Bill Meyer Show Podcast - Sponsored by Clouser Drilling www.ClouserDrilling.com - 04-17-25_THURSDAY_6AM

Episode Date: April 17, 2025

04-17-25_THURSDAY_6AM

The Bill Meyer Show podcast is sponsored by Clouser Drilling. They've been leading the way in southern Oregon well drilling for over 50 years. Find out more about them at Clouser Drilling.com. Here's Bill Meyer. Good morning and happy conspiracy theory Thursday for Thursday, April 17th, 2025. Going to be a nice day, about 71 or so today, but 73 tomorrow, 69, 65 by Easter. That's about it. Looking forward to having mom come over.

Going to have some Easter dinner and do some pulled pork. Got to have some pork, right? You know, that sort of thing. Whatever, favorite things. So looking forward to that. A little what? Pardon me. A little bit of wild news going on right now. We have the Trump administration lashing out at the federal chair, Jerome Powell. Guys, Jerome Powell is not looking to lower interest rates here. I'm getting this out of various news reports this morning. Jerome Powell has said that the Federal Reserve could be patient as the effects of tariffs

became more clear. President Trump, though, who's pushing for interest rate cuts, said, Powell's termination cannot come fast enough. Oh boy, we're setting up a interesting battle here. He's lashing out. He says that Mr. Trump's ire followed remarks by Powell on Wednesday when he warned in his speech that the president's tariffs could create a challenging scenario for the central bank by putting its two main goals, stable inflation and a healthy labor market, in tension. Mr. Powell reiterated that the Fed could afford to be patient with its interest rate decisions until it had more clarity about Mr. Trump's policies.

Fed chairs' emphasis on the need to ensure that a temporary rise in inflation from tariffs did not become a more persistent problem, suggesting that the bar for further rate cuts was high. The president has been pushing Mr. Powell to cut rates since returning to the White House on Thursday. He referred to expectations that the European Central Bank would lower borrowing costs, saying that the Fed should do the same. I'm looking at the price of gold this morning and it would appear that even though I'm sympathetic to what President Trump wants,

Fed Chair Powell is most likely right. I hate to put it this way. Price of gold this morning has soared yet again and central banks are buying the asset too and people in the big money are buying it right now too. They're buying it because of inflation and loss of trust in the system. There's just been a lot of golds at $33.27 right now. I think yesterday we're talking about $3,200, $127 a day. It's been going up the last few days. Silver $3,240, all those

kinds of things. So Trump wants cheap money. Cheap money, of course, then makes it difficult to refinance the debt because people look at the United States as not such a good bet to borrow money or to lend money to, I think is what they're talking about. Anyway, that's kind of what's going on there. David Stockman today, on lurockwell.com, says that we don't need no stinking trade war with China. Donald Trump's war on global commerce is just plain nuts, he writes, and not just the pure economic part of it either. With each passing day we hear from more wannabe big mega thinkers arguing that Donald's trade rampage is also about geopolitics and four-dimensional

Trumpian chests designed to restore America's global leadership and technological dominance for years to come. So what do you think? You can talk about it this morning on Conspiracy Theory Thursday. Generally speaking, most of the people, I look at David Stockman as a pretty cool head. He was Reagan's budget guy, part of OMB, if I remember correctly. I think he also got fired. but that's alright. You know, if you get fired by a president one time, it probably, you know, helps your resume, you know, later on. But anyway, that's where we find and I know that the tariffs have just started. They're on kind of on pause. Here's the challenge the way I'm just seeing it is if I were a business person and I wanted to do, and

now this is not trying, I'm not trying to be anti-Trump. Just listen though, I'm just saying that if I was going to invest in the United States right now, I would look at this kind of herky-jerky, it's on one day, off day kind of thing as being very difficult to gather up money and want to invest in something because it's political risk. There is the possibility that the way people are reacting out there in the rest of the world is that they see trade in the economy in the United States with a lot of political risk and they don't want to risk that. There's no point in

investing in a company if they're going to start tariffing your stuff or cause various other issues and things could be changed by Congress. Well, you know, right now you can see what happens in an economy when there's high political risk. And you know how you can tell? Look at the state of Oregon. The state of Oregon is a high political risk to want to set up a business, isn't it? We've been talking about what the state of Oregon is trying to do, everything about the regulatory state, everything about the whims of the state legislature, what they want to do with the taxing policies, you know, do we want to have one percent on the corporate activity tax? Do we want to make it next to impossible for you to set up your factory? This is one of the reasons why Oregon has difficulty

attracting capital and investment for this reason because of the political risk that you're engaged in when you're going and putting your business into a state in which it's not stable and somewhat openly hostile. And the challenge, I think, with the Trump administration is that they want to get domestic manufacturing going again, but those are the kind of things that unfortunately take years, if not sometimes decades, took decades for us to get to this mess. So it's a lot of yelling back and forth.

Donald Trump wants to fire Fed Chair Powell, and he wants cheaper money. And gold, of course, is going up and soaring in high in thoughts because there's going to be lots of cheap money and lots of credit and I don't know. I don't know really what to think about it sometimes. I sometimes look at the financial pages and just going, okay I'm glad I'm invested in gold right now. It's been working out at the moment. 7705633 we could certainly talk about that. Other stories this morning Department of Justice announcing a civil lawsuit against Maine for declining to protect in the integrity of women's sports this has been a great Trump administration policy and

Looks like Janet Mills gonna get her wish a couple of months ago You might remember Donald Trump warned the governor of Maine that he'd cut off Fed education funding if she in the legislature wouldn't keep biological males, the bio-males, out of the female spaces. And Mills says, we'll see you in court. And well, this is now going to happen. Reliance on Title IX will depend on whether the courts take the word sex seriously and literally. Interesting, courts over in the UK right now ended up ruling on this kind of an issue.

And they more or less said that to be a woman you had to be a biological female. Now I know this would not have been considered a shocking revelation of a court a number of years ago, but we're in revolutionary times, as you well know. So anyway, we'll have the governor of Maine with her little snarky look. Trump is like, we'll see you in court. Off they're going to go. So we've got that story going on here this morning. A bunch of other things.

We'll noodle around. So let me just tell you more about that here just a bit. Let me take a break and we'll have some of our local headlines too. A lot of local news going on. A lot of state legislator action too. This is the Bill Meyers Show. Ready to up on KMED. 20 minutes after 6 on Conspiracy Theory Thursday.

My number is 7705633. 770KMED. Email Bill at BillMeyersShow.com. State legislature news. I wish there wasn't nearly as much of it, but unfortunately, Republicans are still there and they continue to pass Democrat bills. But some of the stuff actually may be somewhat worthwhile, like this one. Now Kim Wallin is one of the rare Republicans to actually get a bill proposed by a Republican

and getting it passed. Chief sponsor of House Bill 2251, they passed this bill the other day, which will ban students from using their cell phones during the school days in most circumstances. And a growing number of states, of course, are doing this now. Some of our local school districts have been working this, you know, Medford 549C and others. I also, though, get it from students and from some teachers, some people in the know, that say that the school anti-cell phone rules are kind of a joke. Most of the time they're not really enforced well.

Maybe the state legislation will change a bit about that. Approved by the House on a 36-21 vote requires every school district to adopt a policy stopping students using personal electronic devices with limited exceptions during the school day. And I still can't help but wonder if the real pushback is not coming from the kids as much as it's going to be the hovering moms and dads that can't be out of touch with their kids for even 30 seconds. Got to be looking down there, what are you doing? Hi, what are you doing? Hi, hi, hi, heart, heart, heart. looking down there, what are you doing? Hi, what are you doing? Hi, hi, hi, heart, heart, heart. Gosh, I don't know. You know, it just astounds me. It's so odd to me. Now, I know, I know I'm a late boomer. Okay, born in 1961. It's one of those things where the thought that my mother or my

father would be in total constant ability to touch in with me throughout the school day is just absolutely, I couldn't even relate to that, what that was like. In fact, usually if your mom or dad got in touch with you in school, it was a bad thing. It's like, fine, all right, we'll be fine, yada, yada, yada. Or if the school ended up calling your parents, it was a really bad thing, if you know what I mean. Usually, Billy is engaging in some discipline problems, you know, that sort of thing. But oh my gosh, let the kids be kids. Let kids be kids.

Get them off the screens here for a little bit. Of course, maybe we adults can get off the screens a little bit too. So that's probably going to move forward because even the Democrats agree with Kim Walden on this one. OPB reporting Oregon wildfire funding taking the legislative backseat as lawmakers grapple with the federal cuts. Yeah, it was talking about maybe this could be one of the best things to ever happen to Oregon at least from our point of view, from the conservative point of view, because they're gonna have to concentrate how they're going to deal

with all the money not coming from the Donald Trump administration. Uncle Sugar souring the milk as it were. But yeah, OPB reported, the one thing about wildfires that Oregon lawmakers seem to agree on, the state needs to find new ways to cover the expensive costs. But yet halfway through the session, momentum toward a funding solution seems to be petering out. And they're saying a lot of this is because they're having to concentrate, well, what are we going to do about Donald Trump? What are we going to do about Donald Trump?

So he's living in the state legislature's head. So they haven't come up with any way to pay for wildfire and that sort of thing. Of course, you know that's what Senate Bill 762 in the wildfire map. It was all going to be eventually about it, yet they still may do it. They still may do it. They may just, you know, assess the people. Who knows? They've been paying for the wildfire fighting out of the General Fund for a while and that gets in the way of transgender surgeries over at OHSU, which they much prefer to pay for. So they have to find a way to screw we folks on the rural lands. Here's another one.

It could be an unintended consequence kind of thing. Well, Amit Week reporting that lawmakers are moving to limit rent increases in boat marinas and manufactured housing parks. Economists say the rent caps stifle development, but leading legislators say some renters are captive and easily exploited. You've seen the stories around here with people in manufacturer housing, manufacturer housing parks, in which the the rents are going up. Well, the rents are going up because everything else has been going up. It's been an inflationary time, a lot of cheap COVID stuff sloshing through it, and big demand.

And House Bill 3054 takes this concept that Oregon lawmakers hate, love rather, economists hate, rent control, and puts it down onto marinas and manufactured housing. and puts it down onto marinas and manufactured housing, wow, it would limit annual rent increases at parks and marinas of more than 30 homes to 6%. To 6%. And it would limit rent increases in parks with 30 or fewer homes to 10% or 7% plus inflation, whichever is lower. Of course, they said they want to solve this problem

of people with manufactured homes you know, getting screwed and getting priced out of their home. Now they're claiming that they're being abused by the landlords, alright? If you want to see abuse by the landlords, wait until they do rent increases or rent control on these manufactured housing parks. I'm going to make a little prediction that if they do this, what you will see is not rent control in manufactured housing parks, but rather a lot of manufactured housing parks that will be sold. Or maybe they just say, you know, we're not really able to make the money any longer by

And then, or maybe they just say, you know, we're not really able to make the money any longer by renting to you senior citizens. And so maybe what we got to do is that let's close the park and let's build some homes here or we'll build some climate friendly, equitable community, affordable housing units, something like that. Could you see something like that happen? Because just about every solution that comes out of the state legislature is economically illiterate. They don't understand the numbers. Most of these people have never really accomplished

much of anything, at least on the, especially on the Democrat side. They never done anything in business. They don't know how to add or subtract, other than to just say spend more money, you know, that kind of thing. So they don't understand how this stuff kind of works. And yet I'm also very sensitive and, you know, sympathetic when rents are going up. Here's the reality. If you have a manufactured home,

buy your land. Please buy your land. Find some way to buy your land because I think it's the only way that you can really protect yourself with what's been coming in our economy and what will be coming over the next few years. Don't know if you have an opinion on it but just giving you my opinion because the idea that you can own the home technically but you don't own the land underneath it, you're depending on the kindness of strangers and then the state legislature to referee on the economy, I guess.

I just don't like that part. Another one this morning. Bipartisan bill, this is from Capital Chronicle, bipartisan bill moving through the Oregon Senate would stop the private utilities like Pacific Power from getting their wildfire costs from customers if companies are delaying lawsuits. And they have this story of an eagle point man in here, Fred Cuozzo, who barely made it out of the South Open Chain fire September 8th of 2020. Three years later Pacific Corps owns Pacific Power, of course, found by a jury to have been reckless and negligent in causing that fire. So a jury ordered the utility company to pay millions in damages to Cuozzo and nine other survivors.

Cuozzo still hasn't seen that settlement money because Pacific Power has been appealing the jury's verdict. In three months, Cuoso turns 80. He figures he may not see the money in his lifetime. Yeah, that could be. Money he needs to rebuild. He says, I've been waiting almost five years since my home. Contents and four other structures burned up. I think they're just waiting, trying to wait people out. And they can get tired of waiting or die, right?

So the legislature is considering a bill that would do something about it, and it's getting bipartisan support. And it was put up there by Senator David Brock Smith from Port Orford, co-sponsored by Senator Jeff Goldin of Ashland, James Manning of Eugene. Well, he's a piece of work. But anyway, it would impose some consequences on Pacific Corps and the other two utilities for delaying settlements and prolonging litigation if they are found to have recklessly or negligently caused a wildfire. I was kind of wondering though, in spite of the fact that, well, I guess this man must

not have had, Quozo must not have had any fire insurance on his property. Maybe it's one of those things where he owned the property out. I don't know. It probably would have been nice in retrospect to have had the fire insurance and then just have a Pacific power pay off the extra ancillaries rather than waiting to get any kind of rebuild done. Something to consider for the future. 29 minutes after 6, of course, you know, 80 years old, maybe didn't have the money. I don't know exactly what the story is, but the first thing that happens, okay,

you sued Pacific Power. The first thing I was wondering is that did you have any insurance too? Just saying. 29 minutes after 6, this is the Bill Meyer Show on KMED 99.3 KBXG. Noodle Ron, got some great guests coming up this morning, tell you all about it. Hi, this is the bill myers show on k-me-d ninety nine three kbxg noodle ron got some great guests coming up this morning tell you all about it hi this is bill myer and i'm with shereese from no wires now your dish premix discounts include board meetings i'll do the discounts the bill myer show is on news talk one oh six three k-me-d so much of the news lately especially coming out of state legislatures like i was just talking a few minutes ago that they're working to say hey let's get rid of the cell phones in the classrooms etc and a lot of the a lot of the media the kids are consuming not necessarily as high of a quality as it could be. I want to talk with Melissa Henson she's

the vice president of Parents Television and Media Council and it's parentstv.org. And Melissa, welcome. It's great to have you back on. Good morning. Good morning. Thanks for having me. You've turned your gaze, I guess, or you know, like the eye of Sauron, you know? You've kind of taken the gaze onto Netflix for a new series. It's Adolescents, right? And I have not, I've seen it come up on my Netflix feed. I didn't bite on it because, you know, usually I'm into, you know, different types of shows. But what is Adolescents and where is it missing the mark? There may be some positives and some negatives in this, but this is Hollywood after all. Okay? Right. Well, Adolescence is a limited

series that's on Netflix right now, four episodes, and it's the drama that follows the 13 year old boy who's been accused of murdering a female classmate. And it's, you know, it's being touted as a cautionary tale. It sparked all kinds of discussion and debate, especially in the United Kingdom. They're talking about making episodes, the series available for screening for free in secondary schools because they feel this is so important for young people to see this. The British prime minister has praised it. You know, they're using this as a launching point for discussions about banning cell phones in the classroom, about age restrictions on social media. And I do

think those are conversations worth having, but I do feel like this series kind of misses the mark on what the real issue is with kids online, because what's the impetus behind the crime in this series is this young boy, 13 years old, has been deeply immersed in the sort of Andrew Tate man sphere. Oh, okay. So that's how they're going to tell it. If you're actually going to be a masculine boy, it's a bad thing. Is that the message?

Right? Well, yeah. And so what they're saying though is that the inspiration for the series is coming from a spate of knife crimes in the UK. But the thing is that none of those knife crimes in the UK, as far as I can tell, and I looked extensively, none of them were in any way connected with this so-called manuscript. So if you want to talk about the dangers of kids online, the danger of boys in particular

online, I think the story that's much more worth telling is this rising epidemic of sexploitation that in particular targets young boys and has been linked to at least 30 deaths by suicide since 2021. I can't see any evidence of real-life crimes, barring, I think there was one incident going back 12, 14 years of a man who was involved in a violent crime who was in some way connected to this manosphere. By the way, what is the manosphere, if people have not heard that term before? You know, the manosphere. And it's quite interesting and it's something which cropped up, I think, for a reason. But let folks know, please. Yeah, so it's sort of this subculture of male influencers that glorifies dominance and control and hatred toward women. You know, like I said, it's closely

associated with folks like Andrew Tate, this theory that 80% of the women will be attracted to 20% of men, and so if you're not part of that 20%, you need to figure out some other way to get a woman. And mostly it involves putting them down, degrading them, insulting them. In other words, being nice to a woman is not the way to get ahead. And maybe for some women that's true. I have observed some of that in my life, not with me personally, but observed other people. It's just like, you just really like being treated badly. You'll see that.

And it happens. It is a weird part of human nature. And so I can appreciate this, but this strikes me as something which is what adolescence is probably fixating on is not the corrosion of the culture in general, but it's all toxic masculinity, right? Well that seems to be that seems to be it. But as I say, you know, so it sort of sets up this premise where the real harm to kids online and the real harm for kids on social media is their potential exposure to this toxic masculinity or potential exposure

to the Manosphere. But as I say, there's very little evidence that there has been any real-life crime tied to this. But Hollywood, of course, is going to pick this up and run with it in this direction because it fits their narrative or the producers over at Netflix. It fits their their culture I guess. Would that be fair? Right, but so instead of, but I think the reality is that boys are far more likely to become victims because of what they're doing online than they are to become perpetrators.

Victims in what way? How would you describe that, Melissa? I'm sorry, could you repeat the question? Yeah, I'm sorry about that. But victims in what way? What kind of way are boys actually becoming victims in this culture? Yeah, yeah. So there are victims of predation, cyber bullying, self-harm content. We've seen since 2009 depression rates among teen boys increased 44%. Suicide rates are climbing. And as I mentioned, you know, we had a Senate hearing actually earlier this year. I think they were talking about Section 230 reform. And one of the witnesses that testified in that hearing was the father of a teenage

boy who was the victim of this extortion scam. And from the point of initial contact from the extortionist until the moment when this young boy killed himself was a matter of hours. We're not talking days, we're not talking weeks, we're talking a matter of hours from initial contact. So these extortionists encourage boys to send, you know, they pose as attractive females, they encourage these young boys to send compromising photos. Oh, that's what you were talking about, this extortion. Okay. Yeah, I'm sorry. I wasn't... I'm sorry. All right.

So, someone pretends to be a hot chick. They send this stuff. And what? Do they ask for money or do they threaten or something? They either ask for money, they threaten the families of the boys, or sometimes they will ask for even more explicit photos. And a lot of these images end up on the dark web.

Some of them end up being used by pedophiles. Or there was a case earlier this year of a young boy, 16-year-old in Kentucky, who committed suicide after being targeted in this extortion scheme. But in this boy's case, he never even sent a compromising photo of himself to the extortionist. They used AI to generate fake pornographic images of this teenage boy and then threatened him and threatened his family if he didn't send money. I can't even imagine having grown up with that kind of crap as a threat in my life. What about you? I don't know how old you are and I wouldn't be impolite to ask.

No. Unfortunately, these kids, well, sometimes they recognize that they did something wrong initially by sending the compromising photo. So they're afraid to take this to a parent or a trusted adult and say look I'm in trouble I'm in over my head and I don't know what to do and they find themselves back into a corner where they don't see any way out and that's why we're seeing like I said but 30 suicide among teenage boys since 2021 linked to sex extortion. In 2023, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children received 26,718 reports of financial sex extortion. And again, most of these are targeting teenage boys.

I had no idea. I didn't realize. I would have thought that most of this was targeting young females, but I'm wrong about that. was targeting young females. But I'm wrong about that. Well, yeah, I mean, there are certainly risks for young females online too. But I think this type of extortion scheme seems to target young boys far more often than young girls. I think young boys more than young girls are probably looking for more of the shall we say the excitement this side of porn, you know that kind of thing. Honestly, that's just some differences between between males and females unfortunately, just kind of

you know the way this is. So taking it back then to Netflix, the Netflix deal adolescents and of course everyone's going, oh this is such a wonderful series, everybody should be seeing this and you know the problems with the toxic masculinity and being masculine and let's face it, masculinity has been under attack for a long long time, Melissa. You and I have discussed this in other conversations here. The real issue is what you're describing. That's the real damage being done. So this whole idea of adolescents, the 13-year-old murdering the girl, that's not true. That doesn't happen according to the actual crime stats out there. Not that I can see.

Like I said, there has been a recent spike, I guess, in knife crimes, knife violence in the United Kingdom. But apparently, as far as I can see, none of it has been directly tied to this so-called manuscript. You know what the UK doesn't want to talk about? Other kinds of radicalization going on, but it's not that... That's what I was going to get at. What the UK doesn't want to talk about is the fact that they have an incredible Muslim problem and a lot of violent Muslim immigrant problems in the UK.

So I guess much better to go after toxic masculinity and tell everybody to watch Adolescents on Netflix, I guess. Well, so as I say, it's sparking conversations about age restrictions on social media, about banning smartphones in the classroom. And those are actually things that I think are probably worth pursuing, but not for the reasons that this series lays out. Okay. Now, as far as age restrictions on social media and such, there's been a lot of talk about

that here in the United States and elsewhere around the world. Do you think it makes sense? I know that I'm sure that Zuckerberg and all the other folks probably want nothing to do about this because any kind of restriction then makes the company worth less because the whole idea is how many eyeballs do you have, how many influences can you make out there on the kids even? What do you see the status of that? Yeah, absolutely. Social media was never intended for young children in the first place and it's really criminal that we've gotten to the point where kids have such easy access and they're

able to create these social media accounts with such ease. The problem is that the companies that own these social media platforms are well aware of what the dangers are. They have their own internal data, their own internal research that shows how addictive the algorithms are. They have their own research that shows you know how easy it is for kids to be fed content that is you know pro self harm or pro anorexia or facilitating or educating them on how to access drugs or fentanyl or all sorts of things. The companies know that this is going on and

have had ample opportunity but have done nothing to mitigate the harm. So I think it really is time to explore you know what can we do to mitigate the harm, to limit the damage that can happen to kids from being on these social media platforms? You could say it's up to the parents, but the reality is kids are much more knowledgeable in many cases about how to set up accounts, how to get around the parental controls, how to get around the age restrictions. Kids have often three or four steps ahead of their parents when it comes to these things. I get that. If I was a kid now, I'd probably be the same way.

Okay, how can I get around that limitation that the parents have done? Of course, I'm going to talk the nuclear option. Yeah. Why is there an assumption that every child has to have a cell phone with a data plan? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And fortunately, I think the tide is starting to turn on that. And I think, you know, Jonathan Hyde's book, The Anxious Generation, has really sparked a conversation. And I think a lot of parents are reevaluating, Do I really need to have that digital umbilical cord to my child? Do I really need to be able to check on them when they're in school all day every day?

Do I need to be asking them what they're having for lunch at 1130 every morning? No, we don't. We need to learn to let go a little bit and let our kids just be kids without having these digital tethers attached to them all the time. Because when we're putting these devices in our kids' hands, thinking that is this going to enable us to keep them safe or it's going to... What we're really doing is welcoming them into a world where there is so much potential harm, so much potential danger. And I would also add, Melissa, training them to be surveilled by various corporations and honestly government agencies too. It's all a part of that.

Like this is the way you have to live to be able to function. We're going to train you to be a good little servile and perverted citizen, I guess. Perverted if you end up absorbing enough of this content, I guess. Well, not only that, but constantly distracted too. You know, it's like the Kurt Vonnegut story of Harrison Bergeron, right? Where you can't think too deeply or for too long about anything because you get these little pings and reminders and dings and things that keep you constantly distracted and constantly, you know, looking for your next escape, your next form of entertainment. Has anyone actually reached out to Netflix going back to the

adolescence miniseries that you were talking about, limited series here, and said, hey, you know, you're really kind of missing the boat here. And the real problem with young boys is not the toxic masculinity, the Andrew Tates of the world, that kind of thing, that influencer culture, but the other sexploitation and sextortion. Anybody done that? Yeah, well, I think Netflix feels like they are superheroes for shining a light on this terrible epidemic.

You know, they feel like they're the saviors of the world because they're calling to attention this terrible problem. But like I said, I really think they missed the boat and I think they really missed what the real problem is. Our young boys are not would-be sex offenders. They're not all would-be murderers. They are more often than not victims themselves. I understand why the Andrew Tate phenomenon came up here.

And I think a lot of this has been the war on masculinity for a long time in which boys have been kind of conditioned in some... I don't know if you agree with me on this or not, but boys have been conditioned that, well, the best way to function in society is to be a feminized male. You know, you're supposed to have the feelings and desires of a female, and that's just the way it is. I would say especially in the government education system, you know, see a lot of that kind of push. And wasn't this in some ways a natural reaction

to this push for so many years? What do you think? Perhaps, but I think there is a third way. Okay. Which is sort of biblical manhood, right? Yeah. But biblical manhood is not just being a feminized version or a male-ized version of a female, right? Right. We can agree on that.

Right, absolutely. Or masculinized, a masculinized version of a female, you know, that sort of thing. And all I have to do is imagine myself and I am, man, woman, whatever. Isn't it ultimately it ultimately Melissa really down to this attack on on literal truth on actual truth and making everything relative in one form or another this is actually you know the root of this this whole thing transgender ism toxic masculinity this and that it all seems to be connected in some respect that you just are whatever you think you are. Yeah, it does seem to push everything to extremes.

You know, you're either entirely one way or entirely another, and you lose any possibility of a sort of a middle ground or a middle way. I feel sorry for kids right now because it used to be, I know that it's very popular that you always think that parents and grandparents are sitting there, oh those kids are idiots. No, I actually feel very sorry for what we adults, I think, and what the government and corporate America and what we have allowed in to our children's lives. I think that's it more than anything else and maybe we should be outraged more than anything.

Yeah, yeah, for sure. Yeah, and I think as the generation that came before and is responsible for creating a lot of this content, we are certainly culpable for creating this environment that has become so poisonous and so toxic for our kids. It's 6 54. I appreciate you coming on Melissa. Melissa Hanson, Vice President, Parents Television and Media Council. You can read up on this at parentstv.org and you have a great story that I'm going to link to here in The Washington Examiner and the story about great story that I'm going to link to here in the Washington Examiner and the story about boys online that adolescence misses.

And it's very well done and I appreciate you sharing your thoughts on it this morning. Okay? You take care. Thank you. 654, this is KMED and 99.3 KBXG on the Bill Meyers. This is KMED, KMED HD1, Eagle Point, Medford, KBXG, Grants Pass. I appreciate you listening this morning. I was reading yesterday an interesting story,

actually a couple of interesting stories that really caught me. Not necessarily, well, quit me a conspiracy theory Thursday. A couple of them, worthy of conspiracy theory Thursday discussion. But the breaking news yesterday that came out that astronomers have detected a possible signature of life on a distant planet.

I believe this is the first time this has ever happened. So these astronomer scientists have been out there, you know, scanning the universe and looking for signs, right? science. And so what they have done, a team of researchers offering what is contended is the strongest indication yet of life on another planet, extraterrestrial life. Now it's not in our solar system, it's not looking at Pluto or anything else. Of course, Pluto is not considered a planet, it's been downgraded, I suppose. There is this planet that's 120 light years away from us. It's known as K2-18b. Now, that is one sexy name for this planet.

And so they've been studying this, rather, with their telescopes, and they've been analyzing this for a long long time they're looking at its atmosphere and frankly it just astounds me that you can even examine a planet remotely from 120 light years away and that you can actually figure out something from just observing it at this kind of distance but it is true. And they're analyzing the wavelengths of the light coming and all this other stuff. And apparently, they're finding in the atmosphere a whole bunch of molecules, or at least evidence of the molecules that can only come from one thing. A living organism such as algae.

So they're detecting this stuff in the, you know, from a hundred twenty light years away going, hey, you know there's a signature there that there's a lot of algae on this one. And the person who is behind the study here, which is Neku Mahusadan, I probably butchered his name entirely, but he's an astronomer at the University of Cambridge and an author of this new study at the news conference on Tuesday we're talking about. He says, it is in no one's interest to claim prematurely

that we have detected life. Still, he said the best explanation for this observation is that K2-18b is covered in a warm ocean and it's just filled with life. That kind of thing. And they're calling this a revolutionary moment. It's the first time that we have been able to see a potential biological signature on another planet that might be habitable. Now 120 years ago, 120 light years though, we're seeing the light though of K21b from 120 years ago. Hopefully K21b is still there.

We don't know. Even that's kind of weird, isn't it? To think that, you know, we're looking at the stars and realizing that many of them may not even exist right now. And K21b may not exist at this point. It may have blown up like the planet Krypton in the old Superman series, but who knows. A study published yesterday, pretty interesting reading in the Astrophysical Journal Letters and the researcher is pretty

excited about that. I thought it's just an interesting story that finally, now they're not declaring it, you know, 100%, but this is looking about as good as it gets. We're saying, yep, we found another plant that has some kind of life on it. It may be slime mold or algae, but you know, it's life one way or the other. I just thought that was interesting.