many shooters and terrorists who seem to be fans of Hassan. Hassan does seem to be a common factor among a lot of the very far left that they watch him. Back to this, it says the filing also references other controversial statements from Hassan allegedly made by him, including remarks praising Hamas over Israel, telling Jews to go back to Auschwitz, minimizing the October 7th atrocities, and declaring that America deserved 9-11. Many things that have been brought up from Hassan and again raising the question of what

23:01are the limits on free speech. On Hassan's side, he's basically defending himself, saying it's his constitutional right to basically say whatever the heck he wants. And this has been a big issue also because, frankly, he has been an advocate against the first amendment in many regards, calling for key figures to be de-platformed, calling for people to be censored, in particular, is called for Asman Gold to be de-platformed. Meaning on one side, he has been an advocate against absolute free speech, while at the same time claiming his own right to relatively absolute free speech. Now, like also on this, as Hassan, the guy being sued, has become a key figure on the left, and especially among these socialists in the United States, but even some of the leading socialists candidates are now trying to be like, wow, that's a little too far a dude, and they're trying to distance themselves from him, particularly overestapements on hating

24:05the United States, seemingly, seemingly support of terrorist organizations. I mean, he has actually interviewed actual terrorists on his channel and has shown relative support for them. He has also been interviewed at sometimes where he kind of gave vague statements supporting terrorism, kind of laughing it off, for example. Painting your political campaign with that is not good optics, and so a lot of the very far left figures, even with democratic socialists, even while they initially did some campaigns alongside Hassan are trying to back off that now. And for a lot of them, even when questioned on it, they rapidly try to change the topic. They try to say, let's focus on my policies. Let's talk about affordability, not the fact that we combined our political campaign

25:05with a guy who has publicly said he hates America, who is an avowed communist, and has openly supported many terrorist organizations. Not the best optics, especially when you're dealing with a lot of candidates who could be seen on those side of politics also. On that front also, Hassan on his side is saying that he's his constitution right to make statements like this, and it's going to be a very difficult topic, frankly. What are the limits on free speech? Where is the line drawn? This is going to be interesting when it comes to the judicial watch lawsuit, because normally it's Republicans and people on the conservative side calling for kind of unvedited freedom of speech. I'm relatively on the side of unvedited freedom of speech. But there are some limits on it. When you're calling for violence, when you're calling for terrorism, for example, a lot

26:08of terrorists in the United States are self-radicalized, and many terrorist recruitment are done using speech to radicalize people. Where do you draw the line? I've been a very big critic of the Chinese Communist Party's United Front operations, which actually operate in the gray area of law in the United States, where they have a statement, the CCP, where they say, a strangle you with your own systems. Meaning if you say you believe in free speech, they will use freedom of speech to destroy you. If you say you believe in freedom of the press, they'll establish their own news organizations or pay journalists to do their work for them. When it comes to terrorism, a lot of it is based on ideological warfare. That's why during the war in Afghanistan and Iraq, part of the American war fighting doctrine was coin, COIN, or counterinsurgency, which was a narrative war. How do you deal with an information war?

27:10Meaning there are some limits on this. There are limits on this. It's a very difficult gray area to navigate, especially when you start drawing limits on it, because then you start having, frankly, like we had under the Biden administration, where he was coming out saying the MAGA extremists were the biggest problem in America, and he was going after conservatives for their speech, going after evangelical Christians for their beliefs, going after devout Catholics for their beliefs against maybe abortion and things like that. Where do you draw the line? That's a very difficult topic. I will be interested to see how Judicial Watch handles this lawsuit and how Hassan tries to defend himself, because this will bring up the limits on free speech, and this could become a very, very important lawsuit that I would imagine might go to the Supreme Court

28:10eventually. This will be a very interesting topic. In the chat, Judith Kim, you're saying, DSA, Democratic Socialist America, DSA loved Hassan and campaigned with him, now trying to get away from him because he's getting in trouble, emphasizing, you say, because he's getting in trouble, not because they don't feel the same about communism. Judy, that's a great point. To that point, if you look at a lot of the stuff that happens with the Chinese Communist Party, you'll see the CCP sometimes punish people for speech or corruption or whatever else. They're not being punished because the CCP cares about those things. They're being punished because they got caught. This is something that's very hard for people to understand who have not lived under communism or have not really actively studied it. In communism, they don't care if you do these things.

29:15I would actually say almost every communist is at least as extreme as Hassan. I would imagine that most of them very much believe everything he says. The problem with Hassan is he says the quiet part out loud, right? It might take. He says the quiet part out loud. When he gets heat for saying what many of them believe out loud, they will distance themselves from him, not because they don't agree with him, but because they don't want to get caught in the firing line. When he's being punished, they'll let him take the fall and save their own hides, because that's how they operate. With any communist, if you get punished by the communist system for things like this, you're not being punished for believing what many of them believe. You're being punished for basically getting caught.

30:17You're getting punished for making the party look bad. You're getting punished for basically being dumb enough to bring heat on the people who all believe the same thing as you. That's typically how it works. There are two in extent, the DSA, two in extent they are disavowing Hassan. I believe because he's saying the quiet part out loud and he's bringing heat on the whole party because he's saying the quiet part out loud. Another topic. I've been holding off on talking about this for a while, but I know a lot of you probably want to hear my take on it, Lindsey Clancy, right? Swomen, this mother who killed her three children. Actually on that, it was a very contentious court case. A lot of divisions in the country, especially between men and women. I will say briefly, the case was not about whether or not she killed her children.

31:20This is a woman. Let me allow the basic case. A mother of three children, the story is that she had postpartum depression or postpartum psychosis, strangled her three children. She sent the father out to run errands at the time when she committed this crime, then tried to kill herself and handicapped herself. She's in a wheelchair. Horrific story. Absolutely horrific story. The father came home, audible in the evidence shown in court, screaming in a way that only people who dealt with seeing a family member die know that type of scream, a very horrific thing. She's facing charges for murder. The case is not, or she's facing charges for murder, but the case is not about whether or not she killed her children. This is where a lot of the debate is being lost. The debate is on insanity, whether she can get an insanity plea because they say that

32:25she suffered from postpartum psychosis, that she had a moment of lost her mind, frankly. During that time, heard voices that told her to kill her kids. That is where the actual debate is, but the problem is publicly, that is not where the debate is. Many people on Twitch and TikTok especially are debating this like the husband did it and all the stuff. That's not where the actual legal debate is. Mainly on this, a single juror basically blocked her from getting the insanity deal. It was a single juror who blocked it and they might have to do a retrial and the judge basically called it, they had to get it. It was just a problem with the jury, they couldn't get it. Because one juror refused to give ground and say that she was crazy. That's where things are right now. On that point, President Donald Trump was now weighed in after her lawyer called on him

33:31to pardon her. Fox News said this. It says President Donald Trump on Sunday signaled that he would not intervene in the case of Massachusetts' mother, Lindsay Clancy, who was charged with killing her three young children amid allegations that she suffered from postpartum psychosis. It was when asked whether he would pardon Clancy. Trump called the situation, quote, very sad, but said the case is ultimately a state situation, not a federal one. And Trump said, quote, there's no winner here. There's no win, no matter what you do, three children are dead, he said. It's actually interesting. Trump seems to be kind of holding off on giving his opinion on the case. I would imagine because frankly, this has become whether we like it or not, a man versus woman case in a lot of ways. I'll give my opinion on that, but that's kind of where it is. I'll give my brief opinion. I think we're speaking different languages on this case is the problem.

34:34And I think this is more about a misinterpretation of information, not about whether it was justified in killing the kids. I don't think women are saying that. I think there's been, and you have some very extreme people making some very extreme statements. I'll give my opinion in a bit, but let me show you more of this. Back to the article says this. It says, Trump's response came after Kevin Reddington, who represented Clancy or represents currently, publicly asked Trump to grant his client a pardon last week. And notes that Reddington, the lawyer acknowledged that Trump had no authority to issue a pardon in a state matter, but hope he could still influence the outcome. Meaning maybe if Trump gave his endorsement for her, it might change things. I don't know how you do that, other than basically poisoning the jury pool in a future trial, it's complicated. This is according to his interview with WBZ TV. It has a Trump indicated that the defense and prosecution need to resolve the legal matter at the local level.

35:36And Trump actually praised the lawyer's work. Trump said, quote, he's a good attorney. I've heard from other people, he's a very good attorney. And he said, I hope they can work it out. That's something they have to work out. There's no win there. Interesting statements from Trump, frankly. Trump is not giving his opinion on the case, which is interesting because I think Trump is actually very cautious on commenting on issues around, frankly, killing kids. And when it comes to things like abortion, Trump is also relatively pro-abortion. I don't know if he called it pro-abortion, but at the very least he didn't want to make statements alongside other Republicans calling for the abolishing it. He's afraid of losing the women vote, I think. And on this case, this has become a very contentious issue between men and women. That's the fact of it. Now there's been a big firestorm over this topic, just a few updates on where the case is

36:36at. And then I'll give my opinion. Basically here's what happened. One juror blocked the whole thing and her getting an insanity play. It turns out this one juror was also the only black male on the jury, which has become a very interesting issue when it comes to some of the political debate because a lot of the media that would be against this juror tends to be on the left and they're doxing him. They're publicly releasing his identity. And this is subjecting him to like mob pushback. This poor guy is kind of having his life destroyed because he was on a jury and he's being attacked now for it. Now the media released this Florida governor, Ron DeSantis, is now offering this guy a silent in Florida. I'm not going to reveal his identity. I don't think it's ethical to do that. Other media have. If you want to read it, go somewhere else.

37:39But I think it's unethical for media to do that. Now personally, I regard the public release of his identity as a form of jury intimidation. Even though this was done after the fact, you're going to watch a retrial of this case. But if in that retrial, the new jury goes in and people say, gee, if I vote against this, if I say she's guilty, I'm going to be targeted for possible terrorist attacks or have my future entirely destroyed, I'm not going to make a judgment based on the law, but instead based on fear, I would call that jury intimidation. I believe that the media that exposes identity has committed a criminal act. That's my personal belief. I believe that the media by doing this is intimidating a future jury. And I regard this as a type of frankly criminal action where they're threatening people with

38:40having their lives destroyed by making an example of this one guy. I think that's what they're doing personally. From the case itself, right? Let me show you some of the extreme sides of it. There are stories now showing people calling to repeal the 19th Amendment. You find this mostly on the far right. There are people saying that women should lose their right to vote over this case because so many women are standing by Lindsey Clancy. I can tell you I looked into some of the figures making the calls to repeal the 19th. I don't believe this is a mainstream opinion. In fact, I'm well aware of who some of the people are making those statements. They are not your normal conservatives. They're people on the very extreme fringes for the most part, like the very extreme parts of it. But what's happening now is a lot of the media is taking these statements from the very extreme people and making it appear that those are the opinions of the broad majority.

39:44I would say actually the same thing is being done on the other side. There are the other extreme position is kind of defending child murder. That is not the mainstream position on the other side either. Let me explain it. But that is the other extreme position. There's a very extreme position where the very communist feminist types, not normal feminists, but the very extreme ones believe that children are like parasites. I don't believe this is the extreme again, right? And they believe that a woman doing that is like liberating herself from the constraints of family. And that's where they're very extreme stances. I think we're having a very problematic discussion on this where people are focusing on the extremes rather than the majority. The idea of repealing the 19th is an extreme position. The idea of effectively justifying child murder if a woman is hormonal is a very

40:47extreme position. And that is not representative of the majority. The majority of it is basically on this. On the right, the debate, I shouldn't say the right because you actually have Republicans and Democrats on both sides. This has become not even a right left issues become more of a men women issue. On the more moderate side of I would say the men debate, let's just be blunt about it, is the opinion that look, if you kill a kid, you kill a kid. And there's no forgiving that you cannot kill your children, right? That's the debate on it. On the other moderate side of the debate among women is also, yeah, you can't kill your kids, but they say the father did it. And I believe the problem we're having is there's a lot of false information online saying that that was not where the court case was. That was actually not even part of the debate. And I personally believe this debate is really being fueled by a lot of false reporting,

41:49a lot of very bad reporting. I think it's being fueled by people watching videos on TikTok of journalists who are not journalists, frankly, people making crazy statements and people watching TikTok and taking that to be real news, where they're not looking at the facts of the case. And there are people misinformed and drawing opinions based on misinformation. I think that's actually what's going on right now. I don't think this is a case that I think the actual debate has nothing to do with the morality of child murder. I think men and women both believe that's wrong. I think that's where it is, right? And I think this is where a lot of people are kind of speaking over each other's heads on this because they're looking at the extremes, frankly. Based on my own kind of looking into the statements of people who I've watched a lot of the videos of women defending her, they're not saying it's justified to kill your kids.

42:51What they're saying is they believe the father did it. And when they support, when they cite their sources, they're basically saying, I saw it on TikTok. I saw it on TikTok. The common factor you have with this, there are people who support her who are getting their information from people on TikTok saying she was innocent and the father did it. I think the real issue here, again, is not men versus women. I think it's the fact that TikTok has people who are just making statements based on their opinions and people are taking this to be fact. People are watching false information and they're drawing their opinions on it and they're basing their analysis on that. I think that is the issue here. And I think because of that, we're talking over each other's heads. We're having a false debate publicly. And again, it's a false debate where we're not debating in the middle. The middle on the left is debating the extreme on the right and the middle on the right is

43:57debating the extreme on the left, which is not the majority. And this is where the rhetoric is being lost, I think. My opinion on this, it's never justified to kill your kid. Never. Like I think that it is a law, whether it's humans or animals, and maybe the exception of like, gerboles or something that you cannot kill your children. Like, you're supposed to love and protect your kids. Unfortunately, there are cases where women kill their kids and there are cases where men kill their kids. It's horrible. It is the most wrong thing. I think a human being can do. It is disgusting. It happens. It is disgusting, no matter who does it. It's horrible. And I think we can agree on that, frankly. You know, it's a crime that happens and it's terrible. I think very much this case raises a deeper debate, though, on how a jury pool can be affected

44:59by being exposed to bad information on the internet. And I think what this case really raises is whether people can get fair trials when a trial becomes the focus of public debate, when everybody is watching it, when every single person has formed an opinion prior to going on the jury or while they're on the jury. Unless you make it so that a member of the jury can't use TikTok or can't watch YouTube, I don't know how you can avoid a jury pool not being poisoned. I said this when Biden was president and Trump was facing criminal charges. I said, if you remember, I don't know how Trump was going to get a, you know, an honest jury. I don't know how you get a fair trial because everybody has an opinion. If you go to sit on a jury pool and you already have your understanding of what happened, nothing is going to change your opinion.

45:59It's very hard to change an existing opinion once it's formed. Like once a person believes something, you are going to have an extremely difficult time changing that no matter what it is. It's just the way people are, right? It's very hard to change an existing belief. Once people accept a truth, no matter what evidence you show them. And so how do you have a fair trial if people are being exposed to this? I think this raises a very big issue on this. How do we have fair trials in the age of TikTok and the age of, you know, information being in everybody's pockets? My other stance on this is when it comes to insanity, please, right? She's pleading and she's trying to get an insanity play. And that's the actual case, right? This is not about whether or not she killed her kids. The defense also says she killed her kids.

47:00What she's asking for is insanity, right? That she was too, she had a moment of psychosis and killed her kids. And she wants to get off the hook relatively on insanity. I have a few viewpoints on this. Now first of all, again, this is a horrific case. I think child murder is one of the worst crimes a human being can commit, no matter what. I don't believe a person of sound mind would do that. Meaning if we make it so that, you know, you can say I wasn't of sound mind and I did this horrific thing, what rational person would do that? What sane person would kill their own kids? I don't think you would ever do that unless you were crazy, frankly. And so if we make it so that it's okay to do if you're crazy, you're justifying it. Like I don't know if you can do that. At the same time, I did look into some of the claims on insanity, please.

48:03I saw some people claiming insanity, please actually go back very far in law, even to ancient Greece and ancient Rome. And it's true actually. I went in research and I actually read the ancient Roman laws around insanity, please. And in the old Roman law was basically that it had to do with a person killing his mother. And it said that his insanity is punishment enough. Meaning, yeah, even under ancient law, you could get off of a crime on insanity because your insanity was punishment enough was the argument. Frankly, during the Roman Empire, they also had gladiator games. They also had people being nailed across as and set on fire. You had human pyres where they killed Christians. I don't think we should base our moral stance on ancient Rome, although I'm a relative fan of the Roman Empire, they had a lot of issues too. And I don't think we should let people off on murdering their kids or murdering their

49:06mothers for that matter. I don't think you should do that. I think on maybe one side, maybe this is a case that we need to bring back crazy houses. You know, we need to make a make, make insane asylums great again. I know in some states they have at California has some system on that. But you can't let people who commit crimes like this go in murder and not get punished. You know, you had that guy on the train stab that young woman in the neck and get off on insanity to an end. That is going to run free, but you know, you have repeat criminals who kill people and should you just let them kill people over and over again and let them go every time because they're crazy. Like what do you do? I think you need to draw lines somewhere, frankly. On that front, I know that post-partum depression and post-partum psychosis are real things. Like it's scary. It is actually scary.

50:09To what extent should we legalize crimes committed because of hormones? You know, that's another debate too. Is a hormonal psychosis justification for crime? If you want to say it's okay for women, you're going to have to say it's okay for men too. Men have hormones too. Hormones make guys crazy too sometimes. You know what I mean? I don't think you should justify that either. Men commit horrible crimes. In fact, most violent crimes are committed by men. You know what happens? I don't think hormones can justify murder or other horrible crimes like rape, for example, in no way should that be justified. I am aware also post-partum psychosis is a scary thing. I have a good friend actually encountered this. I have a good friend from the UK. His mom actually killed his baby sister when he had a long time ago in the UK.

51:10He woke up one day wanting to play with his baby sister and found her dead in her cradle. She had been smothered by the mother during the night. And the mom actually got off on insanity. It was in the UK and actually made a recovery and was very sad about it afterwards, but it was post-partum psychosis. It is a real thing. I'm not justifying it. I don't think it's good. And I think you need to treat murder like that as murder. The other side is how we treat this, frankly, because remember that law is not just about punishment. Law is also about prevention and laws also about justice for the victims. If you legalize a crime, even if the person was in a bad state when committing the crime, what you're doing by extension is removing the punishment for doing it. And there are people, there are some people whose only consideration for not committing

52:14a crime is that the punishment is worse than the benefit. And if you decriminalize it under certain circumstances, you have people who will do it. And so, again, this is a horrible case. I think Trump is right. There are no winners here. Three kids are dead. It is horrible. And I think on an equally terrible stance, we have a very bad public debate on it. Based on extremes, there are not representative of the opinions of most people. And we're talking over each other's heads. And again, we're not debating on the actual debate. We're debating on the extremes. And so I think this is where things need to maybe be brought back down to earth again. Right? I think we're having a false debate on this issue. I don't think the women defending her believe it's okay to kill their kids. They believe it was the husband.

53:15Right? They're not saying it's okay to kill your kids. I think it was the husband that did it. That's the actual debate. And the men saying this, don't believe they should be right to kill your kids. And they think she did it. And that is where the actual debate is. Right? That's where the actual debate is. And that is where we should be debating it, not on the extremes. That's my personal take on this. In the chat, Troy and Emma, you're saying mental health system fails nearly everyone. I actually agree. If you want to hear my other stance on this, I would actually be curious of what type of medication she was on because SSRIs have their problems. In fact, I did a whole episode on this on the Josh Phillips show. If you can case you haven't seen it yet, SSRIs can be scary. They don't work for everyone. If you want, I did it. Okay, tutin' my own horn. And if you want to go watch the whole episode on the Josh Phillips show, my other channel.

54:15I looked into SSRIs because a common factor you have with mass shootings is a lot of them were a lot of the people who did that were on SSRIs, anti-depressants. There's been studies on SSRIs that have shown the benefit of them. And this is a lot of the unpublished reports that are considered when it comes to actual like regulations, but are not publicly released. The actual analysis of SSRIs, and remember a lot of the public stuff is heavily, I believe, tainted because it's funded or influenced by a lot of the big companies that make the drugs and sell the drugs. In fact, the overwhelming majority are that. They almost, to a tee, have some kind of special interest tied to them. I discuss this in that episode. And I show you the documents on to prove it. I'm not saying this based on opinion, right?

55:17The actual efficacy, the effectiveness of SSRIs is only slightly like to a negligible percent better than a placebo for the majority of people. The only people that SSRIs show an actual benefit for are really extreme cases, right? Really extreme cases. And there's a lot of public, you know, RFK juniors big on this right now. A lot of pushback against SSRIs too, because people are not being told of some of the side effects, the side effects are scary. You're messing with your happy chemicals. You're messing with your cognizance, right? You're messing with your ability to control yourself in some cases. And some of the side effects include suicidal thoughts. Some of the side effects include homicide thoughts, meaning murder. And I think if you have someone who's already suffering from psychosis and you give them a drug that may make them suicidal or homicidal, what are you doing, right?

56:24What are you doing? And people are being sold, are being sold the stuff without being told fully, I think, of the dangers of it. I would actually, if you want to hear my stance, I would be curious of whether she was affected by these drugs, frankly, that that would be my stance on this. Because, you know, again, it's a horrible case, right? The other side too, just on SSRIs, if you go cold turkey on them, they can kill you. Like, they're really dangerous, actually. And people are not being told about this stuff. If you go cold turkey, like the withdrawal from SSRIs can be worse than heroin withdrawal, which can kill you, by the way. Like it's serious stuff, actually. And so, you know, she was on medications. I would be curious to what degree that influence things, you know, in my part. I'm not accusing them of that, but I would actually, it's something I would want to know,

57:26actually. So very concerning stuff. And that's my general take on that story. I did want to hold off on talking about until the trial was over. My, maybe my own ethics as a journalist, I don't like the idea that journalists, in my opinion, poison the jury pools. And I think a lot of media does that, frankly. Right? I don't like doing that. Meanwhile, something else big right now, something I've been talking about, are drinking water is now being debated in court. Do we have the right to safe and clean drinking water? A federal appeals court has now said that clean drinking water is not a constitutional right. A big deal, I'm in New York right now. And there's an issue they're finding with the water towers where people are getting like crazy diseases from the drinking water. New York normally has very good drinking water. Here comes from the Hudson, some of the best in the country, but not if you put it in

58:28water towers that are like tainted. And that's a big debate here right now. And appeals court has now said, you do not have the right to clean drinking water. Let me explain a bit of this and I'll give some of my take on it. Just the news says this. It says the full fifth circuit US court of appeals has overturned an earlier ruling by a three judge panel and rejected constitutional claims from Jackson residents who say city officials exposed them to contaminated drinking water and misled them about its safety. It says the end court rolled Friday that the residents cannot pursue their claims under the US Constitution, meaning clean drinking water. And they said the 14th Amendment of the Constitution does not establish a constitutional right to be free from exposure to contaminated municipal water or a right to receive accurate

59:29information from public officials about contamination in the water. Meaning if you get sick from the water, that's just how it is, I guess. Be careful what comes out of the tap. It says the loss it was filed by four Jackson residents who say the city's water system exposed them to lead and other contaminants. It says they also say officials knew the water was unsafe, but told residents it was safe to drink. Hmm. And that's the majority acknowledges seriousness of the allegations noting the Jackson's water system in recent years produced water containing lead, E. coli, and other bacteria allegedly violating the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act and the EPA regulations. Meaning this is where it's complicated. Like there are federal laws on water purification.

1:00:31And it seems that the area Jackson was in violation of the Safe Water Act and EPA regulations. So can you sue them for that? It turns out no. It says this left residents without water for weeks and resulted in numerous boil water notices. Briefly on that, I don't know if any of you have experiences before, but like I've lived in areas where there's been like a rupture in a water line or there's like a brown water notice where you can't drink the water. You know what I mean? They warn you about it. Have any of you ever turned on the tap and like brown sludge, not sludge, but just brown water comes out. It's usually because there's been a problem with like the water line. You're supposed to let it run for a while and sometimes the city will give, give boil water notices, meaning if you're going to drink it, you got to boil it first. Sometimes it's a, sometimes they say don't drink it at all.

1:01:31You know, go buy bottled water. When I used to live in Hoboken in New Jersey, we had a, why don't we go to the water? We had a water line rupture one time where construction workers were doing road work and they hit the water line and it was like days before they fixed it and the city actually gave out drinking water. They had the fire department involved with like handing out clean water. It was a nightmare, but that's how they do it typically. Now this case is very interesting. Also on the Josh Phillips show, my other YouTube channel I did an episode on do you have a right to clean drinking water is drinking as clean drinking water a human right? I noted in that episode the United States was among just around 40 countries that said no, you don't have a right. It's not a human right. Although it is maintained to an extent through like federal law, like the clean water act and EPA regulations. It's a very difficult issue.

1:02:32It's a very complicated issue. One that I didn't realize was as complicated as it is until I started researching it. This is basically where it's at, right? We obviously need water to survive. You're not going to go more than a few days without water. If you drink bad water, you're going to have a very bad time, right? You might get the old brain bug which can kill you, which has been found in some like lakes recently by the way. You might get the old Montezuma's revenge if you're in some countries. I won't detail that too much, but you can have a very bad time. You might deal with E. coli, you might deal with other things, right? Bad, bad, unclean drinking water causes a lot of problems. You have some countries where you cannot drink the, you cannot drink the tap water. Go to certain parts of Mexico. You can't drink the water. You can't drink the water.

1:03:32Right? In some you can, but in a lot of countries you can't. There are many countries where the water coming out of the faucet is not drinkable and you will get sick if you drink it. In America, where ironically we don't regard federally, in terms of the government, we do, the clean drinking water is not a human right in the United States, but clean drinking water is regulated through federal policy to an extent. This is where the debate is lost, right? We're one of the handful of countries where the water is mostly drinkable. You could argue that America, hey, why don't we regard water as a human right? Why do you have major companies saying access to clean water is not a human right? Basically it's a bit more content. There's a lot of details to it, but basically the argument is obviously according to law,

1:04:34you do have the right to clean water and drinking water under different regulations, but it's not a constitutional issue. It's not really a legal in terms of like human rights abuse type issue. It's regulated under EPA and the Clean Water Act. That's where it is. Then some states have certain laws. California regards access to clean drinking water as a human right, for example. The other argument is it results in a lot of waste when they do that. If you want to watch, I did a whole episode on the Josh Phillips show where I go into the human rights of clean drinking water and whether why it's kind of regulated like this why why America is not part of the United Nations program, recognizing drinking water as a human right. What's interesting about this is that this will probably go to the Supreme Court. I would imagine, again, this isn't the fifth, here, the fifth circuit court of appeals,

1:05:34it's going to go to the Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court determines that access to clean drinking water is a human right, it will have a lot of implications. It'll have a lot of implications because what it does is it will regulate standards on purification, standards on possible problems with the water like lead pipes or E. coli and things that they can't really prevent. My personal concern with tap water, even bottled water is not even about E. coli or lead. My concern is more about like remnants of medications which are very heavy in the water also even the purification can't get rid of them. My concern is that kind of stuff like endocrine disruptors. I don't know how you would even regulate that. One of the big issues with drinking water and purification is that you can't really get

1:06:37rid of some of these toxins. Normal purification doesn't get rid of the pharmaceutical pollution, for example, like the medications in the water or the drugs, like even illegal drugs in the water. Also the question is, can you force the labor of others to clean water because if you say it's a human right, cleaning the water requires labor. It requires work. So how do you force people to do labor to achieve a right? In other words, you can't really do that without infringing the rights of others to force them to clean the water. Like how do you do that? This is going to be an interesting case. This is going to be a very interesting case. I do imagine this will also go to the Supreme Court and they will probably determine whether you have a right to clean drinking water and to what degree are purification standards a requirement of governments. This will be a very interesting case. That said, everyone, thank you so much for being here.

1:07:39Again, briefly, I was gone last week. I know I was on vacation in Hawaii. It was wonderful. You might notice I'm very tan now. I was in Maui. I did the road to Hana. I can highly recommend doing the road to Hana if you don't mind some windy, dangerous roads. I can also personally recommend the old Lai Hana Luao. If you want a good recommendation from me, the old Lai Hana Luao. I did go to Lai Hana also where you had, remember there was the fires there that burned down horrible stuff. It's still actually not built back. For the most part, it's pretty terrible. I know there's been issues with people not getting their money from, for example, a lot of them didn't have fire insurance and they were not given money. It's a terrible situation. Maui is beautiful and I had a very good vacation and very, very happy to be back also and thank you all for your patience. I should have said something before and actually mentioned it as forgot, but thank you all

1:08:42for your patience and I'm back. Thank you so much again. As always, thank you again. Please take care of yourselves and as always, stay informed and stay free. Thank you.