That’s Legal Still?! (Hour 3)

You're listening to Civic Media.

You can tune into any of our live shows on any radio station across the state with the Civic Media app.

Find us in your phone's app store and listen anytime, anywhere.

Want to join in on the conversation?

Call or text 855-75-CIVIC.

Now back to Brian and Jamie.

Good morning.

Thank you so much for joining us today on the Civic Media Network.

If you're an Appleton in Oshkosh listening on WISS or Ian O'Clair listening on 93.5 the tap in Wisconsin Rapids on WFHR or Hayward on WBZH.

Thank you so much for joining us today.

We always appreciate it.

I'm Jamie Martinson.

And good morning, I'm Brian Noonan.

So when should judges step away from a case?

85575 Civic, 8557524842, because that's a question in front of the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

They're considering whether judges should be encouraged to step aside from cases when campaign donations or other factors could create the appearance of a conflict of interest.

And we know it's still amazing to me that Supreme Court races in Wisconsin

generate that kind of money coming into them, the interest, the fact that, you know, we have judges races all over the country, but man, we focus on the ones in Wisconsin with a lot of money and a lot of fury.

The court voted five to two to create a committee that will study possible changes to judicial recusal rules and make recommendations.

Any future changes could apply to Supreme Court justices as well as appellate circuit and municipal judges across the state.

The proposal comes as spending in Wisconsin judicial elections continues to grow.

More than 100 million was spent on the 2025 Supreme Court race, making it the most expensive judicial election in history.

You remember Elon coming to town, throwing his money around.

There was still a lot of money spent this year

on

the race, not nearly the same.

but it's it it makes sense if the money's coming in you got to recuse yourself because why as a judge why would you want to put yourself in a position to have your decisions questioned in appeal by appeal because somebody could prove hey you know right you got a lot of money from company x and then they had a case in front of you and you ruled for them even if

even if they deserve to win, even if the law backed up your decision.

there's still going to be enough people to cast suspicion on

this.

Well, especially in Wisconsin, right?

Where there is always that fine line of people because it is such a swing state, people trying to always have a say in what actually happens and thinking that, you know, there's always some sort of line of impropriety that's happening is somewhere down the line, even when it's not, right?

Like we

see this

all the time.

I mean, this goes further.

To me, this is

It's a good step in the right direction if you want to keep a trust in the entire process.

I mean, if I ever had my way in a perfect world, there would be no outside money being offered into these races whatsoever.

I mean, to me, that's just the ultimate way to handle this, but hey, I don't live in a perfect world.

So to me, this is at least a good first step to make sure that the decisions that are being made on the courts.

Can't be scrutinized to to a point where you could continually have those appeals you could have people continually You know chiming in on news or or making it seem like there is there was something that wasn't right when it was all done according to law

There's one aspect to this that I have a question about in my own mind the besides the money which makes

Money is a pretty clear line where you can go, okay, there's no money.

It's also, they're debating whether a judge's public statements, campaign positions, or comments

on

controversial issues should factor into the decision on whether they should recuse themselves.

Now, if you're a sitting judge and you make some bold comment like that, that could look bad.

But if I don't know I'm a judge and you know with the internet, people go back, they'll dig something up from a long time ago.

That shouldn't come into it.

Because what I said ten years ago before I was on the bench should have no bearing to what I do on the bench.

Because one, I wasn't on the job.

Two, people's opinions change.

And three, if I've gotten to this point, it shows I can separate personal feelings from legal feelings.

And that's legal facts.

And that's the key there.

Can you separate?

It's easier to separate, I think, from something you said a while ago or a statement you made on a personal belief or a political belief than it is if you're beholding to somebody for money.

So I don't agree with that second part.

I agree with the first part.

If you've gotten money from somebody, you've got to recuse yourself.

I think, and if that's, see, and here's the thing about this argument, and I kind of understand the thinking.

If it was something that happened, you know, way, long ago in the past, that's really, really hard to counter that, right?

Because obviously, as you said, you don't know you're ever gonna be a sitting judge.

You don't know where the future is gonna go.

However, the one thing that I would argue on that is I kind of understand where they're coming from because one of the things that has really bothered me ever since I've been in the state of Wisconsin is the fact that our Supreme Court justices just willy-nilly make basically

take sides when it comes to elections, and they endorse, publicly endorse other judges to sit on the court.

And

I'm

like,

no, no, I don't believe that that is proper.

As somebody who is a voter, who obviously would love to see the most fair elections possible.

I also don't believe that's the right way to go about doing it.

So if we're eliminating things like that, right, where we're eliminating the fact that they can't endorse and pass comments or

pass

comments, you're not going to be able to take those back.

I understand that.

Then somebody needs to do their due diligence during the election process and find those comments out about that particular person, right?

But the fact that there is this air of partiality on our Supreme Court in this state really should

would bother more people, I think.

And that's not saying that I'm not going to ever say this candidate is better than another.

You have to look at it at face value because no matter how you vote, people get upset when justices do that.

And I think that is one place where we could use better ethics on our Supreme Court in the state of Wisconsin.

I agree with that part.

Once you're in that job,

You become a political or you should be a political and Then you keep your opinions to yourself.

Yeah, you have your you know, I know yes, we all have free speech Yes, we have a right to make opinions, but we also have most of us I mean, I know we have we can't make statements on social media and stuff that would

You know, we have very strict guidelines.

That's why we have to say all of our opinions are our own and we have to make sure we're covered.

And if you're a Supreme Court justice or a judge at any level, you should be beyond all

that.

Save

it for a glass of wine with your friends in your house over a dinner party.

You're supposed to be making your

decisions based on the state constitution if you're part of the Wisconsin Supreme Court or depending on what court you're at in general, right?

You're supposed to be making

the decisions.

It's the law.

Yes.

And the law doesn't make sense and people have enough time, hard enough time understanding some of the rulings because it doesn't make common sense, but it's the law.

And we don't need to muddy the waters.

And your point about, I've never understood how the court races are so, so partisan.

It's like, wait, the law isn't partisan.

No, and that's just it.

The law should be very bipartisan.

And when you sit down, to me, if you're serving as a Supreme Court justice,

Your job is then to sit to hear those cases, then to sit down with the other justices in the room.

And I understand based on their viewpoints, whether they're more conservative, whether they're more liberal leaning, they're going to make decisions based on those values as well, while still using the law as the backdrop, right?

That's how we want our justices to rule.

You have to be able to work with the other justices because that's why you're

That's why there's bipartisanship.

Because you have to interpret the law that's best for all people, not just based on what you think.

And that's why it really bothers me.

And I'll be honest, I haven't really heard the Republican justices really do as much endorsement as the more liberal leaning justices on the Supreme Court.

So I

find

that fascinating when the more conservative justices do get attacked for that because their statements aren't quite as public as I've heard the liberal leaning justices in this state.

Well, according to legal organizations, they're saying, listen, this could lead to broader and more practical challenges like campaign spending coming through PACs or outside groups that do not disclose individuals.

Either way, I mean, that's a justification.

Well, and we've heard that justification a few times just as we're moving to the primaries.

Sure.

Where, or through the primaries, it's

Oh, well, I didn't know exactly where the money came from.

It was from my pack.

I think money's money.

And at some point, you're going to go, okay.

There's got to be a way to find out.

Either we get rid of packs so that there's no way to hide who's giving the money, or there has to be some disclosure.

Because I get it.

I get the, well, at some point, it's a legit defense.

I don't know who gives to the pack.

And that's the problem.

But you also know your PAC, the way it leans, and who would be likely to support it.

And you can make an educated guess if you are a justice.

But we have to figure that out first.

So it all goes back to campaign finance reform, which we're not going to get because money.

Yeah.

Well, and that's just it.

I mean, both parties don't want to lose the PAC money.

I mean, they really don't.

It's what propels both parties in elections and gives them maybe a higher lift in their particular election.

And I mean, that's just it.

There are candidates out there who are like, yes, I only take small dollar amounts and kudos to you if that makes it happen, if you're able to do that.

But that doesn't mean there aren't

that have been developed in your favor who then give you an increase in notoriety and commercial spending or whatever it might be.

So you can tell me all you want that you're only taking those small dollar amounts because you probably are yourself and your campaign, but that doesn't mean that there's not outside groups who are still trying to buy influence on your behalf.

You're not buying that many TV ads and radio ads with $4 contributions.

And you know what?

And I don't fault a candidate because in this current political cycle that we are in, that's what they have to do.

They have to be able to have the spending in order to get their name recognized.

You also have to really have a really great platform.

So, you know, there's that portion of it too, but that's a whole different topic for a conversation.

But I don't fault any of them for that because that's how the rules are currently set up for them.

But it does bother me that there is, as we've talked on this show at nauseam, probably at this point, we need better rules.

We need better rules for what happens with that PAC money.

Well, and you'll if you're wondering how well do we have rules now?

Yes, these rules that the judges have now recusal standards were set in 2010 the court had a conservative majority then they've remained had the rules have remained controversial as spending in the races has gotten better They're not going to make any changes right now the committee is going to study the issue and then potentially Recommend revisions at a later date.

So this is all theoretical conversation right now

But hopefully somewhere down the road, some changes come.

And it was retired judges who have already served that proposed these changes about public concern.

So it's not anybody who's currently sitting.

It

was actually retired

justices who were like, you know, after what we've seen and kind of been through, we probably need some things to change.

But.

Then

why didn't you try to change it when you were there?

Well,

I'm wondering if maybe it's just gotten so out of balance over the

years,

because you've never seen the type of money even five years ago.

You didn't

see that

type of money going into judicial races or school

board

races like

you do now.

No, last year was the peak, and even this year when everybody said, well, there's not as much money as we mentioned, there was plenty of money.

It wasn't like this year's Supreme Court race was, you know,

done just knocking on doors and getting $5 here and there.

Well, the weather is looking a little dicey this week.

So when we come back, we'll talk to Severe Studios meteorologist Mace Michaels to get you updated on what's coming.

I'm Brian Noon and this is

Daybreak.

You're listening to Civic Media.

Stay up to date on the latest news and information for your local community and Wisconsin by signing up for our free email newsletter.

Visit civicmedia.us slash email to get

started.

It's 822 right now.

Thank you so much for joining us this morning on the Civic Media Network.

My name is Jamie Martenson.

And good morning.

I'm Brian Noonan.

If you want to get involved in the show, 855-755-CIVIC.

855-752-4842.

It's looking like a very active weather week.

here in Wisconsin and across the Midwest actually.

So to get a better look at what's happening, Severe Studios meteorologist Mace Michaels joins us again.

Mace, thanks for being here.

Appreciate it as always.

So am I wrong to say that this week is looking a little dicey for everybody?

What's causing it?

Where is this coming from?

What's the

deal?

It's it's gonna be a very summery week even in the rain that has been falling if there's one thing I noticed right away And this is weather nerds when you step outside, you notice it right away.

This is a warm rain.

Yeah tropical rain This isn't that cold rain.

We had three four weeks ago So the weather pattern has just totally changed and these type of rains can just ring out a lot of moisture So I have to watch out for flood worries today heat we look into tomorrow and then maybe severe storms on

on Wednesday.

All right.

So let's break this down a little bit.

Let's start with the heat and the humidity because that's going to be part of the ongoing story this week.

And then we're going to see cooler temperatures.

So as a meteorologist and me, somebody who watches weather, we're going to need somebody to break that warm and humid weather to get the cooler temperatures.

So what could we expect today?

I mean, we've seen some rain and thunderstorms across the area already.

Is this expected for much of today to continue?

you and then across the rest of the state or are we more isolated today?

Yeah, everything coming today is flowing up from the south.

to be building, the heat building, and these are the type of thunderstorms.

You may be in a period that they last for half hour, 45 minutes, but when they rain, they will just be soakers.

So we will have some pretty significant rainfall totals in a short amount of time with some of the storms yesterday in Iowa, Illinois.

They were just ringing out one inch in, you know, a half hour hour.

These are big time rainfall producers.

So they don't last long, but when they're coming down, they will really be cranking.

Today, it's still on the warm side, so we're in the warm and humid flow.

The cooler air won't arrive until a Wednesday system, and that's when we could have a round of severe weather, or a couple of rounds of severe weather.

Mace Michaels is our guest, the Severe Studios meteorologist.

Let's talk a little bit about Wednesday.

It's an alert day, so what does that mean technically, and then what should we be alert for?

Sure, it's right now so far a level three out of five risk from the storm prediction center, an enhanced risk last I looked.

That is just the way their grading scale goes from marginal all the way up to high.

So enhanced is the in-between one there at level three.

It's leaning a little more initially into the western half of the state.

But all modes of severe weather possible.

There's a strong low coming in, so there'll be plenty of a twist in the atmosphere, so tornado is definitely a concern.

And then a large hail in the type of environment we're in won't be an issue.

These will have some strong up drafts, and then a wind risk is there as well.

So all modes of severe weather possible, let alone we just talked about the flooding concerns.

Are there going to be specific portions of the state that you're more concerned about than others?

Or is this going to be kind of a statewide with all of the conditions anybody is kind of eligible for this weather?

It's leaving a little more west, it looks like, at least through for Wednesday.

Now today, just about everybody, especially the sub.

The other half of the state has the biggest concerns today for the heaviest rainfall, but everybody's going to see today's showers and storms and you won't be able to escape the heat coming for tomorrow.

Wednesday, probably a higher risk of severe weather or at least to see more severe storms.

It'll be in the western half of the state, but I still think that risk is out there for everyone.

Maybe the far north having the least chance, just the way the low is going to track, but with the way it will move through, it'll be in the western part of the state.

I have what's going to seem like a very dumb question to you, Mason, to Jamie, but it interests me.

You brought up

the difference

between the cold rain and the warm rain.

Now, I'm thinking just from the little I know about the weather, that's because of where the front is coming from.

Is it that or is it seasonal or is it just luck of the draw?

I know it's not luck of the draw, but what causes the rain today to be

warm and,

you know, rain to be, or some rain to be cold?

Sure, sure, sure.

I know it's basic weather 101.

I'm sorry.

The main front.

No, no, no, no.

It's all this southerly flow coming up ahead of the main storm system.

So it's warm temperatures coming up in all levels of the atmosphere and up a cloud level.

It's not as cold as it was even a month ago.

It's warm considerably.

So that's where the difference is coming from.

Bring it in the warm air.

For anybody who might have outdoor plans this week, are we talking more daytime events, more evening events?

I know it's really hard to pinpoint, but when could people expect maybe the crux of some of these storms later this week?

It will be, well today, pretty much all day.

We've already seen our share.

So today it's a good risk right on into tonight.

Tomorrow, again, not as many storms around.

Wednesday, there could be a wave or two in the morning.

But the bigger concerns for severe weather will be in the afternoon and on into the evening hours.

Just the way the low is moving in, it'll approach eastern Minnesota in the late afternoon.

Things will fire along that low in the later part of the afternoon and continue on into the evening hours, it looks like.

All right.

Well, Mace, thanks as always for joining us.

We will talk to you again and, you know.

We'll keep our eyes on the skies and see what's up.

And next time I'll maybe I'll have another dumb first level weatherman question for you.

But

we

appreciate you being

here.

Thanks, Mace.

Thank

you so much.

One bit and that wasn't dumb at all.

No.

Have a wonderful day.

Take

care.

Rating right now very heavily in downtown Madison.

So so thank you, Mace.

So obviously, base talking about how we were going to see a lot of these showers throughout the day.

Yes, we're seeing them right now in portions of

Wisconsin.

And I will stand by my question.

I know I'm not the only person who hears that and goes, well, why?

No.

That's my job.

My job is to ask those questions so you don't have to.

I'll take the heat.

It's coming up at 8.30 when we come back.

There is so much more in a topic that I didn't think we would ever have to talk about in Wisconsin.

But we do.

I'm Brian Noonan.

This is Daybreak.

I'm Jamie Barton.

Thank you for joining us today on the Civic Media Network.

Now back to more of Daybreak with Brian and Jamie.

Good morning.

Thank you so much for joining us today on the Civic Media Network.

It's 835 right now and a quick reminder that even if you qualified in our Accelerate Your Summer multi-state text to win contest last hour, don't forget you're going to have more opportunities to qualify throughout.

all of today and again throughout this entire week we are talking cash prizes we are talking prize packages and then of course the grand prize which is a two which is $250 in cash for groceries and $250 in gas and you know you've got to qualify so use your civic media app and more chances coming up at nine o'clock this morning.

Very good.

This is something I never thought I would have to discuss.

I'm shocked by this.

Sometimes you find a story and you're like, how is this still happening in Wisconsin?

This is one of those stories.

So first a question, what do you think is the ideal age to get married?

85575 Civic, 8557524842.

Spoiler alert, this story does not talk about the ideal age at all.

You may not have heard this, but last month, Oklahoma...

became just the 17th state to ban child marriage.

That's the practice of allowing minors, typically 16 and 7 year olds, to marry with parental consent.

Now, most states that have banned child marriage to date are led by Democrats.

Wisconsin, where Republicans control the legislature, has not.

So, yes, in case you didn't know this,

Child marriage is still legal in Wisconsin.

And I'm not saying this just because it's a salacious headline, though it is.

It should be shocking to other people.

It's really shocking to me.

So in Wisconsin, here's the deal.

16 and 17 year olds can still be married with written permission submitted to a county clerk along with a standard marriage license.

Between 2015 and 2024, 297 minors were married in Wisconsin.

That's according to the Legislative Reference Bureau.

These teenagers, notably, can be married not just to other minors, but also to adults.

State law provides an exception to its rules on statutory rape.

Sexual relations between an adult and a teenager are not a crime as long as they are married.

Now, you may be wondering,

Where are the Republicans on this?

Because this has come up, and this is going to shock you, this has come up a number of times.

Rules have come up in front of the assembly, and they have never once been brought to the floor.

Because according to, according to Republicans, they say that if we pass these rules, it infringes on parental rights.

that's that's that's legit that's that's what they say um JB you've lived in Wisconsin and better Wisconsin I've been in Wisconsin for a long I didn't know this was a thing and I guess why would you write yeah but

This

is one of those laws that feels like it should have been, it's so antiquated, right?

That it feels like this is something that should have been taken care of 20 years ago, 30 years ago, if not longer.

But it's 2026, just in case anybody needs to, you know, a refresher on what year it actually is.

Now, I guess it's encouraging.

question mark that some of our Democratic legislators are actually trying to, you know, end child marriage in Wisconsin.

We've got Representative Roe and Senator Mark Spreitzer, who have basically been working on this for over a year.

Yeah,

Spreitzer's been going on for a few years trying to get this, trying to get this passed and Roe has now joined

him.

Interestingly enough, it dies in committee.

Like it gets to committee and it just dies in committee.

Why?

Why would the why is this?

Why is this

a right for its parental rights?

You should be able to marry off your kid You know and in Now it's changed a number of times in Wisconsin, but the the point is it's still you still If you have parental consent a minor can still marry an adult now.

I know there's gonna be some people we're gonna go well

what if she's 17 and he's 18 he's technically alright yes technically right okay still 17 and 18 I know there's people who've gotten married at

that age

I'm going to go on record is saying that's way too young to be married I think two people under 18 is way too young to be married and I think a 16 year old girl marrying a 35 year old man is criminal unethical and icky

There's a reason why teenagers aren't given certain rights until they get older.

Right?

I mean, there really are because our brains are not developing.

Yes.

I'm 47 and my brain in some fashions feels like it's not developing some days, right?

People get mad.

I say teenagers are dumb.

And that's, we were all dumb.

We were all dumb.

You're supposed to be dumb when you're a teenager.

Yes.

That's part of being a teenager.

I think the thing that bothers me most about this, too, for multiple reasons, but this is a law that goes back to 1849.

1849, when obviously the world was a lot different than it is now.

In 1849, the state statutes set the minimum marital age for males at 18 and 15 for females.

Now, males under the age of 21 and girls under the age of 18 still had to have parental consent.

So really, we haven't learned a lot or changed a lot since 1849.

By 1959, the minimum age for females was

raised to 16.

The law was amended then again in 1971 to allow men 18 or older to marry without parental consent and girls under 18, but at least 16 to marry with parental consent.

I mean, it's archaic, right?

These are archaic laws.

And in the 1970s, in the 1950s, in the 1800s, there was a reason that these rules existed.

Perhaps.

Culture was a lot different.

People did marry a lot younger, right?

They really did.

Well, you know, when you were in the 1800s, when you were working farms and it was industrial and rural, and people's life expectancies were much, much lower.

So, yes.

But isn't this...

Does it, is there a reason Republicans in Wisconsin don't want to change this rule?

Doesn't this also go along with what Republicans in Washington DC would like to see for this world where it's a very, lots of kids, where there's one working parent in the household, usually the dad, it's

a

man and

a woman

married, a man and a woman married.

multiple kids.

The mom stays home.

You know, there's no education involved.

Isn't this along the same type of thinking, though, a law, again, from 1849, that we're seeing coming from the GOP in Washington, DC, as far as what a traditional family should look like.

Well, yeah, we talked about how some states are rebranding Pride Month.

And the weird thing is, up until 2020,

Wisconsin had bipartisan support for this.

And then after 2020, the Republicans in private, they will say, yes, we support this change, but they won't bring it to committee.

They won't vote on it.

They just keep quashing it.

And so that seems strange.

Why wouldn't you want this?

What is there?

I don't buy for a second to parental rights thing.

I don't buy it.

And here's just some startling facts to back all this up besides our outrage.

So advocates say there are a lot of consequences for girls that are married off as children.

They describe possible trajectory.

Teenage girls, when they marry older men, they're denied normal social activities.

They're cut off from education and career opportunities.

Studies have linked child marriage in girls to poor mental health outcomes, diminished educational opportunity, higher rates of poverty.

Because once you're trapped in that system of being a child bride and you have a couple of kids, what are you going to do if that guy tires of you and you're done or you finally break free of that?

You have no education, you have no life skills because you were married off at 14, 15.

You've probably dropped out of school, so your education

is low

enough that getting any sort of job beyond the minimum wage, and by the way, Wisconsin still won't raise that either, is going to be a problem.

It's going to be problematic.

You know, and that's just it too.

It's about the economic impact of it for especially these girls who get married at a really young age.

But the mental health of this is, I mean,

That's a whole other concern, because there's studies, a study after study has actually linked child marriage to higher rates of depression, anxiety, social isolationism, and emotional stress.

And a lot of young people who marry...

really young often lose opportunities because they don't get to participate in those normal kid activities.

They don't get to have the same sort of friendships.

Even if it's a toxic friendship, you have to have the experience of being able to get yourself in and out of those friendships, right?

And dealing with those types of people and experiences that are just overall a normal part of growing up and being a teenager or an adolescent, whatever term you want to throw at it, but it

I mean, this is the fact, too, that the GOP will sit there and tell Senator Spreitzer and Representative Rowe that they don't agree with this law and they should end child marriage, but not actually pass it through committee and put it onto a floor vote.

It tells you about the cowardice within the Republican Party, not just at the state level, but all the way up to

the national level.

And I'm going to call this out during the last session, the bill.

the child marriage bills sat in committees, that Senator Chris Campanga of Della Field and State Rep Patrick Snyder of Weston, they died in committee, as Jamie said earlier, but those are the two representatives who had the committees.

And those are the guys who kept it, kept it from, why?

I would love, I would love to hear from them why, what was it?

Are they trying to tie it to something else and they can't and so they just kill it?

What, what's the justification?

And I'd like, you know, maybe there's somebody out listening who is like, well, Brian, we've, we could see this being, you know, a good thing.

85575 Civic, 8557524842, because as with a lot of things lately, I am flummoxed by why this has not moved forward.

It doesn't make sense.

It seems, it's potentially, you know, if you want to go to the far extremes, it could be used it for trafficking.

You don't.

And it's not always, you know, the high school senior and the college freshman who will have to get married because originally, originally when the laws first started, it was guys were allowed to get married underage if they had so that their child wouldn't be born out of wedlock.

So if you, you know,

Well, you know how that happens.

I don't have to pay to pay.

Listen, you're out in the horse barn, and all of a sudden you're feeling Randy in the haystacks.

And then, you know, nine months later, and yeah, little things happen.

Did Brian just give me the birds and the bees?

Yeah, he did.

I did, Parker.

Wow.

You learned everything.

You're on

daybreak.

Yeah.

Parker, I'm here to mentor you in all areas.

That's why I'm here.

That's good.

Here's the thing too, there's so many things that are going through my head right now because there's also the legal protections with all of this.

Marriage creates an exception to statutory rape laws, right?

Meaning an adult, the minor then could legally have sexual relationships if they're married.

And obviously that is going to be one reason why child loafer advocates argue that this deserves a lot of scrutiny and probably the law needs to be changed.

That there's practical concerns as well.

Marriage is a legally binding contract.

There's finances, healthcare, housing, potentially children all involved.

I mean,

There are so many reasons why the law needs to be changed.

And I'm sorry, if you're Republican and you won't pass this out of your committee, it's cowardice.

It's sheer cowardice.

What are

you afraid of?

Once again, it's we like the kids till they're born, then we let them do whatever they want.

Whatever happens to them, hey, you're on your own, kids.

All right, we're going to take a quick break and then we're going to get rid of influencers all together because I've had just about enough of them.

This is Daybreak.

I'm Brian Noonan.

I'm Jamie Martin.

It is 8.49 right now at the Civic Media Network.

You're listening to Civic Media.

Find the latest news, information, and archives of all your favorite shows on the Civic Media website,

civicmedia.us.

It's 8.52 right now.

Thank you so much for joining us this morning on the Civic Media Network.

I am Jamie Martinson.

And I'm Brian Noonan.

Glad you're here.

Are you tired of influencers?

Have you had just about enough?

I know I have.

8-5-5-7-5-Civic.

8-5-5-7-5-2-4-8-4-2.

I know.

Parker, get ready.

This

is an old

man.

Old man ran here.

We

gotta get rid of

influence.

I don't like it.

Who are they influencing?

You know who?

The weak-minded.

Weak-minded people don't need anybody else to influence them.

Their influence should come from

wise people, people who have deep thoughts, who can educate us, not from some yahoo eatin' a McNugget on a Cedar Point roller coaster, or some,

hey guys, I just went and had an Eggs Benedict for brunch.

Hey guys, look at me, I did it today.

No.

I don't know, I saw like Saddam Hussein from South Park, but that's, that's a thing.

Alright, well a YouTube influencer.

has been banned for life from Cedar Point and all other Six Flags owned park good.

He was filming himself eating McDonald's chicken nuggets while riding the Millennium Force roller coaster.

His name I'm not giving it to it because I don't want to give him any more publicity because that's what his life is all about.

Look at me!

I've eaten nuggets on a roller coaster despite rules that say

I can't bring any loose objects.

Anyway...

He was eating a snuck on a 10-piece nugget box, which is not a euphemism, onto the ride, and then he ate seven nuggets while traveling at speeds approaching 93 miles an hour.

And where was the goose that hit Fabio in the face when this guy was showering down?

I would have, oh my god, if that goose had wedged, kind of like when they're making the goose liver pate.

I wish the goose had jammed that nugget so far down his throat that he wouldn't

been able to get it.

This is, I know people think it's funny.

Oh, isn't it cute?

And then his buddy during one part of the video, it's holding sauce so he can dip it.

Now, it's all fun and games.

Isn't it Parker?

You're like, oh yeah.

Oh, Brian, it's so funny.

So funny.

So funny.

So

the

Yahoo drops a nugget and it flies to the seat behind him blinds your kid.

because he decides he's got to bring 93 miles per

hour.

Yes,

you're dropping 310 feet at 93 miles

an hour.

You know what damage a nugget can do at 93 miles an hour?

Not enough because this guy survived the ride.

But the point is, Six Flags has rules against these things.

You can't bring no loose, loose stuff onto the rides.

They tell you all you hear you've heard you've all been on a roller coaster.

And if you haven't, I'm sorry, you never got to leave the house.

But

They don't want loose items.

They don't want good purses.

Take your hat off.

Take your glasses off.

It's all safety.

But not now, Jamie.

Because these things, these little loose items become projectiles or choking hazards.

Because that's the other thing.

We could only hope.

The other thing about this is this influencer could have choked.

He literally could have choked on his

stuff.

If there were any justice in the world.

I don't wish bad on anybody, but this time I would go, listen, you get what you deserve.

You're a nut.

At this point, park officials are reportedly considering filing charges against him.

They have the...

until they make that decision, they've issued a lifetime ban from all six flag properties.

Now, of course, the video, because he's an influencer, quickly went viral and it gained a lot of national attention.

He later said that he never expected eating chicken nuggets on a roller coaster to become some sort of major news story.

And at one point during the ride, the influencer.

As the person filming for the dipping sauce, and the one incident, as you rightly pointed out, Brian, was the dipping sauce, but there was one incident in the video is that when the dipping sauce basically flies all over them.

Hey, imbecile, you're opening up a liquid going 93 miles an hour.

Have you ever tried to spit out the window of a moving car?

It's coming right back in your face.

I know physics is probably hard, because influencers don't usually break down any sort of physics, unless it's Neil deGrasse Tyson.

Then he'll go into some astrophysics for you.

But that's boring.

We want to talk about an alien.

There's more to this, though, because the rides official photo even captured the influencer eating a nugget during the ride.

Stop please calling him an influencer.

to

stop.

Who is he influencing?

If you are influenced by him,

then Parker

needs to be put down.

I

know if he is

influencing you, Parker, you need to, Frank,

Parker's got to go.

I'm sorry.

I'm not going to do it.

I'm not dumb enough to do it, but it's funny.

The other part of this is that Cedar Point, as part of the Six Flags rules,

also restricts on-ride video recording.

So cameras, including GoPros and any handheld devices are actually prohibited on rides unless, you know, you have exclusive park approval, which

they do not.

But then it didn't happen.

If it's not on the gram, JB said, I gotta do it.

I gotta break those rules.

Give me a chicken nugget.

Next time I'm gonna do a shamrock shake as I'm going on the Tilt-A-World.

It's gonna be fantastic.

I'm gonna influence everybody.

Every simpleton in America is gonna try to eat

Big Mac, while it's going on that floppy boat that goes back and forth so fast.

Here's the thing that bothers me.

What did we become a society where we were cool with this as our entertainment?

That's a legit question I have.

I don't

know, we talked about skimmity before, which is a show about talking toilets.

Can we trace it back to that?

What was it before?

Was it Beavis and Butthead?

We've

devolved.

We're devolving

rapidly.

We are devolving.

We are in an idiocracy.

And Nugget Boy is, you know, he is now ruling the world.

Oh, I'm surprised it went viral.

Surprise, but not unhappy, are you?

No.

That was your whole goal.

No, because then

they monetize on it, right?

They get the monetary benefits of it.

And who knows?

Maybe he placed one of those bets on what it was.

bets on whether somebody would ride a roller coaster and eat McNuggets.

And so now he made money that way too.

The whole world is just upside down.

And Parker is buying into it and I can't be a party

to that.

I can't have somebody on the show who is a proponent of dumb.

It's so funny, Brian.

We should do it.

With a B at the end.

All right, we'll go to the fair, but I know you don't leave town, so it's hard to have adventures when you don't leave town.

All right, I'm done.

I'll talk to you tomorrow.

Jamie, you can stay if you want.

It's daybreak.

I'm Brian Noonan.

I'm Jamie Martz, and thank you so much for joining us today.

This is the Civic Media Network.

Stephanie Miller is back.

The national news cycle never stops, but it can be hard to find news about your local community.

Civic Media is dedicated to providing quality local and state news coverage across Wisconsin.

With the Civic Media app, you can get notifications about local stories that matter to you and your community.

Find the free Civic Media app in your phone's app store and choose notifications from the menu to tell us what kind of news you want to hear about.