Some More News - Even More News: Elon Musk - Lowering The Standards of CEOs

Episode Date: March 22, 2024

Hi. On today's episode, Katy, Cody, and Jonathan talk about Elon Musk's interview with Don Lemon, the continuing freakout over Jonathan Glazer's Oscar speech, and the specifics of Trump's comments where he referenced a "bloodbath" if he doesn't win in November. 0:00 - Intro and Holidays07:40 - Lady Ballers14:19 - Don Lemon interviews Elon Musk41:58 - More Jonathan Glazer Backlash53:06 - Trump's "Bloodbath" Comments Fuel up fast with Factor’s restaurant-quality meals that are ready to heat and eat whenever you are. Head to https://factormeals.com/morenews50 and use code MORENEWS50 to get 50% off. Check out our MERCH STORE: https://shop.somemorenews.com   SUBSCRIBE to SOME MORE NEWS: https://tinyurl.com/ybfx89rh   Subscribe to the Even More News and SMN audio podcasts here: Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/some-more-news/id1364825229   Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/6ebqegozpFt9hY2WJ7TDiA  

Hello and welcome back to even more news. My name is Katie Stoll and I'm fighting off some sort of bug. Oh, in my immune system. You're a starship trooper's in your immune system. I am I'm just like pounding it with a... I'm Cody Johnston, by the way. Oh, who cares? I forgot to introduce myself.

I mean, somebody might. I hope so. I think everybody was waiting to hear what I was pounding my immune system with, and then you had to... I'm just trying to introduce ourselves. This isn't the energy that I wanted to bring. I apologize to the listeners. Not to you. Just kidding. I apologize to the listeners not to you just kidding I apologize to you, too. You're wearing a nice purple shirt

So am I? No, you are I said you are and Jonathan's wearing some merch It looks nice, too. He's wearing the I recently moved to the mountains And you get blue as the shirt color which is his prerogative everybody gets to choose which color they put the thing on the first second She's like well not the color I love Don't know what the fuck is wrong with me. I'm so sorry that was

It looks really nice on you actually that blue is a really good color for you, and it is the right choice Thank you. I'm just like a bit of a micromanager. And I am and it comes to this to our merch store. I was like, can we limit the color options? Because I really only want the shirt to come in these colors. But you can't do that. And what I want to it's the color Katie stole does not want you to wear. That's a good advertising thing.

The color, the band's get people. Yeah, exactly. Get people interested. That's a good advertising thing. The color. The band colors. Get people, yeah, exactly. Get people interested. But it looks great on you. This is the first and only episode of this podcast. You have not said this is the first and only news podcast. By the way. I forgot. Yeah.

It is though. Is it? This is the first and only news podcast. I was just so distracted by the fact that I'm the first and only person to ever get a fucking cold. I know. And I'm just really taken by the fact that I'm the first and only person to ever get a fucking cold. I know. And I'm just really taken aback by that.

How dare the virus. How dare the virus. First and only woman to be interrupted by a man while you're describing your problems with a man going, I'm not, but my name is. But to be fair, that wasn't the time for me to talk about my illness. It's not. I'm not ill. I'm fine. I'm fending it off. You sound fine. With Zycam, maybe some AG1, maybe. My friend was like, okay, what you need to do is mix honey with garlic, with cayenne pepper, with paprika, with cinnamon. And I did it and then I didn't taste it because it sounded so gross.

It's just sitting there in a jar in my kitchen. Oh, so you didn't actually do it? No, but as I was cutting and I was like, this feels healthy. I bet I'm getting stronger just making the potion, but it looks gross. Do you want to see it? I can grab it for you. Do you want to see it on this podcast? Yeah. Do you want to show me the weird spicy slop that you made on this audio podcast? Yummy. Katie, I cannot express enough how this is terrible audio entertainment.

I think people like it. entertainment Everybody listening when she said yummy she held up a jar with a bunch of like weird brown gunk in it Two ounces of sweet potato puree it looks like diarrhea to me Anyway sorry not sorry now you got recipe. You don't sound sorry. Well. They don't have to be sorry. Happy holidays. Is it? Yeah.

What is it? Jonathan is gonna start, which is, you know, honestly a very smart move. Instead of sharing the holiday for the day that we are currently recording, we're gonna start sharing Friday and Saturday holidays, so that you guys have the opportunity to celebrate them if you want, which I'm assuming you always want to do. So. I like that we give people a year head start

so they know like in a year, then they have a holiday to look forward to. But I understand, I understand, I understand. Okay, well, he has pointed out that today is March 21st and March 21st is according to Jonathan maybe the busiest day on the national calendars. Oh. 47 holidays. I've never seen so many holidays on nationalday.com.

That's honestly obscene and disrespectful to all the other holidays. We can't celebrate all these holidays. That's too many holidays for one day. I think it's to, you know, coordinate with the first day of spring, which this year was like at the end of March 19th because of leap year, but typically March 21st would be renewal, rebirth, spring, so here's Slytherin Pride Day. Don't be proud of that, Slytherins. Yeah, there's so many reasons to not be proud of that one. National countdown day, okay.

But so for this week, we have not given them any Friday holidays. This is all just Thursday holidays. Tomorrow is March 21st, which is Friday. Today's March 21st. Today's March 21st. I'm looking at my calendar. The eagle has landed. Oh my god. Oh So I said I was gonna do a thing and I did the literal opposite of that thing

I did a third bunch of Thursday holidays and to Friday Jonathan has a tiny baby Is the backbone of our show? It's funny because like my whole thing is I'm like spotting. Oh, this is not entirely accurate. This is a mistake. And I'm just like, tomorrow's the 21st. You. Yeah, you. OK, but this works actually in our favor because one of the things on the 21st is National Countdown Day.

So now we're officially counting down to when we make this change. Oh, so hopefully seven days is the countdown. Yes, the countdown. It's the seven day countdown. Okay, but Friday, March 22nd. Oh, we do have one. We just don't have any Saturdays. Okay, Friday, March 22nd.

I know this is a stupid mistake, but I'm gonna be upset at myself for this. Oh yeah, no, you're kidding yourself. I know. For, again, not great audio entertainment, but visually, he's literally kicking himself right now. I'm very upset. It's incredible to see.

It's very flexible of you. And man, yeah, that shirt looks great. Thank you, Katie, I appreciate it. Can be worn by people who didn't recently move to the mountains. But this is fun, setting us up for Friday, March 22nd, National Goof Off Day. Where all my goofs at?

You goofy goofs. Holliday apparently created in 1976 by a 10 year old, Monica DeFore. She was on Twitter until 2018. Very much wanted people to know she created National Goof Off Day. Why'd she leave interesting? I think she wasn't getting much engagement whenever someone would hashtag

National goof off day and she replied I created this as a kid and like no one cared Yeah, interesting so many questions. How did what was the process for creating a holiday when you're 10 years old back then 1976? Never explained. It just says she created it when she was 10 decades later. It gets in chase's calendar of events Well, but she's rolling those royalties I don't know if that's true. I don't know that's how holidays work. Anyway, you guys want to talk about Ladyballers. Oh God, we've been talking about it so much lately. We to talk about lady ballers oh we've been talking about it so much lately we can talk about lady ballers oh our video about lady ballers came out yesterday has not been taken down yet that's true

the 20th of winds of March which is Wednesday as of the 15th of April which is today it has been not yet been taken down. Yeah, it has not been taken down. There was some behind the scenes stuff where we were trying to trim down enough clips. Our team nailed it, continuing to figure out how to limit the number of long clips that are used in the video

because YouTube has technology that will block videos. But yeah, still up. You can watch it. It's long and the movie's bad. And I've seen mild descent on a few little points. And I don't disagree. Just a couple of things. Well, one person was like, that's not double dribble. I don't know. I'll watch the clip again. Maybe it's not. Well, we're not sports people, but the point still stands. And then, well, I saw somebody talk about the,

the sort of change that Jeremy does allegedly go through. And I don't disagree, I actually disagree with that point, but they were just sort of saying that like, you don't need to go through a change for a story to exist. Like a main character doesn't need to do that. And you don't need to go through a change for a story to exist. Like, a main character doesn't need to do that. And I don't think we ever said that they do. Um, it's more about most movies.

Good story, Calvin. Like, mainstream movies and, like, broad comedies. The kind of movie they were trying to make does. Right, this isn't the zone of interest here. Exactly. Which we will talk about. Yeah, so I-I-I still disagree with the zone of interest here. Exactly. Which we will talk about. Yeah, so I still disagree with the main point of that contention.

Also, this is like, that's not a hot take about what to expect from good storytelling. And of course rules are allowed to be broken and there's exceptions when you're doing so in an interesting way, especially, you know, or you're purposefully making some point by having the character not change. There's there's some function there. This is just slop. Right. Exactly. Like the jar of honey goo. Yes. Thank you. I was going to say need to see it again. I don't. You're showing me a blu ray of lady ballers right now. I don't know what that is. Right down there. Are the extras good? Blu Ray of Lady Ballers right now. I don't know what that is. Right down there are the extras good. Do they have extras?

Yeah, no, it's a they have commentary by Ted Cruz through the whole thing, even though he's just in that one scene. So I would listen to that, actually. That sounds fucking miserable. Is that a joke or a truth? No, there's no way. There's no way. There's no way. Yeah, I think one of the other points was that Jeremy's character, coach Rob, so he really cares about

winning and his conversation with his daughter, which happens like not at the right point in the movie to be this moment, acknowledges that like, those are just things, the things that you want to do, those are just things that men did to like give themselves something to do, which implicitly sort of like says that like, those aren't actually important. Winning at those things aren't really important. And so that was sort of his like jump to like not caring about winning anymore, which communicated to his wife who walked in that he doesn't care

about winning anymore, which is her problem with him. But she doesn't walk in at that point. She walked in later when he was just problem with him. But she didn't walk in at that point. She walked in later when he was just complimenting women. So she didn't even see the part where he said, like, winning doesn't matter. He also didn't say that. And as we pointed out in the video, the emotional catharsis of that choice is totally stripped

from them because they're losing by 55 points when he quote unquote forfeits by bringing in his daughter and her friends. Exactly, exactly. So there is no fulfillment of that promise. Right, and if you were to actually like lean into that, as we do point out in the episode, if that is the point where he's like,

actually winning doesn't matter and these things are important and you're good at this and this and this and we value those things, winning doesn't matter. these things are important and you're good at this and this and this and we value those things winnings doesn't matter to make that really work you would need to show him like portraying those qualities right like giving up winning for like the sake of of compassion of these sort of other things that they're talking about that are more important that his wife does value. Not because he was gonna lose anyway. Not because he's gonna lose anyway because if you're if you're trying to say oh he changed and his wife does value. Not because he was gonna lose anyway. Not because he's gonna lose anyway. Because if you're trying to say, oh, he changed and his wife realized like, oh, he doesn't

care about this. He cares about these things, but he doesn't display that he cares about those things. It doesn't matter. It's just like I saw a thread and I was like, I actually disagree with that. It's a bad movie. I'll maintain that. And I agree that you don't have to go through a change, like a hero's journey type thing or whatever to be type thing or whatever,

to be a character or protagonist, but they didn't do a good job. Mainstream sports comedies, you typically. Generally, and again, it's like, it's not so much of the flaws of the movie are unintentional, where it's like, yeah, if they were trying to do a thing where like this thing they were saying

and they knew that they were like, oh yeah, he doesn't change this chain, this and this and this and all, like they didn't know they were doing that. It's just poorly constructed. Welcome to Ad, it's Katie, trust me. You know, I once sunk a boat in two minutes, not a small one either.

You can get a lot done in two minutes if you have a sledgehammer. And now with Factor, you can also have a fresh, never frozen, chef crafted meal in just two minutes! Sledgehammer optional! Factor delivers restaurant quality meals right to your door for any time of the day.

Everything from pancakes to smoothies to other stuff, I assume. There's no prep and no cleanup. All you have to do is heat and eat. Don't eat and then heat though. Duh, don't do it. That'll hurt you, trust me. Don't, don't, don't.

Okay, did I mention that Factor is flexible to your schedule? I'm doing it now. Going on a big cruise filled with your enemies? Don't worry. You can pause or cancel or reschedule your deliveries anytime you want to. Factor is simply the best solution if you're looking for fast and premium options

with no cooking. That's also cheaper than delivery and nutritious and yummy. It's all of those things. Head to factormeals.com slash morenews50 and use code morenews50 to get 50% off. That's code morenews50 at factor% off. That's code more news 50 at factor meals.com slash more news 50 to get 50% off boats.

Uh, let's talk about something else. May we? Don Lemon V Elon Musk. Well, we got some clips here. So former CNN anchor Don Lemon has a new show called The Don Lemon Show, and he kicked it off with an hour-long interview with Elon Musk. So this is an online show. It's on YouTube. It's on X. It's on the podcast feeds.

And this was supposed to be the start of a partnership between Don Lamon and X, where there was going to be some stuff that's exclusive to X for 24 hours, but the show is still going to be everywhere. It doesn't matter. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah, still, he still seems to be like advertising it as like Don on X and stuff. Yeah. Because well, because X is a video first platform.

Correct. Yes. And so we want to we want to log into the microblogging social media site to watch 50 minute videos. So they're leaning into that. At the end of the interview, or shortly afterwards, Elon was very upset by it. And he sent apparently a vulgar text to Don Lemon's agent. And at the end, it said something like contract terminated to suggest that Don Lemon would no longer be paid to give exclusive stuff to X. Anyway, there are a couple of clips

I'd love to play from this interview and get your reactions to. One of them is about DEI, diversity, equity, and inclusion. Just to set this up, Elon has been very upset about DEI, diversity, equity, and inclusion. Just to set this up, Elon has been very upset about DEI. He thinks it's like lowering standards to become what, airline pilots and doctors, and it's ruining lives. And he quote tweeted Ben Shapiro saying, DEI puts the lives of your loved ones at risk.

And then they have this little back and forth, which I'm going to play in a minute. There was a repost of venture bureau that you claim that D.E.I. is killing people specifically. You point to medicine. You claim that D.E.I. programs are putting people at risk. Do you really believe this to be true. And what evidence do you have to support it. What I was referring to there was that if we lower the standards for doctors, so that they, if the test for a doctor is lowered, then the probability of them making a mistake and killing someone is obviously gonna be higher. If the standards for passing medical exams

and becoming a doctor or especially something like a surgeon, if the standards are lowered, then the probability that the surgeon will make a mistake is higher. What evidence do you have though that they're lowering the standards? There is no evidence of that. Well, I believe there is.

So I just want, just the research that you talk, do you believe that people are dying because medical standards, DEI is causing medical standards to be lowered? do you believe that people are dying because medical standards, DEI is causing medical standards to be lowered? Do you actually believe people are dying because of that? I believe that if we lower the standards for what it takes to become a doctor. You're saying if we lower the standards,

but do you believe people are dying because the standards are being lowered? I don't think that is yet an issue, but it could become an issue. What? Then what the fuck? If that happens and yet they are still approved to be a surgeon, the probability that someone will die, I think at some point is high.

Okay, I understand that. But that's a hypothetical. That doesn't mean it's happening. I didn't say it's happening. Then what are we talking about? Then why are we talking about it? So what he's saying is that people people will die. But he's just saying lowering standards means diversity inclusion.

This is more frustrating than I remember. It is really upsetting. It's like a 10 minute part of this interview that I cut down just to show that there are multiple times where did you add those little whooshes? Yeah, I added whooshes. So so perfect. Jonathan, I'm so impressed. Wow, thank you. The eagle takes flight once again. The eagle takes flight.

No wonder you missed what day it was. I was too busy adding whooshes to a clip. No, like he both said like he quote tweeted and he says, Dei puts the lives of your loved ones at risk He presents it as I think that is happening. Yeah, exactly then Don Lemons like do you have evidence of this and then he's like Well, it is happening. Yes, I believe there is evidence of it and then Don Lemon says what's the evidence and then he goes Well, if it's happening, it's bad. Yep. Like he just yeah, he is so full of shit and really bad at this Like he just. Yeah, he is so full of shit and really bad at this.

This is so frustrating because also like even he even, Tom Lemon points out like, so you quote tweeted this thread from Ben Shapiro about this and said like, look at, look at what's happening. Even, and so when he has asked evidence for evidence, he can't even like cite the bad thread that he quote tweeted or like cite an example. So it's so he knows that it's not happening. It is a hypothetical. And I did appreciate there was a moment where Lemon sort of like directly was like, so do you understand how this this comes off as very racist because you're saying that in order

to hire, you know, women or black people, other minorities, that you have to lower standards in order to do that, even though that's not happening. And I think he sort of like floundered and was unable to confront that aspect of what he's saying. Yeah, at one point, this isn't in the clip, but at one point he's like, well, I'm sure just post this and I'm sure the community notes will put in the evidence. And of course, there isn't't because the whole thing was about like Ben Shapiro said something

about Duke Medical School. And then so Duke Health had to tweet that it is not lowering standards for graduating from medical school. That's not what DEI is. And then there's also evidence that once Duke Medical School became more diverse, that GPAs went up. Yep. And this makes sense, because you have a larger pool of people to choose from. So if you're choosing the most meritus people from this larger group, right, you're

going to get better outcomes. But these people don't think that the most meritus people could possibly come from diverse groups. Exactly. That's the heart of this. They're just racist. He is just racist. He grew up in apartheid South Africa.

It is very clear what's going on here. He's a racist person. It's wild, because also the whole DEI thing is like, they're not lowering standards, they're just seeking out more people. They're reaching out to, there's so many people who are like, yeah, I got this position because of DEI,

or I went to this school because of this. And it's not that like, and I didn't have to do well, yeah, I was, you know, I got this position because of, uh, the, I are like, I went to this school because of this. And it's not that like, and I didn't have to do well, no, it's that they seek you out because you're exceptional in a field or, or something like that. So it's just like, absurd to ruin the reputation of their schools. They're not trying to, you know, by, uh, by just taking whatever applicants there, you know, by by just taking whatever applicants there, you know, yes, all the things we've already stated. And if you want to talk about lowering standards, how about legacy

admittance people that don't deserve to fucking be there that just get, you know, you want to shuttle through lowering standards, talk about the fucking Cybertruck, you weirdo. God. Yeah, this is just so frustrating, really racist and dishonest. Seeing him say if it's happening and then it is happening and then if it's happening back and forth, it like really just says everything about it. He is flustered. He doesn't know how to talk about this. He's not really ever been confronted in a way that like pinpoints like, you know what you're actually saying, right? And he hate him so much. And then Tim Pool talk about like someone who made an even more racist point.

Tim Pool shared a version of the clip we just played and was talking about all the if stuff and said, holy shit, Don Lemon can't comprehend conditional hypotheticals, which is this thing. Let's do it. Let's do it. It sucks. It's frustrating. So there is just for quick background, there is a 4chan post from a few years ago where this guy is like, I was a grad student and I worked a lot in IQ studies.

And I found that 95% of people with a sub 90 IQ don't understand conditional hypotheticals. And if you ask them, how would you feel if you hadn't had breakfast this morning? They don't understand the question. So Tim Pool is doing the racist thing, where he's being like, oh, see, Don Lemon literally doesn't understand the concept. So Tim Poole is doing the racist thing where he's being like, Oh, see, Don Lemon literally doesn't understand the concept of if and I'm pointing that out here.

Sorry, yeah. So first of all, Tim Poole is a stupid person. And a liar and the worst fire, the worst guesser in the world. He's just a bit of a dim bulb, a shallow pool, if you will. Oh, that's good. That's so good, Cody. Thank you so much. But all of that aside, hey, Tim, if you watch the video, you can hear Don Lemon say out loud with words,

but that's a hypothetical. He says out loud and acknowledges that it is a hypothetical, and the conversation is about if it is happening or not. Is it happening? No, I don't have any evidence of that. If it were, it would be bad. Don Lemon didn't disagree with that. He also agreed with that premise that if they were lowering the standards, that would be bad. He says that out loud.

So aside from like the whole like, you don't understand hypotheticals, gotcha, he did. It's in the clip. It's in the video several times examples of Don Lemon understanding that he was talking in hypotheticals, but the point was that it's not happening. Not a conditional hypothetical. It is, so like, oh my God, I know. It's so transparent.

So just folks, generally, if you are online and you see some fucking weird troll or some dipshit like Tim Poole, be like, how would you feel if you didn't have breakfast this morning? This is what is going on. That's what they're trying to do. It's pathetic and weird and stupid. And very clearly, Tim, he does understand.

It's in the clip that you shared. You stupid fucking asshole. Do you they keep trying to do and we can maybe play this whatever I would love to play this as well, because it shows they're trying to do this like gotcha thing. And then they're like wrong every time they fail for listeners. There's a podcast. You've probably seen it. It's called Whatever. It's by it's posted by the two most uncharismatic people you could possibly imagine,

and all they do is have on OnlyFans models to try to treat them like shit and make them feel bad about their lives. That is the function of the show to have young boys watch women be stupid and get owned by these guys. Okay. It is a gross thing.

It's very stupid. And again, the guys, it's very frustrating to watch because they're dim bulbs too, and they're very uncharismatic and often they bring stuff up that's so weird. I saw one where he was like, look at all these men, these famous celebrity actors who have gotten divorced. Isn't that a problem like from feminism?

And it's like it like Brad Pitt and like all these people getting divorced, like and if Brad Pitt problem from them. Yeah. And if Brad Pitt can't keep a chick, then what hope do I have? First of all, if you're saying keep a chick in the context of like a marriage, you fucking lost it, man. You don't know what you're doing or talking about. But also, Brad Pitt was very credibly accused of being abusive.

He flipped out on a plane and was threatening. Exactly. All these scenarios. And he left his first wife. Yes, most of these examples that he gave were men who very clearly and publicly cheated on their wives, and that's why it fell apart. And celebrities getting divorced

after like four years is a tale as old as time. This has always been happening. It's part of like celebrity cultures. Like who's like that's part of it. Elizabeth Taylor was married like 10 times. It's just like the whole thing is so absurd. And like again, like if Brad Pitt can't keep a chick, what hope do I have? I don't know. And like, again, like, if Brad Pitt can't keep a chick, what hope do I have? I don't know. Are you going to be like marrying Angelina Jolie? Get the fuck out of here. What are you talking about? But that's a separate conversation and clip that we don't need to go into further.

Here is them trying to prove that this woman on their show, this guest who they were talking about something else, it actually has a like a sub 90 IQ and doesn't deserve your respect. Right, because of this conditional hypothetical nonsense. Because of this bizarre series of questions. I did have one question for you, if you don't mind, just the last one. How would you feel if you didn't eat breakfast this morning?

Me? Yeah. I didn't. Yeah, how would you feel if you didn't eat breakfast this morning? How I feel right now, because I didn't eat breakfast this morning. Okay.

What's the point? Yeah. Thank you. So first of all, the guy, the host, really like, go find the clip folks if you want. The smugness on this guy's face is like, you can, it's dripping off his, the fucking screen. He's so proud of himself that he proved nothing

in this clip. It is absurd. She answered correctly. He asked, how would you feel if you didn't have breakfast this morning? And she didn't. And she said, like, I feel now, which is a correct answer to the question.

If he really wanted the answer to the question, he could have said, oh, okay. So what do you, how do you correct answer to the question. I wanted the answer to the question. He could have said, oh, OK, so what do you how do you feel right now? Right. Well, so here's the other thing. So he's first of all, if you're doing an interview with a person and it's like a podcast and you're interviewing about like only fans and like dating and relationships and stuff. And then suddenly you're like, oh, before you go,

how would you feel about if you didn't have breakfast this morning? What a weird, like non non sequitur question. I mean, the point is to make her seem stupid to his audience. Why? How does that make her seem stupid? Because if she doesn't understand the conditional hypothetical, then she has a low IQ. That's the premise of that question from this old 4chan post. So he's asking this question at the end of the interview

where they talked about other stuff to show his audience of like 15 year old boys that women are actually fucking stupid. She doesn't even understand the hypothetical except she did understand it. She didn't have breakfast that morning. And so the answer is like I feel now, if he wanted to push further, he could have said,

well, how do you feel right now? Maybe she would have said, I feel hungry or something like that. But it's his problem. He comes off as stupid because when he finds out that she didn't have breakfast that morning, it no longer is a hypothetical question. It leaves the realm that he wants to inhabit. So it's on him to come up. Exactly.

It's on him as a much smarter person than her to come up with a different hypothetical to ask her. He didn't do that. He just repeated the question and she answered it correctly. And he's like, see, you're fucking stupid. Right. Changes to how would you feel if you had had a big breakfast then, and then if she didn't understand the concept of that,

which is so stupid. It's so stupid. Yeah, but he clearly doesn't understand the concept if he can't pivot to a new question. He couldn't come up with a new question on the fly because of his dim brain. God, I hate that fucking podcast so much. Ew, I just said y'all.

We are so well past our break point. We're so well past it. Insert ads here. Well, hello there, my sweet ham. Are you one of those news perverts? Don't be ashamed. We're all news perverts here. And perhaps you want to support like-minded news freaks

like us, and wouldn't you know it, there's a way to do that. Just go to patreon.com slash some more news for early and ad-free episodes of our show. This show you are listening to or watching for just $5. Both some and even more news. Ad-free, no more ads because true news deviants want that uncut pure news, you sick freaks.

You're disgusting. That's patreon.com slash some more news. We also offer tiers where you can get your pervert name in our credits or even do an online hangout with myself and Cody, this is written for Katie, and the rest of the depraved some more news crew. So check it out, patreon.com slash Some More News. I'll say it one more time, patreon.com slash Some More News.

I won't say it again, maybe one more, okay? Patreon.com slash Some More News. Okay, I am done saying it. Sincerely, Katie, who this was written for. I'm Cody. We're back, we're back. We're so back. Uninsert them. Uninsert them, well keep them in.

Keep them in, but. Don't cut the ads. Yeah, don't cut the ads, I'm sorry. Are we done talking about that? I mean, look. Yeah, we can't be. I would love to get invited on that show. I got, I know. I mean, sometimes they have people on

who are like, I'm ready for your bullshit. Let's get me on that show. I would have fun with them. I don't think. I mean, sometimes they have people on or like, I'm ready for your bullshit. Let's get me on that show. I would have fun with them. I don't think I don't think they let anybody on the show. It doesn't do only fans. I think the whole premise of the show is let's make me an only fans. Katie, you don't want to do that. Well, I'm not gonna put anything sexy up. I might put my jar of honey up. Oh, God. Subscribe to the fans. Do you guys want to see my honey? Does this really come from you Katie? Sound off in the comments About whether I should make an only fans show you my honey and get invited on this bullshit show Fair plan. I'm sorry for telling you you didn't want to do that. You can do whatever you want. Obviously. I know. I know. I'm saying I'm sorry. Do it. Are we going to talk about something else now?

So at the end of this interview is when Elon Musk starts getting a little bit upset. And it is when? He's never been upset. No. Well, he does. He's a calm, collected fella. He's never been upset. No, well, he does. He's a calm, collected fellow. He is not. He doesn't get upset. So there's this bit where he's asked about advertisers leaving and if it's his fault or if it's the advertisers fault and let's just play it. Some whooshes in here as well.

Hell, yeah. So you said if they kill the company, it's them, but doesn't the buck stop with you? I mean, you're- John, I have to say, choose your question carefully, there's five minutes left. Hold up. What? Wait, guys, pause it. Sorry, sorry.

Wait, what? Okay. So this is towards the end of the interview. He has time, he doesn't need to be anywhere, because immediately after this, he like started texting his agent to cancel the contract. So clearly he didn't have anywhere to be. But the beginning of this is just incredible. We can listen to more. This is amazing. He's so upset about this question and needs Dawn to consider, maybe, you know, choose your questions carefully, you know,

otherwise maybe that contract is going to get canceled and you won't get your free cyber truck that you want for some reason, weirdo. But this is so interesting because it's not even interesting, it's just pathetic. Doesn't the buck stop with you is the most basic-ass question an interviewer could ask anybody who's in charge of anything, a president, any kind of world leader, any CEO of a company, anyone in charge of anything being asked, doesn't the buck stop with you, is like, just the most basic interview 101 shit. To be upset by this question, like immediately, just shows how thin-skinned and pathetic he is and how he needs to be, have his ass kissed constantly,

otherwise he feels like he's being attacked unfairly or something. What a weird reaction to a basic question. What part did this come into in the interview? How late in it? This is near the end. It's towards the end. This is like the very end. He's been worn down by now. Look, baby needs like a piece of candy to get his blood sugar up or ketamine.

But as we all know, 54 minutes of talking can get a little strenuous. And then those last five minutes are real. It's like the last 30 minutes of Saturday Night Live who knows All right, we'll keep going on this and see when we when we go on for 50 minutes or more We at least end by expressing our love to everybody so we keep it real and kind well Elon finishes this interview by Telling Don Lemon he loves him and giving him a big old kiss. Oh, good. Oh, I missed the smooch.

No one's sharing the smooch clip. That's so weird. Okay. Choose your question carefully. There's five minutes left. Okay, but so is this the question you want to ask? Same question as you said. You said that they are killing the company, but you're the head of the company.

Buck doesn't stop with you. I acquired X in order to preserve. We didn't you didn't acquire X amendment. You acquired Twitter and renamed it. I'm just being honest, right? I'm not trying to get you or anything. I was just surprised that you would blame other people for killing the company. I mean, you're the I mean, when you say the buck stops with the president of the United States,

regardless of what happens, right? So, why would that question upset you? You seem upset by it, are you? I think you- And I'm not trying to upset you. Well, you are upsetting me, because the way you're phrasing the questions, I think is not cogent.

It's not what? Not cogent. It's not. Cogent? Sorry, we gotta stop, sorry, sorry. Does he know what cogent. It's not not cogent. It's not cogent. Sorry, we got to stop. Sorry. Sorry. Does he know what cogent means? No, I think he meant coherent or something or like coheat. Like, I don't know what he meant. I think you could make an argument that cogent works there,

but I think he wanted it to be more like it wasn't. It wasn't like a clear argument in the sense that it's out of line and cogent doesn't mean out of line Right or not cogent doesn't mean out of the question makes sense. There's a logic to it He laid it out and must visit visit visibly agreed with it when he's like you buck stops with the president, right? And you don't like yeah Anyway, weird moment very funny that Tom was like wait, I'm sorry what? All right, the rest of this it's not what not cordials cogent Anyway, weird moment. Very funny that Tom was like, wait, I'm sorry, what?

All right, let's get the rest of this. It's not what? Not cogent. Cogent. Yes. Go ahead. So listen, I'm not, honestly, I'm not meaning to offend you. You're an intense person.

Where does that intensity come from? I was born that way. And I had a tough childhood. You did? So, Yeah. How so? I'd welfare Isaacson goes into it in the book. And we only have a couple minutes left. So all right, too long to describe. The one or two questions I can do and then we'll call it. Okay, again, I don't mean to upset you. Why are you? You just

know, I have a whole room full of people waiting to meet with me. So. First day of the time. Like he's clearly very upset by the suggestion. Well, he's doing a couple things because he is both saying, and he made the same kind of contradiction

in the original interview, I think on CNBC, where he was like, go fuck yourself to the advertisers, where he's like, you think you can buy me off with money? I'm the richest person in the world. So if you threaten me with money, I'm not going to waver on free speech because of money. But then a few minutes later, he's like, but it will kill the company. We need the money. But you know, if you don't give us the money it's going to destroy the company like and he has no

and he just gets very upset if anyone's like hey you're the ceo isn't uh aren't you in charge of all this shit yeah yeah um it's very uh he's so fragile yeah he is i want to make one more point before we move on from musk and this is just a stupid tweet i want to read um because before we move on from Musk and this is just a stupid tweet I want to read because someone would suggest, someone said and I don't, this is like has nothing to do with a stuttering or people who have a stutter but Elon was clearly a little bit flustered and someone tweeted that Don Lemon had his ass stuttering like Porky and someone replied to that, when you are 10 times more intelligent than everyone else you have to dumb down and simplify your words So that normies like you can understand it. He doesn't stutter when talking to his highly intelligent engineer buddies. I just can't

People just put him on their pedestal ten times more intelligent than everyone else Buddy, god, come on, man Come on, you can have better heroes Ten times more intelligent than everyone else, buddy. God. Come on, man. Come on. You can have better heroes. Good job to that person for writing the funniest satire of a Twitter blue account I could think of. I bet he does stutter when he talks about it to his engineering buddies.

But yeah, it was clearly like, again, like this isn't about stuttering or anything like that. This is just sort of he was flustered and can't really communicate. He's not a great communicator. He probably just did not expect this to be as hard hitting or it's not even that hard hitting. But he didn't expect this to be as difficult. He expected Don to be on his side since or something since this is the show on, I guess I have to call it X. That's part of a Twitter show.

I think that maybe Don asked for the Cybertruck as a joke, or that's possible just to see how much you can get out of it. But I don't know. It's like it clearly, you know, they also like shouldn't you want this? Shouldn't you want like, yeah, even even Don Lemon, who like aggressively interviews me, even I want him on the app, because right, it's about free speech and different perspectives, like he should have welcomed this sort of approach. And like, I don't even

think Don Lemon did like a great job necessarily. It's just like these few moments are like, well, that's an interesting interaction. He's just a really bad communicator, which is interesting, considering he values free speech so much and bought this communication website. There's another moment we don't need to like listen to, but it's when Don brings up one of the like one of the many, many tweets he's made about the invasion at the border and all that. And he like quote tweeted a thing. And in the original tweet, it talks about the Hispanic invasion. And Lemon brings this up to him and Elon sort of like, well, I don't,

you know, I don't agree with every single thing I tweet or like that. Why tweet it? Right. Well, right. And we're saying like, well, you know, I just there's maybe information in there that I want to boost, or I think it's an important issue or whatever. I don't necessarily agree with everything in those tweets or whatever. And it's a nice little move that he can do so he can just tweet exclamation points at anything with racism or whatever in it. And he it's not a value judgment. I just wanted to boost it on

the website where I boost my own tweets and responses. So he's putting all this stuff out there with no quote, like commentary from him. but it's very clear what he wants people to think about these issues. And I also think it's interesting that he, at least in that interaction, seemed to implicitly acknowledge that there's a problem with that language. That Hispanic invasion talk, I don't agree with that.

I wasn't sharing it because of that. I was doing it because of another reason. I don't agree with everything I put out there. So it's interesting that he like has to sort of acknowledge like, yeah, that stuff is bad. There's like this, this under this rhetorical underpinning of this issue that I do reject, but I'm just not going to be very discerning and I'm going to actually continue to promote it

on this website, where my tweets don't matter, even though free speech is the most valuable thing in the world. And I'm the richest guy in the world. I own the platform and I artificially boost my tweets. But my speech isn't valuable to anybody. It's just the whole thing is absurd. Shall we move on to another topic? Would love to.

There's other things to talk about. For sure. Oh, yes. Would love to. There's other things to talk about for sure. Oh yes, Jonathan Glazer. We're gonna talk about Jonathan Glazer and the letter from 450 Jewish creatives and professionals, Jonathan, will you set this up for us? Yeah, it's been almost two weeks since the Oscars when Jonathan Glazer, the director

of Zone of Interest, gave a speech after winning for best international feature, saying that his Jewishness and the Holocaust should not be used to justify dehumanization or violent atrocities around the world. He mentioned both October 7th and Gaza, but people specifically, a lot of Zionists are fuming about it still. Variety published a letter this week by 450 Jewish creatives and professionals who denounced the comments, who wrote things like, the use of words like occupation to describe an indigenous Jewish people defending a homeland that dates back thousands of years and has been recognized as a state by the United Nations distorts history. We don't need to go into what's wrong with that. It is really astounding to me that Glazer's comments, which seemed designed to not offend people, to be a blanket

anti-dehumanization and condemning violence on both October 7th and violence that is happening toward Palestinians in Gaza, it really, really inflamed a lot of passions, including, I mean, we said 450, but the letter went up to more than a thousand signatories because it was a Google form that anyone could sign. Yeah, I'm sure that that's a really well, yeah, they can really back up that they're all, everyone's Jewish and professional in this industry. It's just an open Google, whatever.

But yeah, I was really taken aback by this too, because I thought that his comments were so universal and fine. I guess I saw the way that it was specifically phrased. I'm looking for the quote. I know it's in here from his speech. Oh, right now we stand here as men who refute their Jewishness and the Holocaust being hijacked by an occupation,

which has led to conflict for so many innocent people. I mean, I guess as a standalone who refute their Jewishness, I saw people getting upset. It's like, well, finish the sentence. He's not saying well, finish the sentence. He's not saying he refutes the idea of his name being used as a justification to, you know, for all of what's happened. And I was just, I mean, I guess not shocked, but Yeah, people are very quick to take any quote and manipulate it to their purposes. And then

those interpretations spread and become like, kind of like accepted as like, yeah, he said this, this is what he said. I felt like after the Oscars, there was just like these two camps of people being like, I can't believe he said this. And then people like, wait, there's the full quote, though. Yeah. I mean, and then he says, whether the victims of October 7th in Israel or the ongoing attack on Gaza, all the victims of this dehumanization, how do we resist? Like, it seems like he went out of his way to be like, hey, look, both sides, look at this. Instead of, you know, I mean, I know it's the word occupation that kind of triggered triggered a lot of people here. Well, I think also yet is that it was that that cut off of the line, right?

Where like it's like it's not even awkwardly said that much, but it's people thought like, oh, he refutes his Jewishness. No, no, no. Again, like continue the sentence. I think that really stuck with people, too, of like, oh, you refute your Jewishness. Now it's like, no, as this tool. Right. He's like, no, that's what I'm saying is that my Jewishness has nothing to do with the state of Israel making political and military decisions. That's the point I am making. I embrace my Jewishness.

I reject it being used for this is what he was saying. And so because of anger at that speech, there are now there are renewed attacks on this film. It's wild. The Zone of Interest, which if you haven't seen it, is following the family of Rudolf Housh, who was the he was in charge of Auschwitz. And his family lived right there. And so the film is following them and their daily pastoral life, where over the wall you can hear gunshots and see the smoke rising.

And that's what it's about, is the distinction between this life they are living and kind of going through their daily routines while atrocities are committed on the other side of a wall sounds very familiar. And so there's this opinion piece on CNN by Wesley and Professor Peter Rutland, who seemingly did not understand any of what I just said, which again is not like complicated. I'm not a film scholar by saying that. Right. I'll read. No, you're a movie watcher. Read apart. I'm and then I want to. Yeah. We don't have to go through all this because I really like this whole article like kind

of blew my mind. He says, Indeed, the film implies that Hosch was just doing his job. But Hosch was not just a bored bureaucrat and family man. He was a fanatical Nazi who had joined the party in 1922 and was sent to jail for participating in a political assassination the following year. If you haven't seen the movie, it does not imply that he is just doing his job. It does not imply that.

Like, obviously not. And then that's it's such a blatant misrepresentation of what the film is supposed to be and a blatant misunderstanding of the message of the film, which prior to Jonathan Glazer's Glazer's speech, people seemed to get this article. This review goes on to say Zone of Interest is a rather tedious film. It barely has a plot and the conversations and daily routines are repetitious. It's like, I mean, anyway, I'm not going to part of it. That's part of it. Part of it.

He's again deliberately misrepresenting and misunderstanding. But I just want to say not that the Academy always gets things right, or that you should just inherently trust their opinions on things. However, Zone of Interest has accumulated a massive amount of nominations, including Best Picture in addition to a best international feature, the con Grand Prix, you know, Palm d'Or, the con jury prize Golden Globes. I mean, this is a universally a film that has received wide critical acclaim. Steven Spielberg called it the best Holocaust film since his chinler's list. And so you're going to just come out here. And again, I welcome film criticisms, but this shit that's happened after the Academy Awards is an about face

about all of these people considered about this film. It's wild. It's very funny. It's the it's I mean, it stems. Yeah, it stems from that speech and just like people being like upset and wanting to like, tear that movie down as a statement about what's going on in Israel and Palestine. That's what like this is all about. It's why like, as soon as that speech was made, there's this thread, we talk about it in our Lady Ballers episodes, where Ben Shapiro does this thread about how like, about this issue, and how like the movie is

actually very bad and like representative of Jonathan Glazer's opinion of like Jews need to be quiet and not seen. And there's all this other stuff bubbling up that is not about the film. It's about the speech. It is a direct response to the acceptance speech and not a response to the film. Well, it shows like the part of what the movie does is shows how it's easy to dehumanize people when you never see them, when you never see footage of them or photographs of them. And these Ben Shapiro and then this guy

are criticizing things that are not in the, criticizing the movie that they wanted instead of the movie that is. He wrote, likewise, the local girl going out at night to leave food for the camp inmates based on a true story will have mystified most of the audience. The scene will have pleased the Polish authorities who helped to produce the film

since it portrays the Poles as helping the Jews. Yes, some Poles did heroically help Jews, but some joined in pogroms or betrayed Jews in hiding to the Germans. These grim facts have been documented by historian Jan Gross, provoking intense controversy in Poland. No sign of that in this film.

Okay, so you can't just watch a movie and say, it should have had this other thing that's irrelevant to the story I was telling. Yeah. Even in like Oppenheimer, the argument of like, well, they should have shown some of the devastation in Hiroshima, I think is, well, we can debate that, but I think that's even more valid than this where it's like, oh, see a Holocaust movie is only valid to me

if you see like Jewish people being brutally slaughtered by like not humans who are able to do horrible things, but monsters. And I think it does a real disservice to our present and future to be like, well, no, the Nazis were uniquely different than people are now. They were a unique kind of evil. Like, no, they were human beings

that justified committing atrocities because they thought they were doing the right thing. Isn't that more horrifying? They're not monsters existing? Yeah. Monsters existing. Right. Yeah, exactly. Exactly. And that that confrontation, I think, is really hard for people to look at, especially like you're saying, like in today's context and looking at the present and towards the future. And yeah, to be like, well, you got to put this in here.

I was like, well, that's a different movie. That's a completely different thing. Also, it's weird to be like, why they show this to put this in here. I was like, well, that's a different movie. That's a completely different thing. Also, it's weird to be like, why they show this based on a true story thing that happened. Like, well. It's like either a purpose, it's another purposeful misunderstanding,

it feels like to me. Yeah, it's the whole thing is purposefully misunderstanding it. There's this other passage about, and sorry, folks, see the movie, sorry, spoilers and things like that. But there's this bit where he talks about several scenes will leave viewers confused such as the one where host finds a jawbone while fishing in the river and drags his kids out of the water.

I would not have known what was happening except I had previously read in a review that there are supposedly human remains being dumped in the river. How do you not? How? How? He was. How do you do that? He was scrolling on his phone while watching the movie. Like, seriously, like wasn't there's like blood in the water. Like, yeah, like and like even even if like even if it wasn't filmed in a way that like really like telegraphs that information.

What movie are you watching? Where's the location that this movie is taking place? Do you know the premise of the film? Just knowing the premise of the film, you can parse what is going on in that scene. And it's just a review admitting, I didn't understand this, everyone else did, but I didn't. It's very weird.

You're just telling on yourself, man. And we are nearing the end of our time here, but we got one more quick thing. Yeah. We should talk about this Trump bloodbath audio briefly. Yeah, I think we should talk about it real quick, because this is sort of, and Jonathan's pointing out, there's this sort of,

the listeners might notice a running theme. This week. This week about sort of language and the breakdown of language and how we are all incapable of listening to each other and talking to each other and like, even just like literally like quoting each other in context

and addressing these things. Jonathan Glazer's statement was wildly misinterpreted. And then now people are like, well, actually, I didn't understand the movie that was clear. Elon Musk, questions of DEI. Yeah, exactly. DEI. Like, it's not happening. I don't understand hypotheticals. And then like asking a hypothetical question that's not really hypothetical in the context of some other interview and being like, see, I got you. It's all this sort of like, we're all these little bubbles

that we have with the language that we understand and other bubbles have different language and rhetoric and we cannot pierce those bubbles. And then we get these situations where we're like, I can't believe they said this. Well, they didn't actually say that, but they meant it. Like, well, maybe, but they didn't say,

like, there's no way to talk about this stuff. It's very frustrating. Cody and I talked about this before the show. But we want to credit Kyla Scanlon because she's been talking about this a lot. Former guest of the show, Kyla Scanlon, who wrote about like how these language barriers and how this may be part of the erosion of trust in our society, which is a very interesting thing to think about. So go read her stuff, especially especially in the context of this next clip

We're about to share. Okay so yeah Trump said that it'll be a bloodbath if he doesn't win and So the Democrats are pointing to that and being like we'll see what he says He's gonna do and then Republicans are saying well this the clip is taken out of context He was talking about the auto industry. So let's play about 40 seconds. Judge for yourself. Tell you something to China. If you're listening, President Xi and you and I are friends, but he understands the way I deal those big monster car manufacturing plants that you're building

in Mexico right now. And you think you're going to get that you're going to not hire Americans and you're going to sell the cars to us now We're going to put a 100% tariff on every single car That comes across the line and you're not going to be able to sell those cars if I get elected Now if I don't get elected, it's going to be a bloodbath for the whole that's going to be the least of it It's going to be a bloodbath for the country. That'll be the least of it. But they're not going to sell those cars and building. So so a few things. One, Trump's tariff plan seems to probably get a lead to more inflation. Just going to say that. So one of the ways you can get more inflation is high tariffs like that. But I'm of a couple of minds about this because there is an element that is where he does seem

to be veering off in this other direction where he's not necessarily talking about cars. Like that's a whole other thing. The whole country is a sort of thing. There's also a common phrase other people like pundits have used the phrase bloodbath in referring to like elections and things and the economy, things like that that aren't

about literal violence. And Trump has said a lot of other things that allude to literal violence. And a lot of his little weird little lackeys like just over a few days ago, Jack Bsobek was like, we're going to like, go after the unhumans, cultural Marxists refer to them as unhumans, go after the unhumans, cultural Marxists refer to them as unhumans, and that we are going to, they're going to destroy democracy if they lose. And Charlie Kirk said recent things like that. I don't know. But like, I think that there's a gross misrepresentation sometime, often, in our reporting and the way we interpret things like we've already established. I mean, but he's not directly when when taken out of context before investigating this, what I saw was Trump says there's going to be a bloodbath if he loses, which is a very different

meaning than regardless of whether or not he's going off script and there's different ways to interpret this moment. It's it's. You can't just say that that's exactly what he was saying. He wasn't just, you know, he was talking about multiple things and there's a misrepresentation, but you also can't go the other way and say that it isn't something to be concerned about. There's different nobody's actually talking about the literal thing that was. He also says this stuff, all that stuff like this all the time, and he does go off the rails and talk about other stuff.

So like the idea that he, in his mind is like, yeah, and also there's gonna be like violence in the streets if I lose, which he probably thinks, that is a direction his mind can go. You know, in this speech, he referred to migrants as animals, and he said, I don't know if you can call them people. In some cases, they're not people in my opinion. These are bad, these are animals. He said, I don't know if you can call them people. In some cases, they're not people in my opinion.

These are animals. That's real bad. Right? He called January 6th defendants hostages. He's been referring to them as hostages. And if he wins, we're going to treat the hostages. So I guess they won't be hostages anymore if he wins. Tapping into some key language these days.

Yeah, exactly. So saying and, you know, so he's not very careful with his words. That is violent language. And he uses figurative violent language all the time. Like this specific instance of bloodbath was probably a figurative bloodbath. But he says stuff like this all the time. And so I understand Democrats have to pick a thing to go after because you can't be like, hey, remember how bad Trump was when he first got elected? It's so long ago. We don't remember whatever. So we need to pick something new. So I think they just could have picked anything else

from this speech because I think now we get bogged down in this argument about context. And obviously he was talking about car companies just before, but his mind goes, like, there's no way to know what was going on in his neurons at that moment. Because, like, and because he's definitely the candidate now, we're going to be hearing a lot more of his speeches. And that's important, because he is all over the place. Yes. Like, he is different even than six, seven, eight years ago.

He is dehumanizing a lot of people. He is violent. He, yeah. It has gotten so much worse. And we, and this is the other thing where it's like, wait, wait, wait a week. He'll say like the explicit stuff he's gonna get to. And like you said, like there is other, there are other moments in that speech

that I think were a lot more clearly calls for violence and like a violent sort of rhetorical approach. But it is because it's so embedded in this weird like, well, he's talking about this, then he fears off and he does that a lot. And he's kind of saying this. But then he like came back to it and it's, it's just not effective, whether or not he meant it. Because like, we all know, like, if you're, if you're like, if you don't like Donald Trump for many, many reasons, you probably know what he would like to happen. You probably already know that he is the kind of person who would call for violence if you lost and will again, and all these sort of things. And so you're not gonna convince anybody

who already thinks that more so. And anybody who doesn't think that it's gonna get, like you're saying, like bogged down into this sort of like, well, what does he mean? And then I've actually seen, it's so frustrating because then it swings over to this other side where I'm now seeing right wing accounts and I think Elon even fucking retweeted it

or something like this, where now the claim is that not only are they misinterpreting it, but actually the full, the real quote is that Trump said there will be a bloodbath in the auto industry. That's the claim now, like literally like in text. And that's not what he said. And that's not what he said either. That's like really not what he said.

Right. So it's just like this whole, it's fucking makes everything impossible. Very frustrating. I agree with you completely. Yes. I think we should wrap this up. We gotta go record even more cues. We get to go record. Little plug for our up. We got to go record even more cues

We get to we get to do you want to listen to that subscribe to our patreon? No, but you we did it you guys. I think this is a good conversation. Thank you so much I agree with you completely stamp of approval. I'm sure everyone agrees with us too. Mm-hmm Completely I not great, but mmm. I mean about the show great good Yeah, you're not this lump of honey at my feet Thinking about it call your name. We're good. We got to sell that lump of honey now some lump of But we'll be back next week for sure and in the meantime I want you guys to remember remember

That we love you very much And this is the first and only news podcast. Thank you The infamous true crime series, cold case files. You explained to me how she went over the edge of that cliff. Is back with new podcast episodes. The victim's own sock was used to strangle her. Immersing you in harrowing tales. We immediately thought that was foul play.

That will give you a desire for justice. He heard a slight noise and turned around and she was no longer there. Take the journey with investigators as these new cold case files unfold. He's done with these teenage girls and he dumps them. With some of the most chilling true crime stories ever heard. And he deserved to be caged, locked up like the animal he is. Listen to the Cold Case Files podcast now available wherever you get your podcasts.