The Young Turks - Foxmania

Episode Date: May 8, 2021

Guests Trae Crowder and Charles F. Coleman Jr. join Cenk, Jayar and Benjamin Dixon as Denny’s shareholders revolt after top exec concedes that a $15 minimum wage won’t hurt the business. A Maryland county is considering alternative meals for students with lunch debt. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

You're listening to The Young Turks, the online news show. Make sure to follow and rate our show with not one, not two, not three, not four, but five stars. You're awesome. Thank you. Three my team, three my team, three my team, three my team, three by team, three my team. All right, I got to be honest with you guys, we're going to go ahead and drop it. All right, Power, Power Panel, Jake Huger, Benjamin Dixon, Charles Coleman, Jr. You guys know Ben and Charles, but, you know, Ben, unsurprisingly does the Benjamin Dixon show. Charles, I love your Twitter profile, because you're a former prosecutor, your legal analyst,

but your Twitter profile just says civil rights guy. Pretty much. Fair enough, fair enough. Well, we're going to talk a little bit about that today and some of the stories. And late in the program, what is Foxitis? Defense attorney actually claims that as a defense for what case? And is it real? We'll talk about it. So fun, fun showhead for you guys. It's great to do it with you too.

So let's get started. Ben, you got the news for us. Yeah, so let's start with the fight for $15 an hour. It has taken a strange twist that you wouldn't normally expect from shareholders of a company. But Denny's shareholders, the restaurant Denny's, they're parting ways with the CEO and the National Restaurant Association calling for the group to stop all of its lobbying efforts against legislative. to raise the minimum wage to a living wage. Quote, they said, Denny shareholders are demanding that the restaurant chain end its membership in the National Restaurant Association halt all lobbying efforts against legislation

to eliminate a sub-minimum wage for tip workers and start paying all of its workers at least a full minimum wage. Now, for context, sub-minimal wage is what restaurants have been able to get away with paying their tipped employees. For comparison, the federal minimum wage right now is 725, but the amount that is the tip workers are getting from their employees is about 2.13 an hour. And if you take in consideration, if a worker doesn't get tipped or doesn't get tipped well in an entire day at Denny's, at the end of their shift, they would not even be able to afford most meals on Denny's menu. The letter that was sent by shareholders to the CEO came after Denny's chief financial officer Robert Verostek stated on an earnings call with investors that the gradual increase in the minimal wage not only didn't hurt the company, it appeared to help the company. He said, quote, as they've increased their minimal wage kind of in a tempered pace over that time frame, if you look at that time frame from us, California has outperformed the system.

Over that timeframe, they had six consecutive years of positive guest traffic, not just positive sales, but positive guest traffic as the minimal wage was going up. So in other words, happy workers, happy customers. Or maybe this means that some of Denny's employees themselves could actually afford eating at the restaurant at the end of their shift. But this is an interesting spin, Jank, on the classic feud between capitalists and labor, labor, while the CEO of the company is aligning with the National Restaurant Association and arguing in a letter to congressional leaders that the following, quote, the federal raise,

the Wage Act, which would raise the minimum national minimum wage to 15 an hour by 2025 and eliminate the subminimal wage for tip workers is the wrong bill at the wrong time for our nation's restaurants. While that was going on, the CFO and shareholders of Denny's are arguing in favor of increases to the minimum wage. They said the following, quote, suggesting that a higher minimum wage encourages increased consumer spending. The letter also noted that during the pandemic, the five states with the greatest amount of restaurant closures

all allowed a sub-minimal wage for tipped workers. Now, I want to pull a graphic on the screen that just kind of gives you an idea of what the value menu, The quote unquote value menu is at Denny's compared to the 2.13 an hour because, you know, as you look at it, you realize that after a full day shift, if these tipped workers are not tipped properly by the consumer, which the restaurant owners are shifting the burden, obviously, to the consumer instead of them being responsible for paying a living wage, then at the end of the day, there's a lot of people who are, a lot of those workers who could not even eat at Denny's. And so it just makes sense that if you have employees that are satisfied, that can actually live, they provide better service. And so we see a split between the CFO and the CEO on this. But at the end of the day, we understand that the simple truth is this. If you pay your workers, you can have a better performing company. And this is exactly what Denny's is finding out.

I'm curious to hear what you all think. Yeah. Well, let me start by saying two quick things here. There's two issues here. One is the shareholder revolt, and the other is the actual $15 million wage and what is considered the Ford model. Henry Ford had a lot of issues, but he did do one good thing. He said, we should pay our workers enough so they could afford our cars. And that did prove to be a brilliant model.

And in this case, Denny should pay their workers enough that they could also have a moon over by Hammy, which, by the way, is my favorite. So, but the shareholder revolt at first intrigued me greatly, and I think that it's an interesting model, but it scared me in the beginning because when they, because I knew this, the CFO, we covered on the show before, CFO had said, no, the $15 minute wage actually helped our restaurants. So I was like, oh, no, did they fire them? Because usually what happens is don't you ever tell anybody the truth. We're going to maximize profit no matter what.

And if you're out of line, we'll fire you and we'll find someone who will tell a lot. instead of the truth, right? In this case, no, it was the good shareholders. So, and I keep it real. Look, these are some groups that some of them are activist groups for their actual shareholders and representing shareholders. Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility, as you so is a different group. Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights Group and then at a scene of social capital. So, and mixed in there are, you know, like I said, actual significant shareholders saying, Let's do the right thing because it's both the moral thing to do and apparently the profitable thing to do. So which leads to the second point, it wasn't just California, California, Washington, Oregon, Minnesota.

Wherever they're doing higher minimum wage, Denny's profits are not going down. They're going up even though their costs are higher because of the wages. And furthermore, you saw that graphic that Ben read you guys about where they have the most closures, where they have the lowest wages, they have the worst results. So, Charles, there's some chance that at some point, these restaurants, it like, it won't mean that we have less corporate control, but these restaurants might realize the Henry Ford model and go, okay, we'll voluntarily pay people more because it turns out, oh my God, everybody wins. Well, Jake, you bring up a great point.

And one of the things that struck me about this story was when thinking about the CEO and his position, I just kind of wondered, well, what sort of argument is it that you need? Or are you just intent to be Bob Cratchett, like Sting Bob Cratchett, like forever and ever? Because there's been evidence on both sides in terms of data around what it does for your employees, what it does for your customers, and what it does for your bottom line. So you would think, ostensibly, from every angle of how something can be measured, this can be seen as a positive. And yet, and still, you're standing with, I don't know what the justification is in opposition to this for no reason. And you know, in a lot of cases, you have situations where people want to argue about data or the usefulness of it or the utility of it. But when you have a situation like this, when there's been evidence that's been put in front of you that's data driven and that's going to impact your bottom line pretty much from every angle, including employee satisfaction and you stand in the way of that, the question is, number one, why?

And number two, what is the most persuasive argument for you to actually listen to? Because clearly you're not concerned with the bottom line because if you were, the data speaks in the other direction. Clearly you're not prioritizing your employee or your customer satisfaction because, again, the data speaks in the opposite direction. So for me, my biggest question is, what exactly are you looking for in order to change or at least reconsider your position? I think one of the things that we're fighting against is just the mass momentum of this narrative that in order for your profits to increase, you have to minimize the cost of labor, right? This is as old as capitalism itself, this thought. And it's been so ingrained across the globe, but specifically here in the United States.

And so I think what we're having to fight back against is just an overabundance of misinformation because it's just clear this economy would grow more if workers were paid more. I mean, there's just, there's just no question about that. And so instead of adopting the Ford model, right, instead of adopting this sensible model, what they're doing, they are opting on the side of draining their employees for everything they possibly can, paying as little as they possibly can, while charging the most they possibly can. Because if you think about it, one of the number and excuses you hear in the propaganda world is that if we increase the minimum wage, it's going to increase the price of your hamburger.

But the price of hamburgers and the price of all of this food has gone up steadily over the years while the wages clearly have not. Yeah. So I want to build on what you guys are saying. First of all, overwhelming majorities of the American people want the $15 minimum wage. So for the politicians, now you've got some corporations at least saying, yeah, man, I don't know. I don't know why it's doing it, but we're more profitable if you do this. You've got a huge majority of the American people and an overwhelming majority of the Democratic Party.

And they control every part of Congress and the government. And they still haven't done it. And it's not even close. eight Democrats voted with the Republicans to say, oh, hell no, we will not raise the minimum wage, and certainly not to $15 an hour. And that's because of why, the National Restaurant Association, among other lobbies, business lobbies like the Chamber of Commerce, because they have not come to the conclusion that Denny's has come to. And why? So Charles asked a good question about that, because of short-sightedness. So as Ben pointed out, look, they look at it and they go, okay, I'm going to increase my costs.

I don't know what's going to happen with my revenue. So I don't want to find out. I don't want to make an investment in my employees. I don't want to make an investment in the community. I don't want to make any of those investments. I just want to keep crushing my employees because I know that it'll keep my costs down. But now here's Denny saying, but everywhere we have increased those costs, we've increased our revenue by even more and hence our profits by more.

But still, short-sighted. So what do they do? Instead of spending the money on their employees, they spend it on lobbyists. And they spend on campaign contributions. And I'll give Newsweek credit here. At the end of the article, they mentioned something that no mainstream media outlet ever mentions. They said, after voting no on this bill, Chris Sinema and Joe Manchin, two corporate Democrats, then went to the Association, the National Restaurant Association, and raised money and told them,

Oh, yeah, we voted with you guys, and basically we did your bidding, now pay up, and they did. We have legalized bribery in the country, and that's what happens. And there's overwhelming evidence of this in every way you can imagine. And Ben is undoubtedly right based on both common sense and the weight of economic evidence. Trickle-down economics doesn't work. It has never worked. Bottom-up economics creates virtuous cycles and the velocity of money, and it does work. But it doesn't just work for the minimum wage workers.

It puts pressure on wages to go up for everyone. But it doesn't just work for the workers. It also works for the companies. That is why from 1938 to 1978, when we had real representation and we did not have legalized bribery, we had the greatest, and we had taxes as high as 90%, 91% for the highest bracket. We had the best performing economy in the history of the world. The evidence is in.

One last piece of evidence. Amazon, they said, oh my God, we can't do $15 minimum wage. Remember Bernie Sanders and Rokana pressured them into it? And they said, no, no, no, it'll kill the company. Hilarious, right? It might for a small company, maybe for a mid-sized company, you might have issues. Amazon, well, the pressure worked. Amazon moved to $15 million wage, and guess what happened?

They're still making trillions of dollars. Jeff Bezos is still the world's largest and richest man there is. And it didn't hurt their profits at all. So, guys, I think that there's only one real impediment here, and that's the lobbyists. And they're both the Republican and Democratic politicians who are willing to listen to them because of the checks that they get. Well, Jake, I think that's a really good point because at the end of the day, when you boil it down to dollars and cents, continuing to move in this way, doesn't really make sense. It doesn't make common sense. And so then the question does become why. And you're right. After you peel back those layers,

That's the only thing that's left. And so I think it does raise questions and it should raise questions as to what type of involvement the political system is playing in terms of how this conversation is being manipulated and who is playing the game around how they're manipulating this in favor of or against working families in America. And I think that that's a really important point that people aren't seeing at the broader end of this. This is not ideological, right? Like the data is very, very clear. This is not a matter of, oh, well, the business needs to protect itself and protect its profits. Because if that were the case, then as you've already said, we know what direction this conversation would be going in. This is a matter of political wrangling by insiders, by lobbyists, and so on and so forth.

And that is at the heart of why this conversation and the narrative continues to be maneuvered and manipulated to keep public sentiment not on the way, on the side of the data because that's very, very clear in terms of what conclusion we would all draw. Yeah. I think it also speaks to kind of the, in the general discourse across the nation, a lot of people kind of, they resort to this simple logic of the less I pay a person, the more I can keep. And that level of selfishness that's kind of ingrained in the American psyche also fuels this from the bottom up. And of course it is like the national Restaurant Association spending, I think it was $2.6 million for lobbying in the last year. Some obscene amount of money that they spent. So it is coming from the top down. But I also

think in the conversation and the way that these outlets are media outlets are able to continue this basically at this point propaganda. It's propaganda because it goes against the data. It's also because it plays on the sentiment that's in the minds of a lot of Americans. With that said, I want to move, speaking of food and capitalism, I want to talk about something that's going on in Montgomery County Public Schools in Maryland. It is the largest school district in the state of Maryland. They are under fire for proposing during the middle of a pandemic, a policy that would serve cold food to students who had, quote, lunch debt.

The draft policy, which was to be brought before the school board next week, was first proposed in 2019, and it comes from the federal memo which instructs school food authorities to create a policy for mill debts. I want to read from the Bethesda magazine. The first quote says the following, the proposed MCPS policy says families that do not qualify for federal free and reduced price meal programs, but have lunch debt of more than $35 would get quote unquote alternative meals, usually a sandwich rather than a hot meal until the debt is paid. Now, this doesn't include students who are on free and reduced lunches, but it absolutely puts those students who are in the gap. They aren't poor enough to get free and

reduced lunches, but they certainly aren't wealthy enough. They don't have enough income, their parents don't, to be able to afford school lunches. And there are quite a few Americans who have firsthand experience with that. And the idea itself of lunch debt is pretty disgusting, but it is something that is persistent across the country. According to the original reporting, Montgomery Public Schools is merely responding to a federal memo. And this is what the federal memo says from the USDA. The purpose of this memorandum is to address the need for school food authorities participating in the Food and Nutrition Service, National School Lunch Program and School Breakfast Program, to institute and clearly communicate a meal charge

policy, which would include, if applicable, the availability of alternative meals. And here's the thing. They came under so much fire that they pulled this back, and they've decided not to present the policy, but it is still on memorandum from 20, 2016 from the federal government for schools to address the school debt issue. Here's the problem. Again, there are 135 schools in MCPS, according to the reporting, with more than 250 in unpaid mill fees. According to the program's website, six schools have more than $10,000 in mill debts. The data showed roughly 8,000 students who owed a total of about $62,320 in September of 2019 compared with nearly 16,000 students owing. $365,000 in January of 2020.

75% of school districts reporting to the School Nutrition Association had unpaid meal debt ranging from $10 to $10 to half a million. And I don't know if that number, if you average it out across the nation, sounds extremely large to someone in the audience, but just taking consideration the size of our defense budget, $721 billion a year that is spent on war. So we literally have the case, Jank and Charles, of we have money for guns, but not butter, to use a classic economic comparison. And so they're under fire, Jank. My question really is, is this memo has been on the books. And instead of us addressing it from the federal level, and instead of us using just the smallest amount of money

to address this so that meals can be free at school in the first place, they are instituting or they're trying to institute these policies across the country to give students cold meals instead of hot food. Yeah, you know, I'm a little mixed on this, and you might be surprised by that, but I'm trying to figure out how to do this right, because I want everybody to be clear. The people who qualify for free lunches or the kids are still getting them, so that's good, right? And so this is for the folks who do not qualify, but are not paying. Now, there's very good reasons why people can't pay sometimes, especially during the COVID emergency, and people run out of money.

They lose their jobs, on and on and on. But it's gone up from 8,000 to 16,000 folks in a short period of time. And this is just in one county. I feel like instead of saying some people get to not pay, some people have to pay. Stop. Do you know how fast you were going? I'm going to have to write you a ticket to my new movie, The Naked Gun. Liam Neeson.

Buy your tickets now. I get a free Tilly Dog. Chilly Dog, not included. The Naked Gun. Tickets on sale now. August 1st. And some people are in the middle. We should have some sort of holistic policy. And I don't think this is it.

But I can see some people's frustrations that, hey, wait, if they don't have to pay, why do I have to pay? If I'm right next to them in the economic ladder. And so I think it's a complicated issue. I know in my time, and just because it happened in the past, doesn't make it right by a long shot. But we didn't have that, right? So if you didn't have money for lunch, then you couldn't get it on credit. So now you can get it on credit, and that's why these are piling up. So, Charles, I don't know how to resolve it, and I don't know that there is a good answer here.

But what's your take on it? You know, call me an idealist, say that I'm someone who is thinking in the clouds. But, you know, for the richest nation on the planet to be in a space that they are saying, you know, we are not able to provide similar meals to accommodate the needs of young people in our system. but we want to create basically this class structure or this tier of lunches for kids in a way that will frankly compromise their dignity, will lead to them being bullied, will have deep psychological effects on them and ultimately be a distraction in the school space. To me, it's just wrong and problematic. I mean, the need to have a policy is understandable, the need to figure out the situation so that you understand that, you know, those who have a responsibility or an obligation have to fulfill that is fine. But I don't think that the method or the answer is to exact that on the kids because they're the ones that are actually going to feel the brunt of that. If it comes out that this is part of money that you owe the state in terms of your taxes or something like that, you know, I don't know that I had the answer necessarily.

Like I said, I'm not trying to speak too highly in the clouds, but what I will say is that, again, from a psychological standpoint, from a dignity standpoint, we can't have these things exist in the same space. Like, you can't say that you want kids to be able to go into educational environments where they feel safe and supported and they're not bullied and they don't have these sorts of issues around their dignity and their integrity and then have them standing in the line when somebody gets pizza and then somebody else gives them a ham sandwich. so that everybody in the cafeteria knows, oh, you must be poor. Your family's paying their bill. I just don't think that that's the way to go. Again, because of the other methods and other pathways, if you will, and Ben talked about this that we spend money on in terms of the federal government, I feel like there has to be a better way for us to solve this problem

that doesn't necessarily expose our young people to such a harmful and problematic existence in our school system. That's the concern for me. The concern is like what the impact ultimately is on these young people because they're the ones that have to deal with, you know, what that feels like in space when they go to school every day. And there's already enough that they have to contend with. So, you know, from that aspect,

despite me understanding that the very real dollars and sense elements that are involved, ultimately it's a note for me. We have to figure out a different way. There's got to be a better way that doesn't put our kids. at emotional and psychological risk. Yeah, I can, in Georgia, for a family of four, for you to qualify for free lunch, you have a family of four, you need to make less than $32,000 a year. The bar to get free lunch is extremely low.

Like, that's real poverty for a family of four to be trying to survive on $32,000 a year. But if you make $35,000 a year, that doesn't make you any more qualified to be able to pay for the school lunches every day. And growing up, that's the category I fell in. I fell in. We were just enough to not qualify for free and reduce, but not enough to be able to not get that embarrassment that you're talking about, Charles. So I identify with this very personally. I know that there's a lot of families, a lot of students who find themselves in that gap. And, Jake, you're absolutely right. It can create resentment, especially if you're not tuned into the fact that this is systemic.

So of course in high school and middle school, you're not thinking about the systemic problem. You're just thinking about the fact that, yeah, I'm embarrassed because back then, we didn't even get any food, right? Like you mentioned, Jake, we didn't get any food. We just sat there and maybe got some french fries off of our neighbor.

The thing is, is that if education is the investment that the United States pretends that it is, and that it actually is, but the United States clearly doesn't consider that at the level of importance that it really plays in our society, it should not be that we have student debt, lunch debt, especially when it's less than a rounding error. I mean, if you compare this to any other federal program,

we're talking about pennies, like less than, like, you know, in terms of the budget, for them to fix this and to correct this so that there's an even playing field across the board, it wouldn't take anything for the federal government to do it, but we don't have the willpower to do that. Yeah, so let me say the last couple of things here. So we talked about other policies and how we can affect things.

You know, the $32,000 is actually more than the mom and the dad working minimum wage jobs full-time the whole year. In the state of Georgia, minimum wage is $7.25 because it's the federal minimum wage. And so we have poverty wages. If you work full-time, both parents, you're still not even going to make it to $32,000. So if you fix the wages, you'll fix this problem. There are much better fixes, in my opinion, to this. There's one portion of this that is clearly wrong. They, they, if you owe money, if the kid's parents owe money,

if he goes up with a hot lunch, they take it away from him and then give him the cold lunch at that time. Don't do that. That's crazy. Everybody agrees that's crazy, right? And so, on the other hand, I like this, I'm missing the, I don't know if it's a matter of privilege or whatever, but the difference between the hot lunch or the cold lunch, because I prefer the sandwiches. Yeah, that's a big difference. And when you're in grade school, you know what it is. It's the forced distinction without the choice, right?

So like, and kids will see that. And I think that for me, you know, I don't want to get super touchy feeling on this, jank. But I do think that when you're at that age, you don't want to be that kid. Yeah. Nobody wants to be that kid, right? And so, you know, it's one thing to say, I prefer. the sandwich, it's another thing to literally have it taken away from you because, yeah, your parents didn't pay your bill and kids, you know, and that's already tough. Kids, you know,

have enough indicators in today's world about where they fall on the social stratosphere. They don't need another one in form of like their school lunch to tell them that, you know, their parents and their family may be struggling. Yeah, 100%. Yeah, go ahead, Ben. Jake, real quick before we go to break, I just have that sensation, that sensation of being in a, in a store and waiting to see if your debit card goes through, that I remember that feeling as an adult because I had that feeling as a child. And I know that we should not be putting children in a place where they have to look at the little device that tells them whether or not they have enough money to eat and have that embarrassment on top of the pressure of looking at that device to see if it's going to clear that charge. So I just, I think we're doing our kids. disservice here. Yeah, the privilege that I have in this case is being thick-skinned and growing up kind of a big, strong kid, because I had that feeling that you're talking about, Ben, as an adult. I went into poverty as an adult. I was a kid. But as a kid, you know, I would not confirm nor deny how recent.

So as a kid though, when the kids, other kids made fun, like, oh, oh, Thanksgiving, do you guys eat your own family? gobble, gobble, you turkeys, whatever, right? I just look at them like, you sure you want to make that comment to me? Usually they would retract. They would retract the comment. So that's, but that's a, you know, look, I had that privilege of being a big, strong kid. So not everybody has that, right?

So I get it. Let's fix this and let's fix it at the root cause as well. All right, we got to take a break here. When we come back, Tucker Carlson's out of it again. Of course. Who checks him? and then separately, what's FOXITUS? We got that for you, too.

So like and share the stream, we'll be right back. We need to talk about a relatively new show called Un-F-The Republic, or UNFTR. As a Young Turks fan, you already know that the government, the media, and corporations are constantly peddling lies that serve the interests of the rich and powerful. But now there's a podcast dedicated to unraveling those lies, debunking the conventional wisdom. In each episode of Un-B-The-Republic, or UNFTR, the host delves into a different historical episode or topic that's generally misunderstood or purposely obfuscated by the so-called powers that be. Featuring in-depth research, razor-sharp commentary, and just the right amount of vulgarity, the UNFTR podcast takes a sledgehammer to what you thought you knew about some of the nation's most sacred historical cows. But don't just take my word for it.

The New York Times described UNFTR as consistently compelling and educational, aiming to challenge conventional wisdom and upend the historical narratives that were taught in school. For as the great philosopher Yoda once put it, You must not learn what you have learned. And that's true whether you're in Jedi training or you're uprooting and exposing all the propaganda and disinformation you've been fed over the course of your lifetime. So search for UNFDR in your podcast app today, and get ready to get informed, angered, and entertained, all at the same time.

Thank you. All right, I got some programming notes for you guys, which, and a lot of which I'm surprised by. So I'll just tell you that right now. On Twitch over the weekend, we got Common Room. That's tonight at 9 o'clock Eastern. Why am I surprised by that? Well, Brett Brooke, Adiana Vega, and Jordan Euler are all going to be on. That's not the surprising part.

They're all going to be wearing onesies. I did not approve this. And so I don't know how that's going to play out. And there's only one way to find out, though. It's at 9 o'clock Eastern, twitch.tv slash t-y-t. Over the weekend, we also have Sunday stream on Twitch. And that's, of course, hosted by Brett. And that is at 6 o'clock Eastern on Sunday, hence the title Sunday stream.

And there's another thing that I am surprised by. Surprise, yes, not an old school on Monday. Surprise to me, too, until I just saw it. Anna Cusperian, what is this? All right, so Anna and I on old school, that ought to be interesting. So check that out. That's live now to everybody, 10 o'clock Eastern. Everybody can check out the first episode, 45 minutes, freely available.

Second episode for another 45 minutes. That's just for the members. So t.com slash join. And that's at the premium level on YouTube if you hit that join button below. All right. Speaking of our members, let's go to the member section. Too Strong for Democrats writes in, not to be confused with too strong coffee.com slash t-y-t. I am Wayne from Wayne's World. Anyways, he writes in, or he or she, the local MSM station, Duopoly Corp Media Company station, fact-checked Mansion on minimum wage and called him a liar. Wow, look at this development.

Manchin said very few, almost no states still has seven-something wages when actually it was 22 states, something like 40% of this states, way more than almost none. It's catching on, hopefully it continues. The point there is that the media is actually beginning to check politicians, including corporate Democrats. And that is an amazing development. Hasn't happened in decades. So I'm with you, too strong for Democrats. I hope that that continues. Shikata Ghanai says, in Japan, you don't tip because the workers are already paid a living wage.

and excellent services expected, a tip can actually be construed as an insult. Interesting. Being the relatively cheap man that I am, I kind of like that. And a caring, I hope to get great wages, okay? So, new YouTube members on, well, new Young Turks members on YouTube, Lee Peacock, Todd Barnier, Jason Tax,

and King Adam Liu, the King's with us. So all of you guys, are you American heroes for spreading our message of truth and positive change and our progressive perspective? Yes, you are. So thank you for doing that. We appreciate it. I got so much more for you guys, but we're out of time. Nina Turtle Dragon, thank you. And Lee's let's do this.

Thank you on Twitch. Much love. We'll be back in a second. All right on the young Turks, Jenk, Ben, and Charles with you guys. comment hearing from YouTube super chat. We love that you guys use that. We appreciate it. Mohit Bakke wrote it. Is it weird that I listen to TYT on YouTube TV on my TV, also on the YouTube app, on the phone, and on my laptop? I guess. That's what Mohit says, but I don't think so. I don't think that's weird. I think that's kind of awesome. Listen and watch wherever you get.

All right, Ben's got more news for us. So let's start with Tucker Carlson. He is obviously one of the loudest voices in the conversation across the nation particularly as it pertains to COVID-19. He had a segment on Wednesday night that went one step further than he normally goes, pointing out that he believes, according to some information that he found, that the vaccine is actually potentially dangerous. Let's take a listen to it. So the question is, how do those numbers compare to the apparent death rate from the coronavirus vaccines now being distributed across the country? That's worth knowing. So we checked today, and here's the answer. And these numbers come from the same set of government numbers that we just read to you from. Here they are. Between late December of

2020 and last month, a total of 3,362 people apparently died after getting the COVID vaccine in the United States. 3,362. That's an average of roughly 30 people every day. So what does that add up to? By the way, that reporting period ended on April 23, and we don't have numbers past that, not quite up to date. But we can't assume that another 360 people at that rate have died in the 12 days since. You put it all together, and that is a total of 3,722 deaths. That's almost 4,000 people who died after getting the COVID vaccines. The actual number is almost certainly higher than that, perhaps vastly higher than that. The data we just cited come from the vaccine adverse events reporting system, VAIRS.

VERS is managed by the CDC and the FDA. Now, Tucker just inserted perhaps the most dangerous anti-vaccination message possible that you could potentially take the vaccine and die, but he inserted it into the mainstream conversation. This message literally parrots a Facebook post from February 9th that use the same source, VERS, to say that, quote, death reports in federal database show the fatal risk of COVID-19. vaccine, which was shown to be false by Politifact. Now, he inserted that conversation almost as an appeal to authority saying that particularly, and that's what makes it particularly nefarious because it gives the millions

of people who listen to them every night, it gives them the belief that the numbers that he is sharing is actually scientific data versus just self-reporting. It is not scientific data. But the lie is so big and has reached so many people because Tucker Carlson, It is so big that Twitter.com had to post at the top of their page today, this information, fact-checking the VAERS information. And this is what it said, quote, the VAIR system are open to anyone and are intended to provide an early warning for any previously unknown effects of COVID-19 vaccines, according to Politifact and full fact. Adverse effects and deaths reported on these systems are not necessarily caused by COVID-19 vaccines and may be unrelated coincidences according to the CDC. But that didn't stop Tucker Carlson from saying that this information is from the CDC, making his audience of millions believe that the problem is actually documented scientific fact from the CDC.

Now this fact checking was regarding the anti-vax Facebook post posted by some random Facebook user that went viral. And now Tucker Carlson is essentially inserting a Facebook post logic into the national conversation to his 3.4 million listeners every night. I want us to take a listen to this rebuttal that was originally prepared for that Facebook post that went viral, but completely is applicable to Tucker Carlson's grant. What about those social media posts claiming to be based on federal data and reporting? Well, on a case-by-case basis, it's problematic with a capital P. Reports are copied from a National Vaccine Safety Surveillance Program set up by the CDC and the FDA. This database records health issues that arise after vaccinations as adverse events. You may be thinking, um, yeah, I would say that death is an adverse event.

Of course it is. But this system accepts and records any and all of that. any and all reports of adverse events, and it comes with can't miss caveats. Reports may contain information that is incomplete, inaccurate, coincidental, or unverifiable. Without further study, vaccine experts say it's almost impossible to tell whether a particular adverse event is linked to a vaccine or would have happened anyway. Now, as clear as that video was, so far it's only been seen by about 4,000 people. How many people listen to Tucker Carlson on each night?

Quote, in the first quarter of 2021, Carlson averaged 3.4 million viewers. 3.4 million viewers heard Tucker say this on Wednesday night. But he literally just did this in the most insidious way, in a way that is so detrimental to us getting past this pandemic. I want us to take a listen to this next clip of Tucker as he goes a little bit further. So what is the real number of people who apparently have been killed or injured by the vaccines? Well, we don't know that number, nobody does, and we're not going to speculate about it on this show. But he literally just speculated and inserted into the minds of all of his viewers who are already skeptical about the vaccine because of the politicization that has taken place over the last year, particularly because of Donald Trump and Fox News. He inserted that into the national conversation, but he didn't stop there.

But it's clear that what is happening now, for whatever reason, is not even close to normal. It's not even close to what we see in previous years with previous vaccines. And there you have it. Tucker Carlson is being paid millions of dollars every single year to ensure that we never reach herd immunity. Because according to the New York Times and so many other posts, it is very unlikely with the level of people, who are hesitant about the vaccination that we will reach herd immunity anytime soon. Jank, I'm still amazed that Fox News and Tucker can get away with this because what they're saying is actually going to lead to even more people dying. Yeah, you know, I call conservatives dumb probably more than anybody in America. I'm fairly unabashed about it, and my job is to report the news.

And so when they say something dumb, I say it's dumb. In this case, Tucker Carlson is a really smart guy, and it's unfortunate, but he is. And so it's not that he doesn't know the information that we're sharing with you. That makes him more dangerous, because he is choosing to go this Uber-populous route, and he knows the effects of his speech. So he's allowed to have that speech, but he's on a dangerous path here. And so let me just break it down a little bit. So look, when they say it could be a coincidence, it sounds like, oh, come on.

Oh, yeah, I guess the coincidence, they take the vaccine and then they die right afterwards. No, no, no, no, no. I don't think they're stating it right. Like, I need you to understand what the reality of it is. Okay, so first of all, the reports are totally unverified. And in fact, there are now reports that that right wingers are going in there and faking stuff, like the things that didn't happen. And they're saying, oh, after I took the vaccine, I died.

Okay. I don't know they're putting in the form of I. But so there's some of that going on I don't know how much. But when they say unverified, it means they're not saying that they died because of the vaccine at all. They're dying of many different causes, most of which have nothing to do with. the vaccine. But yes, they died after taking the vaccine. But also remember, who are the first people to get vaccinated? People above the age of 65, people with serious medical conditions. So a lot of them are dying from that, right? And even then, if you take everything in face value,

every report is true, and even though this is impossible, they're saying, even if you believe that every death was directly because of the vaccine, you know what the number is, the percentage? 0.017%. Well, that is like the other vaccines, even if that were all, if everything they were saying was true, because over 250 million people have been vaccinated in the country have gotten one or two shots. So that's the number of, that's not the number of people to be accurate. That's the number of shots that have been given out, right? And so that's why it's a tiny, tiny, tiny percentage. But you would never get that sense if you watch Tucker's show. Tucker knows all this, but he makes it sound like 30 people a day are dying.

People are dying from this. But he never quite says it. He says things like apparently, right, we can speculate, right? And at different times, he even says, here, quote, vaccines are not dangerous. That's not a guess. We know that pretty conclusively from the official numbers. But then he turns around saying that's other vaccines, but we don't know about this vaccine. So what is he doing?

He's saying one thing for the lawyers because he knows, look, Dominion sued them and he knows this is very serious business and could create legal liability for Fox. So he's smart enough to put a couple of sentences in the report saying vaccines are not bad so that he can go back and court and go, I said vaccines are not bad. Then he turns around and says, they're killing people, apparently 30 people a day. If you take it, oh, my God, watch out, because that feeds the populist fear. That's a huge driver of conservatives, anger, and yes, some percentage of those people who listen to Tucker won't take the vaccine and some percentage of those folks will get it and some percentage of those folks will die. And Tucker's perfectly aware of that, but he thinks ratings are up.

So from my perspective, Ben, you know, it reminds me of a quote that I have said on many occasions and I believe I've probably said it on this network before. And that is you cannot hustle controversy for profit because you are playing with voices that you cannot control. At the end of the day, I think what Jank has said about Tucker Carlson being a smart person is actually where this situation is deeply dangerous because I tend to agree he's very smart. He understands his audience. He understands what he has to do. And to an extent, you know, for me as a lawyer, when I listen to Tucker Carlson talk, I think about what it is to do a summation. Because when you're doing a summation, what you want to do is you want to present your opinion and your arguments to the jury almost as if they are fact. And so every now and again, you know, but you can't make yourself the fact finder. You have to make it clear that you're making an argument.

So every now and again, you'll say stuff like I suggest or I surmise or. or I charge to make it clear that these are opinions that are coming from you, not facts, that the jury is supposed to ingest or take as such. And judges will instruct them to do that. The judges will say what you hear from the lawyers are not fact, it's argument, and you're not to take it as fact. You're supposed to take it as argument. If you're persuaded, that's fine, but these are not facts. The problem is there's no judge sitting in front of the TV or in the corner at Fox News,

when Tucker Carlson goes on his rants and the way that he's sort of cleverly, and I'm using that word extremely loosely, interweaves these sort of numbers and this data. It's kind of like this confusion game where it sounds very official. It sounds very, very much so as though he is giving them hard and fast data and information because he's given them numbers and he's given them statistics and all the above when in reality all he has done is taking an opinion and sort of loosely. cherry picked what numbers he can make work in order to support his argument. All of these things are deeply dangerous. And the question for me is, where's the line? Right. So we thought about

what Fox News was able to do. And we thought that was terrible back in 2000 and 2004 with George W. Bush. We thought like, man, you know, the Republican Party and conservative media has really taking the national discourse in a really bad direction in a bad place. And we saw that after the rise of the Tea Party. And we thought, this is dangerous. And then we saw how that began to fester and continue to grow. And then that gave birth for all kinds of wacky, crazy stuff that we've seen since then that has been sort of has its roots in conservative media. Everything from birthers to Q&N and everything else, we've seen that sort of fester and grow out. And the question becomes, again, where's the line where we start to say, you know what, this is going too far.

We would have thought that perhaps January 6th would have been the line, that the capital insurrection would have been the line where folks say, you know what, we've been playing it really fast and loose around this notion of news and commentary. And there's only a matter of time before we get burned by it. But yet and still, we continue to see these half truths, these propaganda that are meant to stoke fears that are meant to sort of play to that base in a way that they may not necessarily be able to decipher properly. And it's getting increasingly dangerous. And as you've already said, it's going to result in people losing their lives. So my question is, where's the line, Tucker? Where does this stop? Because he is smart enough to know what he's

doing and how it's going to affect the people who are listening to him. There is, I, Charles, I don't, there is no line. And could you repeat that quote that you said again, because I think that is that is so powerful that you can't play with controversy. Controversy for profit because you are playing with forces which you cannot control. I think the line is the fact that as long as they keep getting more ratings, as long as there are more clicks on YouTube, as long as there's money to be made off the controversy, I think they forget the, are they are going to ignore the second half of your quote, because what we've seen is that line continuing to move. And I think what it's predicated, it's dependent upon us who understand that concept to make sure that the

people who are elected and are in power, that they understand that concept. I want to ask Joe Biden if he understands that the conservative movement has no line. I need to know if Kamala Harris understands. I need Joe Manchin to decide where he stands on this, because you're right, January 6th should have been the culmination and for them to walk back and say, okay, let's get back to some normalcy. But they're pressing ahead even further with any controversy that they can hustle. And I think that piece of it, to go back to Jenks' point about, you know, calling conservative idiots. At TYT, we frequently talk about all the ways that big tech companies are taking control of our online lives, constantly monitoring us and storing our data. But that doesn't mean we have to let them.

It's possible to stay anonymous online and hide your data from the prying eyes of big tech. And one of the best ways is with ExpressVPN. ExpressVPN hides your IP address, making your active ID more difficult to trace and sell the advertisers. ExpressVPN also encrypts 100% of your network data to protect you from eavesdroppers and cybercriminals. And it's also easy to install. A single mouse click protects all your devices. But listen, guys, this is important. ExpressVPN is rated number one by CNET and Wired magazine.

So take back control of your life. online and secure your data with a top VPN solution available, ExpressVPN.com slash TYT, you can get three extra months for free with this exclusive link just for TYT fans. That's EX, P-R-E-S-S-V-P-N dot com slash T-YT. Check it out today. And I get that, and I understand that that can be rather satisfying on the right day. The reality is on a larger scale stepping back from it. I think it's really important that progressives are people on the left and Democrats and if you if you call yourself a liberal person, right? You have to understand that in this game, info wars and everything else, there is no moral high ground.

That's not to say that you ignore the line to the opposite degree and you take things in the opposite direction. But I do think that as you look at like Schumer and Pelosi and Harris and Biden and all these other sort of figures, the idea that, that you want to sort of play things above board is not going to work when you're dealing with an opponent who has no rules and will go as far as they will go in media and the use of propaganda and the use of manipulation of narratives to do things that they know are misleading to the public,

but ultimately give them some sort of competitive or strategic advantage. And I think that that is a larger point that people on the left have to be willing to accept that listen, This is a dirty game and it's dirty for real because people are not caring about truth. And so there is a very challenging space around how do you balance the notion of morality while still understanding that you have to be effective against an opponent that has no regard for any of the above. But at the end of the day, acting as though you can sit on your moral high horse and get points or doing things the right way.

when Tucker Carlson is doing this religiously, is not going to move the needle. Yeah. So again, last two quick things here. There's an ironic person who called out Tucker Carlson here, which is Fox News's medical expert. Nicole Safier, she did not mention Tucker by name, but right after his broadcast tweeted out that this was basically the wrong information. And she actually, she made an excellent point, which I'm surprised by. She said she is their top medical expert on. Fox News. Anyway, she said, it's interesting that the people that are said that the COVID deaths were inflated. They didn't believe the number of deaths. Now all of a sudden say the number of

deaths from the vaccine are underinflated. And the point there is, this is definitely political by the right wing, right? They're like, I don't believe science when it comes to the number of COVID cases and deaths. And now I'm turning around and saying, no, no, no, no, we did the number of, I'm so concerned and the number of vaccine deaths are higher. No, they're for whatever insane populist reason have decided that the Republican voter just loves conspiracies and fear. And so they're stoking that fear, but in this case about the vaccine, which leads me to the final point.

Look, I get it. People are concerned that unvaccinated folks can spread it to other people. That's why we want as many people vaccinated as possible. But I'm vaccinated. Almost everybody I know is vaccinated. And my reading of the science is that it is very difficult for us to be seriously hurt if we're already vaccinated. If you have a different point of view, I love you, that's okay. Everybody go read actual doctors and actual scientists and make up your own mind. Okay. But I think, and Tucker will not admit on air whether he's been vaccinated or not. And that's also interesting, right? But the bottom line is the people that are hurt the most are not the vaccinated people. They are the unvaccinated people. And that is Tucker's audience. And he knows that he's putting their life in danger. But if you think about the Republican ideology, what have they always done? Worked against their own voters' interest, kept their wages low, given tax cuts to the rich and to the corporations that are oftentimes crushing them, made sure that they can't get universal

health care. And now they're taking it one step further. They're saying, well, our audience is such suckers. We can play with their own lives and they'll enjoy it. They'll, and they'll like it and they'll watch me more if I endanger their lives more. That's an amazing phenomenon. So, and he's right. His ratings are up and a huge, you know, percentage of Republicans would rather have fear than health and well-being and even life. And that is a sad indictment of the way conservatives us think. All right, we've got to take a break here. One last story when we return. We'll be right back. We're going to be able to be. All right. Back on a young Turks, let me read a couple of member comments here from our member section on the website on t-y-t.com.

Rain of Bastet writes in, in all seriousness, why is Schmucker trying to kill off his own? At first, I thought you meant that was a combination of Tucker and Schumer. No, he just means Tucker. Okay, I didn't realize he was a true anti-vaxter. If he tells us people to not get the vaccine, then a lot may die. He'll lose the number one spot on TV. No, it's an interesting point. And the one that I was mentioning at the end there, I think the reason that they're doing it is because fear sells so well for conservatives.

It's the number one thing that triggers a conservative mind. So as long as you pump them full of fear, no matter what it is, it'll work. And although there was an incredible irony of Donald Trump saying, ah, don't worry about the worst pandemic of our lives, it'll magically disappear. They're amazing, folks. But the only thing that is consistent is whatever the facts are, they don't give a damn about them. So, effectus writes in, Tucker, I want to go back to normal. Also, Tucker, don't take the vaccine, that'll let us go back to normal.

Very true. Tatiana in Japan writes and wasn't Tucker one of those pushing to call it the Trump vaccine? Now he claims it's killing people. And that's talking out of both sides of your mouth. Trump perfected that art.

Tucker does it every night. We mentioned it there. He's like, oh, vaccines are great. But now let me tell you how it's killing you and you shouldn't take them. And so yes, they're saying at the same time Biden is not being bipartisan enough. He's outrageous for not giving Trump all the credit on the vaccine.

Plus, the vaccine will kill you and don't take it. But they say, and part of the reason is because, and politicians do this a lot, and honestly, not on deadly issues like this, but on a lot of political issues, Obama used to do it too, which is you tell people both things at the same time, and then people believe whatever they want to hear, right? So the example I always use is Obama during the Egyptian Revolution said, We stand by our great ally hosting Mubarak and we support the democracy of movement against them. Wait, what? Everybody heard what they wanted to hear.

Same thing on Tucker and Trump. Gabby Marita writes, can we start spreading random lies about Tucker Carlson? But asserting there are actually facts. Like, I posit that Tucker Carlson once got into a slap fight with a donkey that lasted six days and he lost after crapping his pants when a passing a Mexican family laughed at him. Okay, no, we cannot do that. Because if someone on the left wing does that, you'll be immediately banned from everywhere. There's two different rules and everybody knows it. Wanda Dale and Stephanie Fultz just joined by hitting the join button below on YouTube.

You guys are awesome. We've got another fun story for you guys, so we'll be right back. You know, I'm going to We're going to be able to be. I'm not you're going to be I'm going to

I'm going to I'm going to a bit of so I'm going You know, I'm going to be able to be. I'm going to be.

We're going to be. So, I'm not a lot of I'm not I'm I'm not the

I'm on a I'm so All right, back on the young first, Jank and Ben with you guys. Ben, we got one more story. Yeah, Jank, I have heard a lot of wild defenses for conservatives who normally tell Americans to take personal responsibility, they've done everything they can to avoid their responsibility in the role of the

January 6th attack. This one is the wildest. A capital defendant, and this is according to Riley and Harvey of the Huffington Post. This is what they shared. A capital defendant came down with Foxitis and Foxmania after watching too much Fox News, his attorney told a court on Thursday. The lawyers say his client was laid off due to COVID and sought refuge in the subtle bosom of Fox News. And this is what his attorney said, the attorney for Anthony Antonio, who is the defendant, this is what they said. For the next approximate six months, Fox television played constantly. He became hooked with what I call Foxitis or Fox Mania. And he became interested in the political aspect and started believing what was being fed to him. Now, Jake, this is, I think this is

a great story to follow up what we just did with Tucker Carlson, because while this is hilarious, it's absolutely true that people who consume Fox News at that level at that rate are going to start believing things that are going to cause them harm. And then Anthony Antonio, basically Anthony Anthony, in his case, it's going to possibly cost them time in jail. Yeah, look, I certainly wouldn't let the guy off to hook for this defense. But I agree with you. There's some validity to it. I have family members and friends of the family who totally lost their minds because of Fox News.

People who were incredibly pro-immigrant and took my dad in, now anti-immigrant. People who are Muslim who are now anti-Muslim. I mean, not they were pro-Muslim before, they are Muslim. And they've become anti-Muslim. There's a whole movie. I interviewed the director of it. You know, how, I forget the exact name now, but the, like, how Fox News, you know, brainwashed my dad. And it's true.

They're doing it to a whole. generation of people. Luckily, it's the older generation, not the younger generation, but they're literally driving them crazy. Ben, 70% of Republican voters, not seven, 70, 70% of Republican voters think that Biden lost the election and stole it, that Trump actually won the election. Why do they think that? Because they've been listening to conservative media, Fox News, Newsmax, OAN, Breitbart, you name it. And they've been totally brainwashed into thinking the exact opposite of what's true. This goes back to that line that Charles was speaking about because in this case, this gives

them the ability to move the ball further and further in the minds of their viewers, right? They're no longer just trying to get them to be angry over whatever the boogeyman is of that week. They're trying to get them angry over things that will get them arrested, get them killed, and just ruin their lives. And this is what Fox's specialty is. I agree with you, this guy, while this is a valid thing, he's still responsible for everything that he did after that. And we have to be mindful that this is, this is a real, this is a problem

that runs so deep in our country that it led to an entire group of people trying to overthrow the country. The fact that 70% of Republicans, like, it's not just Fox News, this was parroted also by Republican officials, elected politicians. And so when we have people, in power in Washington, D.C. and on the mainstream media, talking to 3.4 million people every night, when we have them saying things that are so insidious and so inflammatory and so ungrounded, not grounded in facts, then we have to be aware of the fact that we have a powder keg in this country that at any moment can explode into something worse than January 6th because there are people who suffer from this, but they still have to be held accountable for it.

Look, let me go to extreme examples. It's just because I want to explain how readily people get brainwashed, unfortunately. I mean, look at what happened during the Holocaust. Germans and Jews were living together for a long time. They didn't get along great all the time. There was plenty of horrible, horrific stereotypes about Jews to begin with. But they weren't killing each other nonstop, and certainly not at that level. And then Big Goebbels came along and said, let's just lie to people and say it's all the Jews' fault, right?

That the German army didn't lose World War I. It was the Jews who lost World War I for us, and that created all these troubles. Let's just tell them outrageous things that aren't even close to true. Not only they believe it, they then killed six million Jews. And in Rwandan genocide, the Houthis and two, to seize living together all those years, yes, again, conflict. some degree of issues, et cetera. And then the reason I remember the war on the genocide particularly is because what led it was radio hosts.

Radio hosts started, who were Hutu, started saying, oh, the tostis are the cause of all of our problems. You got to go get them. You got to do something about them. And next thing, you know, massacres started. Then it turned into a genocide. People are unfortunately very easily brainwashed. And I'm not saying that Fox News is doing it at that scale

it's and is going to create that kind of problem. But they are doing it on them. They're doing some brainwashing on a massive scale. And probably on a larger scale than this couple of radio shows for sure. Yeah, I want the other thing. But Ben, did you want to say something? I was going to say Fox News doesn't have to come out and expressly do it because there's YouTube to do it now. And they're getting, you know, their outlets on YouTube and voices on YouTube who will expressly say that.

And just that comparison that you gave, Jake, is sobering and terrifying, but it's so clear and realistic. There is no line. And so we cannot assume that they will ever walk back from blaming somebody, vilifying someone to the point where it could go into some type of genocide. It's very possible and very terrifying to even consider that. Yeah. And again, the point isn't whether you think it's going to lead to a genocide now. The point is brainwashing is real and it happens through mass media. And so, all right, last thing on this, guys, don't get me wrong.

The defense is absurd, right? It's like affluenza. And that worked. A lawyer said, affluenza is someone is so affluent, so rich. And in America, rich people don't understand the consequences of their actions because they never have to suffer the consequences of their actions. So that that person didn't know that if he kills people, that it would be a problem. And then the judge believed him and said, oh, you're right. And he let him off.

Well, that, wait a minute then. That creates more affluenza, right? So if you say, yeah, Fox is so insane and anybody who listens to them, by definition, it becomes insane. Hence, they're not guilty of any crimes. Well, that's ironic. If you watch Fox News, you're free to go. No, no, no, no. You take what conservatives used to believe in.

Personal responsibility. You're going to prison for your crimes. And yes, Fox News brainwashes people, but that's a separate problem. All right. We've got to go. We're really late. Ben, thank you. Everybody check out the Benjamin Dixon show. Really appreciate it. And when we come back, we drop it again. And by the way, we got a liberal redneck. What does that mean? Droms. Find out when we come back. Thanks for listening to the full episode of the Young Turks. Support our work. Listen ad free. Access members, only bonus content, and more by subscribing to Apple Podcast. podcast at apple.co slash t yt. I'm your host, Shank Huger, and I'll see you soon.