Honey Badger Radio

Neil Gaiman In the #metoo crosshairs, a woman's scorn from beyond the grave | HBR News 463

Hello and welcome to HBR News where we talk about the news of the week! This week we discuss the latest updates on the Covenant shooting, writer Neil Gaiman is accused of sexual assault, a woman takes her child into Ukraine despite the father's wishes to keep them safe, and more!

Duration:: 1h 26m
Broadcast on:: 13 Jul 2024
Audio Format:: mp3

(upbeat music) This is HBR News #463. Neil Gaiman and the Me Too Crosshairs, a woman's scorn from beyond the grave. We discuss the news of the week and give it the Badger treatment. Hello everybody and welcome to Honey Badger Radio. I hope you guys are doing well this weekend that you are laughing at all of the absurdity so that you are not consumed by it. My name is Brian and I'm joined by, as always, my lovely and intrepid co-hosts, Mike and Hannah. And we're gonna be talking about some new stuff this week. So on this week's show, we've got some new updates regarding the covenant shooting. Neil Gaiman, you guys might know the writer, Neil Gaiman, famous for his book Sandman. He was a comic book writer, but I think he also writes some stories. He's even written some movie screenplays in the past and he was basically like a beloved author, especially amongst seen girls. And apparently he's under fire for SA is what I'll put it that way. A woman, despite her, the father of her child's wishes, takes her kid into Ukraine, which is a, well, it's a problem and more. So stick around, it's gonna be a good time. And be sure to join us afterwards for the patron-only show. Well, I know, I know, it's kind of baked in. Well, it's the, I am bound by my script, I am. But I also think that there is some, I don't know, I feel like there's going to be suffering, there's gonna be turmoil in the world. And the only thing that we can do is hope that the damage is minimal and more than that, hope that people can learn something from it so that they can avoid it in their own life. I've got all possible, I don't know what else to do. Like these things are gonna happen. Yeah, that's true. And there will be a good discussion. So Mike, we're saying they can't hear you. I wanna check and make sure that, oh, oh, yeah, here we go. Yeah, no, it's good now, it should be good. - Turn up, I think I'm turned up full. - Yeah, yeah, you're good, you're good. - I'll just talk loud. - No, you don't have to, I think we're good. Okay, it's just that there's like a lot of settings. And when I do the shows with Allison, my different things are at different volumes. And then when I do this one, it's a whole different setup. And I have to like bear that in mind. So you are, you guys should be good. So, all right, anyway, let's see, oh yeah. So we're gonna be getting into the stories and I was gonna say, oh yeah, and be sure to join us after those are the picture-only show. So Allison gave Riverside a shot. She's not really a fan of Riverside as both a podcasting service and a clip-making service because it is overpriced. And I told her it sounded really overpriced, but she is using something called Opus Clip now. And Opus Clip seems to be a lot, have a lot of advantages that the other thing didn't have. And so we're gonna be going through the Opus Clip for the last show that we did with Allison, which is the show that I did, which is called "Women Should Be Roasted," and this is why. So you can join us and look at the clip and maybe engage in some women roasting of your own. If you wish to do that, you have to become a badger yourself. By going to feedthebadger.com and setting up a monthly subscription, feedthebadger.com/subscribe to do that. Five bucks a month, we'll get you into our Discord where you'll be able to watch a lot of additional content and do all the things with the other patrons that are there. So hopefully we'll see you guys there. And if you don't wanna wake up one morning to find that our content is no longer on the internet at all, or at least it doesn't seem to be, but the internet never forgets. So you will be able to find it by going to badgerfeed.com or honeybadgerradio.com to find all of our content archived. All right. So with all of that out of the way, let us get into the stories today. Well, that kind of rhymed. I didn't mean for it to, but it does. Okay, so this is an update on the Covenant school shooting that happened, right? By the trans man, Audrey Elizabeth Hale. And this is, people are trying to get answers, questions answered and all that. So here's the latest. So Tennessee Chansery Court Judge Ayesha L. Miles, pictured here, ruled in a decision released at 11.50 APM on Thursday that none of the writings left by Covenant school killer Audrey Elizabeth Hale shall be released to the multiple parties who sued Metro Nashville to secure those that release citing the copyright claims of the parents she earlier allowed to intervene in the lawsuit. The Tennessee start editor in chief, Michael Patrick Leahy or Leahy was among those from the media suing to compel the release of Hale's writings. Prior to her ruling, Miles first controversially allowed parents from the Covenant school, the Covenant school and the Covenant Presbyterian church to intervene in the case after Hale's family claimed they assigned them the copyright of her written materials. Miles declared in her Friday ruling, quote, materials created by Hale are exempted from disclosure based on the federal copyright act, end quote. Miles also stated that, quote, the release of the remaining documents, which are not original, derivative or compilation works created by the assailant is further constrained by the exceptions to disclosure set forth by the general assembly during the pendency of this investigation and any legal proceedings thereafter, the investigative files of the police and materials therein are not available, end quote. - The police are in possession of these documents, correct? These 50 pages of this murder suicide note. That's why it's so hard to get hold of them because they're in police custody, right? That's surely that's where they will stay, come what may. Is there really a copyright law so serious, so felonous that it supersedes the police in whichever agencies to whom the police answers and their collective obligation to keep hold of evidence crucial to a case, a mass murder case no less. Like, why is copyright law even? Like, what is it doing here? That's not, it's just a different sitcom altogether. It's like Chief Wigam turning up on the X files. Like, why are you here? No one asked for this. But apparently, some parents own these documents and since they haven't relinquished them, they apparently want to own these documents. For what purpose I don't know, pin it to the fridge, sure, whatever, if it's all you have, it's all you have. But while the parents apparently own it, the police are gonna hang on to it anyway indefinitely, right? So what's even the point in any of this and any of these hairs and any of the splitting of these hairs? For everyone who's yelling at me right now because you understand the law, shut up, I'm doing a bit. Is that really how this works? Parents just own this shit by default. 'Cause if that's the case, then someone owes Ted Kuzinski's parents a pretty penny. 'Cause that's the stuff of a legend. The blank and its consequences have been a disaster. So that's their meme. They own that. If you've ever used that meme, you owe a kickback to Mr. and Mrs. Kuzinski of the Kuzinski estate. Who gets the rights to a 10-part Netflix series about a certain Supreme gentleman who mostly left his video manifesto online for all to see. How many of us are gonna have to scrub away a lot of online content from 10 years ago, lest we be sued for copyright infringement by the evil stepmother who kind of allegedlyed the whole thing into existence in the first place. Someone's got a hold of Anne Frank's diary, some museum somewhere is making a fortune, a gatekeeping, the document that proves that history is not always written by the winners. And it seems they owe that fortune to Mr. and Mrs. Frank, who I presume are also presumed dead. So to whom do we give these reparations? We'll have to trace it back as far as we can and then trace it forward as far as we can. And so we're just like, it's just the Jews in it. Just give it to the Jews, just let them do whatever they want with it and we won't have to feel guilty. - With interest, of course. - We're doing a bit. So, here you go, the Bible. God wrote the Bible. So it belongs to God's parents. What, where are we now? (laughing) God's for this recursion. It's by God, God is God's own parent as God is God's own Holy Spirit or whatever. I think that's how it works. So it's in all bootstraps itself. We are all one consciousness experiencing yourself subjectively. So you can just pay anyone for a Bible, anyone or anything. You can give a cow two shekels and say, thanks for the Gideon's Bible. And then we like, move. And it all comes around one way or the other. So yeah, don't feel bad. Children get murdered all the time. It's part and parcel. Have you tried just not fucking worrying about it? (laughing) All right, I'm done. You may now tell me for everything I got wrong about this case. - It's gonna be an interesting thing to see if this goes, if people appeal this and it goes to higher courts and everything, because anything that's been written, you can copyright it. Any artwork, any creation that you've done, it can be, the creator can copyright it. It can be copyrighted by the person who owns it. So if the creator dies and the creator's parents or siblings or children or whatever inherit it, they can copyright it. And thanks to Disney copyright lasts a long time. So it's possible that we may not find out the answer to whether or not this person actually committed this crime because both of her parents molested her for 75 years. - Wait, wait, wait, wait. Do you think that? - I mean, do you think that? - Well, I think that they have something to hide. - Yeah, I think there is a shame that they do have to hide for sure. - We certainly don't know. We don't know that it didn't happen because there's nothing out there published from the manifesto that says that's not the reason, right? There's nothing out there published from the manifesto that says it's not because her parents beat her. Nothing out there from the manifesto saying that it's not because her parents forced her to transition against her will or nothing saying that they left her with somebody that did her terrible harm and maybe knew about it or didn't listen to her when she complained. Nothing like that has been published because the parents hit it. So any speculation whatsoever that we might make, well, there's no proof against it. We have no reason to be certain that they did nothing wrong. That's the only say about it. Like they just basically put a target on themselves that they've got something to hide in that manifesto. We don't know what it is. And the worst possible speculations that you can come up with, well, they just hid the only thing that could prove them wrong. - Yeah, but it is interesting. This is a really unique case because as Mike's was doing in his bit, there's lots of people who have done things and they're been manifestos and they haven't really been a problem to find, or at least in many cases, if it turned out they were, I don't know, like white supremacists or misogynists or whatever, the narrative of the day is no problem finding those, but this one is really under wraps. And it could be because the parents have some skeletons in the closet, they're trying to hide. I don't know, but I do hope that they take it all the way 'cause we wanna know the truth. And you know, this isn't the only trans shooting event that's happened or the only incident that we never learned anything about. Do you remember the Vegas shooter? Yeah, we never, that was just like, we don't know anything about that anymore. That's just kind of water of the bridge now. Or there are other incidences of trans, like youths, you know, lashing out on the general public. And I think that what is really in danger is not necessarily something on the individual level, like with those individuals and maybe like, what like their personal experience or their trauma was, but I think it may have something to do with something that could be effective on a larger scale. Like the various kinds of medications they were on, the kind of treatments that they were getting, the kind of ways in which the people that were like sort of like authority figures outside of their parents were involved with their lives. And I have a feeling that there's something about that that has, 'cause why would a judge go this far if there wasn't something someone or-- I don't think that because that's what the law says. The copyright law does actually give the parents the right to copyright that piece of work and to hide it from the public, to say nobody can publish it, that is legal. So the judge didn't have much of a choice in the matter. That's the law. What I'm looking at this from a different perspective, like the law, the judge can't just be like, well, you know, in this instance, for no reason other than that people really, really want to violate the copyright, it's legal to violate the copyright. That's, there are ways, there is such a thing as fair use that can allow copyright to be not violated but you can get around it. So like if you're making something for the purpose of educating the public and or if you're doing something transformative, there are some instances where that does allow, it doesn't mean like a teacher can just mass produce copies of something and hand it out to their students but they can show it in the classroom, for instance. - Sure. - So there's a lot of things like that that copyright can be a little bit malleable but the judge couldn't just rule that they have to hand it out to anybody who asks. - Right, sure. - Now, there may be the Supreme Court, that's basically how copyright's been interpreted in the past, right? The Supreme Court could come along and say, well, in this instance, it's newsworthy so it can be reported on and copyright can be violated that way but they haven't done that so far with something like it. - Well, that judge is kind of, it's not really the judge being activist here. It's-- - No, but-- - Parents being activist, this is a hundred-- - Sure. - Parents blame for this situation. - Sure. - And I think they're hiding something and it might be that they are to blame for the shooting. - Yeah, it's possible, it's possible. - I don't want to get down. Like, there are things I could say about the judge. I mean, she does kind of look like an only fans model in a robe. - That doesn't necessarily mean that she's wrong about this, you know? - Yeah, right, right. - Like, I don't wanna have us saying things about the judge that are not true. I suspect the parents. And that's why I made that point about, you know, the worst allegations against the parents that you could make as far as what they may have done to cause their daughter to do this. Could be true for all we know, we don't know because they just hid the evidence. - Right, right, and well, what I was gonna say is though, is that they could, isn't it also true that they could just violate the copyright to release the information and just like pay the fine or whatever. Like, I don't know how serious like that. I don't think it's a felony. So they're, you know, they might, it's sort of like, do you do the right thing? Do you do the right thing? Knowing there will be consequences, but saying, you know what, I'll deal with the consequences 'cause I think that releasing the information is more important. - Yeah, it depends on how much value gets assigned to this. Like if it's really sought out by a lot of people and the parents put a price tag on it and it's a high price tag, if it's not enough, there are serious penalties, there's jail time, there's, you could have whatever equipment you used to dispense the information destroyed. So for instance, if somebody published it in a newspaper and I could be their whole printing press system down, any computer they used to, like so it is something that you have to exercise a lot of caution with. - Well, some of these pages have all-- - Disney for this, Disney put big teeth in copyright law. Because they wanted to protect their works from being used by people after a certain period of time. They extended it, they had it extended for a long time. And I mean, Congress is the one that made the laws, right? But they made it at the behest of Disney. This is pretty much why it is such a strong law in the United States. - Yeah, yeah. All right, well, hopefully, like I said, because some of these pages have already been leaked, Stephen Crowder's investigative journalist, sort of like team that he works with, they got their hands on a few, a number of pages from the manifesto. I don't know if that will result in penalties or if there are legal fees or legal struggles that most people will have to go through, but I just want the truth. So I hope we can get it. All right, well, let us know what you guys think about this one of the comments. We gotta move on to the next story. So I got a superchow from Not Clyde with an eye. And to give us $10, thank you, Not Clyde. And they say, they molested her for 75 years? No. They, the 75 years refers to how long the copyright will essentially protect the document or property. So they wouldn't be able to show it for 75 years. If there was evidence of molestation or talk of molestation, you wouldn't learn about it for 75 years. I know it sounded like that, 'cause when I heard it, I had a moment of what, 75 years? She's only like 19. - 75 years. - But it's, that's how long, yeah, that's how long it would be before you found out. So that's, that's just said. The other thing is if somebody does release that information now without the parent's permission, it's, it's entirely possible, like I said, if they put a big price tag on, on that, that document, then that individual could go to jail. Now Disney's not the one that did that. The, the company that was created to enforce copyright against people who were downloading songs on peer-to-peer websites, they're the ones that put those particular teeth into the-- - Napster? - Napster. - Yeah, Napster, not Napster. Napster was actually the one down, oh, I'm making the downloads available. I can't remember the-- - Oh! - The-- - Well, I'm, I'm just gonna, I'm just gonna blame Metallica then. - Yeah, so, thanks Metallica. (laughing) - You remember, you remember Metallica was really upset about that when Napster was around. - And copyright law enforcement is now like a freight train and come, come in your way, but, but yeah. - All right. - So now, my, my point about that isn't that, you know, I necessarily think anything specific in regard to what the parents did to cause this, but I have reason to believe now is since they are trying to hide what she said, it must have been about them and it must have been pretty bad. - Yeah, it must have been pretty bad. That, that's what I wanna know. But anyway, let us know what you guys think about this one. We're gonna move on to the next story. So let's get into it. (grunting) Isn't that how the Metallica guy sounds? All right, so we're gonna talk about Neil Gaiman. So best-selling author and comic book creator Neil Gaiman is facing sexual assault allegations. After two women have alleged impropriety, the first woman, a 23-year-old named Scarlet, worked as the nanny to Gaiman's children in February of 2022. Scarlet alleges that while the relationship started off as consensual, Gaiman would eventually turn it non-consensual, okay? She claimed that she, he made her engage in rough, penetrative sex acts, including one instance where the pain was so great, she passed out in another instance in which she begged him to stop and he then beat her with a belt, 'cause that totally looks like this guy. I mean, it could be. I'm just, I'm just saying, this sounds strange. Scarlet eventually filed a police report in October of 2022, but the investigation stalled with New Zealand police stating that they made a, quote, number of attempts to speak to key people as part of this investigation and those efforts remain ongoing and that there are a number of factors to take into consideration with this case, including location of all parties, end quote. Another woman, 38 years old, only known as Kay, claims that she first met Gaiman at age 18 and would go on to have a relationship with him in 2005 after she turned 20. Much like Scarlet, Kay alleges that Gaiman forced rough and unwanted sex upon her in the relationship, including one instance in which he forced her to have penetrative sex, despite her suffering from a painful urinary tract infection. Kay never went to the police and this is seemingly the first time she's been public with these allegations since they occurred nearly 20 years ago. Gaiman admits to engaging in sexual relationships with Scarlet hours after they first met, but claims the three week affair never moved beyond digital penetration, that's with the fingers, and that it was consensual at all times. Gaiman denies all of Kay's allegations and stated that they disturbed him and also I wanted to show something else because Gaiman made a public statement on Twitter and I wanna like grab the link for this before I forget and maybe share it on the screen. Well, it's just an image, so I will just share the image where he said, let me just share this really quick, on a day like today, it's worth saying, this is in 2018, I believe survivors, this was related to some other incident but he was just chiming in. Men must not close our eyes and minds to what happens to women in this world. We must fight alongside them for them to be believed at the ballot box and with art and by listening and change this world for the better. - Well, the first thing that stands out to me is the phrase three week affair. So that would indicate that either they were holed up together for three weeks at the end of which she left or she was involved in a relationship with him for that amount of time during which at different times she left and came back. And unless he had her locked up somewhere, that could not escape. I don't see kidnapping as part of these investigations, I don't see wrongful imprisonment or anything, I don't remember what is called when civilians do it instead of the cops. But I don't see anything in this allegation about him keeping her in a location against her will. And that seems suspect to me if she continued engaging with him in any type of sex acts at all during that time period after he did something that she considered non-consensual. Like that would be, you would leave and not come back after something like that happened and maybe go directly to the hospital and the police and all those things that you do after a sexual assault. And that didn't happen. And that just makes me kind of wonder, what really happened during that time and more inclined to believe him than her because of that. 'Cause if that was me, and I mean, I wouldn't, the last time I actually had the experience of a painful urinary tract infection, I didn't go anywhere. Like I didn't go out on dates, I didn't do any of that stuff 'cause it just is a very unpleasant experience. So this idea that she went on some sort of a date with this guy and then he made her engage in rough sex. Again, it just seems kind of weird behavior right there. But maybe I get them worse than other people. I don't know, everything else tells me that my pain tolerance is higher than normal. So like that just blows my mind that she, the one lady accuses him of beating her with a belt and then she eventually filed a police report but didn't do it right away. If somebody hit me with something like that, I would be the fuck out of there and I would be at the police station immediately. If not, it's a hospital first. - Yeah, so it's already a red flag when we're calling it sexual in propriety 'cause of how broad and ever broadening is the scope of what it intends. It could mean anything from saying, looking good, Susan, while in possession of an ugly face, you've all seen him. Two, spanking someone's ass during anal sex. It all counts as sexual in propriety. Anything could be sexually improper. It could mean going clockwise when you should have gone counterclockwise. Point is you'll notice he is not being accused of, have we said, "Great." - Ah, yes. We have sexual acts being incidentally described as, what I quote, unwanted and non-consensual and forced. It was very much, I mean, that is grape. It's in the description of the crime and yet it is not how the crime is assaulted. It somehow doesn't amount to a grape case. It seems odd. Sorry, I know it seems predictable that every time we get a me too story, we give the case for the man's innocence. Meanwhile, every time we do a story about little miss paedophile, the middle school teacher, we give the case for guilt. Maybe it's bias, maybe it's reality. It's probably a certain ratio of both. But I like to think we can aim, or at least aim for the sensible centre on the way down. So, okay, maybe Neil Gaiman does have some demons. It seems like, yeah, right, full assumption. Maybe he has the kinds of demons that cause a sort of wiring issue between your fighting instinct and your fucking instinct. And now you can't have one without the other is, I don't know how it works. I don't know why it works. I don't think it sounds particularly healthy, but if you're able to get it out of your system with a sparring partner who is ready, willing and able, then all right, whatever, fill you, boost me. And that's the important distinction, ready, willing and able at the time of the incident. There are subs and there are doms. It's fine as long as you establish your roles ahead of time. But you don't spring on someone out of the blue. You need to thoroughly explain what the deal is with the strap on before it has already begun penetrating its intended destination. So does this story, do these stories sound like women who signed up signed up to be doms, but were surprised to find themselves as subs? 'Cause that is the very first thing you need to prove or at least show evidence of before we can even approach the territory of legally actionable offense. For example, let's say he or she choked you during sex, to within an inch of your life. How many times did he or she or Zimzer choke you during sex to within an inch of your life before you decided that you'd had enough? I put it to you, members of the jury, that my answer, for what it's worth, most like Hannah was saying, my answer would be no greater than one on that occasion. One would be my limit there as a person who categorically does not approve of being choked in any given situation, sexual or otherwise. I would not hang around after that. And don't get me wrong, I've seen some shit. I've had blackouts from which I've woken up with total amnesia. And yeah, it's weird. It's like life itself, suddenly rebooting and going level two or more like you died, level one again. It's a disturbing experience and I've had it. But you know what I've never had? I've never woken up from that blackout to find myself naked and unable to breathe. That would be different. You can imagine being spontaneously reborn into the world with amnesia into a scene where you're naked, you can't breathe and there's another naked person on top of you. That's, if I wasn't expecting that, that would be a deal breaker for me. But I'd be like, well, that was odd, wasn't it? Yeah, I'm not, I'm not gonna hang around for another week or two or four for another 26 sexual encounters. I'm gonna, I'm gonna head off, I'm gonna shoot off. I'm gonna, I'm gonna go back to Stephen King. He's a simple man. He likes to sit in front of a roaring fire while receiving tantric hand jobs through fingerless rubber gloves. For sessions that can last days on end and God, oh God, the blisters. But it's worth it for the health insurance and the heart they pay. Where the hell was I going with it? Yeah, this sounds like some women who absolutely knew they were going to be subs. Subs who wanted nothing more than a big strong, stupendously wealthy Dom to Dom all over them. And then they proceeded to ride that Dom train as far as they could before it became apparent that this guy's actually got a bit of a sadism fetish. He's not just a regular guy who does his best to be assertive and self-confident because he thinks women like it. No, this guy's actually one of those broken, dead-eyed Christian gray types who has a fetish for the dreaded violence against women thing and who unfortunately also exists because he thinks women like it. And yeah, well, yeah, sorry, if you're an adult, it's up to you to avoid that shit in the first place if you're not into it. Never mind the second place, let alone the third place and so on. And yes, I suppose I do sound biased when I keep beating this drum. We're always here going. Maybe this man is innocent, but maybe that's an important element to this acrobatic performance. It's sometimes called sweeping. Have you heard this? I don't know how new this meme is, but I think it's shot for sweeping under the rug when you sweep, when you're spending all your calories making excuses for something appalling that some celebrity or other is said to have done. And yeah, you can call it sweeping. You could also call it a safety net. And when a woman is accused of something, she has a safety net of the entire judicial system, the entire legislative system and so on. Many safety nets. When a man is accused of something, if he's lucky, he'll be defended by this layer of popular but impulsive YouTubers who sweep for the guy even though he's a man, but that layer can be breached by one expertly timed information grenade. He admitted that he said something. It didn't say what he said, but by the tone of it of his writing, I got the impression of a guilty conscious. So I am done sweeping for this guy. Sorry, guys, you were right. I was sweeping and I was trying to do it. And then the trap doors open and your man is dropped into the next layer of hell where the popular kids have forsaken you, where your only saviors left are those who will sweep for you, not despite you being a man, but because you are a man. Yes, that's what we do here at Iron and Vegetarian. We do it because no one else will do it. There are very few of us left in these underground tunnels eating rat burgers and so on. Welcome, Neil Gaiman. Go have a chat with Dr. Disrespect, get to know each other. You're appointed, MRA's social worker will be with you shortly. Oh, wait, there aren't enough of us. Not anywhere near men who populate the underground tunnels of the legally unprotected wastrels of this world, massively outnumber those of us who would dain to help them by an unknown order of magnitude. Well, so yeah, I'm very sorry, you're right. You've got to spank to rise. We are extremists. We're the people trying to catch the men as they fall from the rye. No, no, no, no, no, that's someone else's metaphor, that's some other book. Oh, there you go. There you go. The trapeze, the trapeze act. Ah, yes. Because there's nothing between the ground and the male acrobats except us and a thin velvet veil of a safety net that's very brightly colored but couldn't hold the weight of a swooning blue bottle while the female acrobats have 12 layers of canvas and three trampolines and a vat have custard to dampen their fall, just in case they grape yet another minor in a janitor's closet in a school 26 times. You know this too, be true. It's why we exist. You don't have to be thankful that we exist. You don't have to be thankful that there is something between you and the bottomless pit that awaits you, gentlemen. But you should know it is there. We might not even be able to help you. But we'll be there to say hi, hi, five. You're not alone as you're falling head first into the bottomless pit. You're listening to unemployment radio. Don't forget to hit like, subscribe and share the video. - It's scary. (laughing) - I also point out the reason that you hear us frequently leaning toward guilt with regard to the teacher issue is because quite frequently when we cover those stories, it's after they've been convicted. And it's usually also in conjunction with there were a bunch of text messages released that were between the teacher and the student that made it 100- - Suggested photos. - Sexual relationship. - Yeah. - And the student is under age and that makes it a particular type of crime. So we usually advocate for due process. But when it is a cut and dried case like that where guilt has already been determined by a court and it's on the basis of things that are pretty much irrefutable evidence of guilt, yeah, we're going to lean toward guilt. - Yeah, I mean, at that point, the discussion isn't about whether or not they're guilty. We're usually talking about like, okay, like what, you know, it's usually a reaction to what the sentencing was. - Sure. - Yeah, like what, how light the sentence was or whether or not it counts because a lot of people have this, you know, idea that like when it happens to a young man because young men like, you know, preteen, even preteen boys, they're horny all the time. So why wouldn't they want this? And we're trying to like, you know, disabuse those notions because that's kind of like what normalizes this kind of behavior. In fact, I mean, when it comes to, and I just, I got a bunch of other stuff to get to, but just really quick on the teacher thing, one of the things that's really amazing about the comparing the predatory female teacher stories to say like, you know, celebrities that find themselves being accused of things, which is usually how this goes. You have this celeb, whether they're East celebs or big giant writers or actors, you know, like Danny Masterson or like Bill Cosby or whatever, is that in the, there's a definite contrast in how these things typically play out. And the, the, with the teachers, we already know. And so, and nobody seems to, like it's not like something that is a scandal in the eyes of the media or the average person. It is simply, oh, look at this whoopsie. This woman just like, you know, preyed on this kid. Isn't that funny? And if the women is like somewhat conventionally attractive, it's even more likely to be dismissed as kind of like this silly thing. You only have to look at like cases that have gone really far, like Mary Kay Laternal. I think that's like a really famous one where she was on Bill Maher and he was like, well, well, they should be together, you know? And like you would never do the opposite. Like there are no stories that are of male teachers to bring on female students or male students for that matter. And that being sort of treated in the same way. Yeah. - Mary Kay Laternal case, she was dead before her victim started to realize that he had been victimized. - That he had been groomed in life. - Yeah. - She, he was talking about it publicly. And you could see the moment when he, it started to click with him that, yeah, that should never have happened to him. And yeah, that was actually predatory, everything she did was predatory and so on. And this is a thing that a lot of people don't realize how vulnerable boys that age are because when they hit puberty, their hormones go out of control and their impulses go out of control. It doesn't mean that they are equipped to act on those impulses with full understanding and full competence to protect themselves from any negative consequences, including emotional, psychological, mental consequences that affect the rest of their lives. And I've had teachers converse with me about this where like younger teachers, and this happens to girls too, by the way, girls when their hormones hit, they have the same problems, okay? So teachers who are young and attractive, generally speaking, take great care to avoid creating the impression that they are in any way, shape, or form sexually available when they are at school. They take great care to protect their students from the vulnerability that they are experiencing at that time. So when a teacher doesn't do that, that teacher is behaving abnormally for an adult and that teacher is behaving abnormally for a teacher. And a lot of times the students don't figure it out until much, much later. This is, you know, the parents might get in and protect the student. The other teachers might get in and protect the student. The police might get in and protect the student. The student might protest against all of that, but 10 years later they realize this was really bad. That's why when an unusual or abnormal type of sexual behavior is incorporated into victimization of an underage person, whether they're a little bit underage or a shitload underage, they don't always understand enough about what happened to them or have a frame of reference for it enough to tell an adult, explain to an adult what's going on, seek help, and prosecute it's an entirely different thing than when somebody does it to somebody who's in their 20s and that individual doesn't go to police for 20 years, when it's, you know, a 12 year old or a 13 year old, they may think, oh yeah, this was perfectly okay, but if the person is an adult, no, it wasn't. Absolutely was not. - Yeah. - Or even an older kid that knew better, absolutely was not okay. - No, of course not. - Your violence. - Absolutely was not okay. - Well, again, like we're looking at this story and there's a woman who started a relationship with Neil Gaiman when she turned 20 and we're supposed to find that scandalizing. So I wanted to-- - Scandalizing. - No, I don't either, but I mean, this is a thing that we see, like right now I think Tobey Maguire is dating someone who's like, you know, very young, but like not underage, but very young and everyone's like, oh, talking about it, you know, 'cause Tobey Maguire is like coming up on 50 or he might be 50. But anyway-- - I can't point out this though. In your bad age, if you're in your early 20s, I wouldn't advise getting involved with somebody that's 20 years, you're senior, 'cause you are a legal adult. You are competent to appraise your actions and so on, but your brain's still growing and you still got about five years. - Yeah. - Thank you. There are gonna be ways in which that other person is competent that you haven't developed yet and you are on your back foot in the relationship and you may change in ways that may destroy that relationship later on. So don't think of that as a potential long-term relationship. I like if you wanna stick around with somebody that's way older than you, it's not, you know, you're not doing anything wrong and they're not doing anything wrong if you're an adult, but don't count on that to be a lifelong relationship because you are going to change. And conversely, you run into somebody when if you're in your 40s and 50s and you run into somebody and you're in their early 20s that you think, oh, this is it. This is the one, be aware, this person is still developing a lot about themselves that yeah, they might be the one if they were gonna stay that way the rest of their life, but in five or 10 years, what you're looking at might be a whole different person than the person you started a relationship with. And it'd be different if you were both in your early 20s and you were developing together, you might develop in the same direction if you're really dedicated to each other. But this is why I don't recommend people get married before they're old enough that they could have gotten a master's degree in college. Not that they need one for marriage, but that timeframe, you have a lot of development that takes place during that timeframe. I think a lot of the reason for divorce in the world today is that people are getting married too young. - All right, well, let us know what you guys think about this. I wanted to just read through some super chats and superchows and I have a question. So if a grape takes place, but the guy doesn't nut, is it a seedless grape? All right, anyway, so I got a superchow from Richard Bier, who gives us five bucks and says, perhaps George Soros would have incentive to for the furtherance of his myriad of agendas could fund the release of the Tranifesto. I think that would work against his goals, but I don't know, I'm not, I can't get into the brain of that, man. And then I got one from Zairanks for five bucks and he says, there are two kinds of folks who sit around thinking about how to sexually assault people, psychopaths and fiction writers. I'm the kind that pays better. Who am I? I'm Neil Gaiman. Any Castle fans out there? I don't know, Castle, is that like a show? Sorry, I don't know what that is. But thank you for the superchow, nonetheless, Zairanks. And then I got a super chat from David Smith and he says, where has Gaiman's wife in all of this? She's an uber feminist who was very vocal during #MeToo. I don't know, it's a good question. I would think that their relationship is going through it, but maybe they were swingers and this was all like she was involved too, you know? So it's possible. Thank you for that. You know, in a situation like that, when people are rich and famous a lot of times, they do have unusual relationships. And she's probably, like honestly, like, you know, again, spitballing, I have no idea what the truth is. Don't hold me to this, like I'm making a claim. But if there was a situation where Neil Gaiman and his wife were like, you know, having guests over for the purposes of sexual frolicking, it's possible that the wife could just have an out. You're like, yeah, you know, I was there for that, but I didn't see anything gross going down and that he's the only one who has to bear the consequences of allegations. And again, I would say to all you guys out there, if you ever become famous man, be very, very careful. Like if you just end up in a situation where you could be intimate with a woman that you don't know that well, I don't know that that's even like a good idea no matter what, like no matter what your status is or whatever. Because these things, they can bite you in the ass, especially if you're a rich and famous. - So exactly the same thing goes if you're not rich and famous. - Yeah. (laughs) Yeah, no, it can, but I'm saying like when you have, when you have more that they can take from you, I think that that's what I'm saying. It's not about like just to destroy you sure, just to get out of trouble, sure, this totally happens. Brock Turner is an example. But if you're like really rich and high status and let's say a woman goes on a one night stay with you and she's hoping to use that to keep you. And then you say, no, I'm, you know, I can't be nailed down or whatever, right? She could then make a claim at some point later, get a pay day out of it. Like what happened to the baseball player, she could just destroy your reputation to give her some clout and sympathy and from people around her. So I think that all men are vulnerable, but I think that very rich or very powerful men are more likely to run into this kind of person 'cause it is a predatory thing if that's what's happening. Again, I'm not speaking to game and situation. - If we don't know because most people don't run around yelling in the street. So I'm in an open relationship. Come fuck my mind. - Yes, yes. - So fuck my husband, no, no, that's not how it usually goes. You know, you usually deal with networking with other people that are in similar types of relationships and you usually don't find them in church. So basically you're gonna see this more in, among people in industries that make a lot of money, doing things that are more open to like the industry is more open to people on the left or people who are not religious, people who are maybe alternative religions like pagan religions, people who have other mentalities besides the straight-laced conservative types. And you might see more different sexualities among your coworkers and it's political correctness as a whole different set of rules in those areas, right? You're more likely to find people in those relationships in those areas. And then you end up with a whole different set of problems in your relationship that like your straight heterosexual, two-person-only relationship has its own set of problems that can happen with it. But as soon as you get into open or swapping or any kind of like they're different- - Situationships. - Politicules happen, you know, yeah. All of that stuff comes with its own set of problems. And one of them is that women are generally speaking possessive in different ways than men are and they may think of themselves as not having the capacity to get jealous. It's rare and it's possible. There are people that don't get jealous over affection and relationships and sex and stuff like that. Like I am one of those people. I don't get jealous about stuff like that. I get jealous if you think of something before I do. You know, if you turn out to be more creative than I am, then I'll get jealous about that. But it's, I think, a little different in terms of jealousy. But you still have the possibility that the guy in the relationship may find himself the target of a woman who thinks that she's going to get involved with him and then push his life partner out of the picture and take a place. And I've watched that happen in two open relationships that I was not part of. And I've watched while both of those relationships were almost destroyed by it. And then the woman who failed to push the life partner out went on to say nasty things about the guy, try to spread rumors about him, stalk him, harass him and eventually have to be shut out of his life and his friend group. And you know, and it's been really, they turn out to be like really freakishly scary people. And both times she had the chick, both chicks had borderline personality disorder. So you kind of have to watch out for a lot of stuff. People think of the woman as being more vulnerable in these relationships. But the worst thing that happens to her usually is that she has 10 offers for everyone he gets. And so she has to be pickier. Whereas, you know, when he gets offers, the types of women that are usually okay joining in with these types of relationships, they're either very naive or they're the crazy that you shouldn't stick your dick in. And so it's worse for guys, it's more unhealthy for guys in some ways to be in these open relationships because they end up getting targeted by crazy women. - Yeah. - That they ended up with women that changed their minds and then feel victimized later. - Yup. All right, and then I got another super chat from Albert native retro and he gives us $5 Canadian says, Leonardo Caprio, Brian, he's dating a 19 year old model and the old bags and jealous sims are pissed off. Yes, but also Toby McGuire, look it up. - Yeah. - That's very recent news. - They're not doing anything wrong. Those men are not doing anything wrong, but they may find themselves like falling out of love with those girls, if they're in love with them at all, just because they will change as they get old. So it's their business if they're gonna do that, but they're setting themselves up for problems later. It's a rare thing for a gal that age to get involved with a guy that age and five years later, still be the same gal. - Yeah. All right. You got rich male celebrities who for some reason are having sex with young hot women. Like it's crazy, no one can explain why it would happen. Meanwhile, rich female celebrities have three different children and they're all transsexual. Yeah, and adopted sometimes. All right. Let us know what you guys think about that. I got another super chat when I got to move on. So Zarex gives us five bucks and says, for Vili Fu Lao to recognize he was a victim after Latorno's death, they were already divorced. He still is the father of their two daughters. Thank the New York Daily News for covering the story almost 30 years later for whatever reason. All right. Thank you for that, Zarex. And let us know what you guys think about this one in the comments. We really got to move on to the next story. Oh, and I wanted to give a quick little shout out to Mnemonics for making me this art because I specifically requested that somebody make artwork of the, why am I forgetting his name? This guy from the World Economic Forum, because he was accused of posing suggestively in front of women. We covered that last week. Yeah, yeah, we covered that last week. So this is, this is the evidence that this is exhibit A of the suggestive pose and Klaus Schwab was engaged in. So there you go. All right, well, anyway, let us know what you guys see about that in the comments. Shout out to Mnemonics for sharing that. That was great. I was, I was hoping somebody would answer the call and sure enough, they did. All right. So a Ukrainian woman has won a high court battle in order to take her child from her husband back to Ukraine, despite the father's objections. The family fled Ukraine before the war with Russia began in February 2022 and relocated to London in December of 2022. The father obtained a court order preventing them from leaving the UK, but Mr. Justice Hayden has now ruled in favor of the mother, allowing them to return to Ukraine. The judge stated that the mother's city in Ukraine has managed the war well and that the child needs the stability of their home and family in Ukraine. The mother argued that there was never an intention to permanently move to London and that she would protect her child if the situation worsened. The father maintains that they had agreed to the relocation and that staying in London was safer. But judge concluded that the child was most integrated in Ukraine. - So is the father Ukrainian also? - I don't, I think they built war. Yes, I think it was Ukrainian family, but they fled to London because Ukraine was being invaded and the father wanted, there was an opportunity to go and the father wanted the child in London 'cause he felt that it was, well, in the UK at least. I don't know if London is safer. (laughing) I'm sure it's safer than war-tore parts of Ukraine, but he was trying to protect his kids, so. - And is the child old enough for service? I mean, I know they may be a toddler, but they're still old enough to load shells into the cannon or be a child. I think Zelensky's government's working on it. Yeah, I mean. - He's left, but in Mexico, they're putting guns in the hands of five-year-olds, so that's not even, people don't even recognize that Mexico is a war zone 'cause the war is between the cartels and the rest of the people, but there are some villages where they've got five-year-olds carrying guns. In fact, we covered that not just months ago, but a few years ago. And as far as I know, it hasn't changed, so don't be shocked if you find out that Ukraine, in some remote areas of Ukraine, that there are children that are having to defend their homes as well as this conflict goes on. But what kind of asinine judge sends a child into a war zone for any reason? I'm sorry, but that's crazy. And for them to be like, "Oh, you know, "this part of the country, "it's not affecting this part of the country that badly." Can't that change? (laughs) How big is Ukraine? It's not that big. It's not the size of the United States. It maybe it's bigger, I don't know, maybe it's bigger than I'm thinking, but if I was a judge and a country the size of the United States was in a war, and most of the fighting was taking place in California, I still would not send a child to Virginia. That just, I just wouldn't, because what if, right? It can go clear across in a few days. It doesn't change anything. So this doesn't make any sense to me at all. I would be concerned about the mental health of a mother that wanted to take her child into a war zone after they had fled it to be somewhere safe and to take a child away from the father because other people that were not the father of the child would provide more stability after they'd made the decision to flee the area where those people were because it was dangerous. - Yup. Somebody in the chat asked if this is a person I spoke to. No, Nova fan, this is not Cesar Quintana. That is a different situation. So this is a separate instance. These were, I believe these were Ukrainian people. They're not giving any names. So I don't know why that might be, probably obviously to protect our identity for whatever reason, but Cesar Quintana's wife that he met her in California, she was originally from Russia, I believe, or Ukraine. And she took his kid to Ukraine. And now his kid and his ex-wife are in Russia, like they're in St. Petersburg. And he is, I believe in America, trying to, you know, work out a legal deal. So she like kidnapped his child and is in Russia. This is a separate, that's a separate story. Also, you know, tragic. Hopefully, I mean, look, it looks like Ukraine is not gonna win, but I think that Zelensky's gonna get as much out of this as possible. Hopefully, like the damage is minimal, but I think it is extremely strange that the mom would wanna take the child despite the husband's cautions against it and the judge backs it up. It's like, I don't know, I hope nothing bad happens, but it's not good. - So I just looked it up, Texas is bigger than Ukraine. So basically, yeah, in a matter of hours, fighting could get to where they are if it started moving. - Absolutely. - Have time to get back out of the country if fighting started moving in your direction by the time that it got to where you were, you wouldn't have time. Yeah, it'd be different. It was a, you know, as big as Russia or the United States, we just drove from Ohio to Nebraska recently and it took us because, you know, you have to make stops for food and everything. And when you're in poor health, you make more stops. So it took us about 16 hours, but it's not really that long of a drive, but that's about, that's not the whole drive across country. But if we were just driving across Texas and that'd be much easier Ohio, you can drive across in two or four hours, but Ukraine's about six times the size of Ohio. So it'd be pretty scary to be in any part of that country. And there are people that we know in that country that are away from the fighting, but there's always the worry that that will change. And you do, you do never know what's going to happen. And I feel like either that woman is an idiot or there's something else going on there that we're not being told about this story. - Yeah, could be, I think the war's already over. I think the war has been over for two years. Like someone asked somewhere, why do you think it's going to happen with the Russian war? And my hair-brained prediction was Russia's going to take over the Eastern bit, the Donbass region and Crimea, if it hasn't already. And then it's going to be over and people are going to forever wonder where the hell all the money went. And if they ask about it, they'll just be thrown into their legs. And I think the war was over two years ago, but people are still using it as an excuse to do whatever they like, to launder however more money. They feel like laundering to whatever remains of the Ukrainian government. And some woman can demand that her child be transported across X war zones or whatever. I think everything being told is a lie. I think death, I think death everywhere. I think everything is a lie and everything is death. And we should prepare for an infinity of lies and death forever. Does that mean that death itself is a lie? Well, it is. (laughing) All one consciousness. What, wearing itself, subjectively? There is not something as death. Life is a dream and we are the imagination of ourselves. It's time with the weather. We may be walking around dead right now doing these podcasts. We died. Some. Yeah. (laughing) I don't know what you were talking about. I died in 1984, so. (laughing) Well, let us. It's a story for a long time. Yeah, that's a big bargain. The Cambrian explosion. Well, let us know what you guys think about this when the comments are gonna move on to the final story, which is a little bit weird, but I thought it might be interesting. I did get a super chat and a super chat, I believe. So, "Alvernator Retro" gives us $5 Canadian and says, "Hannah, if you were a judge, the pink cat hat brigade would be protesting 24/7." Yes. You can see what they would do if I was president. (laughing) And I think that's it. For some reason I thought there was a super-chow, but let me look and see if there's rumble rants. No, no rumble rants. I am checking on there though, rumble gang. Okay. So, we're gonna move on to the next story. Let us know what we guys think about this one in the comments. And let's get into the last of our stories. So, this one's a bit of a story to the story. "Wife revenge from beyond the grave." Catherine Casanoff, a prominent attorney and former special counsel to the New York Governor, Kathy Hochl. You guys might know Kathy Hochl who said to Trump, let's see how well your hair does in a blizzard. Dined by assisted suicide in Switzerland, leaving behind a complex and controversial legacy. Her ex-husband, Alan Casanoff, claims that Catherine's suicide was a calculated move to torment him and their children, alleging that she had crafted a false narrative, portraying herself as an innocent victim and him as the villain. Catherine's online postings of legal documents and videos have led to significant social media backlash against Alan with TikTok influencers and others amplifying the allegations of abuse. Catherine announced her decision on Facebook citing terminal cancer and a predatory court system that separated her from her three daughters. However, Alan disputes the terminal cancer diagnosis, claiming her oncologist gave her a clean bill of health. Throughout their custody battle, Alan accused Catherine of fabricating abuse allegations and strategically manipulating the situation to her advantage. The court had cut Catherine off from contact with her daughters, leading her to assert that the system was unfair and biased against her. The free press conducted an investigation revealing conflicting accounts of Catherine's character, ranging from calm and competent to manipulative and abusive. Four nannies provided disturbing accounts of Catherine's treatment of her adopted daughter, Ali, describing incidents of verbal and emotional abuse. These allegations painted a picture of Catherine favoring her biological daughters while mistreating Ali, her adopted daughter. Catherine's final statement blamed Alan for her situation, claiming that he spent millions to keep her away from their children. Psychiatrist Colin Brewer, who approved her assisted suicide, noted that Catherine was resolute and clear about her decision, which he described as an existential assisted suicide motivated by her perceived mistreatment by Alan. Alan, who denies all allegations of abuse, face significant personal and professional repercussions, including resigning from his job. He insists that Catherine's narrative was false and that her actions, this included her offing herself, have caused immense emotional damage to him and his family. - So usually, you know, when you see suicide brought up in terms of a custody battle, if the person only takes themselves out, usually that is an indication that they are trying to escape an intolerable situation. But there is extenuating evidence here. You don't usually hear from people who were not directly part of the conflict saying, yeah, this person was abusive. Yeah, this person demonstrably treated one child differently that they don't have external statements from like outside of the custody battle from witnesses to the lifestyles and actions and behaviors and attitudes within the couple's relationship. And with the nanny saying that she was abusive toward at least one of the children, treating that child differently than the other children, that says a lot. I've again been witness to different family situations within my own family and outside my family where one child is adopted and another child is biological or there are stepchildren or there are like very, very much within my own family, there was a household with children from a first marriage. And then children from the second husband's first marriage and children from the couple and the children from the first marriage also had siblings from the first husband's first marriage to his first wife and they all mesh together and nobody was like, well, you're not my real brother. You're not my real sister. It was just, you know, it's us against the world. We are gonna band together and love each other and take care of each other, right? So I've seen it from that perspective and to see people talking about, well, she had an adopted child that she treated differently or a step child that she treated differently than the other children. That's segmenting people off in your mind as not as much worth your love and affection, right? That's the first thing. So that indicates abusive tendencies in the mother to begin with. And then viewing the act of setting things up afterward after the suicide to continually attack the ex, the father, viewing that with that context of her already abusive behavior, that is evidence that she was doing this to abuse him. But there is a whole other story outside of, you know, this woman being abusive and being able to abuse this man in this manner without, with basic impunity, because what can you do to her now that she's dead, right? You can only make his life miserable. And people are gonna be way too quick to believe her because she committed suicide. But the other story that comes out of this, the whole other story that comes out of this, right? You just heard that she didn't use assisted suicide to make her cancer death less painful. - Yes. - Right, she used it to get out of the divorce. She convinced these people that she got to kill her that it was just an intolerable situation. So there was, we were told when assisted suicide first started getting discussed, this is only in the case of terminal illnesses where the death that's inevitable is intolerable. Like with ALS, where you choke to death, right? Where it's, you're going to experience this if you don't die before that. That's not what this is. This is a woman who came along and said, "I'm very upset about this situation. I want to die." And got assisted suicide, right? That, that is not helping her. That's not providing her with an escape from something that she's dying from that's going to be more painful to die from if she doesn't commit suicide. That is using suicide to bypass life. Just normal life. I don't know who initiated the divorce in their situation, but I do know that fathers don't usually get custody unless there is something wrong with the mother. And, and it's possible for somebody to get custody because he has a lot of money and can manipulate the system. But he still has more of an uphill battle than a woman in that same circumstance would. And for anyone in the medical field to hear somebody say, I want to die because the situation that I'm in in life is very rough. And I don't see a way out of it. That should be a situation where they talk to the person about mental health treatment, about life coaching, about anything they can think of other than, okay, well, let's just end it all. Nobody should ever be advised to commit suicide to get away from a divorce battle by any medical personnel. It doesn't matter whether your profession is assisted suicide or not, which nobody should be doing that as their main profession either 'cause there shouldn't be enough call for it. But no person who works in medicine, particularly not a doctor who takes the Hippocratic oath, first do no harm, should be giving any person the advice or the go ahead to kill themselves to get out of a rough situation in life. It's bullshit. I don't care if it's a man or a woman. Both sexes will have this come up. Both sexes will have circumstances in their life. They're in terrible debt and they have to declare bankruptcy. They're getting a divorce and they don't know how they're going to live without the other person. Their spouse died and their heart is broken, right? Their kid died. Their kid was in an accident and died and they don't know how to live with that. I've met people who have experienced all of those different things. One of my childhood friends drowned in Indian Lake. I couldn't even go to the funeral because I just couldn't bring myself to see him dead. There's very few things in the world that I have trouble facing, but I couldn't face that. But if somebody had come along and said, "Well, do you want to die instead?" That person would have been a predator and the doctor, the so-called doctor that killed this woman is a predator. Hands down, there is no alternative explanation. When someone comes to you and says, "I am in emotional pain from a life circumstance," not a chemical imbalance that's never going to go away, which even then, that's something that may be treatable. Something that can be changed, something that can be fixed, something that you could learn to live with and get passed and they kill you because you said, "I want to die right now." That's a predator. That's somebody who went into it because they wanted to kill people with impunity, not because they care about people. And this man is suffering now because of that, but that woman is dead. - Yeah, don't go to North Sentinel Island in the Indian Ocean, 'cause famously, its inhabitants will kill you as soon as you land. They've been there for thousands of years, just living out there, still in aged lives. And they've figured out that if any outsider comes anywhere near that island, they will throw a spear through their throat as soon as possible, killing them. And don't go to Papua New Guinea either. Certainly not if you're sick 'cause they're cannibals and they will eat your brain. And when they do that, they will all catch a horrible disease and they will all die slowly and horribly over the cost of several years while developing this brain condition where they expect impending doom. And don't go to Canada. It sounds like I'm saying these things like they're different topics, like they're different situations, like going to North Sentinel Island is in any way different from going to Canada. It's not in Canada, the government will come to you, not with a spear, but with a syringe. (laughing) I'm telling you, hi, do you not like it in Canada? Have you considered dying? And do you see how that's not even the North Sentinelese with extra steps? It's the North Sentinelese with fewer steps. - Yeah, it's awful, everything's awful. I hate the word. All right, we're gonna wrap it up there though, guys. Let us know what you guys think about this one in the comments. I just think it's wild. The depths of vindictiveness, assuming this is true, that some are capable of. All right, so we got some super chats and a super chow. The super chow's always take precedence. So I will read that first from Richard Bier, who gives us $5 and says the Italian pharmaceutical company that was making the drug used in Canada's MAID procedure has discontinued supplying it on the grounds that they don't want their products being used for executions. It has been mentioned that the drug also causes pulmonary edema, and because it also paralyzes the patient, the patient actually experiences a drowning death that is unable to express the discomfort. Sorry about mentioning this now, Hannah. Wow, very enlightening. - Yeah, well, I think everybody's heard me express how I feel about the death penalty, what I think of the death penalty. We can't trust our government to be honest about the little things, right? We can't trust our government to be honest about whether or not they're wasting tax dollars that they're stealing from the public. We can't trust our government to make smart decisions about your diet. We can't trust them to make smart decisions about transportation. We can't trust them to keep the roads consistently. The thing that we're supposed to be excusing government for existing because we have to have this or whatever, we can't trust them with that. So why are we trusting them to decide who lives and who dies? - Yeah. If we didn't have the government, then mobsters could get away with murder. - See what I'm driving, I do, I see what you're doing. - Yeah, see that, see that. All right, so Alvernator Redford goes to Super Chat for $2, Canadian says, sounds like a real life gone girl, only Amy deleted. And then yes, it's true. And then I got one from Chili Guy 52 for $5. Thank you, Chili Guy. And he says, "When you accidentally take the Hippocratic oath." (laughs) All right, thanks for-- - What are we gonna start calling it the Hippocratic oath? - Yeah. (laughing) - All right, we got two in one show this time. We got Hippocratic oath and seedless grape. All right, but anyway, we're gonna go into the painting show now. We're gonna look at some Opus flips. I'm gonna probably have to restart my OBS because I had started in Safe Mode to finish the show because it crashed suddenly. But that's not a problem, only take a minute. We're gonna head there now though. So please consider joining us by going to feedthebapture.com/subscribe to start a monthly subscription. Five bucks a month, we'll get you into our Discord where you'll be able to watch all the additional content, hang out with the patrons. It's a very lively space, perhaps almost as lively as our shows. That gives you a sense. I don't think I'm selling this very well, but anyway, it's a good space though. If you're in a good space to come and hang out and we have lots going on, so hopefully we'll see you guys there. feedthebapture.com/subscribe. And if you wanna send us a message that it will essentially be sure to get to us and also allow you to say whatever is on your mind without any fear of reprisal from the powers that be, then go to feedthebapture.com/just the tip and tell us your thoughts on whatever you want to say. Make recommendations, yell at us, make arguments, whatever. We love to see it and we will respond on the show at the next relevant time. All right, so anyway, thanks guys for coming on today's show. If you guys liked this video, please hit like, subscribe. If you're not already subscribed, hit the bell for notifications, leave us a comment. Let us know what you guys think about what we discuss on the show today and please, please, please share this video because sharing is caring. Thank you so much for coming on today's episode of HPR News and we'll talk to you all in the next one. Oh, see you next Tuesday, that's right. (clapping) When it comes to renting out your property, the uncertainty of finding reliable tenants can feel like a real guessing game, responsible renter or perpetual party animal. Enter renter's warehouse. The pros who turn the uncertainty of finding great tenants into peace of mind. renter's warehouse offers top notch leasing and tenant placement services, ensuring you get trustworthy renters without the hassles and headaches. With no upfront fees, renter's warehouse works for you, not the other way around. From marketing and showing your property to screening tenants and preparing the lease, their team of experts handles it all so you can sit back and watch the rent roll in. renter's warehouse even warranties their tenants for up to 18 months at no extra cost. And if you need ongoing management, they've got you covered too. All for a flat monthly fee. Visit renter's warehouse.com to request a free rental price analysis. That's renter's warehouse.com or call 303-974-9444 to speak to a rent estate advisor today. - Okay, round two. Name something that's not boring. - A laundry, a book club, computer solitaire, huh? - Ah, sorry, we were looking for Chumba Casino. (upbeat music) - That's right, ChumbaCasino.com has over a hundred casino-style games, going today and play for free for your chance to redeem some serious prizes. (upbeat music) ChumbaCasino.com. No more statistics, but we're going to do it by law. 80 plus, start the edition of the Playc website for details.