All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 26, 2002 - Art Bell
40:14
Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell - Richard Glen Boire - Cognitive Liberty - Art ends the show early
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
This is Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell from the Kingdom of Nye.
It is, and coming up should be a very interesting program.
We may even ask about lucid dreaming or dreaming in general.
And we're certainly going to talk about drugs, psychedelic and otherwise.
Richard Glenn Boyer is co-director and counsel for the Center of Cognitive Liberty and Ethics.
Mr. Boyer is a writer, social systems analyst, and legal scholar specializing in dissident thinking and control theory.
Dissident thinking...
And control theory.
Now, that's interesting.
His dedication to examining and developing legal issues related to freedom of thought has led to a variety in his life, certainly, and a unique career.
From 1993 to 1999, Mr. Boyer was the editor of the Entheogen Law Reporter, a quarterly journal reporting and commenting on legal cases and legislation affecting users of shamanic inebriants.
In 1996, he co- Taught courses on the topic of the University of California, Davis Experimental College.
Since January 2000, Ms.
Boyer has been the Executive Director of the Center for Cognitive Liberty and Ethnics, a non-partisan, non-profit law and policy center working in the public interest to protect fundamental civil liberties.
You know, those things that are leaking away today.
In addition to co-authoring, no, authoring several books, Mr. Boyer's articles have appeared in a wide spectrum of magazines and journals, from mainstream and academic to underground, and has been a featured speaker at conferences, has provided interviews via radio and television.
Mr. Boyer received his Doctorate of Jurisprudence from the University of California at Berkeley.
That was in 1990.
Should be very interesting, coming right up.
All right, to Richard Glenn Boyer.
Richard, welcome to the program.
Thanks a lot, Art.
Great to have you.
Where are you?
I'm calling from Northern California right now.
Actually, I called you.
Northern California, huh?
Yep.
All right.
Great to have you.
We've done a lot pretty recently on drugs on this program, specifically on marijuana.
And I know that you've dealt with a lot of these issues, and I guess we're going to explore exactly what you think about these things.
What is the organization, Cognitive Liberty and Ethics?
What does that mean?
Well, as far as I know, to the best of my knowledge, we're the only organization right now in the world that's focused on, exclusively focused on, freedom of thought.
So what we're looking at are areas, different scientific innovations,
whether they're technological, pharmaceutical, anything that now is threatening to allow government
or corporations or any forces that have this technology to either control or surveil the mind.
And we're also looking at issues that, the same technologies, whether they have a promise
to assist in maybe augmenting intelligence, whether it's speeding up the mind
or allowing a wider spectrum of awareness.
So our organization looks at all the things that are on the cultural and scientific landscape and attempts to see whether there's promise or peril related to them and then point out what these are and then try and craft, if possible, some sort of social policy that would You would make the best use of them, or guard against the greatest dangers.
Control the mind, huh?
Would it be your view, Richard, that if, say, our government, or a government, came up with a pill or a drug that would control our minds, in some way beneficial to those who would control us, you know, financial, whatever, do you think for one second they would not use it?
Do you believe that?
I think it would be used.
I think the question is, you know, how would they use it and where would they get the precedent for being able to pull that over on the public?
And that's what's, you know, one of the things that's really of concern right now is that the government's setting a very dangerous precedent with respect to the way that it's handling drugs in general.
And by that I mean, in particular, the drugs that the government has determined are to be illegal versus the drugs, including alcohol, that the government's determined An individual has the right to use to influence their consciousness.
So the concern that I see right now and that our organization is addressing is what happens when you've already given the government the power to control or to authorize which states of consciousness are permitted and which are not.
And that's what we believe is the missing or the unseen aspect of drug prohibition right now.
Okay, let's discuss actually the efficacy of controlling drugs, period.
Is it appropriate to control some drugs, to take drugs by law out of the hands of people, put them in jail when they're found with them, and make it illegal to possess and use or whatever, traffic in, whatever?
Is that all wrong, or do you see any cases where it's appropriate?
Well, the first question is, does the government have the power to do this?
And there's no place that we have seen that the federal government, at least, has the power to determine that particular states of mind are authorized and others are not.
And what they're doing right now, I mean, we had prohibition, alcohol prohibition, and the only way that that was permissible was based on a constitutional amendment.
There's been no constitutional amendment to usher in drug prohibition.
This was something that came in in Some of it came in in the early part of the 20th century.
So you're saying the government has no legal basis on which to enforce any laws at all on drugs.
Is that your case?
There's no basis in the Constitution for the government to say that this drug is legal and this is not legal.
They don't have a federal police power.
They don't have the right to so-called control the health of the citizen.
That's something that's given to the states under our Constitution.
So if you got busted for a drug, Richard, and you went to court, is this the case that you'd stand up and try to make?
In other words, I'm sure you'd request a jury trial and take it as far as you could.
Is that the case you would make?
Look, they have no right to tell me what I can and can't do.
Well, it's going to be a little more nuanced than that.
The basis that the government is relying on right now, they don't say that we have the right to control drugs because they're bad for you or dangerous.
What they say is it comes down to a commerce clause, which is one small little clause in the Constitution that says that the government has the right to control economic activity between states.
And that drugs are a major economic activity that's going on right now, and that's the basis for the Feds stepping in.
So, you know, that's one argument.
The argument that we would make is, look, what's going on here is an attempt by the U.S.
government to engage in a type of cognitive censorship.
We don't allow the government right now to censor books, to ban certain books and say that you may only read these, but you can't read those.
But yet we're allowing the government to make that sort of a pronouncement when it comes to something even more private, even more interiorized than reading a book.
And this is what is occurring within a person's mind.
It's one thing to make a drug or to make a behavior illegal.
And we think that that's perfectly appropriate, and that's the role of the government.
Okay, but doesn't it really come down to commerce, Richard?
In other words, we're a capitalist society, right?
Yep.
And drugs are generally considered to be many, if not most, anti-capitalistic.
In other words, people sit around and get stoned.
They're not productive.
And if they're not productive, that hurts the economy generally.
Of course, you could apply that to alcohol as well.
Well, you could definitely apply that to alcohol.
And as we know, alcohol is very legal.
It's advertised nationally.
It results in something like over 110,000 deaths a year.
But I guess the other side of the coin is that there's an assumption in there that drugs make you unproductive.
And I think that if you look at history, that's not necessarily borne out.
And number two, Assuming that even was true, there are many things that people do in society that aren't, you know, facilitating their productivity.
We don't make those illegal.
But okay, if we look at history, the Chinese for example, right, with the opium wars and all the rest of that, I mean, for a while they went and they sort of opened it up and then they decided that it was anti-productive and, you know, based on that they They went to war against it, right?
So there are some examples in history of suddenly opening up and the result thereof.
Well, actually, the basis of a lot of the laws, especially the earliest laws, were really racist laws led by the United States.
So particularly with respect to opium, the first law was banning the smoking of opium, in which most of, you know, it was legal up until the turn of the century.
And most people here in the United States were using opium as a tincture, as something that they would take in drops, that was one of the most widely prescribed medicines at the time.
However, the Chinese were the only people who were coming into the United States and smoking opium.
So the first series of laws in the United States Laws that banned only the smoking of opium.
So these were laws that were really targeting a particular race.
And we see that again when we look at the early history of marijuana prohibition.
It also targeted blacks and Hispanics who were predominant smokers and were, you know, there was concern at the time that, you know, this is one way to control these people or they may get out of line.
And so we can see this time and time again that drugs are actually used as a method for controlling Particular classes of people.
And if you look over time, even up to recent times, the fact of the matter is that the drugs that the government has made illegal or which are illegal today have at moments in time been legal and have also been conducive to incredible creative and self-examinated sort of experiences.
For instance, just, you know, Several years ago, Richard Feynman, the famous physicist who was the one that discovered why it was the space shuttle exploded.
This guy was someone who was very open and honest about his use of marijuana.
Despite the fact that it was illegal, he believed that he had novel ideas and various insights into scientific theories through the use of this drug.
And who's to say he didn't?
Who's to say he didn't?
Kerry Mullis.
He's the one who won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1993.
for discoveries in DNA said that without his use of LSD he seriously doubts whether he could have come up with this
idea.
That's incredible. I didn't know that.
Yeah. And you know, this is... it's very hard to talk about these topics, these subjects,
because obviously you can not only have a social stigma attached to you
that you're used to still legal drugs, but you could raise the ire of the government
and, you know, they have the power now to kick in your doors,
which is unfortunately occurring across the country.
But we can go through time and time again and you can see musicians, poets, painters, writers, all these people have used various drugs and have proclaimed the creativity or the productive aspects of them.
Samuel Coleridge, the author of Kubla Khan, was an avowed opium user and, you know, claimed at the very
beginning of the poem that that was came to him as part of an opium dream. It goes on and
on. Albus Huxley, a classic novelist and a major intellectual, was one of the people
who really popularized the use of mescaline and LSD right around the late 50s and early 60s.
You seem to be mainly interested in defending the psychedelics.
Is that a fair statement?
I would say that that's the drugs that have been the ones that I think are most, have seemed to show the greatest potential Do you, in your own mind, and in what you work for, differentiate between the psychedelic class of drugs and crack and heroin and all the rest of the really hard, awful stuff?
Yeah.
Absolutely, based on the pharmacology of the substance, there's no question that these drugs have different properties.
But on a principled level, as to whether or not the government should be making these decisions, or whether individuals should be making We just lost our guest.
We just lost our guest, once again, and that is what's been happening to our phone lines.
And for those of you that have been disconnected in some way or otherwise messed with on our phone lines, I'm terribly sorry.
We think, and this is sort of just an only we think, that there's a problem in the Not here, and not very local to where I am, but in the fiber optic system somewhere along the line.
That's the best they've been able to come up with.
The phone company came here the other day, visited my house.
And, uh, dutifully went through, uh, checking all the local lines.
Of course, there was nothing wrong here, and I told them that.
And so then they went out, and they started looking at, uh, all the fiber optic between here and there, and they said, well, you know what?
We've, we've... It happened to us, too.
Just a sudden disconnect, and so right now we have this intermittent problem.
And of all the problems you can have with any sort of electronics, and I mean anything, An intermittent problem is the worst to try to find.
I mean, you will sit there for an hour or two hours, and you will never find it.
And you will give up, and it will go away, and it will happen again.
And again, and again, and again.
It is an electronic person's absolute nightmare.
Now, we will try and reach our guest again.
Now, that's interesting.
That's not even working right.
Let's see.
Part of the problem of trying to do a program like this when you have bad phone lines.
Well, hello there.
As I was explaining to the audience, Richard, every now and then, more now than then, the phone company seems to be doing this to us, so I apologize for that.
Hopefully we'll be able to carry on now.
So, even though you differentiate intellectually and from an ethical point of view, you would defend all drugs or the individual's right to use these drugs in the way they prescribe, not the government, equally.
Yeah, essentially, we think that the issue here is who has the right to make determinations about the scope of consciousness.
And we think that there's nothing that's perhaps more an individual right, more central to the being of any human being than their consciousness.
And to be able to experience the full spectrum of consciousness is something that is a birthright.
And that the government's already proven that it has no ability to make determinations as to which state of mind are acceptable and which aren't.
Very obvious example of this is with respect to religious use of drugs, in which the government right now provides absolutely no protection.
There is one federal statute that permits Native Americans to use peyote, which is a vision-producing cactus.
Right.
But that statute is limited to Native Americans, and it's also limited to peyote.
So under the First Amendment, the Supreme Court ruled in 1990, there is no protection.
The only protection for Native American use of peyote is through the largesse of Congress.
We think that that's ludicrous.
The First Amendment, the right to make contact with whatever you believe is God or a spiritual connection, Is the most is what this country is based on and that for the drug war to trump that ought to send the warning sirens to everybody.
It's also ridiculous in our opinion that the government is drawing lines in this area based on race or based on religion.
Those are two areas that in any other context the government would be, you know, assaulted from every direction for making determinations based upon those lines.
But when it comes to drugs, The government's been given this power that we don't see anywhere else.
And ultimately, I guess what we see when we really analyze this is that the government really was put into place to, as far as the policing aspect of it is concerned, to protect individuals from other people's actions.
And what's happening with drugs is they've drawn the line in a very, very You know, very open and broad way such that simply the possession of some of these drugs could, you know, land you in a federal prison.
Absolutely.
Hold on.
We're at the bottom of the hour.
We'll be right back.
Pray for the phone lines, folks.
I'm Mark Bell.
With Richard Glenn Boyer, talking about drugs, talking about your freedom and your rights.
Do you feel the same way?
that the government has no business telling you what you can do with your body.
The President's New Year's Resolution is to make the world a better place.
It's easy if you try.
No hell below us.
Above us only sky.
Below us, above us only sky Imagine all the people living for today
Imagine there is no country It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for Has no relation to
Imagine all the people living life in peace You may say I'm a dreamer
Or a druggie.
Good morning, everybody.
You know, if you listen to the words of that song, I think that you might understand what it is that our government is worried about.
You know, when people take drugs, they, according to many, or so the psychology goes, begins to think as John Lennon thought when he sang this song.
And that would be, from our government's point of view, what's really wrong with drugs.
All right, pray for our phone lines.
We got disconnected during the break again.
It could become untenable here.
I hope not.
Richard Glenn Boyer is my guest.
And, Richard, welcome back.
Aren't drugs, specifically psychedelics, kind of like the natural enemy Of governments?
I mean, if you listen to John Lennon and what he's saying about, and you know all the allegations, in fact the admissions of the Beatles, you know, and how they were involved in various drugs, if it leads to the kind of thinking that wrote the words in Imagine, then you can imagine how governments would regard drugs as a natural enemy of theirs.
I think that's absolutely true.
They're very much... I think drugs have a lot in common with books in this regard, and we know from the history of censorship that dates back, you know, prior to the printing press, that governments have always had a fear of the printed word.
The reason they concern themselves with the printed word in books is not because, obviously, they're afraid of paper and ink.
It's because that words are the carriers of ideas and content.
And, in the same way, this war on quote-unquote drugs is an absolute misnomer.
And yet, though, in America, Richard, we have managed to maintain the relative integrity of the First Amendment, and there's barrels of ink out there, and they're used all the time, and a lot of them are very anti-government, and yet we allow that, but draw the line at drugs.
Right.
aspect of that is that we, as you say, we recognize that freedom of speech is one of the highest values and, indeed, it's enshrined in the First Amendment.
But in order to speak, we obviously have to have the ideas that precede the speech.
And if we've allowed the government to say that certain states of mind and certain ways of thinking are unauthorized or taboo or criminal, We've already allowed them to engage in a type of cognitive censorship.
George Orwell, in 1984, made the same sort of point when he talked about the language of newspeak.
And what was happening there was that the government, in his dystopian novel, had created its own language which only allowed the citizens to speak using particular words.
And in that book, there's a chilling phrase to me where one of the government characters explains to Winston Smith, he says, don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought?
Every year, fewer and fewer words, and the range of consciousness always a little smaller.
So what's happening in 1984 was, through the use of words, they could control what you could say and what you couldn't say.
In the same way, by making Ah, gee, folks, I'm sorry.
There it went again.
Hmm.
You know, on the one hand, my inclination is to say that we just have a technical difficulty here.
But ask me if this occurs to me, that when we are discussing particularly sensitive subjects, somebody isn't out there with some kind of switch going, there he goes again, quick, Now, more than likely, that's not there.
It just happened again.
More than likely, that's not the case, but I am becoming somewhat suspicious.
This is happening now with an alarming frequency.
Let me try and get a Richard Glenn Boyer on here again.
Boy, I'll tell ya.
Let's do this to a talk show host tonight and see what happens.
It's alright.
I've held up through worse.
We'll make it.
Richard?
Hi.
Hi.
Got you back, at least.
Thanks, I didn't... If the Patriot Act hadn't passed, I probably wouldn't have been so concerned about this, but maybe there's some people... Ah, there he goes again.
and I am so sorry.
Well, uh, gee, what am I gonna do here?
Thank you.
You know, he got a few words out about the Patriot Act, and off he went again.
All the other lines ring constantly because, of course, they get cut off.
Suddenly, boom, they get cut off, and then a whole new set of people come on, and they're ringing.
But we're getting cut off now virtually every minute or so.
This may not be a tenable situation.
I will nevertheless try once again.
Maybe the Patriot Act is what got us there.
Let's see.
I mean, you've got to suspect that, right?
Wouldn't imagine that, but yes, you would.
You would imagine it.
I do imagine it.
Richard, are you there?
Hi, Art.
Hi, Richard.
I don't know what we're going to do here.
I mean, you said the Patriot Act, and virtually when you said the Patriot Act, boom!
The Patriot Act takes us down the exact opposite road that you would have us going down, this yellow brick road you described.
We're going down the exact opposite road, right?
That's right.
For, I think, some legitimate reasons.
The government's been very concerned about, you know, maintaining security here.
Some of the ways they're going about it, I think, are very dangerous and disconcerting.
In particular, one of the things we've been trying to point attention to is that in order to stop terrorism, the government has now actually gained the right to subpoena, or actually doesn't even take a subpoena, simply visiting a library.
and requesting the records of books that people have been reading
and when they do this the librarian is by law unable to make any mention of the fact that the FBI has visited them.
Yeah, I've heard about this, that they've been doing that, that they actually can go to libraries and find out who reads these, I suppose from their point of view, dangerous books, now in the name of pursuing these terrorists, right?
Right, so what we've got is again a situation where we were speaking earlier about the First Amendment and And, you know, we were both saying, well, the government is respecting that and isn't trying to ban books, but in fact, while they may not be banning books, they are quite willing to make you a suspect.
There he goes again.
You know, a question I would like to ask him, just in case our phone lines were working, would be the following.
If the framers of the Constitution Thought that our right to self-expression included the right to do the drug of our choice or to put into our body the drug of our choice, then why would they not have invested it, there it goes along the lines again, invested it in the Constitution in the very same manner they did
The all-important First Amendment, which, as he pointed out with his library baloney, has challenged itself right now.
But, I mean, why wouldn't the framers have recognized this said-to-be basic right, you know, like the right to breathe, the right to express yourself, the right to say what you want?
They wrote that down in the First Amendment.
Why not include in the Constitution, and there went the phone lines again, this obviously isn't going to work.
Why not include in the Constitution the right to do as you will with your own body, chemically or any other way, if they had felt it was that important?
There goes phone lines again.
This is obviously approaching, and again, so if I'd had them on, it would have been cut off four times since I've been speaking to you in the last few seconds.
This is not acceptable.
I'm not exactly sure what we're going to do about this.
I think perhaps the only fair thing to do for Richard Glenn Boyer would be probably to reschedule him.
I mean, obviously getting interrupted every 10 or 15 seconds or every one minute, there they went again, would not be conducive to doing a meaningful interview.
And this really is a meaningful interview.
There are so many places that I wanted to go with this interview.
So many places that I wanted to take you, and there they go again.
I'm giving you an idea of how often the phones are disconnecting here in totality.
I mean, they just, boom, they're gone.
There they go again.
Yeah, I can see we're going to have trouble beyond our ability to continue here.
And there they go again.
Oh, gee, this is really something.
On, off, on, off.
The entire telephone system here going on and off.
And again, this is really intriguing.
This is obviously occurring to the degree that no interview, in fact, no open line show could even be conducted right now.
And again, let me, let me one more time try, Richard, and be assured that nobody's going to get away with this.
You know what?
I better not put that on the air.
Somebody will decode it.
Well, we lost him again.
This is really something.
Let me try one more time.
Persistence.
At least I want to tell Richard what's going on.
I'm not sure how to interpret what's happening here.
Let's see if we can get Richard back.
Okay, are you there?
Hi, Art.
Hi, Richard.
Listen, I want to tell you very quickly, I'm sorry.
I have no control over this.
I have no idea what's happening, Richard.
Every now and then, every single one of my phone lines is just going kaboom.
Yep.
Not a problem.
And I can assure you, if I have to end up rescheduling you, which it may be the case, because obviously it's almost impossible to pursue a show when your thought process is getting interrupted every few seconds and you're having to redial, you just can't do a show that way.
Right.
I promise you we'll have you back on the air.
Did you happen to hear what I said when you were off just then?
No.
Alright.
Here's, in a nutshell, if the framers thought that our right to absolute free speech was so important Uh, as to make it in the first important amendment to the Constitution, um, then why didn't they also include our, as you're suggesting, our inherent
birthright to do as we will with our own bodies.
I mean, why didn't they include that as a right?
So, almost important as speech.
So, it could have been like the Second Amendment said of the gun thing, and then they could have the gun thing.
In other words, if it's that important, why wasn't it right there?
Well, that's a good question.
I think that There's a number of reasons.
One, it was probably so self-evident, and at the time, the situation with respect to different scientific advancements and drugs and other pharmaceuticals.
All right.
Richard, I'm sorry, I'm not, you know, you are pursuing And you're not hearing me right now.
But he is pursuing such an important, incredibly important aspect for discussion that I will not pass the top of the hour here, endeavor to continue with this.
And what I will do is reschedule Richard Glenn Boyer, and we'll, in great, I promise you, we'll get to the bottom of whatever the hell is doing this, and We'll have Richard back in detail.
We will go through this.
Now I know it's extremely controversial and I even have some problems potentially with the whole thing myself and with drugs.
I've thought so hard about this.
As you know, here in Nevada, we have We have a very important question nine, I believe it is, coming up for a vote with regard to marijuana and the legalizing, I think, of three ounces or less of marijuana and the possession thereof in your own home, that sort of thing.
And that's coming up.
And I really think and I hope that Nevada makes the decision to end the madness.
And when I say, end the madness, I think it's a great slogan, because they used to use the phrase, reefer madness.
You know, the people who smoke pot would go out and rape and pillage and plunder.
There go the phones again.
And that's how they originally decided, they, as in the government, decided to attack marijuana.
But they called it reefer madness.
They made a movie about it that they showed to all of us, right?
Well, I think it is time to stop the madness, and madness is putting people in jail for smoking pot.
The madness is including in the drug war of what I consider to be the more dangerous drugs.
I delineate a little harder than Richard does between marijuana and other drugs.
Because when you include marijuana, and you tell lies about marijuana, and you tell those lies to our young people, then they find out, well, they are lies, and that's what makes it In my opinion, a gateway drug.
I mean, once you've been lied to, then you're going to presume, it's fair to presume, that you've been lied to again.
When somebody offers you a little line of cocaine, or speed, or some one of these really harmful drugs, you're going to say, what the hell?
They were full of crap the first time, they're probably full of crap the second time.
That's what leads, in my opinion, to other drugs.
So, when I say, end the madness, I mean, begin telling the damn truth to our children.
The whole damn truth, and nothing but the damn truth!
And I wanted to cover all of this ground with Richard, and I, you know, we've got the question coming up here in Nevada, and I hope Nevada is the first to end the madness.
Now, that's going to put Nevada in a direct competition with the federal government, who's going exactly the opposite direction right now, and I have no idea What will occur with regard to enforcement?
Not really.
I mean, we've talked about that.
But it's going to remain against federal law.
How local law enforcement would respond?
I don't know.
I think a lot of police officers, and I hope I get some mail on this, will tell the truth.
Although, unfortunately, when some of them have, they have been ousted from their jobs.
And that tends to shut the mouth.
I heard our own sheriff here say, look, you know, there was somebody here in Nevada, a police officer, who came out in favor of this Question 9, and before you know it, he was out of a job.
So that's going to kind of put a chill on law enforcement in terms of talking about this, but privately, I think most law enforcement officers would tell you they'd a lot rather be spending their time on serious crimes than they would out putting people in jail for pot.
I mean, they've got more important things to do.
God knows.
Our children are getting snatched off the streets.
Our children are coming up missing, raped.
It's a strange, hard, horrible world in some ways that we have out there right now.
And we could sure use an awful lot of law enforcement in those areas.
Law enforcement right now that's tied up with busting people for pot and giving them records.
It's insane.
It's madness.
And I hope, and I would be very proud if Nevada was the first state to say, stop the madness.
To me, the other drugs are in a separate category, and should be in a separate category, and part of the madness is that we don't put them in a separate category.
We lump them all together, and there is where we do the damage.
Again, I am... I am really unhappy with what's going on with the telephone system here, but I have no control over that.
I do, as many of you, I'm sure, wonder why this is being done.
I mean, look, on the one hand, we could conclude it is just some random Murphy-like thing that's going on electronically with a spasmodic problem that nobody can find.
That's what phone companies are saying, that they can't find it.
And, true enough, intermittent problems, as anybody in electronics will gladly tell you, Intermittent problems are nearly impossible to find.
And that seems the most likely answer.
There they go again.
But it's not the only possible answer.
The other answer is that somebody doesn't want this information on air.
And I know that's the conspiratorial dark view of things, and I'm not suggesting that I subscribe specifically to it.
I'm also saying that I don't necessarily, entirely, there they go again, I don't rule it out entirely.
For all I, there they go again.
So as you see, even, even, the there they go again, even open line conversations at this point would be absolutely impossible.
Alright, I've blabbed my way to the top of the hour, so what we're going to do is roll with another show that I think you're going to find extremely interesting for the next couple of hours, and we're going to find somebody in the phone company, or some dark basement somewhere, and we're going to ring their neck until this stops, and then we're going to have Richard Glenn Boyer back on again.
Tomorrow night is Sean David Morton.
That's going to be an incredible program.
This would have been an incredible program if they'd let me do it.
But, obviously, they're not going to.
So, I'm afraid, from the high desert, for the live portion of tonight's show, I'm a cooked goose.
And we're going to cook some gooses.
Next 24 hours.
Phone coming.
From the high desert.
Stay tuned.
I'm Art Bell.
▲
Export Selection