October 11, 2024 • 36 mins
Hour 3 of A&G features...
- Michael Strahan interviews Tim Walz & Josh Shapiro sounds like Obama
- Elon's new robots
- Are FBI crime statistics reliable?
- The Menendez brothers case
Stupid Should Hurt: https://www.armstrongandgetty.com/
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
Broadcasting live from the Abraham Lincoln Radio Studio of the
George Washington Broadcast Center. Jack Armstrong, Joe Getty, I'm strong
and Jetty and he Armstrong and Yeddy.
Speaker 2 (00:23):
I don't want more divisions. And I'll tell you what
else I don't want. I don't want his negativity.
Speaker 1 (00:29):
I'm sick and tired of it. I'm sick of it.
Speaker 2 (00:33):
The dude's a whiner, right, As we can say to
our kids as they were growing up, don't be.
Speaker 1 (00:40):
A whining pants, right.
Speaker 2 (00:42):
I got a message to Donald Trump, stop talking America.
Speaker 1 (00:48):
Stop it. Who is that young fire band? Wow?
Speaker 3 (00:52):
Listen to the crowd go wild for Josh Shapiro saying
tired of hearing Trumps talk in America. First of all,
First of all, you've got to tone down your Barack
Obama impersonation. It was okay, you know, nine months ago,
when you're kind of vying for being the running mate.
But now that Obama's on the trail and I heard
(01:13):
him a lot yesterday when you got him side by side,
it's a little too much that you're just like doing
a dead on Barack Obama impersonation. But the reason we
played Josh Shapiro is to compare and contrast to Tim Walls,
who is on Good Morning America today being interviewed by
Michael Strahan, the football player. I don't know why I
(01:34):
keep saying that, because it's not like you can't be
a football player and go on to whatever other career
you want to be.
Speaker 1 (01:40):
I think he's probably had a longer career as a
show host, right, TV show host? Probably?
Speaker 3 (01:45):
Yeah, what was I going to say? Well, he's not
a trained journalist. I guess that's my point. He didn't
go to Jay School at Columbia to try to get
the truth out of these candidates. He is a football
player and got hired on this show and kind of
worked his way from sports to personality to interviewing, and
he's just asking kind of like normal questions.
Speaker 1 (02:04):
I'd much rather have that than somebody went to day
school at Columbia, I would agree. I think I had
another point before I got to that. I't remember what it.
Speaker 3 (02:12):
Was anyway, It'll come to me later. Here is a
little of Tim Walls being asked the same question he's
been asked many times. Still doesn't have a great answer.
Speaker 4 (02:18):
I call yourself a knucklehead because you've made some statements
that just aren't true. In a comment about weapon of
the war that I carried in ward, which you didn't,
you said that you were in Hong Kong during a
Tan and then Square massacre when you weren't. You kind
of chalked it all up to bad grammar or getting
the dates wrong. But your opponents say you lied to make.
Speaker 1 (02:37):
Yourself look better. Do they have a point?
Speaker 5 (02:40):
Well, look, thirty five years ago, got the opportunity to
be in Hong Kong, be in China, served twenty four
years in the National Guard, passionately in an instance talking
about gun violence in schools on an instance there, Proud
of the service that I've done, Proud to be a
teacher in that classroom, Proud to have been very public
all these years, and owning him when I know said, look,
(03:01):
I was there in August of eighty nine, and I
think what you see here you saw in Minnesota. I've
been elected eight times here. These things have been very
public for folks here. They see the results of things
that we passed. We see a state that's a top
five state for business. We see third best state, top
three state for raising a child, and we've got the
best healthcare.
Speaker 1 (03:20):
Just not good at it. See the heavy handedness of
the I'm trying to distract you. This is irrelevant, but
it makes me look better. It's just so obvious.
Speaker 3 (03:33):
So he immediately went to the well, look, I served
in the National Guard.
Speaker 1 (03:39):
I'm proud of that service. What I'm a teacher.
Speaker 3 (03:42):
What we're just talking about you claiming here in China
at a different time than you said?
Speaker 1 (03:47):
What is what he's trying to do? And this is
after what.
Speaker 3 (03:51):
A full week of getting beaten up on his answer
over that?
Speaker 6 (03:57):
What?
Speaker 1 (03:57):
Yeah? And I'm a knucklehead at times, you are knucklehea times.
We all are most times, it would appear perhaps all
the time. And what's especially disturbing about that and Kamala
Harris's utter inability to answer the question what would you
do differently than the Biden Harris administration is those answers
(04:18):
are not difficult to construct. He didn't ask an unanswerable question.
These people are you know? To paraphrase something I read
earlier from I think it was a Wall Street journal,
the problem Kamala Harris has is not that she's being
seen enough. It's that she is being seen likewise Wallace,
(04:38):
He's just terrible at it. Is not your own damn business.
Let's hear another question from just a couple hours ago.
Speaker 4 (04:44):
Actually, well, you know, but if it's one thing to trust,
be some people who say we can't trust him even
tell the truth about himself.
Speaker 5 (04:52):
What do you say to them? Well, I said, they
know who I am. I know who I am, I
know the work that I've done. I know that things
get get spun in a political environment. But I think
what they see is if they want to compare that
talking about immigration policy or seeing the things that Donald
Trump would say, I think there's a big difference than
missing a date when you're there and again spinning something
(05:12):
for a political reason. I'm very clear of who I've been.
I'm very proud of twenty four years of doing that work,
and I think going to Congress and working for veterans,
they want to see it and make the difference look
a little different. I think people in Minnesota, my students,
the folks i've worked with members of Congress, they know
who I am, and they know the policies we put
in place have made an impact.
Speaker 1 (05:34):
He does that is major Network Morning TV. They are
taking on water.
Speaker 3 (05:41):
Yeah, he doesn't do word salad like Kamala Harris does.
He does extraneous details or like non related anecdotes.
Speaker 1 (05:53):
He answers, but all self serving and flattering in a
way that's again heavy, head't and obvious. The only reason
you just brought that up is it makes you look good,
and you're trying to distract me from the fact that
you're not answering my question. It's just it's not even skillful.
We'll just punish you with one more of these.
Speaker 4 (06:09):
And Vice President harrisaid, as she told you to be
a little bit more careful on how you say things.
Speaker 5 (06:15):
Well, I did it, you know, even the other day
of just speaking passionately about these gun violence situations and
meeting with these survivors. I've said in the room with
the Sandy Hook folks, a friend with David Hogg, who's
been an activist on this. People know in that, and
then that gets spun him that well, he didn't say
something true. It was very clear that I was talking
about these veterans, very clear that I wear you know,
(06:37):
I wear my emotions on my sleeve, and I do
think in these positions, whether it be governor or being
bunch president of the United States, you do need to
be collect careful. You do need to be a little
more thoughtful on it. And I think what you see
as as someone who's been in classrooms a lot, I
been around coaching a lot. I speak passionately, and I
think doing that, you need to combine the two.
Speaker 1 (06:59):
So I've become friends with school shooters.
Speaker 3 (07:01):
I don't I don't know what that one was about.
Do you what they were talking about there? Did he?
He stepped in it the other day talking with victims.
Speaker 1 (07:10):
Of school shootings. I can't remember exactly what it was
that he said, and I'm not I'm not hung up
on that one in that telor. I just his uh yeah,
I wish I could remember, because I know I read
about it. But he's I was just going to say,
coming out of that clip, he's just not major league talent. Correct, Yeah,
he's not up to the challenges. And you know, I
can I have some sympathy, at least theoretically that the
(07:33):
whole vetting process and campaign was super compressed and they
didn't have time blah blah blah. But Kamala harrisoning, you
know what's what's a great example of a great decision
you've made choosing Tim Walls as Vice president.
Speaker 3 (07:47):
Oh boy, Well, that's why we played that Josh Shapiro
clip right there, because he is major league talent and
everybody knew yeah, and he continues to spray, you know,
he's a Jew.
Speaker 1 (07:58):
We can't have a chat a jew on the turn
the Democratic Party. Where's he gonna go on? What are
you gonna shund a jew into Michigan? What? You can't
do that in the Democratic Party.
Speaker 3 (08:12):
So if she ends up losing, that will be one
of the things campaign historians point two as a bad move,
choosing Tim Walls over Josh Shapiro, who who not only
is way better at campaigning, but he's the governor of
the freaking must win state of Pennsylvania.
Speaker 1 (08:29):
Where he's incredibly popular. Right, although you're you're so right,
you don't open for I don't know you two by
doing like a U two imitation. They're in your opening set,
and Josh Shapiro's got to drop the Obama imitation when
he's speaking. In fact, when we I didn't know what
(08:51):
the clip Jack had had chosen, and when he started,
I thought that's Obama, but he sounds different. Really thought
it was really the first sentence, I thought it was
Obama yeah, yeah, yeah.
Speaker 3 (09:01):
Did he always talk that way and it's just a
coincidence or did he pick that up from years of
listening to Obama?
Speaker 1 (09:07):
Is he young? Sixty three? Again, Mike, just the beginning.
Speaker 2 (09:10):
I don't want more divisions. And I'll tell you what
else I don't want. I don't want his negativity.
Speaker 1 (09:16):
I'm sick and tired of it. Yeah, okay, that's plenty.
That's just yeah. I thought, why does her mama sound
like that? That's one hundred percent Barack Obama impersonation. Yeah.
I think it's just that rhythm, that feel of the
southern preacher kind of that's that's popular.
Speaker 3 (09:30):
I actually saw something the other day from Michelle Obama.
I meant to grab the audio because it's pretty funny.
I don't know when she did this, and I am
predisposed to not like her for some reason, mostly just
because of the fawning over or it's not her fault
that everybody fawns over the way they do and talk
about her being president what and and get her book?
Speaker 1 (09:52):
Why?
Speaker 3 (09:53):
But she was she was on some interview show and
she was talking about her husband and she said, oh, yeah,
me and the girls. This is when the girls would
have been younger and still at home. We all know
the look. We all know the sound when Dad starts
to go into his lecture voice and we all look
at each other and roll our eyes. Okay, here he goes.
Why'd you get him started? Which I thought was pretty funny.
Speaker 1 (10:18):
Yeah, that brings back such warm memories as sitting around
the dinner table, which was sacred at the Getty household,
and how I would launch you in one of my
screeds about you know, the Constitution or the nature of
liberty or something like that. And as younger kids, the
clue was the blank look. Right as older kids it
(10:39):
progressed to the eye roll, and then when they were
older still it'd be like, Okay, here we go, and
we'd all laugh about it because I'm self aware enough
to know, oh, here I go on a screen, and yeah,
it's good.
Speaker 3 (10:51):
It's like what Henry said to me the other day.
You know, Dad, everything doesn't have to be a life lesson.
I'm explaining to let it happen, Pop, Just a minor
thing doesn't have to be a life lesson. That is hilarious, beautiful,
one funny thing before we take a break, just to
I don't know if you sent this out, Katie or whatever.
It's a video that I'm gonna send out to everybody
(11:14):
of a bald eagle landing next to a trump Yard sign,
which is hilarious, set to the national anthem.
Speaker 1 (11:22):
That's the beautiful part of the video.
Speaker 3 (11:24):
A bald eagle floating down next to a trump Yard
sign for real.
Speaker 1 (11:28):
The guy just happens to drive by. That is really funny.
That's a sign. That is a sign from the heavens.
Oh my god. That is something. Later this hour you're
gonna hear from Elon Muskin what he thinks is gonna.
Speaker 3 (11:41):
Be the biggest product of all time, which, if it
works the way he claims it's gonna work, might actually be.
Among other things, we got on the way stairs, so I.
Speaker 1 (11:54):
Took in.
Speaker 3 (11:56):
A little of Elon Musk's big Tesla event because I
own a Tesla or care that much. But he was
going to do some other stuff in addition to that,
and then I read about it last night. Elon Musk
unveiled the Tesla cybercab robotaxis that he's going to call
a cybercab. He actually rode in on one at the
(12:17):
event and explained how they're going to work and they're
going to be about thirty thousand dollars and he thinks
it's the future. Well, maybe I ought to play the
clip first so I know what's in the clip and
what's not. And then also these we robot things that
he displayed to here's Elon from the event last night.
Speaker 7 (12:35):
It'll be as do anything you want, so it can
be a teacher of babysit your kids, that can walk
your dog, boi your loan, get the groceries, just be
your friend, serve drinks, whatever you can think of. Hey,
we'll do and yeah, it's gonna be awesome. I think
this will be the biggest product ever of any kind,
(12:57):
and we've made a lot of progress. You're really going
to have something spectacular, something that anyone could own at
scale the the you know, this would cost something like,
I don't know, twenty thirty thousand dollars, probably less than
a car. That's my prediction long time.
Speaker 3 (13:15):
So these robots that he had on display, they all
came walking out. He had like a little I was
gonna say army of them, which is not the best imagery,
since I think that's what they're mostly curate. Mostly going
to be used for by nations. He had these robots
walk out with him behind the cyber cab that he
rode out in, which kind of looks like a it's
(13:38):
got a bit of a look of the cyber truck,
the way the doors open and everything like that. There's
no steering roll or anything like that. There's these benches
you sit in a cyber cab. Anyway, it rolled out
with him in it, and then a whole bunch of
these we robots behind him. And then he does that
little speech where he talks about then they'll be able to,
you know, help your kids with homework, or cook dinner,
or fold the laundry, or mow the lawn or all
(14:00):
kinds of different things, or.
Speaker 1 (14:01):
Reguard the concentration camps and for disobedient human humanoids.
Speaker 3 (14:07):
And he said they're gonna be twenty or thirty thousand dollars,
which is obviously a big chunk of money. That's not
like a minor thing to do. But if you had
an electronic slave more or less, you know, what would
that be worth for the amount of things that they
could do.
Speaker 1 (14:22):
I wouldn't be this uncomfortable imagery. Can we just say,
robot wow, I had to go there. I suppose that's
not the best rated seller. But I don't pay any
machines around my house. I don't pay my vacuum cleaner.
There's not a living wage granted to our washing machine.
I don't consider them slaves.
Speaker 3 (14:43):
Unfortunately, there will be we robot reparations in thirty years. No, no, no, oh.
But I could actually see a world where it's just
something everybody has. I mean, you factor into what it
costs to have a household. You have a house, you
have a car. Cars are and if you have washing
and dryer, they're expensive. You have a computer that's expensive,
all various things, and you're gonna have a wee robot
(15:05):
that does a whole bunch of different tasks for you.
I could easily believe that. Yeah, it's absolutely conceivable. You
can buy it on payments, that sort of thing. I
don't know how important it is that they dance, because
he had them dancing in a big cage at the
end of the thing.
Speaker 1 (15:20):
Again some uncomfortable imagery.
Speaker 3 (15:22):
But to the we cab and then he's gonna he
had something called a robovan, which is like a bigger
version where a whole bunch of people sit in there
with ben sheets, but he said, I think the cost
of autonomous transport will be so low that you can
think of it like individual individualized mass transit, which actually
like to me, he was like, Okay, now I get it,
(15:44):
individualized mass transit instead of this mass transit that has
not worked and it doesn't really work in any city
in America at the scale that they've always claimed. It's
going to the big city buses and the light rails
and stuff like that, tons of them driving around mostly
all the time, at great taxpayer expense. I could see
these more individualized mass transit going specific directions, which is
(16:07):
much more handy to you being way more successful.
Speaker 1 (16:11):
I was just planning a trip yesterday in which I
was trying to figure out does the hotel have a
shuttle to the airport or should I rent a car?
Blah blah. I could see, you know, certainly, you're reasonably
sized hotels having a couple of these things and you
just hop in in it and say to the airport,
and it takes you right, just as a service.
Speaker 3 (16:31):
And the one troubling thing about the Wee robot was Okay,
mow the lawn, make the meals fold the laundry.
Speaker 1 (16:39):
Be a friend. Be a friend.
Speaker 3 (16:41):
Hell, be a friend is an entirely different category. That's
a completely different thing.
Speaker 1 (16:47):
And you gotta be careful or it'll mow the dog
and walk the laundry. I mean. On a much more
serious note, Russia is losing thirteen hundred guys a day
from the battlefield in Ukraine. Yeah, they'd send in waves
of robots if they had them. Oh, of course, Oh
the Armstrong and Getty.
Speaker 3 (17:09):
We're fishing in the middle of the road because this
road floods all the time.
Speaker 1 (17:14):
And there's a guy coming behind us in a lawnmower.
Speaker 2 (17:17):
Isn't there.
Speaker 4 (17:17):
That's America I've ever seen it.
Speaker 1 (17:19):
So we've got people fishing in the road. We've got
a guy on a lawnmower.
Speaker 4 (17:24):
He's doing all right.
Speaker 1 (17:25):
Yeah, So we've.
Speaker 2 (17:27):
Got people fishing in the middle of the road.
Speaker 1 (17:30):
I got on a lawnmower in the middle of the road.
I'm confused.
Speaker 3 (17:34):
How is the lawnmower driving in the road if it's
deep enough to fish in?
Speaker 1 (17:38):
That's my question. Shallow water on more fishing time there
in the holler anyway, I ain't that America for you
and me? So a couple of international stories of notes
still waiting for Israel to respond. As the spokesman said
(17:58):
the other day, it will be swift and terrible, but
mostly surprising above all. Surprising. Yeah, yeah. A couple of
headlines on that topic. Iran's secret warning to US allies,
don't help Israel or your next The threats through diplomatic
channels have prompted to Arab States to tell the US
they will not aid any attack on Iran.
Speaker 3 (18:22):
I think my guess would be the reaction to that
of the Arab States is going to be, We've been
putting up with Iran long enough, let's do it, do it,
do it now.
Speaker 1 (18:34):
They're not so far. I mean, they're acting as if
they're making it known we will not do anything to
help Israel at all.
Speaker 3 (18:42):
There's no telling what's actually being said behind the scenes, though,
just no telling that's true. I mean again, I have
said this ten times, but one thing I get from
reading that David Sanger book, which I'm almost finished with
the New Cold Wars, is and what we get in
the press versus the conversations that are going at the
highest levels between diplomats.
Speaker 1 (19:00):
I don't even know why we even paying any attention
to it well, and there's no foreign relations. That's more
a hall of mirrorsy than in the Musslim world. Because
these regimes, the Gulf States in particular, they understand the
modern world and they need to cooperate. They need investment.
They understand Israel's a good partner for stability in the region.
But they have a significant chunk of their population living
(19:21):
in the year eight hundred, right, I mean, just as
fundamentalists as fundamentalists can be. And so they make noises
and pound their chests and then down with the Zionists
or whatever. But behind the scenes are making deals. So anyway, yeah,
what happens, and it hasn't happened yet, is anybody's guess.
(19:42):
This is so interesting. I've come across this in a
couple of different places. Iran, now somewhat defanged of its proxies,
is hiring criminal gangs in the West to try to
hit Israeli targets, you know, political candidates. I mean, like
they they're on the record, is hiring some Hell's angels.
(20:04):
Here's a case where they hired some goons to throw
hand grenades at the Israeli embassy in Stockholm and at
a Spanish politician shot in the face in broad daylight.
And they're hiring drug cartels and criminal gangs to do
their evil bidding, which is unfortunate. Speaking of crime, completely
(20:29):
different topic. Oh this from ocin defender Open Source Intelligence Defender,
great Twitter Accadeyes follow it. According to Reuter's, members of
the Golf Cooperative Council, including Saudi Arabian Qatar, have spoken
a senior US officials in recent days requesting that they
ask you is Real to not launch strikes against Iran's
oil industry due to fears that Orion would retaliate with
(20:50):
missile strikes against Golf oil refineries and other facilities. That's
why Saudi Arabia modern Qatar are so afraid. Anyway, I
was gonna say, speaking of crime, this is so good.
Jeff Anderson in the City Journal our FBI crime statistics reliable,
and his subhead is the agency's process is shrouded in
(21:11):
mystery and its numbers are often inconsistent. And he talks
about how the mainstream media has recently trumpeted the Federal
Bureau of Investigations estimate that violent crime fell three percent
nationally from twenty two to twenty three. I've heard that
six hundred times.
Speaker 3 (21:24):
I'm to the point where I completely ignore crime statistics
because I trust them so little.
Speaker 1 (21:29):
Yeah, I would agree, but as Jeffrey Anderson writes, they
have largely ignored. However, the latest iteration of the Bureau
of Justice Statistics National Crime Victimization Survey, which we talked
about at length a couple of weeks ago, which found
a nine percent increase in property crime in urban areas
over that span, part of a twenty six percent rise
in urban property crime, alongside a whopping forty percent surgeon
(21:52):
urban but violent crime that happens to me from twenty
nineteen to twenty twenty three, so set aside for a moment.
The media is downplaying of that inconvenient urban crime data.
Are the FBI statistics really precise enough to make much
of a reported three percent annual change in violent crime?
And I thought thought this was so interesting. Trying to
(22:12):
decipher how the FBI produces its statistics and what those
numbers even are is a lot like combing through a
crime scene and searching for clues. The agency's process, such
as how it tries to estimate unreported figures. So if
a city or a county or whatever doesn't report it,
they estimate what those numbers probably are. The hell is
(22:32):
that has long been a black box, even to the
Bureau of Justice Statistics, the Department of Justice's actual statistical agency.
Things have become even more cryptic of late, as the
FBI has struggled to implement its new crime reporting system,
adopted nationally in twenty twenty one. That new system makes
Year to ear your comparisons more challenging, in part because
only eighty five percent of agencies provided data for twenty
(22:55):
twenty three. In other words, the FBI is capturing only
a portion of crimes reported to police. And he gets
into a fair amount of detail, and we'll have this
linked at Armstrong and getty dot com.
Speaker 3 (23:06):
Well, so if you start at the local level of
lots of crimes don't get reported, and then you take
it on up to the other stuff you're just talking about,
you could be wildly off.
Speaker 1 (23:17):
Oh yeah, it's it's a wild guess. And his main
premises to accept all of these statistical methodological shortcomings and
then trumpet a three percent change is insane and.
Speaker 3 (23:34):
Then claim completely invalid and then claim obviously that see
our policies are working right, yeah, yeah, because crime could
be so. So that's yet another layer. So even if
it were true that crime went down three percent, that
number being so tiny, to claim that any particular policy
did it would be way too premature because you don't know.
(23:54):
Lots of things can cause that to go up or
down a couple of percent.
Speaker 1 (23:57):
Right, and then one final thing that will blow your
dang mind. But after a quick word from simply Safe
home Security, which is a coincidence.
Speaker 3 (24:06):
But a happy onever well, tie and look at Jill
working his magic.
Speaker 1 (24:11):
I'm not anyway, thank you. Simply Safe is such a
great award winning home security system. It is the winner
of all the awards. It's less expensive than the old systems.
There's no long term contracts. It's just such a great
program and just top to bottom. So my last house,
I went online.
Speaker 3 (24:31):
I ordered the system for the number of windows and
doors in the camera and everything that I needed.
Speaker 1 (24:35):
Set it all up myself. Was great.
Speaker 3 (24:38):
Moved added a few things, slightly bigger house and that
was easy. Set it up myself still great. No contract
doesn't cost much less than a dollar a day. You're
gonna love simply Safe.
Speaker 1 (24:49):
And it's worth, you know, emphasizing you took it with
you because it's yours. It's not like totally embedded in
the house. And then long term contracts and high prices.
Pricing is transparent and affordables than a dollar a day
with no hidden fees. Ever, for the fast Protect Monitoring
Live Guard protection, it's fantastic protect your home fifty percent
off new simply Safe system plus free indoor security camera.
(25:09):
When you sign up for that fast Protect monitoring. Just
visit simplysafe dot com slash armstrong. That's simplysafe dot com
slash armstrong. There's no safe like simply safe, all right,
So listen to this. Would you try to track with this?
The FBI also has a history of offering multiple and
often conflicting crime figures, which makes precise cross your comparisons difficult.
(25:30):
For example, how many violent crimes were committed nationwide in
twenty twenty fairly straightforward question. The table linked to on
the FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting Program website. Its source data
indicates it's two hundred and seventy two eight hundred and
twelve such crimes. Okay, But the bureau's twenty twenty one
press release announcing the publication of the twenty twenty Crime
(25:52):
Data PEG the figure at five thousand more. Then in
twenty twenty two, it's press release highlighted the publication of
the twenty twenty one crime statistics and claimed that the
twenty twenty figure had actually been ah fifty thousand more.
Add in the FBI's data discovery tool, which currently lists
(26:14):
a twenty twenty total as another completely wildly different number,
and you have four different figures for one.
Speaker 3 (26:21):
Statistic, right, And then again, starting with the idea of
how many violent crimes were committed in twenty twenty, there's
no way to have any idea because lots and lots
of them don't get reported. But of those reported, here's
our number. And then you still end up with four
different numbers. And he points out, and I appreciate it.
(26:41):
That's not to say the FBI is doing anything nefarious,
but rather that the media is putting too much faith
in a crime data, or at least by an entity
that isn't a principal federal statistical agency. That's not what
they do. Excellent point. And of course their media picks
out whichever number works best for whatever politic narrative they're
particularly pushing. And indeed, the Bureau of Justice Statistics National
(27:06):
Crime Victimization Survey. The NCVS is the one to look to. Okay,
it goes into towns and cities all across America. Hey,
were you a victim of a crime?
Speaker 6 (27:15):
Yeah?
Speaker 1 (27:16):
I was. I didn't bother to report it because the
cops never do anything that is worth knowing.
Speaker 3 (27:21):
It's interesting yesterday when you said there are neighborhoods where
if you've gotten if somebody shoved you against a wall
and took your iPhone and ran off, you wouldn't report it.
Speaker 1 (27:31):
I suppose that's true.
Speaker 3 (27:32):
I'd never really thought about that before, would I.
Speaker 1 (27:36):
I'm not sure I would. I think I probably would.
Speaker 3 (27:39):
Probably depends on where I was, if I happened to
be if I happen to be walking well, like where
I live, yeah, I would definitely report it. And in
my cul de Sac that would be weird. But like
if I'm in a bad area of Oakland for some reason,
like I left a ballgame, I'm not sure would it
be worth the hassle of waiting for the cops to
show up and filling out the paperwork is like before
(28:01):
I head to my car and go home.
Speaker 1 (28:02):
Probably not? Yeah, I probably not.
Speaker 3 (28:06):
What do I think I'm gonna get out of that.
There's not a chance I'm getting my phone back. Not
a chance.
Speaker 1 (28:12):
Not a chance the guy gets arrested, even if they
caught him with my phone. There's some there are some
cop shops that will do the find my I phone
thing and go and confront the people. But I have
a feeling the peace officers in Oakland are a little business. Okay,
picks up else your watch, slayings and hackings and that
sort of thing, your watch or whatever.
Speaker 3 (28:31):
If I'm if I'm in a if I'm in a
San Francisco on Market Street and somebody knocks me down
and takes my watch, what good would it do me
to call the cops other than lengthen my day and annoyance?
Speaker 1 (28:44):
Yeah, a strong arm robbery, I'm thinking I report. I'm
not sure. I don't know. I've never been there, hope
I never. Yeah.
Speaker 3 (28:54):
Is pretty crazy though, that that's even a question in
a lot of places. Well, how about this, Uh speak
to San Francisco. You you park over there so you can,
you know, walk along the Golden Gate bridge over there
on the other side, and your car gets broken into
just like your brothers.
Speaker 1 (29:10):
Did you call anybody? There's zero points. Not everybody knows
cars get broken into one hundred and seventy five times
a day.
Speaker 4 (29:21):
There.
Speaker 3 (29:22):
I think the only the only thing I would think about.
Does having a I reported it help my insurance claim?
Other than that it doesn't make any difference.
Speaker 1 (29:30):
Yeah, yeah, Hey, yet another controversy at CBS news. Man,
are they screwed up? They are? They have allowed themselves
to be dragged far far from journalism as anybody recognizes it.
Cool the Tiffany Network, Well this is good.
Speaker 3 (29:48):
I like this, and not only does it put pressure
on CBS, it puts pressure on everybody else to realize, hey,
this can turn into a big negative story that's going
to hurt us if we go too far down the
road of fixing you putting our thumb on the scale.
So that's good news. Got that and other stuff on
the way, Stay armstrong, And I need to carve out
some time for watching television when my kids aren't around,
(30:10):
because I want to watch some of the new Menendez
Brothers stuff that's come out.
Speaker 1 (30:16):
There's both the mini series thing and a documentary, Yeah,
Netflix documentary. I want to see the Penguin on HBO.
I hear that's really good, But so which one. Have
you watched Katie one or both?
Speaker 6 (30:28):
So I've watched a few episodes of the series, and
then I watched the actual documentary that they just put out,
Brothers Mendez.
Speaker 1 (30:36):
What's your takeaway? The what's his name? Gascone in la is.
Speaker 3 (30:41):
Claiming he's gonna They're gonna be out in time for Thanksgiving.
Speaker 6 (30:45):
Dude, Then then he's he's releasing two killers. They it's
just the yeah, I did not I I got the
same vibe as like I do from Scott Peterson saying like, oh,
I didn't do it. I need to get out of there.
They they're just they're very slick. Well, nobody who's doubting
that they killed their parents. That's never been in doubt,
(31:05):
but just whether or not the parents had it coming.
And it was basically.
Speaker 1 (31:08):
A yeah, I got the idea, and Katie you can
confirm her tonight that the tone of the documentary was
that they were victims of terrible sexual abuse and the
parents really kind of had it coming and they need
a new trial and they need to get out or
is it less heavy handed than that, No, it's it.
You've you've pretty much nailed it.
Speaker 6 (31:29):
I mean, they're definitely selling it as that these poor guys,
the life that they had to live prior to this happening, anyone.
Speaker 1 (31:35):
Would be driven to which can't happen. Yeah, it can happen.
Speaker 6 (31:39):
But when you listen to them talk, I mean, it's
just I don't know, there's something manufactured about what they're saying.
Speaker 1 (31:44):
To me. Mm hm. That's that's your instinct as a
human being, though I think that you recognized as something.
But anyway, I want to squeeze some facts in before
we run out of time. Fact Alan Alan Abrahamson, who's uh,
he's a he's a writer and covered the original trial
in nineteen ninety three trials there were two of them,
(32:05):
and his headline is don't feel sorry for the Menendez brothers.
And he goes into the Netflix documentary and what the
defense lawyers have put forward. Recently discovered letter written by
Eric eight months before the shooting that they asserted suggest
the sexual abuse by the father was on going into
the brother's teenage years. Is it this so called abuse excuse?
(32:28):
So what? Lyle and Eric Menendez are stone cold murderers.
On August twenty, nineteen eighty nine, using shotguns, they killed
the parents at close range in the Beverly Hills Home.
Speaker 3 (32:38):
Now at least one juror has come out and said,
if I'd have known of that letter, which wasn't available
at the time in the trial, I'd have thought differently.
But you know that didn't necessarily mean anything.
Speaker 1 (32:49):
Yeah, having served on a handful of juries, there are
lunkheads every morning. You've got to your hardest challenge is
a juror is dealing with the lunkheads. Then it's the evidence.
But so this guy who covered the trial says the
brother's abuse excuses. I wrote in the La Times preview
piece marked an effort to quote test an emerging legal strategy.
This is back the original trial that portrays abused children
(33:12):
as victims a kind of battered woman and justified in
killing in self defense. Before the trial, I interviewed a judge.
He told me, in this day and age, it's become
de regre, meaning it always happens in parricide cases to
claim this abuse. If you kill your dad, you claim abuse.
The father has gone, the mother has gone, The sympathy
lies with the children, and the people in the fourth
of state tend to make such claims plausible. Let's face it,
(33:35):
it sells a lot of soap. But then Abrahamson gets
into the idea that abuse does not justify or excuse
revenge killing. The legal doctrine is, for instance, an abused spouse,
you're afraid you're about to be killed, so it's self defense.
(33:56):
That there's a legal term for it. It's like imperfect
self defense or something like that. But killing someone isn't
self defense unless you believe they're about to kill you.
That's not the case. He goes into the details.
Speaker 3 (34:08):
So if your dad's coming to abuse you again, you
could kill him in self defense, perhaps, but you can't
just be angry about it a year later and go kill.
Speaker 1 (34:17):
Him right right. Indeed, about four months after the killings,
they met with a Beverly Hills psychologist. They talked in
confidence about why they killed their parents. If ever there
would have been a time to confide their deepest, darkest secret,
this would have been it. But no, not once did
either claim to have been sexually abused. Really, is it
any wonder that the defense fought for years to keep
this tape a secret. Instead of saying they were afraid
(34:40):
for their lives, Lyle said his father had been unfaithful,
causing Kitty to turn the liquor and pills, so we
thought we would just kill dad and eliminate the problem.
And the mother, well, killing her was just putting her
out of her misery. Really, why said.
Speaker 3 (34:52):
Were they just mentally ill or out? Did both of
them end up so crazy? Couple of socio paths.
Speaker 6 (34:58):
Well, And one of the things that was that came
up in this documentary is one of the brothers talked
about how the reason they decided to go kill the
parents was because they thought the parents were in that
room planning to kill them.
Speaker 1 (35:10):
That's the new spin.
Speaker 3 (35:12):
Well, they can't both be delusional with the same delusion.
That doesn't make sense.
Speaker 1 (35:16):
So almost no journalist writing about the case today is
cited the decision by the US Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals in five after the brothers were found guilty in
the second trial. It destroys arguments advanced on half of
the brothers. Lyle is dismissed in a footnote quote. In fact,
evidence that Lyle ever feared his parents is so weak
in the record that his claim could be rejected without discussion.
(35:37):
But these an innocent person has been convicted and we
need to free them. Feel of podcasts and documentaries it's hot.
It's super hot. So you pick a case, you manipulate
the facts, you carefully choose this. You're portray it as
one thing. You shine the light from that side, and
it's a winner.
Speaker 3 (35:55):
So why did they kill their parents, Katie, You've watched
enough of this stuff. They're just evil, well because they
were saying the abuse. But there's a money spind It's
it's a really tangled web that they're they're showing us
in this documentary.
Speaker 1 (36:07):
I'll have to check that out.
Speaker 3 (36:07):
If you missed an hour of this show, get the
podcast Armstrong and Getty on demand
Speaker 1 (36:12):
Armstrong and Getty
Broadcasting live from the Abraham Lincoln Radio Studio of the
George Washington Broadcast Center. Jack Armstrong, Joe Getty, I'm strong
and Jetty and he Armstrong and Yeddy.
Speaker 2 (00:23):
I don't want more divisions. And I'll tell you what
else I don't want. I don't want his negativity.
Speaker 1 (00:29):
I'm sick and tired of it. I'm sick of it.
Speaker 2 (00:33):
The dude's a whiner, right, As we can say to
our kids as they were growing up, don't be.
Speaker 1 (00:40):
A whining pants, right.
Speaker 2 (00:42):
I got a message to Donald Trump, stop talking America.
Speaker 1 (00:48):
Stop it. Who is that young fire band? Wow?
Speaker 3 (00:52):
Listen to the crowd go wild for Josh Shapiro saying
tired of hearing Trumps talk in America. First of all,
First of all, you've got to tone down your Barack
Obama impersonation. It was okay, you know, nine months ago,
when you're kind of vying for being the running mate.
But now that Obama's on the trail and I heard
(01:13):
him a lot yesterday when you got him side by side,
it's a little too much that you're just like doing
a dead on Barack Obama impersonation. But the reason we
played Josh Shapiro is to compare and contrast to Tim Walls,
who is on Good Morning America today being interviewed by
Michael Strahan, the football player. I don't know why I
(01:34):
keep saying that, because it's not like you can't be
a football player and go on to whatever other career
you want to be.
Speaker 1 (01:40):
I think he's probably had a longer career as a
show host, right, TV show host? Probably?
Speaker 3 (01:45):
Yeah, what was I going to say? Well, he's not
a trained journalist. I guess that's my point. He didn't
go to Jay School at Columbia to try to get
the truth out of these candidates. He is a football
player and got hired on this show and kind of
worked his way from sports to personality to interviewing, and
he's just asking kind of like normal questions.
Speaker 1 (02:04):
I'd much rather have that than somebody went to day
school at Columbia, I would agree. I think I had
another point before I got to that. I't remember what it.
Speaker 3 (02:12):
Was anyway, It'll come to me later. Here is a
little of Tim Walls being asked the same question he's
been asked many times. Still doesn't have a great answer.
Speaker 4 (02:18):
I call yourself a knucklehead because you've made some statements
that just aren't true. In a comment about weapon of
the war that I carried in ward, which you didn't,
you said that you were in Hong Kong during a
Tan and then Square massacre when you weren't. You kind
of chalked it all up to bad grammar or getting
the dates wrong. But your opponents say you lied to make.
Speaker 1 (02:37):
Yourself look better. Do they have a point?
Speaker 5 (02:40):
Well, look, thirty five years ago, got the opportunity to
be in Hong Kong, be in China, served twenty four
years in the National Guard, passionately in an instance talking
about gun violence in schools on an instance there, Proud
of the service that I've done, Proud to be a
teacher in that classroom, Proud to have been very public
all these years, and owning him when I know said, look,
(03:01):
I was there in August of eighty nine, and I
think what you see here you saw in Minnesota. I've
been elected eight times here. These things have been very
public for folks here. They see the results of things
that we passed. We see a state that's a top
five state for business. We see third best state, top
three state for raising a child, and we've got the
best healthcare.
Speaker 1 (03:20):
Just not good at it. See the heavy handedness of
the I'm trying to distract you. This is irrelevant, but
it makes me look better. It's just so obvious.
Speaker 3 (03:33):
So he immediately went to the well, look, I served
in the National Guard.
Speaker 1 (03:39):
I'm proud of that service. What I'm a teacher.
Speaker 3 (03:42):
What we're just talking about you claiming here in China
at a different time than you said?
Speaker 1 (03:47):
What is what he's trying to do? And this is
after what.
Speaker 3 (03:51):
A full week of getting beaten up on his answer
over that?
Speaker 6 (03:57):
What?
Speaker 1 (03:57):
Yeah? And I'm a knucklehead at times, you are knucklehea times.
We all are most times, it would appear perhaps all
the time. And what's especially disturbing about that and Kamala
Harris's utter inability to answer the question what would you
do differently than the Biden Harris administration is those answers
(04:18):
are not difficult to construct. He didn't ask an unanswerable question.
These people are you know? To paraphrase something I read
earlier from I think it was a Wall Street journal,
the problem Kamala Harris has is not that she's being
seen enough. It's that she is being seen likewise Wallace,
(04:38):
He's just terrible at it. Is not your own damn business.
Let's hear another question from just a couple hours ago.
Speaker 4 (04:44):
Actually, well, you know, but if it's one thing to trust,
be some people who say we can't trust him even
tell the truth about himself.
Speaker 5 (04:52):
What do you say to them? Well, I said, they
know who I am. I know who I am, I
know the work that I've done. I know that things
get get spun in a political environment. But I think
what they see is if they want to compare that
talking about immigration policy or seeing the things that Donald
Trump would say, I think there's a big difference than
missing a date when you're there and again spinning something
(05:12):
for a political reason. I'm very clear of who I've been.
I'm very proud of twenty four years of doing that work,
and I think going to Congress and working for veterans,
they want to see it and make the difference look
a little different. I think people in Minnesota, my students,
the folks i've worked with members of Congress, they know
who I am, and they know the policies we put
in place have made an impact.
Speaker 1 (05:34):
He does that is major Network Morning TV. They are
taking on water.
Speaker 3 (05:41):
Yeah, he doesn't do word salad like Kamala Harris does.
He does extraneous details or like non related anecdotes.
Speaker 1 (05:53):
He answers, but all self serving and flattering in a
way that's again heavy, head't and obvious. The only reason
you just brought that up is it makes you look good,
and you're trying to distract me from the fact that
you're not answering my question. It's just it's not even skillful.
We'll just punish you with one more of these.
Speaker 4 (06:09):
And Vice President harrisaid, as she told you to be
a little bit more careful on how you say things.
Speaker 5 (06:15):
Well, I did it, you know, even the other day
of just speaking passionately about these gun violence situations and
meeting with these survivors. I've said in the room with
the Sandy Hook folks, a friend with David Hogg, who's
been an activist on this. People know in that, and
then that gets spun him that well, he didn't say
something true. It was very clear that I was talking
about these veterans, very clear that I wear you know,
(06:37):
I wear my emotions on my sleeve, and I do
think in these positions, whether it be governor or being
bunch president of the United States, you do need to
be collect careful. You do need to be a little
more thoughtful on it. And I think what you see
as as someone who's been in classrooms a lot, I
been around coaching a lot. I speak passionately, and I
think doing that, you need to combine the two.
Speaker 1 (06:59):
So I've become friends with school shooters.
Speaker 3 (07:01):
I don't I don't know what that one was about.
Do you what they were talking about there? Did he?
He stepped in it the other day talking with victims.
Speaker 1 (07:10):
Of school shootings. I can't remember exactly what it was
that he said, and I'm not I'm not hung up
on that one in that telor. I just his uh yeah,
I wish I could remember, because I know I read
about it. But he's I was just going to say,
coming out of that clip, he's just not major league talent. Correct, Yeah,
he's not up to the challenges. And you know, I
can I have some sympathy, at least theoretically that the
(07:33):
whole vetting process and campaign was super compressed and they
didn't have time blah blah blah. But Kamala harrisoning, you
know what's what's a great example of a great decision
you've made choosing Tim Walls as Vice president.
Speaker 3 (07:47):
Oh boy, Well, that's why we played that Josh Shapiro
clip right there, because he is major league talent and
everybody knew yeah, and he continues to spray, you know,
he's a Jew.
Speaker 1 (07:58):
We can't have a chat a jew on the turn
the Democratic Party. Where's he gonna go on? What are
you gonna shund a jew into Michigan? What? You can't
do that in the Democratic Party.
Speaker 3 (08:12):
So if she ends up losing, that will be one
of the things campaign historians point two as a bad move,
choosing Tim Walls over Josh Shapiro, who who not only
is way better at campaigning, but he's the governor of
the freaking must win state of Pennsylvania.
Speaker 1 (08:29):
Where he's incredibly popular. Right, although you're you're so right,
you don't open for I don't know you two by
doing like a U two imitation. They're in your opening set,
and Josh Shapiro's got to drop the Obama imitation when
he's speaking. In fact, when we I didn't know what
(08:51):
the clip Jack had had chosen, and when he started,
I thought that's Obama, but he sounds different. Really thought
it was really the first sentence, I thought it was
Obama yeah, yeah, yeah.
Speaker 3 (09:01):
Did he always talk that way and it's just a
coincidence or did he pick that up from years of
listening to Obama?
Speaker 1 (09:07):
Is he young? Sixty three? Again, Mike, just the beginning.
Speaker 2 (09:10):
I don't want more divisions. And I'll tell you what
else I don't want. I don't want his negativity.
Speaker 1 (09:16):
I'm sick and tired of it. Yeah, okay, that's plenty.
That's just yeah. I thought, why does her mama sound
like that? That's one hundred percent Barack Obama impersonation. Yeah.
I think it's just that rhythm, that feel of the
southern preacher kind of that's that's popular.
Speaker 3 (09:30):
I actually saw something the other day from Michelle Obama.
I meant to grab the audio because it's pretty funny.
I don't know when she did this, and I am
predisposed to not like her for some reason, mostly just
because of the fawning over or it's not her fault
that everybody fawns over the way they do and talk
about her being president what and and get her book?
Speaker 1 (09:52):
Why?
Speaker 3 (09:53):
But she was she was on some interview show and
she was talking about her husband and she said, oh, yeah,
me and the girls. This is when the girls would
have been younger and still at home. We all know
the look. We all know the sound when Dad starts
to go into his lecture voice and we all look
at each other and roll our eyes. Okay, here he goes.
Why'd you get him started? Which I thought was pretty funny.
Speaker 1 (10:18):
Yeah, that brings back such warm memories as sitting around
the dinner table, which was sacred at the Getty household,
and how I would launch you in one of my
screeds about you know, the Constitution or the nature of
liberty or something like that. And as younger kids, the
clue was the blank look. Right as older kids it
(10:39):
progressed to the eye roll, and then when they were
older still it'd be like, Okay, here we go, and
we'd all laugh about it because I'm self aware enough
to know, oh, here I go on a screen, and yeah,
it's good.
Speaker 3 (10:51):
It's like what Henry said to me the other day.
You know, Dad, everything doesn't have to be a life lesson.
I'm explaining to let it happen, Pop, Just a minor
thing doesn't have to be a life lesson. That is hilarious, beautiful,
one funny thing before we take a break, just to
I don't know if you sent this out, Katie or whatever.
It's a video that I'm gonna send out to everybody
(11:14):
of a bald eagle landing next to a trump Yard sign,
which is hilarious, set to the national anthem.
Speaker 1 (11:22):
That's the beautiful part of the video.
Speaker 3 (11:24):
A bald eagle floating down next to a trump Yard
sign for real.
Speaker 1 (11:28):
The guy just happens to drive by. That is really funny.
That's a sign. That is a sign from the heavens.
Oh my god. That is something. Later this hour you're
gonna hear from Elon Muskin what he thinks is gonna.
Speaker 3 (11:41):
Be the biggest product of all time, which, if it
works the way he claims it's gonna work, might actually be.
Among other things, we got on the way stairs, so I.
Speaker 1 (11:54):
Took in.
Speaker 3 (11:56):
A little of Elon Musk's big Tesla event because I
own a Tesla or care that much. But he was
going to do some other stuff in addition to that,
and then I read about it last night. Elon Musk
unveiled the Tesla cybercab robotaxis that he's going to call
a cybercab. He actually rode in on one at the
(12:17):
event and explained how they're going to work and they're
going to be about thirty thousand dollars and he thinks
it's the future. Well, maybe I ought to play the
clip first so I know what's in the clip and
what's not. And then also these we robot things that
he displayed to here's Elon from the event last night.
Speaker 7 (12:35):
It'll be as do anything you want, so it can
be a teacher of babysit your kids, that can walk
your dog, boi your loan, get the groceries, just be
your friend, serve drinks, whatever you can think of. Hey,
we'll do and yeah, it's gonna be awesome. I think
this will be the biggest product ever of any kind,
(12:57):
and we've made a lot of progress. You're really going
to have something spectacular, something that anyone could own at
scale the the you know, this would cost something like,
I don't know, twenty thirty thousand dollars, probably less than
a car. That's my prediction long time.
Speaker 3 (13:15):
So these robots that he had on display, they all
came walking out. He had like a little I was
gonna say army of them, which is not the best imagery,
since I think that's what they're mostly curate. Mostly going
to be used for by nations. He had these robots
walk out with him behind the cyber cab that he
rode out in, which kind of looks like a it's
(13:38):
got a bit of a look of the cyber truck,
the way the doors open and everything like that. There's
no steering roll or anything like that. There's these benches
you sit in a cyber cab. Anyway, it rolled out
with him in it, and then a whole bunch of
these we robots behind him. And then he does that
little speech where he talks about then they'll be able to,
you know, help your kids with homework, or cook dinner,
or fold the laundry, or mow the lawn or all
(14:00):
kinds of different things, or.
Speaker 1 (14:01):
Reguard the concentration camps and for disobedient human humanoids.
Speaker 3 (14:07):
And he said they're gonna be twenty or thirty thousand dollars,
which is obviously a big chunk of money. That's not
like a minor thing to do. But if you had
an electronic slave more or less, you know, what would
that be worth for the amount of things that they
could do.
Speaker 1 (14:22):
I wouldn't be this uncomfortable imagery. Can we just say,
robot wow, I had to go there. I suppose that's
not the best rated seller. But I don't pay any
machines around my house. I don't pay my vacuum cleaner.
There's not a living wage granted to our washing machine.
I don't consider them slaves.
Speaker 3 (14:43):
Unfortunately, there will be we robot reparations in thirty years. No, no, no, oh.
But I could actually see a world where it's just
something everybody has. I mean, you factor into what it
costs to have a household. You have a house, you
have a car. Cars are and if you have washing
and dryer, they're expensive. You have a computer that's expensive,
all various things, and you're gonna have a wee robot
(15:05):
that does a whole bunch of different tasks for you.
I could easily believe that. Yeah, it's absolutely conceivable. You
can buy it on payments, that sort of thing. I
don't know how important it is that they dance, because
he had them dancing in a big cage at the
end of the thing.
Speaker 1 (15:20):
Again some uncomfortable imagery.
Speaker 3 (15:22):
But to the we cab and then he's gonna he
had something called a robovan, which is like a bigger
version where a whole bunch of people sit in there
with ben sheets, but he said, I think the cost
of autonomous transport will be so low that you can
think of it like individual individualized mass transit, which actually
like to me, he was like, Okay, now I get it,
(15:44):
individualized mass transit instead of this mass transit that has
not worked and it doesn't really work in any city
in America at the scale that they've always claimed. It's
going to the big city buses and the light rails
and stuff like that, tons of them driving around mostly
all the time, at great taxpayer expense. I could see
these more individualized mass transit going specific directions, which is
(16:07):
much more handy to you being way more successful.
Speaker 1 (16:11):
I was just planning a trip yesterday in which I
was trying to figure out does the hotel have a
shuttle to the airport or should I rent a car?
Blah blah. I could see, you know, certainly, you're reasonably
sized hotels having a couple of these things and you
just hop in in it and say to the airport,
and it takes you right, just as a service.
Speaker 3 (16:31):
And the one troubling thing about the Wee robot was Okay,
mow the lawn, make the meals fold the laundry.
Speaker 1 (16:39):
Be a friend. Be a friend.
Speaker 3 (16:41):
Hell, be a friend is an entirely different category. That's
a completely different thing.
Speaker 1 (16:47):
And you gotta be careful or it'll mow the dog
and walk the laundry. I mean. On a much more
serious note, Russia is losing thirteen hundred guys a day
from the battlefield in Ukraine. Yeah, they'd send in waves
of robots if they had them. Oh, of course, Oh
the Armstrong and Getty.
Speaker 3 (17:09):
We're fishing in the middle of the road because this
road floods all the time.
Speaker 1 (17:14):
And there's a guy coming behind us in a lawnmower.
Speaker 2 (17:17):
Isn't there.
Speaker 4 (17:17):
That's America I've ever seen it.
Speaker 1 (17:19):
So we've got people fishing in the road. We've got
a guy on a lawnmower.
Speaker 4 (17:24):
He's doing all right.
Speaker 1 (17:25):
Yeah, So we've.
Speaker 2 (17:27):
Got people fishing in the middle of the road.
Speaker 1 (17:30):
I got on a lawnmower in the middle of the road.
I'm confused.
Speaker 3 (17:34):
How is the lawnmower driving in the road if it's
deep enough to fish in?
Speaker 1 (17:38):
That's my question. Shallow water on more fishing time there
in the holler anyway, I ain't that America for you
and me? So a couple of international stories of notes
still waiting for Israel to respond. As the spokesman said
(17:58):
the other day, it will be swift and terrible, but
mostly surprising above all. Surprising. Yeah, yeah. A couple of
headlines on that topic. Iran's secret warning to US allies,
don't help Israel or your next The threats through diplomatic
channels have prompted to Arab States to tell the US
they will not aid any attack on Iran.
Speaker 3 (18:22):
I think my guess would be the reaction to that
of the Arab States is going to be, We've been
putting up with Iran long enough, let's do it, do it,
do it now.
Speaker 1 (18:34):
They're not so far. I mean, they're acting as if
they're making it known we will not do anything to
help Israel at all.
Speaker 3 (18:42):
There's no telling what's actually being said behind the scenes, though,
just no telling that's true. I mean again, I have
said this ten times, but one thing I get from
reading that David Sanger book, which I'm almost finished with
the New Cold Wars, is and what we get in
the press versus the conversations that are going at the
highest levels between diplomats.
Speaker 1 (19:00):
I don't even know why we even paying any attention
to it well, and there's no foreign relations. That's more
a hall of mirrorsy than in the Musslim world. Because
these regimes, the Gulf States in particular, they understand the
modern world and they need to cooperate. They need investment.
They understand Israel's a good partner for stability in the region.
But they have a significant chunk of their population living
(19:21):
in the year eight hundred, right, I mean, just as
fundamentalists as fundamentalists can be. And so they make noises
and pound their chests and then down with the Zionists
or whatever. But behind the scenes are making deals. So anyway, yeah,
what happens, and it hasn't happened yet, is anybody's guess.
(19:42):
This is so interesting. I've come across this in a
couple of different places. Iran, now somewhat defanged of its proxies,
is hiring criminal gangs in the West to try to
hit Israeli targets, you know, political candidates. I mean, like
they they're on the record, is hiring some Hell's angels.
(20:04):
Here's a case where they hired some goons to throw
hand grenades at the Israeli embassy in Stockholm and at
a Spanish politician shot in the face in broad daylight.
And they're hiring drug cartels and criminal gangs to do
their evil bidding, which is unfortunate. Speaking of crime, completely
(20:29):
different topic. Oh this from ocin defender Open Source Intelligence Defender,
great Twitter Accadeyes follow it. According to Reuter's, members of
the Golf Cooperative Council, including Saudi Arabian Qatar, have spoken
a senior US officials in recent days requesting that they
ask you is Real to not launch strikes against Iran's
oil industry due to fears that Orion would retaliate with
(20:50):
missile strikes against Golf oil refineries and other facilities. That's
why Saudi Arabia modern Qatar are so afraid. Anyway, I
was gonna say, speaking of crime, this is so good.
Jeff Anderson in the City Journal our FBI crime statistics reliable,
and his subhead is the agency's process is shrouded in
(21:11):
mystery and its numbers are often inconsistent. And he talks
about how the mainstream media has recently trumpeted the Federal
Bureau of Investigations estimate that violent crime fell three percent
nationally from twenty two to twenty three. I've heard that
six hundred times.
Speaker 3 (21:24):
I'm to the point where I completely ignore crime statistics
because I trust them so little.
Speaker 1 (21:29):
Yeah, I would agree, but as Jeffrey Anderson writes, they
have largely ignored. However, the latest iteration of the Bureau
of Justice Statistics National Crime Victimization Survey, which we talked
about at length a couple of weeks ago, which found
a nine percent increase in property crime in urban areas
over that span, part of a twenty six percent rise
in urban property crime, alongside a whopping forty percent surgeon
(21:52):
urban but violent crime that happens to me from twenty
nineteen to twenty twenty three, so set aside for a moment.
The media is downplaying of that inconvenient urban crime data.
Are the FBI statistics really precise enough to make much
of a reported three percent annual change in violent crime?
And I thought thought this was so interesting. Trying to
(22:12):
decipher how the FBI produces its statistics and what those
numbers even are is a lot like combing through a
crime scene and searching for clues. The agency's process, such
as how it tries to estimate unreported figures. So if
a city or a county or whatever doesn't report it,
they estimate what those numbers probably are. The hell is
(22:32):
that has long been a black box, even to the
Bureau of Justice Statistics, the Department of Justice's actual statistical agency.
Things have become even more cryptic of late, as the
FBI has struggled to implement its new crime reporting system,
adopted nationally in twenty twenty one. That new system makes
Year to ear your comparisons more challenging, in part because
only eighty five percent of agencies provided data for twenty
(22:55):
twenty three. In other words, the FBI is capturing only
a portion of crimes reported to police. And he gets
into a fair amount of detail, and we'll have this
linked at Armstrong and getty dot com.
Speaker 3 (23:06):
Well, so if you start at the local level of
lots of crimes don't get reported, and then you take
it on up to the other stuff you're just talking about,
you could be wildly off.
Speaker 1 (23:17):
Oh yeah, it's it's a wild guess. And his main
premises to accept all of these statistical methodological shortcomings and
then trumpet a three percent change is insane and.
Speaker 3 (23:34):
Then claim completely invalid and then claim obviously that see
our policies are working right, yeah, yeah, because crime could
be so. So that's yet another layer. So even if
it were true that crime went down three percent, that
number being so tiny, to claim that any particular policy
did it would be way too premature because you don't know.
(23:54):
Lots of things can cause that to go up or
down a couple of percent.
Speaker 1 (23:57):
Right, and then one final thing that will blow your
dang mind. But after a quick word from simply Safe
home Security, which is a coincidence.
Speaker 3 (24:06):
But a happy onever well, tie and look at Jill
working his magic.
Speaker 1 (24:11):
I'm not anyway, thank you. Simply Safe is such a
great award winning home security system. It is the winner
of all the awards. It's less expensive than the old systems.
There's no long term contracts. It's just such a great
program and just top to bottom. So my last house,
I went online.
Speaker 3 (24:31):
I ordered the system for the number of windows and
doors in the camera and everything that I needed.
Speaker 1 (24:35):
Set it all up myself. Was great.
Speaker 3 (24:38):
Moved added a few things, slightly bigger house and that
was easy. Set it up myself still great. No contract
doesn't cost much less than a dollar a day. You're
gonna love simply Safe.
Speaker 1 (24:49):
And it's worth, you know, emphasizing you took it with
you because it's yours. It's not like totally embedded in
the house. And then long term contracts and high prices.
Pricing is transparent and affordables than a dollar a day
with no hidden fees. Ever, for the fast Protect Monitoring
Live Guard protection, it's fantastic protect your home fifty percent
off new simply Safe system plus free indoor security camera.
(25:09):
When you sign up for that fast Protect monitoring. Just
visit simplysafe dot com slash armstrong. That's simplysafe dot com
slash armstrong. There's no safe like simply safe, all right,
So listen to this. Would you try to track with this?
The FBI also has a history of offering multiple and
often conflicting crime figures, which makes precise cross your comparisons difficult.
(25:30):
For example, how many violent crimes were committed nationwide in
twenty twenty fairly straightforward question. The table linked to on
the FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting Program website. Its source data
indicates it's two hundred and seventy two eight hundred and
twelve such crimes. Okay, But the bureau's twenty twenty one
press release announcing the publication of the twenty twenty Crime
(25:52):
Data PEG the figure at five thousand more. Then in
twenty twenty two, it's press release highlighted the publication of
the twenty twenty one crime statistics and claimed that the
twenty twenty figure had actually been ah fifty thousand more.
Add in the FBI's data discovery tool, which currently lists
(26:14):
a twenty twenty total as another completely wildly different number,
and you have four different figures for one.
Speaker 3 (26:21):
Statistic, right, And then again, starting with the idea of
how many violent crimes were committed in twenty twenty, there's
no way to have any idea because lots and lots
of them don't get reported. But of those reported, here's
our number. And then you still end up with four
different numbers. And he points out, and I appreciate it.
(26:41):
That's not to say the FBI is doing anything nefarious,
but rather that the media is putting too much faith
in a crime data, or at least by an entity
that isn't a principal federal statistical agency. That's not what
they do. Excellent point. And of course their media picks
out whichever number works best for whatever politic narrative they're
particularly pushing. And indeed, the Bureau of Justice Statistics National
(27:06):
Crime Victimization Survey. The NCVS is the one to look to. Okay,
it goes into towns and cities all across America. Hey,
were you a victim of a crime?
Speaker 6 (27:15):
Yeah?
Speaker 1 (27:16):
I was. I didn't bother to report it because the
cops never do anything that is worth knowing.
Speaker 3 (27:21):
It's interesting yesterday when you said there are neighborhoods where
if you've gotten if somebody shoved you against a wall
and took your iPhone and ran off, you wouldn't report it.
Speaker 1 (27:31):
I suppose that's true.
Speaker 3 (27:32):
I'd never really thought about that before, would I.
Speaker 1 (27:36):
I'm not sure I would. I think I probably would.
Speaker 3 (27:39):
Probably depends on where I was, if I happened to
be if I happen to be walking well, like where
I live, yeah, I would definitely report it. And in
my cul de Sac that would be weird. But like
if I'm in a bad area of Oakland for some reason,
like I left a ballgame, I'm not sure would it
be worth the hassle of waiting for the cops to
show up and filling out the paperwork is like before
(28:01):
I head to my car and go home.
Speaker 1 (28:02):
Probably not? Yeah, I probably not.
Speaker 3 (28:06):
What do I think I'm gonna get out of that.
There's not a chance I'm getting my phone back. Not
a chance.
Speaker 1 (28:12):
Not a chance the guy gets arrested, even if they
caught him with my phone. There's some there are some
cop shops that will do the find my I phone
thing and go and confront the people. But I have
a feeling the peace officers in Oakland are a little business. Okay,
picks up else your watch, slayings and hackings and that
sort of thing, your watch or whatever.
Speaker 3 (28:31):
If I'm if I'm in a if I'm in a
San Francisco on Market Street and somebody knocks me down
and takes my watch, what good would it do me
to call the cops other than lengthen my day and annoyance?
Speaker 1 (28:44):
Yeah, a strong arm robbery, I'm thinking I report. I'm
not sure. I don't know. I've never been there, hope
I never. Yeah.
Speaker 3 (28:54):
Is pretty crazy though, that that's even a question in
a lot of places. Well, how about this, Uh speak
to San Francisco. You you park over there so you can,
you know, walk along the Golden Gate bridge over there
on the other side, and your car gets broken into
just like your brothers.
Speaker 1 (29:10):
Did you call anybody? There's zero points. Not everybody knows
cars get broken into one hundred and seventy five times
a day.
Speaker 4 (29:21):
There.
Speaker 3 (29:22):
I think the only the only thing I would think about.
Does having a I reported it help my insurance claim?
Other than that it doesn't make any difference.
Speaker 1 (29:30):
Yeah, yeah, Hey, yet another controversy at CBS news. Man,
are they screwed up? They are? They have allowed themselves
to be dragged far far from journalism as anybody recognizes it.
Cool the Tiffany Network, Well this is good.
Speaker 3 (29:48):
I like this, and not only does it put pressure
on CBS, it puts pressure on everybody else to realize, hey,
this can turn into a big negative story that's going
to hurt us if we go too far down the
road of fixing you putting our thumb on the scale.
So that's good news. Got that and other stuff on
the way, Stay armstrong, And I need to carve out
some time for watching television when my kids aren't around,
(30:10):
because I want to watch some of the new Menendez
Brothers stuff that's come out.
Speaker 1 (30:16):
There's both the mini series thing and a documentary, Yeah,
Netflix documentary. I want to see the Penguin on HBO.
I hear that's really good, But so which one. Have
you watched Katie one or both?
Speaker 6 (30:28):
So I've watched a few episodes of the series, and
then I watched the actual documentary that they just put out,
Brothers Mendez.
Speaker 1 (30:36):
What's your takeaway? The what's his name? Gascone in la is.
Speaker 3 (30:41):
Claiming he's gonna They're gonna be out in time for Thanksgiving.
Speaker 6 (30:45):
Dude, Then then he's he's releasing two killers. They it's
just the yeah, I did not I I got the
same vibe as like I do from Scott Peterson saying like, oh,
I didn't do it. I need to get out of there.
They they're just they're very slick. Well, nobody who's doubting
that they killed their parents. That's never been in doubt,
(31:05):
but just whether or not the parents had it coming.
And it was basically.
Speaker 1 (31:08):
A yeah, I got the idea, and Katie you can
confirm her tonight that the tone of the documentary was
that they were victims of terrible sexual abuse and the
parents really kind of had it coming and they need
a new trial and they need to get out or
is it less heavy handed than that, No, it's it.
You've you've pretty much nailed it.
Speaker 6 (31:29):
I mean, they're definitely selling it as that these poor guys,
the life that they had to live prior to this happening, anyone.
Speaker 1 (31:35):
Would be driven to which can't happen. Yeah, it can happen.
Speaker 6 (31:39):
But when you listen to them talk, I mean, it's
just I don't know, there's something manufactured about what they're saying.
Speaker 1 (31:44):
To me. Mm hm. That's that's your instinct as a
human being, though I think that you recognized as something.
But anyway, I want to squeeze some facts in before
we run out of time. Fact Alan Alan Abrahamson, who's uh,
he's a he's a writer and covered the original trial
in nineteen ninety three trials there were two of them,
(32:05):
and his headline is don't feel sorry for the Menendez brothers.
And he goes into the Netflix documentary and what the
defense lawyers have put forward. Recently discovered letter written by
Eric eight months before the shooting that they asserted suggest
the sexual abuse by the father was on going into
the brother's teenage years. Is it this so called abuse excuse?
(32:28):
So what? Lyle and Eric Menendez are stone cold murderers.
On August twenty, nineteen eighty nine, using shotguns, they killed
the parents at close range in the Beverly Hills Home.
Speaker 3 (32:38):
Now at least one juror has come out and said,
if I'd have known of that letter, which wasn't available
at the time in the trial, I'd have thought differently.
But you know that didn't necessarily mean anything.
Speaker 1 (32:49):
Yeah, having served on a handful of juries, there are
lunkheads every morning. You've got to your hardest challenge is
a juror is dealing with the lunkheads. Then it's the evidence.
But so this guy who covered the trial says the
brother's abuse excuses. I wrote in the La Times preview
piece marked an effort to quote test an emerging legal strategy.
This is back the original trial that portrays abused children
(33:12):
as victims a kind of battered woman and justified in
killing in self defense. Before the trial, I interviewed a judge.
He told me, in this day and age, it's become
de regre, meaning it always happens in parricide cases to
claim this abuse. If you kill your dad, you claim abuse.
The father has gone, the mother has gone, The sympathy
lies with the children, and the people in the fourth
of state tend to make such claims plausible. Let's face it,
(33:35):
it sells a lot of soap. But then Abrahamson gets
into the idea that abuse does not justify or excuse
revenge killing. The legal doctrine is, for instance, an abused spouse,
you're afraid you're about to be killed, so it's self defense.
(33:56):
That there's a legal term for it. It's like imperfect
self defense or something like that. But killing someone isn't
self defense unless you believe they're about to kill you.
That's not the case. He goes into the details.
Speaker 3 (34:08):
So if your dad's coming to abuse you again, you
could kill him in self defense, perhaps, but you can't
just be angry about it a year later and go kill.
Speaker 1 (34:17):
Him right right. Indeed, about four months after the killings,
they met with a Beverly Hills psychologist. They talked in
confidence about why they killed their parents. If ever there
would have been a time to confide their deepest, darkest secret,
this would have been it. But no, not once did
either claim to have been sexually abused. Really, is it
any wonder that the defense fought for years to keep
this tape a secret. Instead of saying they were afraid
(34:40):
for their lives, Lyle said his father had been unfaithful,
causing Kitty to turn the liquor and pills, so we
thought we would just kill dad and eliminate the problem.
And the mother, well, killing her was just putting her
out of her misery. Really, why said.
Speaker 3 (34:52):
Were they just mentally ill or out? Did both of
them end up so crazy? Couple of socio paths.
Speaker 6 (34:58):
Well, And one of the things that was that came
up in this documentary is one of the brothers talked
about how the reason they decided to go kill the
parents was because they thought the parents were in that
room planning to kill them.
Speaker 1 (35:10):
That's the new spin.
Speaker 3 (35:12):
Well, they can't both be delusional with the same delusion.
That doesn't make sense.
Speaker 1 (35:16):
So almost no journalist writing about the case today is
cited the decision by the US Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals in five after the brothers were found guilty in
the second trial. It destroys arguments advanced on half of
the brothers. Lyle is dismissed in a footnote quote. In fact,
evidence that Lyle ever feared his parents is so weak
in the record that his claim could be rejected without discussion.
(35:37):
But these an innocent person has been convicted and we
need to free them. Feel of podcasts and documentaries it's hot.
It's super hot. So you pick a case, you manipulate
the facts, you carefully choose this. You're portray it as
one thing. You shine the light from that side, and
it's a winner.
Speaker 3 (35:55):
So why did they kill their parents, Katie, You've watched
enough of this stuff. They're just evil, well because they
were saying the abuse. But there's a money spind It's
it's a really tangled web that they're they're showing us
in this documentary.
Speaker 1 (36:07):
I'll have to check that out.
Speaker 3 (36:07):
If you missed an hour of this show, get the
podcast Armstrong and Getty on demand
Speaker 1 (36:12):
Armstrong and Getty
Hosts And Creators
Joe Getty
Jack Armstrong
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.