Breaking Points with Krystal and Saagar - Mini Show #9: Jon Stewart, Senate Democrats, CNN vs Bernie, Cancel Culture, and More!

Episode Date: October 23, 2021

To become a Breaking Points Premium Member and watch/listen to the show uncut and 1 hour early visit: https://breakingpoints.supercast.com/To listen to Breaking Points as a podcast, check them out on Apple and SpotifyApple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/breaking-points-with-krystal-and-saagar/id1570045623Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4Kbsy61zJSzPxNZZ3PKbXlMerch: https://breaking-points.myshopify.com/Daily Poster: https://www.dailyposter.com/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoicesSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is an iHeart Podcast. Camp Shane, one of America's longest-running weight loss camps for kids, promised extraordinary results. But there were some dark truths behind Camp Shane's facade of happy, transformed children. Nothing about that camp was right. It was really actually like a horror movie. Enter Camp Shame, an eight-part series examining the rise and fall of Camp Shane and the culture that fueled its decades-long success. You can listen to all episodes of Camp Shame one week early and totally ad-free on iHeart True Crime Plus.

So don't wait. Head to Apple Podcasts and subscribe today. DNA test proves he is not the father. Now I'm taking the inheritance. Wait a minute, John. Who's not the father? and subscribe today. his irresponsible son, but I have DNA proof that could get the money back. Hold up. They could lose their family and millions of dollars? Yep. Find out how it ends by listening to the OK Storytime podcast on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Have you ever thought about going voiceover? I'm Hope Woodard, a comedian, creator, and seeker of male validation. I'm also the girl behind Boy Sober, the movement that exploded in 2024.

You might hear that term and think it's about celibacy, but to me, Boy Sober is about understanding yourself outside of sex and relationships. It's flexible, it's customizable, and it's a personal process. Singleness is not a waiting room. You are actually at the party right now. Let me hear it.

Listen to VoiceOver on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Hey guys, thanks for listening to Breaking Points with Crystal and Sagar. We're gonna be totally upfront with you. We took a big risk going independent. To make this work, we need your support to beat the corporate media.

CNN, Fox, MSNBC, they are ripping this country apart. They are making millions of dollars doing it. To help support our mission of making all of us hate each other less, hate the corrupt ruling class more, support the show. Become a Breaking Points premium member today where you get to watch and listen to the entire show,

ad-free and uncut an hour early before everyone else. You get to hear our reactions to each other's monologues. You get to participate in weekly Ask Me Anythings, and you don't need to hear our annoying voices pitching you like I am right now. So what are you waiting for? Go to breakingpoints.com, become a premium member today, which is available in the show notes. Enjoy the show, guys. So as you may have noticed, Jon Stewart has reemerged in order to talk about all the things, but in particular, his new Apple TV show called The Problem with Jon Stewart, which is pretty interesting, which you should definitely check out. So he went on with Jake Tapper and had some pointed criticism of the media that we found very interesting.

Let's take a listen to that. I have attention, Governor Gavin Newsom in California just signed a law requiring gender neutral toy sections in stores. There's obviously a lot of debate across the country, not all of it well informed about critical race theory and how race is taught in schools. Do you have concerns about how these debates are taking place? Obviously, I'm not talking about how they're depicted in right-wing media because it doesn't matter what the Democrats do or liberals do for right-wing media to lie about it. But there are a number of independent voters who might not understand what's going on.

Yeah. I mean, there are a lot of things a lot of people don't understand, and it's something's either right and common sense. I mean, I do think there are ways to accomplish some of these goals in ways that, but you can't govern to the lowest common denominator. You can't, I think one of the difficulties, and again, it's, it's with the way that the lens through which we view everything is based on, and what will that mean for the midterms or what I saw a great headline in Politico as Afghanistan was descending into chaos in that final week. And the headline in Politico, this was the top line headline, the one with the 40 point font, whatever it was. It said, why Afghanistan may not matter in the midterms. And then the subhead was, and why it might.

I mean, they have a point. They have a point. But that's our journalism, right, man? Isn't that like, how many times have you seen stories about the battle over masks? That's the Karen yelling in the store and the people throwing them out and all that and how many stories have we seen about the efficacy of masks or the why or the actual like there are some but the overwhelming majority of stories seek to expose the conflict lines. 100%.

Pretty astute commentary there. I'm wondering if he's a Breaking Points fan, because it sounds like something we might have said on here. It's too much of a boomer to watch YouTube. Yeah, probably. It's too flattering to my ego to imagine that. But it's really interesting, because Jake Tapper asked him this incredibly long and meandering question, but essentially breaks down to, do you think this critical race theory stuff is going to be a problem for Democrats in the midterm? I mean,

that's effectively what his long, rambling, incoherent question amounted to. So basically, like, weigh in on this hot culture war topic that you've never said anything about and what the political implications are going to be. And Jon Stewart is just basically like, this question you just asked me is the whole problem with journalism. Because rather than even asking about, well, what do you actually think about how children should be taught? And what do you think about, you know, the content of their education as if Jon Stewart would be the expert that you would consult on this anyway. It's all framed through this partisan political lens. And then the second part that he talks about there with like the Karens and the masks and this, whatever the viral video clip is, what he's getting at there is rather than focusing on either like the information itself about,

hey, here's why masks are important, or here's what the research shows about whether they work or not. It's got to go to that culture war flashpoint. And of course, it's all directed at the individual people versus any of the systemic or structural institutions that, you know, led to people having a variety of views, some of them accurate and some of them inaccurate. I love how he talks about the conflict lines. He's exactly right. And how many times have we talked about this, about the reconciliation package?

They're like 1.5 trillion versus two. I'm like, what does that mean? What does that mean? What is in that 500 billion? Where I come from, 500 billion, that's a lot of money. What just got cut? What's not getting cut? What's in it?

What's not in it? What does this even mean to you whatsoever? This is why nobody in DC, including the media, know how to actually communicate. We were talking earlier this week about the great resignation, the strikes, and all of that. And it's almost entirely a blue collar phenomenon, which is why if it is discussed, it's like aliens who are acting in a way that we must analyze. And if it's not, it's if it is discussed it's like aliens you know who are acting in a way that we must analyze and if it's not it's because they're doing stuff about january 6th or you know some other stupid beltway type topic he's exactly right which is they only know how to cover stuff with the conflict line and actually there is a real conflict line we covered about Starbucks, right? There's a conflict line between management, the bosses, and the workers.

But they don't know how to cover it. They're not interested in that conflict line. They're not interested in that conflict line whatsoever. That conflict line is not just uninteresting to them, but it's a problem for them. It's a huge problem. And for the narrative that they're trying to sell on a daily basis. So, always interesting. I'm not sure Jake Tapper really understood

what pointed criticism that was and what a total rejection. Right, right at him. He was like, screw your bullshit. Yeah, of the segment that he ultimately wanted to take them in. But I've definitely missed Jon Stewart. I went back and watched a bunch of old Daily Show.

And he's been missed because I think he is a very astute observer and also a very effective advocate for the causes that he takes on. But man, watching old Colbert and like when he was

a correspondent on the Daily Show. Sad. And to see how far he's fallen and how tremendously unfunny and cringe he is now is definitely sad. It's a tragedy, honestly. Very sad. Hey, so remember how we told you how awesome premium membership was? Well, here we are again to remind you that becoming a premium member means you don't have to listen to

our constant pleas for you to subscribe. So what are you waiting for? Become a premium member today by going to breakingpoints.com, which you can click on in the show notes. Time for our weekly segment in partnership with The Daily Poster, highlighting their original journalism. Joining us now, we have the founder of Daily Poster, David Serrata. Great to see you, David. Good to see you, David. Good morning. So you have an interesting piece out right now with regards to the reconciliation bill and where we're at.

I personally think the Biden proposal is total trash. You are calling on the administration to call the bluff of Manchin, Sinema and all of the other people who are more quietly dragging their heels. Let's throw this tear sheet up on the screen. You say, call their bluff right now. It's time for Democratic leaders to make Manchin, Sinema, and every other senator vote, and not on some gutted half measure, but on a real three and a half trillion dollar bill. Explain your thinking there. Well, look, we've seen the negotiations whittle down this bill to, it looks like it's going to almost nothing. I mean, it started out, Bernie Sanders said it should have been $10 trillion. So he started out at $6 trillion. Joe Manchin said he could accept $4 trillion of spending. Then it went to $3.5 trillion. Then it went to $1.9 trillion. Then

Manchin said it's $1.5 trillion. Point being that the delays continue to result in exactly what Manchin and Sinema and other Democratic, conservative Democrats, what their donors want, which is basically a bill that is gutted or killed. We wrote about this back in August, which is what we said was that what was probably going to happen is that the House progressives who are saying that they're going to hold out, if they don't make their demands explicitly clear what exactly they want in a reconciliation bill, then likely you will see a process where the Democratic leadership guts that bill, just keeps hollowing it out. And you've seen Manchin and Sinema make periodic statements through the press, oh, we don't like the tax provisions, oh, we don't like the pharmaceutical provisions, oh, we don't like the climate provisions. And every time they make a declaration like that, the White House and Congress go to work on hacking apart the bill. So the point is, instead of engaging in that process, instead of engaging in what is obviously a deliberate game,

a game that Manchin and Sinema and their donors want to play. Stop playing that game and put a real bill on the floor and simply have a vote. Now, that doesn't guarantee that Manchin and Sinema will vote for a good bill, but it basically puts them on the spot in a way that they're not on the spot right now. They have the best of both worlds right now. They get to make these declarations through the press, have the bill get watered down, have Democrats essentially negotiate against themselves, and never have to actually face an up or down vote. There's one idea there to have an up or down vote, put a bunch of stuff in there for Arizona and West Virginia, and try to dare them to explicitly vote against major investments in their own state.

And the fact that the Democratic leadership hasn't done this is really a signal that it's not necessarily all that serious about actually passing a real bill. This is something that the Democratic leadership could do right now. And it's been going on for weeks and weeks, if not months, and they have refused to do this. Yeah, that was my next question is why don't they just try something like this? I mean, we've seen threats from Nancy Pelosi about fine, I'll just put stuff on the floor. If you really are going to do it, then go ahead. And, you know, usually it does seem to work out. Why are the White House and the Democratic leadership in the Senate? I mean, do they just really believe that

they won't vote for it? Or are they just not having the political coverage from Biden to say that this is a tactic they're willing to pursue? My guess is, is that they're afraid that Sinema and Manchin and a couple others will vote the bill down. Now, we're led to believe that that would be the worst tragedy in the world. But of course, we've seen time and time again, bills get voted down, they get brought back up. That's not really a big deal. And that's not really an excuse. It doesn't hold water. You can keep bringing up a bill to have a vote.

That mean Democrats control the schedule. They control the Congress. So to me, my guess is they're somewhat afraid of the political fallout from that. I also think, though, that the Democratic Party has a culture of conflict aversion inside of its party, that it doesn't like to put pressure on members of its own party, which is very different, by the way, from the Republican Party. You've seen Donald Trump, you know, pressing members of his party when he was president to actually pass things. But I also think there's potentially something even more nefarious going on, which ultimately it does raise the

question. If you're not willing to actually play hardball for an agenda that you, the president, says that he is for, if you're not willing to actually force some votes, for instance, or really go campaign in these states for your bill, it kind of suggests that you're not really willing to fight for your bill, that perhaps you don't mind the bill being watered down. I mean, let's be clear. What you have going on here is Manchin and Sinema and Bob Menendez on the pharmaceutical stuff and probably a bunch of others on various things, they are essentially helping the Democratic Party's donors, their big corporate donors, get rid of what those corporate donors don't want. And so there's a rotating villain kind of phenomenon here where, yes, it's Manchin and

Sinema and Menendez. But the point is, is that they're kind of all colluding to allow this bill to get cut and withered away. And it raises the question, is that actually what Democratic Party leaders really want? Because if they didn't really want that, they have tools at their disposal, like, for instance, forcing a vote to actually try to up the ante and get this bill passed. I mean, I think a data point that would argue for that view of the world is that I was asking Jeff Stein a couple weeks ago, of course, Washington Post economics reporter we have on all the time. What are Biden's actual priorities in this bill? Because I could tell you, you know, I could tell you what Bernie really cares about. I could tell you what any number of Congress, members of Congress, really care about within this bill. And I really couldn't tell you what the president of the United States prioritizes in this bill.

His response to me was that it seemed like the community college piece was actually really important to him and he brought it up a bunch of times, etc. And then we get this proposal and the community college piece is totally gone. So that would argue that even the part that he was like the most enthusiastic about, he just casually dispenses with, that perhaps the only thing they truly care about in any of this is getting a quote unquote win, regardless if that win is, you know, $25 and a new one new college scholarship or whatever it is, just so that they can say, look, we passed something and we got some bipartisan support on our infrastructure deal. You're absolutely right. I mean, this is very, very ancient Washington thinking. As long as we get something called a deal, a piece of paper that we can wave around and say, hey, we got a deal.

That's the only thing in their mind that seems to matter. But what I would argue is, is that what really matters is, are you materially improving people's lives as quickly as possible? That is the thing that gives you the best chance to actually, for instance, win the midterm elections. That running around saying, look at this great deal that we got, and having that deal not actually deliver real material gains for people that they can feel, tangible gains that voters can feel, actually makes your political problem even worse. Because then you're running around saying, look at this huge victory we got, and people are saying, I don't know what you're talking about. I don't feel it. You're basically not telling me the truth.

And so I think what's gone on is that the Biden administration seems not really to appreciate that, not really focused on that, doesn't really value that. And it's really, again, it goes back to a Washington way of thinking where a deal, no matter what's in it, seems to matter the most. But I would also add one other thing. It also speaks to the Democratic Party's, the fundamental contradiction in the Democratic Party, which creates so many problems for the party, which is trying to appease big corporate donors and trying to deliver real material gains to regular people. Those two things are often directly in conflict. And if you try to not pick a side, you're effectively going to pick a side. And you're going to pick a side of standing with your corporate donors, which is going to piss a

lot of people off. Yeah, because the status quo is good for them. They benefit from the status quo. So if nothing happens, great for them. David, lastly, what would you advise progressives who, to their credit, won an early sort of minor victory in this game of chicken and forced people back to the negotiating table, et cetera, et cetera. They've long said no climate, no deal. How would you advise them to play their cards at this point? Well, it's what I said back in August, and it remains the case today. Make your demands extremely clear. Whatever those demands are, whatever those lines in the sand are, they should have made those demands, in my view,

months ago. The best negotiating strategy, in my view, is to make your demands transparent and clear early on and make clear that you are not going to back away from those demands. Those demands being what programs do you want in this bill? What regulations do you want in this bill? What are the actual numbers here? Don't use vague terms like robust. That's the problem. The progressives have said we're going to hold out for a robust bill, but that is an undefined term. And when you don't define that term, it allows your opponents to keep whittling away

and say, hey, listen, you haven't made exactly clear what you really want. So they need to make clear exactly what they want. That's a really good point. Yep. Great to have you, David. Tell people where they can go and subscribe and support the work that you're doing, most importantly. You can find our work at dailyposter.com.

And we would love to have everybody come check out our work and be a subscriber. Yeah, I think you should. We rely on you guys all the time. That's why we're in partnership with you. Thank you, David. Appreciate it. Great to see you, David. Great to see you.

Thanks to both of you. Wow. You guys must really like listening to our voices. Well, I know this is annoying. Instead of making you listen to a Viagra commercial, when you're done, check out the other podcasts I do with Marshall Kosloff called The Realignment. We talk a lot about the deeper issues that are changing, realigning in American society. You always need more Crystal and Saga in your daily lives. Take care, guys.

Been a little bit of an ongoing war, a bit of a cold war, I guess you'd say, between Bernie Sanders. I bit of a cold war, I guess you'd say, between Bernie Sanders. I call it a hot war. CNN, you think it's a hot war? We'll go with that. Okay, so it all started when Bernie put out a statement calling out the media for their absolutely abysmal coverage of what is in the reconciliation bill. Let's throw that tear sheet up on the screen with some of the details here. Sanders blames media for Americans not knowing details of Biden's spending plan.

Part of what he says, I wish I could do a good burning voice, is he says, the reality that the mainstream media has done an exceptionally poor job in covering what actually is in the legislation. There have been endless stories about the politics of passing Build Back Better, the role of the president, the conflicts in the House and the Senate, the opposition of two senators, the size of the bill, etc. But very limited coverage as to what the provisions of the bill are and the crises for working people that they address. Obviously, this is something that failure of the media is something we have discussed here. And we've also tried to bring you the actual details of the bill since apparently very few other places are going to. I don't know why it's so difficult. Not that difficult, guys. Really not that difficult. So, one CNN anchor didn't take too kindly

to Bernie daring to besmirch the good name of the media in outlets like CNN. Brianna Keillor put out this tweet. She was like, it's blame media o'clock and Bernie Sanders is right on time. And she did a whole lengthy segment trying to take apart Bernie's criticism, how dare he, of CNN and other outlets. Let's take a little listen to what she had to say. Senator Bernie Sanders put out a statement this weekend blaming the media as the main reason for

why Americans don't know what's in the Build Back Better plan. He wrote, quote, blaming the media as the main reason for why Americans don't know what's in the Build Back Better plan. He wrote, quote, at the top of the list is the reality that the mainstream media has done an exceptionally poor job in covering what actually is in the legislation. There have been endless stories about the politics of passing Build Back Better, the role of the president, the conflicts in the House and Senate, the opposition of two senators, the size of the bill, and very limited coverage as to what the provisions of the bill are and the crises for working people that they address. Let's take a look at what all he is saying here, because while the media should always be striving to do a better job, it's just not true that the media hasn't covered what is in the bill and doesn't

continue to do so. Media outlet after media outlet has covered this. And it's very easy to find online if you want to know about it. And on television, I mean, just looking at CNN, segment after segment about what is in the bill. In his statement, Sanders refers to how popular the policy provisions in the legislation are when Americans are polled about them. So that's what Democrats obviously should be selling. But one of Sanders' former colleagues, Al Franken, says Democrats could be doing a better job of that. There is so much in this package that, and what I don't like is when we refer to it as the reconciliation package instead of the elements of it, because the elements are so popular. We can't do it without the reconciliation

package. At the end of the day, I am absolutely convinced we're going to have a strong infrastructure bill and we're going to have a great consequential reconciliation bill, which addresses the needs of the American people. Let's talk about Sanders' complaint that the media focuses a lot on how much the bill will cost. Well, guilty, but the price tag matters. That price tag determines what will be in the bill of those policy provisions, and Democrats cannot agree on the price tag. It's the sticking point. So effectively, you've got Bernie saying media isn't really covering the price tag. It's the sticking point. So effectively, you've got Bernie saying, media isn't really covering the substance here.

Brianna Keillor saying, of course we are. Look, here's some screenshots that show the media covering. Okay, so Adam Johnson and his colleague, Gabe Levine-Dryzen over at the column Substack, did a little analysis on CNN's coverage of the reconciliation bill soccer, and you would be shocked to learn that they spent almost no time on the details of what is actually in the bill. Here's their headline.

We can throw this up on the screen. On reconciliation bill, CNN aired horse race coverage 11 times more than substance. He says, I surveyed 12 CNN segments over a four-day period. We found it was 91.3% horse race. To give you a little bit more of the details here, they say of the two hours and six minutes of total coverage analyzed, 10 minutes out of that two hours was dedicated to discussing what was actually in the bill. An hour and 55 minutes of air what was actually in the bill.

An hour and 55 minutes of airtime was spent on the horse race. And oh, by the way, as an aside, most of the minutes that were actually spent talking about what was in the bill, it was because they had a progressive on. And that progressive was Bernie or Pramila Jayapal or whoever was actually talking about the substance of what was in the bill. This reminds me of what Jon Stewart said on Jake Tapper, which we covered earlier this week, which is that he pointed to the fact that he's like, all these guys know how to do is cover division and whether it's going to be midterms or not. I have said it here so many times. Nobody cares about one trillion dollars of, I don't know, like UBI is a lot different than a trillion dollars of whatever the hell

is in this bill, as in the substance of it matters. They don't mention that almost ever. It's always about 1.6 versus 1.3. What the hell does that mean? Why should I care? 1.3 trillion dollars is what we spent in like Afghanistan. Is that the same thing as what's happening here? Absolutely not. And their inability in order to try and communicate this is because, frankly, these people are stupid. And the only thing that they really know how to cover is polls and whether somebody is up or down. Beltway drama.

That's the only thing. It's the way that they came up through their careers. The media is not built or designed in order to tell you what is actually going on. Well, and Adam points this out. Like, just think about the fact designed in order to tell you what is actually going on. Well, and Adam points this out, like, just think about the fact CNN has so many resources. Yeah, billions. They have reporters across the country. They have reporters around the world. They have budgets. They could fly to a town. They could go to that town. They could talk to people there. They could think about, like,

hey, if you had universal pre-K for your kid, what would that look like? If you had options and affordability of elder care for your aging parents, what would that mean for your life? If you young person are able to go to community college for free, how does that change your trajectory? Literally not one segment like that. Not one. When they have so many resources where they could send people out and actually contextualize this and make it real for people. And look, I don't want to let the Democratic Party off the hook. Like, they've been atrocious. Build Back Better is terrible.

They've been atrocious messaging about this. They've also gone into this, like, oh, is it three and a half or is it one and a half, like obsessing over the top line rather than details as well. So they could have done a much better job too. But that does not let the media off the hook here whatsoever. They just, I mean, it's almost sociopathic how literally they care about what this bill would actually mean to the human beings that would be impacted. And so then it's no surprise when you poll people, the thing they know most about this bill is what the top line number is. Exactly. That's the thing. I mean, that's what the polls show. They don't actually know that

community college was floated. Now Biden's taken it out. They don't know about the climate provision. They don't know about preschool, whether they would like those things or hate those things. They don't even know that they're there. All they know is like this stupid battle over the top line number. And yes, that is Brianna Taylor. And to all of your colleagues at CNN and Fox News and MSNBC as well, that is in part you're failing to be able to contextualize it and make it real for people so that they feel like they have something at stake in these negotiations. Yeah, that's exactly right. One more thing, I promise. Just wanted to make sure you knew about my podcast with Kyle Kalinsky. It's called Crystal Kyle and Friends, where we do long form interviews with people like

Noam Chomsky, Cornel West and Glenn Greenwald. You can listen on any podcast platform or you can subscribe over on Substack to get the video a day early. We're going to stop bugging you now. Enjoy. All right, guys, we have sort of dueling stories of cancellation for you. Both of them pretty interesting,

I would say, in different ways. So let's throw this Jesse Singletweet up on the screen. Turns out Nicole Hannah-Jones of 1619 fame, her talk was canceled by a prep school because she was too controversial. So apparently what happened here is she was invited to speak to this, like, boarding northeastern boarding school. Yeah, fancy place.

In conjunction with Black History Month. A friend had asked her, so she said yes. She's all set to go. And then the board contacts her and is like, oh, we think it would be too controversial and might cause too much stress and too much tension. So we think it'd be better if you ultimately not come. So this is interesting for a couple of reasons. So first of all, Nicole Hannah-Jones had a whole thread on Twitter explaining her feelings about it. She wanted to make it very clear that she did not feel that she was canceled because she still has her platform.

She still can write. She's still very prominent. Those are all very good points. But I think what it misses is the fact that when a controversial topic or a controversial person, whether they're a left person or a right person, when those ideas and that human being are not allowed the platform to even speak, like that's bigger than just you. Because, yes, you, Nicole Hannah-Jones, you do have a big platform. You do have the ability to say whatever you want to say in a lot of different formats. But the whole problem with this idea of, hey, something's uncomfortable, so we're just not going to talk about it. We're just going to censor it.

The whole problem with that is what about the person who doesn't have that platform? What does that do to the ability to have those conversations whatsoever? So I thought it was interesting. The other piece of it that's interesting, of course, is that you won't hear anyone on the right talking about Nicole Hannah-Jones getting- I despise Nicole Hannah-Jones. Getting canceled. But that's the whole thing, is it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter whether you like the person, whether you agree with them, whether you disagree with them. The whole idea is the principle of if someone is uncomfortable, if they're not uncomfortable, whatever, the answer isn't to censor them and make it so they can't speak at all. The answer is to engage, to debate, and to have confidence that your ideas ultimately can win the day. Yeah, I agree. Look, I mean, I think Nicole Hannah-Jones is a hoxter of the

highest order, but it doesn't matter. She does, and I also don't doubt these middle school, middle sex high school kids are going to get plenty of critical race theory from their very liberal professors. Apparently not. But that being said, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't hear about it. We shouldn't have a debate about it. And it's good because it pairs also very well with this New York Times piece that you actually found. Let's put it up there on the screen. And this is from MIT where a lecturer who previously had spoken out against affirmative action and diversity programs in videos and opinion pieces. His name was – he's a geophysicist.

His name is Dorian Abbott, Dr. Dorian Abbott. He was actually canceled for giving a lecture at MIT. And critically, actually very critically in this case, he wasn't even there to speak about what was going on whenever it came to affirmative action or diversity programs. He was there to give a lecture to the Earth, Atmospherics, and Planetary Sciences Department, and they canceled it for exactly the same reason, because some of what they claim, people of color who go to the university, would have felt uncomfortable. But then whenever they canceled it, it also caused a bit of controversy. And what is the right way to handle

these things? Obviously, look, in this particular case, it's so obvious. The guy is an expert on geophysics or whatever. Let him speak on that. And also, frankly, have a discussion between him and then also have somebody else. For Middlesex High School, you should have Nicole Hannah-Jones and then have somebody like John McWhorter or something like that, or somebody who doesn't agree. You should have them both, and people can make up their minds for themselves. That's always the way in order to handle these things. And that's why it's happening all across. And anodyne stuff in college, I mean, who wants that? Are you better off when you're a high school student for not discussing actual controversial subjects? Or even in college, absolutely not. It just makes things worse, in my opinion.

So I think that's why this stuff really does matter. I think Nicole Hannah-Jones, actually, in her Twitter thread, said something that you might find compelling. She said, the lack of courage in these times is so very sad. True. Totally true. But again, keep in mind that she's someone who would be on the side of censorship when it's used that she does not agree with. Which she has actively pushed in the past, I want to be clear. platform, that one, she's very much on that side. And so it's interesting when it happens to her,

there's this whole contorting to say, I'm not canceled. And this is actually a result of these other people who are, it's this whole contortion to not actually see that this isn't just, you know, applied to people who have views that you disagree with. This can come for you. This can come for ideologies that you support and that you think are important and that you want to be able to have conversations about. It doesn't just stay in the narrow confines that are comfortable for you, which is why, like, if this is something that you care about, which you should if you care about free speech and you care about a society where people have the courage to have conversations that can be uncomfortable at times, but sometimes also push us forward as a nation. That's why you have to look at whether it's, you know, the professor has controversial views on

affirmative action or whether it's Nicole Hannah-Jones. You have to have one consistent principle on those things, which is what we try to do. How about that? I like that idea. That's really what I would- We'll host it here, guys. Oh, yeah. Our pleasure. I would love to see her come step in the same room as me. We'll see. All right. All right, guys.

Thanks for watching. Have a great weekend. We'll have more for you later. Thanks for listening to the show, guys. We really appreciate it. To help other people find the show, go ahead and leave us a five-star rating on Apple Podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts. It really helps other people find the show.

As always, a special thank you to Supercast for powering our premium membership. If you want to find out more, go to crystalandsauger.com. Camp Shane, one of America's longest-running weight loss camps for kids, promised extraordinary results. But there were some dark truths behind Camp Shane's facade of happy, transformed children. Nothing about that camp was right. It was really actually like a horror movie.

Enter Camp Shame, an eight-part series examining the rise and fall of Camp Shane and the culture that fueled its decades-long success. You can listen to all episodes of Camp Shame one week early and totally ad-free on iHeart True Crime Plus. So don't wait. Head to Apple Podcasts and subscribe today. fortune worth millions from my son, even though it was promised to us. He's trying to give it to his irresponsible son, but I have DNA proof that could get the money back. Hold up. They could lose their family and millions of dollars. Yep. Find out how it ends by listening to the OK Storytime podcast on the iHeartRadio app, Apple podcast, or wherever you get your podcasts. Have you ever thought about going voiceover? I'm Hope Woodard, a comedian, creator, and seeker of male validation.

I'm also the girl behind voiceover, the movement that exploded in 2024. You might hear that term and think it's about celibacy, but to me, voiceover is about understanding yourself outside of sex and relationships. It's flexible, it's customizable, and it's a personal process. Singleness is not a waiting room. You are actually at the party right now. Let me hear it. Listen to VoiceOver on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. This is an iHeart Podcast.