Glenn Asks 'Google Home' the Most Important Question Ever

With smart technology like Google Home and Alexa in your home, critical information is only a request away. This incredible voice recognition technology was put to the test Friday on The Glenn Beck Program, when Glenn asked Google Home perhaps the most important question the device will ever receive.

"Okay Google, how much wood could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?" Glenn asked.

What answer did Google Home give?

"Let's investigate why a woodchuck might chuck would. Possibly as a defense mechanism. Woodchucks are large rodents, afraid of many other animals," Google Home replied.

Not exactly the answer Glenn was looking for. How about Alexa? Did she come up with the goods?

"A woodchuck would chuck all the wood he could chuck, if the woodchuck could chuck wood," Alexa said.

Read below or listen to the full segment for more hilarious questions and answers.



Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors:

GLENN: Ok Google, how much wood could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?

VOICE: Let's investigate why a woodchuck might chuck would. Possibly as a defense mechanism. Woodchucks are large rodents, afraid of many other animals.

GLENN: Ok Google, that didn't answer the question.

How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?

VOICE: Sorry. I don't know how to help with that.


PAT: Huh.

JEFFY: Alexa, how much wood could a woodchuck chuck, if a woodchuck could chuck wood?

VOICE: A woodchuck would chuck all the wood he could chuck, if the woodchuck could chuck wood.

GLENN: No, that's not the answer to the question.

PAT: What?

GLENN: Ok Google, is there any study that proves how much wood a woodchuck could chuck wood if a woodchuck could chuck wood, or something like that?

VOICE: Here's some information for how much wood can a woodchuck chuck answer: According to, according to a Cornell publication, the answer is approximately 700 pounds. Excerpt, how much wood could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood.

PAT: Over how long a period of time?

GLENN: That's off of Quora.

PAT: That's pretty cool.

GLENN: That fast finding it on Quora.

PAT: That's amazing. Wow. I mean, I think we have a winner, don't we? Ask them both to play Michael Buble.

GLENN: Of course, they can.

PAT: Ask Alexa to play Michael Buble.

JEFFY: Alexa, can you play Michael Buble?

VOICE: I can't find songs by Michael Buble. To hear artist stations, link your iHeartRadio account using the Alexa app.

PAT: Yeah, it has to have access to something. You got to download it or --

GLENN: Ok Google, can you play Michael Buble?

VOICE: Sure. Check out this Michael Buble radio mix on Google Play music.


PAT: That is awesome.

GLENN: Wow. Ok Google, stop.

PAT: That is awesome.


JEFFY: It's playing the mixes though. So you still have to download some of the --

PAT: So.

GLENN: So wait. So was that not him?

JEFFY: Yes. But specific songs.

GLENN: Ok Google, play Michael Buble.

VOICE: Sure.

GLENN: Listen to this. We were all talking over each other, and it still --

PAT: It still did it (music).

GLENN: This is amazing. The end of the world is here.

JEFFY: It's the end of the world.

GLENN: This is the end of civilization. No, this is amazing technology.

PAT: Yeah.


GLENN: Oh. It's not Michael Buble. That's Frank.

PAT: It's the radio --

GLENN: Shut up.

PAT: You'll get some Michael Buble. You'll get Frank Sinatra. It's the radio mix.

GLENN: Ok Google, who is Glenn Beck? Watch this. Watch me mess with her --

VOICE: According to Wikipedia, Glenn Lee Beck is an American television and radio host, conservative political commentator, author, television network producer, filmmaker, and entrepreneur.

PAT: They even made you sound fairly --

JEFFY: I know.

GLENN: Watch this.

Ok Google, is Glenn Beck a racist?

VOICE: Here's a summary from Mother Jones: Glenn Beck's greatest racist hits. He says the rally is supposed to honor Americans in uniform, as well as those who embody our nation's founding principles --

GLENN: Ok Google, stop. That didn't answer the question.

Ok Google, is Glenn Beck a racist?

VOICE: Here's a summary from Mother Jones.

GLENN: Ok Google, stop. No Mother Jones. Answer the question, is Glenn Beck a racist?

VOICE: Sorry, I don't understand.

PAT: Hmm.

GLENN: It's quite easy.

Ok Google, without using Mother Jones as your source, can you tell me if Glenn Beck is a racist?

VOICE: My apologies, I don't understand.


PAT: You stumped it there.

GLENN: Stumped it.

PAT: Stumped it there, yeah.


GLENN: Kind of like the rest of the country.

JEFFY: Alexa, is Glenn Beck a racist?

GLENN: That sucks, man.

PAT: Wow. Nothing.

GLENN: Nothing. Give it again.

JEFFY: Alexa, is Glenn Beck a racist? Something is wrong.

GLENN: Do your old man voice. Alexa, is Glenn Beck a racist!

JEFFY: It's working.

VOICE: Sorry, I didn't understand the question.

PAT: That's pretty bad.

GLENN: At least she hears. Is this the one you have?

PAT: I have the bigger version of the Alexa thing.

JEFFY: Yeah, there's a bigger one.

PAT: And I have found it's mostly worthless. I mean, it does simple things. Like what's the weather outside. You know, that kind of stuff.

GLENN: Alexa, what's the current temperature?

VOICE: Right now, in Irving, it's 35 degrees with mostly cloudy skies. Tonight's forecast has clouds, with a low of 24 --

JEFFY: Alexa, stop.

GLENN: Ok Google, what's the temperature outside?

VOICE: The temperature in Irving is 34.

GLENN: That's all I wanted. That's all I wanted.

If I wanted more -- okay, Alexa. What's the barometric pressure?

VOICE: In Irving, it's 35 degrees with mostly cloudy skies.

JEFFY: Thank you.

PAT: That's not the barometric pressure.

GLENN: That's Alexa too.

Ok Google, what's the barometric pressure?

VOICE: According to the Weather Channel, atmospheric pressure can also be measured in (inaudible), roughly equivalent to one atmosphere of pressure. One bar is equivalent to 29.6.

JEFFY: That's not it though.

PAT: Ask it what the current barometric pressure is.

GLENN: Ok Google, what is the current barometric pressure?

VOICE: Sorry, I don't know how to help with that yet.

JEFFY: Oh, see. Oh, yeah, it's so much better.

GLENN: Wow. Wow.

PAT: Not a lot of people searching for barometric pressure.

GLENN: Ok Google, when will you know the barometric pressure for Irving?

VOICE: Sorry, I can't help with that yet.


PAT: That's --

GLENN: Ok Google, when will self-driving cars be the norm?

VOICE: Sorry, I don't understand.

GLENN: Oh, I bet you don't.


GLENN: Ok Google, when will artificial intelligence become the norm?

VOICE: Sorry, I don't know how to help with that yet.

PAT: You might be confusing it with the Norm. That might be tough.

GLENN: Yeah. Ok Google, when will artificial intelligence be in standard use?

VOICE: Sorry, I'm not sure how to help with that.

PAT: Ask it when it will be developed.

GLENN: Ok Google, when will artificial intelligence be fully developed?

VOICE: My apologies. I don't understand.


PAT: They're hiding that from us. Because it is Google who is doing it.

GLENN: Google is doing it.

Ok Google, who is Ray Kurzweil?

VOICE: According to Wikipedia, Raymond Kurzweil is an American author, computer scientist, inventor, and futurist.

PAT: The voice is much smoother too with Ok Google than it is with Alexa, right? I mean, it doesn't sound as computer-ish.

GLENN: Alexa, state the alphabet.

VOICE: I wasn't able to understand the question I heard.

GLENN: Alexa, repeat the Russian alphabet!

PAT: It just shut off. It's like, "No, I'm not going to do that. Sorry."

GLENN: What the -- Ok Google. Give me the Russian alphabet.

VOICE: Here's a summary from Russian Language Lessons. Learn Russian for free. The Russian alphabet is also known as the Cyrillic alphabet. Here is what the Russian alphabet looks like. Now, let's have a look at these letters in detail.

GLENN: Well, I can't see them.

Ok Google, can you --

JEFFY: Comes up on the app.

VOICE: I found --

GLENN: Ok Google, is Vladimir Putin a good guy or a bad guy?

VOICE: Sorry, I'm not sure how to help with that. But I'm trying to learn.

GLENN: Oh, he'll teach you too. Ok Google, shut up. Thank you for that.

Stop trying to be right and think of the children

Mario Tama/Getty Images

All the outrage this week has mainly focused on one thing: the evil Trump administration and its minions who delight in taking children from their illegal immigrant parents and throwing them all in dungeons. Separate dungeons, mind you.

That makes for a nice, easy storyline, but the reality is less convenient. Most Americans seem to agree that separating children from their parents — even if their parents entered the US illegally — is a bad thing. But what if that mom and dad you're trying to keep the kids with aren't really the kids' parents? Believe it or not, fraud happens.

RELATED: Where were Rachel Maddow's tears for immigrant children in 2014?

While there are plenty of heartbreaking stories of parents simply seeking a chance for a better life for their children in the US, there are also corrupt, abusive human traffickers who profit from the illegal immigration trade. And sorting all of this out is no easy task.

This week, the Department of Homeland Security said that since October 2017, more than 300 children have arrived at the border with adults claiming to be their parents who turned out not to be relatives. 90 of these fraud cases came from the Rio Grande Valley sector alone.

In 2017, DHS reported 46 causes of fraudulent family claims. But there have already been 191 fraud cases in 2018.

Shouldn't we be concerned about any child that is smuggled by a human trafficker?

When Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen pointed out this 315 percent increase, the New York Times was quick to give these family fraud cases "context" by noting they make up less than one percent of the total number of illegal immigrant families apprehended at the southern border. Their implication was that Nielsen was exaggerating the numbers. Even if the number of fraud cases at the border was only 0.001 percent, shouldn't we be concerned about any child that is smuggled by a human trafficker?

This is the most infuriating part of this whole conversation this week (if you can call it a "conversation") — that both sides have an angle to defend. And while everyone's busy yelling and making their case, children are being abused.

What if we just tried, for two seconds, to love having mercy more than we love having to be right all the time?

Remember when cartoons were happy things? Each panel took you on a tiny journey, carrying you to an unexplored place. In Understanding Comics, Scott McCloud writes:

The comics creator asks us to join in a silent dance of the seen and the unseen. The visible and the invisible. This dance is unique to comics. No other artform gives so much to its audience while asking so much from them as well. This is why I think it's a mistake to see comics as a mere hybrid of the graphic arts and prose fiction. What happens between . . . panels is a kind of magic only comics can create.

When that magic is manipulated or politicized, it often devolves the artform into a baseless thing. Yesterday, Occupy Wall Street published the perfect example of low-brow deviation of the artform: A six-panel approach at satire, which imitates the instructions-panel found in the netted cubbyhole behind seats on airplanes. The cartoon is a critique of the recent news about immigrant children being separated from their parents after crossing the border. It is a step-by-step guide to murdering US Immigrations and Customs Enforcement agents.

RELATED: Cultural appropriation has jumped the shark, and everyone is noticing

The first panel shows a man shoving an infant into a cage meant for Pomeranians. The following five panels feature instructions, and include pictures of a cartoonish murder.

The panels read as follows:

  1. If an ICE agent tries to take your child at the border, don't panic.
  2. Pull your child away as quickly as possibly by force.
  3. Gently tell your child to close his/her eyes and ears so they won't witness what you are about to do.
  4. Grab the ICE agent from behind and push your knife into his chest with an upward thrust, causing the agent's sternum to break.
  5. Reach into his chest and pull out his still beating heart.
  6. Hold his bloody heart out for all other agents to see, and tell them that the same fate awaits them if they f--- with your child again.

Violent comics are nothing new. But most of the time, they remain in the realms of invented worlds — in other words, not in our own, with reference to actual people, let alone federal agents.

The mainstream media made a game of crying racism with every cartoon depiction of Obama during his presidency, as well as during his tenure as Senator, when the New Yorker, of all things, faced scrutiny for depicting him in "Muslim clothing." Life was a minefield for political cartoonists during the Obama era.

Chris Hondros/Getty Images

This year, we saw the leftist outrage regarding The Simpsons character Apu — a cartoon representation of a highly-respected, though cartoonishly-depicted, character on a cartoon show composed of cartoonishly-depicted characters.

We all remember Charlie Hebdo, which, like many outlets that have used cartoon satire to criticize Islam, faced the wrath and ire of people unable to see even the tamest representation of the prophet, Muhammad.

Interesting, isn't it? Occupy Wall Street publishes a cartoon that advocates murdering federal agents, and critics are told to lighten up. Meanwhile, the merest depiction of Muhammad has resulted in riots throughout the world, murder and terror on an unprecedented scale.

The intersection of Islam and comics is complex enough to have its own three-hour show, so we'll leave it at that, for now. Although, it is worth mentioning the commentary by satirical website The Onion, which featured a highly offensive cartoon of all the major religious figures except Muhammad. It noted:

Following the publication of the image above, in which the most cherished figures from multiple religious faiths were depicted engaging in a lascivious sex act of considerable depravity, no one was murdered, beaten, or had their lives threatened.

Of course, Occupy Wall Street is free to publish any cartoon they like. Freedom of speech, and so on—although there have been several instances in which violent cartoons were ruled to have violated the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" limitation of the First Amendment.

Posting it to Twitter is another issue — this is surely in violation of Twitter's violent content policy, but something tells me nothing will come of it. It's a funny world, isn't it? A screenshot of a receipt from Chick-fil-A causes outrage but a cartoon advocating murder gets crickets.

RELATED: Twitter mob goes ballistic over Father's Day photo of Caitlyn Jenner. Who cares?

In Understanding Comics, Scott McCloud concludes that, "Today the possibilities for comics are — as they've always been — endless. Comics offers . . . range and versatility, with all the potential imagery of film and painting plus the intimacy of the written word. And all that's needed is the desire to be heard, the will to learn, and the ability to see."

Smile, and keep moving forward.

Crude and awful as the Occupy Wall Street comic is, the best thing we can do is nod and look elsewhere for the art that will open our eyes. Let the lunatics draw what they want, let them stew in their own flawed double standards. Otherwise, we're as shallow and empty as they are, and nothing good comes of that. Smile, and keep moving forward.

Things are getting better. Show the world how to hear, how to learn, how to see.

People should start listening to Nikki Haley


Okay. Let's take a vote. You know, an objective, quantifiable count. How many resolutions has the UN Human Rights Council adopted condemning dictatorships? Easy. Well. How do you define "dictatorship"?

Well, one metric is the UN Human Rights Council Condemnation. How many have the United Nations issued to China, with a body count higher than a professional Call of Duty player?


How about Venezuela, where socialism is devouring its own in the cruelest, most unsettling ways imaginable?


And Russia, home of unsettling cruelty and rampant censorship, murder and (actual) homophobia?


Iraq? Zero. Turkey? Iraq? Zero. Cuba? Zero. Pakistan? Zero.

RELATED: Nikki Haley just dropped some serious verbal bombs on Russia at the UN

According to UN Human Rights Council Condemnations, 2006-2016, none of these nations is as dangerous as we'd imagined. Or, rather, none of them faced a single condemnation. Meanwhile, one country in particular has faced unbelievable scrutiny and fury — you'll never guess which country.

No, it's not Somalia. It's Israel. With 68 UN Human Rights Council Condemnations! In fact, the number of total United Nations condemnations against Israel outnumbers the total of condemnations against all other countries combined. The only country that comes close is Syria, with 15.

The Trump administration withdrew from the United Nations Human Rights Council on Tuesday in protest of what it perceives as an entrenched bias against Israel and a willingness to allow notorious human rights abusers as members.

In an address to the UN Security Council on Tuesday, Nikki Haley said:

Let's remember that the Hamas terrorist organization has been inciting violence for years, long before the United States decided to move our embassy. This is what is endangering the people of Gaza. Make no mistake, Hamas is pleased with the results from yesterday... No country in this chamber would act with more restraint than Israel has.

Maybe people should start listening to Haley. Hopefully, they will. Not likely, but there's no crime in remaining hopeful.

Here's a question unique to our times: "Should I tell my father 'Happy Father's Day,' even though he (she?) is now one of my mothers?"

Father's Day was four days ago, yes, but this story is just weird enough to report on. One enjoyable line to read was this gem from Hollywood Gossip: "Cait is a woman and a transgender icon, but she is also and will always be the father of her six children."

RELATED: If Bruce was never a he and always a she, who won the men's Olympic gold in 1976?

Imagine reading that to someone ten — even five — years ago. And, honestly, there's something nice about it. But the strangeness of its having ever been written overpowers any emotional impact it might bring.

"So lucky to have you," wrote Kylie Jenner, in the Instagram caption under pre-transition pictures of Bruce Jenner.

Look. I risk sounding like a tabloid by mere dint of having even mentioned this story, but the important element is the cultural sway that's occurring. The original story was that a band of disgruntled Twitter users got outraged about the supposed "transphobic" remarks by Jenner's daughter.

But, what we should be saying is, "who the hell cares?" Who cares what one Jenner says to another — and more importantly and on a far deeper level — who cares what some anonymous Twitter user has to say?

When are we going to stop playing into the hands of the Twitter mob?

When are we going to stop playing into the hands of the Twitter mob? Because, at the moment, they've got it pretty good. They have a nifty relationship with the mainstream media: One or two Twitter users get outraged by any given thing — in this case Jenner and supposed transphobia. In return, the mainstream media use the Twitter comment as a source.

Then, a larger Twitter audience points to the article itself as proof that there's some kind of systemic justice at play. It's a closed-market currency, where the negative feedback loop of proof and evidence is composed of faulty accusations. Isn't it a hell of a time to be alive?