The Ben Mulroney Show - Best of the Week Part 5 - Greg Brady, Jaskaran Sandhu, Andrew Feldstein

Episode Date: May 19, 2025

Best of the Week Part 5 - Greg Brady, Brad Smith, Jaskaran Sandhu Guests: Greg Brady, Jaskaran Sandhu, Mohit Rajhans, Andrew Feldstein, Dave Bradley If you enjoyed the podcast, tell a friend! For more of the Ben Mulroney Show, subscribe to the podcast! https://globalnews.ca/national/program/the-ben-mulroney-show Follow Ben on Twitter/X at https://x.com/BenMulroney Enjoy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

There are very few things that you can be certain of in life. But you can always be sure the sun will rise each morning. You can bet your bottom dollar that you'll always need air to breathe and water to drink. And of course, you can rest assured that with Public Mobile's 5G subscription phone plans, you'll pay the same thing every month. With all of the mysteries that life has to offer, a few certainties can really go a long way. Subscribe today for the peace of mind you've been searching for. Public Mobile. Different is calling.

Welcome to the Ben Mulroney Show Best of the Week podcast. We had so many great discussions this week, including the most comprehensive divorce study ever released. Plus the political panel was especially good. Enjoy. Welcome back to the Ben Mulroney Show. And as always on Friday, we convene our This Week in Politics panel. We got lots to get to. Let's welcome our panelists, Greg Brady, the host of Toronto Today on the Chorus Radio Network, and Jaskaran Sandhu, co-founder of Bos News

and board member of the World Sick Organization of Canada. To both of you, I say happy Friday and happy Victoria Day-long weekend. Happy Friday. All right, gentlemen, let's jump right in and just kind of, I'm gonna come to you first, but look, I got a bone to pick with our new prime minister. I'm trying not to nitpick,

but in this case, I have a bone to pick. We were promised elbows up. We were told this is the crisis of our lifetime. We were told only this government under the leadership of Mark Carney could get us through this terrible time. And he was the guy who was gonna restore fiscal responsibility to a world gone wild. And now we've got no budget

and we've got no retaliatory tariffs. And I'm trying to square those two things over what we were told on the campaign trail. Well, technically there's still retaliatory tariffs. It's just like on orange juice. Okay, just Karen, if there's one thing I know is when somebody starts a sentence with technically, they are about to split a hair. They are about to split a hair. Technically, technically, I didn't do anything wrong. Let me point out, this is a very pro orange juice panel though.

Yeah. This is a very, we are all united by orange juice unites us. That's for sure. Yeah. Continue my friend. Why would you bring orange juice from California? Why would you bring orange juice from Saskatchewan? Yeah.

We should grow it up here. Yeah. Look, yeah, okay. Yeah, retaliatory tariffs are almost virtually non-existent now to protect the automotive industry, our manufacturing, food and beverage industry. So is it completely off the table? No. Is it now removed off the table in terms of like our manufacturing capacity and power and those industries? Yes. power and those industries? Yes. I don't know what the longer play is here. I'm sure there's some thinking. I think folks in the business world are kind of happy that we're not punching ourselves in the face in a way, trying to get back at the Americans. Can we beat them dollar for dollar? No. Maybe not. Yeah. Maybe not. But to your point, then it is true that the whole

narrative of this campaign was elbows up. We're going to punch people in the nose. And we're not doing that now, unless it's just like rope adobe and there's stuff. There's just something here that we just don't see yet. And Greg, look, again, I'm actually not upset that the retaliatory terrorists are practically zero. That's not the thing that bothers me. It was the denigration of the opponent saying, Pierre Poliev was going to collapse before King Trump. He was gonna kiss the ring. He was going to do all that. And meanwhile, Mark Carney goes to Ottawa

and flatters the King. And I don't have a problem with anyone doing that. I have a problem with somebody getting elected saying they're gonna do the king. And I don't have a problem with anyone doing that. I have a problem with somebody getting elected saying they're going to do the opposite. But I think what we've seen and I think we've always seen it when you know, there's nothing a politician loves more than when times are good and, and, and the you know, the economic, all the economic levels are up, you know what they like almost as much

as is almost one in one a crisis. Yeah know what they like almost as much? This is almost one in one, a crisis. Yeah. And they love a crisis that they can't be pointed at that they manufactured, but they can be pointed out to say, I'm the only one that can respond to it. Look, we had a little bit of this. I was living in the States all through 2000 when post 9-11, George Bush against John Kerry in 2004, when everyone's like, I don't know, should we be in Iraq? I don't know. Could that government themselves have done more to prevent 9-11? These were honest questions at that time.

The electorate just rolled forward and said, he's the one that can keep it safe. We've had now 11, we're heading towards probably 13, 14 years of a liberal government. We're going to head towards 11, 12 years of a provincial government here who told us they were keeping us safe during COVID. And they both went as quickly as they could. The second there was a Trump threat and whether they exaggerated the threat or just, just played it up, the opposition's parties knew what they were going to do. There is an onus upon them, whether it's the Ontario liberals and NDP, whether

it's the federal conservatives and the, and the now exploded now seemingly defunct on federal NDP, how are we going to counter this this this game plan here? And so there's a little bit of both. No, no, absolutely right. And like I said, I'm not I'm not outraged here. I'm just kind of I'm just kind of peeved that that there was a bait and switch that was done here. And, and then that takes me to my next point, just Karen, you know, Quebec is finally for the first time in

my memory, open to the possibility of allowing for a trans-Canadian pipeline to go through its territory, through northern Quebec. And we're still getting to know Mark Carney. There's a lot to like. There are still a lot of question marks. He's been asked many times about, you know, a pipeline. He says he's open to it, but there's always this caveat. If there's a national consensus, what I would prefer to hear from Mark Carney is I am open to a pipeline and I will lead the charge to building a national consensus. I haven't heard that yet. Given the opening that we have with Quebec finally, I think it's incumbent upon him to offer a full-throated endorsement

to manifest this thing, to use his political capital to get this thing built. What do you think? Discard? I've left him. I've left. You left him speechless with the orange juice stuff. I'm here. I'm here.

I'm here. I'm here. I'm here. I'm here. I had a great line in the whole punch drop. I was going to say, Carney needs to drop the Aston Matthews life and just leave. You know, drag the puppy to the net. And in this case, it's building pipelines coast to coast. And you as the leader of the country, of Canada, with everything that's in front of us, with the crisis that's in front of us, we need to get our energy to market. We got to build these pipelines. Yeah. And if there's some growing consensus happening in Quebec, in BC, these are the two provinces that we really have to work with. If there's a growing consensus there, or at least an opening, it's Carney's job. It It's a liberal government's job to push this through. Yeah, in a way

that obviously everyone can come to the table and you want to make sure everyone's at the table. But you have to lead, you got to show the ownership on the issue. If I can, and can I be honest, like, as somebody who did not support Mark Carney or the liberals, if he showed that leadership, if he took what looks like an opening in Quebec, what looks like a burgeoning support, a consensus building across the country, if he led that to turn it into a massive endorsement,

I would be championing him on this file every day on this show. But to hear this, the hedging, Greg Brady, that to me is concerning. And then let's not forget his former environment minister really not sticking to his lane and saying some pretty damaging things on this file. Like I'm getting concerned. Yeah, there's a lot of cabinet caucus issues that certainly flared up this week.

And there's always going to be broken spirits and people who you think shouldn't have been elevated. But it was a statement. It was a choice to make Stephen Gilbo a cabinet minister, again, knowing how he polarizes people at West. To your greater point about this, Carney gets a big W if he can be more assertive on this. And it's a weird dynamic too, because Pierre Poliak has accused Mark Carney of taking some of his best ideas and utilizing them

on the campaign trail, cut the capital gains tax, cut the consumer carbon tax at minimum. But what if Mark Cardy does get this consensus on pipelines in three months? Again, I'll go provincial. That's not unlike Doug Ford doing something. And then Mar styles in the NDP say, he should give back the green belt and admit he was wrong and do this in a minute. And then when Ford admits he's wrong, the opposition's got nowhere to go. They've got nowhere to go because you get a politician who can make a commercial like Ford can and then Carney would be able to and say, hey, I listened to the public. We weren't as

assertive on this as we should be. And now we sure are. I know they've got the support of these. I was reading it this morning, dozens of First Nations groups in BC and they want this. This is jobs for them. This is a return to their communities. And after 10 years of a liberal government that I think we'd agree did very little, they said they would for indigenous Canadians and first nations Canadians, this would be a step in the right direction and a different direction than the Trudeau years.

And let me point out, I can't speak for the Conservative Party of Canada, but I have to think that if you had a prime minister championing a pipeline, you would have support from that caucus and that you would have essentially the will of 85% of the voting public represented in something like this. That is a national, that is a national win. It's a win for everybody. Anyway, don't go anywhere guys. Far more with our This Week in Politics panel on the Ben Mulroney Show when we

come back, including is asking for a by-election after a failed result, election denialism, or the fullest expression of democracy. This is This Week in Politics on the Ben Mulroney Show on the Chorus Radio Network. I'm joined by Jaskarin Sandhu and Greg Brady. We are continuing our talk on the hottest political stories of the week. And gentlemen, I want us to remember that

there was a little bit of controversy in the riding of Terrebonne in Quebec, where after a number of recounts, it looked like the liberals won by one vote. But that's only if you recognize that if you discount the fact that there was a woman who intended to vote, who did vote for the Bleu Québécois, whose vote was not counted, because when she sent her mail in ballot, it was sent to the wrong address, an address, mind you, that was printed by Elections Canada. And we also know of five other ballots that had a similar thing, although we don't know the intention, the vote intention of those five people. But this is, this smells, this smells off. This, this is not the,

an expression of a democracy. And before we jump, well, I want to get your take on this, because the the block quebecois wants a by election. And elections Canada has certified this and I got a problem with that. What say you Greg Brady? Yeah, it's, I don't know another way to go. And I heard you know, you played the clip I played it earlier on our show with the Francois Blanchette, Blanchette, simply saying, the Bloc Québécois leader saying, listen, we've got a right to do this and doing this does not make me some kind

of conspiracy theorist or election denier. It's this close. The results have bounced around. You're finding votes that did exist. Are there any more that didn't exist? We had a lot of close, I wasn't one of them, but we had a lot of close elections that were decided by five, ten, fifty votes. Even down in Windsor, there's one that some are arguing for a recount. So I think they've every got, we have to have a system of safeguards and bumpers when there needs to be a challenge. We've got to do it through the courts. And I think the block are on the right side of this. I completely agree. But Jessica, and before I come to you,

I want us to all listen to the follow up by this journalist who is putting some chum in the water that I don't like. What do you think? Do you think that's a precedent that you won't accept official election results from Elections Canada and you're not willing to listen to the vote of the people when your party doesn't win? I'm not getting into that.

I'm sorry to rain to the vote of the people when you're not getting into that I'm sorry not answer to rain on the spectacularly parade but this is not my mindset there's a law it appears clear we have a case we go forward because we want this election to be held properly and that's it just Karen I got so many problems with what that journalist said and I've heard it from a few journalists over the course of the election. First of all, the will of the people was not done. That's why they want to take it to court. And there is demonstrable proof of that fact.

Journalists should not be peddling in misinformation. She's actually saying something that runs counter to the facts that we know. But secondly, we do not have a history of election denialism. And this is not that. And to suggest it is, is the importation of American like the toxicity that is pervasive in American politics that journalists did a disservice to Canada in that one question.

No, I don't think we have a history of election denialism in Canada. I don't necessarily have seen it. Obviously you get some folks like you know the fringes on social media, saying wild things or not understanding what a judicial recount is or how scrutineers work at the ballot station when votes are being counted. But I don't think you see it from official party representatives or officials connected with official parties. I think in this case in Quebec, you want to lend credibility to the results and there appears to be mistakes that were made that are no one's fault other than Elections Canada. In an election where the difference is literally a couple of votes, it's a very tough situation. I think I understand the journalist question and that the precedent,

when you have a certified result from Elections Canada, you can't necessarily set the precedent that you can turn that over and start questioning it or attacking the integrity of the body that oversees our elections. Yeah, listen. It's a tough situation. I'll be honest, I don't know what the right answer

is on this one. Well, listen, I think Elections Canada is being obtuse and pigheaded and prideful here. Look, you got almost every single election riding in this country you did well on except for one. That's a really good percentage. So admit defeat on this one. Call a by, I mean, they can't, it has to go to court. But the fact that people are suggesting certain journalists are suggesting that this may be the beginning of election denialism in our country is unhelpful, unproductive and inaccurate. And I just I wish I wish they would, you know, journalists love talking

negatively about Donald Trump and yet love bringing him up and trying to tar people in this country as if we have that here. it's not, that's not the case. But anyway, I do want to move on because we've got this other thing to get to. This marries two of Greg Brady's favorite topics, the love of live music and politics. And here's a little bit of Bruce Springsteen in the UK scolding, oh, we're not playing.

So we know that Bruce Springsteen scolded Donald Trump's treasonous administration. He went on for a very long time pontificating about the ills of the fascistic tendencies of his president. But I don't want to play that. Instead what I want to play is somebody who I think hits the nail on the head. Here is a very special comic offering insights into the minds of celebrities. If you do win an award tonight, don't use it as a platform to make a political speech, right? You're in no position to lecture the public about anything. You know nothing about the real world. Most of you spent less time in school than Greta Thunberg. So if you win, right, come up,

accept your little award, thank your agent and your God and f*** off, okay? Okay, so that was obviously Rick is your face at the Golden Globes. Greg, you go to a lot of concerts. I know that about you. You go to some concerts I would never go to, but you go to a lot of concerts. What happens when you go to a show and somebody just takes off down a tangent that you didn't pay for? Well, there's some energy for sure. And the irony of this is we went, a friend of mine and I went to see Springsteen in Toronto and it was the morning after the US election results. So he'd flown back. He'd done a show in Toronto the weekend before it came back. And we're like, there's a bit of tension, like, what's he going to say? What's he going to do? He endorsed Kamala

Harris. I think everybody's familiar with with art and you can buy a ticket or not. No one no one leaves a gig and says, wow, those songs were too political. I wasn't expecting that because you know an artist catalog. But the rant there were a lot of diehard Springsteen fans in Manchester, England, no less. This wasn't even in America, who just thought it was too much. It went too far. It crossed the line into hey, we want to get out of the house. Life is hard. We want to have a good time tonight. And it went into a lecture. So it's one of those rare times because Springsteen's always had Americana, always had Polly. Famously, Ronald Reagan was using Born in the USA on the campaign trail in a pre-internet era. And Springsteen said, stop that.

I don't endorse you to use that song, which is fine. That's his right. I think it went a touch too far the other night. And we'll see. He's got more England and France shows to do. We'll see if he keeps it going. Jessica, and where do you land? Should singers sing basketball players bounce a ball and actors just act or I know they're in everyone's entitled to do and say what they want. But just because you can, should you? I think you gotta allow people to lean into their politics if they want to. But you know,

the difference with the artists, our songwriters, our musicians, than anyone else, their work is supposed to be a reflection of like the social condition. A lot of these guys have politics or revolution in their music. That's why we like listening to it. They're trying to make a point, the whole idea is to make a point with their art. And so if they want to talk about politics on the stage, look, it's up to them. Like, you know, my arms are marketability in certain demographics, for sure. What's the famous Jordan quote, like, both Republicans and Democrats wear Air Jordan, so I'm not going to say anything. Yeah.

That's a choice you can make. But if you want to go up there and show your politics on the stage, I for one don't mind. It doesn't hurt me even if it lines up with mine or not. These artists, you know, they wear their panties on their sleeves. They literally sing it. Yeah. And look, I don't know if this is going to come to as a surprise to you, Greg and just Garen, but I actually have absolutely no problem with a musician doing this at their own show. It's their show. They can, they can, they can add and take away whatever songs they want. If they don't want to play the hits, they just want to play the deep cuts. That's up to them. If that harms or helps them at later on when they want to sell tickets, that's entirely their right. And I would have sat there and rolled my eyes for sure.

And then I would have got back up and sung the songs that I loved. You got it. We let the consumer decide. That's why I stopped seeing Sting, guys. Too much Sting, not enough the police. Not enough police, too much Sting. Hey guys.

Too much Sting is too much Sting. I want to thank you both for joining me. I hope you guys both have a great long weekend. Really appreciate the fun conversation. From commutes that become learning sessions to dishwashing filled with laughs. Podcasts can help you make the most out of your everyday. And when it comes to everyday spending, you can count on the PC Insiders World Elite Master

Card to help you earn the most PC optimum points everywhere you shop. The PC Insiders World Elite Master Card, the card for living unlimited. Conditions apply to all benefits. Visit pcfinancial.ca for details. Hi, I'm Donna Friesen from Global National. Life moves fast these days, and we want to make it even easier for you to get the news you need. That's why you can now get

Global National every day as a podcast. The biggest stories of the day with analysis from award-winning global news journalists. New episodes drop every day, So take this as your personal invitation to join us on the global national podcast. You can find it on Apple podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Music, and wherever you find your favorite podcasts. This next segment is a really interesting one. My producer sent a video to our next guest asking, whereas someone going to a movie

theater was asked a question, would you rather watch a movie made with AI for $5 or a movie with real actors for $1,000? And it poses a really interesting question. Are we getting to the point where technology could give us high quality, immersive film, the immersive film experience that we know and love made entirely with AI at such a lower cost that it could change the dynamic of Hollywood completely. Joining us to talk about that is a film buff in his own right Mo hit Rajans. He's a meteorologist and consultant with thinkstart.ca Mo hit welcome to the show. Ben, always a pleasure.

And I love the fact that we can talk about something like this because it's happening in real time. It is, it is. I mean, I remember seeing a video of somebody watching Netflix in the, I want to say somewhere in Europe. And they were able to, when they were, I think it was being, something was being beta tested there.

They were able to switch from language to language, but it wasn't dubbed in was being beta tested there. They were able to switch from language to language, but it wasn't dubbed in the way that we know. They were using AI to change the shape of the mouths of the actors. So that if they were speaking originally in Swedish, they would look like they were speaking in English, just with the flick of a switch.

It was, I'd never seen anything like it. Well, dubbing is obviously one of the original places that we saw disruption in the film and television industry I'd never seen anything like it. Well, dubbing is obviously one of the original places that we saw disruption in the film and television industry as a result of AI, right? Like to begin with. So, you know, we started to watch streaming shows collectively from all over the world.

And, you know, you and I have watched enough content to know that we hate reading movies. Yeah. And we hate reading, you know, what's happening in the story and to try to keep up. And I think dubbing was one of the original ways that people started to realize, oh, artificial intelligence is going to be a disruptor

in Hollywood and the way movies are made. And that's just one way that we're going to start to see costs being brought down. But then you and I also know in the last two years, we've seen that explode to have such a ripple effect on multiple ways in the industry. Yeah, it's unbelievable. And look, I know that there are guardrails in place

that during the last big writer's strike and actor's strike, they put new guardrails in around protections with AI. You couldn't use AI to rewrite a script, for example. You needed a human being to do that. And you couldn't use people's likeness through AI after they passed without explicit authorization from that person or their estate. All that makes sense.

But what that doesn't do is that doesn't prevent some young, industrious, talented, tech savvy, wannabe screenwriter from creating an entirely AI made film on his laptop that could one day trump the likes of the biggest Hollywood film. I think what you're also alluding to is the ability to actually rapidly create your own entire ecosystem to do that. You can actually do exactly what you said and then create your own OTT

station and distribute your own film to your own people. Somebody recently, a comedian was talking about how expensive it is to actually produce their own Netflix special by the time that they're done with it just to get that little logo at the side of their ability to tour on posters etc and said you know now it's more efficient for them to be able to edit it on the cheap with a local person and distribute it on YouTube to get the same value. I think we're seeing this ripple effect happen but here's the question then. Never mind the creative side, let's talk about the marketing and promotion side

and the fact that with artificial intelligence, people are going to be able to customize how they find their audience. When's the last time you saw a trailer for a Canadian film? Yeah, yeah, you're right. You know, we talk about all this like elbows up, we're gonna do all this patriotic stuff. I don't know one Canadian streaming service

that's getting more of my attention as a result of targeted advertising. Yeah, you're right. Yeah. And I have disabilities as well. Sorry, go ahead. Well, I was going to, I was going to say, like, you and I can talk about this and how the business is changing. But, you know, hearing from the people affected the most of people on the front lines, the most is telling, and more than half of media and entertainment CEOs have admitted that the current business model in which they operate will not survive the next decade. And a lot of it has to do with AI.

And I wonder, how do you see mainstream Hollywood? And we just talked about that guy who can create it, do his own thing and create an incredible movie on his laptop. But what are the traditional, what are the Warner Brothers, what are the Disney's going to do moving forward? I think what we're going to see is a lot of big business partner up with technology and start to move the needle together rather than sort of live in these two separate places.

I wouldn't doubt if you hear about a big Disney slash Microsoft deal to start to create tools where everybody feels like they're working from the same lens on seeing artificial intelligence properly disrupt. There's no way you're going to see the long list of end credits at the end of a film anymore and be able to justify that budget. But you know what scares me? Is this adoption rate, right? Even in Canada, we've got this wonderful amount of VFX, etc., that are houses that do global productions. But until it's clear about what the rules and parameters are, it's going to be stymied by an industry that doesn't like to grow at the pace of technology. And the case in

point is you can green a set all you want and be efficient all you want. You still see big trucks out in front of every production in the city. That doesn't necessarily need to happen anymore. We haven't really got to this kernel yet where everyone benefits from this efficiency and innovation around. I don't know how big Hollywood's going to be able to adapt so quickly considering there is worries about job loss. There is worries about what this efficiency means for creatives down the road. But it's not necessarily something that should impede the growth here. And look, like we always talk about like, when Uber came, we sort of accepted, guess what, there's going to be job losses in the taxi industry. When Amazon originally first came,

guess what, bookstores are going to close. And they say, Oh, but we're going to miss that human interaction with the shop around the corner. Well, maybe, but we clearly have adapted to that world. And, and I just think of, you know, I just think of some of the big budget action films, and how much they rely on computer generated imagery, like so much of it is that part. What's it called?

Captain America Brave New World, which I thought was a okay movie. But the thing that I liked about it were the action scenes. Very few of them were done without the interaction with computer graphics. If those computer graphics can be generated far quicker and far more cheaply, that movie comes out faster at a lower cost.

And therefore there's more opportunity for Disney to make another movie. Like there is a benefit to not just us as a viewer who get to see these movies sooner, but it lowers their costs so that they can then spend more money on other projects, hiring more people. Or even with reach, think about how many things that you and I have probably had the ability to view because of our work, etc. in the past that nobody's been able to see again.

And that is no fault of anybody's bad film. It's because of marketing, right? It's because of how do you get to the audience that you really like? There's a lot of Quebec language television, Quebec television being made that I rarely get to see. When I catch it, I think to myself, this would play so well in a different market. So all of that goes to say, like, you know what I look forward to? I look forward to your kids one day saying, I want to make a movie, and you're not thinking to yourself are you kidding me? Yeah, but no, but you know what the marketing point is true. A lot of people don't know that the general rule of thumb in Hollywood is whatever the budget for your film was that's about the budget that you're going to have to market that film as well. That's

a huge nut, right? And if there is a way to use AI to lower the cost of the marketing of a film, and in fact, find a way to optimize every single dollar you spend, that's a that would be a huge boon for Hollywood. And sometimes you don't even realize that international like the stars are international stars in different markets until it's found that you don't know if if your Steven Seagal film plays well in another country or if Harrison Ford is a legend in another part of the world.

All of this to say that I think it's quite exciting as we see what's scary is obviously the most conversations that people are having right now is the generative part. How quickly are you gonna be able to make your own Jackie Chan film? Or play your own? Mohit, yeah, Mohit, we're going to leave it there. But the idea of an AI Jackie Chan, I love it.

Hey, thank you so much. Have a great weekend. Take care. Welcome back to the Ben Mulroney show. And you know, we like to be helpful on this show. We want to help you understand the big stories of the day. We want to help you have a little fun. We also want to help you with your own personal dilemmas. And that's why every Wednesday I convene the dilemma panel

and we listen to your personal dilemmas. We try to solve them. We rarely do, but we always have fun. If you'd like to send us your personal dilemma for us to take a look at, send it to askben at chorusent.com. That's askben, it's C-O-R-U-S-E-N-T dot com. All right, divorce is never easy. I think that's how the ad goes.

But there's a massive new study that tracked over 1 million children across 50 years. This is, I mean, this is an in-depth study if I've ever seen one. And it shows the damage that divorce does to children regarding adult outcomes. And so just a few key points for you. After divorce, kids face, according to this study, 60% higher risk of teen pregnancy,

40% higher risk of jail time, 45% higher risk of early death, 9% to 13% lower adult wages, lower chance of going to college. Those are stark, stark numbers. So to discuss that and also, you know, possibly see if there's, if this gives us the full picture, we are joined now by Andrew Feldstein. He's the founder of Feldstein Family Law. Andrew, welcome to the show and happy Friday. Happy Friday and thank you for having me.

So yeah, these numbers, I take them at their word. It's a 50 year study following a million kids into adulthood. So I have to take them at their word. It's a 50 year study following a million kids into adulthood. So I have to take them at their word. This paints a very sorry state of affairs for any child of divorce. There's no doubt it does. And there's no doubt that divorce can be harmful on the children.

That I think is in large part because so few people are able to manage the conflict after their separation in order to protect their children. And the children are feeling it in every which way possible. And I guess that's what the sort of the sticking point for me that does, do they distinguish between amicable separation and the, you know the war of the roses?

I don't believe, I don't believe so but amicable separation and the, you know, the war of the roses? I don't believe, I don't believe so, but amicable separation can be one thing that people can make a deal and move on, but it may be a very cold piece. And the problem is children pick up on their parents' stress. Yeah. So when there's conflict over things as simple as exchange times, they can see the frustration that the parents have. So there's a lot of little subtle things that kids have that may not seem like a high conflict case,

but it's enough that causes discomfort for the children. Well, and I guess that's why I need to keep pushing forward with this and asking some, what may sound like dumb questions, but if the issue is kids picking up on their parents' stress, if the stress is due to a dysfunctional marriage, then wouldn't these numbers bear out the same if kids were living in a dysfunctional home where the mother and the father? Yeah, sure, they stayed together, but it was a toxic relationship.

mother. Yeah, sure. They stayed together, but it was a, it was a toxic relationship. Well, I think there's different levels. I know that this study says that divorce doesn't help the kids any of the time. I'm going to disagree with that because I think if you're in a violent relationship and the child is seeing one parent beat up the other, I can't imagine how divorce isn't better than the alternative. Yeah. Yeah. Staying in that relationship. But if you take a lot of relationships, where are the problems that happen? Well, to begin with, just a really simple one is if there is conflict, parents can't parent the way they want to anymore. So sometimes when people are together, one person's more the disciplinarian, the other one's the softer

parent, but the child still has a good positive relationship with both parents. Now when they split up, one parent is the softer one and is rewarding the child for not following the rules of the one who may have more rules in the home. Now the child may be encouraged to pick a side where they think things are better for them, not appreciating how that's gonna impact the rest of their life. But the way I'm looking at it, I'm looking at it like a spectrum that, Andrew, I'm looking at like on one side, as you said,

you've got terrible violent relationship where the best option for everyone is a break, a break in the marriage. And then on the other side, you've got the most functional, loving family unit you've ever seen. But somewhere in the middle, there seems to be this place where divorce just automatically, everything falls off a cliff for kids. Like almost like a valley on that spectrum. Well, and part of it too is you have to look at where things are financially for people.

Because if you look at the stats here that talks about lower adult wages, higher risk of early death, well, if you take one combined income for a family, in this day and age, it doesn't go as far as it used to. But when you take that one combined income, it may be enough to live in a decent home and have parents who have time to be at home. Now when they're split up, each side is struggling just to pay the bills, which may mean both parents aren't around as much for the children. So there's all sorts of little things that can cause cause and effect, causing parents not to be there the

same way, causing children to have less attention from their parents, which means more time alone at a young age, more time out doing things they shouldn't be doing. There's all sorts of different places where the fallout may play out for different families. And Andrew, are these numbers universal across socioeconomics, across race, across culture? That's a loaded question that I don't think I could necessarily answer. I mean, I see the problems falling out during the conflict, which sometimes can last years after the separation or come back for round two and round three, and we see some horrible outcomes for children. And then sometimes I have clients, I'll bump into them, former clients, and they tell me how

amazing their kids are going. But that's anecdotal, and those are the smaller numbers, and you don't necessarily know how they would have done if the divorce never happened. The one certainty is is that if children can be in a home where both parents can at least get along somewhat, they are far better off than divorced if they're in a non-violent home. They're going to be far better off. That's every day of the week they're going to be better off. But the problem is that's an easy thing to say. And it's also an easy thing to put that on a parent who may be horribly depressed and hate their spouse and say, just suck it up.

Yeah. I've got to wonder though, if there's a cutoff point, like, you know, if, if once a kid reaches 16 or 18 odd, does that mitigate the, all the risks that are associated with, you know, how they're going to turn out after divorce? Well, one of the things I've had mental health professionals say to me is that there's a problem. You think once your kid gets off to university, now is a good time to separate. Well, picture being that 18 year old or 19 year old child who's in their first year of university, and your parent tells you now they're splitting up. And now both parents are contacting you about the

divorce. How is that going to impact on your grades and what may be the most academically important year of your life? Oh, my goodness. I mean, this is this is this is when you saw these numbers, were you surprised? I was surprised. It's that bad. It makes me feel horrible. I'm divorced. And it makes me think of my own kids. it makes me feel horrible. I'm divorced and it makes me think of my own kids. Can I ask, if you don't want to talk about it, how is your relationship with your kids? I have an excellent relationship with my son.

Okay. All right. I'm sorry. I hope I didn't cross a line there. Oh, that's fine. I understand. And I opened the door to that. So that's fine. Oh, you're a lawyer. Yeah, you know, I've seen enough Law and Order. You that's fine. I understand that. And I opened the door to that. So that's, that's fine. Oh, you're a lawyer. Yeah, you know, you know, I mean, I've seen a lot enough Law and Order you did. Anyway, I do apologize. I certainly didn't want to bring anything up. But this, but this is, you know, everyone knows somebody who's going through trouble. Everybody knows somebody who's, who's at a crossroad, somebody's at a crossroads, do they do this? Or

do they do that? And these numbers could give a family pause. It can give people pause, but I do see people who come into my office every day, and I see people who have held off for the sake of their children for years. And you can also see the depression that they're going through, the sadness in their lives.

And really what everybody at the end of the day is trying to do when they make the decision to end the marriage is get themselves to a better place. And they view it that if they're in a better place, they can do better for the kids. You know, one of the comments about this report is the instability. That's really true because now you have step-parents coming in. And one of the problems with step-parents is, is there going to be a cycle of multiple step parents on each side? Right? Yeah. And sometimes in these relationships, the reason why step parent leaves is because

the ex has made sure that the step parent isn't going to stay there because they wind the children up. So would your advice be, look, if you're if you're going to go to the root of divorce, do it with your eyes open and recognize that there are negative knock on effects for your kids. So you've got to think of them first with everything that you do. You absolutely have to think about that. And if you're going to go through a divorce, it really is a last option. And what I mean by that is some people just aren't getting along

very well or they're having a difficult time because every marriage, every relationship will have challenges. And what makes the most sense is if you're just having challenges and things aren't as exciting as they used to be, then work on fixing it. Andrew Feldstein, thank you so much for joining us. I hope you have a wonderful long weekend. Thank you. You too. Welcome back to the Ben Mulrooney show. And now it is time for a segment that keeps getting a ton of love on our podcast. Always one of the most downloaded segments that we do. And you know, we have a, we added Dave Bradley of the news department into our show and it

took it from being fluff to being substantive because of him and his, the gravitas that he brings to everything that he does. But before we start, as always always I have to warn you if you're sensitive to adult language you may want to turn the radio off or walk the dog or do anything other than listen because some of the clips that we play have colorful language and with that being said it is time for is this BS or is this real? See now that's some bullshit.

This is bullshit. Man that's some bullshit. This is bullshit. Man this is some bullshit! You want answers? I think I'm entitled. You want answers? I want the truth! You can't handle the truth! You are fake news.

I love that last one. Alright well I want you to play along at home. There aren't many guarantees in life but if you play at home with me, I can almost guarantee you will beat me, although I did pretty well last week. I tend to do very poorly in this game because I like to overthink things and sometimes I think myself out of a right answer. I change my mind, I doubt my gut instincts, that's just who I am. So you'll likely beat me when you play at home.

Dave, on that note, take it away, sir. Alright, is Oklahoma going to be teaching children that the 2020 election was stolen from Donald Trump? In the new school year, thousands of Oklahoma students will be required to learn about 2020 election fraud conspiracy theories as part of a new curriculum developed by the state's controversial superintendent. Ryan Walters is his name. Come under fire in recent months for an effort to require

Oklahoma classrooms to stock Bibles, display the Ten Commandments, and it's said the addition empowers students to investigate and understand the electoral process. Under the state's new curriculum, high school students will be taught to identify discrepancies in the 2020 elections results by looking at graphs and other information, including the sudden halting of ballot counting in select cities and key battleground states, the security risks of mail-in balloting, sudden batch dumps, an unforeseen record number of voters, and the unprecedented contradiction of Bellwether County trends. This is the purpose of the standard is simple we

want students to think for themselves not be spoon fed left wing propaganda. That's what Walter said in a statement. Oh, boy. Like, okay, so this is where the trouble is, Dave. Like, I don't want to live in the world where this is real. Like, I don't want to live in the world where this is where we're politicizing the classroom. And I don't know much about Oklahoma, but I suspect that they could be spending more time on, you know, reading and writing and arithmetic instead of focusing on stuff like this. But it's America. And so I'm gonna say it's real? Is it possible this story is true?

No! Yes, it is. Oh, I really, I did not want that to be real. I did not want that to be real. God help us all. God help us all and help the poor children of Oklahoma. All right, let's move on to number two, Dave. Scientists in Turkey have discovered something major at the mythic site of Noah's Ark that could prove all the doubters wrong. You know this biblical tale. God instructs a man named Noah to craft a wooden ark big enough to house two of every

animal species, plus his family, of course, headed the great flood that would last 150 days. Fast forward to 1959, that's when a Turkish army captain happened across a geological formation. It resembled what's believed to be the final resting place of Noah's vessel atop Mount Ararat. The most undeniably compelling component of this find is that the shape perfectly matches the dimensions purported in the Book of Genesis. A researcher named Andrew Jones scanned the structure and claims that their ground penetrating radar has now encountered possible evidence of a 13-foot tunnel cutting through the formation's center.

Scans captured three layers below the earth as well, matching the Bible's description of the ark featuring as many decks. While this isn't a full confirmation, a full excavation could be in the cards. Huh. Okay, so first of all, when you were talking, all I could do was remember the movie Evan Almighty when Steve Carell is told by God to build an Ark and he turns into Noah with the beard and everything and animals from all over just show up at his house. Okay, listen, I have no idea if this is real, but if this was real, I just feel I would have seen more of it on my social media

or as I go to YouTube, I would have seen, seen clips from NBC and, you know, all sorts of news sources and I haven't seen anything. So I'm going to say it's false. I'm going to say it's BS. It's fact. What? Yeah. Wait, what is it really? It's fact. Yeah. I saw they are they are they are they moving on an excavation? They're not yet, but obviously they have to get the money to do it. Why isn't this a bigger deal? I know. Huh. All right.

Look, I'm okay. I'm batting 500 right now. Let's see if I can tilt back into the wind column with the number three. All right. Did a woman get arrested because her pet raccoon snitched on her? A woman was arrested after a raccoon named Chewie was found holding a meth pipe in the driver's seat of her car in what police are calling a strange encounter on patrol in Ohio. The incident happened when Springfield Township Police Officer Austin Branham decided to conduct

a traffic stop identifying a vehicle who's registered owner had an active warrant and a suspended driver's license. So when Officer Branham approached the car, he found 55 year old Victoria Vidal of Akron, Ohio was able to detain her without incident. However, that's when things took a turn. As Officer Branham returned to the vehicle, he observed a raccoon named Chewie

sitting in the driver's seat with a meth pipe in its mouth. Police did confirm that Chewie was a pet raccoon and that he was not a wild animal. After Fidel had the appropriate paperwork and documentation to own him, the woman was arrested, the raccoon taken into pet custody. Chewie remained relaxed and unharmed. Okay, so I have seen this video. I know it's real. But so I'm going to take the win and we'll do that in a second. But Dave, I can't believe that you can have a pet raccoon. Yeah, with like full paperwork. Yeah, that doesn't make any sense. I mean, look, if you can have a you can have a you can bring in

the States, you can bring up a peacock on a plane as a as an emotional support animal. So the Americans have a weird relationship with odd animals. So yes I know it's real so let's just just give me the win. A similar event did take place. Yeah I mean I don't know about you like in this in this town raccoons are not pets they are the enemy. Especially a garbage day. Yeah all right let's move on to number four. Did Donald Trump's Scottish golf course have to install an anti-defecation security measure? It's an unprecedented move, but Trump International Golf Links in Aberdeen Shire has reportedly enhanced its security protocols following a series of bizarre vandalism incidents involving

individuals defecating in the course's holes. Securities close to the resort management indicate that the decision was prompted by a string of early morning discoveries by groundskeepers who found several of the 18 holes defiled in what appears to be coordinated acts of protest. In response, the resort has implemented a series of countermeasures, including increased surveillance

with motion-activated cameras, overnight patrols by private security, and the installation of discrete sensors designed to detect unusual activity near the greens. No group has officially claimed responsibility. Some speculate that the incidents aren't likely politically motivated, more likely to be teenagers. Local authorities investigating the matter, resort officials have vowed to prosecute any individuals caught in the act to the fullest extent of the law. Yeah, this, no, this is not, no, this is not a thing. This is not a thing. And I know that you're saying, oh, they think it might be kids. If you are golfing at a Donald Trump golf club,

you are a fan of Donald Trump. And especially teenagers. Teenagers, if you're a fan of Donald Trump golf club, you are a fan of Donald Trump. And especially teenagers, teenagers, if you're a fan of Donald Trump, you will follow him into the fire, whether you gotta go to the bathroom or not. So there's no way this is true. Absolutely no way this is true. So I'm gonna say it's false.

See, now that's some bullshit. Yeah, I think that makes sense. So what did I get? I got three of four? Yeah, you did well again. I did three of four. Okay, so yeah, last week was makes sense. So what did I get? I got three or four? Yeah, you did well again. I did three or four. Okay, so yeah, last week was good too. Yeah. I did get one was a gimme. It was a layup. Thanks for listening to the Ben Mulrady Show podcast. We're live every day nationwide on the Chorus Radio Network. And you can listen online through the Radio Canada player and the iHeart Radio Canada apps. And make sure to follow and subscribe on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Music, or wherever you get your streaming audio.

We release new podcasts every day. Thanks for listening. The My Choice sales event is back at Nissan and the choice is yours. Choose our best-selling Rogue, always ready for adventure. Or the Dynamic Sentra, packed with safety features. Or the all-new boldly redesigned Kicks. And now during My Choice, you can choose up to $1,500 in Nissan bonus or accessory credit. Or choose three-year prepaid maintenance.

Hurry into your local Nissan dealer today. $1,500 applies to Sentra and select Rogue models when leasing or financing through NCF. Conditions apply. See Nissan.ca for details.