Speaker 1: Welcome back to a Numbers Game podcast with Brian Gerdowski.
Speaker 1: Thank you for coming on this Thursday episode. I am
Speaker 1: on my way to Kansas. I will be the keynote
Speaker 1: speaker this weekend at the Bob Dole Dinner for the
Speaker 1: Kansas Republican Party, which is very exciting.
Speaker 2: I'm very nervous.
Speaker 1: I wanted to do a good job and pay tribute
Speaker 1: to the legacy of Bob Doll to talk about the future,
Speaker 1: but this is It's very nerve wracking, and I am
Speaker 1: I'm honored to be invited, but at the same time,
Speaker 1: I'm not exactly sure why I was invited, but I'm excited.
Speaker 1: Funny story, Bob Dole running for president nineteen ninety six
Speaker 1: was the first time I realized that there was an
Speaker 1: election for president. I was nine years old in school
Speaker 1: and we had to learn about it. And I remember
Speaker 1: going learning at all the candidates running and going home
Speaker 1: to my parents and saying, I learned about this election,
Speaker 1: and I want you to vote for Ross Pro.
Speaker 2: They didn't. They voted it for Dole.
Speaker 1: But I think I might open my speech with saying
Speaker 1: that I was a Pro fan at the age of nine. Anyway,
Speaker 1: hopefully goes well, and I'll tell you how it goes
Speaker 1: next week and they don't boom me as part of
Speaker 1: Bob Dole's revenge for being a you thrust for pro supporter.
Speaker 2: Today's gonna be a unique episode.
Speaker 1: I have some numbers I want to throw you guys out,
Speaker 1: but I'm going to have a non political story and
Speaker 1: interview that I think you guys would find very fascinating.
Speaker 1: So first on the political stuff across the pond over
Speaker 1: the UK, the Labor government finally did at about face
Speaker 1: this week and did a proper investigation into grooming gangs. Now,
Speaker 1: for those who don't know, I appeared on the BBC
Speaker 1: almost teny years ago saying that there was a it
Speaker 1: was a conversation on Trump and you know, always bringing
Speaker 1: up the Muslim band and they were telling how racist
Speaker 1: it was and all the rest of this and that
Speaker 1: there's no you know, Muslim terrorism, and I said, yes
Speaker 1: there is, like you have Muslim grooming gangs from Pakistani
Speaker 1: men raping white girls in northern England. The host of
Speaker 1: the show at the BBC show, they kicked me off
Speaker 1: the air, said it wasn't happening, that what I said
Speaker 1: wasn't true, and that apologized to the audience that I
Speaker 1: had offended listeners for what I had said. That was
Speaker 1: almost ten years ago. Well, Baroness Luis Casey has released
Speaker 1: a two hundred page report and found that the mere
Speaker 1: Pori Pakistanis from the Kashmir Providence were extremely well overrepresented
Speaker 1: in all data responsible for grooming gangs in the UK.
Speaker 1: You might think this is one little area of Pakistan
Speaker 1: and how many people could it be. There are about
Speaker 1: one million Poori Pakistanis living in the UK. It is
Speaker 1: the biggest predominant group that come to the UK from Pakistan. Now,
Speaker 1: in many of the cases, the ethnicity of the perpetrators
Speaker 1: never taken because officials feared that they will be labeled
Speaker 1: as racists. But in areas that it was taken. In
Speaker 1: three hundred and twenty three cases known as Operations stove Wood,
Speaker 1: sixty two percent of all groomers were Pakistani, despite the
Speaker 1: fact that they make up only three percent of the population.
Speaker 1: Eve At Cooper, the Home Secretary basically our version of DHS,
Speaker 1: put out a list of recommendations. It includes ensuring adults
Speaker 1: who engage impenetrative sex with children under sixteen based the
Speaker 1: most serious charge of rape instead of lesser charges. They're
Speaker 1: going to launch a new national Criminal Operation to oversee
Speaker 1: the National Crime Agency and tackle grooming gangs. They're going
Speaker 1: to review the criminal convictions of child sexual exploitation and
Speaker 1: quashing any convictions where the government finds that the victims
Speaker 1: were criminalized rather than be protected. They're going to make
Speaker 1: a collection of ethnicity and national data for all suspects
Speaker 1: of child's abuse. They're going to commission research into driven
Speaker 1: into drivers for group based child sexual exploitation, including the
Speaker 1: role of social media and cultural factors. And they're going
Speaker 1: to bring a more rigorous standard for the licensing and
Speaker 1: regulation of taxi drivers because many of these Pakistani men
Speaker 1: were taxi drivers luring young girls into their taxis saying
Speaker 1: you want to come have alcohol or you know, drugs,
Speaker 1: which in many poor areas of Northern England was very
Speaker 1: enticing to fourteen year old girls to have alcohol. Remember,
Speaker 1: the drinking ages are a lot lower and the culture
Speaker 1: aroun drinking is a lot more open. They would say yes,
Speaker 1: they would drug them, get them drunk, then drug them
Speaker 1: and then rape them in a group activity. Okay, some
Speaker 1: of these ideas are very good and I'm going to
Speaker 1: give credit to the Labor government on at least going
Speaker 1: this far, considering they've been completely opposed to it for decades,
Speaker 1: certainly since my comments came out in twenty ten. They've
Speaker 1: been notoriously against method because it's made just because they
Speaker 1: have been against it for years. But what the UK
Speaker 1: government needs to do is repeal most or parts of
Speaker 1: the Equality Act of twenty ten. This was a law
Speaker 1: passed by the previous Labor Labor government from years ago,
Speaker 1: and it prohibits discrimination based on protected characteristics, including race,
Speaker 1: in employment and service delivery. Police officers, as public servants
Speaker 1: are subject to this law and discriminatory behavior can be
Speaker 1: deemed as gross misconduct. So police officers were purposely not
Speaker 1: investigating cases of child rape child sexual exploitation when the
Speaker 1: victim was going with biological evidence in some cases saying
Speaker 1: you can look at me, I have been raped multiple times.
Speaker 1: They refuse to do it because if the grooming gang
Speaker 1: said this police officer is clearly racist, there would be
Speaker 1: overwhelming push to have that police officer dismissed from their
Speaker 1: jobs and that they are the problem, not that the
Speaker 1: criminals were the problem. And this law is the lynchpin
Speaker 1: behind which all of these police officers were unable to
Speaker 1: really do their job in a profound way.
Speaker 3: You know.
Speaker 2: JK.
Speaker 1: Rowling was tweeting like, we need to change the culture
Speaker 1: of protecting girls. Yes, but you need to undo the law,
Speaker 1: you crazy liberal like that.
Speaker 2: That is what it is.
Speaker 1: I know, like the idea of the Quality Act sounds wonderful,
Speaker 1: but the law is creating all these circumstances. And one
Speaker 1: last thing, maybe don't bring in a million people from
Speaker 1: a culture that views women as lesser than Maybe don't
Speaker 1: bring in a million people from a culture that thinks
Speaker 1: child's sexual activities perfectly normal, that women can be beat
Speaker 1: that you know, you could have that women are like,
Speaker 1: you know, furniture or animals. That is the problem. You
Speaker 1: are importing a culture that for many people, especially when
Speaker 1: it is ghetto wise, because you're bringing in so many people,
Speaker 1: they they push, they bring that culture with them, They
Speaker 1: bring that culture to the UK and they view a
Speaker 1: lot of things like this is a prize is to
Speaker 1: sit there and rape a young British woman. So good
Speaker 1: for the UK government for doing something, but it is
Speaker 1: outrageous it took this long and hopefully if there's someone
Speaker 1: in the entire UK government level with a brain from
Speaker 1: either the Reform or Tory party. They will talk about
Speaker 1: repealing the Equalities Act if they haven't already.
Speaker 2: I don't. Maybe they did, but I don't think they did.
Speaker 1: Okay, that's your number is for this podcast on the
Speaker 1: political side.
Speaker 2: Now, I want to.
Speaker 1: Get to a passion interest of mine, which is true crime.
Speaker 1: I know there's a million podcasts on true crime and
Speaker 1: books and whatever, and we'll get back to politics on Monday.
Speaker 1: This is not going to become a true crime podcast,
Speaker 1: but this episode is special.
Speaker 2: I am a true crime junkie.
Speaker 1: I've listened to podcasts, I've read books like A Stranger
Speaker 1: Beside Me, which is one of my favorite books, documentaries,
Speaker 1: you name it, like if I'm ap at two o'clock
Speaker 1: in the morning, I'm researching who killed John bin a Ramsay.
Speaker 1: This is who I am. It is a sickness. It
Speaker 1: is a mental illness. I understand it. But I love
Speaker 1: true crime. So the most talked about trial of the
Speaker 1: year just ended, and it is the Karen Reid trial,
Speaker 1: and it's about the death of John O'Keefe. So most
Speaker 1: of you have probably maybe heard about this trial or
Speaker 1: hear parts of it. I wanted to give you the
Speaker 1: brief facts before going into the interview because it is interesting.
Speaker 1: On the night of January twenty eighth, twenty twenty two,
Speaker 1: Karen Reid and John o'keef, who were dating John A. Keeps,
Speaker 1: a forty six year old Boston police officer, where they
Speaker 1: were out drinking with friends in Canton, Massachusetts, about twenty
Speaker 1: miles south of Boston. After visiting bars, they were invited
Speaker 1: to an after party at the home of Brian Albert,
Speaker 1: another Boston police officer. There was a terrible snowstorm outside
Speaker 1: but they but John insisted on going to this after party,
Speaker 1: so they drove to the house. Allegedly, there they saw
Speaker 1: no lights on in the house. John o'keef got out
Speaker 1: of the car went to the house around twelve thirty
Speaker 1: am to see if there were people inside. According to prosecutors,
Speaker 1: this is when allegedly Karen Reid, who was intoxicated and
Speaker 1: angry at him, backed up into him, hitting him and
Speaker 1: leaving him to die in the snow. John o'keef's body
Speaker 1: was discovered at six am. I think he might have
Speaker 1: been a lie, but he was pronounced dead shortly afterwards.
Speaker 1: Karen Reid was arrested on February first, twenty twenty two,
Speaker 1: and charged with second degree murder man saw her while
Speaker 1: operating under the influence of alcohol and leaving the scene
Speaker 1: of a collision causing injury or death. She pleaded not
Speaker 1: guilty to all charges. Her defense team insisted that this
Speaker 1: was actually a cover up, insinuating that the police were
Speaker 1: actually a fall for his death. Witnesses said that Karen
Speaker 1: she did come back to the scene of crime a
Speaker 1: few hours later, I guess when she had sobered up,
Speaker 1: And they said that she said that she had hit him,
Speaker 1: and she had left the scene and left him to die.
Speaker 1: And when she had left the scene of twelve thirty,
Speaker 1: she did leave him a lot of angry voicemails because
Speaker 1: he did not come back to see to say like, oh,
Speaker 1: you can come in, or I'm good or whatever. So
Speaker 1: Reid's defense team Karen Read's defense team, led by attorney
Speaker 1: David Yanetti and Alan Jackson. They argue that O'Keefe was
Speaker 1: killed inside the Albertone, possibly beaten an attacked by a dog,
Speaker 1: and dumped outside, with Reed being framed as the cover
Speaker 1: up for the crime. Their theory was that O'Keefe got
Speaker 1: out of the car went inside the house, a fight
Speaker 1: ensued with someone inside the house, either Brian Albert or
Speaker 1: his other Colin Albert, or Brian Higgins, a federal agent
Speaker 1: who was also the party someone fought with him is
Speaker 1: the point they pointed to o'keef's arm injuries, though the
Speaker 1: defense did saying that saying because of a witness, an
Speaker 1: expert witness, doctor Marie Russell, they suggested that his injuries
Speaker 1: were not with a car, but they were with dog bites,
Speaker 1: and the family inside the house had a dog at
Speaker 1: the time, they had a German shepherd. They said these
Speaker 1: dog bites at the home were showing that there must
Speaker 1: have been a fight and the dog got involved, which
Speaker 1: a German shepherd would if their owner was fighting. Incidentally,
Speaker 1: between the time of the attack and the trial, the
Speaker 1: very first trial of Karen Reid, the dog was re
Speaker 1: homed in that time, so they could never do a
Speaker 1: investigation where they looked into the dog. A lot of
Speaker 1: things that were inside that house allegedly went missing or destroyed.
Speaker 1: There were outside videotapes from across the street that never
Speaker 1: showed up. There was phones that were destroyed. Afterwards. At
Speaker 1: two twenty seven am, Jennifer McCabe, who was married to
Speaker 1: mister McCabe. She looked in her Google searches on her
Speaker 1: phone has a long to die in cold, suggesting that
Speaker 1: there was some fore knowledge of mister O'Keefe's condition, of
Speaker 1: John o keep's condition before the body was found. McCabe
Speaker 1: claimed that it was searched at six am, six twenty
Speaker 1: am when Karen was there at the house looking for him,
Speaker 1: but it was it was to twenty seven am. They
Speaker 1: also said that there was key evidence, the key evidence
Speaker 1: of the whole trial was this broken tail light that
Speaker 1: Karen Read's car allegedly had. This broken tail light found
Speaker 1: at the scene, but it was found days later underneath
Speaker 1: all the snow. They they claimed the defense claimed it
Speaker 1: was actually planted there, and it was not. It wasn't
Speaker 1: like that she hit him, broke the tail light and
Speaker 1: then fled. That actually was planted there a few days
Speaker 1: later by people within that Canton PD Boston PD universe
Speaker 1: trying to protect the mccabes well. On Wednesday, June eighteenth,
Speaker 1: after four days of deliberation in the second trial, the
Speaker 1: first trial was on jury. In this second trial, the
Speaker 1: jury acquitted Karen Read of all major charges, finding her
Speaker 1: only guilty of driving under the influence, which basically I
Speaker 1: mean Karen did say she was drinking right beforehand, so
Speaker 1: it's not shocking. But all the major things of the
Speaker 1: murder in the second degree, fleeing the scene of a crime,
Speaker 1: all that she was declared that she was not guilty.
Speaker 1: This case has deeply divided communities across the country who
Speaker 1: feel that Ree was either innocent and wrongfully framed by
Speaker 1: a power hungry and corrupt police department, or that they
Speaker 1: felt she murdered her boyfriend and that she was a
Speaker 1: cold hearted, crazy woman. And then there are other people
Speaker 1: feel like she was overcharged. Maybe she hit him, but
Speaker 1: it should have been a manslaughter charge and not a
Speaker 1: homicide in the second degree. Remember the prosecution, and they
Speaker 1: didn't just say, oh, they probably hit her. They went
Speaker 1: for the full juggular. They went for the full She
Speaker 1: intentionally hit him. It wasn't an accident. She meant to
Speaker 1: hit him. She did hit him, and then she fled
Speaker 1: in her drunken state. That's what they accused her of.
Speaker 1: It's a very very severe charge. In the middle of
Speaker 1: his whole trial, Karen Reid became this lightning rod of
Speaker 1: controversy and one man was behind the entire ground swell,
Speaker 1: grassroots effort to free her. And his name is Aiden Carney,
Speaker 1: otherwise known as turtle Boy. Aiden also has become a
Speaker 1: lightning plot of controversy. He was charged with witness tampering
Speaker 1: or sorry, witness intimidation. Rather, he said he said that
Speaker 1: was an effort to smear him. He's fighting those charges,
Speaker 1: but hate him are love him. He created a widespread
Speaker 1: effort to free Camra Read and he was successful in
Speaker 1: doing that. He created a movement from people all over
Speaker 1: that region and all over the country. They responded to
Speaker 1: what he was doing. He is coming on this podcast
Speaker 1: next the first time after the Karen retrial. He's going
Speaker 1: to give a full interview. I'm so excited. Please stay
Speaker 1: tuned and we'll be back with Turtle Boy. With me
Speaker 1: on today's podcast is Aimed Cardney. He is otherwise known
Speaker 1: as turtle Boy. Thank you so much for coming on.
Speaker 2: Aiden.
Speaker 1: My first question to you is how did you first
Speaker 1: hear about Karen's story and what made you throw yourself
Speaker 1: fully into it, like it's been a big part of
Speaker 1: your life last few years.
Speaker 4: Yeah, so, I know it was in the news when
Speaker 4: John first died I typically write about stories like that when,
Speaker 4: especially when the police are killed, it's you know, content,
Speaker 4: people are interested in death of a police officer. When
Speaker 4: I saw that it appeared to be an accident though,
Speaker 4: which just wasn't a very interesting story. Quite frankly, it
Speaker 4: was a tragic story. But then a year and a
Speaker 4: half later, when court filing started coming out and you
Speaker 4: started reading more and more about this, and it turned
Speaker 4: out that I was sitting on the story of the century,
Speaker 4: I realized that this deserved a much deeper dive when
Speaker 4: I realized that, wait a minute, a Boston police officer.
Speaker 3: At his house.
Speaker 4: Apparently killed another Boston police officer with an ATF agent
Speaker 4: and other people, and they covered it up after the fact,
Speaker 4: and the state police assisted them in that. Like I'm
Speaker 4: sitting on the story of the century here, and you know,
Speaker 4: I just started writing about it, and here we are,
Speaker 4: so you.
Speaker 1: Know, at the center of this case is a real tragedy.
Speaker 1: I mean, John'll keep his dead and his family and
Speaker 1: his friends miss him terribly. Karen is a lightning rod, right.
Speaker 1: Either she is a victim of the biggest cover up
Speaker 1: by the state and local police, or she's a crazy,
Speaker 1: jilted woman who did this, either intentionally or by an accent.
Speaker 1: What made people's intensity that drew her towards her so
Speaker 1: heavy like this?
Speaker 2: Why did?
Speaker 1: I mean, there's a lot of cases of people who
Speaker 1: are accused of crimes, but something about Karen made her
Speaker 1: people appealed to her.
Speaker 2: Do you have an opinion about that?
Speaker 3: Yeah, because she's so transparently innocent. I mean, that's all
Speaker 3: of this. It's just so obvious.
Speaker 4: I don't defend people who are charged with murdering police.
Speaker 4: I'm usually on the other side of that issue. Usually
Speaker 4: I'm very pro police, and I still am. And I've
Speaker 4: done a lot of articles exposing the opposite of this,
Speaker 4: the weakness of our court system that allows cop killers
Speaker 4: to be free in the first place. The profile of
Speaker 4: a cop killer is always the same. It's somebody with
Speaker 4: like one hundred and twenty five priors almost always, and
Speaker 4: so this.
Speaker 3: Didn't fit that description.
Speaker 4: So like, for me to go out and defend somebody
Speaker 4: who's accused of murdering a cop, you better believe there's
Speaker 4: going to be overwhelming evidence to back that up. I
Speaker 4: never would have jumped into this otherwise. It's just so
Speaker 4: obvious the amount of evidence that she had in her
Speaker 4: legal team. Ad showing that not only was she factually innocent,
Speaker 4: but that other people were involved in murdering him.
Speaker 3: Made me realize, Oh, this is I have to get
Speaker 3: involved here. I have to do something. I have to
Speaker 3: write about this.
Speaker 4: And you know, the story had been going on for
Speaker 4: about a year and a half, but it wasn't getting
Speaker 4: any media coverage.
Speaker 3: And that's what I'm good at.
Speaker 4: You know, if I've been doing what I do now
Speaker 4: for over a decade and I just started writing about it,
Speaker 4: and I had a pretty large platform, and it just
Speaker 4: grew and grew and grew from there.
Speaker 1: When you think back to the trial, obviously, I mean
Speaker 1: she was up against like a goliath, right, I mean
Speaker 1: at the very beginning there was it did not I
Speaker 1: mean I watched the documentaries of she was really up
Speaker 1: against it and her legal defense was like it was
Speaker 1: literally David and Goliath. How they turned the corner? Looking back,
Speaker 1: When did you think to yourself, they're going to find
Speaker 1: her innocent, Like they've done enough at this point where
Speaker 1: the defense has actually done their job, Like, was there
Speaker 1: a point or did you always think like she was
Speaker 1: going to be found in this sent there's no question, Well, I.
Speaker 4: Always felt she was going to be found innocent, no question,
Speaker 4: until I did after the first trial, after the first
Speaker 4: ended in a mistrial, I was convinced they were going
Speaker 4: to deliver it for about five seconds, and because it
Speaker 4: was just so obvious that she was innocent and these
Speaker 4: people are all so shady and they're all lying, it
Speaker 4: was just like, Okay, obviously they're going to quit her.
Speaker 4: And then when they didn't and they came back hung,
Speaker 4: I did what's called a journalism.
Speaker 3: I went and found jurors.
Speaker 4: The journalist was impounded, so you couldn't just find these
Speaker 4: people on their own, but I asked around. I got names,
Speaker 4: I got emails, and I started reaching out to them,
Speaker 4: and I got this guy Ronnie to come on.
Speaker 3: And Ronnie, as painful as it is to listen to
Speaker 3: him and.
Speaker 4: His explanation of what was happening in that jury room,
Speaker 4: even though it's insanity the things that they were talking about,
Speaker 4: it was still really important to hear because he was
Speaker 4: Basically what he said was, we didn't pay any attention
Speaker 4: to the conspiracy.
Speaker 3: We thought that was a distractor.
Speaker 4: We were focused on the data, the textream data from
Speaker 4: the car, the fact that she was the one that
Speaker 4: dropped them off there that she was drunk blah blah
Speaker 4: blah blah, and that enabled Karen Reid's defense team to
Speaker 4: read My interview with Ronnie enabled the Karen Reid team
Speaker 4: to readjust their strategy and focus less on the conspiracy.
Speaker 4: You didn't get that much in the second trial, and
Speaker 4: more on John wasn't hit by a car, there was
Speaker 4: no collision.
Speaker 3: If there was no collision, then.
Speaker 4: Karen Reid didn't do it, and it's not their job
Speaker 4: to figure out who did.
Speaker 3: Quite frankly right, and they blew that did so?
Speaker 2: Do you so?
Speaker 1: Like they didn't think about the dog bites or already
Speaker 1: think that dog bite They thought that was a distraction.
Speaker 4: Yeah, that's one of the things that Ronnie told me that,
Speaker 4: like the dog thing was a distraction. That these are
Speaker 4: all big distractions to take away from the fact that
Speaker 4: she ran him over with the car. I mean, it
Speaker 4: was it was painful to interview him, but as as
Speaker 4: painful as that was, like, that's journalism, that's finding out
Speaker 4: from these people who were in the room, what happened.
Speaker 3: What did you guys discuss and no one else had
Speaker 3: that scoop?
Speaker 2: Wow, that's crazy. I didn't. Okay, I missed that story
Speaker 2: that they thought that all.
Speaker 1: Of this was was so they thought that even what
Speaker 1: about the text from the cop talking about how she is,
Speaker 1: how she looked, and were there any nudes or they
Speaker 1: thought that was they thought that was abstraction.
Speaker 4: Their basic takeaway with that was, Yeah, he's a scumbag,
Speaker 4: he's not a good person, but it doesn't change the
Speaker 4: fact that she had him with the car like that
Speaker 4: was their takeaway, and that he got carried away because
Speaker 4: he was so upset with this woman for killing John
Speaker 4: O'Keefe that it was almost like understandable that he would
Speaker 4: vent like this on his private cell phone.
Speaker 1: What about what about the Okay, so I'm not from
Speaker 1: Boston and from New York, but I do have relatives
Speaker 1: from Lynn, Massachusetts. Lynn Lynn said, what is the feeling about?
Speaker 1: But you hear people from that area talk about that
Speaker 1: the police are corrupt? Why is that feeling palpable in
Speaker 1: that area?
Speaker 3: Uh? You know, I mean, just look at how easy
Speaker 3: this was.
Speaker 4: I Mean, the issue wasn't just we all know Michael
Speaker 4: Proctor was a corrupt scumbag who's been fired, right, But
Speaker 4: the issue is that Michael Proctor was protected that Michael.
Speaker 3: Procter knew the mcalvert, McCabe's and the Alberts prior to this.
Speaker 3: He lied about it.
Speaker 4: He was so obviously lying on reports or whatever. And
Speaker 4: you know, I used to be a high school teacher.
Speaker 4: If another teacher was inappropriate with a student, we wouldn't
Speaker 4: back them up. The union would sell you down the river,
Speaker 4: like no one would have your back if you behave
Speaker 4: inappropriately like that. But with police, it's different. It's like,
Speaker 4: no matter what, they're gonna have your back. They just
Speaker 4: and I understand it. I understand that, Like in twenty
Speaker 4: twenty with the Black Lives Matter riots or whatever, it
Speaker 4: was like us against the world mentality, they're attacking us.
Speaker 4: We got to stick together and that mentality. Because of that,
Speaker 4: they do stick together to a fault, you know, to
Speaker 4: a fault like I support the police, but not corrupt
Speaker 4: police and not the police in this situation. And you know,
Speaker 4: I do talk to a lot of cops about this
Speaker 4: who are like, you know, they completely agree with me
Speaker 4: that Karen ree was framed, that she didn't do it,
Speaker 4: but they remained silent.
Speaker 2: What is okay?
Speaker 1: So that you became a lightning rod as well, which
Speaker 1: is very rare for somebody who started. I mean, you
Speaker 1: did start a movement. I don't know if Karen would
Speaker 1: have had what she had without you, like her conviction.
Speaker 2: Without you.
Speaker 1: You really did change the course of this woman's life
Speaker 1: and this case. But you became a lightning rod. Is
Speaker 1: there anything that happened during the course's trial you personally
Speaker 1: regret on your part or that? Because that got very heated.
Speaker 1: I read some of the things that people were saying
Speaker 1: about each other. Is there anything you feel like maybe
Speaker 1: I went over the line, or maybe I didn't go
Speaker 1: over line enough or anything.
Speaker 3: Well, you know, I went to jail.
Speaker 4: I was arrested and charged and charged with god knows
Speaker 4: how many counts of felony witness intimidation. But the things
Speaker 4: that I did to get charged with that are not criminal.
Speaker 4: They're only criminal in Massachusetts if it's if they interpret
Speaker 4: the law a certain way. Like for instance, I went
Speaker 4: up to Jennifer McCabe at her kid's lacrosse game, right
Speaker 4: because it's the only place I could find her. I
Speaker 4: knew her kid was playing across that day, so I
Speaker 4: went to her game, and Bill and I took my
Speaker 4: camera out and went up to her and I said, Jennifer,
Speaker 4: why did you google how wanted Diane Cold?
Speaker 3: Why did you do that at two twenty seven? Why
Speaker 3: did you do that?
Speaker 4: And it turned it to a scene and Matt McKay
Speaker 4: pushed me, and you know, I got I left the
Speaker 4: stadium on my own accord, and I got charged with
Speaker 4: two counts of felony witnessed intimidation for that. That's what
Speaker 4: used to be called journalism, like going up to people,
Speaker 4: asking them the tough questions, getting in their face, not
Speaker 4: taking no for an answer. But in Massachusetts, our statue
Speaker 4: witness intimidation statue says that you cannot cause emotional, physical,
Speaker 4: or financial harm to witnesses. Every other state it's physical.
Speaker 4: I understand the need to say that. You can't threaten
Speaker 4: to break someone's legs if they don't, you know, do
Speaker 4: say what you want to say.
Speaker 3: Understand. I get that. But the emotional aspect of this.
Speaker 4: Every single person I've been charged with intimidating claims that
Speaker 4: I caused them emotional harm, that I made them sad.
Speaker 4: This is literally what they told the grand jury. He
Speaker 4: made me I can't eat. Everybody thinks I'm a killer now,
Speaker 4: blah blah blah. He made me uncomfortable. I was embarrassed,
Speaker 4: and this and that, not a single I haven't caused
Speaker 4: a single cut, a scrape, a bruise, nothing to anybody.
Speaker 4: I don't threaten people. I'm a reporter, I'm an activist.
Speaker 4: I'm not a tough guy. So and if you see
Speaker 4: Brian Albert, Bran Albert could eat me for lunch. You know,
Speaker 4: I could eight one hundred and seventy pounds. Brian Albert's
Speaker 4: like two fifty, you know, six foot two, two fifty.
Speaker 4: He's a big boy, he's a marine. He could he
Speaker 4: could destroy me if he wanted to. So this idea
Speaker 4: that I'm intimidating these people is ridiculous. So to answer
Speaker 4: your question, I wouldn't change anything. I mean, I wish
Speaker 4: I wasn't arrested. I wish that didn't happen, but it did.
Speaker 4: And I contend that I did nothing wrong.
Speaker 2: I wish I was one seventy. It's good for you.
Speaker 1: I all right, this is the question on everyone's mind.
Speaker 1: I have to ask you this. What do you think
Speaker 1: happened to John O'Keeffe.
Speaker 4: I think he went inside that house after camer Reid
Speaker 4: dropped him off. He was supposed to text her back
Speaker 4: and say everything's cool here, you can go home, and
Speaker 4: I'm all set. But I think he went that house
Speaker 4: and a confrontation happened. We don't know with who. There's
Speaker 4: many possible suspects. There's Brian Higgins, who had the motive
Speaker 4: to do it because he was half an hour earlier flirting,
Speaker 4: sending flirtatious text messages to his girlfriend. There is Colin Albert,
Speaker 4: who was a punk who gets a lot of fights,
Speaker 4: who had issues with John.
Speaker 3: They were neighbors.
Speaker 4: They threw beer cans on his lawn, disrespected him, and
Speaker 4: they were all drunk. And so what I think is
Speaker 4: he went in there, words were exchanged, punches were thrown,
Speaker 4: and I think an accident happened. I think John felt
Speaker 4: backwards during this fight after the dog bit him, because
Speaker 4: you know, if Brian Alberts involved in the fight, the
Speaker 4: dog's going to back him up.
Speaker 3: Mean, that's ban the German shepherd, It's like their instinct.
Speaker 4: And I think it dragged him down and I think
Speaker 4: he hit his head on a stair and I think
Speaker 4: it caused a three inch laceration in the back of
Speaker 4: his head, and I think it knocked him out and
Speaker 4: it made him unconscious and he was immediately incapacitated. According
Speaker 4: to every who testified at that trial, that's what killed John,
Speaker 4: the blunt impact to the back of the head. And
Speaker 4: so I think that they realized that he was probably
Speaker 4: convulsing be a puke on his box of shorts, and
Speaker 4: I think they realized, we have a dying Boston cop
Speaker 4: in our house.
Speaker 3: This is really bad. What are we going to do?
Speaker 4: And the plan was simple. I mean, people act like
Speaker 4: this is so complicated. Just tell him the guy and
Speaker 4: never came in a house. He never came in an house.
Speaker 4: Just we're going to put him right outside where where
Speaker 4: we last saw her car and then say, I don't
Speaker 4: know how Jesus Christ did she hit him?
Speaker 3: What happened? Oh my god. I mean, it's just it's
Speaker 3: such a simple story. You never came in the house.
Speaker 1: And the big question I think everyone once knows what
Speaker 1: else was in that house when they were there, because
Speaker 1: what mean, yeah, usually you don't throw after parties at
Speaker 1: twelve thirty in the morning just to have a few
Speaker 1: more beers and watch finding Nemo.
Speaker 4: You do if you're a functioning alcoholic, like a lot
Speaker 4: of these people are. I mean, these are these are
Speaker 4: grown ass adults having after parties.
Speaker 3: You're You're absolutely right. It's a weird thing that I mean,
Speaker 3: that's why he didn't want to go in.
Speaker 4: She's a grown ass woman who was a financial analyst
Speaker 4: of fidelity, you know, making a quarter million dollars a year.
Speaker 3: She doesn't go to after parties at twelve thirty, you know.
Speaker 2: On a weekday, right on a weekday.
Speaker 3: It was a Friday night.
Speaker 1: It was a Friday night. Okay, yeah, it's like a
Speaker 1: holiday or something like that, was right, It was right
Speaker 1: around the corner right after all it was.
Speaker 4: It was a blizzard was happening, so a lot of
Speaker 4: people were, you know, not going to work or whatever.
Speaker 4: So like, yeah, so John, you know that was a
Speaker 4: problem in the relationship is John liked to drink.
Speaker 3: John liked to go out, and she was always stuck
Speaker 3: with the kids.
Speaker 4: And that that's why she left all those nasty voicemails
Speaker 4: for him. Afterwards, She's like, I'm fucking suck at you.
Speaker 4: You know, you're a fucking douchebag. I'm home with your
Speaker 4: fucking kids again.
Speaker 3: What the fuck?
Speaker 4: Those are the exact type of voicemails you leave to
Speaker 4: someone if you intend to see them again and chew
Speaker 4: them out like that's not from me.
Speaker 3: You till a dead person?
Speaker 2: Yeah, there was, There was.
Speaker 1: There was this one comedian who was very much on
Speaker 1: the side of Karen, but who said, in all the
Speaker 1: true crime documentaries, usually you leave a message like can't
Speaker 1: wait to see you, hope you're home soon.
Speaker 2: And then you know st.
Speaker 3: Peterson did that with Lacy. That's the exact voicemail.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and then meanwhile you're cleaning out their bank accounts
Speaker 1: and you're moving their money around, but like you're leaving
Speaker 1: the messages like I'm this innocent person and she was
Speaker 1: at the scene again within I think three hours of
Speaker 1: her or four hours when dropping him off or whatever
Speaker 1: the case is, looking for him. Usually it's not the
Speaker 1: pattern of somebody that as you say, you know, people
Speaker 1: who kill cops usually have a long history and a
Speaker 1: pattern to it. What are you going to do now
Speaker 1: that the trial is over?
Speaker 3: Well, I got going to soak it all in and.
Speaker 4: I'm starting in a documentary that they're doing about me
Speaker 4: with compelling pictures. We just announced that a major motion
Speaker 4: picture has been greenlit for this. I'm going to be
Speaker 4: speaking a crime con in September I'm going to be
Speaker 4: writing a book, and then I'm going to be dealing
Speaker 4: with my own legal issues, like I still have my
Speaker 4: charges to deal with, a whole bunch of them. I'm
Speaker 4: facing like one hundred and twenty years in prison when
Speaker 4: you know it's never gonna happen, but theoretically could one.
Speaker 2: Hundred and twenty years in prison for a while.
Speaker 4: Each kind of fell any witness intimidation carries a ten
Speaker 4: year maximum sentence. If they wanted to, they could throw
Speaker 4: the book at me, you know. And these people are sick.
Speaker 4: We've seen what they've done to Karen Reid. My lawyers
Speaker 4: are not going to let that happen. I'm not going
Speaker 4: to let that happen.
Speaker 3: Obviously. I have two kids, they're seven and ten.
Speaker 4: They need me, and I'm not going to allow the
Speaker 4: state to take them away from me.
Speaker 3: Period.
Speaker 2: I know that she has a civil trial.
Speaker 1: Still, do they just start from scratch now looking for
Speaker 1: John o'keefs killer?
Speaker 3: Yeah?
Speaker 2: What do you think it'd be like a cold case.
Speaker 4: They've already issued a statement saying that like this is
Speaker 4: a shame, John deserved justice. Mcalverts have already issued a
Speaker 4: statement too, and I'm sure that's all that they're going
Speaker 4: to treat her like OJ or like Casey Anthony and
Speaker 4: just say she got away with it, and that's the
Speaker 4: excuse not to go after the people who actually did this.
Speaker 4: But they know, like Karen Reid is going to Karen
Speaker 4: Reid can go out anywhere in this state, in this
Speaker 4: country really and be welcomed, And any restaurant in Boston
Speaker 4: she goes out to tonight, her meal is free. You know,
Speaker 4: she's basically a quasi celebrity unintentionally, right. The mcalberts can't
Speaker 4: do that. Mclberts go places and they get booed and
Speaker 4: every they look at they have to look around and say,
Speaker 4: who knows what we did? Like who here doesn't like us?
Speaker 4: So that's the karma that they will have to live
Speaker 4: with for the rest of their lives.
Speaker 1: Okay, last question, where can people go to read more
Speaker 1: about what you're doing? Where can they follow your cases
Speaker 1: and your book and your movie and your speeches. You've
Speaker 1: got a busier schedule than me, so where can people
Speaker 1: go to continue follow? Yeah, I mean turtle boy is
Speaker 1: so weird to say, turtle boy, you're you're a man,
Speaker 1: but like what like what uh?
Speaker 3: Doctor turtle Boys Doctor.
Speaker 2: Turtle Boy where people go to keep following.
Speaker 4: Jill Biden's a doctored and so am I That's what
Speaker 4: That's why I started myself. That's my super handle is
Speaker 4: at doctor Turtle Boy d O C t O or
Speaker 4: turtle Boy. My website is TV as in Turtleboy DailyNews
Speaker 4: dot com.
Speaker 3: Uh and you can see me on YouTube Turtle Boy
Speaker 3: Live Channel.
Speaker 1: All right, Well, keep up with turta boy because I
Speaker 1: guess there's a lot more coming out about the story
Speaker 1: and about you. And I appreciate you being here and
Speaker 1: giving me the interview.
Speaker 3: My pleasure. Ryan, have a good night.
Speaker 1: Hey, we'll be right back after this. Now for the
Speaker 1: ask Me Anything segment of this podcast. I love getting
Speaker 1: these emails. Please keep sending them. Ask me any kind
Speaker 1: of question. I could possibly answer the emails. Ryan at
Speaker 1: Numbers gamepodcast dot com. Ryan at Numbers gamepodcast dot com. Okay,
Speaker 1: first question readers, Hi, Ryan, what are your thoughts about
Speaker 1: the quality of polling coming out showing a dramatic swing
Speaker 1: in the favorite immigration enforcement and deportation among the wider
Speaker 1: American population and especially the Hispanic community. I see a
Speaker 1: lot of Twitter x post polls with comments like this
Speaker 1: poll was almost accurate in twenty twenty four. However, I
Speaker 1: think that the kind of polling for a straightforward binary
Speaker 1: election is very different than polling on an issue in
Speaker 1: which respondents our positions are very nuanced. The data can
Speaker 1: be impacted by how the question is worded. That is
Speaker 1: one hundred percent tru of. By the way, do these
Speaker 1: high quality polls for twenty four necessarily translate to how
Speaker 1: the polling issues are set? And we're asking now? Also,
Speaker 1: you mentioned that you have following European politics. Do you
Speaker 1: follow TLDR news in the EU? Best regards, love the podcast,
Speaker 1: Robert diaz Arista.
Speaker 3: I hope I'm pronouncing your last time.
Speaker 1: Correctly, but Robert, thank you so much for sending me
Speaker 1: the email. I don't follow TLDR, but I will check
Speaker 1: them out at your suggestion.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Okay.
Speaker 1: On the polling, so yes, it is a lot based
Speaker 1: on how the question is asked. But I think when
Speaker 1: you're asking in such generalities, when they're not asking specifically
Speaker 1: do you want to do this policy or do with
Speaker 1: that policy? And there's a full nuanced connection. First of all,
Speaker 1: in polling, there's something called a leading question. Right, if
Speaker 1: I sit there and say, Tom, Dick and Harry are
Speaker 1: all child molestors. Would you want them to live at
Speaker 1: your house next to your house with your four year
Speaker 1: old child. That's a leading question, right, You're you're giving
Speaker 1: the information ahead of time to affect the answer that
Speaker 1: you want. So pay attention to that when the questions
Speaker 1: are being asked to have an informed pole. The question
Speaker 1: of immigration in the broad terms, right, is more specific
Speaker 1: to the time that we live in, in the moment
Speaker 1: that we live in then in the than in like
Speaker 1: the actual policy of how people are carrying it out right,
Speaker 1: Because the polling around immigration enforcement and immigration reduction specifically
Speaker 1: was mounting before even the midterms of twenty twenty two,
Speaker 1: Like that number was changing well before that even started changing,
Speaker 1: like really during COVID, where people felt that they felt
Speaker 1: threatened by a lot of changes. Some of it was legitimate,
Speaker 1: some of it was not legitimate. But that has started
Speaker 1: that change. I want to take you back in time
Speaker 1: for a second. If you look at the Gallop polling,
Speaker 1: which goes back to nineteen sixty five, that's the that
Speaker 1: LBJ fundamentally altered the way we have legal immigration. A
Speaker 1: plurality of Americans wanted the system to stay as is,
Speaker 1: And what that tells me is that they never really
Speaker 1: thought about immigration because it wasn't that big of a deal.
Speaker 1: There weren't that many immigrants coming to our country between
Speaker 1: nineteen twenty eight and nineteen sixty five. We had a
Speaker 1: basic immigration moratorium for forty years. Then illegal immigration after
Speaker 1: nineteen sixty five starts ticking up, and there is a
Speaker 1: demographic change of who's coming to our country. Before in
Speaker 1: nineteen sixty five, the immigrants had to reflect the current population.
Speaker 1: So because the immigration was mostly Western Europe, all immigrants
Speaker 1: were mostly Western Europe, we weren't bringing in Africans and
Speaker 1: Chinese and all the rest of them. Right, So the
Speaker 1: number starts ticking up of people who want lower levels
Speaker 1: of immigration as both demographics change, because mass change in
Speaker 1: demographics is oftentimes correlated with a declining social trust, and
Speaker 1: as illegal immigration changes, then it all comes together. In
Speaker 1: nineteen eighty six, Reagan does his amnesty and sixty five
Speaker 1: five percent of Americans at that point want legal immigration reduced,
Speaker 1: any legal immigration stop. It's a mood in the country
Speaker 1: that stayed with the majority for over a decade throughout
Speaker 1: Clinton's entire presidency. Now when Clinton was present, over a
Speaker 1: million illegal aliens were coming to our country every year.
Speaker 1: They were pouring through. In the mid nineties, Clinton works
Speaker 1: with Congress from Barbara Jordan and the Republicans in Congress
Speaker 1: to create a bunch of immigration enforcement. The numbers start
Speaker 1: ticking down as far as illegal immigration comes in, and
Speaker 1: then by like the late nineties, the number of people
Speaker 1: saying they want immigration reduce falls from a majority for
Speaker 1: the first time since the eighties, right for over a decade,
Speaker 1: and then what happens nine to eleven. Obviously that would
Speaker 1: cause people to say, we need to bring things in home.
Speaker 1: We need to stop you know what we're doing as
Speaker 1: far as immigration, We need to focus on us. The
Speaker 1: percentage of people who want immigration reduced spikes to fifty
Speaker 1: eight percent after nine to eleven. That dwindles over time.
Speaker 1: There's no more terrorist attacks, and terrorism becomes in people's
Speaker 1: minds what they're thinking about when they're thinking about people
Speaker 1: coming to our country right after nine to eleven, justifiably,
Speaker 1: so that's what you would think of when you're thinking
Speaker 1: of safety and threats from the outside of the country.
Speaker 1: So that stay is of plurality until twenty nineteen. That's
Speaker 1: the third year of the Trump presidency and is the
Speaker 1: very first time and only time on record, that a
Speaker 1: plurality of Americans actually favor more legal immigration than less
Speaker 1: legal immigration. Because during that time, the beginning of the
Speaker 1: Great Awokening, when liberals probably became woke and hating Trump
Speaker 1: was their ideology and their religion. To want more immigrants
Speaker 1: was to show that you hate Trump. So the number
Speaker 1: of liberals, who traditionally had a lot of them wanting
Speaker 1: to say will want less immigration plummets. They all want
Speaker 1: mass more immigration, and it hits thirty two percent in
Speaker 1: twenty nineteen one more legal immigration. Then Joe Biden becomes president,
Speaker 1: the floodgates open, and the number of people who want
Speaker 1: less immigration is hits its highest points since nine to
Speaker 1: eleven and fifty five percent, and that was in June
Speaker 1: twenty twenty four.
Speaker 2: So, yes, the quality of this polls matter.
Speaker 1: But what I look for when I look at these
Speaker 1: kinds of issues like abortion, gay marriage. You know, let's
Speaker 1: take gay marriage for example. A number of poles from
Speaker 1: Pere Research to you know, I don't know, I think
Speaker 1: it was morning Console whatever.
Speaker 3: Morning.
Speaker 2: Const's a pretty low level.
Speaker 1: Poll, but they all showed that there is a downtick
Speaker 1: in the number of Americans who support gay marriage. If
Speaker 1: it was just one pole, I would say it's it's
Speaker 1: they must asked the question weird or whatever. But is
Speaker 1: a genuine change, especially among younger conservative people who I think,
Speaker 1: I honestly believe it's a transgender issue which is turning
Speaker 1: them away from gay marriage. But that is a real
Speaker 1: thing that's really happening. As far as how we feel
Speaker 1: as a country, the immigration story has ticked up significantly,
Speaker 1: especially because of how Joe Biden governed this country. So yeah,
Speaker 1: I wouldn't be so obsessed with this one. Was this
Speaker 1: pole the most accurate or this one was the least
Speaker 1: accurate or whatever, look.
Speaker 2: At the over arching story.
Speaker 1: Cato Institute did his poll and I think twenty twenty two,
Speaker 1: and Kato, I mean, they would turn our country into
Speaker 1: Uganda if they could. They did a poll showing sixty
Speaker 1: five or sixty eight percent of Americans wanted immigration reduced.
Speaker 1: That was legal immigration reduced, because we taken one point
Speaker 1: two million per year. And it's a mass demographic change.
Speaker 1: Even when I was a kid. You know, I'm I'm
Speaker 1: middle aged now at thirty eight, but I'm not seventy eight.
Speaker 2: You know what I mean.
Speaker 1: It was not like I'm like, you know, sitting there
Speaker 1: saying back in my day, although I do say that
Speaker 1: all the time to my Zoomer employees. Anyway, That's what
Speaker 1: I That's what I have to say about it. The
Speaker 1: overarching narrative from all these poles are saying the same
Speaker 1: thing or around most of these polls, and that is
Speaker 1: the bigger thing than whether or not one or two
Speaker 1: polls are sitting there in saying don't worry about the
Speaker 1: accuracy of that versus like the horse race. That matters
Speaker 1: with the horse race issue. When it comes to the
Speaker 1: overall question, if they're all saying the same thing or
Speaker 1: most are saying this one trajectory over time, and it's building,
Speaker 1: it's building, it's building, it's probably accurate and politicians should
Speaker 1: look at that. As I've said in this whole entire rant,
Speaker 1: a majority of Americans for most of my lifetime, since
Speaker 1: nineteen eighty seven, even predating that in nineteen eighty six,
Speaker 1: have won of the lower levels of legal immigration. And
Speaker 1: all our politicians have done is increased legal immigration. Have
Speaker 1: they actually in the eighties or nineties reduced legal immigration
Speaker 1: and the fear of mass immigration demographically changing our country
Speaker 1: wasn't present. And have they not done the Iraq War,
Speaker 1: in the World Trade Organization with China and opening China
Speaker 1: those you know, those little three things. Donald Trump would
Speaker 1: probably never have been president because the issues he ran
Speaker 1: on would have never been issues.
Speaker 2: But they were.
Speaker 1: Sold on neoliberalism, full boogie, and that's why they got
Speaker 1: the man that they hate the most. Anyway, I hope
Speaker 1: that makes sense. Okay, but thank you for your email.
Speaker 2: I love them. Is on them.
Speaker 1: Our next and last question for the day comes from
Speaker 1: Wade to Bosh. How do you feel about quote unquote
Speaker 1: abundance and point based immigration? Please interview Tristan Hopper. I
Speaker 1: don't know who Tristan Hopper is. I will look him
Speaker 1: up and maybe interview him. If he's not crazy, Okay,
Speaker 1: maybe he's related a dentist opera. It'd be great if
Speaker 1: we coun talk about his movies for a whole segment.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 1: The abundance I think he's talking about this book by
Speaker 1: Ezra Klin and Derek Thompson. Abundance is like the stupidest
Speaker 1: slogan for politics that, of course only people who don't
Speaker 1: actually work in politics they just write about it would
Speaker 1: think of. It talks about how the need to reregulate
Speaker 1: everything from like housing to energy to have a prosperous society.
Speaker 1: And it's mostly Elbert letter to liberals about how like
Speaker 1: you can win people back by saying, you know, we're
Speaker 1: going to make things affordable by just building everywhere. That
Speaker 1: was my read a bit anyway, Maybe I'm reading it wrong,
Speaker 1: but I don't think I am the it was. You
Speaker 1: could clearly tell one it's written by people who don't
Speaker 1: work in politics, because I think abundance is a very
Speaker 1: stupid phrase. It's not it's not I don't think it's interesting.
Speaker 1: I don't think it's a tagline people going to rally around.
Speaker 1: And secondly, it's a you could tell it's written by
Speaker 1: people who have never truly loved a place.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 1: I love the neighborhood I grew up and I really
Speaker 1: really love it. I know every street, I could read
Speaker 1: them like the back of my hand. I spent most
Speaker 1: of my life there as of now, and I don't
Speaker 1: want I don't want mass housing there. It's mostly one
Speaker 1: in two family homes and makes a community. I know
Speaker 1: that I know the people I know. I don't need
Speaker 1: a train station in there. I'm good like we can
Speaker 1: make things a little better, we can improve on the margins.
Speaker 1: But I love it, and I don't want to see
Speaker 1: it becomes something completely different for the sake of wealthy
Speaker 1: yuppies moving there or foreigners moving there. I and when
Speaker 1: you love someplace, preserving it becomes as important as making
Speaker 1: it affordable, right, making it affordable while preserving certain characteristics
Speaker 1: that keep a community together. My other problem with it
Speaker 1: is they approach the issue of affordability from a demand
Speaker 1: issue and not from a sorry, from a supply issue,
Speaker 1: not a demand issue. Yes, Laguna Beach, California, beautiful beach
Speaker 1: community has a demand problem, right, I'm sorry, a supply problem.
Speaker 1: They only have so many homes to keep it this way,
Speaker 1: So why not just shove apartment buildings everywhere and everyone
Speaker 1: could live there. The question is not so much just
Speaker 1: the supply as the demand, the demand for energy, the
Speaker 1: demand for housing, the demand for space would not be
Speaker 1: so large if we did not bring in one point
Speaker 1: two million people in this country every year. Legally, that's
Speaker 1: just the fact there's only so much room. There's only
Speaker 1: so much space, and the more credible people's space is
Speaker 1: the less inclined they are to have their own children,
Speaker 1: or to afford their own home, or to grow up.
Speaker 1: All these things feed into each other. So it's a
Speaker 1: very neoliberal idea. It's like saying, like, why don't we
Speaker 1: just open up China to the world's economy, and then
Speaker 1: they'll want to be the democracies.
Speaker 2: Just like we are. It's it's it shows no foresight
Speaker 2: into the future of problems that that would create.
Speaker 1: Do you want to live in a box just because
Speaker 1: you can get a nice view, maybe you will. I
Speaker 1: don't think that that's true for a lot of people.
Speaker 1: I think they want to own something that they could
Speaker 1: live in, and I think they want to be part
Speaker 1: of a community if they can. They're all looking for
Speaker 1: this authenticity that they feel like they belong somewhere, and
Speaker 1: it's hard when you live in a crowded, little cramp space.
Speaker 1: I don't think that they want to live like in
Speaker 1: parts of China that people like literally live in a cubicle.
Speaker 1: I just I just don't see it. And I don't
Speaker 1: think that that abundance argument works. I don't think it's compelling,
Speaker 1: and I think it's a bad political tagline anyway, Okay,
Speaker 1: and the points based system on immigration. I generally favor it,
Speaker 1: but I want overall immigration numbers reduced. I would like
Speaker 1: a moretatorium for a period of time, and then overall
Speaker 1: numbers reduced to one to two hundred thousand a year,
Speaker 1: which are historical numbers based on a point system. Immigrants
Speaker 1: should be better than us. They shouldn't be worse or
Speaker 1: as good. We should want the best in the brightest
Speaker 1: of the world, the cream of the world, not your
Speaker 1: average Joe. And I know that can bring up a
Speaker 1: lot of hurt feelings, but that is what I want.
Speaker 1: We should always pursue immigrants who are better than the norm,
Speaker 1: not at or below the norm. So that's why I'm
Speaker 1: supportive of a point based system, but I want overall
Speaker 1: immigration numbers reduced. You cannot have a twenty first century
Speaker 1: economy with the twentieth century immigration policy. Okay, that's my
Speaker 1: rant for today. We will be back on Monday. I
Speaker 1: appreciate you. I hope you like this little true crime episode.
Speaker 1: It's definitely different. Please like and subscribe to this podcast
Speaker 1: wherever you're listening. You can listen the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts,
Speaker 1: wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 2: I'll be back next week. I hope you will too,
Speaker 2: Thanks